[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
___________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama GRACE MENG, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 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
U.S. Census Bureau and the Government
Accountability Office......................................... 1
Department of Justice.......................................... 73
Federal Bureau of Investigation................................ 185
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-526 WASHINGTON: 2017
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ 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
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\ Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2018
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2020 CENSUS
WITNESSES
HON. JOHN H. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
KEVIN SMITH, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
DAVID POWNER, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Opening Statement--Chairman Culberson
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee hearing will come to order. And
today we are receiving testimony from the Census Bureau and the
Government Accountability Office on preparations for the 2020
Census.
From the Census Bureau we have Director John Thompson and
Chief Information Officer Kevin Smith. From GAO we have Robert
Goldenkoff and David Powner. Gentlemen, welcome to the
committee. We thank you very much for your testimony and for
your service to the United States.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires the
Congress to conduct an actual enumeration of the population
every ten years. Ever since the first year it was done by my
favorite founding father, Thomas Jefferson, we have met that
goal. It hasn't always been under budget. That is a primary
source of concern for this subcommittee and a focus of our
conversation today.
We are responsible as stewards of our constituents' very
hard-earned and very scarce tax dollars. We want to make sure
that these very precious and hard-earned tax dollars are spent
frugally, carefully, and wisely. Today, I hope you will be able
to discuss with the committee and convince us that the Census
Bureau is working diligently to ensure not only an accurate
enumeration but to be sure that it is under budget.
Unfortunately, I am told that the department plans to
notify the committee that they are already expecting a $309
million cost overrun. And that is just in the IT system. It is
just a real source of concern because this seems to happen
every ten years. There is a 48 percent increase in cost and we
want to hear from you today what happened and why. And what is
being done about it to hold people accountable to ensure that
this does not happen again.
One of our biggest frustrations in government is the
inability to hold people accountable for making bad decisions
and misspending our very precious and scarce hard-earned tax
dollars. It is particularly discouraging to see this happen so
early in the process when in 2008 your predecessor came before
the committee to ask for a $930 million bailout. GAO has once
again, placed the Census on its high risk program list, just as
it did for the 2010 Census. I look forward to hearing from GAO
about what that means for the cost and schedule of the 2020
Census.
I am also concerned that there is a plan to wait until very
close to the actual Census to do an end-to-end test. I want to
be sure to discuss that as well. That seems very risky and a
little nerve-wracking.
Also, with all the very sensitive personal data that the
Census is collecting, it makes the Census Bureau a prime target
for cybercriminals and hostile state actors. And invasions of
privacy are very important. I know everyone on this committee
believes that privacy is a right to be left alone and our right
to privacy is one of our most sacred and important
constitutional rights. All of us want to be sure that
Americans' personal data collected by the Census is safe.
Beyond the 2020 Census, I am very concerned about the
American Community Survey. I have had a lot of complaints from
constituents about the intrusive nature of the survey. It has
over 140 questions on it. I know the world has gotten more
complicated than it was in 1790 but that original Census had
only six questions.
Before we proceed, however, I would like to recognize my
good friend Mr. Serrano from New York for any remarks that he
would like to make.
Mr. Serrano. I want to tell you what an honor and a
pleasure it is for me to be back here on this committee where I
was ranking member years ago. And it is no secret in Congress
that it is my favorite committee. And through some maneuvering
and fate, I am back again.
I also come back this time with a different little opening
statement. I no longer have to make that disclaimer I used to
make about having a brother who works at the Census because he
has since retired and enjoying the grandchildren and not
missing the Census Bureau a lot, but he is watching us on the
internet right now.
I am pleased to return as ranking member of this
subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, at a crucial time for the Census
Bureau. Preparations for the 2020 Census are at a critical
juncture, and there is a serious need to ensure sufficient
funding for the Decennial Census and for the many other surveys
and products that the Bureau undertakes.
I believe all of us here can agree on the vitally important
role that the 2020 Census and the American Community Survey
play in producing reliable information on housing,
demographics, and socioeconomic conditions in our country. And
I believe that it is this committee's job to provide the Bureau
with the resources to do its job.
Since 1790, I do not think anybody on this committee was
around then, a national Census of our population has been
conducted every ten years, as required by the U.S.
Constitution. With each Census, additional information has been
incorporated to help us better understand and address the
challenges we face as a nation. Incorrect Census data has
serious and lasting implications for our communities. We have
an obligation to ensure that the Bureau is able to accurately
account for every household and that all of the collected
statistical data remains properly secured.
The President's skinny budget, as it is called, for Fiscal
Year 2018 includes $1.5 billion for the Bureau. My concern is
that this funding level falls short of what is needed to help
ramp up ongoing preparations for both the 2020 Census and the
other important surveys conducted by the Bureau as the
requested total is actually $133.6 million below President
Obama's request for the previous fiscal year. Normally we would
expect to see significant increases in the Bureau's budget at
this point in the decade as we get closer to the Census count
itself.
Underfunding and delays in enactment of the Bureau's budget
have already had consequences. For example, last year the
Bureau discontinued plans for the 2017 Puerto Rico Census test.
The overall funding track for the Bureau is well behind the
levels previously appropriated for the 2010 Census. And I am
seriously concerned that the Bureau will not be able to match
the historic levels of compliance from the 2010 Census.
I am aware that the Bureau plans to save money through
several innovations, including by implementing an online self-
response option. Although the internet self-response survey has
a Spanish language option, we must make sure that the field
testing of a full Spanish language survey prior to the 2020
Census is in place. It is also important to test non-
traditional addresses located in Puerto Rico and on tribal
reservations.
I am also concerned about the steps needed to reduce the
anxiety that generally arises throughout the minority
communities during the Census count. These feelings, Mr.
Chairman, this is very important, of distrust are at an all-
time high as, and I say this with full respect for the office,
the new President continues to use anti-immigrant rhetoric. In
prior cycles, the Bureau conducted significant media and
partnership campaigns to help participants understand the
importance of the surveys and the fact that they were kept very
confidential. However, if we continue limiting the Bureau's
resources we run the risk of facing similar challenges to those
of the 1990 Census, which had an extremely high non-response
rate.
Additionally, migrating from traditional methods of paper
survey collections to an internet-based model without robust
cybersecurity funding will ultimately put respondents at risk
should they opt to use technology. In a world with growing
cybersecurity threats, the collection and protection of
personal information online should be a priority. We should
continue to safeguard individuals using electronic devices and
ensure the public's trust that their confidential response data
will remain private. That, Mr. Chairman, as an aside, will be
one of our greatest challenges and the Bureau's. We want people
to step up. We want people to be counted. And in a very
difficult immigration atmosphere, we especially want people who
are here under our roof to come forward and not be concerned
that that is going to impact on something else. We cannot use
the Census Bureau to be the tool that goes after undocumented
aliens in this country.
Thank you, once again, to both the Census Bureau and to GAO
for testifying today. I look forward to discussing these
important issues with all of you.
As I close, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make my first
request of you. And that is, as you know I was born in the
American territory of Puerto Rico. And I still cannot
understand, notwithstanding, and I say notwithstanding, not
ignoring it, how the Constitution is worded, count the people
amongst the states. But the Constitution at that time did not
envision the fact that there would be people living as American
citizens in places other than the states. So if you look at the
Census count, you get, say, 350 million Americans. Right? Then
you get underneath the numbers for Puerto Rico and some of the
other places. And then you don't get a total of the population.
Ironically, and I hope no one puts this down as an anti-
immigrant statement, but you could live in New York, or in your
state, undocumented and you would get counted in the regular
population. But you could be an American citizen living in the
Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico and not get counted in the
regular count. Or your number shows up in the regular count. So
let's get together and move it up a couple of lines. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. I really am so glad to have you back, Mr.
Serrano, on the subcommittee. I've always enjoyed working with
you and I was so pleased to see that you would be returning as
our ranking member. We work together very well.
Opening Statement--Ranking Member Serrano
Mr. Serrano. I appreciate it. This committee, as I tell
you, it's one, it doesn't hurt people. It helps. It has some
great agencies that we deal with, and if you don't knock the
Yankees when they get on a losing streak, we'll get along just
fine.
Mr. Culberson. This is truly my favorite subcommittee as
well. It's the only one I really wanted to serve on. I was
reluctantly appointed to the Appropriations Committee. I
actually didn't understand what a great committee this was. And
I didn't want to do it. My answer was no, initially.
Mr. Serrano. You said no originally? You know how these
people fought for this?
Mr. Culberson. That's how I got in. I said, I'm so brutal.
My answer is going to be no on everything, unless it's NASA or
the sciences, it's going to be very hard to get me to yes. And
Tom Delay said, you're perfect. You're hired. And that's a good
way to approach it because we are stewards of our constituents'
hard-earned tax dollars. You start out with ``no'' and work
your way to ``yes.'' This is one of the most important things
we do with the Census. We want to make sure you have the
resources you need.
Mr. Serrano. And if I may, I would like to introduce Mr.
Kilmer and Mr. Cartwright, members of the committee. And I also
want to pay great attention to Ms. Meng, a New Yorker, who
wanted to get on this committee so much. She reminded me every
single day, and we are glad you are here.
Mr. Culberson. It is a wonderful subcommittee. One of the
principal selling points for me, when I was asked to serve on
Appropriations, was I could be here on this subcommittee to
help NASA, restore NASA to the glory days of Apollo and as well
as the National Science Foundation, and to help our law
enforcement officers. It is a great subcommittee and everything
we do is pure good.
So I am delighted to have you here, gentlemen. And we will
start with you, Director Thompson. Thank you very much for your
service to the country and we look forward to your testimony.
We will enter your statement in its entirety into the record.
We welcome a summary of your written testimony. Thank you, sir.
Opening Statement--Director Thompson
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Culberson,
Ranking Member Serrano, and members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to update you on the 2020 Census. I
am proud to report that we are on schedule and remain on the
critical path to readiness.
The 2020 Census will be the most automated, modern, and
dynamic Decennial Census in history. The innovations we are
implementing will lead to significant cost savings and we have
a very robust testing cycle to prove in these innovations. This
year we successfully conducted the 2017 Census test. And we are
well on our way to the 2018 end-to-end Census test.
The 2020 Census has been added to the most recent high risk
list from the Government Accountability Office. This is not
unusual. The 2000 and 2010 Censuses were also on this list,
which reflects the complexity, scale, and importance of
conducting a fair and accurate Census.
This decade the complexity is heightened as we replace a
paper and pencil based design with innovative technologies. We
have robust controls in place to mitigate the risks that are
inherent in carrying out this constitutionally mandated task.
In the final years of the decade, risk management is
critical to our operational plan for 2020. As we plan and test
the 34 operations and roughly 50 systems that comprise the 2020
Census, we are rigorously managing, monitoring, and mitigating
risk. The Census Enterprise Data Collection and Processing
Program, or CEDCaP, as we often refer to it, is an agency wide
effort to integrate and standardize data collection and
processing services and is a critical part of our preparations.
Another important aspect is our ongoing work with our
colleagues at the GAO and the Office of the Inspector General.
I discuss the steps we are taking to mitigate risk in
greater detail in my written testimony. The specific areas we
are concentrating on include, first, cybersecurity, fraud
detection, and ensuring the public's trust. We are actively
securing our systems and devices for the 2020 Census and its
field tests while ensuring that we prevent fraud and cyber
attacks.
Second, ensuring systems readiness. We have developed and
field tested proof of concept systems and our design is
supported by findings from Census tests. Now that we have
awarded nearly all of the key contracts for 2020, we are
finalizing our system of systems ahead of the 2018 end-to-end
Census test.
Third, we are refining our field procedures through
testing.
Fourth, we are managing the integrated master schedule for
the 2020 Census and its supporting programs.
And lastly, we are documenting and validating our 2020 life
cycle cost estimates.
As I mention in my written testimony, we have a cost
overrun with the CEDCaP program. We regret the substantial
underestimation of this program's costs for several years. Last
May, after a rigorous analysis, we selected a commercial off
the shelf platform integrated with select custom solutions. We
decided to adopt proven technology in order to reduce risk.
Following this decision, certified cost estimators produced
updated program estimates and an independent cost estimate for
CEDCaP. The latest cost estimate for CEDCaP is $965 million,
which is $309 million higher than the original estimate from
2013.
[The information follows:]
clarification for the record
The Census Bureau would like to clarify the difference in the
original life cycle figures cited by Director Thompson and Mr. Powner.
The $548 million figure cited by Mr. Powner only covered Fiscal Years
2015 to 2020. The baseline of $656 million was set when the Census
Bureau delivered it to House and Senate on May 16, 2017. The
differences between the $548 million cited by the Government
Accountability Office and the $656 million estimate cited by Director
Thompson are not cost growth. The differences are adding FY 2021 ($86.9
million) to the original estimate. Other changes include a $19.1
million increase based on a redistribution of overheads funding
centralized, IT, administrative, and other services approved as part of
a reprogramming and transfer notification submitted to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees in FY 2016, $0.8 million in
inflationary adjustments to base for FY 2017, and $1.5 million in
additional funding for the CEDCaP Program Management Office as part of
the FY 2017 request.
The primary reasons for this disparity are our first
estimate was created by subject matter experts rather than
certified cost estimators. Secondly, since we had not yet built
prototypes in 2013, we underestimated how much work it would
take to translate our business rules into detailed technical
requirements to deliver a secure, scalable data collections
system. And thirdly, we had a schedule disconnect that did not
accurately baseline all of our milestones to the 2020 Census
integrated master schedule.
We are committed to transparency with the Congress and our
stakeholders. We will work to address your concerns as CEDCaP
continues to mature and evolve. The higher cost estimate
reflects how much we have learned over the past four years. We
are confident in the latest estimate because it has been
independently verified, it employs best practices, and it
incorporates detailed requirements.
Although we have experienced a cost overrun, the technical
implementation of CEDCaP is progressing well. We have
successfully deployed solutions for the 2017 Census test that
is now underway and we are well positioned for the 2018 end-to-
end Census test.
There are many challenges ahead but we are confident that
with appropriate funding levels we can successfully execute a
high quality 2020 Census. 2017 and 2018 are critical years in
the Census cycle. The funding we receive will have a great
effect on the outcome of the 2020 Census. The 2020 Census
remains our top priority and we appreciate, and I emphasize we
appreciate the support we have received from the Appropriations
Committee. Thank you very much.
I thank the committee for your interest in our work and I
look forward to discussing the challenges we face and how we
are addressing them, and to continue our productive
relationship with the GAO in the years ahead. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Director Thompson. And now to
recognize Mr. Goldenkoff. Thank you for your testimony and your
written testimony will be entered into the record in its
entirety.
Opening Statement--Mr. Goldenkoff
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well thank you for having us. We really
appreciate it.
Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Serrano, members of the
subcommittee, GAO is pleased to be here today to discuss the
Census Bureau's readiness for the 2010 head count. The single
greatest management challenge now facing the Census Bureau is
how to conduct a complete and accurate count of the nation's
large and diverse population while keeping costs in check. At
$12.3 billion, the 2010 Census was the most expensive
enumeration in U.S. history and 30 percent higher than the $9.4
billion spent on the 2000 Census in constant 2020 dollars.
While some of that cost growth is to be expected given the
nation's growing population, the average cost of counting each
housing unit has escalated from $16 in 1970 to $92 in 2010,
also in constant 2020 dollars. A key driver of the cost growth
is that the nation is growing larger, more complex, and more
reluctant to participate in the Census. To help control costs
while maintaining accuracy, the Bureau will use new procedures
and technology for 2020. If they function as planned, the
Bureau estimates it can enumerate the nation at a cost of
around $88 per housing unit.
At the same time, however, these innovations introduce new
risks and we have become increasingly concerned about the
Bureau's ability to conduct a cost effective head count. And
these concerns led us to add the 2020 Census to our high risk
list earlier this year, as was previously mentioned. So my
remarks this morning will focus on the Bureau's progress in
rolling out the new Census taking procedures as well as some
challenges that the Bureau has been having in developing
reliable cost estimates. I will then turn it over to my
colleague, Dave Powner, who will then discuss what the Bureau
faces in implementing and securing critical IT systems.
The bottom line is that while the Bureau has made
considerable progress in redesigning the Census, continued
management attention and congressional oversight will be needed
in the short time remaining until Census day to ensure the
Bureau's preparations stay on track.
The new Census-taking operations include greater use of
automated data collection methods to improve the efficiency of
field operations; use administrative records in place of data
collected by enumerators in certain instances; verifying
addresses using aerial imagery and other in-office procedures
rather than going door to door as was done in prior Decennials;
and fourth, allowing households the option of responding to the
Census via the internet.
While the new methods show promise for controlling costs,
they also introduce new risks in part because they include new
procedures and technology that have not been used extensively
in earlier Decennials, if at all. One of our concerns centers
on the high number of non-interviews that occurred during a
2016 test held in Harris County, Texas and in Los Angeles,
California. At both locations the Census Bureau experienced a
large number of non-interviews, as much as 30 percent of the
workload, where either no or insufficient data were collected.
Going forward it will be important for the Bureau to identify
and address the factors that contributed to the non-interview
rate as they could have implications for the cost and accuracy
of the final population count.
Another risk area is the quality of the Bureau's estimate
of the cost of the 2020 Census, which does not conform to GAO's
best practices. Quality cost estimates can help an agency
manage large, complex activities like the Decennial, as well as
help Congress make funding decisions and provide sufficient
oversight. However, the Bureau's October 2015 cost estimate
only partially met the characteristics of two best practices,
and those were being comprehensive and accurate, and minimally
met the other two best practices, and those are being well
documented and credible.
Additionally the Bureau has not published an update to its
October 2015 cost estimate, yet several events since then,
including changes in system requirements and testing strategy,
suggest that the cost of the current design, around $12.5
billion, could be higher than planned.
So this concludes my prepared remarks. And I now turn it
over to my colleague, Dave, who will discuss the risks facing
the IT systems.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Opening Statement--Mr. Powner
Mr. Powner. Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Serrano, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to
testify on the Bureau's plans to deliver and secure key
technologies for the 2020 Census. Utilizing an internet
response, mobile devices for enumeration, and cloud solutions
are important steps to improve our nation's response rates and
secure citizens' data. The Bureau's track record for delivering
IT for previous Decennials is not good. Unfortunately we see
similar issues with 2020: late starts, schedule pressure, and
not enough transparency.
This morning I would like to discuss what needs to be done
to deliver and secure these technologies for the 2020
Decennial. There are three areas that require congressional
attention associated with the technology. They are schedule,
security, and cost growth. I would like to expand briefly on
each of these.
Starting with schedule, the Bureau needs to deliver about
50 systems for the 2020 Decennial. Some are new systems and
infrastructure while others are changes to existing systems.
Clearly the internet response capability, mobile devices, and
the centralized operations component are critical systems.
These systems need to be ready between August of this year and
early 2018 for a key end-to-end test.
We have concerns about the readiness of the systems for the
2018 test, as does the technical integration contractor. Also,
decisions still need to be made about key infrastructure, data
centers, network and security operations, as well as commercial
products including those for the internet self-response. These
pending decisions will further compound the schedule issue. We
will be tracking these issues and the readiness for all
systems.
Turning to security, the Bureau needs to continue its
diligence in this area since it has been the target of recent
cyber attacks. We have ongoing work that will focus on the
Bureau minimizing the threat of phishing, securing 400,000
mobile devices, ensuring security of cloud services, and
properly configuring all 2020 systems. To ensure that all
systems are as secure as possible, the Bureau needs to develop
security plans, assess security controls, fix known
deficiencies, and have the proper sign off from both the Chief
Information Officer and the Head of the Decennial Office to
ensure that each system is ready for operations. The Bureau has
such a process but we have concerns about whether this process
is consistently followed and whether all systems will have the
appropriate sign off to ensure that personally identifiable
information is protected. We also recently learned that about
50 additional security engineers are coming on board to further
support this process.
Finally, we have concerns about the cost growth associated
with the technologies. The Bureau estimates that it will spend
about $2.4 billion on IT. We expect these costs to rise
significantly. Specific IT contracts to watch are first of all
the CEDCaP contract that Director Thompson talked about, which
is already overrun hundreds of millions of dollars. Also
another contract is the integration contract that had an
original price tag of $900 million, and also the call center
contract whose cost is around half a billion.
The two previous concerns we discussed regarding schedule
pressure and additional security will also add to the IT costs
and will ultimately eat into the anticipated $5 billion in cost
savings.
In conclusion, schedule, security, and IT cost growth are
major concerns that we will continue to monitory for the
Congress. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and
I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
2020 CENSUS COST
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Powner. We included language
in our bill last year and this year fencing some money for the
Census until we made sure that the GAO was in the loop. We
appreciate your work, Director Thompson, and everyone that
works on the Census. We know how important it is. We know how
vital it is. But we really, I know I will be working closely
with everybody on the subcommittee, we really need to ride herd
closely on this. And I want to make sure GAO is looped in. The
list of concerns that Mr. Powner just went through is
distressing. The 2020 Census looks like it is headed the same
direction as the 2010 Census with the terrific cost overruns.
It is just not acceptable, particularly in this environment
when our taxpayer dollars are so hard-earned and hard to come
by. They are really going to be scarce in the 2018 budget
cycle. It is going to be a tough year. So what will the total
cost of the 2020 Census be, Director?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Congressman Culberson. At this
point we are working very hard on combining the results of our
testing over the past four years, looking at what we are going
to be doing with the 2017 appropriation we just received. And
we are really looking forward to working with the committee on
the 2018 appropriation. We are glad we are a priority in the
President's budget, we are very, very happy about that. And we
are looking forward to that process. As part of that process,
we will produce another full cycle estimate of the Census costs
this summer.
CERTIFIED COST ESTIMATORS
Mr. Culberson. Well I heard Mr. Powner say you are not
following best practices recommended by GAO and using certified
cost estimators, that you had to bring in, and I heard you say
you had to bring in certified cost estimators to reevaluate the
cost of the CEDCaP system and that resulted in this huge
overrun.
Mr. Thompson. So we----
Mr. Culberson. Why not just, like autopilot, use certified
cost estimators? Is that not what your recommendation is for
best practices?
Mr. Powner. Yes, we need solid baselines.
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Powner. We need solid baselines so we can measure how
we are doing.
Mr. Culberson. Exactly. I mean, why are you not following--
--
Mr. Thompson. So----
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. What GAO has recommended just
across the board?
Mr. Thompson. So we really appreciated the feedback we got
from the GAO----
Mr. Culberson. Yeah.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. On 2015. And we have been
really, really aggressively moving forward to address their
concerns. So we do have a number of certified cost estimators
now on staff at the Census Bureau.
Mr. Culberson.----
Mr. Powner. We have----
Mr. Culberson. Are you using them?
Mr. Powner. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. GAO is telling me they are not in place. Did
I misunderstand?
Mr. Thompson. I don't think the GAO----
Mr. Powner. So----
Mr. Culberson. Make sure I understand.
Mr. Powner [continuing]. They brought on board additional
security engineers to help with their security processes, where
we have the sign off that the systems are secured.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, on the security. But I mean the
certified cost estimators, that is what I am asking about.
Mr. Thompson. Yeah we----
Mr. Culberson. And the practices GPO recommends.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Our understanding is that they have been
beefing up their expertise on the cost estimation side. And it
is certainly better than it was. This has been a longstanding
issue with the Census Bureau, you know, going back to I think
2008 was one of our first reports on the challenges they face
in developing life cycle cost estimates. They have made a lot
of improvements since then.
Mr. Culberson. Good.
Mr. Goldenkoff. So by developing, by bringing in more
experts, by trying to develop better processes. But there is
still a ways to go. And, you know, as we mentioned that it has
been, the last estimate was October 2015----
Mr. Culberson. Yeah.
Mr. Goldenkoff [continuing]. We have not seen anything
since then. And so we cannot say the extent to which they have
made progress on our recommendations or if the cost estimates
have addressed these, our leading practices better than they
have.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Well forgive me for interrupting you,
Director Thompson. Please continue. And if you could, answer
that critical question----
2020 CENSUS COST
Mr. Thompson. Well no, I mean we----
Mr. Culberson. How much is the 2020 Census likely to cost?
Mr. Thompson. Like I said, our best estimate right now is
about $2.5 billion for the 2020 Census. That estimate will be
refined, as I mentioned, over the summer as we get, maybe I
missed the 2.5, I think Robert said 2.5.
Mr. Goldenkoff. 12.5.
Mr. Thompson. I think 12.5. I'm sorry, not two. Not two.
Mr. Goldenkoff. 12.5.
Mr. Thompson. I wish it was 2.5. It would be, I'm sorry,
I'm sorry, I misspoke.
Mr. Culberson. We'd be delighted. You know?
Mr. Thompson. Yeah, yeah. I would be, too. I'd be----
Mr. Serrano. He was ready to endorse it----
Mr. Thompson. Yeah, yeah. No, no, no.
Mr. Culberson. Sold. Done.
Mr. Thompson. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. I think your whole staff back there just had
a heart attack.
COST ESTIMATES DOCUMENTATION
Mr. Thompson. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure they did. But
importantly we are working with the GAO on this. One of the
things they also mentioned was that we needed to improve our
documentation. We have been working very hard on improving our
documentation underlying our estimates. And even more
importantly, as this next estimate comes out we will be working
with the GAO to make sure they understand what is in it
independently from us so they can report to you on the quality
of that estimate. And we believe, but we have to demonstrate
this, that they will find it to be acceptable.
Mr. Culberson. That's terrific. I really want you guys
working together on this.
TRANSPARENCY
Mr. Powner. I think one item that is very important is when
there are changes in the baseline costs that needs to be
disclosed quickly. That is why transparency is very important.
As an example, and I do not want to pick on this too much, but
the CEDCaP overrun, we did a report on CEDCaP not that long
ago. And the CEDCaP, we talk about a $309 million overrun. I
think it is 417. Because I had a baseline cost of $545 million
that was in a GAO report, and it went to 965. And if my math is
right, that is over 400. So again, and that is $100 million.
There are larger issues than this $400 million. But the point
here is when baseline costs change, you need to know about it
and we need to know about it to help in our oversight.
Mr. Culberson. Instantly.
Mr. Powner. Exactly.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Absolutely. And there are other changes to
procedures that are taking place, with how they are doing their
address canvassing that could have cost implications. Other
changes to IT processes. And, you know, so the last estimate
was 2015. You know, now here it is coming up in two years later
and more. And now there could be these significant cost
increases. And it is just we are not sure what is in there and
how much of the cost and any cost increases are being accounted
for.
Mr. Culberson. Director Thompson? What is the cause of
that? Because transparency is absolutely essential for GAO and
this committee to know what is going on and to be able to step
in and help resolve some of these problems before they get out
of control.
Mr. Thompson. Exactly. Exactly. So we have been, so the
reason is is that we have been very, very hard at work looking
at what it will take to develop our systems. Part of the
process has been was that last year we started a really, really
detailed what we call analysis of alternatives on our CEDCaP
program. And at that time we were looking at a commercial off
the shelf solution versus building in house solutions. Now I
will get to why that is important. Because we needed to finish
that analysis of alternatives and understand what we were going
to be doing before we could start working on what it would take
to produce a life cycle cost estimate of that. Now we have done
that for the CEDCaP program. We have just finished that. But we
had to put in place the processes we were going to use. We also
had to bring to bear with the vendor that we selected our
requirements that we determined through our testing.
Mr. Culberson. Understandable. The question is really about
transparency and disclosing immediately. This is news to us.
You think the cost overrun is likely to be $417 million? Have
you all been able to get access, as much as you would like, to
the Census Bureau? I hope you guys are working together. Are
you?
Mr. Powner. I think we have a very good working
relationship. I meet monthly with the CIO and our team has
access. I think there are still certain areas like this cost--I
don't know what the IT costs are right now. I had a $2.4
billion total. I think the IT costs are going to be more than
like $1 billion more than that. If I did simple math. But
again, this is where that should be very transparent and
hopefully this summer----
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely. That is what I am driving at.
Mr. Powner [continuing]. Hopefully this summer the IT costs
and the overall, whatever the increase, we are going to, it is
likely there are going to be increases. But if we can quickly
disclose and manage it effectively, that is really what we
want. I think the access to information is better. I think the
one thing that we would like to see is just more dashboards. We
have 50 systems to get ready. We have 50 systems to secure. We
have costs. Those types of things should be transparent----
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely. That is what I am driving at.
Mr. Powner [continuing]. Twenty-five systems ready, 25
remaining, how many have the appropriate sign off on security.
That dashboard type of reporting should come to you readily. We
have to work a little bit to get that information.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Yeah, and I would echo that. I think we do
have an excellent working relationship. And also, I have been
involved with, you know, doing Census issues since 2000. And I
think that the relationship, the institutional relationship
between GAO and oversight agencies in particular and the Census
Bureau has been better than it has ever been. Dave mentioned
his meetings with the CIO. We have monthly meetings with the
Census Director. So it is a very open process. We do share
information.
I think one of the issues is, that we would like to see, is
better documentation and this is consistent with the
transparency. That, you know, it is fine to discuss these
things when we have these informal monthly meetings. But it
needs to be much more official than that. It needs to be
something that we are able to share that we are able to report
on, and the documentation just is not there.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. And it sounds like we have some room
for improvement here, Director.
Mr. Thompson. Well, there is always room for improvement.
And I do not want to downplay the importance of having GAO look
at what we are doing as an independent entity. And we really do
plan on being very, very open this summer in terms of what we
have got, what the estimates are, working with GAO, working
with your staff.
Mr. Culberson. Immediate disclosure and full transparency
is absolutely essential. And the cost overruns of this scale
are just unacceptable. We have to get this under control. I did
not mean to take this much time. Let me pass it to my good
friend, Mr. Serrano.
UPDATED COST ESTIMATE
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On that last point,
you, Director Thompson, are telling us that this summer you
will be able to present a clearer picture of where you are,
where you are going, and what to expect. Are you folks
satisfied that based on past experiences with the Bureau and
past conversations, come this summer you will be able to get a
better handle? If we were to have another hearing, if you will,
in the late, in the early Fall, would you be able to feel more
confident that you know what is going on?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well if they deliver on that. And I think
this has been the issue. We actually tried looking at the
updated cost estimate. We started an engagement back on the
Fall when the new estimate was supposed to have been released
and then it has been delayed, delayed, delayed. And so we have
not been able to take a look at it. And so that has delayed our
ability to review it. And that has been problematic. So, yes,
if it comes out as planned, actually the Summer, we thought it
was coming out in the Spring, if it is delivered, yes. Then we
can start our work. But then it is going to take some time for
us to look through it. It is a pretty lengthy process to apply
our best practices and all the criteria. So you know, I think
that, you know, we will see, the deeds will speak louder than
words.
IMMIGRATION STATUS
Mr. Serrano. Director Thompson, I have a lengthy prefacing
comment to my question, but I am not going to read it. It is
well written, anyway. I do not want staff to think I am not
reading it for a reason. One of the biggest concerns that I
have, and so many people have in this country, and it should be
everybody's concern, is that some groups never get counted
accurately. And we get better, but now, and I am trying to be
at these hearings, Mr. Chairman, and I mean that sincerely, I
am trying to be as balanced as possible even though I do not
work with that network. But you know, just being as balanced as
possible. But there is a political atmosphere created during
the presidential campaign where a lot of folks are afraid to
even take their children to the bus stop because they think
they are going to get deported. So if they are afraid of that,
imagine how they are going to feel about putting information on
a paper or a computer for the Census Bureau about their
information. So my question to you is are you putting in motion
anything to attempt to reassure these folks that they should be
counted and nothing has changed from the past? That this is not
going to be used to determine immigration status? It has
nothing to do with immigration status?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Congressman Serrano. So I will go
back briefly to the 2000 Census, when we started a program
where we actually started paying for advertising so we could
get our message on when people would see it. And even more
importantly we started putting resources into what we call the
Partnership Program. And the purpose of this was to enlist
partners. We had our people. We enlisted partners, network
partners, so that local voices would explain why the Census was
important and why the data was confidential and would not be
used for any purpose other than the mandated purposes of the
Decennial Census. And we saw as a result of that program
significant gains in the accuracy of the Census relative to the
1990 Census.
That program continued in 2010 and we saw more gains. And
so I cannot stress the importance of being able to work at
local levels, and we plan to do this. We have already started
the program. We plan to do this in 2020 and it is going to be
very critical that we have partners that will step up and speak
on our behalf. And we will, we would love, you know, we will
work with you again to make sure we get a lot of the right
people in your district in New York. Because we want to line
them up and with you, Congressman Culberson, we will work with
all members. And I think we had 270,000 or 290,000 partners in
2010 and we want to try to exceed that goal. But that is how we
have to solve that problem. We have to do it locally. And we
have to empower people locally to talk about what is right with
the Census.
Mr. Serrano. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we have to make sure that
we create the kind of atmosphere that he is speaking about,
that the Director is speaking about. Because--and let me first
say I am a Catholic so I am not attacking anyone's church or
religion. But the Catholic Church went as far some Censuses ago
as to say if you fill out the information we cannot guarantee
that it will not be used to hurt you. I mean, that was a
devastating comment coming from the Church. But it came out of
fear and their feeling that their role was to protect folks,
not to turn them over to anyone.
So they have an incredible challenge. We all do. Because we
want to know who is here. We want to count people. Those other
issues we have to deal with them, we will deal with them. I
mean, today we are going to take a vote that deals with issues
people thought we never were going to deal with. And yet we
dealt with them. So it is a challenge, and I want to be part of
that and assist in any way.
BUDGET DELAYS
Very briefly, my last comment, you have had to change some
of the plans you had because of delays and budgetary delays and
other things. Do you think that those delays will now cost the
Census more to be conducted? Or are they just a stumbling block
that you can get over?
Mr. Thompson. Congressman, some of them will, if we do not
adjust for them, would result in increased costs. So for
example, one of the things we are doing is we are doing less
in-office address canvassing, and that means we are going to
have to do more in field address canvassing. So that will be a
cost increase. In order not to increase the full cycle costs,
we will have to try to find an offset for that. But some of the
changes that we have made do have the potential.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Cartwright.
UNDERCOUNT
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow
up, if I might. I would preface my remarks by mentioning how
obviously important this whole business is. I mean, the Census
is done, you know, appears very early in our Constitution, in
the text. And that is for a good reason. This is how we decide
how many members of Congress get allocated to each state. It is
how we decide how many members each member of Congress
represents. It is how we decide not only that but in terms of
federal largesse, where it goes. Things like food stamps, so
many other federal programs. They refer to the results of the
last Census to decide how much money goes where. So this is a
really big deal and it is one where we want to be very careful
not to be penny wise and pound foolish.
I want to start with you, Director Thompson. In response to
my ranking member's question about concern of underreporting,
people afraid to answer the questions whether it is because
they are afraid of having some cousin deported, or because the
Catholic Church scared them, or maybe an even broader concern,
they are worried about having their cybersecurity violated. We
have to worry about that. And your answer, Director Thompson,
was, well, what we did in 2010 was we advertised. We advertised
and we used local people to encourage people that it was safe
and their information would be safe, and it is a good idea to
respond to these questions. And you said it led to significant
gains in accuracy of the numbers. Something that we are all
interested in here. We saw more gains, and you said it was
critical that we have local partners involved in that
advertising.
ADVERTISING
The reason I raise that is that in your written testimony
you outline four what I regard to be rather troubling
concessions you have decided to make in order to meet the
administration's low budget request. I think some of these are
penny wise and pound foolish. Your third point, Director
Thompson, was the elimination of advertising in the 2018 end-
to-end tests that would potentially lead to higher costs later
that I worry about associated with in-person followups if
people are afraid for the reasons we have discussed and they do
not respond to the much more cost efficient methods of reaching
out and getting information. Then you have to send people out
to follow up and it is much more expensive. But if you do not
do the advertising, then it becomes that much more expensive.
And because you did not have those significant accuracy gains.
Am I correct in that? You do have the elimination of
advertising in the 2018 end-to-end test plan?
Mr. Thompson. Well, yes and maybe not yes. So we
prioritized our activities based on the budget situation we
found ourselves in to really focus on making sure that our
critical systems would be ready to test in the 2018 end-to-end
test. We made a number of decisions. And one of those was we
did defer doing an advertising campaign in the 2018 end-to-end
test. However, we have awarded a contract for advertising to
Y&R, a company, a good company, that actually as an aside
happened to work on the 2000 Census. And they are in the
process of being on schedule to deliver a research plan and
also a strategic plan for how we go about implementing the
advertising. We expect to get that sometime this month or this
Spring. And that will be a great start to go forward with the
advertising for 2020.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So yes, you are going to eliminate
the advertising in the 2018 end-to-end Census test, but the
plan is not to eliminate it in the real show?
Mr. Thompson. Absolutely no.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So that the statements you made to my
ranking member still hold true, that the advertising helps
reassure people that cooperating with the Census is safe and
will not hurt them?
Mr. Thompson. Right. We have found there are two components
to that. One is, you know, advertising, media, different kinds
of media that you can reach people. And the other one is
getting people, local people, our people to work with local
people and organizations to get the word out locally.
Mr. Cartwright. And forgive me if I missed it, but then why
would you not do that in the 2018 end-to-end test? Would you
not want to replicate the same circumstance that you are going
to use in the actual Census?
Mr. Thompson. So we made a number of really difficult
decisions in 2017 and Congressman Serrano mentioned some of
them. We had to delay some tests. But again, our focus was on
risk mitigation or minimizing risk. And we saw the biggest risk
was our systems. We also saw that those were the source of our
greatest savings for the 2020 Census.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Cartwright. Another thing I want to raise is something
that Mr. Powner brought up, and that is you said security plans
need to be developed. And if you are going to advertise to
people that it is safe, and your cybersecurity will not be
violated, it has to be true. So did you hear his comment when
he said security plans need to be developed? And are they?
Mr. Thompson. So I would like to turn this over to our CIO,
Mr. Kevin Smith, who is responsible.
Mr. Cartwright. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. So as
Mr. Powner said, the security systems are of utmost importance
to the Census for public trust as well as public confidence.
There is a federal process we go through for authorities to
operate, which he has mentioned, that there is a business
official which is the Head of Decennial, and me as the
technical official, the CIO of the organization. Where we have
a third party assess all of the materials provided by the
developers of the systems who are supporting the systems to
verify and validate that they have done all the due diligence
possible to secure the systems. And we go through a regimented
process of data collection to ensure we have everything in
place to protect the data before it's done. And that official
process we share transparently and openly with GAO on these as
they go forward.
AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY
Mr. Cartwright. All right. I appreciate the chairman's
indulgence. I have one more question. It's about LGBTQ
questioning on the American Community Survey. In response to
letters from more than 75 members of Congress asking that
questions about sexual orientation and gender identity be
included in that survey, Mr. Thompson, you wrote that your
review of the matter concluded there was no federal data need
to change the planned Census and the survey subjects. Now HHS,
HUD, and the Department of Justice have all requested that
sexual orientation and gender identity questions be included in
future surveys. From many non-Census surveys that have been
done we know that LGBT people face higher levels of poverty,
particularly older LGBT people. And that LGBT young people are
more likely to be homeless. And if we can't see the needs of
the LGBT community from the Census results, we cannot design
policies to respond to those needs. Mr. Thompson, how did you
determine that there was no federal need for this information?
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Congressman. I really appreciate
you asking that. And first let me state that what we said was
there was not a federal need to have it included on the
American Community Survey. We were focused on that alone and
did not address any other federal purposes. But the process we
go through to put any question or topic on the American
Community Survey is very formal, and that is the Census Bureau
facilitates what goes on there. We do not determine the
policies. We are a statistical agency so we collect, our
mission is to collect objective data. But having said that, we
work very closely with many other agencies to solicit from them
what information they would want to see on the American
Community Survey. As doing such, we have a very formal process
that we go through with the Office of Management and Budget to
work through requirements to determine if something should go
on the American Community Survey. When we finished our
assessment of those needs, we did not find the supporting
information from federal agencies to include that information
on the American Community Survey.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Director. Ms. Meng.
LANGUAGES
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Ranking Member. I wanted to echo our ranking member's comments
about some groups being undercounted and how we always strive
to do better. My question specifically relates to my district,
which is one of the most diverse districts in the country, but
it also relates throughout the country where there are many
various communities and groups that have traditionally been
undercounted. For example, to reach my constituents you would
need field staff with a wide range of language capabilities. So
I was curious about the recruitment and the hiring process, and
how they take these language needs into account.
The second part of that question is specifically about the
American Community Survey, which is not currently translated
into any Asian languages. It is translated into Spanish. On the
ACS, for example, one of the questions is, how well do you
speak English? But that question is written in English. And so
any respondent or any of our constituents who cannot read
English or have limited English proficiency, would have
difficulty in even answering this question. What would it take
for the Bureau to expand the number of languages translated for
the American Community Survey?
Mr. Thompson. So let me hit the first part of your question
about recruiting. So as part of our Census recruiting process,
our goal, and we really focus on this, is to recruit locally.
So that we send people into the neighborhoods that are
representatives of the neighborhoods, and understand the
culture of the neighborhoods, which would include speaking the
languages of the neighborhoods and knowing the appropriate
times or the appropriate ways to contact people in
neighborhoods. So a key focus of our recruiting is to hire
people with the right language skills to go into neighborhoods.
We also have expanded our language program for the 2020
Census from 2010, for 2020 from 2010. I believe we had two or
three languages that you could self-respond in in 2010. Now we
have ten at least and we might be able to increase that a
little bit. We are doing some more work on that.
In terms of the American Community Survey, it is always an
issue of balancing the amount of money we have for that survey
and the budget is very tight in terms of do we do data
collection, do we do translation. But we have heard from a lot
of constituents that there is, there are emerging needs for
languages. So I would not say no, I would not say yes. But we
certainly take communicating with our respondents very
seriously. And at a minimum we do send, we do send people in
person that do have the language skills to get the job done.
ADDRESS CANVASSING
Ms. Meng. My second question is I know the GAO study
mentions increased use of, for example, verifying addresses by
use of aerial imagery. I am specifically concerned about urban
areas, for example, or areas with newer developments. There are
many types of unconventional housing, let us say, people living
in basements or attics, people living in multifamily housing
where it looks like it is a single family but it has four
doorbells on the front door that you might not be able to see.
In some communities you might have a room and there are five to
ten people living in there. So what are some ways that we can
better analyze those numbers?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Is that to----
Ms. Meng. Either.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well I would just like to say, well first,
I would be remiss if I did not say I was born in Forest Hills.
So I appreciate the enumeration challenges there. But, you
know, certainly in an area that is diverse, and you are
talking, it is not just about data collection and translation.
It is also having familiarity. It really starts with the very
front end of the Census when you are building the address list,
the master address list. Because that is sort of the control
unit for the Census. And so if you are excluded from the
address list initially, then it is going to be harder for the
Bureau to find you down the line. It does not mean that they
will not find you, but it just makes it more difficult.
And so that is one of the concerns that we have. It
certainly makes sense to go to these in-office procedures,
because there are some cost efficiencies there, but what is not
clear are, you know, do administrative records about a
particular housing and address, records from the Post Office--
for example, aerial imagery--are they sensitive enough to
capture those people who are, you know, living in basements or
attics or--and that is right now, the big unknown.
And, you know, we are waiting on the results of a test that
the Census Bureau conducted to see, is it sensitive--are these
in-office procedures sensitive enough to capture people living
in these unconventional living arrangements.
Ms. Meng. Do you have any updates, Mr. Director?
Mr. Thompson. So, let me make it clear what we are doing
here. Our goal is to find areas that are very, very stable in
terms of the housing unit stock and those, we believe, we do
not have to canvas. If we have any doubt about the stability,
like if something has been built, somebody has moved in,
somebody has moved out, any kind of--and that could be from
changes in the Post Office addresses or other sources--if we
have any doubt, then we will go to canvas it in person. That is
our goal.
And so right now, what we have been seeing--that is what
our estimates are based on, is what we are seeing, in terms of
what we predict as stability. As Robert said, we are also,
though, doing some work where we are actually sending some
people out to look at those units that we think are stable to
make sure that, in fact, they are.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Thank you, Director.
Mr. Kilmer.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good to be back with you.
Mr. Culberson. It is good to have you.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks for being with us.
I want to start with a question, Mr. Powner. Congressman
Farenthold and I recently introduced a bill called the OPEN
Government Data Act, which is focused on making government data
more available both, to the public and to federal agencies, to
try to drive innovation, to try to drive efficiency within the
federal government.
I kind of want to get--you know, as you are--you know,
obviously, the Bureau, when it collects new data, it also
utilizes data that the government already has. And I want to
just get a sense from you, to what extent does that ability to
access and use datas that other federal agencies are already
collecting, reduce costs and drive efficiency within the
agency's mission?
Mr. Powner. I am going to let Robert take this.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sure. No, it is something that it makes
sense; obviously, if the government already has that
information on file, why not repurpose it? But, again, just
like the new procedures for building the master address list,
the question is the limitations of those and there are certain
populations that are not always covered by the different
administrative records.
And so it just misses--you know, what it gets back to is
the importance of tests. And all these things are great ideas,
and we said in our statement here, they do show promise for
significant cost savings, but we need to make sure that going
into the census that they are going to function as planned.
And so we know that there are some limitations to the
administrative records. They do have promise for, for example,
determining whether a home is vacant or not. So, in the past,
the Census Bureau would send an enumerator out to a household
multiple times and if that house was vacant, if you can
determine that from postal information, from IRS records, then
you can see the potential for the cost savings.
What is not known is how well those procedures work in
under operational conditions, and so that is why it just comes
back to rigorous, rigorous testing.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Kilmer. Okay. I know my colleague, Mr. Cartwright,
asked about cybersecurity and, Mr. Smith, I kind of want to
just touch on that a little bit more because obviously the
threat of cyber attack is significant.
And, you know, the federal government has had challenges
hiring people with cyber expertise. Are--is the Census Bureau
leaning on the private sector, looking at partnerships for
trying for address these sorts of problems? And I just want to
get a--I just want to double-click on that a little bit more.
Mr. Smith. Absolutely, Congressman. I appreciate the
question.
So, we are actually, in the census, not going about the
cybersecurity challenge on our own; we have public and private
partnerships. So, we are directly connected with the Department
of Homeland Security to help assess what we are doing and test
what we are doing and help make recommendations to make it more
secure.
We are also working with private industry through our
contracts, as well as through third parties, we have that test
our systems and the security of them. So, as Mr. Powner
mentioned earlier as well, some of the staff that is being
hired is from the contractor side to ramp-up to get ready to do
the security things we need--excuse me--the security things we
need for due diligence to make sure that we are prepared.
But we engage within the Census Bureau to compliment the
skills that are hard to retain in the federal government
through contracts. There is definitely a salary difference
between private industry and federal government, which we go
through those challenges, and part of that is to have the right
staff support, with a blend of federal employees and
contractors to help you meet the goals and get the right skills
in place.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks.
AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY
I guess, finally, for Mr. Thompson, I won't re-ask the
question that Mr. Cartwright did about questions around sexual
orientation and gender identity within the American Community
Survey, other than to just say, I joined 71 of my colleagues
last year in a letter to you asking that those--that that
information be included.
RURAL AREAS
You have heard from a number of my colleagues around--on
questions around underrepresentation. And I represent a
district; we have 77,000 military veterans, a lot of whom live
in rural areas and, you know, their ability to access important
federal programs, whether it be education programs or medical
programs or what have you, is often tied to the census.
And in the past, rural communities have often been
undercounted by the census and I just wanted to get a sense
from you, sort of the flipside of Ms. Meng's question who, you
know, her concern is urban. I understand and appreciate that
concern for the cities I represent, but what steps are the
Bureau taking to ensure that rural counties are fully counted
in the 2020 Census?
Mr. Thompson. So, thank you very much.
So, we do not use the same procedures for the census
everywhere, so depending on the degree to which an area is
rural, we will use different techniques--and by ``rural,'' I
mean the addressing schemes and the sparseness of it. We will
use different techniques tailored to those areas to make sure
that we count everyone.
Sometimes it involves a procedure called ``update leave''
where we would walk around physically to the areas and leave a
questionnaire. In other areas, it is something that we refer to
as ``update enumerate,'' where we actually walk around and try
to knock on the doors and get people to respond directly.
But the idea is that we want to cover the whole country and
we want to do it well and we will go back the right number of
times to make sure that we get an accurate count.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
CYBERSECURITY
I want to follow-up on the cyber question that Mr.
Cartwright and Mr. Kilmer mentioned to you, Mr. Smith. You said
you consult with third parties to verify the security of your
IT products and the websites. What third parties are you
referring to? I hope you are talking to the FBI about how to
secure your website and make sure that your IT is secure.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman, for the question.
So, I am not going to give vendor names that we are working
with, but through the process of security, you have----
Mr. Culberson. You have private vendors?
Mr. Smith. Yeah, you have private vendors come in and test,
try to break in to the systems----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. Test the validity of certain
artifacts. So, we have those relationships.
I will say within the federal government, I am working very
strongly with the Department of Commerce to help us get
relationships with these other entities to work with. Right now
we are working very tightly with the Department of Homeland
Security. We are very open to working with other bureaus, like
the FBI, other ones that make sense; we just have to move
forward with those relationships. Right now, we are only
working with the DHS and the DOC on some of those endeavors and
the public's face.
Mr. Culberson. We have a lot of faith in the FBI's cyber
work; they really do superb work. I would highly recommend that
you consult with the FBI.
Mr. Smith. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson. I am very concerned because when the website
for ObamaCare was rolled out, it melted down almost
immediately. You are going to have a whole lot more traffic.
Mr. Smith. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Culberson. That is a big concern. What steps are you
taking to make sure you are not going to have a meltdown?
Mr. Smith. Okay. I appreciate the support on the engagement
with the FBI and we will go through with that. The steps that
we are taking, there is a very strong balance between the
performance of a system and the security of the system. And so
what we have done is take a very layered approach and we have
isolated parts of the system as much as possible, so when
someone responds over the internet, we can apply the right
security parameters to each one of these layers to not hinder
performance. And it is just the way you go through design and
architecture to make sure the system is going to be resilient
and stay online.
So, we are taking the steps to do that, instead of making
all of the system in one big space, where if you applied too
much security to it, it could bring the system performance
down, we are isolating it at the right levels to make sure the
benefit is to the end-user responding, as well as the security
we have to put in place.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Powner, could you----
Mr. Powner. Yeah, if I could just----
Mr. Culberson. From your perspective, what----
Mr. Powner [continuing]. Make a suggestion here? So, also,
when you look at the chief information officers across the
federal government, we do have, typically, a federal CIO out of
the White House. That is an unfilled spot currently with the
current administration, but we have a CIO council that
coordinates on these issues.
So, for instance, when you look at sharing a best practices
in the cyber area, DHS is a good place to start. When you
mentioned FBI, those connections through the CIO council and
the federal chief information officer is very key, where you
can build those types of relationships across agencies to make
sure that we are doing the right thing. That hasn't always
worked well, but that is what we really need to strive to do so
that there is that sharing.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, Homeland Security would be another
good one, but in the absence of someone filling that position,
I hope you just reach out on your own.
Mr. Smith. Absolutely. And I am supporting Mr. Powner's
comments, as well, yeah.
Mr. Culberson. Could I ask, have you evaluated the security
steps that the census has taken to secure the information on
their IT systems, on their website, and could you comment?
Mr. Powner. So, when you look at the 50 systems that they
have, they do have a process that, you know, they sign off that
this is secure to test or to operate. But when you do the
back--when you step backwards from that signature, you have to
have plans. You have to do the appropriate control assessments.
And, you know, Mr. Smith mentioned penetration tests; that is
very key, especially for public-facing systems, and I know they
are doing that.
So, for all those systems, what we are looking at GAO, do
they have the plans and the appropriate assessments and then is
that signoff appropriate, given the risks that are disclosed?
There is going to be some holes and issues--we are not looking
for perfection--but you want to make sure that, especially--I
think there is close to two-thirds of those 50 systems contain
PII information, personally identifiable information--you would
want to crank up the security control there.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Mr. Powner. So, that is where we kind of look at that. It
is almost like certain things are more important public-
facing--those that have PII--so, we are evaluating that and
having a good conversation with his office as well as----
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Good. Keep us posted. It is really
important----
Mr. Powner. Yeah.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. To protect the privacy of our
constituents'----
Mr. Powner. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Personal information.
ADVERTISING
And I think Mr. Cartwright is also correct about the
advertising--and my colleague, Mr. Serrano as well--to make
sure that you are communicating effectively with the public to
know that they can participate, that it is safe, and that it is
secure. I understand you are going to be sending out emails as
well. Will you be doing emails as well to people?
Because if I get an email with an embedded link in it that
is asking me to click on a link to go somewhere to do
something, that is an instant red flag; I throw it in the trash
if I do not know who it is from.
Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question.
So, as I mentioned before, the communications, there is
coming back with a plan of action to move forward. We are also
engaging, as I said, with the Department of Homeland Security.
And we are in--the CIO office, myself, is in very tight
communications with the decennial office to discuss the type of
communications we can provide in support of the census, but
also in support of the right secure communications. We are
going through the evaluation of those steps right now to see
which ones make the most sense and which ones do not.
But your point is very valid, just emails do offer up an
ability for fishing and other things that could happen, where
we just have to evaluate what is in the best interests of the
census.
COST SAVINGS
Mr. Culberson. Director Thompson, the Census Bureau has
estimated more than five billion in savings for the 2020
Census; do you think those savings will materialize?
Mr. Thompson. So, I am very confident in achieving
significant savings for the 2020 Census right now. And the
reason I am confident in that is if you look at where the cost
increases for the census have come, they have come from the
complexity for the most part. They have come from the
complexity of conducting the operation to collect the
information from those that do not self-respond with paper and
pencil, and that has become increasingly more difficult.
And the only way you can deal with that in a country as
diverse as ours and growing diverse, is you have to throw more
bodies at it. So, we are on track to automate that operation--
get rid of pencil and paper--and that is going to generate
significant cost savings.
Mr. Culberson. What level of cost savings? You estimated
five billion.
Mr. Thompson. Right. Right.
Mr. Culberson. I am looking for a number.
Mr. Thompson. That is our current estimate right now. That
might change over the summer.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Thompson. But there will be significant--I am confident
there will be significant cost savings.
Mr. Culberson. That is a good thing. Thank you.
I want to ask Mr. Powner and Mr. Goldenkoff to comment on
that. How confident are you that they will be able to achieve
that five billion in savings?
Mr. Goldenkoff. I will--I think we would say it is at risk
and it is starting to erode and the extent to which is unknown,
but we have started to see some cost increases and one of two
things, I think, will happen. Either more money needs to be
added to it or, as Director Thompson mentioned, they start
doing offsets, looking for cuts elsewhere. And those cuts can
prove to be a false economy, because they could lower response
rate down the line, particularly, in undercounted populations.
So, you know, the specific number at this point is--I
cannot say, but it is definitely at risk.
Mr. Powner. Yeah, I think it is highly likely that the cost
overruns, from a technology point of view, are going to eat
into that five billion. I think that is highly likely.
I think the question is, this is doable even with tight
schedules and securing this and the whole bit. But I think the
issue is, at what cost? And, historically, if you look at the
previous decennials, there has been a lot of money thrown at
this late to bail out late starts, mismanagement, and other
things and I think you are potentially heading down that path
again.
Mr. Culberson. It just cannot happen. We just cannot do
that this time.
IMPROVING COST ESTIMATION
What, Mr. Goldenkoff, steps could the census take to
improve its cost-estimation methodology?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, the--you know, if you look at the--
our criteria, our characteristics, as I mentioned, need to be
comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible. And in
each one of those areas, I mean we have some specific things
that the Bureau can do better. For one thing, for example, in
the area of documentation, the Bureau did not show certain
calculations. The Census Bureau did not show how sources of
information were incorporated in the area of being
comprehensive, which just gets at whether or not it is
inclusive of all the different costs.
You know, some of the things that we saw was it was unclear
if the--well, just all the different costs were included in it
and it seems now that there are--now we know that there are
some things, at least in the estimate, that we looked at, were
not included.
So, it is basically continuing to follow those leading
practices and is also, as Director Thompson mentioned, too,
subject-matter experts are important, but you need people,
continue to rely on people with cost-estimation expertise----
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Mr. Goldenkoff [continuing]. And they take the advice of
the subject-matter experts. But at the end of the day, it is
the cost estimators that need to weigh in.
Mr. Culberson. The census is so important. We want to make
sure it is done right and that you stay on budget.
Mr. Serrano, I would really like to work with you in
working with our authorizers. Congressman Meadows chairs that
subcommittee--I am not sure who the ranking member is--but
let's work closely with them, share ideas, put our heads
together, and see what we can do. I look forward to working
with you on that.
And I recognize you, Mr. Serrano, for follow-up.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Thank you.
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
One of the issues that has been discussed in our community
a lot is this whole issue of combining race and Hispanic origin
questions into a single question. Some claim people as
prominent as the NALEO, the National Association of Latino
Elected Officials, claims that it is a--they believe that a
``combined question with a detailed checkbox'' approach holds
great promise as a means for producing less nonresponse, and
fewer ambiguous and inaccurate responses.
On the other hand, there are some folks who think that it
may not help in getting a clear picture across the government
in terms of who the people are. So, what made you go in that
direction? How long has this been discussed, and secondly, is
it a set situation? Is it going to happen? Is it being tested?
And are you fearful of some of the things that have been put
forward and supportive of some of the things--positive--that
have been said.
Mr. Thompson. Let me first make sure that you know NALEO is
on our national advisory committee and they are well-
represented; they are there at each meeting and they have been
giving us advice on this.
So, our work on this started with the 2010 census, when we
looked at testing a combined question. Those results proved to
be very promising in 2010, but they also had some issues
associated with them that were well-documented through our
research.
So, we have designed a program throughout the decade that
culminated with a test in 2015. We called it our ``national
content test'' and this test looked at, extensively, at
different ways to use the combined question that would ask race
and ethnicity in different ways, compared to asking two
questions. We have finished that test. We have documented the
results.
What we found was that an optimum question design would
include a question on--a combined question. Because we saw much
more detailed reporting and we saw very, very accurate
reporting. But, importantly, another milestone has just
occurred, and that is--we do not do this unless we have been
working with the Office of Management and Budget, who would
have to look at the standards on how you collect race and
ethnicity--and they just closed a federal register notice on
this topic. And a number of comments have been received
regarding the combined questionnaire.
And we are now into the next steps, where we are going to
work with OMB to evaluate the comments and put forward a
proposal, based on those comments, for the race and ethnic
question for 2020.
Mr. Serrano. Are you at liberty of telling us what their
concerns are--what they would be?
Mr. Thompson. Oh, yeah. No, no, there will be a formal
response to the comments that come into the federal registry
notice that will be issued. Each comment must be addressed in
terms of the deliberations that come about. So, that will be
there.
I cannot speak for OMB, but I am sure they will want to
make the comments that they received as publicly available as
possible.
Mr. Serrano. Yeah. Please understand I am not suggesting
that I oppose this approach, but my question is trying to get
at, what was the problem that we are trying to fix by doing it
this way?
Mr. Thompson. So, one of the issues that we saw was that in
previous censuses, if we used the two-question format, which
meant asking Hispanic ethnicity first and then asking race and
origin, the census has a unique dispensation to ask an other-
race category. And we were seeing the other-race category be
about, maybe the third-biggest race category, and that was
because a number of Hispanic respondents would answer ``other
race'' and write in a Hispanic characteristic like ``Latino''
or ``Mexican.'' And then that, you know, does not coincide with
the OMB definition of race, so that is some other race, but we
would count them as Hispanic from that response.
But what we saw was there was some confusion there, and so
by going to the combined question, we see that we are
eliminating that confusion. We are also, by the way we have
designed the combined question, we are getting much more
detailed responses across race and ethnicity for almost all the
racial categories.
Mr. Serrano. So, you would ask: Are you Hispanic? And that
would be the end of that issue?
Mr. Thompson. Well, there would be more details to it, I
mean, are you Hispanic, and then there would be options, you
know, Latino, Mexican-American.
Mr. Serrano. I understand.
BUDGET REQUEST
Now, the budget request from the President's so-called
``Skinny Budget'' for fiscal year 2018 includes $1.5 billion
for the Census Bureau. This is a very modest increase of only
$30 million above the amount in the fiscal year 2017; however,
the request is also a full $133-and-a-half million below
President Obama's request for the previous year.
At this point in the decade, particularly given the very
substantial investments and information technology and field
infrastructure that will be needed to ensure that the 2020
Census stays on schedule, shouldn't the fiscal 2018 budget of
the Census Bureau be much higher than the amount proposed?
And that is the question. I mean I know it is a direct
contradiction to Mr. Chairman, who wants it to cost less, but
my concern is counting everyone, and maybe I am sounding like a
Democrat--we will worry about the costs later--you know, ha,
ha. That is so important, because as we said before, Mr.
Cartwright, you get a good count, you bring dollars into
communities throughout the country. Those dollars do not sit in
somebody's bank account; those dollars get used by an
infrastructure and schools and creating different situations.
So, the dollars do not die; they move within the economy.
You know, I find that it has been a while, but we find that
when we have people who are either still around from the old
Administration or people who have situations where they have a
certain amount of time to stay, it is always very careful how
you ask the questions, because nobody wants to upset the
President; that is not a good person to upset, but anyway--or
the Chairman for that matter. That is why I think he is the
greatest Chairman in the House.
Any comments on the budget that you are free to make?
Mr. Thompson. Sure.
Mr. Serrano. Well, you are free to make whatever----
Mr. Thompson. No, no, no. So, I think it was--we thought it
was very, very important at the Census Bureau, that in that 60-
page base--or so, blueprint, that the 2020 Census was mentioned
as a priority. I think that may have been one of the few
domestic programs that was mentioned as a priority. We were
ecstatic that that was the case, because it demonstrates the
Administration's commitment to a fair and accurate 2020 Census.
Secretary Ross has also made it very clear that one of his
top priorities is a fair and accurate 2020 Census. So, we are
really enthusiastic.
But the next step will be--I am not going to get ahead of
the President's budget, you know, coming before the committee,
but after the President's budget comes before the committee, we
would be delighted to work with the committee on what we are
going to do within the scope of that budget and discuss with
you exactly what will happen. So, we are really looking forward
to that.
U.S. TERRITORIES
Mr. Serrano. Okay. One last question, Mr. Chairman. I don't
know, Mr. Thompson, if you yourself were involved in this or if
you remember when I asked that question years ago of why the
territories' populations were not included in the final number
for the United States. You know, I have relatives in Puerto
Rico who do not get counted in the final number. I get counted
in the final number.
If I move back to Puerto Rico tomorrow, I do not get
counted in the final number. And I remember that part of the
argument was by some people that it was not constitutional. To
your knowledge, is that still the argument, that it is not
constitutional or is it a matter of we haven't done it that
way, so we are not going to change it?
Mr. Thompson. I would have to research whether it is
constitutional or not. I do know that has been a concern that
you have expressed. It was expressed back, even in 2000, and I
cannot remember what the resolution--I remember what the
resolution was in 2000.
Mr. Serrano. Yeah, they did not get counted in the total
population.
Mr. Thompson. Right. I would say, though, that there is
still time, as we move towards 2020 tabulations to discuss that
issue. I mean we haven't finalized the set of tabulations
exactly yet, so that could be discussed.
But, again, that would--I would really have to look at what
are the issues associated with that. I do not--I am not
prepared to say if it is constitutional.
Mr. Serrano. And I know--and by the way, I know you have
issues that could be considered, could be by many people, much
larger than the one I bring up, but, you know, we talk about
accuracy.
And, Mr. Chairman, when we put forth the population of the
United States as such, that is not true, because we are not
counting the Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands
and so on. And if Congress has seen fit to--without a vote,
unfortunately--but seen fit to have a representative from those
territories vote in committee and so on, then why cannot the
census, you know, reflect that population and those Americans
that live in those territories?
Mr. Culberson. The Constitution says that it shall take
place; it is required by law enacted by Congress, so it is up
to us to decide.
Mr. Serrano. Right. And I know and see the--I know the
tricky part here could be that it says you must count the
people amongst the states and they are not states----
Mr. Culberson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. But it did not say that they were
going to be American citizens.
Mr. Culberson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Serrano. They did not envision American citizens living
in anything other than states and now they live in territories.
Mr. Culberson. Right. Right. I would imagine it is a pretty
broad band of authority to Congress to define those kind of
questions.
Mr. Serrano. Let's do it. Count my cousin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. This is so
important in terms of accuracy and cost-effectiveness.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, I hope each one of us will take the
time to go and visit with the authorizing subcommittee and
compare notes on what they have learned and figure out what we
can do together to enhance the accuracy of this census.
Mr. Cartwright. Now, Mr. Chairman, you have used a phrase
over and over about our hard-earned and scarce tax dollars. I
like that a lot.
Now, you are a fan of Thomas Jefferson. He wrote his own
epitaph on his tombstone and I am wondering if you have left
instructions for those words to be on yours. You do not have to
answer that, Mr. Chairman.
But I am in full agreement that our tax dollars are hard-
earned and scarce and that is why it is so important that we
get a cost-efficient census and an accurate one.
UNDERCOUNT
And Mr. Smith, this follow-up question is for you. You have
successfully identified yourself as the computer geek in the
room. I am pleased that the Bureau is seeking to increase
efficiencies and decrease costs by taking advantage of
technological advances, but I do have a concern that this may
disproportionately help certain well-connected communities--I
do not mean well-politically connected; I mean well-
cyberconnected communities, which could result in a relative
undercount of some rural or poorer communities with less
internet access or utilization.
Mr. Smith, can you address how you will ensure that
respondents without the means to access the internet will not
be undercounted?
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you, Congressman for your question.
Part of this is a balance of the technology solutions in
place to help automate functions and improve the self-response
in certain areas. But, absolutely, from places that do not have
a high-interconnectivity rate from the self-response side, we
will have to offer different ways from the self-respond.
But from the enumeration side, when we have designed----
Mr. Thompson. Can I--let me jump in just a little bit,
because I have been working on the design of this.
So, we realize that not everyone has access to the internet
and so we have been analyzing data, using data from our
American Community Survey and some other data to identify areas
where we should just mail a questionnaire out to begin with.
So, about 80 percent of the households in 2020, we estimate,
will just receive a questionnaire right at the start and say,
well, if you want to use the internet, you can, but here's a
questionnaire, fill it out and send it in.
[The information follows:]
clarification for the record
The Census Bureau would like to clarify Director Thompson's
statement about the number of households that will receive a paper
questionnaire. In his testimony, he stated that 80 percent of
households would receive a questionnaire. The correct figure is 20
percent.
Ultimately, every household, if they do not respond, will
get a chance to respond on the paper questionnaire. But in
addition to that for this census for the first time, we are
also offering the opportunity to call in and give your
interview over the phone; so that is new for the census. So, we
are offering just lots of different ways for individuals to
self-respond.
GAO RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. The last question I have is on the
steam that the chairman has opened up with. And we want you
folks to work together and we want you arm in arm going through
this process.
I have served on the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee for four years and I have seen a lot of the GAO folks
and they are helpful. They are not annoying efficiency experts
who are coming to count your paperclips; they are there to help
you.
And one concern I had was the February 2017 GAO high-risk
report raises significant concerns about the Bureau's ability
to conduct a cost-effective census, primarily because of
unsubstantiated cost estimates, new unused innovations,
critical IT uncertainties. Over the past three-plus years, GAO
has made no fewer than 31 recommendations to help the Bureau
create and implement a more efficient and accurate census for
2020, but only five have been implemented as of May 2017.
So, Director Thompson, we want to see more cooperation and
not less and five out of thirty-one is a lot less than I
expect. Will you commit here today to work more closely with
GAO?
Mr. Culberson. And I wholeheartedly agree and second that.
Mr. Thompson. Of course. I mean, we value our relationship
with GAO. Let me also say that we have prepared an action plan
for each of the recommendations we received and we have a
schedule to roll out the result of that action plan and resolve
the issues.
Some of the issues we are going to resolve as part of the
plan for the 2018 end-to-end test. Some other--and I am not
trying to dodge the issue--but some of the recommendations are
of longer range and they can only be resolved by doing the 2020
Census.
But we are working with GAO to make sure that we are in
agreement on the schedule for resolving those recommendations
and we have the recommendations that we have got.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. Great questions.
And we obviously want to make sure that you have the
resources you need to do an accurate and fair enumeration of
the American population. I want to work closely with all of the
Subcommittee to find ways to ensure that you are weaving GAO
into your day-to-day operations. That you are being absolutely
transparent with us, with the American taxpayers, and with the
GAO so we know right away if there is going to be a problem.
That is really important and I wholeheartedly second what Mr.
Cartwright just said; five out of thirty-one is just not
acceptable.
Ms. Meng.
KOREAN AMERICANS
Ms. Meng. Thank you. Director Thompson, I have a specific
question regarding Korean Americans in this country.
I have a substantial number of Korean-speaking constituents
in my district and according to the American Community Survey,
76 percent of those constituents do not speak English very
well. With that in mind, I am concerned about the Bureau's
ability to accurately capture information from and about this
population.
I understand that there were almost no Korean responses
returned or obtained during the 2016 Census test run. If that
is true, how are you measuring the adequacy of your Korean-
language preparedness and when can we expect the release of the
full results from the 2016 Census test?
Mr. Thompson. Let me check. So, we are--we plan to offer
for this census, self-response options in Korean, both internet
and paper responses, to assist in their enumeration. We--in the
2016 test, we did get Korean responses, but they came in on the
English forms, as opposed to the Korean forms----
[The information follows:]
clarification for the record
The Census Bureau would like to clarify Director Thompson's
statement about 2020 Census self-response options. In his testimony, he
stated the 2020 Census will offer self-response options in Korean, both
internet and paper responses. The 2020 Census does not plan to offer a
Korean self-response paper option.
Ms. Meng. Yes.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Which means that where we
tested, possibly were in areas--even though we tried to get a
diverse population where people did have the ability to speak
English.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. I will submit the remainder of my questions
in writing.
And Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. I will do the same.
Mr. Culberson. All right. Very good.
I want to truly thank each and every one of you and your
staff for your service to the country and I look forward to
working closely with you to ensure that there is a fair,
accurate census and that you achieve all those savings you have
identified and perhaps even more.
Thank you very much and the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, June 13, 2017.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
ROD J. ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, it is a pleasure to
welcome you today to your first appearance before the committee
as we consider the President's 2018 budget request for the
Department of Justice. We appreciate you being here, and we
especially appreciate your service to the country.
We are particularly indebted to all of our Federal, State,
and local law enforcement officers and honor them for their
tireless, invaluable, and courageous service to keep the people
of the United States safe and sound in our communities and our
country.
Last month, we observed National Police Week. The lowering
of American flags to halfstaff on Police Officer Memorial Day
was a vivid reminder of the sacrifice and the risks undertaken
every single day by our men and women in uniform in the law
enforcement community who put themselves at risk to keep us all
safe.
Our committee is arm in arm in our determination to do
everything in our power to support our men and women in
uniform, to ensure that they are protected, that they have
everything that they need to help them succeed in their vital
mission of protecting American lives and property.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein brings to his position a
distinguished record of public service within the Department,
including most recently as the U.S. Attorney for Maryland. I
admire the energy that you and Attorney General Sessions are
bringing to the Department and encouraged to see your
leadership in addressing such critical issues as immigration
enforcement, border security, restoring respect for the rule of
law above all, because we all know our liberty lies in law
enforcement, in the work that you do in fighting terrorism, in
taking a reinvigorated and strategic approach to combating
violent crime and targeting offenders, and in supporting our
State and local law enforcement officers.
In fiscal year 2018, Mr. Rosenstein, this subcommittee will
strive to provide the Department of Justice the resources that
you need to support your Federal law enforcement mission,
including combating cybercrime, terrorism, espionage, gangs,
and human and drug trafficking. Of course, we expect that our
constituents' very precious and hard-earned tax dollars will be
employed frugally and strategically, consistent with Federal
law. Their needs are great, and it is critical to set
priorities and leverage scarce resources. I look forward to
working with the Department throughout the year as the
appropriation process moves forward.
Today, we will follow the 5-minute rule in order to keep
the hearing moving along. But before we proceed, I would like
to recognize our ranking member, the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Serrano, for any remarks he would like to make.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Although I join you in welcoming Deputy Attorney General
Rosenstein before the subcommittee, it is important that we
point out that this is not who should be testifying before us
today. No insult intended, sir, in any way.
I am angered that Attorney General Sessions has refused to
come before this subcommittee to answer urgent and important
questions about this administration's actions with regard to
Russia. The American people that care are asking for
transparency and accountability, and we find ourselves in yet
another circumstance where a senior administration official is
refusing to provide it.
There are serious questions that need answering about
Russia's interference in last year's election, as well as that
Nation's possible collusion with senior members of the campaign
and this administration, including Attorney General Sessions.
In addition, there are a compounding series of questions about
whether senior administration officials, including the
President, have attempted to obstruct this investigation and
cover up these possible activities. These are not questions
that are confined to the Intelligence Committee. They belong to
the American people.
I believe that this committee has a responsibility to help
to get to the bottom of this. One would think that if the
Attorney General were totally blameless for this debacle, he
would be happy to testify wherever and whenever invited. I
think it speaks volumes that he has once again rejected our
invitation.
In his letter to the subcommittee, Attorney General
Sessions claimed that since he has recused himself from matters
related to the Russia investigation, he could not answer the
subcommittee's questions regarding that subject. However,
because the American public is not aware of the scope of his
recusal, we are left wondering why he was involved in important
decisions that touch upon this investigation, including the
firing of FBI Director James Comey. It is possible that there
are future decisions in which common sense would dictate the
Attorney General's recusal but where he might still attempt to
intrude. We hope that you will be able to clarify the scope of
that recusal today.
Since you have appointed a special counsel, something I
want to commend you for, I do believe there are significant
questions regarding the independence of the special counsel's
investigation. As an appropriator, it is important that we
ensure that Director Mueller receives the funding and resources
necessary to do his job fairly and thoroughly. There is some
ambiguity in the special counsel's regulations, and we will
need to shed some light on this subject.
Lastly, before I conclude, let me briefly address the
Department's budget request for fiscal year 2018. This request
is profoundly troubling. I represent a district composed
largely of people of color, people who have been historically
discriminated against and marginalized. I represent many
immigrants, people who came to this Nation looking for a better
life, and I represent people of all faiths, including a
significant Muslim population.
I am deeply concerned that the Department's budget request
does not speak to or respect them. I strongly oppose the so-
called deportation agenda contained in this request, including
unrelated legislative language to harm sanctuary cities,
increased funding to further boost criminal prosecution of
undocumented immigrants, and proposals to hire attorneys to
take away private citizens' land via eminent domain
proceedings.
These efforts are misguided and will harm the Department's
goals. Fifty-two percent of Federal criminal prosecutions
already involve immigration violations. At a certain point,
this obsession with undocumented immigrants harms other
Department priorities, like terrorism cases, gun violence, and
corporate fraud cases.
Another area where the Federal Government seems poised to
do less is in the area of civil rights. While the funding level
for the Civil Rights Division is held flat in this request,
civil rights divisions across other agencies are being slashed.
These cuts, in tandem with DOJ proposals to undermine programs
like body-worn cameras, grants, and the Second Chance Act,
indicate that this administration does not value groups who
have been historically discriminated against. I oppose these
proposed cuts at DOJ and elsewhere.
The Department of Justice has historically been a beacon of
hope for many Americans. The Department has a proud history of
protecting those who have historically been discriminated
against. You act as our Nation's agency of accountability, to
ensure faithfulness and adherence to our Nation's laws, its
Constitution, and its values. Unfortunately, this budget
request fails to uphold these principles.
Let me conclude with this: As an appropriator, I find it
insulting that the leader of an agency that we oversee has
refused to testify before us. These hearings are a basic
function of our committee, and the Attorney General's actions
undermine the committee's oversight role, its power, and its
reputation. Should the Attorney General and his staff fail to
adhere to our constitutional system's basic checks and
balances, I believe we will need to revisit the need to fund
the Office of the Attorney General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. At this time, I would like to recognize the
ranking member, the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. I would like to thank Chairman Culberson,
Ranking Member Serrano for holding this hearing.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, frankly, you are not
who I was expecting to see today. Ranking Member Serrano and I
are disappointed that Attorney General Sessions canceled on us
for the second time. The Attorney General's refusal to testify
before this committee does not bode well for transparency,
openness, and good government from the Department of Justice.
This is an unprecedented moment in our history. Every day
we are flooded with news alerts, each more disturbing than the
last. Ranking Member Serrano and I are very concerned by a
pattern of behavior from your Department.
First, there are reports that just days before FBI Director
Comey was fired, he requested additional funds from the
Department of Justice to investigate Russian interference in
the Presidential election. After this request, you penned a
letter to the President, which the White House has referenced
as a basis to fire Director Comey.
We now know that Director Comey asked Attorney General
Sessions not to be left alone with the President, and yet
President Trump, after asking Attorney General Sessions to
leave the room, asked Director Comey to drop the investigation
into Michael Flynn.
I remain unconvinced that the Department of Justice and
this administration can impartially handle the investigation.
While the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as
special counsel is a strong step, your Department has the power
to remove him, and the White House is reportedly taking steps
already to undermine his investigation.
Congress must still create a bipartisan, independent
commission to make sure every aspect of contacts between
President Trump, his campaign and associates, and Russia is
thoroughly analyzed.
Mr. Rosenstein, I cannot overemphasize the serious nature
of your responsibilities as one of the top law enforcement
officials in the country or the expectations of this committee
that you expend the funds we appropriate to ensure the rule of
law.
Aside from the ongoing Russia investigation, I am concerned
the budget proposed for your Department would make our
communities less safe. For instance, it would reduce the
processing of rape kit backlogs by $20 million, cut $15 million
from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System,
eliminate funding for body-worn police cameras. President
Trump's budget request slashing $54 billion from nondefense
investments would decimate the Department of Justice. In fact,
even existing sequestration level caps are insufficient and
would lead to reduced services that American families and
communities need, including law enforcement, first responders,
homeland security.
It is, frankly, time for a new budget deal to end
sequestration once and for all, in part, to prevent disastrous
cuts to law enforcement efforts at the Department of Justice.
I look forward to a productive discussion today, and hope
that you can shed some light on how this budget request can
adequately respond to the grave task the Department of Justice
and its grant programs undertake on a daily basis. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey.
We will follow a 5-minute--each one of us will take 5
minutes on our questions, and I will recognize members in the
order in which they arrived.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, you are recognized for
an opening statement and, without objection, your written
statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. I
would encourage you to keep your oral statement to 5 minutes so
we can have additional time for questions.
And it is my pleasure to recognize you, sir, for your
testimony today. Thank you.
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you. And good afternoon, Chairman
Culberson, Ranking Member Serrano, and other members of the
subcommittee. I am honored to present the President's proposed
fiscal year 2018 budget for the Department of Justice.
Our proposed budget advances the interests of the American
people by allowing the dedicated men and women of our
Department to continue their outstanding work. We are grateful
for your strong support, and we look forward to building on our
successes as we work to protect our Nation, to promote the rule
of law, and to ensure equal justice for everyone.
The 2018 budget request shows a strong commitment to the
Department's top priorities. It provides more funding to fight
terrorism and cybercrime, reduce violent crime, tackle the
opioid epidemic, and combat illegal immigration. It also gives
us resources to support our State, local, and Tribal law
enforcement partners in their essential work.
This budget request reflects three important themes: Number
one, truth in budgeting; number two, increased efficiency; and
number three, setting of priorities. These changes are critical
and support the executive order to reorganize government
agencies to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
First, the budget is honest. It eliminates from the books
thousands of previously funded and vacant positions, most of
which have been vacant for years and, in some cases, never
filled at all. Second, the budget seeks to identify areas where
we can afford to cut back without harming our mission. And
finally, the budget improves the allocation of our precious
resources so that we can do the most effective work with every
taxpayer dollar that we spend.
National security remains our highest priority. We face a
wide array of evolving threats, from terrorism to espionage and
cyber intrusions. We also need to come to terms with the going
dark phenomenon, which, as you are aware, refers to law
enforcement's increasing inability to lawfully access, collect,
and intercept real-time communications and stored data, even
with a warrant, as a result of changes in technology. This
phenomenon severely impacts our ability to conduct
investigations and bring criminals to justice.
Law enforcement officers operate within the Constitution
and they respect privacy interests, but when there is a
legitimate law enforcement need to access electronic
information and we have a court order or other lawful
authority, public safety is jeopardized if we are unable to
access relevant information.
Our Department must keep adapting to new challenges. To
that end, the budget provides an extra $98.5 million to combat
terrorism, espionage, and cybersecurity threats. The Justice
Department also is committed to protecting the American people
from violent crime and from the adverse consequences of illegal
drug distribution, both of which are spiking at alarming rates.
Violent crime is rising in many areas of our Nation, and drug-
related injuries and deaths also are increasing. Rising violent
crime and increasing drug abuse are devastating many American
families. The Justice Department is confronting these crises
head-on, and we need your help.
The proposed budget provides the Department's law
enforcement agencies with extra support so they can target the
worst violent criminals, transnational crime organizations,
gangs, and drug trafficking rings. It also provides for 230 new
assistant U.S. attorneys to focus specifically on our effort to
fight violent crime. These additional resources will enhance
the ability of Federal law enforcement to assist our State and
local partners to fight crime and keep communities safe.
We are focusing on getting illegal drugs off the streets
through strong enforcement and through our drug take-back
programs. In addition, we are calling on doctors, pharmacists,
and pharmaceutical companies to take a hard look at the way
that they prescribe opioid drugs, in an effort to reduce the
harmful abuse that occurs when those drugs are overprescribed.
The American people expect our government also to secure
our borders and restore a lawful system of immigration. The
proposed budget provides funding for 75 more immigration judges
and support teams to reduce the unacceptable backlogs in our
immigration courts. It also will allow us to hire more deputy
U.S. marshals and 30 more border enforcement prosecutors so we
can effectively apprehend and prosecute criminal aliens who
threaten our communities.
The Federal Government does not maintain public safety
alone. 85 percent of law enforcement officers in this country
are not Federal. They work for our State, local, and Tribal
partners, and we rely on them heavily. The men and women
serving on the front lines are our first line of defense to
keep our communities safe. They deserve our support. This
budget maintains our commitments to those valued partners and
prioritizes grant funding to the high-performing programs that
have proven to be effective.
This budget funds our priorities while helping to achieve a
more efficient and cost-effective Department. We will do all we
can to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. We have a duty to
avoid waste and to safeguard the Department's resources so they
will be available to fight crime and protect people.
The Department of Justice is home to 115,000 honorable men
and women who work to serve, protect, and defend the American
people, and respect the Constitution of the United States.
And Ranking Member Serrano, I appreciated your comments
about how you feel about the Department of Justice. I feel the
same way. That is why I have worked there for 27 years. This
budget will make it possible for us to do our jobs.
With the investment set forth in this budget and with your
support, we will continue to fairly enforce the Nation's laws
and ensure safety and equal justice for all Americans. And I
look forward to addressing your concerns.
I am eager to work with this subcommittee and with the
Congress in the months and years ahead. I will be happy to
answer any questions about our proposed budget.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SANCTUARY CITIES
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Rosenstein.
This morning, I participated in a hearing in the Homeland
Security Subcommittee, and the Acting Director of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, testified something that
we all know fundamentally as Americans, and that is, where
there is no consequence to breaking the law, we endanger law
enforcement officers, we endanger the public. And we all know
that our liberty lies in law enforcement, equal protection of
the law with due process to everyone.
I want to focus my, therefore, first round of questions on
sanctuary cities and the danger they pose to all of us.
Secretary Homan--or Director Homan testified quite correctly
that sanctuary cities are a danger to law enforcement and to
the public, because if he has to send an ICE officer out to
knock on someone's door because ICE cannot get access to their
jails and pick someone up for deportation that has been
arrested and held in custody by a State or local jail, that
endangers the public and endangers law enforcement, because
these individuals are going to be out on the street.
Last year, last summer, I successfully worked with Attorney
General Lynch to ensure that local and State law enforcement
agencies complied with Title 8, section 1373 of the U.S. Code,
which says that local and State law enforcement agencies cannot
interfere in any way with sharing information with Federal
immigration authorities about individuals in their custody.
This followed a finding by the Department of Justice
Inspector General that 10 of the largest Federal law
enforcement grant recipients were not in compliance with 1373
and, therefore, were sanctuary cities. This includes the entire
State of California was certified as a sanctuary jurisdiction.
New York City was certified as a sanctuary jurisdiction. So was
Philadelphia, Cook County, Miami-Dade, Milwaukee, and Clark
County, Nevada.
I am pleased to say that New Orleans has brought themselves
into compliance. They repealed their sanctuary policy. Miami-
Dade County repealed their sanctuary policy.
But I wanted to ask you, Mr. Attorney General, these
remaining jurisdictions have to certify this year that they are
in compliance with Federal law and cooperating 100 percent of
the time in order to continue to receive Federal law
enforcement grants this summer. Those assurances from those
remaining eight jurisdictions are now due.
And if you could, tell us what is the status of those
assurances from those eight jurisdictions? Have they changed
their policies or stopped receiving Federal funds yet? And if
they have not changed their policy, when will their Federal law
enforcement grant funding stop?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important
to recognize this is not a partisan political issue. In the
prior administration, the Inspector General brought to the
Department's attention that these 10 jurisdictions may not have
been in compliance with Title 8, section 1373, and the
Department took appropriate steps to look into that.
We have notified those 10 jurisdictions that we are
requesting that they certify whether they are or are not in
compliance. My understanding is that we have actually heard
back from three so far that have confirmed that they are in
compliance with section 1373. There are seven that have not yet
responded. And we have requested that everybody respond by June
30, so I am hopeful that we will hear from the other seven
jurisdictions by June 30.
Our goal is to ensure that all grant recipients are
following Federal law. This is not a new law. This is a law
that was in effect last year. Our goal is to make sure that
they are in compliance, because that is a condition of Federal
grants that they be in compliance with Federal law.
And so I am optimistic, Congressman, that they will all
respond. If they do not, then the consequence would be that
they would not be eligible for future grants, unless and until
they can certify that they are in compliance with Federal law.
Mr. Culberson. This is very straightforward. If local and
State law enforcement agencies expect to receive Federal money,
if you want Federal money, you have to follow Federal law and
cooperate with requests for immigration information about
people in your custody and do so 100 percent of the time. That
is the effect of 1373?
Mr. Rosenstein. It is not a new requirement to follow
Federal law. It is something that was brought to our attention
last year, that some jurisdictions might not be in compliance
with that requirement.
Mr. Culberson. Well, I was pleased to spearhead this effort
and did so quietly. In fact, when Kate Steinle was murdered in
San Francisco, I just made this my highest priority. And I am
pleased that Attorney General Lynch changed the policy, and I
am very pleased that you are implementing this policy. The goal
is for all these jurisdictions to change their policy so they
will cooperate with Federal law enforcement authorities in
order to protect lives and property.
We don't want anybody to lose their funding, but if they
choose--it is up to them. The local jurisdictions have a
choice. If they choose to protect criminal illegal aliens and
shield them from deportation, then don't ask for Federal money,
because the funding will stop. And it stops this summer,
doesn't it?
Mr. Rosenstein. They will no longer be eligible, unless
they are able to certify compliance.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
Mr. Culberson. New York City would lose about $15 million,
based on what they received last year. Philadelphia will lose
about $1.7 million. The State of California will lose $69
million, based on what they received in 2016.
So the days of receiving Federal money and shielding
criminal aliens are over. You can't have both. And we
appreciate very much you following through on that policy.
And I want to recognize Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Deputy Attorney General, I am concerned that the special
counsel you appointed--and, once again, I compliment you for
that--to investigate ties between the Trump administration and
Russia will not be adequately funded. Politics and budget
debate should not impede their work. Can you provide this
committee a copy of the budget request made by the special
counsel?
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, I don't believe we have it
yet. Under the regulation, the special counsel I believe has 60
days to submit his first budget. I know they have been working
with our Justice Management Division. The leadership of the
division is here with me today, and I don't believe we have
those numbers for you yet.
But I do want to assure you, and if I may, to respond to
Congresswoman Lowey's inquiry, it has always been my commitment
that this investigation and every investigation, the Department
will receive the resources that it deserves.
And I welcome the opportunity, Congresswoman, to address
the issue that you raised, because the newspaper in my hometown
ran a banner headline that said that somebody had asked me for
resources and not gotten them, and that is untrue. And I
believe the deputy FBI director clarified that. I don't know
where that story originated. But I can assure you that I have
not and I will not deprive this investigation of appropriate
resources.
So, yes, Congressman, I can assure you that the special
counsel will have whatever resources are reasonably required to
conduct that investigation. That is a matter that is handled
primarily by our budget, our administrative folks, and I am
confident he will have the resources he needs.
Mr. Serrano. And you can get that to us at some time?
Mr. Rosenstein. As I said, I am not certain that he
submitted the budget yet, but when he does----
Mr. Serrano. When it is ready.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
The Special Counsel Office (SCO) will prepare a Statement
of Expenditures for the six-month periods ending September 30
and March 31. The Justice Management Division (JMD), Internal
Review and Evaluation Office will review and report on the
internal controls related to the expenses of the SCO. JMD will
make these reports available to the public.
Mr. Serrano. Does Attorney General Sessions' recusal from
the special counsel's investigation extend to the management of
the budget for the special counsel?
Mr. Rosenstein. I would say probably, yes. I mean, our
budget is not a secret. But I will be making the decisions. If
there is any dispute, I would be the final authority as to what
resources are given to the special counsel.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RECUSAL
Mr. Serrano. For that matter, what is the current scope of
Attorney General Sessions' recusal?
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, the recusal, as I understand
it--and keep in mind I was confirmed in late April. This had
already been put into place prior to that. And so there were
appropriate safeguards in place within the Department to ensure
that the Attorney General would not be involved in any matters
from which he was appropriately recused.
Just to explain you the way this operates. In the Deputy
Attorney General's Office, we have career officials, and one in
particular who is responsible for making these ethical
determinations for the leadership of the Department. And so if
any matters arise that may implicate that recusal, I have the
opportunity to consult with him and ensure that those matters
stop in my office, literally on the fourth floor, and they
don't rise to the fifth floor, which is where the Attorney
General's office is located.
And so as to what the scope of the recusal is, it is
defined by what he has recused from. But keep in mind, the
important issue here, Congressman, is when we recuse in the
Department, it is usually not public. Usually, our recusals are
private and internal. And we don't announce who we are
investigating or what we are investigating. Therefore, I am not
able to tell you I know what is being investigated. The
Attorney General only knows the general area from which he is
recused. And so it is my responsibility, in coordination with
our ethics experts, to make sure that nothing comes to his
attention that would be within the scope of that recusal.
Mr. Serrano. What is the mechanism to update that recusal
as the investigation by the special counsel evolves, if there
is a need for an update?
Mr. Rosenstein. I don't think there will be a need for an
update, Congressman, because he is recused. I am the Acting
Attorney General for purposes of the special counsel
investigation. And what that means is, he is just not involved
in any way in the special counsel's investigation. So there
wouldn't be a need to update that. That is a full recusal from
any matters handled by the special counsel.
Mr. Serrano. And you are saying that you will be keeping a
close eye on that anyway.
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, I----
Mr. Serrano. On the investigation. I am not putting you in
trouble with the Attorney General.
Mr. Rosenstein. No, it is the other way around, actually. I
just wanted to clarify. Director Mueller has independence, and
so I am not particularly involved in that. But it is my job, to
the extent there was anything that came to my attention, to
make sure that the buck stops with me and that the Attorney
General would not be involved in any decision-making.
Mr. Serrano. All right. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
It is my pleasure to recognize former chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Rosenstein--is it Rosenstein?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, sir.
FEDERAL PRISON CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Rogers. Thank you for being here. We are glad to see
you. We were expecting the Attorney General, but he has been
called to testify, as we speak, before a Senate Intelligence
Committee and, therefore, could not be here on that account.
But thank you for filling in those shoes.
Let me start out by asking you about Federal prison
construction. We have a serious overcrowding problem in our
Federal penitentiaries affecting the health and safety of not
only prisoners but the guards and the personnel. GAO reports
that BOP facilities experience 30 percent overcrowding
systemwide, 52 percent overcrowding among high-security
penitentiaries.
With that in mind, this committee and the Congress passed,
last year, a bill appropriating funds for a new penitentiary in
Letcher County, Kentucky--therefore, it is of a little bit of
parochial concern of mine--to help alleviate the crowding.
In your budget request, you specifically rescind the money
for that facility. What I want to know is, are you serious?
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you, Congressman. My understanding--
first of all, I think I should be clear. The Federal prison
population, I am sure you are aware, has actually declined
precipitously over the last several years. It is a decline of
about 30,000 inmates or 14 percent reduction over the past 4
years. So the decision about where we need Federal prisons is a
decision, you know, that we rely upon the Bureau of Prisons to
tell us what sort of facilities they need. And our fiscal year
2018 budget does include $80 million to fully open a prison
that has already been built that had not previously been in
operation that would add up to 2,500 high-security beds.
So what we are doing, Congressman, is we are just
prioritizing our spending, given the tight budget. But we would
certainly be open to working with the committee on capacity
issues in the future, if there were a need for additional bed
space. And I have met with Director Kane, our acting director
of Bureau of Prisons, and I will continue to talk with him
about that. And based upon our projections of future prison
needs, we may well have a need for a prison in that district or
elsewhere in the future.
But, again, the tough budget choice that we made here is
that, given the current volume of inmates in the prison and
given the projections for the future, the Bureau of Prisons
just didn't feel that we needed that facility at this time.
Mr. Rogers. General, the Congress decided this. And it is
the Congress that controls the purse strings of the country. It
has been passed. It is the law. The money is there,
appropriated, authorized, everything in order. We recognize
there is a problem. We have got terrific overcrowding. Yes, we
have made some reductions in recent years, but not enough. But
this has been decided and we expect it to be carried out.
OPIOIDS/OPIOID EPIDEMIC
Now, let me ask you about opioids. This problem broke open
in my district about 12, 13 years ago. Oxycontin. Now, of
course, it is ravaging the country, among other types of
opioids. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which we
passed last year, streamlined your grant process for several
crucial efforts, including prescription drug monitoring
programs, drug courts, first responder training and the like.
And the 2017 Omnibus, which was signed into law just a month
ago, fully funds our $103 million commitment to your efforts in
that regard.
I understand applications for that funding closed last
month. Tell us how this newly combined program is being
received in its first year.
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, if I could just address first
the issue of the funding in this budget. Obviously, there are
difficult choices that need to be made about how much money to
allocate to each issue, but I agree with you that with regard
to the programs that you have mentioned, they all are valuable
in the fight against opioid drugs.
If I can just take a moment to address that, because I
think there are a lot of important issues that we will talk
about today. This, I believe, is one of the most important. And
in my capacity as a U.S. Attorney in Maryland and now as Deputy
Attorney General, I think I have a special responsibility to
address this issue of opioid abuse, because it is frightening
the extent to which opioid abuse is causing havoc throughout
our country.
I actually brought with me one demonstrative exhibit, if I
could show you. It is a chart of drug overdose deaths
throughout the United States of America. And what this reflects
is that in 2015, 52,000 Americans lost their lives to drug
overdose deaths. In 2016, although the numbers are not yet
final, we anticipate that, based on projections, there may well
be 60,000 deaths that are attributed to drug overdoses.
And those numbers are increasing dramatically, and a large
proportion of it is due to this issue of opioid drugs. And it
is, as you said, partly a function of oxycodone; it is partly a
function of heroin; and increasingly, it is a drug called
fentanyl, which is being brought into the country from China,
either through the mail or through Mexico, and it is causing
tremendous distress throughout the country.
And so we are going to work with you in a variety of ways--
and I know I am out of time--but a variety of ways. Enforcement
is one. Treatment and prevention also are important. And I
believe we need to use all available tools to address that
problem. And we can certainly discuss, you know, the relative
allocation of resources, but what I can commit to you is that
in terms of the overall financial commitment by the Department
to this issue of opioid drug abuse, we are going to have--if
this budget is enacted, we are going to have more money this
year, we are going to have more of everything focused on this
issue, because it is a horrifying trend and we need to work
together to reverse it.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Rosenstein.
Just to emphasize how urgently important our fight is
against the opioid epidemic to stop the loss of life, there
were 58,220 U.S. military fatalities in the Vietnam war. So the
number of people that have died as a result of opioid overdoses
has already exceeded last year alone the total number of people
killed in the Vietnam war. What a tragedy.
Mr. Rosenstein. If I could clarify the chart, it may be a
little misleading on the chart that I showed you. That is all
drug overdoses, but it is I believe about 60 percent of these
deaths are attributed to opioid drugs.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you for your work in that regard.
I want to recognize the gentlelady from New York, Mrs.
Lowey.
FBI DIRECTOR FIRING
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Rosenstein, for being before us today.
On May 9th, you, along with Attorney General Sessions,
wrote to the President supporting the dismissal of then-FBI
Director Comey. The rationale for his dismissal was his
handling of the Clinton email case. President Trump later
admitted on national television that he fired Director Comey
because of, quote, ``this Russia thing,'' end quote.
To what extent, beyond your written recommendation, did you
consult with the White House on the dismissal of Director
Comey?
Mr. Rosenstein. So, Congresswoman, as you know, this may
well be within the scope of the special counsel's
investigation, so I am limited in what I can say about it. But
I would, if I could, I would like to address your question
about me and my memo. I think it is important for you to
understand, I don't know what was in anybody else's mind. My
memo reflected my personal opinion. And I stand by what I wrote
in my memo, but that is just my opinion.
I know that I have heard various reports, and I don't
believe everything I read in the media, but I have heard
various reports about what role my recommendation allegedly
played. But also, I saw the President of the United States in
an interview on TV, and he said he was going to replace
Director Comey without regard to the memo. And so the
decisionmaker on this is the President. The President decides
which political appointees to retain and which to remove, and
that is his decision.
So I can only comment from my perspective that the memo
reflected my views, and I can't testify about what anybody
else's opinion might have been, nor do I know what was on
anybody's mind. So I can assure you that if Director Mueller
believes that that is relevant to his investigation, he has
full authority to investigate that and to make any appropriate
findings.
Mrs. Lowey. Now, did anyone ask you to write the memo?
Mr. Rosenstein. As I said, Congresswoman, I am not at
liberty to talk about that now. And the reason for that is that
if it is within the scope of Director Mueller's investigation--
and I have been a prosecutor for 27 years--we don't want people
talking publicly about the subjects of ongoing investigations.
If there are other witnesses or subjects, we don't want them
hearing what other people may have said about it. And so that
is the reason why I am not at liberty to talk about it here.
I have no reservations about my role, and I hope I will
have the opportunity at an appropriate time to talk more freely
about it. But given my responsibilities with regard to this
investigation, I hope you appreciate it is important for me, in
my capacity, not to compromise the investigation by talking
about any of these things publicly.
Mrs. Lowey. Just somewhat related, at any point do you get
the impression that the FBI was, quote, ``in disarray,'' end
quote, as the President claimed?
Mr. Rosenstein. Congresswoman, everybody can reach their
own independent subjective evaluation about anything they like.
In my impression--I have worked with the FBI for many years. I
have the utmost respect for the agents in the FBI. I know many
of the agents and the supervisors personally. And I believe we
can count on the FBI under the current leadership and under the
future leadership to do an excellent job in defending the
American people.
Mrs. Lowey. Was there any discussion with the President
after that comment was made? I would think it is pretty
unfortunate that it was made. Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Rosenstein. I prefer not to, but I have not discussed
it. I have not talked with the President about that after the
comment was made.
Mrs. Lowey. Okay. My time is almost up. But on May 11,
Ranking Member Serrano and I wrote a letter to Attorney General
Sessions, you were copied as well, with several questions
regarding the firing of FBI Director Comey and his request for
additional resources. We have not received a response, so I
would like to clarify your policy on this issue generally.
What is the policy at the Department with regard to
responses to congressional inquiries?
Mr. Rosenstein. So, first, if I may, I would welcome the
opportunity to tell you that I have never rejected a request
for resources for the Russia investigation or for any
investigation, and I would not have done that, because it is
important to me that that investigation be done properly.
With regard to the policy concerning letters, I am aware of
an opinion that was issued from the Department on the question
of whether or not there was any obligation to respond to
letters. And my recollection is that there is a reference in
that letter, it may be in the final paragraph, that there is no
prohibition on it. And so my hope is that we can be as
forthcoming as reasonably possible.
I know you appreciate that there are limits sometimes on
what we can say and how quickly we can respond, based on the
volume of correspondence, but I think it is important for us to
provide as much cooperation as we can to you so you can do your
important job in overseeing the Department.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Jenkins.
OPIOD EPIDEMIC
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you so much for being here today. I want to talk a
little bit about the opioid crisis. I appreciate your comments
about it. I appreciate the chairman and the full committee's
immediate past chairman about this critical issue.
So many causes, so many lives lost, so many lives
destroyed. In my district, we are literally ground zero, the
Third Congressional District in West Virginia. DEA records that
were really exposed as a result of an Eric Eyre article that
was published, an investigatory report showed that over a 6-
year period, wholesale distribution of pain pills to my State,
780 million pills, a population of 1.8 million people, 433
pills for every man, woman, and child in West Virginia, over a
6-year period, from 2007 to 2012.
In the small town of Kermit, West Virginia, in Mingo
County, a population of 392 people, 9 million hydrocodone pills
were sent and dispensed out of one pharmacy in a town of 392
people. Mingo County, the fourth highest prescription overdose
rate of any county in the entire country.
There was a very compelling article. This article was from
The Washington Post. This article documented a period of former
DEA agents and others who said, really beginning around 2011--
they called it shocking, stunning--a change of approach at the
highest levels of the Department of Justice, basically slowing
down and stopping many of the enforcement tools, the
investigations, the prosecutions that the DOJ and the DEA and
others were pursuing.
My question is, as a result of this story from last year,
The Washington Post, 2016, not unnamed sources but specific
agents, former agents of the DEA talking about the
administrative actions and directives that put a halt to the
powerful tools that the DOJ has in its arsenal, has anybody
looked into these allegations to explain why the DOJ and other
agencies within its purview made these very dramatic changes,
in light of this epidemic?
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, I do not know the specific
answer to your question as to whether anybody has looked into
it. You know, I have been in this position about 6 weeks, but I
can tell you that one of my top priorities is to figure out
what we can do differently.
And whether anybody was at fault for past decisions is not
my primary concern. My primary concern is what can we do
prospectively and cooperatively and collaboratively, in a
bipartisan way, to address this problem. So that has been my
focus. And I have met a couple of times with DEA Administrator
Chuck Rosenberg, and I know it is a priority for him, and he
understands it is a priority for me as well.
As you point out, you know, Federal enforcement isn't just
about criminal enforcement of drug dealers; it is also about
regulating the prescription of regulated drugs. So I appreciate
your raising that point with me. I will look into it. But what
I can tell you today is that we are all going to be working
together to try to develop a strategy that is more effective in
the future than what we have unfortunately experienced in the
recent past.
DEA QUOTA SYSTEM
Mr. Jenkins. I sent a letter to the director about 4 or 5
weeks ago, just as you referenced, doing a better job from a
regulatory standpoint. My letter specifically asked for
information relating to the quota system.
You cannot manufacture a pill without the Federal
authorities authorizing the chemical components and elements
that go into that manufacturing to occur.
And I have not got a response to what I think is another
missed opportunity, flaw in the system--and in this particular
case, it is the quota system--why the bells and whistles did
not sound in such an alarming situation. And I am hoping to get
a response to my request for information relating to the quota
system.
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, I will look into that, Congressman. I
appreciate you are familiar with some of the details about how
this operates. As you mentioned, there is an aggregate
production quota that is set for Schedule I and II controlled
substances each year, and there is an annual assessment of
needs, and I am familiar with that generally. And I will take a
look at that. I have not seen your letter, but I will make sure
to review that and talk with Administrator Rosenberg to make
sure we are doing everything we can.
I am well aware of the issue in West Virginia. I spoke with
your two Senators this morning. And, in fact, the Attorney
General, I know, was visiting West Virginia just last month. We
recognize how serious the problem is there, and we are going to
make it a priority to figure out how to reverse the problem.
[The information follows:]
DEA appreciates your interest in production quotas and shares your
concerns regarding the opioid epidemic. DEA contacted your
[Representative Jenkins'] staff in late June to discuss an initial
response and to set up a briefing on the quota process. DEA looks
forward to briefing you and your [Representative Jenkins'] staff soon
to address the questions in your letter.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Rosenstein.
I want to recognize the gentleman from Washington State.
OLC OPINION
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
Thanks for being with us. I want to start where our Ranking
Member Mrs. Lowey ended, and that is on the issue of access to
information.
Earlier this month, Senators Grassley and Feinstein sent
the President a letter expressing concern over the
administration's policy to not respond to Members of Congress
in the minority party. And Senator Grassley noted in his letter
that--and this is a quote--``Unless Congress explicitly tells
the executive branch to withhold information based on committee
membership or leadership position, there is no legal or
constitutional basis for the executive branch to do so. For OLC
to so fundamentally misunderstand and misstate such a simple
fact exposes its shocking lack of professionalism and
objectivity.''
So my question to you is, as Deputy Attorney General, did
you have any role in crafting the OLC's policy to not respond
to oversight requests from Members in the minority?
Mr. Rosenstein. I think it is important, Congressman, to
recognize that OLC, my understanding of it--and I will have to
go back and take a look at it. I don't have it with me. I will
see if any of my staffers do. But what I believe it is is a
legal judgment about whether or not there is any obligation to
respond. And that is, as I say, a separate matter from whether
or not it is appropriate to respond in any individual case.
There are some things we are not supposed to be talking
about publicly or revealing to Congress. But within the rules,
when we receive a proper request, if we can answer it, I
believe that letter says we do have discretion to answer it,
and, as I say, with the caveat I don't have it in front of me.
And I will review it, if you like, and I can get back to you
after the hearing specifically.
But my recollection is that it addressed the issue of
whether or not there is an obligation, whether or not a letter
from an individual Congressman represents an oversight request.
That was my understanding of the issue.
Mr. Kilmer. So just to clarify, to your knowledge, has the
Department of Justice or the administration directed any agency
not to respond to an inquiry from Members of Congress?
Mr. Rosenstein. I do not know the answer to that. Nobody
has directed me not to respond to any particular request. But,
as I said, I can look into it and get back to you.
[The information follows:]
The Department respects the Congress' responsibility to provide
effective oversight of the Agencies and Departments within the
Executive Branch and the need to safeguard taxpayer monies. The Office
of Legal Counsel's letter opinion did not direct anyone not to respond
to an inquiry from members of Congress. Instead, it specifically
acknowledged that agencies may respond to requests from individual
members. We are aware of the Chairman's letter and I expect that the
White House will respond. Please be assured of our commitment to
working with the Congress, both majority and minority parties, to
provide the information it needs will continue.
VOTING RIGHTS
Mr. Kilmer. Let me shift gears. I want to ask about voting
rights. In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court
essentially struck down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
which required jurisdictions with a documented history and an
ongoing record of race discrimination in voting to preclear any
voting changes with either the Department of Justice or a
three-judge Federal Court before their implementation.
Following the Shelby decision, previously covered
jurisdictions implemented changes to their voting laws which
made it burdensome for millions of people around this country
to participate in the process.
Earlier this year, I led an effort with 70 of my colleagues
in a letter to President Trump urging that any investigation
that he conducts into alleged voter fraud also include an
investigation of voter suppression. We never received a
response to that letter. And just over a month ago, the
President announced his Advisory Commission on Election
Integrity, which intends to only investigate these
nonsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud.
So my question to you is, in light of the President's newly
formed commission, how do you plan to allocate Department
resources to enforce the Voting Rights Act and combat the
proliferation of voter suppression laws in Shelby County?
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, it is my understanding that
the commission you are referring to is not within the
Department of Justice. And what I would like to do is reassure
you, within the Department of Justice, we have responsibility
for protecting the voting rights of all Americans, and we will.
When voting rights and our election system are strengthened,
our democracy is strengthened.
So the Department of Justice continues to carefully
investigate and review any claims of voter suppression or
violation of the Voting Rights Act. And we will take
appropriate actions to prevent and combat any such violations
or voter suppression in all of its forms.
The issue that you raised at the start of your question is
a more complicated issue of how to respond when States
implement what they view as appropriate ways to protect the
integrity of the vote. And in some cases, those are challenged
as to what the impact may be, and that litigation will play
out. But that is a separate issue from the Department's
commitment and responsibility to enforce violations of law with
regard to people's voting rights.
And so, as I say, we don't have a role, that I know of,
with regard to the President's election integrity task force,
but we do have a responsibility to protect people's rights to
vote and will continue to do that.
Mr. Kilmer. I want to, if I could, Chairman, ask one more
question. Am I all right?
Mr. Culberson. Thirty seconds.
MARIJUANA
Mr. Kilmer. Washington State where I am from recently
legalized marijuana. And in 2013, the former Deputy AG issued a
memo, James Cole issued a memo, that laid out eight Federal
enforcement priorities with respect to Cannabis. It was
recently announced that Attorney General Sessions formed a task
force to review the Department's Cannabis enforcement policies.
In recent years, Congress's appropriation bills have reflected
the Cole memo.
Do you have any update on what the Department plans to do?
Does it plan to update or rescind the Cole memo?
Mr. Rosenstein. I do not have any update, Congressman. I
can tell you--and I don't want to take too much time to do it,
but, as you know, it is a very complicated issue for us. Under
Federal law, as passed by the Congress and given the science
concerning marijuana, it is a Schedule I controlled substance,
so it is illegal under Federal law. That is a decision I have
talked with Administrator Rosenberg about, and I am comfortable
that that is the right legal and scientific answer, that it is
illegal under Federal law.
We have a situation where some States have taken a
different approach and legalized or decriminalized marijuana
for medical use, in some cases for recreational use. I am a
parent of two teenagers, and for those of you who have been
through that stage, you know how difficult these issues can be.
So I have to deal with this issue, as many of our friends and
colleagues do. The question, though, of whether it is illegal
under Federal law is resolved because Congress has passed a
law, and it is illegal and scientists have found that there is
no accepted medical use for it.
So Deputy Attorney General Cole, as you mentioned, adopted
this memorandum. He made an effort to examine that issue and
find a way forward for the Department where we could continue
with our obligation to enforce Federal law and minimize the
intrusion on States that were attempting to follow a different
path.
I was a U.S. attorney in the Obama administration operating
under the Cole memorandum. And I know many of my colleagues who
were in your State and other States that have decriminalized
marijuana to some extent, they had to deal with that issue.
They had to grapple with the consequences. And we are going to
have to deal with that as well.
So for the moment, that Cole memo remains our policy. There
may be an opportunity to review it in the future. At the
moment, I am not aware of any proposal to change it, but I
think we are all going to have to deal with that in the future.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, General, for being
here. I want to switch gears a little bit.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Thank you, General, for being here. I want to switch gears
a little bit. The House Select Panel on Infant Lives, has
forwarded 15 regulation and criminal referrals to DOJ regarding
blatant violations of Federal statutes by Planned Parenthood
and affiliated organizations.
Has the Department of Justice begun any follow-up
investigation or taken any action regarding this?
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, I do not know the answer to
that. I am not certain whether I could tell you if I did. But I
do not know the answer to that, but I will look into it. And if
we can respond to you, I will.
[The information follows:]
The Select Investigative Panel of the House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce (the Panel)
has urged the Department of Justice (the Department) to take
action on information it previously provided regarding several
matters. We understand that the Panel also provided information
about many other matters to other federal, state and local
regulatory, civil, and criminal enforcement agencies.
The Department's components with the relevant investigative
and prosecutorial responsibilities are aware of the information
provided by the Panel. However, consistent with established
Department policy, the Department cannot confirm or deny, or
comment upon, matters which may or may not be currently under
investigation by the Department.
Mr. Aderholt. Next question, Russia, but also other
countries, would like to influence our national elections and
it has been reported that Russian hackers infiltrated data
systems such as campaign Web sites, and maybe even county voter
rolls during the 2016 election. To your knowledge, is there any
evidence that hackers infiltrated voting machines or were able
to change any votes dating back to November 8th of last year?
Mr. Rosenstein. Not that I am aware of, no.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. I recognize Mr.
Cartwright.
SPECIAL COUNSEL
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr.
Rosenstein for being here today, I understand you testified in
the Senate this morning so I must say your voice is holding up
well.
Mr. Rosenstein, on May 17, you appointed Robert Mueller as
special counsel to investigate the matters that Mr. Comey had
been investigating. And your order speaks for itself. You have
known Robert Mueller for about 30 years. Is that right?
Mr. Rosenstein. I believe that is correct. I wouldn't call
him a close friend, but I have known him for about 30 years,
yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Enough to know him to be a dedicated lawman
through and through. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Rosenstein. Absolutely.
Mr. Cartwright. Yesterday Christopher Ruddy, who is the
friend and confidant of the President, and publisher of Newsmax
media said he thinks President Trump is, quote ``Considering
perhaps terminating the special counsel. I think he's weighing
that option.'' unquote. You may have seen that, Mr. Rosenstein.
Did you see that on the news?
Mr. Rosenstein. I saw it in the media. Yes, I did.
Mr. Cartwright. So now this morning when you were
testifying in the Senate in response to a question from Senator
Shaheen, now you said have you not seen evidence of good cause
for Mr. Mueller to be fired. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Rosenstein, you have a sterling
reputation in the law, a wonderful career as a prosecutor, a
superlative resume. Your immense body of work in the Department
of Justice is appreciated, sir.
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. And I can tell you are the kind of person
who cares deeply about preserving your reputation for
integrity. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Rosenstein. Well, I care about integrity. Preserving my
reputation is a secondary concern, but I certainly do care
about enforcing the rule of law.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
This is my question, if you receive an order from President
Trump to fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller, will you do
that or will you follow the example of Elliot Richardson's
integrity and refuse on principal to carry out such an order.
Mr. Rosenstein. I am in a little bit different position
than Elliot Richardson. I am familiar with the decision that he
made the history of the Watergate special counsel. I have a
Federal regulation and I am going to faithfully enforce that
regulation. The regulation provides that a special counsel may
be removed only for good cause and so it doesn't matter who
gives me an order, what that order is. If there isn't good
cause I would not fire the special counsel.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that answer.
VOTING RIGHTS
Mr. Rosenstein, I want to follow up on questioning that my
colleagues Mr. Kilmer from Washington State started about
voting rights. You are in a peculiar situation in the
Department of Justice these days because since the Shelby
County decision, it is up to the Department of Justice to go
out and prosecute violations of Voting Rights Act.
Previous to that, and during I would say the great bulk of
your career in the Department of Justice, the preclearance
requirement meant that the Department of Justice didn't have to
go out and start prosecutions of voting rights, irregularities.
Here is what I am leading up to, my question is is there a lack
of experience among prosecutors in the Department of Justice to
go out and initiate prosecutions and civil actions to
investigate and prosecute cases of voter suppression, the kinds
of cases that did not have to be brought until the Shelby
County decision? Do you understand my question?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Congressman. And I can assure you that
we have quite a few highly qualified and capable attornies and
I am confident we will have the expertise to investigate and if
appropriate to prosecute any violations that arise.
Mr. Cartwright. And is it your pledge, Mr. Rosenstein, to
do that, to uphold the integrity of the American electoral
process and to seek out voter suppression wherever it happens
in the United States and put a stop to it?
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, if any case has come to my
attention in which there has been a violation of law relating
to voting, then yes I would.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. I recognize Mrs.
Roby.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for being
here today. We appreciate you taking the time to be with us.
I want to talk about one criminal enterprise that doesn't
necessarily always grab the front page or garner much light in
the media, and worth every day conversations, and that is human
trafficking and particularly, specifically child sex
trafficking. We have to maintain a strong footing in law
enforcement to combat, dismantle and remove criminals in that
area from online websites, to messaging apps on phones, to
international safe haven for this type of behavior, law
enforcement agencies must have the tools and need the tools and
resources to contest this horrific and unfortunate growing
enterprise.
We oftentimes think about human trafficking in other parts
of the world. But we know that it is right here in our own
backyards. So I am interested for you to expand a little bit on
the programs that currently exist at DOJ to fight against these
types of crimes.
What partner agencies and programs do you work with? And
how well informed you believe local law enforcement is in these
areas? And how do you work in collaboration with them to make
sure that they are well informed but also have the appropriate
tools in place to combat these just horrible, horrible crimes.
Mr. Rosenstein. I have been working on child exploitation
cases for about 20 years. The first case I remember personally
handling was about 20 years ago as an assistant U.S. attorney
in Maryland. And I have continued to do that throughout my
tenure as a United States Attorney. That is a very pry high
priority for us. And I could talk about it a lot more than 2
minutes and 57 seconds which all I have. But let me tell you
that we consider it an extraordinarily high priority for the
Department of Justice. And there are many aspects to it, you
pointed out.
The first thing that we do is we have a commitment of
Federal resources. So from the perspective of the Department
that includes assistant U.S. attorneys throughout the country.
In my home district of Maryland for example, we have both a
child exploitation coordinator, in fact we have two offices,
two divisions within the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland so
we had two child exploitation coordinators, plus a separate
human trafficking coordinator. We would meet every two weeks to
talk about relevant cases within the office and make sure they
were all getting appropriate attention.
In addition to that, though, we coordinated our efforts
with State, local and Federal law enforcement. And so our child
exploitation human trafficking coordinators would work with
agents of our Federal, State and local agencies. Primarily on
the Federal level it is FBI and ICE, Homeland Security, that
work on child exploitation and sex trafficking cases, but we
also work very closely with our State and local partners
because cases often come to their attention first.
And so in Maryland, to use that as an example, we have
annual seminars where we gather together our partners from
throughout all the counties of Maryland to talk about these
issues and to make sure that we are using our State and Federal
authorities most effectively.
And there are many other aspects to this too. For example,
there is international sex trafficking. And we have cases where
people have been brought to the United States who have been
trafficked. And we also have had cases and I had some in
Maryland where people left America to abuse children overseas.
And that is also a violation of Federal law.
So it is a very important challenge and of course the
internet makes it all the more difficult, because it allows
people to communicate with like minded people and seek out
victims from the privacy of their own homes. So it raises a lot
of challenges, Congresswoman, and we are have committed to
doing that, very committed to addressing those challenges.
With regard to the budget in this fiscal year budget we are
requesting $89.6 million and 252 positions, which includes $45
million for the victims of trafficking programs grant, within
the Office of Justice Programs. We also request nearly $50
million specifically to combat sex tourism. It is a horrible
phenomenon of people traveling to places where it is less--
where it is either not illegal or where it is less enforced,
prohibitions against child sex abuse. We also maintain
financial support and commitment to fund the Adam Walsh Act and
there is $62.3 million committed to that.
So I can commit to you it is a high priority or me. I have
talked with Rachel Brand, our newly confirmed associate
attorney general who is responsible for supervising the civil
rights division. This is a civil rights issue as well. And we
are going to work together do everything we can to combat child
sex trafficking.
Mrs. Roby. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I have the unique
opportunity to not only serve on the Appropriations committee
and this subcommittee, but I also served on the Judiciary
Committee. So the funding is extremely important to make sure
that our law enforcement and others have the tools that we
need, these partnerships that you have already talked about.
But I have already worked with the Department of Justice,
we passed the Global Child Protection Act that did close some
very significant loopholes as it relates to sex tourism.
So I am committed to working on this issue with you, both
on the appropriations side, but also on the policy side as
well. So I hope that we can continue to have this conversation.
This is a serious, serious matter that is happening in every
single one of our districts all across this country and abroad
and we need to do all that we can to continue to combat it.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mrs. Roby. I recognize the
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Meng.
FBI DIRECTOR FIRING
Ms. Meng. Thank you Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein for
being here. I wanted to ask, you have previously met with then
Senator Sessions last winter and discussed Director Comey's
handling of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails. Is
that correct?
Mr. Rosenstein. I don't know that I specifically discussed
the handling of emails, but we certainly discussed the general
concerns about the importance of the FBI maintaining the
confidence of the American people, which means maintaining the
integrity of Federal investigations. Part of that is not
talking about Federal investigations and respecting the
policies and traditions of the Department of Justice.
Ms. Meng. How many times have you discussed Director Comey
with then Senator Sessions and then Attorney General Sessions
from October 2016 through May 9th, 2017?
Mr. Rosenstein. So I didn't meet then Senator Sessions. The
first time I ever met him would be early December so it
wouldn't go back as early as October. I couldn't put a firm
number on it. And I took office approximately, I believe it was
April 27th, and the decision to fire Director Comey was made
less than 2 weeks after that, a week and a half, I believe. And
so there may have been some conversations there. I just
couldn't put a firm number on it for you.
Ms. Meng. Has then Senator Sessions ever shared concerns
about Director Comey's actions in any of your conversations?
Mr. Rosenstein. In general I think yes. But I am not sure
if that is what you are asking, but yes.
Ms. Meng. Can you share any of that information?
Mr. Rosenstein. The as I discussed earlier, with regard to
the issue--maybe within the scope of the independent--the
special counsel's investigation, I am not going to be able to
comment on that publicly, so I can not talk about that.
What I can tell you, and I hope I have been clear about
this, is that from my perspective I wrote a memo that has been
cited with regard to the decision to replace the FBI director.
I was not motivated in any way by desire to interfere with any
investigation. And I think Director McCabe, acting director
McCabe, has clarified that there has been no interference with
an investigation. So that is from my perspective.
Ms. Meng. In October 2016, Senator Sessions went on TV and
praised Director Comey for his handling of the Clinton
investigation. Do you have any idea when he might have changed
his mind about Director Comey?
Mr. Rosenstein. I am not going to comment on what was in
anybody else's mind. As I said, I can tell you from my
perspective, my view about that issue has been consistent. It
is simply an issue of principle, it is not a personal matter.
It is my principle view. And I would have written the same memo
no matter who was President, because it reflects my view about
the appropriate role of the FBI.
ETHNICITY--VICTIMS OF CRIME
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I want to switch gears for a second.
Over the past several months I have received numerous
complaints from constituents that there has been a spike in
crime against members of the Asian American community in my
congressional district and around the country.
When looking into this problem I discovered that the most
recent Bureau of Justice Statistics, criminal victimization
report did not include an Asian American, Pacific Islander
victim category as in years past. In fact, it is just described
as others.
There are categories for example for age, for White, Black,
Hispanic, and then just an other. This hinders us from
measuring whether or not there has been in fact a spike in
crime within the API community. Can you commit to doing
everything in your power to ensure that victims within the API
community are counted in the same manner as other minorities
this coming year?
Mr. Rosenstein. You know, I will have to look into that,
Congresswoman, I am not familiar with that issue.
Coincidentally one of my first--actually maybe my first
event after becoming Deputy Attorney General was to speak at
the Asian American Pacific Islander event at the Department of
Justice. It was a recognition of a month to commemorate that
community that community, and I was proud to be there and we
had a good showing of folks throughout the Department. But this
issue I am not familiar with so I will look into it and get
back to you but I just don't have an answer at hand.
[The information follows:]
The Office of Justice Programs/Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) expects to receive the 2016 data files for the National
Crime Victimization Survey by the end June 2017. At that point,
BJS will assess the impact of increased sample sizes to
determine if it is possible to include violent crime estimates
for Asian-American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) persons in the 2016
Criminal Victimization report. If it is possible to provide
statistically sound estimates of victimization within the AAPI
community, BJS will report those estimates. In previous years,
despite the large sample size of the survey, a relatively small
number of people reported victimization. This makes it
difficult to provide reliable victimization rates for
demographic subgroups of the population.
Ms. Meng. I would appreciate you getting back to me. This
is really important so that public policymakers and law
enforcement officers are aware of any increase in crime
victimizations trends within the API community.
I yield back.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
It is my pleasure to recognize my friend and colleague from
Texas, Judge John Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you and thank you, Deputy Attorney
General Rosenstein. I appreciate you being here. I apologize
for being late, I was hosting the chief of staff of the Army in
a classified briefing that I set up for Members of Congress. I
couldn't break away until the last minute. I apologize for
being late.
I have a lot of interest in immigration because I have a
lot of responsibility in the area of Homeland Security. In
fiscal year 2015 and 2016 budgets we funded 80 new immigration
judge teams. Yet the immigration court backlog continues to
grow. The budget proposes an additional 75 new immigration
judge teams, which I am all for.
Does the DOJ have the infrastructure and courtrooms, in
addition do you have the ancillary staff and lawyers to staff
and place these judge teams? I have long been an advocate of
placing immigration judge teams close to the fight on the
border, place them with the men and women of the Customs and
Border Protection that are down there in the fight. Where do
you intend to place these teams? That is the beginning. I have
more questions, but I would like to talk about that first.
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you, Congressman, Judge Carter. I
think two responses, I did mention this earlier, but let me
repeat it since I realize you weren't in the room. We have two
issues with regard to staffing of our Executive Office of
Immigration Review.
The first is our budget request includes 75 new judges, and
not just individual judges but teams. As you certainty know, a
judge needs a support structure. So my impression is that the
money that we are requesting, $75 million, will allow us to
fund 75 judges and their teams, a total of 450 people. And
certainly that would include space, office space, and
equipment, and everything that they need in order to do their
job. That is one issue.
But the other issue, that you have highlighted, is that
there are vacancies within the judges who have been already
been authorized. In fact, we are currently working to fill 56
vacancies for immigration judges. The reason we have those
vacancies was there was some bureaucratic difficulties with the
hiring process. And I worked with our administrative folks,
some of them behind me, to improve that. And I think that we
are much better off now. We have a more efficient system in
place. So we will be able to bring people on board more
quickly.
We have already hired 38 immigration judges this year. And
we plan to have 345 judges on board by the end of this year.
And obviously if we are funded for additional judges, we will
be able to bring those on board as well. That will help, but as
you recognize the backlog just tremendous. I mean, the notion
that we have well over half million cases that are unresolved
and I understand it is maybe close to 600,000 cases now. We
need to get that under control.
So I have met with the new acting director of the Office of
Immigration Review, the previous director left the Department
just a few weeks ago. I met with the new acting director who
happens to be a judge so he is very familiar with the system.
He has been an immigration judge. And I have talked with him
about this challenge, and it is a big challenge. But if we get
the new people on board, we will be able I think to at least
stop increase in the caseload and then hopefully begin to make
progress on bringing it down, of.
And of course another important aspect of bringing it down
is to reduce the flow of new cases into the system. And if we
are effective in doing that, then over time, we will be able to
bring that under control. But it is a big challenge.
You also asked me about where they are going, and the
answer is we are going to send them where we need them most.
That will be based upon an analysis of where those backlogs are
most significant.
Mr. Carter. Thank you for the answers. I met with a--he
said he was a chief of immigration judges for our region along
with about 5 district judges down in the valley. And they were
telling real horror stories about not having a place to hang
their hat, not having anybody to help them, not having
courtrooms or spaces they could call a courtroom to be able to
hold the hearings. So I am glad you are on top of that issue
because you have a tremendous backlog.
And about the backlog, my staff has visited immigration
courts in Texas and reported on the frequent and repeated
administrative closings of immigration cases, specifically
stemming from the 2014 to 2016 surge of juveniles and family
units pouring across our southern border. Does the DOJ have any
intention of reopening any of these cases? This is a tremendous
number of people.
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, I am afraid I don't know the
answer to that, but I will be happy to look into it and get
back to you.
[The information follows:]
Administrative closure is used to temporarily remove a
pending case from the active docket of an immigration judge or
the Board of Immigration Appeals. Administrative closure does
not terminate the case, withdraw an existing Notice to Appear,
or result in a final order. As a result, administratively
closed cases are not subject to reopening because only cases
that have resulted in final orders may be reopened. Instead,
cases that have been administratively closed must be re-
calendared and placed back on the adjudicator's active docket.
Either DHS or a respondent may move to re-calendar a case that
has been administratively closed, and immigration judges or the
Board of Immigration Appeals will rule on such motions in
accordance with applicable law. Whether immigration judges or
the Board has the authority to sua sponte re-calendar an
administratively closed case is a legal question that has not
been resolved. Between October 1, 2013 and January 31, 2017,
the Department administratively closed 16,521 priority surge
cases.
Mr. Carter. I would hope that we would be able to reopen
those questions. I understand some of the compassion people
have, but the reality was they used a loophole in the law to
get into this country. And we need to at least have hearings to
see if they really have a credible fear. It is very important.
So thank you very much for what you do. And I look forward
to working with you.
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, judge. I understand the House
will be voting between 3:30 and 3:45 so I will keep my question
very short so I can pass it on to my good friend Mr. Serrano.
SOUTHWEST BORDER
I was pleased to see the Attorney General in April say that
he was going to make the southwest border ground zero in our
law enforcement effort to curb drug trafficking, human
trafficking.
And I wanted to ask you Attorney General Rosenstein, what
are the Department's short and long-term plans to deploy law
enforcement and ramp up prosecutions on the southwest border?
And what other changes will take place this year? And what do
you expect will be needed in the 2018 appropriations for the
Department of Justice to ensure that the law is enforced on the
southwest border?
Mr. Rosenstein. Well thank you, Congressman. In the short-
term we actually have surged resources by sending some
additional immigration judges to the southwest border. And we
have a plan to send assistant U.S. attorneys. It is primarily
an issue of Homeland Security, which is responsible for
policing the border and so they are responsible in the first
instance for controlling that.
But we do have programs within the Department, including--
our request includes $145 million to enhance border security
and immigration, that includes additional immigration judges as
we discussed, 70 more prosecutors, 40 deputy U.S. Marshals and
27 additional attorneys in the civil and environmental
divisions.
We also have programs that are implemented in some
districts, such as Operation Streamline, which is an effort to
prioritize immigration enforcement in our U.S. attorneys
offices. So I think all of those strategies, Congressman, will
have an impact.
As I said, the primary issue is to reduce the flow of
illegal aliens so we don't need to deal with this issue, but we
rely on Department of Homeland Security in the first instance
to maintain the integrity of the border.
Mr. Culberson. Operation Streamline was instigated in the
Del Rio sector by Federal District Judge Alia Moses who I
admire immensely, and she simply is enforcing existing law with
a compassionate heart and good sense.
She is using the tools at her disposal there to ensure
people that cross the border illegally that there is some
consequence. As the ICE director told us this morning, if there
is no consequence for violating the law then you can expect the
law is not going to be honored.
And to make sure that Operation Streamline is implemented
up and down the southwest border will you be asking for
additional prosecutors? Have people moved to the staffing,
prosecutors moved to the southwest border?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, that is correct. We have already
internally from existing resources. Over the next month I
anticipate we will be moving at least 10 prosecutors as a
short-term way to assist those border districts that have the
most significant challenge with immigration cases.
But in our budget we are requesting 70 additional border
prosecutors that would allow us to staff up and manage those
cases.
Mr. Culberson. I want to also echo my support with what the
Judge Carter is asking about, is to encourage you to expedite
the hiring of immigration judges and moving them to the
southwest border as soon as rapidly as possible.
I will yield back the balance of my time in order to
expedite this and help. I recognize my friend judge--Mr.
Serrano from New York.
Mr. Serrano. Judge? I played a judge once on Law and Order.
It is a true story.
FBI DIRECTOR FIRING
Mr. Rosenstein, last week former Director Comey testified
that he shared his concerns with you regarding the President's
meeting with him in asking him to let the Michael Flynn thing
go. Director Comey said, quote, ``I spoke to the Attorney
General and I spoke to the new Deputy Attorney General, Mr.
Rosenstein, when he took office. And I explained my serious
concern about the way in which the President is interacting
especially with the FBI.'' end of quote.
Did you have such a meeting with the then Director Comey?
Did he share his concerns over the one-on-one meeting with you?
And what was your response?
Mr. Rosenstein. I did have meetings with Director Comey
during our brief period in which we overlapped in this
administration. And I am not sure exactly if that is what he
said in his testimony, Congressman, but as I described earlier,
I am not going to be testifying publicly at this time about any
interactions I had that may be relevant to the Special Counsel
investigation.
I understand Director Comey did and I don't fault him for
it. He is no longer a representative of the government. He has
his own independent decision-making process, but for me, I
think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss that in a
public hearing at this time.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Former U.S. attorney for the Southern
District of New York, Mr. Bharara recently revealed that
President Trump called him directly three times during his
first weeks in office and he was fired shortly after refusing
the third call. This seems highly unusual to say the least.
As a former U.S. Attorney from the State of Maryland, from
2005 until earlier this year, were you every contacted directly
by the President of the United States? Would you say that such
contact with a U.S. attorney is unusual.
Mr. Rosenstein. I would say it is unusual, that doesn't
mean it is illegal or wrong. But yes, sir, I agree, it is
unusual.
Mr. Serrano. Prior to this statement by Mr. Bharara, were
you aware that President Trump had directly contacted him? Why
do you think the President would take such a step?
Mr. Rosenstein. I don't have any opinion, Congressman,
about why that occurred.
Mr. Serrano. But your statement is still that it is
unusual.
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Mr. Chairman if our colleagues get in
the time they want, I would like to ask a very short question
at the end.
Mr. Culberson. Certainly.
Mr. Serrano. I would love to ask it now, but that is going
a little bit overboard.
Mr. Culberson. Very good. Mr. Rogers.
OPIOID EPIDEMIC
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, let me get
back opioids. When we had that terrible outbreak in my area 12,
13 years ago, we put together finally an organization of people
of faith, law enforcement, people in treatment, and so on. And
created an organization with a three-pronged attack on the
problem, the holistic approach, and called it UNITE, which
stands for, Unlawful Narcotics Investigations Treatment
Education.
And that organization still is going full blast. They have
put in jail some 4,500 pushers. It covers about half of the
State of Kentucky, but it is not a governmental agency and it
is quasi and it works. And it is able to do a lot of things the
government can't do like involve churches, people of faith, law
enforcement, people from the Sheriff's offices to the city
police and Federal, State and local. A highly successful
organization only because I think it was able to marshal a
regional coalition, something much larger than a locality. And
we drew information from all sorts of people thereby because it
was this large regional outfit.
The CARA Act, that we passed, now for the first time
authorizes grants to regional organizations, not just
localities, like UNITE. And I really strongly encourage that,
because it is the only thing that I found in my experience that
really works.
Now we took UNITE to the national level that holistic
approach. The UNITE organization decided hey, this thing works,
lets expose it to a larger audience. And we started a national
summit on prescription abuse in Orlando for 3 or 4 years. Now
it has been moved to Atlanta.
In April, the sixth annual summit we had some 3,000 people
there from every State and seven countries. The session number
5 we had the President, we will have the Attorney General, we
will have governors, Senators, CDC, NIH and so on. All of the
relevant players in one place, which is terribly important.
Number one, I want to encourage you and the Department to
take part in the summit next year, but more importantly to
recognize these regional organizations, that now can be funded,
can healthfully be funded, through the CARA Act.
What do you think of that?
Mr. Rosenstein. I agree with your approach, Congressman.
Sometimes you hear people debate whether drug abuse is a law
enforcement problem or a public health challenge. And I think
that is a false choice, it is both. And we need support from
law enforcement, and from public health providers, and from
educators, and parents, and religious leaders. We need help
from everybody to deal with this challenge.
Because you describe the UNITE program in three steps, the
three steps that I am accustomed to using are to talk about
prevention, intervention and prosecution. And prosecution's an
important part. It is what we do best and uniquely in the
Department of Justice, but that is not the only solution to
this problem. So I agree with you, I think a united approach, a
comprehensive approach, what the DEA calls a 360 approach is
critical if we are going to solve this problem.
With regard to CARA, I would point out that we have
requested for opioid abuse, we have requested $20 million this
year as opposed to $13 million last year. So that budget does
reflect that there are some cuts in some areas and it reflects
an increase in the amount of money devoted to opioids.
But this is not just a Federal issue before I came to D.C.
we were working with the Governor in Maryland and his team, in
developing strategy, and the Attorney General, without regard
to politics because they are different parties, but we were all
working together to try to come to terms with this because this
is I believe a terrible epidemic that is a visiting tragedy on
many American families.
And we all do need to work together and get all hands on
deck to address this from every perspective to make sure that
we teach people to avoid this and we teach doctors to avoid
getting people hooked, and we stop the criminals who are
bringing these drugs illegally into our communities.
Mr. Rogers. One of the big reasons why a regional coalition
works for example, UNITE was able to get all 45 counties to
join together into a single unit. And then authorized law
enforcement to have jurisdiction, in all of those counties, so
we could have a strike force where you had a small county with
a sheriff and five city policemen, they can do nothing. But if
we can bring in people from other counties, in mass numbers,
and make the buys, and make the arrests, which we have done,
then it works, only because we had this coalition of localities
in a regional organization. So I strongly encourage that.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me encourage also you to not
cut the funding for the prescription drug monitoring programs,
they really have made a big difference and now we are trying to
get them all wired together and that takes money.
So I hope that the grant programs for PDMPs, can be
continued and that you will bring Missouri into the fold.
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, that was an important issue
for me in Maryland and I am very familiar with that and I
worked on the opioid task force of the previous administration,
and I worked with officials in Maryland in implementing a PDMP,
a prescription drug monitoring program in Maryland. They varied
throughout the country. And they are all called PDMP's but they
vary in the extent to which they share information with law
enforcement. But that can be a really valuable tool. In our
current budget we are proposing $12 million to continue that
effort nationally.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With permission, I
would like to yield to our ranking member.
Mr. Culberson. You are recognized.
PUERTO RICO PLEBISCITE
Mr. Serrano. I will try to make this as fast as possible, a
totally different subject.
My birth place Puerto Rico, we put in money and Mr.
Culberson put in for us, $2\1/2\ million to hold a plebiscite
in Puerto Rico. And the way the language read is that the
ballot, voter education, and everything surrounding that
election had to be approved by the Justice Department, we were
thrilled with that because it would be the first time in 119
years that Puerto Rico would have a Federally sponsored
question on its status.
The Justice Department came back in a bizarre moment, I
think, and said, you must include the current status on the
ballot. And people like myself said, but the current status is
a problem. We are trying to change it to independent,
statehood, something else, associated Republic, not the
colonialism that we have now. So they did it they went back to
the legislation and changed the ballot. The Justice Department
never responded. They had to vote on Sunday, the turnout is out
there--I mean, the results are out there.
Question number one, as far as the money goes, is that a
dead issue? Can with we do something interactively?
And number two, will the Justice Department be in any way
looking at those results or at least saying that the ballot--
not saying--I am sorry, looking to see if that new ballot met
the requirements?
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you, Congressman, this issue came to
my attention yesterday as I was preparing for this hearing. And
my understanding based on the staffers that I have talked with
is that as you describe they were required to make a review of
the ballot. They made a determination with regard to the first
version that there was in their good faith opinion a flaw in
the ballot and they made a request to fix it.
And then my understanding is that the Representatives of
Puerto Rico came back with their proposed ballot and with a
date for the plebiscite that was in the very immediate future.
And we simply didn't have time to review it.
Now my understanding from folks I talked with, Congressman,
is that they were operating in good faith in their judgment.
That is very unfortunate that it developed the way it did. I
don't know what we can do now to remedy it, but I will commit
to you--as I said, I just learned about it yesterday--But I
will look into it and I will try to get back to you after the
hearing when I have further information about it.
[The information follows:]
The Department appreciates your interest in the Puerto Rico
plebiscite and responded to your letter (co-signed by Chairman
Culberson) on July 19, 2017. Thank you for your patience as the
Department worked to respond to the questions that you raised
in your letter and to the Puerto Rico Governor's Office.
Mr. Serrano. That is good enough for me. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rosenstein. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. And thank you.
Mr. Culberson. You still have 2 minutes left, if you would
like to ask a follow up.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman. I will actually very
briefly.
COPS GRANT FUNDING
I was actually please to see that the budget proposed an
increase in funding for the COPS program. We have seen great
value in our neck of the woods with that program, and it is not
just with regard to putting more law enforcements on the
street, but also by pursuing more community policing
opportunities. One of those very successful examples of that
was the Project PEACE effort in Tacoma, which actually was a
collaboration between the police department and community
members.
I would like to just get your sense of will the department
continue to support the mission of the COPS program, and that
work toward collaborative policing and improved community
police relations? And moreover, do you think that the
additional funds that are requested in this meet the level of
demand for increased community policing?
Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, Congressman, we will continue to
support the COPS program. I met with the leadership at the COPS
office, and I talked with them about my view of how important
it is. And there are places in the country where we do need
support for local law enforcement. And that COPS programs
provides us with a valuable opportunity to support our State
and local partners.
I think you recognize, we all recognize that most of our
law enforcement agencies are trying it do the right thing.
Sometimes they don't have the training they need, sometimes
they don't have the tools that they need. And sometimes there
are willful violations, and when there are, we deal with them
appropriately.
But that COPS funding, which we have requested will allow
us to help support State and local law enforcement to make sure
that they are in compliance with Federal constitutional
requirements. And I believe that that will help us in promoting
public safety throughout the country.
So with regard to your question about whether it is an
appropriate amount, as we discussed, it is always a balance as
to, you know, where it is appropriate to spend the money. But I
can commit to you that with the request that we made, if that
program is funded, we are going to make sure that money is used
effectively to achieve those goals.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. It looks like they are just about to call a
vote on the floor. Mr. Jenkins.
DEA 360 PROGRAM
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank you for the DEA's work on the 360 program and
I appreciate the fact that I think it has either been kicked
off or one of the early designated locations as Charleston,
West Virginia. So thank you for your investment and your
attention to our State and the opioid epidemic.
We do notice that and I have had some discussions with FBI
officials about the fact that there are six residency agency
locations in West Virginia, but only one of which is in the 3rd
congressional district. And we had a discussion about the need
for an additional location, potentially in Rowley County,
Beckley. Do you have any information about the status of that
request and what the FBI's potential investment or a new
location in West Virginia might be?
Mr. Rosenstein. From what I understand about that,
congressman, is that it has been a number of years since the
FBI has had an RA in Beckley, West Virginia. The Bureau's
Pittsburgh field office currently oversees West Virginia and
there are five RAs covering the entire State.
But I do know the FBI routinely reevaluates its footprint
to ensure its offices are adequately manned and resourced. The
current RA, as I am sure you are aware, are in Wheeling,
Huntington, Charleston, Martinsburg and Clarksburg. And I will
talk with the acting director and once confirmed the new
director about whether there with is a need for sixth.
Obviously those are difficult decisions. I know from my own
experience as a prosecutor we like to have them everywhere, but
there are limits on our resources, number one.
Number two, there are benefits to having our agents grouped
together, rather than spreading them out too broadly, it is
valuable to have teams or squads of agents who are co-located
and work together. So there are a number of conflicting
challenges there. The most important thing is we need to make
sure we have appropriate resources to enforce Federal law in
those areas, West Virginia, I will make sure that we do.
Mr. Jenkins. I appreciate that. Clearly we have an area of
need, high intensity area from a per capita. Virtually no place
else in the country has as serious a problem. We need to put
resources where the problem is and that is in my district in
West Virginia.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Cartwright.
US PAROLE COMMISSION
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenstein, I
want to invite your attention to the issue of notification to
families of victims of crime, notifications of parole hearings.
We had this issue come up in my district and--let me see if I
can find that--my constituent whose name is Thomas Halpin
called my attention to the lack of timely notification of
victims families before a parole hearing.
Here is what happened, Mr. Halpin's sister and brother-in-
law were the victim of a brutal murder 30 years ago. The man
who killed this couple is currently serving a life sentence
with the possibility for parole. Mr. Halpin and his family
vigorously oppose parole for their sister's murderer. And under
the Crime Victims' Rights Act they have the ``right to
reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
proceeding or any parole proceeding involving the crime, or of
any release, or escape of the accused.''
Mr. Halpin informed me that he did not receive adequate
notice in advance of the most recent parole hearing which
occurred on March 7 of this year.
The family has experienced a tremendous hardship every time
parole comes up for the criminal. I believe the least we can do
is provide them adequate notice so they can provide testimony
in advance of the hearing. It is my understanding there is no
standard timeframe for notifying victims and families in
advance of parole hearings. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Rosenstein. Congressman, I regret I do not know the
answer to that, but I will certainly look into it for you.
[The information follows:]
There is no standard timeframe for notifying victims and
families in advance of parole hearings specified by statute,
legislation, or the Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and
Witness Assistance (2012 edition). However, the United States
Parole Commission (USPC) has internal procedural guidance that
provides that notifications will be completed 45 to 60 days
before the week of the scheduled parole docket.
Mr. Cartwright. That is the right answer. I don't want you
to guess.
Can you explain the logistical decisionmaking process for
determining when and under what circumstances such
notifications might be made? And do you feel the commission has
sufficient resources, that is what this committee is about, to
provide reasonable notice to victims before hearings?
Mr. Rosenstein. I agree with you 100 percent, it is
important for us to make sure we do provide notice to victims.
The parole commission, that is new to me, I didn't have
responsibility for that in any of my previous positions in the
Department. Patricia Smooth is currently the director, the
acting director in the parole commission. I will talk with her
about that or the chair.
But I don't know hopefully that is an isolated case as
opposed to evidence of a systemic problem I think even in our
office where we made our best efforts. There would occasionally
be a case where a mistake was made and for some reason we were
unable to give appropriate notice of a matter where a victim
had a right to notice.
So what I can tell you is I will look into that general
issue and that particular case. And with your permission we
will get back to you after the hearing and I will let you know
what we find out.
[The information follows:]
The United States Parole Commission (USPC) provides
notification for its parole-related proceedings. This includes
actions relating to release, change in offender status, changes
on parole, and termination (when applicable). All persons
identified as a crime victim or victim representative are
eligible for notification. If a victim and/or representative is
located, USPC attempts to contact the person by sending a
notification letter. When a response is received, victims and/
or their representative may elect to participate in parole
proceedings in person, by video teleconference, by audio
statement or by written testimony.
Attorneys, family members, relatives, friends, or other
interested persons may submit written correspondence to the
Commission at least 30 days before the scheduled docket, for
consideration and inclusion in the hearing. There are instances
where victims and/or representatives contact the USPC after
this time period and Victim Services Program (VSP) along with
the United States Attorney's Office makes every effort to
ensure participation.
When the USPC is scheduled to hold hearings, its Operations
Division carries out a review of eligible cases and receives
documentation from the Bureau of Prisons 60 days in advance of
the scheduled docket. The VSP then reviews all cases to
identify those that include a violent crime and/or fraud--to
determine if notification is required and to identify the
eligible victims or representatives. The VSP sends out
notifications within 45 to 60 days of the scheduled docket
week. In cases where there are no previously registered victims
and/or representatives, the VSP must research contacts using
original case records. If the information is outdated, the
Commission then searches several proprietary record databases
to locate current contact information for the victim and/or
next of kin.
The USPC has access to a wide range of resources that serve
to aid victims that are involved in parole proceedings and
continues to improve the services it provides.
Mr. Cartwright. I will be obliged on behalf of the Halpin
family and any other family so inconvenienced. I will
appreciate working with you on the issue.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. We are down to
the 9\1/2\ minutes in the vote. I understand any additional
questions we have we will submit for the record.
Mr. Rosenstein, I want to thank you for your appearance
here today and for your service to the country.
The Subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, June 21, 2017.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WITNESS
ANDREW G. MCCABE, ACTING DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Culberson. The Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations Subcommittee will come to order. The
Subcommittee is pleased to welcome today Acting Director Andrew
McCabe to present the fiscal year 2018 budget request for the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI is our premier Federal
law enforcement and domestic intelligence agency which often
makes headlines, whether the topic is terrorism, cyber threats,
espionage, or international organized crime. The FBI leads
antiterrorism, counter intelligence and national security
efforts, while also combating gangs, financial fraud, human
trafficking, and public corruption. It is the indispensable
partner to State and local law enforcement agencies and our
liaison with Federal law enforcement partners.
We are very grateful that the FBI is leading the
investigation into the Wednesday morning shooting at the
congressional baseball practice. We are deeply grateful for the
work that your officers do every day, and for looking into this
terrible tragedy. We are very, very grateful for the work, the
courageous work of the Capitol Police, the law enforcement
officers of Alexandria who saved a lot of lives that morning,
and for all the first responders who came out to help.
Our thoughts and prayers are with our Whip, Majority Whip,
Steve Scalise, Zachary Barth, Matt Mika, Special Agent David
Bailey and Special Agent Crystal Griner, who are the victims of
this senseless crime, and we pray for their quick recovery.
The threats that face our country, Director, and the safety
of all Americans appearing to be growing in range from
terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, and ISIS, espionage,
cybercrime, international organizations, who traffic in both
humans and drugs in violent crime. I am particularly concerned
about the terrible epidemic of human trafficking which,
unfortunately, Houston, Texas and Interstate 10 has been a hub
for too much of that. There are too many young women whose
lives have been destroyed in this terrible traffic. I look
forward to visiting with you about what the FBI can do and is
doing, and what the Subcommittee can do to help support your
work to fight human trafficking and exploitation of young
women.
Above all, we want the men and women of the FBI to know how
immensely proud this Subcommittee is and the Congress is of
their work, and that we will work together, Mr. Serrano and I,
arm in arm, to support you, to help you with the resources that
you need to continue your important work to protect this great
Nation.
We are, however, facing a difficult budget situation. Mr.
Director, there is an unrelenting pressure to trim budgets. We
have also to ensure our constituents that their hard-earned tax
dollars are being spent wisely, and frugally, and effectively.
We are immensely grateful to you, sir, for your service to the
Nation, and pleased to have you here today.
And before we proceed, however, I would like to recognize
the ranking member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Serrano, for his comments.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join
you in welcoming Acting Director McCabe before the
Subcommittee.
This is a turbulent time for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, for reasons not of the Bureau's making. I think
it is important, however, that we take a moment today to thank
the rank and file of the FBI for their hard work and service to
our Nation. Please, Mr. Director, pass along our gratitude to
the FBI agents and professional staff around the Nation and
abroad.
As a career FBI employee, I am glad that the Acting
Director has a chance to testify before us this afternoon. I
believe that your insights into the agency in the wake of
Director Comey's firing are vitally important in helping us to
understand the impact of that action, and subsequent statements
by the President on agency morale.
The FBI's fiscal year 2018 budget request includes a slight
reduction of $44.6 million from the amount in fiscal year 2017.
This is somewhat ironic, given the fact that a majority of FBI
budget falls under the Defense spending side of the ledger
where the President has proposed a $54 billion increase.
Apparently, none of that increase is for the FBI.
Given your important role in protecting our Nation, this is
very troubling. I am mostly concerned that the Justice
Department is in the process of giving less priority to
critical civil rights and voting rights protections that have
long been upheld by the Department. The FBI plays a crucial
role in investigating violations of our Federal civil rights
laws, including under the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights
Act, and the color of law violations. And it is important that
your ability to maintain these important roles is maintained. I
hope we can discuss your ongoing efforts today in the context
of the policy changes being put forward by the Attorney
General.
Additionally, I am interested in discussing your execution
of the NICS system which conducts criminal background checks
for firearm purchases. You have requested 136 fewer personnel
to conduct background checks in 2018. This is problematic
because this reduction will increase delays, allow more sales
to go forward after 3 days without the necessary check, and
likely increase over time for an already overworked staff. This
proposed cut seems like an unwise decision that will harm
public safety.
Lastly, I think it is important to discuss the ongoing
investigation into Russia's interference into last year's
election. I am curious about how your work in this area
dovetails with the ongoing investigation by the Special
Prosecutor, and whether any FBI personnel or resources have
been detailed to Director Mueller.
Thank you for your service, sir, as Acting Director and
other parts of the Department. I look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Director McCabe, we are delighted to have you with us
today, and you are recognized for an opening statement. Your
written statement will be entered into the record in its
entirety without objection. And if you could keep your remarks
to 5 minutes, we would be very grateful. Thank you for being
with us today, sir.
Mr. McCabe. Thanks, members of the Subcommittee, for having
me here. Thank you for your support of the men and women of the
FBI. We could have all the money in world, all the best
technology, but without the amazing people of the FBI, we won't
be able to keep the American people safe. I am proud of these
individuals and I am grateful for their dedication and their
hard work. We are all grateful for your continued support for
our mission.
As you know, the FBI is in a time of transition. It has not
been easy on any of us. Director Comey was a thoughtful and
inspiring leader. He fostered a number of priorities to make
the FBI better and stronger, from improvements in the way we
collect, use, and share intelligence, to our cyber programs, to
leadership and diversity issues. We are going to do our best to
make sure we continue to make progress in all of those areas.
The threats we face are constantly evolving. We, too, must
continuously examine the way we can do business to ensure that
we are doing everything we can in the best way that we can. I
firmly believe that the FBI maintains a sacred trust with the
American people to protect them and uphold the Constitution. We
do that with the precious resources that those people and this
Committee give us. So, a fundamental element of that sacred
trust is making sure that we are always good stewards of the
taxpayers' money.
We have tried to be good stewards of the funding provided,
and we have been conservative in our budget requests. We ask
for what we need, and when we need extra in certain areas, we
do not hesitate to tell you. And, yes, I have a few of those
extras to talk to you about today.
The FBI's budget request this year proposes a total of $8.7
billion for Salaries and Expenses. This will support 33,533
positions: 12,484 of which are Special Agents; 2,950 of which
are Intelligence Analysts; and 18,099 are Professional Staff.
We need every single one of those people. They are the
lifeblood of the FBI. They are, over and beyond everything
else, our best and most impactful resource.
Now to be clear, the fiscal year 2018 budget represents a
decrease of more than $400 million from the fiscal year 2017
levels. This will result in a net reduction of over 1,600
positions and more than $44 million for Salaries and Expenses.
So let me shift briefly to program enhancements. I would
like to highlight a few of the things we requested. First and
foremost in cyber, we asked for $41.5 million to build on our
cyber capabilities. These are investigative capabilities,
collection capabilities, and analytic capacity. The frequency
and impact of cyber attacks on our networks has increased
dramatically. We need to shift from reacting after the fact to
preventing such attacks before they occur. We have to collect
the best intelligence and we have to share it with our partners
both in law enforcement and in the private sector in real time;
and to do that, we have to hire and develop the best cyber
talent.
In the counterintelligence area, we are asking for $19.7
million to counter threats from foreign intelligence services.
We will also use these resources to focus on insider threats
from trusted employees and contractors. In the area that we
refer to as going dark, we have asked for $21.6 million to
address this problem. And I can tell you, sir, this is more
than just getting into locked devices or communications, which
is certainly a part of the issue, but it is not the entirety of
it. Going dark is impacting our ability to execute lawful court
orders on electronic devices across the spectrum, and that is a
growing problem.
Of course, we still have our priority of violent crime.
Violent crime remains one of our highest priorities, for good
reason, and it is one of the things that challenges our
partners at the State, local and tribal level every single day.
We are asking for 33 positions and $3.4 million to implement
recommendations from the Attorney General's Task Force on Crime
Reduction and Public Safety. In the surveillance area, we have
asked for an additional $8.2 million to sustain our
surveillance capabilities.
As you know, sir, that period of time within which a
counterterrorism target proceeds from merely being radicalized
to deciding to operationalize their intent has condensed over
the last several years. We are most concerned with modalities
that include vehicles and bladed weapons, some of which we have
seen, in fact, earlier today in Michigan, which will further
compress that time that we refer to as from flash-to-bang. One
of our best tools against that threat is lawful surveillance.
If you will give me just a minute, I will talk about one of
our highest legislative priorities for this year, truly our
most important legislative priority, and that is the
reauthorization of FISA section 702.
As you know, section 702 gives us the authority to collect
foreign intelligence from foreign persons we believe to be
outside the United States. And this intelligence is incredibly
important to us. It is a tool the entire U.S. Government
benefits from, and it is one that if we lose it, this country
will be less safe. Without it, we do not have a window into the
activities of the terrorists, spies, the weapons proliferators,
and other foreign adversaries who may be coming after us. We
don't know what they are planning, we don't know who they are
recruiting. And we might not know what is coming our way.
As you know, the program undergoes vigorous oversight from
the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and that is
just the way we want it to be.
We are also asking for resources to disrupt transnational
criminal syndicates, to process increased number of NICS checks
per year, and to maintain our Biometrics Technology Center.
These enhancements are important and necessary. And we know
that we can always count on the resources we need to keep the
country safe, and as I said, we are very grateful for that.
In conclusion, our leadership has changed, but the
fundamental things about the FBI will never change. Our
commitment to keeping the American people safe, our fidelity to
the Constitution and the rule of law, and our core values:
respect, compassion, fairness, integrity, accountability,
leadership and diversity, and, of course, adherence to the
Constitution. These are the values that have made the FBI what
it is today. We will stay focused on the mission, we will keep
doing great work with your support, because the American people
deserve no less.
With that, I am happy to take your questions.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Director McCabe.
Your salaries and expenses request this year is $45 million
below the enacted 2017 appropriation, although I know this is
the result of the assumption that the OMB made that we would be
under a continuing resolution, which fortunately did not
happen, I do not want to get you crosswise with OMB, but the
request appears to leave the FBI with a hole to fill and help
us assist you with that. I wanted to ask, how would this
reduction affect the FBI's ability to address terrorism and
homegrown violent extremism? And how would it impact priority
investigations?
Mr. McCabe. Sure. So it will certainly impact us in many
ways. It is a broad and deep enough reduction that it will
touch every program. It will touch Headquarters and it will
touch our Field Offices. It is a reduction that is not possible
to take entirely against vacancies, it is a reduction that will
touch every description of employee within the FBI. So we will
lose Agent positions, we will lose Analyst positions, and, of
course, Professional Staff.
As you know, sir, we went through a period of sequestration
a few years ago where we reduced 3,000 positions during the
course of sequestration. It has taken us quite some time to
hire our way back up to full strength. We are on target to be
at very close to full strength by the end of this year, and the
reductions that you have described will take us backwards a
step.
Mr. Culberson. Those, of course, just are recommendations.
This subcommittee will have the final word on that. And you
know how strongly we support your work and will do our very
best to help you deal with that.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Make sure you do not have any adverse
impact. The FBI requested an $8 million increase for
surveillance of high-priority targets. Why is that a priority?
And how is the FBI meeting your current surveillance needs?
Mr. McCabe. So as I said, sir, we are in good shape right
now. That $8 million is all personnel funding. It essentially
enables us to protect about 78 positions that would likely have
been added to the reductions that we have discussed. The
demands we have placed on our surveillance teams over the last
several years has just been enormous. As the number of
homegrown violent extremists, the number of counterintelligence
targets, and those folks that we need to keep a very close eye
on grows, sometimes on a day-to-day, 24-hour basis, those
resources become all the more important. So a reduction in that
area is particularly tough for us.
Mr. Culberson. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we
have a real concern in the Houston area, it affects the whole
country, but unfortunately, because of I-10 and Houston's
location, we have a terrible problem with young women being
exploited and sold into slavery. It is just a catastrophic and
heartbreaking situation. Could you talk to us about the work
the FBI it doing to help fight human trafficking?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir. Particularly down in the southwest
border area where we have, as you know, five field offices and
11 RA's that address border issues. We have made a significant
investment in terms of our safe streets task Forces and the
work we do with our partners at DEA, DHS, CBP and others.
Frequently, we find the same transnational organized crime
groups that are engaged in narcotics trafficking are also
engaged in human trafficking. So it is that combined work that
we do in the task force environment that lets us be as
productive and effective as we possibly can be. But we
recognize that as a growing threat, and it is an area where we
want to keep focused very closely and make sure that we have
the right folks doing that work.
Mr. Culberson. Is the budget request satisfactory in this
regard? And what can the committee do to help ensure that--what
additional resources do you need to really be--to beat back
this terrible epidemic?
Mr. McCabe. I think the most valuable thing for us at this
point, sir, would be to try to restore those reductions that we
are likely to sustain in 2017.
Mr. Culberson. One of the main challenges the FBI is
encountering is regarding the supply chain, particularly with
the concern we all have on back doors or Trojan horses being
built into hardware.
Mr. McCabe. Yes. An incredibly important area right now and
one that we have really tried to expand the amount of outreach
that we are doing across the government and across the private
sector. We are in a unique position to see those threats coming
in from the work that we do on the counterintelligence side,
particularly. And so we have tried to spread that word
utilizing things like the best practices document that I know
you are familiar with, to let folks know that these are the
threats they need to be aware of, particularly across the
government as they require high-tech infrastructure for their
system.
I think it is also important, and it has been great to see
in the last several months, the new administration has a deep
interest in addressing some of the things we have seen from the
CFIUS program. I think there are a lot of ways we can be more
effective in terms of monitoring foreign investment,
particularly in our high tech industries.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Director. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am concerned that the special counsel you appoint to
investigate the ties between the administration and Russia will
not have adequate resources. Is the Special Counsel being
provided with full access to all FBI resources needed for an
investigation?
Mr. McCabe. He is, sir, he is. I can assure you of that. I
have had many, many interactions with the Special Counsel and
his representatives. In fact, we are meeting in the next 24
hours to discuss exactly that. We have a great number of folks
who have already been detailed to that team. And I have assured
Director Mueller that we will do everything necessary to
deliver the resources and to meet the needs that he has to do
that work.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you for your answer. Is the FBI
investigation continuing concurrently with the Special Counsel
investigation, or have all resources and necessary personnel
been transferred to Director Mueller's office?
Mr. McCabe. All the resources necessary to conduct the
investigation that Director Mueller is now responsible for have
been assigned to that effort under Director Mueller. It is
important to note, though, sir, that the FBI continues to
maintain responsibility for counterintelligence issues writ
large against all of our foreign adversaries, and certainly
including our Russian adversaries. So we still do work in the
Russia counterintelligence space, but we are careful to leave
what is the Special Counsel's to the Special Counsel.
Mr. Serrano. To make a lead-in as short as possible for my
question, Director Comey had felt uncomfortable, he said, and
told General Sessions about meeting with the President. So my
question to you is, have you met President Trump? How many
times? And when were those meetings? Who else attended it those
meetings? And would you feel uncomfortable meeting alone with
the President?
Mr. McCabe. I have met with President Trump on very few
occasions, and those have all been occasions where there were
many other people present. I have not felt uncomfortable in
those meetings. I am sorry, what was the rest of your question?
Mr. Serrano. If you would feel uncomfortable meeting with
the President alone?
Mr. McCabe. So as you know, we have a well-developed and
long-known White House contacts policy between the Department
of Justice, the FBI and the White House. And I am aware of what
that policy is, and I do everything I can to ensure that my
contacts with the White House, be they with President Trump or
anyone else, are within the scope of that policy. I have talked
to the Deputy Attorney General about that, and any contact that
I have would have with the President would be approved by the
Deputy Attorney General first.
Mr. Serrano. These are questions that have to be asked
because they are on the public's mind, and we need to know.
Have you been asked for loyalty oath by the President? If not,
what would you do if you were?
Mr. McCabe. So I will answer the second part first if that
is okay. I have taken an oath already to the United States of
America to protect and defend the Constitution. That is the
only oath I will take. So that is not really an issue for me.
Regarding specific conversations that I have had with the
President, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to
discuss in this forum.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. One last question because my time is
running out, is something that came up the other day, and we
were thinking when Mr. Rogers from Kentucky was chairman of the
committee, and I was his ranking member right after 9/11, he
gave a lot of money to the FBI.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Rightfully so, I went along with it. It was a
lot of money. Year later, I asked Director Mueller at another
hearing, do you think--I have to word this properly, because
terrorism is our main focus--did we play more heavily on the
terrorism part and give a pass maybe to white collar criminals,
to drug dealers, to public corruption and so on? At that time,
he said there had been an overemphasizing on the part of
terrorism. He said it carefully because we knew what he meant,
but are we back to a situation where you can handle both where
the Department can deal with both so that the guys selling
drugs in my community or supplying the drugs to my community is
not getting away with it?
Mr. McCabe. So I think I can best answer your question,
sir, by saying, I think we are in the right place now in terms
of the emphasis and the resources we put on those very
divergent programs. There is no question that our criminal
threats continue to bedevil this country in the same way they
do the FBI. We exercise constant vigilance against those
threats, and we are constantly reprioritizing where we need to
put our precious resources and our personnel. Could we do more
with more? Sure, but we understand that the resources are
finite, and that the committee has many different agencies and
programs they have to support.
So at the same time, I think that period that you referred
to after 9/11, we were standing up, really, our capability as
an intelligence organization and our response to the terrorism
threat, which really required a very quick and a broad and deep
evolution in our approach to it. I feel pretty comfortable to
say that we have done that hard work. We are in a very
different place today than we were about 10 or 15 years ago.
Mr. Serrano. Well, rest assured I will support the chairman
in making sure that you continue to have the resources to be
able to do both, because they are both important.
Mr. McCabe. They are, sir, they are.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
I recognize the former chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Former chairman of
this committee, which I thoroughly enjoyed.
Mr. Director, welcome.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. I want to talk to you briefly about
transnational criminal organizations, and the impact of those
groups on the flood of narcotics coming into our country by way
of Mexico, primarily. What can you tell us about what you are
doing to try to disrupt those criminal organizations and the
finances that are generated thereby to allow them to do bad
criminal things?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So we see it the same way
that you do. We are looking at----
Mr. Rogers. Use the microphone there.
Mr. McCabe. Is that better?
Mr. Rogers. I cannot hear you.
Mr. McCabe. Is it working? I will try to speak a little
louder. It is late in the day, maybe I am a little hoarse.
So we see it the same way that you do. We think that is the
place for FBI resources to focus in this fight. There is a lot
of work being done across the country, particularly by our
State and local colleagues, but the place where we can add the
most value is by bringing our enterprise theory of
investigation to those sorts of transnational organized crime
groups. We have done that by doubling the number of task forces
that we have working that work. We have done that by bringing
our white collar experts into this fight by having agents
specifically addressing the abuse of prescription opioids and
how that leads to heroin abuse and overdoses that are plaguing
so many of our cities. We have done that by activating our
Legats in places like Mexico City and other places on the other
side of the border to help us to better liaison and interact
with our colleagues where some of these groups are emanating
from.
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is not working.
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. It is estimated that these illegal profits from
transnational criminals is $322 billion a year and growing. And
we all know the narcotics problem is exploding in this country,
practically all of which is coming to us through Mexico. And
including Fentanyl from China is coming through the same gangs
in Mexico. What can you tell us that would encourage us to
believe that you will get control of this thing?
Mr. McCabe. Sir, what I can tell you is this is a problem
and an issue that we will not police our way out of. It is
going to require a whole-of-government effort. But I can tell
you what the FBI has to contribute to that, and it is the
investigative experience. It is the connections with foreign
partners. It is the ability to bring our Federal law
enforcement and State and local law enforcement together in
that fight.
There are border security issues, there are diplomatic
issues, there is a lot tied up in that problem right now. That
is how we see our part of it.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you are correct, you are only a part of
the solution there. You have got the DEA, and we have got the
State Department and numerous other agencies that are working
on pieces of the problem. But it is a bad problem.
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. And it is eating this country alive. And we
have to redouble our efforts.
Let me quickly, Mr. Chairman, switch briefly to another
topic, and that is cybercrime.
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Cyber attacks. According to CNBC, a cybercrime
costs the global economy $450 billion annually. In 2016, over 2
billion personal records were stolen; over 100 million
Americans had their medical records stolen; five out of every
six large American companies were targeted by cyber attackers
in 2014, a 40 percent increase over the year before. At the
same time, 60 percent of all targeted attacks strikes small-
and medium-size businesses, which typically have fewer
resources to invest in cybersecurity.
An enormous problem. Cybercrime in the public and private
sector continues to pose an enormous risk to our economy, not
to mention our national security. Forbes reports that
cybercrime costs to the economy quadrupled from 2013 to 2015,
and may again quadruple by 2019. As the lead Federal agency in
this space, what are you doing to get in front of these
threats?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir. So it is a great question. Cyber is
the issue that challenges us the most deeply. It hits every
program that we are in, and it changes every day. So cyber, as
you know, we have the lead designation for threat response. We
are the folks who will go in, of course, with our partners, to
figure out who did it and where it came from. In order to do
that, I need the right people, with the right background, the
right talent and technology to put on that problem set, and
that is what we are doing right now to ensure that our folks
have the tools they need, we are hiring the right people, we
are able to keep them on board and on target.
The second thing that we are focused on is taking those
cyber investigative skills, tools, and capabilities, and making
sure that we are pushing that out across our other operational
programs. So I need my criminal investigators to be looking at
social media, doing network analysis, understanding cyber
threats; I need my CT and CI folks to be doing the same thing.
So we are engaged and constantly rethinking how we are
approaching the cyber target set. I think we have a strategy
that we have been deriving for the last year or so. We have the
right people on it. But this is a threat that continues to
change and we have to be agile to stay in front of it.
Mr. Rogers. Godspeed to you.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Acting Director McCabe, I am very concerned
about the morale at the FBI in the wake of the proposed budget
cuts and the disparaging comments made by President Trump. In
your opinion, was the FBI, quote, ``in disarray,'' end quote,
as the President claimed prior to firing Director Comey? Did
Director Comey have the support of FBI leadership and workforce
prior to his dismissal?
Mr. McCabe. He did, ma'am.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Mr. McCabe. It is not my opinion that the FBI was in the
state of disarray. It is my opinion, and has been my
observation over the last several years, that Director Comey
enjoyed a deep and positive relationship with the men and women
of the FBI.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
In June 2015, we saw the lethal consequences of the
incomplete background checks when critical information was not
discovered within the 3-day limit and a firearm was purchased
by Dylann Roof. He later went on to kill nine people during a
prayer service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal
Church in Charleston, South Carolina. He should never have had
that gun. Your budget proposes reductions to the staffing for
background checks at the FBI.
In the bipartisan omnibus spending bill, we provided an
increase in funding, part of which went to hiring 136
additional workers to conduct background checks. This budget
would cut those additional staff. This is inconsistent with
this administration's claims to prioritize violent crime
reduction. How would this budget impact the ability to complete
background checks within the 3-day limit? Does this jeopardize
the ability of NICS examiners to confidently identify any
disqualifying records?
Mr. McCabe. The short answer, ma'am, is yes. Having fewer
people to do NICS checks will make it harder to get the NICS
checks done within the 3-day requirement. As you know, the
numbers for 2018 are significantly behind where we were in
2017. We are experiencing historic rises in the level--in the
number of NICS checks every year. We have every reason to
expect that that will continue. So, fewer resources will hurt
our folks there. We try to cover the increases in work by
extending large amounts of overtime and things of that nature,
but that it is not a sustainable way to keep the workforce on
target.
Mrs. Lowey. Following up on that, because it has concerned
me for quite a while and I would love your opinion as an
experienced person at the FBI. What percentage of cases,
background checks, do you wish you had more than 3 days, 4
days, 5 days? I have heard some of the experts say they would
even include the number 9 days. Could you comment to us on
this?
Mr. McCabe. Ma'am, I do not know if I can give you that
percentage right off the top of my head, but I certainly will
take that back and get back to you. I think folks don't
understand that the logistical challenge of corresponding with
many different jurisdictions where you have to reach out to
confirm arrest histories, and conviction histories, and
dispositions of criminal charges and things of that nature. And
it just takes longer many times than 3 days to get responses on
some of that work. So by definition, some percentage of that
work lapses past the 3-day period and, you know, we would be
better off if we could get that done.
Mrs. Lowey. I appreciate that. If you could get back to us,
I think it is important when we are making policy to understand
the hard work that the FBI does. And it was my understanding at
a previous hearing that in many cases, 3 days just is
inadequate. So you are agreeing that 3 days may not be adequate
and you will get back to us, on what percentage of the case you
need more time, and more staff to do the work?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, ma'am.
[The information follows:]
percentage of nics checks that go more than 3 days
Approximately 3 percent of all NICS Federal firearm background
checks enter the ``delayed'' status after three business days have
elapsed and a final determination has not been made.
Mrs. Lowey. So cuts certainly are not going to help us when
it comes to background checks.
Mr. McCabe. That is right.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Ms. Lowey. The individual's name
stays in the system if something pops up after you run a check
and they have a problem, ATF is directed to go after them and
get the weapon, correct?
Mr. McCabe. They are. So we have I think it is 88 days. Is
that right? Eighty-eight days to continue to look at those
files that go past the 3-day mark. And if we get the response
within that period and the gun has already been delivered, my
understanding is a referral is made to ATF to recover it.
Mr. Culberson. It is important to recognize there is an 88-
day safety net to catch any mistakes, because we are all
humans. Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting Director
McCabe, welcome. I am glad to have you here.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you.
Mr. Carter. Homeland Security has developed the southern
border and approach campaign, to concentrate resources on
transnational criminal organizations responsible for the
majority of crime along the border. In this budget, you have
requested funding for hybrid squads to bring a threat based
view of these dynamic multifaceted criminal enterprises. How do
these hybrid squads operate? And are you working together with
Homeland Security on this? And in addition, to the border
liaison officers along the southwestern border, what has been
the most effective means to combat transnational criminal
organizations along the border? And what can this committee do
to help you on that issue?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir. So as you know, in that vein, we have
asked for $6.8 million in this budget, all personnel to restore
65 positions to do exactly that work. The hybrid squads are the
ones--I do not know that I can describe it much better than you
already have. It is an ability to bring our intelligence folks
together with our case officers, our Special Agents, and our
task force partners, which invariably include many different
elements from the Department of Homeland Security, as well as
State and local officers. All for whom the criminal issues at
the border have an impact on their communities, and on the
folks that they protect. So that is true in all the work we
do--in the counterterrorism area and every other area--we are
stronger through partnership. So having the right folks in
those places to link up with our partners and do that work, is
the way forward for us. And so, to have the people to do that
is really the biggest way that you can help.
And I cannot overstate the importance of having a robust,
well-trained, stable population in our Legat offices,
particularly in Mexico City, because you can't work
transnational organized crime just from within the borders of
the United States; you have to be able to build relationships
and work those issues with your partners overseas.
Mr. Carter. I agree with that. I agree with Henry Cuellar,
my colleague on Homeland Security. We need to push deeper and
deeper from the border, the first lines of defense should not
just be the border.
Mr. McCabe. That is right.
Mr. Carter. So I agree with that.
Any resources needed--as to your role in coordinating these
groups, you all work together and you are the coordinating
agent?
Mr. McCabe. That is right, that is right. It is. And, of
course, we think we are well-positioned with the resources we
have. That is why, you know, cuts that will touch our field
offices and our headquarters elements the way the 1,600 cut for
2018 is likely to do, is where things start to get tough for
us.
Mr. Carter. Well, let us know what you need.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Carter. Another issue that you mentioned in your
opening statement, going dark. In this budget, you have
requested $21.6 million in funding for operational technology
investments to counter what is called ``going dark.'' And as I
understand, that is encryption, dealing with encryptions.
Mr. McCabe. In large part, yes, sir.
Mr. Carter. I understand the FBI has limited access to
3,000 mobile devices linked to various crimes that you are
unable to search, even though you have court-ordered legal
authority to do so. Could you elaborate on how the FBI plans to
reduce these barriers? How these barriers affect your ability
to conduct counterterrorism investigations? And how can this
committee help you on that? And please tell me more about the
80 new positions you plan to create to combat this going dark
issue, will these new positions specifically support
intelligence analysis to combat the problem?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir, they will. Let me touch on the going
dark issue to clarify some of the facts that you have referred
to. So far, in fiscal year 2017, we have received approximately
7,000 devices with court authorization. The requests come most
times from our partners to help them open up the devices they
need primarily for their criminal cases in cities and towns
across this country.
We are currently able to get into about 48 percent of those
devices. So a little less than half. As incredibly effective
encryption becomes more well-known, easier to get and easier to
use, that number, that 48 percent, will continue to decline.
That is probably the best example of that piece of the going
dark problem.
The resources that we have asked for will be folks who will
specifically face those challenges. So we are talking about
some Special Agents; we are talking about some electronic
engineers; we are talking about computer scientists; and we are
talking about what we refer to as CART agents, folks out in the
field who have the ability to have the tools and the training
to help try to get into those things and assist our partners on
site.
So that is where those resources are going. It will also go
to help us maintain systems that we now depend upon to allow
our investigators to conduct the work they need to do on the
internet in a way that is not attributable to the FBI. Because,
obviously, we have to be as good as our adversaries. We have to
be on the dark web. We have to be in all those places where we
are going to find the threats that face us. So going dark is a
multifaceted problem, it is one that will call for pretty tough
choices across society in terms of balancing security and
privacy. It will call for pretty substantial work, I think
ultimately here from Congress, addressing some of the legal
frameworks that we have to work with. But day to day, it
impacts my investigators and analysts in that way.
Mr. Carter. I find that a real challenge.
Mr. McCabe. It is, sir.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Judge Carter. Mr.
Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for being
with us, many thanks to the men and women who work for the
Bureau.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kilmer. In recent months we have seen an unprecedented
rise in hate crimes. According to one report we saw 1,800 hate
crimes in the U.S. between November of last year and March of
this year. I notice that the FBI budget request does not
explicitly mention any additional funding on this front. I also
would point out in May, I received a letter from the Department
of Justice stating that the Attorney General has directed the
formation of a hate crimes subcommittee of the violent crimes
task force to highlight the importance of these efforts.
So my questions for you are, one, what funds or resources
will the FBI allocate to combat the rise in hate crimes? Does
the FBI have a role in that hate crime subcommittee? And if you
can give me any indication of the status of how the FBI is
engaging with affected communities that are dealing with this
proliferation of hate crimes.
Mr. McCabe. So our folks do an enormous amount of work
dealing with the communities that are touched by hate crimes.
It is one of the requirements that I put on all of our Special
Agents in Charge to build those sorts of relationships into the
communities that are going to put us in a position to be able
to help them in many ways, but certainly in that one. Hate
crimes are a very big part of our civil rights approach to
include color of law issues, clinic access issues and many
others. So it is a vital and ongoing effort that we remain
completely committed to.
With respect to the DOJ Subcommittee, that one I will have
to take back to get you the exact details of our participation
in it. I would expect that we are playing a key role, but I
will have to get back to you with those details.
Mr. Kilmer. Is the civil rights division, is that where the
funds lie to address this issue or--I notice that there was not
any sort of specific language on this in the budget request, so
I was just curious whether there are any funds specifically
dedicated to combat this?
Mr. McCabe. So we do not rely on funding from the civil
rights division, but obviously, we work the cases with the
civil rights division at DOJ. And our funding, of course, is
part of our overall criminal program. How we divide those funds
up within the criminal program is up to the Assistant Director
of the criminal program. And it is in the base resources
request.
[The information follows:]
FBI PARTICIPATION IN HATE CRIME SUBCOMMITTEE
In February 2017, Attorney General Sessions established the
Department of Justice Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public
Safety. The Task Force will accomplish its work through five
subcommittees, including one specifically set forth to address
hate crimes. Attorney General Sessions asked Mr. Tom Wheeler
(the Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Department's
Civil Rights Division) to serve as the Subcommittee Chairman of
the task force's hate crimes subcommittee, which includes
representatives from the U.S. Attorney's community, the DOJ
Community Relations Service (CRS), the FBI, the Community
Oriented Policing Office (COPS), Office of Victims of Crime
(OVC) and the Criminal Division. The Subcommittee has sought
feedback from communities nationwide and during the 2017 Hate
Crimes Summit held in Washington, DC in late June. Attorney
General Sessions has asked the Subcommittee to explore ways to
expand and improve training for federal, state and local
prosecutors and investigators on hate crimes; how we can work
better with affected communities and our state and local law
enforcement partners; and how we can improve our data
collection on hate crimes. The Department of Justice is taking
action and has prosecuted a number of high-profile hate crimes
cases this year as we seek to bring criminals to justice.
Finally, Attorney General Sessions has directed all federal
prosecutors to make fighting violent crime a top priority,
including hate crimes.
Mr. Kilmer. I wanted to follow up on the question from
Chairman Rogers around cybersecurity. We certainly hear about
that a bunch. Congress passed the Cybersecurity Act in 2015,
and a big focus of that was on information sharing between
industry and law enforcement. I think one of the pieces of
feedback that we get from industry, large and small, they
comment around small businesses I agree with, is a concern that
that sometimes feels more like a one-way street where industry
may feedback what they are dealing with, but don't necessarily
get a lot back from the government. I guess I would love to
just get your sense of how you assess the progress of that law
in bringing industry stakeholders to the table with information
that could prevent cyber attacks from happening. And then in
the other direction, what is the FBI doing to strengthen the
flow of information to industry stakeholders?
Mr. McCabe. So it is a great question, and it is one that
we get very often as well. I think in summary, I would say we
are better than we have been, but we are clearly not good
enough. We have all the traditional challenges that we always
face in sharing information, particularly in the cyber area,
when so much of it comes to us through classified channels. It
is hard and slow to cull out that which we can share to be
effective. And so often, our sharing is not timely, and the
private sector moves at a much quicker pace. So that is really
where we need to work.
I think the interactions that we have with the private
sector are more productive today than they were 2, 3, 4, 5
years ago, but we still have a long way to go. There are many
reasons why our private sector partners don't wish to share
with the FBI or anyone else for obvious economic, and
productivity, and reputational reasons.
So it has been a slow, kind of chipping away at some of
that resistance. And also, adapting our own approaches to be
able to get on site, to help them handle a crisis or an issue
in a way that is as discreet as we can possibly be. So I think
those are the areas we have to work on. I think the legislation
gives us good footing to start, but we clearly have a lot of
work to do.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you
for being here. I am from--represent southern West Virginia,
and like Chairman Rogers from Appalachia, the drug epidemic has
just ravaged many of the communities.
Mr. McCabe. Cities.
Mr. Jenkins. You raised a point ago when asked about the
southern border, and you specifically talked about five field
offices. And I think you were sending the message that we kind
of have a footprint where boots on the ground where it is most
needed.
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. I think four, if I am accurate, four of the
highest overdose counties in the entire country are in my
district. We don't have a field office of the FBI really down
deep in the hardest hit areas of West Virginia. And through a
discussion with Special Agent Johnson, I understand there is,
at least, some willingness and openness of the FBI to look at
putting a field office in the hardest-hit impacted areas. Can
you update me on your assessment of that? And is that a
possibility, because I certainly hope it will be?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir, it is, certainly a possibility. And
it is one that we are discussing actively right now. Because
you know, we formally had not had a field office, but a
resident agency, which is kind of a satellite of a field
office. In this case, it would be a satellite out of our
Pittsburgh Field Office. We had one in your area, and we went
through a process years ago, but ended up folding that office.
We are back in that process now. We are actively discussing
reopening that RA. Once we have made our decision, we
communicate that, of course, to DOJ and work with OMB to get
that done. And so, I can assure you that we will continue to
push. But we recognize the significant challenges that your
constituents are facing with the opioid epidemic. We also know
there is no presence of other Federal law enforcement agencies
in the area, and we see that as a massive gap.
Mr. Jenkins. I appreciate your interest and the sincerity
to attack crime where it is happening. And this tragic opioid
epidemic has just ravaged our area.
I was looking at your going dark testimony, and I was
struck by the emphasis on talking about crimes and identities
that lay behind our--behind layers of anonymity, relating to
online pedophiles. And when I was a State legislator in West
Virginia, and this was the old days, back when really Facebook
was the existence of social media, we had a sex offender
registry, like probably every other State. But I lead the
effort to actually require sex offenders, once convicted, to
turn over to the registry their online screen names, passwords,
et cetera. And our State database created a system where a
parent, empowered to try to go in and say, here is a user name
or a screen name that is communicating with my son or daughter,
to identify whether or not that was in the database.
I am all about trying to create tools, whether it be at the
State level or Federal level, to empower parents to help
protect their children. We are struggling in this world as you
talk about online pedophiles. What, at the FBI level, what sort
of tools that you can talk about that are in place to take
these, even convicted sex offenders, and make sure we empower
parents and try to protect our kids?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir, great question. That is a threat and
a space within which the threat operates that is more
challenging every day with the profusion of anonymity through
things like the onion router, and the use of encrypted
communications. All of those same things that challenge us in
the other areas of our business challenge us there. And it is
one that impacts us so deeply, not only as FBI agents, but as
parents ourselves. So we remain absolutely committed to doing
everything we can. Unfortunately, that has required, in the
last several years, a new cutting-edge technical approach to
many of those problems. And so it gets back to the same
challenge that we have in the cyber area, in the CT area, in
the CI area. And it is getting the right talented computer
scientists and very highly skilled folks engaged in that fight
to help us get through the walls of anonymity so we can
actually see who is on the other side interacting with our
children in damaging ways. So we are absolutely committed to
that work, but it is getting tougher and tougher as the ways in
which people communicate over the internet become more
protected and more remote.
Mr. Jenkins. I look forward to working with you in addition
to the investigatory identification work that you are engaged
with. I am looking for those tools to empower parents to also
do what we can as engaged parents to try to help create a safe
environment. We know it is a challenging world, we appreciate
your commitment to it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Ms. Meng. The gentlelady from Long Island.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Director McCabe. On June 27, 2016, the
DOJ announced a new department-wide training to help agents and
prosecutors learn how to recognize and address unconscious
biases, those subtle associations that some individuals might
make between groups of people and stereotypes about certain
groups. What is the status of these trainings at the FBI? And
what percentage of your agents have received this training? And
when can we expect these trainings to be completed?
Mr. McCabe. Yeah. So I will have to get back to you with
the numbers and the exact percentages and when those are
completed. I know that we have done a lot of work in the last
year on getting that training out to our folks. I know that it
has been mandatory for all of our folks. I know that it was
mandatory for executives--I know it because I attended it with
our entire 7th floor team a few months ago. So it is out, and
our folks are getting it, but I will just have to get back to
you with the numbers.
[The information follows:]
UNCONSCIOUS BIAS TRAINING
The FBI began delivering Unconscious Bias Training to its
workforce in July 2014, with a target audience of supervisors
and managers. In October 2015, the FBI amended its target
audience to all new employees, including new Special Agents.
Currently, training has been provided to employees in 39 of the
FBI's 56 Field Offices and 11 of the FBI's 22 Headquarters
Divisions. As of June 2017, over 6,800 FBI employees have been
trained. Based on resource availability, the FBI plans to
continue to deliver training to all FBI employees, with the
eventual goal of having the entire FBI workforce trained in the
next few years.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. Last September, former Director Comey,
while testifying in front of the House and the Senate,
committed to the creation of a nationwide database to gather
information on police-involved shootings. He committed to
seeing this project through for the length of his term as FBI
Director. And he stated that the database should be up and
running in a year or two.
What is the status of this database, and when can we expect
it to be up and running?
Mr. McCabe. So we have continued to do that work with the
Use of Force Task Force, and it is moving along well. We, in
fact, just stood up the pilot of the database that you referred
to, I think just within the last few weeks, if I have that
correct. So our commitment to that effort continues as does our
commitment to the NIBRS, National Incident-Based Reporting
System.
We across the law enforcement community need better data. I
think most people recognize that now. It is a little bit
challenging in terms of resources and commitment to get folks
to sometimes to do the work that we need to get there, but we
are committed to staying on that timeline and having this done
by 2021.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Ms. Meng. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
being here, Mr. McCabe. I want to ask a question about the--
kind of the authority and independence of the FBI.
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. I would be interested on your take on the
matter. While the FBI operates as part of the Justice
Department, of course, due to the nature of its work, it has
historically been seen as relatively independent. The FBI
Director is also considered one of the most independent
officials in the Federal Government. Would you agree with that?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. McCabe, several measures have been put
in place to preserve the independence of the FBI, including the
10-year term for the Director. My first question is: Do you
believe that maintaining a relatively independent FBI is
important to the integrity of the work that you conduct?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, I do.
Mr. Cartwright. The constitutional reality is that if a
Government official is appointed within the executive branch,
that official serves at the pleasure of the President. But
unofficial norms emphasize that law enforcement should be
politically neutral. What is your take on how you reconcile
those two realities, Director?
Mr. McCabe. Well, I think we have a long history of
pursuing our work at the level of professionalism and an
independence from political influence. I have no reason to
believe that that approach will discontinue. I believe, as you
stated, it is vitally important to have a politically
independent FBI, and I have no reason to believe that that
won't be the case.
Mr. Cartwright. Are you aware if it is written down
anywhere, what the conditions would be under which the
President would relieve the FBI Director of his or her duties
before the 10-year term is up?
Mr. McCabe. Well, I don't know where it is written down
specifically, but it is my understanding it is the President's
privilege to relieve any political appointee when he chooses to
do so.
Mr. Cartwright. Do you have a view about what conditions
would be appropriate for the President to relieve the FBI
Director before the 10 years is up?
Mr. McCabe. Well, again, sir, I don't really have a view on
that. I am not going to weigh in on Presidential privilege and
how the President decides to remove his appointees.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, you look like a smart man.
Mr. McCabe. Looks can be deceiving.
Mr. Cartwright. I know the dedicated public servants in the
FBI will continue to do their work regardless of political
pressures and turnover in the Director position, and whoever
happens to be in the White House. But I want to ask you, how
has the removal of James Comey affected morale at the FBI, if
you can comment on that?
Mr. McCabe. So, as I said at the beginning of our hearing,
Director Comey enjoyed a great relationship with the men and
women of the FBI. So his removal took many, many people by
surprise. It was a shock. It is something that we have all had
to come to terms with. However, as the organization responsible
for upholding the Constitution and being dedicated to nothing
other than the rule of law and protecting the American people,
we understand the rules and how they work, and we understand
that it is the President's privilege to remove the FBI Director
or any appointee whenever he chooses to do so. He has chosen to
do that. We know we are getting a new FBI Director. It has been
my challenge to keep folks focused on the mission during this
time of transition, and to prepare the ground for the new
Director whenever he or she gets there.
Mr. Cartwright. So other than morale, what other effects do
you think that removal has had on the ability of the FBI to
carry out its crucial functions?
Mr. McCabe. The FBI continues to carry out its crucial
functions, and we will continue to get that work done. You have
my word on that.
Mr. Cartwright. I will take it. Thank you, Director. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. They have called
votes. There is about 8 minutes left. I want to just very
quickly ask you, Director McCabe, if you could--insider threats
are very dangerous, leaks of classified information can be
immensely damaging to this country as we saw with Edward
Snowden. I was very pleased to see an NSA contractor, Reality
Winner, being prosecuted.
Would you please speak directly to everyone in the Federal
Government and tell everyone out there how serious a crime is
it if you leak information about an ongoing investigation, and
give us the assurance that the FBI will pursue every one of
these leakers, and seek their prosecution to the fullest extent
of the law.
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir. Leaking of classified information is
a Federal crime, and it is one that we have the jurisdiction to
investigate. And I assure you we will do so in every single
case that gets referred to the FBI by the Department of
Justice. That is, of course, how that process works. It is
absolutely vital to the safe functioning and the national
security of this country to be able to handle classified
information in a responsible manner in the way that it was
designed to be handled. When we have folks who are mishandling
or leaking or sharing classified information in ways they
should not, we will investigate those matters as they should be
investigated.
Mr. Culberson. How many years in prison can people face?
Mr. McCabe. Oh, that is a good one. I think, it depends.
Most of the cases either come down to mishandling cases or
actual espionage cases, so there is a wide range there.
Espionage, of course, can get you life in prison. Mishandling
cases, I am not sure exactly what the sentencing range is.
Mr. Culberson. It is a long time?
Mr. McCabe. It is longer than you would want to be there.
Mr. Culberson. And you are going to hunt them down?
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir, we will.
Mr. Culberson. Aggressively. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCabe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could submit
this letter from [inaudible] for the record.
Mr. Culberson. Certainly.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. The Attorney General has taken some
troubling actions in the past few months, in my opinion, to
undermine the civil rights responsibilities of the Justice
Department, this includes reducing the use of consent decrees
and limiting the priorities of the civil rights division.
Has there been any instruction given to the FBI to limit
investigations into the certain civil rights-related
complaints? What about into certain voting rights complaints?
Mr. McCabe. No, sir. We have not received any direction
like that.
Mr. Serrano. None on either one?
Mr. McCabe. No, sir.
Mr. Serrano. How many civil rights investigations has the
FBI opened this year, and how does that compare to the last 5
years?
Mr. McCabe. You know, sir, I would have to take a look at
those numbers and get those back to you.
[The information follows:]
civil rights investigations over the past 5 years
The FBI has primary responsibility for investigating all alleged
violations of federal civil rights laws. These laws protect the civil
rights of all citizens and persons within the U.S., and include four
major areas: Hate Crimes, Color of Law, Human Trafficking, and Freedom
of Access. The FBI takes this responsibility seriously and investigates
these violations to the fullest extent possible.
The number of Civil Rights cases pursued by the FBI have been
fairly consistent over the past five years. In FY 2012, the FBI opened
over 800 new civil rights cases. In FY 2016, the FBI opened 768 new
cases and ended the year with 1,414 pending cases. However, the number
of cases the FBI has open at any given time may not be the best
representative of the level of effort the FBI dedicates to combatting
civil rights violations. A singular case could involve multiple
subjects and even an organized enterprise. The number of arrests has
increased over the past five years from 66 in FY 2012 to almost 400 in
FY 2016, and as of June 2017, already has 475 arrests in FY 2017. The
FBI will continue to dedicate resources to address the Civil Rights
threats facing the nation and endeavors to pursue tools and techniques
that would make the FBI more effective and efficient in this arena.
Mr. Serrano. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Director, we sincerely appreciate your
service to the country. We will have other questions that we
will submit for the record. I, again, want to thank you and all
the men and women of the FBI for what you do to keep this
Nation safe. This subcommittee will work together to make sure
that you have the resources you need to continue to do your
job. We thank you very much for being with us here today, sir.
Mr. McCabe. Thank you too, sir. And, again, thank you for
all the support the Committee has given us over the years and
we look forward to working together with you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you very much. The
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]