[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York, Chairman
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
GRACE MENG, New York MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida TOM GRAVES, Georgia
ED CASE, Hawaii
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Bob Bonner, Jeff Ashford, Matt Smith, BG Wright,
TJ Lowdermilk, Shannon McCully, and Trisha Castaneda
Subcommittee Staff
_____________________
PART 6
Page
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................... 1
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration................. 55
Department of Commerce.......................................... 83
Federal Bureau of Investigation................................. 101
Department of Justice........................................... 127
Oversight of the 2020 Census Preparation........................ 203
Outside Witness Testimony....................................... 251
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_____________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-827 WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
BARBARA LEE, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM GRAVES, Georgia
TIM RYAN, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
PETE AGUILAR, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois WILL HURD, Texas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2020
----------
Wednesday, March 27, 2019.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
JAMES BRIDENSTINE, ADMINISTRATOR, NASA
Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee shall come to order. I would
like to welcome NASA administrator James Bridenstine to the
subcommittee. Welcome, my friend. It has been a while since I
have seen you at the other place.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. It is nice to see you here.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. The other place is the House, you know.
Mr. Bridenstine. The locker room downstairs, where we used
to have----
Mr. Serrano. Are you going to clean it out one of these
days?
Mr. Bridenstine. You used to be right next to me.
Mr. Serrano. I didn't want to say that. Yes. The locker was
right next to mine and he hasn't cleaned it out yet.
Mr. Bridenstine. It is on the agenda.
Mr. Serrano. Did you know something because you had a NASA
t-shirt, I noticed.
Mr. Bridenstine. Can you imagine?
Mr. Serrano. NASA is a great agency that has accomplished
much over the last 60 years. A milestone in space flight
occurred on July 20, 1969, 50 years ago, when American
commander Neil Armstrong and Lunar Module pilot, Buzz Aldrin,
landed the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle on the moon at 4:17 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time. Armstrong became the first man to step
onto the lunar surface, an inspiring accomplishment.
NASA continues its missions by being responsible for
civilian space activities, science, and aeronautics research.
NASA plays a key role in fostering innovation and opportunity.
As most of you know, I am a strong supporter of NASA and
believe that its missions help keep the United States at the
forefront of space exploration and scientific research.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2020
includes $21 billion for NASA, which is nearly $500 million
decrease from 2019 enacted level. While NASA provides funding
for a number of science and exploration activities, this budget
proposal reduces funding for a number of important areas. I am
particularly concerned that the President's budget request
proposes a $602 million cut to NASA's science mission
directorate.
From the fiscal year 2019 enacted level, this again zeroes
out funding for three longstanding programs with NASA's Office
of STEM Engagement which help inspire the next generation of
scientists, it is very naive for NASA to propose, once again,
to cut these investments after Congress spoke very clearly a
little over two months ago when the omnibus was signed into
law. It is my intention, as chairman of this subcommittee, to
provide robust funding for these programs that are so important
for the future of our youth and our country.
President Trump's budget request also proposes cutting
funding for earth science, which is reduced by 151.2 million
below last year. The research funded in this account is
critical to understanding the impact of climate change on our
planet. Our future literally depends on it, which makes these
proposals so troubling.
In addition, I am extremely concerned by the intent to
eliminate the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope, WFIRST.
This project received $312 million. In fiscal year 2019, it was
ranked as the highest scientific priority space astrophysics
mission by the 2010 Decadal Survey.
I also have to express my strong reservations with a
proposal to procure commercial rockets for a mission prior to
the planned Exploration Mission 1, EM-1, in June 2020 instead
of January 2021, at an additional cost estimated to be nearly
$1 billion. These significant amounts of money can be better
utilized for other programs that NASA wants to cancel and that
are greatly needed.
Lastly, as you very well know, I am also a strong supporter
of the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. NASA's fiscal year
2020 budget request includes funding for NASA activities at the
observatory and I would like to hear more about this work.
Thank you once again, Administrator, for joining us today. I
look forward to hearing your testimony. Now, I would like to
turn to my colleague and friend, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding and I
want to join you in welcoming the NASA Administrator, Jim
Bridenstine, to the subcommittee this afternoon. And
Administrator, we appreciate you being here to discuss the
fiscal year 2020 budget. And I know, of course you served in
the House, but I think this is your first time before this
subcommittee----
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. In this capacity. And so we
welcome you to be here today and thank you for your service.
For nearly 60 years, we have relied on the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to ensure that the United
States remained a world leader in space exploration. Through
NASA's scientific research, technological developments, and
missions, we have furthered our understanding of Aeronautics,
the Earth, and the Moon, distant planets, and even far off
galaxies.
I am honored to serve on this subcommittee since my home
state of Alabama has a long and proud tradition of supporting
our nation's space program. Since 1960, the Marshall Space
Flight Center in Huntsville has been NASA's lead center for
rocket propulsion. Marshall has also been the lead center, or
played major roles in lander work, as well as major science
programs including designing the Hubble telescope to be service
accessible.
I think many of us had prepared remarks and questions,
which suddenly took a little bit of a turn and took a new
meaning yesterday. I believe the vice president made one of the
most important space policy speeches since President Kennedy
laid out the challenge to land on the moon back in the 1960s.
There are several themes to draw on from that speech, but
two which stand out to me as being urgent and being
accountable. To look to the future, I think we can learn from a
glance at the past. The Apollo program was an urgent mission.
Government and private sector had to find new ways to work
together, and both had to be willing to undergo internal
shakeups and to know when to hit the reset button and to surge
ahead.
After Sputnik flew over America, the completion of the task
in our own program occurred much faster. SLS is in the
spotlight. The vice president at the National Space Council
meeting yesterday, as you know, called on us to all rise to a
higher level of excellence. I expect the NASA's contractor
partner, Boeing, to rise to the occasion of this new urgency
and redouble their efforts to get SLS ready to fly in 2020.
NASA as a manager has the duty to rise to the occasion,
examine their internal process from top to bottom, to clear out
bureaucracy, to make this an agency priority, and make better,
faster decisions which allow Boeing to finish the project. NASA
must access the next steps and move forward quickly, and not
get caught up on the paralysis of analysis, as the vice
president said.
I believe this call to excellence, however, extends to more
programs than just the SLS core stage. We need to finish the
Orion capsule. We need to complete the ground operations. We
need to complete the James Webb telescope. And we need to
review the centers' operational budgets to ensure that they are
sufficient to fulfill their mission.
With great respect to the administration, we also need to
move ahead with the Exploration Upper Stage or what is referred
to as the EUS. This upper stage will allow flights for both
astronauts and very large cargo elements on the same flight. To
use that, we much also push ahead with a mobile launch platform
design for the block 1B SLS, instead of continuing to modify a
platform originally made for a much smaller Aries 1 rocket.
The EUS stage will allow us to meet the challenge to safe--
of safely landing astronauts on the moon in 2024. Mr. Chairman,
I would--I want to also speak up for excellence in the
planetary exploration program.
Congress has directed that NASA use the SLS for the Europa
mission. The proposed change to a commercial rocket means we
lose the mission plan advantages of the unparallel faring size
and the tremendous speed made possible by the EUS. The change
would add years of waiting to the data from the mission. I
would expect NASA to abide by the provisions in the previous
bill language.
Likewise, the vice president called for moving ahead with
innovation of nuclear propulsion, low and rich uranium, and the
thermal propulsion which offers a safe and speedy way to
transport humans and thereby avoid much of the dangerous
radiation exposure.
We must start work now to be ready when the planetary
orbits once again create a favorable time to launch to Mars.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, it is time that NASA officials
make a serious results driven examination of the contracting
and other aspects of commercial programs. It is not enough to
promise savings and speed, and then serve up hardware delays,
schedule delays, and cost overruns. It is most certainly too
early to exclude SLS from delivering gateway elements and
landers.
The same excellence we are going to demand of SLS program,
must be required of these programs as well. And I will close by
saying, Mr. Chairman, that I share your concerns about cuts to
STEM Engagement. With a looming wave of retiring engineers from
both the government sector and the private sector, now is not
the time to stop encouraging our young people to major in these
areas. NASA is revered by the public and has unique abilities
to inspire youth.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and look forward
to hearing the testimony of the administrator today. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Serrano. Do you know the drill? You keep it to 5
minutes and we include your whole statement in the record.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Bridenstine. Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Aderholt,
and members of the committee, it is great to be back in the
House of Representatives, seeing your smiling faces. I hope
they stay that way for the rest of the hearing. It is good to
be back in the House.
I will tell you that the budget request is strong for NASA.
I heard your language about maybe it is a little smaller than
what got passed in February, but it is a good budget request
that helps us accomplish the objectives of Space Policy
Directive-1. Science is still strong, and of course, we have
got ongoing missions that we are sustaining in the best
interest of our country.
I think the big thing that we have underway right now is a
return to the moon. This time, we are doing it differently than
we did it during the Apollo era, and we are doing it
differently than has ever been prescribed by previous
administrations. This time when we go to the moon, we are going
sustainably. What does that mean?
That means this time when we go to the moon, we are going
to stay. Does that mean we are going to have a permanent human
presence on the surface of the moon? No, but what it means is
that we are going to have robots, landers, rovers, and humans,
all going back and forth to the moon for a sustainable duration
to get more resources than ever before.
The President's Space Policy Directive-1 says, ``Go to the
moon. Go sustainably. Utilize the resources of the Moon.'' In
2008 and in 2009, we made discoveries. We now know that there
is hundreds of millions of tons of water ice at the poles of
the moon. Water ice represents life support. It is air to
breathe. It is water to drink. It is hydrogen and oxygen, which
is rocket fuel and it is available in hundreds of millions of
tons at the poles of the Moon.
That is a game changer for the future. Those resources, we
intend to utilize those resources. The other benefit of the
Moon is it is a proving ground. That ultimately at the end of
the day, we can learn to live and work on another world, and
then take those capabilities and as much as possible, replicate
them for a journey to Mars, which is still high on the agenda.
The President's budget request has sufficient funds to do
these activities, but we are not missing the fact that at the
end of the day, the goal is Mars. The Science Mission
Directorate is continuing to focus on Mars. In fact, for the
first time, we are going to be funding the Mars Sample Return
mission. We have all seen what we have gotten already from the
Mars missions that we have done.
We now know that Mars at one time had a magnetosphere that
protected it from the radiation of deep space. It had two-
thirds of its northern hemisphere covered by an ocean at Mars.
It had a thick atmosphere. In other words, Mars was at one time
habitable. We are not saying it was inhabited, but it was
capable. It was habitable at one point in its history.
At some point, it all changed. The magnetosphere went away.
The oceans dried up. The atmosphere became very thin. It is not
carbon dioxide rather than potentially water vapor or other
things.
All of this conspires to say, what can we learn about Mars
to inform us about our own planet and how it is changing. That
is one of the reasons it is important to do Planetary Science
so we can also apply that to Earth Science. The Earth Science
budget is strong. We are still sensing the Earth across large
parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and we are using that
data to make critically important decisions about how our own
climate here is changing. It is true that this is the only
planet we know to host life. Therefore, it is the planet that I
care about the most, as well as all of us should care about the
most.
When we think about ultimately the other parts of the
Science Mission Directorate, we talk about heliophysics, the
study of the Sun. We have the Parker Solar Probe right now
orbiting the Sun, and in fact doing missions that will take it
through the Sun's atmosphere, if you can imagine that, the
corona. That is the solar corona, I should say.
This is an amazing mission. It has proven to be very
successful already. We are going to continue it. It is going to
help us be able to predict solar flares. It is going to help us
predict coronal mass ejections potentially. That could be very
damaging to astronauts in deep space as we return to the Moon
and eventually go on to Mars. We need to be able to predict
those to protect human life into the future.
Of course, astrophysics is critically important. The James
Webb Space Telescope, we are getting that back on track, it had
some schedule problems. Of course, because of the support of
this committee, we are moving forward and anticipate launching
that in March of 2021. We have margin in the schedule to
accomplish that objective.
The Science Mission Directorate is strong. The Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate is strong. The
Aeronautics Mission Directorate, which sometimes gets missed.
The first A in NASA, is Aeronautics, and we really believe that
can have a transformational impact for our country
economically, as we work to make aviation more fuel efficient,
more friendly for the environment, and certainly the idea that
we could even fly across the United States in a way that would
be supersonic and yet have a low boom.
In other words, in a way that we could actually fly across
from New York, Mr. Chairman, to maybe even Huntsville, Alabama
in a matter of 30 minutes because we can fly supersonic, rather
than plowing through the atmosphere at .6 Mach as we have been
doing for the last 60 years.
A lot of exciting things that we are doing. The budget is
strong. I am happy to answer any of your questions, and of
course, I am glad to be back in the House of Representatives
with you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. Let me just say to begin, and before the
questions maybe get a little hard and you stop smiling, that I
can sense the excitement that you feel about leading this
agency. I will tell you, that is how we feel in this committee
and I think in the whole Congress. That is a very exciting
thing.
So, I am encouraged by that. I am not encouraged by the
fact that you say you are not going to leave humans on the Moon
because Mr. Aderholt and I were making a list of people to send
to the Moon.
Mr. Bridenstine. I might have a list of my own, sir.
Mr. Serrano. I hope we are not on it. Mr. Administrator,
initially, the President's budget request does not include an
extra one billion dollars to fund a launch in addition to the
previously planned space launch system, EM-1. On March 13, you
testified before the Senate that we should launch a mission
around the Moon in June 2020 using a commercial, off the shelf
rocket in lieu of the heavily invested Space Launch System.
Yesterday at the Marshal Space Flight Center, you said that
none of the commercial solutions would work for a June 2020
launch and that accelerating SLS is the right answer. Then
yesterday also at the same place, the Vice President appeared
to pressure the folks at the Marshall Space Flight Center for a
solution to meet a June 2020 date, which looks more and more
like a political deadline. That is at least three different
directions in only two weeks.
These major swings on flagship programs are expensive. We
are the committee providing the funding for such programs.
Bottom line, are these sudden program shifts being made in
response to political pressure?
Mr. Bridenstine. Mr. Chairman, not because of political
pressure. A couple of things. The June 2020 date was set years
ago and in fact maybe even in the last administration. I am not
sure on that. It was certainly done before I got to NASA as the
Administrator. That date has been there.
One of the challenges that we have had is slips in schedule
without necessarily seeing a change in behavior. What I am
trying to do is change that. If we tell Congress and we tell
others that we are going to launch in June of 2020, it was my
goal to make sure that we could launch in June of 2020.
I did make the statement before the Senate a few weeks ago
that we need to look at all options in order to maintain
schedule. Again, the investments are big and we need to do what
we can to maintain schedule. We did look at those commercial
options, as you identified. We came to a determination that
while some of those options are feasible, none of those
options, as you identified, are going to keep us within budget
and on schedule.
The other thing to do is to figure out within the SLS and
the Orion program, how do we accelerate the Space Launch
System. We have got a 40-day study that is underway right now
and it is our assessment that we can accelerate that. Will we
meet a June of 2020 launch date? I don't think that is in the
cards, but I do think we can accelerate significantly from
where we were originally told that that launch date would
occur, which could be a slip of almost a couple of years. I
think we can accelerate well ahead of that based on a number of
things that we have already done to accelerate. I can get into
those, sir, if you are interested.
Mr. Serrano. I understand and in a friendly gesture, let me
tell you that, as you well know, 75 percent of our profession
is perception and the perception by many is that it is being
accelerated so that it can come in and excite the country a few
months before a November election, something that is going to
happen in 2020. So understand that is out there for people to
talk about.
Because our committee pays the bills, how much will this
new effort cost to speed the delivery of the Space Launch
System?
Mr. Bridenstine. The cost would stay the same. We have got
a 45-day study that is due in a couple of weeks. I say the cost
would stay the same. We need to look at it. A 45-day study is
not done yet, but there will be options. The intent is to stay
within cost and increase the schedule.
As far as you mentioned political pressure and the
perception, I just want to be really clear. There is nobody who
has had a conversation with me about launching in early 2020
for any reasons other than the fact that we want to maintain
schedule because it is important, I think, for the program and
it is important for the support we have here in the House of
Representatives to show that we are making progress in a
meaningful way on the schedule that NASA committed to. That is
the intent here.
Mr. Serrano. One quick question before I go to Mr.
Aderholt. Are there any planned astronaut-led missions? Because
as I have told you many times, and I have told my committee
many times, and they know it, in all my 29 years in the
Congress, there is nothing more exciting than to see the faces
of kids in a school when an astronaut visits.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. It is something really special. And the more
opportunities we have to have folks who just came from space,
the more that excitement and that interest in the science grows
when they visit.
Mr. Bridenstine. I agree completely, Mr. Chairman. I used
to be the executive director of a non-profit Air and Space
Museum in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and I can tell you firsthand that
kind of interaction changes the lives of children. I have seen
it firsthand. I may have experienced it myself when I was
young, interacting with pilots, and working with wind tunnels
at a summer camp when I was a child.
It is absolutely true that we need to accomplish these
objectives, because it is in the interest of our country to
inspire the next generation to get active in the STEM fields.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my opening
remarks, the vice president's speech at the meeting at the
National Space Council yesterday down in Alabama was a
significant change in course from the proposed Exploration
Mission-1 modification that we have been hearing about lately.
And let me just say I am glad to hear that you have set aside
the idea of using commercial rockets to perform EM-1.
Can you provide some insight into what procedure and
management details you are reexamining to make sure that NASA
meets the President's challenge to accelerate the Space Launch
System?
Mr. Bridenstine. I would be happy to. A couple of things.
You mentioned management and what was the other thing?
Procedures?
Mr. Aderholt. Yes.
Mr. Bridenstine. We have the 45-day study, I am going to
get ahead of it. The reality is in a few short weeks, we are
going to have the results of that study and there are going to
be options for acceleration in that study. I will tell you the
things that we have already been looking at and some of the
items that I think will help us accelerate.
In fact, we have already purchased hardware, tooling, that
will help us integrate the Space Launch System horizontally
rather than vertically. The challenge there has been, when you
talk about the engine section of the SLS rocket, it has proven
to be in the critical path. More complex and more challenging
than we originally anticipated as an Agency. The challenge has
been as long as they do vertical integration down at Michoud,
on top of the engine section, the entire rocket is waiting for
that engine section to be complete.
That means there are a whole host of other things that we
need to be doing that we can't get to do because we are waiting
for the engine section. What we are trying to do is move that
engine section out of the critical path. How do we do that?
Well, we have had to buy new tooling so we can horizontally
integrate the oxygen tank, the hydrogen tank, the inner tank,
horizontally integrate those proponents so that we can actually
be working on the rest of the rocket while we are waiting on
the engine section. That required an investment in tooling and
we have now made that investment in response to meetings that
you and I have had in the past, in response to making sure that
we are meeting our commitments.
That is one thing that we have done. The key is in as many
places as possible. When we talk about the production of a
rocket, how do we make it instead of in series? How do we put
it in parallel? How do we get things at the same time rather
than doing things in series? There is an example and we are
looking at other things as well.
Some other things we are doing procedurally, when you think
about the test of the rocket. Again, because of direction from
Congress, we are using the space shuttle main engines, the RS-
25s. These engines have flown hundreds of times, three engines
on every shuttle launch. Of course, we did well over a hundred
shuttle launches. These are well proven engines and they have
been tested with millions of seconds of tests. Now we have
digital controllers that are going to actually schedule fluids
to these engines. What does that mean?
What that means is that this brand-new rocket, which we are
testing in all kinds of computer models, that you really can't
test it until you actually test it. We have the main engines
that are thoroughly tested, and now digital controllers, when
we talk about the scheduling of fluids to those engines,
through those digital controllers, we might be able to accept
very high off nominal fluid flows. That is in the realm of what
is possible based on the new technology that we are adding to
the RS-25.
Which means, if we can test each engine independently,
there is a chance. I have got professional rocket engineers who
are looking at this right now, I am not saying that we are
going to do this, but there is a chance that we could actually
test those engines again in parallel rather than in series. We
don't have to wait for a full development of a rocket in order
to test those engines.
We can take those engines to Stennis, one at a time, four
different engines, test them in high off nominal conditions,
and then instead of building the rocket at Stennis, we can take
the components as we test them in parallel, rather than in
series, building the rocket and then rebuilding the rocket, we
can actually move things to where we are integrating more of
the rocket at the Cape rather than, again, doing things in
series.
Those are some of the things that we are looking at. There
is more. There is a lot more. It is also true going back to
your other question about the management, Mr. Ranking Member,
the management has got to change, and this is one of the things
that we have been working on for a little bit of time now. We
talk about Human Exploration and Operations.
There is a big difference between operations, which is when
we talk about the International Space Station and resupplying
the International Space Station, and flying crews to the
International Space Station. These are all operational and
development.
Development is very different. We are talking about brand
new, never used before equipment, and we are doing that within
the operations with commercial crew. Don't get me wrong, I am
not suggesting we are not, but talking about brand-new
capabilities at a scale that we haven't had in a very long
time, if at all, ever.
What we are talking about is creating a new mission
directorate at NASA and it is focused on development activities
that are very large in scale. That mission directorate, we
would call it Moon to Mars Mission Directorate because it is
going to be focused on getting to the Moon and using those
capabilities to go on to Mars.
On a management side, we are trying to separate operations
from development so that we can get a better mix of the right
people in the right places to accomplish these objectives.
Mr. Aderholt. Let me just follow up with one thing. It
seems that continuing with the SLS green run test could take
five to eight months. What details can you share with us as to
whether NASA is reconsidering these tests, given such time
constraints?
Mr. Bridenstine. Another great question. The key is to test
in a way that we know that we optimize the success of the first
launch. That has got to be the goal.
When we talk about a green run test, we are talking about
building the core stage of the rocket with all four engines,
all at the same time, and then running the whole rocket, if you
will, minus the boosters, the side boosters that are solids,
running the whole rocket with four main engines for a period of
eight minutes.
The question is, is that necessary and could we test each
engine individually at very high off nominal kind of conditions
to get certainty, to eliminate almost as much risk as we would
if we ran the full green run.
You are absolutely right. That could save six months' of
schedule, depending on how we do it.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. We will begin now our first round
of questions by members--with the Chairman holding a soft
gavel. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Administrator, for being here today. As your classmate, I just
want to again congratulate you.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you. Great to be here.
Ms. Meng. As you know, March is Women's History Month where
we celebrate the amazing accomplishments of all women. My
eight-year-old niece, Marissa, wants to be the first woman on
the Moon. And as much as I would love for her to be that woman,
I hope you achieve it before then because she is only eight.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. We hope so too.
Ms. Meng. But I wanted to talk about what was supposed to
be the first all-female spacewalk at the International Space
Station. Obviously, it's all over the news, but it would've
been an amazing milestone for all women, and demonstrated to
girls that nothing is impossible, even in space. And I know
that the all-female spacewalk was not intentionally planned,
but how could NASA not have realized earlier with the uniforms?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is a great question, an important
question. We are working every day to increase opportunities
for women at NASA. It doesn't take long, either going to our
centers or walking around headquarters, to see that women are
under represented in the STEM fields. That is just the reality.
We all recognize it and we are working to make changes to that.
We have had really good success on the Science side. Maybe
not so much success on the engineering side, but we are working
every day to address it with different programs and
opportunities. On the spacewalk specifically, it should be
noted that the spacesuits, think of them as little space ships,
each one of them is designed specifically, not just for the
astronaut, but also for the mission.
The challenge is we only have a certain number of
spacesuits and the logistics of some are on the ground and
being basically refurbished, and some are on the space station.
We fully anticipated that we were going to be able to do the
first all-female spacewalk. We were excited about it. We let
people know about it and we encouraged people to watch.
We discovered during the first spacewalk that the spacesuit
was going to need to be adjusted. If we were to make that
adjustment, remember these spacesuits are designed for the
mission, as well as the person, it is going to take time away
from the crew, a period of at least 12 hours to modify the
spacesuit, plus additional risk. We have two female astronauts
on the International Space Station right now, three Americans,
two of them are females. We are very proud of that as well. Our
astronaut, Anne McClain, made the decision that she wanted to
make sure that the interest of mission success and safety came
first, and she decided that in the interest of safety and
mission success, that it would be easier and more appropriate
to switch the person doing the spacewalk, rather than try to
modify the spacesuit.
She did the right thing and we are very proud that I run an
Agency where people are making decisions for the best interest
of the mission, even if it wasn't in the best interest of
herself.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And if we can be helpful in Congress
to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again, please
don't hesitate to work with us.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Ms. Meng. I wanted to--I have a little bit of time left.
The president's budget is asking for more than $21 billion for
2020. However, just like last year's budget proposal, you've
mentioned issues with STEM. No funding is requested for the
Office of STEM Engagement. In the entire 807 pages long, the
word ``woman'' is also only included one time. So you've
addressed the problem about not enough women in the STEM
fields, particularly engineering I think you mentioned.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Ms. Meng. So how can we continue to engage and encourage
participation, especially for women and minorities?
Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. It is something we think
about at NASA every day and we are making efforts to kind of
change the direction. A couple of things.
We do 100 percent believe in STEM Engagement, and we have
to be starting that next generation of scientists and engineers
to accomplish the missions of the future. I can say, we
actually do a lot of education outreach and STEM engagement
through programs through the mission directorates.
For example, it is important to understand, we have got
robots all over the solar system right now doing amazing
things. All the way out in the Kuiper belt, which is beyond
Pluto, and of course we have got robots on Mars, and around
asteroids in deep space, Bennu, for example. So these are all
exciting things.
The question is how do we inspire that next generation of
robotic technician, that robotic engineer, that robotic
scientist? We engage through the science mission directorate an
organization called First Robotics. That gets young people. We
are talking about high schoolers, building robots, competing in
competitions, and inspiring that next generation.
I just went out to a robotics competition and had the
opportunity to speak to a bunch of young kids. They are
building things that are absolutely magnificent. They are
reaching out to young girls and communities that are not
represented well in the STEM fields. We support that effort in
those areas, and we will absolutely continue to do that.
We work, of course, with the mission directorates on
internships and those activities. All through the education
process, we are trying to engage kids at all different levels.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Roby.
Ms. Roby. Well, thank you, Mr. Administrator. It is great
to see you here today back in the House. And a couple of
things, first of all, my son, George, who you have seen running
around the halls here for many years, his new favorite thing is
to watch the Science Channel with his mother.
Mr. Bridenstine. Good.
Ms. Roby. So, I will be excited to tell him tonight about
the conversations that we had with you today.
Mr. Bridenstine. Awesome.
Ms. Roby. Also, in an effort not to repeat too much of what
my other colleague from Alabama said, I will try not to. If I
do, I apologize. And you know this jumping up and down is
constituents in the hallway, and lots of hearings going on, so
I know you can certainly appreciate that.
Mr. Bridenstine. I understand.
Ms. Roby. And we are here to talk about NASA's budget. And
Mr. Administrator, you can probably guess, being from Alabama,
what my questions are about. Just in Alabama alone, Space
Launch System, SLS, provides more than 13,000 jobs, 2.2 billion
economic impact among NASA contractors and the supplier
workforce. Of course, as mentioned by Mr. Aderholt during
yesterday's Space Council meeting, you reaffirmed that SLS is
the best launch vehicle for Orion for Exploration Mission-1,
EM-1, and future missions. And you called for an acceleration
of the Exploration Upper Stage to be ready by EM-3. And I
appreciate your decision, again, to reaffirm the use of SLS for
the EM-1 and beyond.
Can you highlight for us the key reasons SLS is the best
approach for these missions, and what capabilities it provides
that other alternatives cannot?
Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. When we talk about going
to the Moon, we need a number of things, but the key thing is,
we need large upmass. We have to be able to launch massive
things into space that can be capable of keeping humans alive,
we are talking about large mass, and not just put it in orbit
around the Earth, but get it all the way to the Moon.
If we are going to achieve that, SLS is the vehicle to do
it. Are there others that can do it? Yes, there are others that
could do it, barely. When I say barely, what I mean is they
could perform a free return trajectory. A free return
trajectory doesn't get us into orbit around the Moon, which is
where you have to be if you want to get to the surface of the
Moon.
What we have got to do is, we have got to have a big
rocket. That is what SLS is. What the Exploration Upper Stage
ultimately allows us to do is put even more mass into orbit
around the Moon, and ultimately get to a day where we can co-
manifest payloads. In other words, we can launch hardware that
would include a lander, it would include habitation, and
include the Orion crew capsule, and the European service module
all at the same time.
If we want to accelerate to get to the Moon as soon as
possible, the SLS is a critical piece of that, and so is the
Exploration Upper Stage.
Ms. Roby. So, talk to us, because SLS is the world's only
human rated rocket in its class designed from the ground up to
safely transport astronauts to the moon and deep space. How
important is it that the U.S. be the leader in this capability
with our international partners? And does SLS give the U.S. a
tool to lead our international partners on these other
missions?
Mr. Bridenstine. Without question, I talk to our
international partners all the time. I have met with the heads
of all the space agencies around the world. Everybody is keen
on partnering with us in going back to the Moon, this time
sustainably. SLS is the key to that. There are other countries
in the world that have ideas of having a super heavy lift
capability similar to this. I would say that those countries,
those capabilities are at this point on paper, great paper
designs.
We are actually building a rocket that is very real and the
closest way that we are going to be able to launch to the Moon,
is with that rocket. I believe we are going to do our first
trip around the Moon in 2020, which is next year.
Ms. Roby. So in light of the vice president's comments
yesterday, when do you expect to announce the astronauts that
will launch on the SLS and Orion for EM-2?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is a great question. Soon.
Ms. Roby. Because I would assume they would need to be
begin training soon.
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. The idea would be 2020 we
would do the first launch of SLS uncrewed.
Ms. Roby. Correct.
Mr. Bridenstine. By the way, because it is uncrewed, that
enables us to do things that we otherwise couldn't do, test
envelopes, that kind of thing. Then the second launch of SLS
with an Orion crew capsule would be crewed. We would be looking
for that in 2022.
It is an aggressive agenda, but we can do that.
Ms. Roby. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you for your
service to our country. And we appreciate, again, your time
today. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. James
Bridenstine, Jim, great to have you back.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you. Good to be here.
Mr. Cartwright. In case anybody missed it, Dr. Bridenstine
was part of the greatest class ever elected to the United
States Congress. Let the record reflect Congresswoman Meng is
nodding in the affirmative.
So thanks for being here today. I commend you on the
progress that you have made in your short term in your position
in positioning our nation as the leader in commercial space,
really, what is a revolution. And also the leadership you have
shown in our efforts to return to the Moon and beyond.
Something that you and I have spoken of before, I am a
little frustrated about the third consecutive year of proposed
deep cuts to earth and climate science in NASA's budget. It
clearly contradicts the priorities of both this subcommittee
and of Congress. In recent years, we have seen a rapid increase
in extreme weather events and tragically lost thousands of
lives, many of them in the southeast United States.
Additionally, between 2005 and 2018, you may know that
total federal funding for disaster assistance is almost half a
trillion dollars. So this is a big deal, focusing on the causes
and the cures of climate change.
Just last month, we heard from your Earth Science Director,
Dr. Michael Freilich, that the Earth Science Division in 2018
provided vital real time environmental data to agencies
responding to wildfires in California, floods in the Midwest,
and several hurricanes in the south. We learned that there are
key scientific questions that NASA must continue working on to
improve our understandings and our predictions of climate
change and enable better resource management.
This proposed 7.8 percent cut to Earth Science, which is
out of proportion to other cuts in different parts of the
Agency, I just want you to know as we set your funding, we do
not see that as something that we can afford to have happen. It
would make it harder to understand earth's complex climate
patterns. It would make it much more expensive to adapt to our
new and changing planet.
I want to shift right over to the benefits of NASA
innovations, if I might.
NASA's increasing collaboration with the private sector on
new space technologies and planetary explorations is what I
want to talk about, includes some very new aerospace
accelerator programs, which will select 10 start-up companies
to develop new technologies for space. Can you give us specific
examples of where such NASA and private-sector collaborations
have led to new innovations and spurred economic growth right
here in the United States?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think so. Specifically, regarding Earth
Science, is that----
Mr. Cartwright. Any collaboration with the private sector.
Mr. Bridenstine. Great. I have a couple of things I want to
address because I want you to know that NASA is committed and I
am committed to making sure that we are continuing to study the
Earth and following the decadal surveys, and I have talked to
you about my goal, to make sure that NASA remains apolitical,
bipartisan. We love to have support from all sides.
I understand your concern. Know that we are committed to
the Earth Science budget of NASA; in fact, right now, we have
the highest Earth Science budget in the history of NASA, which
is a good thing. It is on par with last year at the same time,
so I guess we might have lost a little bit. Again, with
bipartisan support in the House and the Senate and even support
from the administration, and it is also true that this budget
request, while a little bit less than we are currently enacted,
it is still higher than 5 of the years that were enacted in the
previous administration. This is a very strong Earth Science
budget request and I just want to make sure that we are all in
agreement.
You have my commitment that we are going to continue
studying the Earth across large parts of the electromagnetic
spectrum. We are going to continue to provide that critical
information that I know that you are so keenly interested in.
And I would love to work with you more if you have ideas on
what we can do.
As far as public-private partnerships, we saw just a few
weeks ago, you probably saw Crew Dragon docked to the
International Space Station. That was a big investment by NASA,
but it was a big investment by the private sector at the same
time, and it enabled us to locate and put a crew-capable
vehicle docked to the International Space Station and come home
safely. The idea being, when we do resupply to the
International Space Station of equipment and food and other
things, and when we send crew to the International Space
Station, we want those activities, we want NASA, where there is
a robust commercial marketplace, we want NASA to be one
customer of many customers driving down to our costs and we
want to have numerous providers that are competing on cost and
innovation, which we have seen now. When commercial providers
launched to the International Space Station, now we are seeing
the re-use of rockets. Imagine flying an airplane from New York
to LA and when you get to where you are going, you have to
throw the airplane away. The cost would be so high, nobody
would ever fly. That is what we have been doing with space
launch for all these years.
NASA has made a commitment that instead of purchasing,
owning and operating hardware, where there is a robust
marketplace, we want to be a customer and let them compete, as
long as we are doing it safely, which we are very keen on, as
well. We are on the precipice of commercializing low-earth
orbit for human capability and we want to continue to see that
happen.
These public-private partnerships, of course, have been
very successful on those activities, but also, even on earth
science. We would like to see NASA buy data from commercial
operators that are sensing the Earth in parts of the
electromagnetic spectrum for purposes that NASA did not go out
and seek their sensing. They are doing it for insurance
companies. They are doing it for private, you know, weather
kind of capabilities. They are doing it for agriculture
companies. How can NASA tap into that? We want to buy that
data, too, and become a customer there. We want to actually get
more earth science data than ever before by taking advantage of
those commercial capabilities.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Bridenstine, it is great to have you here
today. I really enjoy hearing your knowledge on all subjects of
NASA. It is fascinating. It is tremendous, and I think you are
the right man or the right person for the job to serve as
NASA's administrator.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo. I would have a couple questions. One of them
is the enhanced-use lease agreement that NASA has been able to
use very effectively to drive down costs and utilize underused
properties. It seems like every year that is expiring and it
affects all of your space centers--and I know you are trying to
do a lot with limited resources--so every penny, every dollar
that we save is a dollar that we can put in the exploration and
development and do the things the American people want us to
do.
Can you tell me, do you support the EUL and why is it good
for NASA?
Mr. Bridenstine. Critically important for NASA. Enhanced-
use lease enables us, as an Agency, to take property that might
be underutilized and enable private companies to utilize it. It
could be land for housing. It could be a test stand for
Stennis. It could be a building that we have at one of our
centers that is not fully utilized. If we can have a tenant
occupy that property and, pay to improve that property, make it
relevant for today's era--when we talk about test stands, we
talk about launch sites, those kinds of things--we benefit
greatly going back to what Congressman Cartwright was talking
about, commercial helping us and us helping commercial, it
works out very well when we can take advantage of enhanced-use
leasing because it takes that underutilized capability, makes
it utilized, and, of course, it brings resources to NASA then
20 years from now, 30 years, 40 years, we are going to be able
to have and/or use for other purposes. It is a really good
program. We are very grateful to this committee and Congress,
for making sure that is continued in the appropriations
process.
Mr. Palazzo. That's very good to hear. We are working on
legislation to try to make the EUL longer, because as you know,
I mean, with the exploration, it is almost a lot like flood
insurance. People don't--you know, they want the certainty of
the program being in place for a long time, but if it is
expiring every six months, every year, every two years, I don't
think we are fully utilizing the commerce, the industries, that
would seek out NASA facilities and the joint ventures and the
partnerships.
Mr. Bridenstine. Then when there is a lapse in
appropriations, everybody flees, and then we are back to where
we started. You are exactly right, if we could make it
permanent, it would be great.
Mr. Palazzo. Right. I perfectly understand that. I know I
came in a little late and I apologize, and there was some
conversation on the Green Run. I know that is expected to be
conducted at Stennis Space Center, so I would love, in the
essence of time, if you would have one of your people come
speak with us and just tell me some of the alternatives that
you are talking about and what can we do to ensure that a Green
Run is taking place.
I know when I was on the space subcommittee, we had a lot
of astronauts and a lot of people who have flown on rockets.
Many of them had flown to the Moon. They understand how
important testing our rocket engines are and testing them
correctly, because you only get one chance. You don't want to
test a rocket when you are strapped into that rocket.
Mr. Bridenstine. That's right.
Mr. Palazzo. We can't afford that.
And they said one of the reasons of our successes was that
we have tested the rockets and we did it well and we did it at
Stennis Space Center. And I know they have an excellent record
of making sure that when we send a man up to space, that man
comes back--or woman or person--alive.
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
Mr. Palazzo. So, really quick--I have a little bit of
time--I was going to ask about our Russian and China
partnerships and the technological gap, but something that I
have always been curious on from my previous committee is space
debris. Is it getting worse? How are we going to address that?
Because I do know that can affect not only our space stations,
our satellites. Do we have any type of law in place that
prevents other countries from say, detonating or exploding or
polluting our space?
Mr. Bridenstine. Great--all important points--great
question. The answer is, yes, space debris is getting worse,
not better. It is true that in low-earth orbit, debris does get
removed just by the drag from the upper atmosphere, but a lot
of what we do is beyond, you know, that lowest of low-earth
orbits and that debris stays for a long time.
It is important to note that NASA is a part of what's
called the Interagency Space Debris Coordination Committee.
That committee has basically, all the Space Agencies from
around the world that do, you know, big activities in space.
They have assessed, and NASA is a part of it, that every 5 to 9
years, we are going to have a collision in orbit, similar to
the Iridium-Cosmos collision that occurred, I think it was back
in 2009.
In other words, in every 5 to 9 years, we are going to have
a collision that results in thousands of pieces of orbital
debris that are trackable, which means that there are thousands
of more pieces that are not trackable at this point. We need to
do a number of things. We need to improve space-situational
awareness. I know that the Air Force has been working on get
the space fence online, so that is going to be an improvement,
but that is just going to show us a lot more debris. Then we
have to be able to characterize that debris and get better at
assessing conjunctions and increasing the probabilistic, or I
should say, the probabilities of those conjunctions occurring.
When I say increasing the probability, I guess,
increasing--you know, every piece of debris that has a bubble
around it based on uncertainty. We need to get that bubble a
lot smaller, in other words, reduce the uncertainty, so that
while we see more debris, at the same time, we have more
certainty that debris is not going to be impacting any of our
missions and/or people we have on the International Space
Station.
Space-situational awareness and Space-traffic management is
the next step after better space-situational awareness, and
then mitigation--don't let it happen to begin with. Do space-
situational awareness to make sure you understand it; space-
traffic management to make sure you can control around it; and
then eventually remediation, which is very costly, but getting
it out of orbit. That is the next big thing. The European Space
Agency is very keen on that right now. They want us to join
them in that effort. We are looking at it.
We do have some missions that are heading in that
direction, but it ends up being very expensive and we need to
make sure that we are doing all the necessary things. Here's
the thing--important point--debris ends up being there for a
long time. If we wreck space, we are not getting it back, and
it is also important to note that creating debris fields
intentionally is wrong. That is an important point, because
some people like to test anti-satellite capabilities
intentionally and create orbital debris fields that we, today,
are still dealing with, and those same countries come to us for
space-situational awareness because of the debris fields that
they, themselves created, and that is being provided by the
American taxpayer, not just to them, but to the entire world
for free.
The entire world has to step up and say, If you are going
to do this, you are going to pay a consequence, and right now
that consequence is not being paid.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Administrator Bridenstine, thank you for being here
today. It is a pleasure to have you with us.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. Despite the administration's rhetoric about
leading in space and the announcement from the vice president
yesterday to return humans to the surface of the moon by 2024,
the fiscal year 2020 budget request proposes to reduce NASA's
funding by almost half a billion dollars. This includes
significant cuts to NASA's new exploration systems, the space-
launch system, Orion crew capsule, and exploration ground
systems. I am particularly concerned that these cuts would
disproportionately impact my state of Florida. I am told that
at least 250 million in cuts would directly impact
infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center and additional cuts
would impact Florida's NASA supplier companies, many of which
are located within my district.
This budget proposal also potentially undermines human
exploration of deep space by deferring funding for the
exploration upper stage of the Space Launch System and
eliminating funding for a second mobile launcher, the latter of
which could threaten hundreds of new jobs in Florida starting
this year. I do agree that the exploration, upper stage, and
second mobile launcher are critical to NASA's leadership in
space and our ability to explore the Moon, Mars, and other
deep-space destinations.
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. I agree with that 100 percent.
Mr. Crist. With the proposed cuts in this budget, can we
meet the vice president's goal of returning to the Moon by
2024?
Mr. Bridenstine. We are going to--if we are going to have
boots on the Moon in 2024, as the vice president indicated
yesterday, which I believe we can achieve, we are going to need
SLS. We are going to need to accelerate it and get as many of
those as soon as possible. We are going to need exploration
upper stage as soon as possible. 2024 is a very aggressive
schedule and there is nothing that we can do to accelerate that
in a more meaningful way to get boots on the Moon in 2024 than
having exploration upper stage, you know, the Orion crew
capsule, the European Service Module, and the Space Launch
System. With the exploration upper stage, we need that second
mobile launcher.
Mr. Crist. So, I assume--pardon me, I am sorry.
Mr. Bridenstine. That is all--you are absolutely accurate.
Mr. Crist. So, I assume that all means that we would need
more funding in order to accomplish those goals?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Crist. What about getting humans to Mars by 2033?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is--you know, I want to make that
happen. I want to be really clear.
Mr. Crist. That would be great.
Mr. Bridenstine. It is more challenging. There is a lot of
technologies that have to be developed. I heard people talking
earlier about nuclear thermal propulsion to--you know, that
kind of capability. We talk about deep space, we talk about
radiation affecting the human condition.
What does that mean? We have got to get to Mars quicker. A
7-month journey is going to be very harmful to the human
condition, so we have to go faster and nuclear thermal is a
part of that. We also need to figure out how do we shield from
the radiation. We need to figure out how to live and work on
another world.
When you go to Mars, we are only lined up with Mars on the
same side of the Sun once every 26 months. What does that mean?
That means when we go to Mars, we are going to have to be able
to live there for a couple of years before we can come home. We
have to figure out how to, basically, what we call in-situ
resource utilization. In this budget request, Congressman, we
do have resources for in situ resource utilization for the
first time and the President has given us a direction to
actually utilize the resources of the Moon, which has never
been done before.
The reason we do that, the reason the Moon matters here, is
because it is a proving ground. It is a proving ground for all
of the capabilities that we need to test all of the
capabilities where we need to learn. It is a 3-day journey
home, which means things can go wrong and we can actually come
home safely. We proved that with Apollo 13. We don't want to
relive Apollo 13, but if things go wrong, the Moon--it is a
better place--if that happened on the way to Mars, the
astronauts would not have made it.
The Moon is the best path to prove all these capabilities,
technologies, and so, 2033 is, I think, aggressive, but the
only way we can make that happen is to utilize the Moon as the
proving ground.
Mr. Crist. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Bridenstine. That is again, we are only on the same
side of the Sun every 26 months, so when we go, we have got to
be prepared.
Mr. Serrano. Well, they better take a lot of DVDs.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yeah.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Bridenstine, welcome back.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you. By the way, Congressman
Cartwright was teasing when he called me Doctor, so, just----
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I am just trying to be a friendly source
here.
Mr. Bridenstine. All right.
Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to ask you, your budget submission
reflects some realignment of funding, moving money outside of
the aeronautics line item. I am particularly interested in that
line item. And could you please explain--and by the way, moving
money out of aeronautics to me is quite a concerning move.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. Could you please explain how decreasing in the
aeronautics line will impact wind tunnels, specifically, at
NASA's Glenn Research Facility in Brook Park, Ohio, which I
represent, and I just wanted to place on the record that NASA's
Glenn wind tunnels are critical for hypersonic testing. We are
one of the only places in the world that can do this and I am
concerned that there may be something happening somewhere
within the Agency that I want to get on the record here.
Could you please explain how and why you have decided to
change this account for the wind tunnel budget in this way?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, ma'am. Critically important question,
and know that we are 100 percent committed to the wind tunnels.
There will be no change in the capabilities or the technologies
that are available at Glenn because of this. This is basically
moving numbers from one budget, line item to another budget
line item. The reason we do that is because before, you know,
we have wind tunnels--and this is throughout the Agency--that
is utilized by different parts of NASA.
We had the Science Mission Directorate paying a certain
amount, and the Human Exploration and Operations Mission
Directorate paying a certain amount, and the Aeronautics
Mission Directorate paying a certain amount. It became
difficult to track--who is paying what, who is using it most--
and it became a challenge. What we have done now, is we have
said we are going to take all of those resources that are being
paid by the different mission directorates of NASA and instead,
we are going to put them into one account and we are going to
fund them from one account, so we can track it better and have
better accounting on it.
The key here is to know that there will be no change in
capability at all at Glenn and, in fact, it stabilizes the
funding in a way that will make things more predictable and I
think better for the future.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I just want to put on the record,
you know, NASA Glenn Lewis Research Center is connected by an
umbilical cord to the Plum Brook Research Center, where the
Orion is being built right now----
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. In an international consortium.
So, the wind tunnel issue is expensive and it has been
developed over a long period of time and I want to hear you
correctly that, in fact, though you are funding something
centrally, it will not affect the mission?
Mr. Bridenstine. That's correct.
Ms. Kaptur. It will not--so, can I ask, what criteria did
NASA use to determine whether a facility is best managed and
funded centrally, by staff, or directly by any one of the
mission directorates?
Mr. Bridenstine. What I'd like to do, if possible, this was
a project that was run out of CFO's office. I would like to
take that for the record and get back to you on the specifics
that went into this process, if that is okay.
Ms. Kaptur. OK. That would be very, very helpful to us.
Mr. Bridenstine. OK.
Ms. Kaptur. And I have a related question on another topic,
but I just know that that is my top priority----
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. And any other member up here
representing a NASA center would do the same.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. And we are--I said, how is it possible--just so
you know my perspective--that a center named after John Glenn
in a state that Neil Armstrong called home, could have the
smallest NASA center in America?
Mr. Bridenstine. And the Wright brothers.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, that was a little before their time, but,
yes, and the Wright brothers. So, I just sort of say, you know,
I have got to defend my own and so we want to make sure that we
don't compromise any asset that we have spent so long in
perfecting.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. OK. Thank you for listening.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. My second question in my brief remaining time
is in January 2019, NASA Glenn, Carnegie Melon University, and
the National Energy Laboratory built on work in partnership
with Magnetics, a company in Pittsburgh, and was awarded a U.S.
patent for a commercialization-ready technology. Will your
fiscal year 2020 budget allow Glenn to continue this type of
collaboration with universities and industry throughout the
Midwest?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, ma'am. We are--in fact, right now, as
you mentioned, we have these programs. I think that is under
kind of a community development line----
Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
Mr. Bridenstine [continuing]. And that is underway right
now and I think it is around $5 million and we have 10
different centers, of course, where that money is allocated to
centers for distribution, but that activity is underway right
now and it is in our interests.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Very good. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. The overall budget request is
nearly $500 million below last year's appropriated level. Some
of the cuts carry heavy congressional and public interests such
as Earth Science and Education. Does the administration see
these as targets for the committee to fund from other
resources; in other words, are these items that were left this
way knowing that you have got friends over here who are going
to--the agency has friends over here that are going to take
care of it?
Mr. Bridenstine. I don't think that was the intent at all,
Mr. Chairman. I think, you know, any cuts that were there were
based on priorities and the budget. We wanted to make sure that
we were not duplicating efforts or doing things that were being
done in other ways and, certainly, that was the effort here.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Just, again, perception, it would seem
to some people that that is what happens every so often.
Agencies know there is support for these programs so they don't
include it and they submit better numbers, they think.
The University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez and Rio Piedras
campuses, especially the Mayaguez campus, has provided many
scientists to NASA. These campuses have been recipients of the
National Space Grant College and Fellowship Programs. Last
year, the administration cut the education requests to zero and
the committee added funding back. This year, it was zeroed
again. Does the administration not see the need for such
programs?
Mr. Bridenstine. A couple of things. As of right now, and I
looked this up because--so everybody knows, Mr. Chairman, you
cornered me years ago, long before I had this job, about how
important this was when you learned that I was potentially on
the docket for this position. I looked up our different grant
programs that are going to the University of Puerto Rico
because I know it was of interest to you long ago. We have
about 13 different grants right now that are active and it is
also true that our goal is to make sure that we are reaching
the right folks at the right time in order to stimulate young
folks in the STEM curriculum, especially in those sometimes
underprivileged or underrepresented communities, and our goal
is to do that.
We do that through the Science Mission Directorate, and
through the Human Exploration and Operations Mission
Directorate. We do it through the mission directorates, not
always just through those grant programs that you mentioned.
Again, what we are trying to do is make sure that we are
allocating every dollar to the most effective possible way to
accomplish the objective.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I would hope that you continue to look
at that because these grants are very important to these
campuses and they have provided NASA with a lot of engineers,
as you know, the Mayaguez campus. And--the fact that I was born
in Mayaguez, by the way; it is just an aside.
Additionally, I have a keen interest in the continuation of
the Arecibo Observatory in North Central Puerto Rico, that is
partially funded by NASA. I trust funding will continue to be
provided for Arecibo?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir. We have right now, about $4 and
a half million dollars that we spend utilizing it on an annual
basis and that is going to scale to about $5 million by 2022.
Mr. Serrano. By 20?
Mr. Bridenstine. 2022.
Mr. Serrano. OK. When NASA's FY 2020 budget proposes to
eliminate funding for the Wide-field Infrared Survey Telescope,
that will be a first. This telescope was designed to work in
concert with the James Webb Telescope by using its wide field
of view to find objects while the James Webb Telescope would
have the ability to focus in on more fine objects referred by
the WFIRST telescope. If one was built to work with the other,
why is WFIRST considered for elimination?
Mr. Bridenstine. This is an important question and I want
to make sure that I get it just right. They are intended to
work together. One is wide-field, one is going to be able to
look even further. With James Webb, we are talking about
looking back to what we call cosmic dawn, the very first light
in the universe, basically, looking back in time, which is kind
of crazy to think about.
Here, I think is the point. The James Webb Telescope is
what we call a flagship mission. The WFIRST would be a flagship
mission. One of the challenges, we have even right now within
the Astrophysics Division of the Science Mission Directorate at
NASA, is that the James Webb Space Telescope is well beyond its
originally scheduled date. It is well over cost, and, of
course, I have talked in Congress about this a lot recently.
We are now getting it back on track. Because they work
together, it makes sense to do one before the other and if
James Webb is not yet ready, preparing WFIRST right away is
probably not the right approach. What we are working on as an
Agency, is better portfolio management. We need those large
flagship missions like WFIRST, like James Webb, but we also
need a balanced portfolio that includes smaller missions,
medium-class missions, and small missions, to ultimately, in
other words, spread the risk. I guess, think of it as hedging
on these kinds of missions.
The intent is to create a better balance of the portfolio
in future years, but you are absolutely right. WFIRST is not
funded in the budget requests because James Webb is not yet
launched. We have that back on track to launch in March of
2021. WFIRST will be a critical mission when James Webb is on
orbit.
Mr. Serrano. So, the plan is to still have them work
together?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. As you know, a frequent and
regular tempo of launches to--fix costs of aspects of launch
programs. So, one launch a year is probably not the best use of
taxpayer dollars. What steps are you examining, especially in
light of yesterday's speech, to make greater use of SLS and
also its unique large capacity?
Mr. Bridenstine. The key is to have missions for SLS, and
given, as you said, what the vice president said yesterday, we
are, in fact, going to have missions for SLS. What we need to
do is we have to accelerate that first launch, get an uncrewed
test of the Orion crew vehicle around the Moon, and then we
need to get to the second launch of SLS EM-2 with crew, and
from that point forward, we are going into an operations-kind
of tempo.
I think we, as an Agency, can get to a point where we are
surge, which is ultimately what we are going to need to do. We
are going to need to surge SLS, surge Orion, and, in fact,
surge the exploration of upper stage if we are going to put
boots on the Moon in 2024. Getting a throughput, instead of
once every year, getting a throughput of once every six months
is what we are going to have to accomplish. If we do that, you
are absolutely right, the costs per launch will be driven down.
Another thing to consider, we have what we call the SM-1,
which is Science Mission 1, it is written in the law that we
are going to launch that on an SLS. For example, it is a Europa
mission. It is going all the way out to Europa to help us
assess and characterize Europa, which is a Moon of Jupiter, and
it is water world; it is covered in ice and it has got liquid
water plumes coming out of it. The question is: Could there be
life there? That is what we are trying to characterize.
One of the things that we need to consider, if the agenda
is to get boots on the moon in 2024, do we want to use one of
the very valuable and critical SLS launches to launch Europa,
knowing that that is going to potentially take time? Could we,
in essence, launch that on a different vehicle that would take
a lot longer to get Europa--it could take an additional 3 years
to get to Europa--but, at the same time, would not take away
from the schedule to get boots on the Moon. I guess my point
is, given the 2024 agenda, which is what you identified earlier
and how important that is, if that is the case, there is going
to be no shortage of missions for SLS and there is going to be
no shortage of a desire to surge and, of course, all of this is
going to require resources that we are going to--I am more than
happy to work with you to figure out how to get those.
Mr. Aderholt. OK. The exploration, upper stage, and the
Mobile Launcher 2 are important Space Launch System upgrade
elements which would allow future crewed missions to also bring
along payloads like lunar landers, gateway elements and
habitats to the Moon, and eventually to Mars. Can you comment
on the unique capabilities of the EUS and how close NASA is to
letting a contract for the Mobile Launcher 2?
Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. In May we will be under
contract for the second mobile launcher. The second mobile
launcher is valuable because it enables us to launch an SLS
with an exploration upper stage, which gives us more upmass,
more ability to launch bigger objects and objects further; in
other words, all the way to the Moon.
If we are going to land in 2024, we have got to have that
second mobile launcher. We certainly need to have exploration
upper stage, and all of these things need to be accelerated.
The key is, when we talk about exploration upper stage, what it
allows us to do is launch humans on the Orion crew capsule with
the European Service Module and at the same time, launch
hardware, big hardware with those humans. That big hardware
could be habitation. It could be parts of the gateway. It could
be landers that can get those humans to the surface of the
Moon. The key, ultimately, is going to be larger upmass, which
SLS is the key to doing that. Exploration upper stage helps us
do that.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, SLS and Orion programs are key to the
health of our national aerospace supplier base and it has
really helped to really put in a new boost of energy to the
suppliers in all of the 50 states following the retirement of
the space shuttle.
And I am not aware of any other DOD program which has a
broad supplier and workforce impact. The program supports NASA
workforce, and infrastructure of Kennedy, Marshall, Stennis,
and Michaud assembly facility.
Can you talk about the importance of our national space
programs, such as the capabilities, the supplier base, the
innovation of SLS, the Orion benefit on a broad range of
aerospace industry users.
Mr. Bridenstine. That is a great point. When we talk about
these kind of capabilities, it is part of our national
infrastructure. It is part of our industrial base that keeps
America the number one place in the world when it comes to
exploration. The vice president was very clear yesterday. We
are to remain the preeminent space faring nation. That is on
our agenda. We have got to have the industrial base to achieve
that.
SLS and Orion are programs that keep that going. I can tell
you as a former member of Congress from Oklahoma, we have a lot
of suppliers to those programs in Oklahoma that are doing
critically important work that actually spills over. We talk
about the capability to launch a missile off of an airplane,
for example, or the ability to do different types of design.
All of these kind of capabilities are back in my home state of
Oklahoma because of this particular program.
Part of being part of the industrial base is, that is a big
piece of what SLS is.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Ms. Roby.
Ms. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And whereas this
committee plays an important role of making sure we stay within
our budget and on time. I would like to channel a little bit of
the spirit of our former chairman, if I might, and just tell
you this is really awesome. And it is really cool to be a part
of this and to be able to ask you these questions, but to think
about the role that we get to play as members of Congress and
future space exploration. And so I am thrilled, as always, to
be here.
I am concerned that NASA hasn't moved ahead with the
procurement of the SLS core stage for EM-3 and beyond. Despite
having already purchased the engine's boosters and Orion crew
vehicles for those missions, in order to expedite the lunar
missions the vice president highlighted. Will you move forward
quickly with the contract to allow the SLS program to procure
the long lead items from suppliers and begin work on core stage
3 and beyond?
Mr. Bridenstine. We are going to need to. If we are going
to achieve boots on the Moon, which is what the vice president
called us to do yesterday by 2024, the answer is absolutely we
need to move as quickly as possible, not just on EM-3, but EM-
4, EM-5. There is a lot of work that has to be done very
quickly. The answer is yes.
The vice president was very clear, and he was talking on
behalf of the President. This goes right back to space policy
directive-1, that was signed over a year ago by the President
to go to the Moon sustainably with commercial partners,
international partners, and utilize the resources of the moon.
If we are going to do--if we are going to put the pieces in
place to put those boots on the Moon in 2024, we are going to
have to move very quickly on all these pieces.
Ms. Roby. Thank you again for being here. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Administrator, the administration's goal
is to privatize U.S. efforts at the International Space Station
by 2025. Are you concerned about our partnerships if we don't
continue U.S. presence in low Earth orbit after 2025 due to a
lack of federal funding or a gap for a successor station?
Mr. Bridenstine. It is a concern. We are in a position now,
because of the International Space Station, we are
commercializing low Earth orbit rapidly. This particular budget
request does not specifically say that we are going to end
direct funding for the ISS in 2025. It says we want to move to
a new model of funding. In other words, how are we going to
commercialize low Earth orbit in a more robust way? The goal
being that if NASA can be one customer of many customers and we
can have numerous providers competing on cost and innovation,
not just for resupply of ISS, not just for commercial crew,
getting crew to the ISS, but also habitation itself.
Industry is interested in the microgravity environment,
whether it is pharmaceuticals, or manufacturing, and the health
care industry even larger. Right now, we have got experiments
where we are using adult stem cells to print human organs in 3D
and that could be transformational.
There is a lot of market opportunities, plus there is an
entire, I guess, ecosystem of people that are interested in
going to space for tourism, just commercially just for, I
guess, fun, vacation. There is an opportunity there as well.
What we want to do is utilize the International Space Station
to prove out those capabilities and those technologies.
There are companies out there that are trying to develop
their own commercial habitats. We want to encourage that. There
is money in this budget to help them move along faster. Again,
if we can commercialize and be a customer, then our costs go
down, and then we can utilize our resources on activities for
which there is not yet a commercial robust--a robust commercial
marketplace, for example, returning to the Moon.
That is the agenda here. We want to make sure that in low
Earth orbit we do everything possible to commercialize, drive
down costs, use resources to go where there is no commercial
market yet.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt is going to the Moon on vacation
he told me. And he has got a question.
Mr. Aderholt. I am not going to Mars, though. It is too
long of a trip. Over the last two fiscal years, Congress has
provided over 175 million towards the development of a nuclear
thermal propulsion. And therefore, we were a little
disappointed to see the request did not include any of the
funding for that purpose. How much of the 75 million that
Congress provided in fiscal year 2018 for nuclear thermal
propulsion activities has NASA spent towards demonstration
preparation instead of, for example, multiple studies?
And my understanding is that other nuclear work as produced
power elements limited to one megawatt. Can you respond to
that?
Mr. Bridenstine. You are right. I think it is nuclear
thermal propulsion and related activities. I think under that
related activities, we did spend money on, as you mentioned,
kilowatt power for being able to provide, in essence, a lot of
power for people to live and work on the surface of the Moon.
The answer is we have spent money on studies. We are continuing
to develop. We are in phase one. We are trying to get really
smart on how we would utilize nuclear thermal and that kind of
thing, but as you heard yesterday, the vice president is keenly
aware of the importance for nuclear thermal in order to get to
Mars faster. The DOD has an interest in nuclear thermal as
well.
We want to make sure that we are doing that.
Mr. Aderholt. Given Congress' direction on that and, of
course, the vice president's speech yesterday, can you commit
to us to moving ahead with plans for an in space demonstration
of the nuclear thermal propulsion in 2024?
Mr. Bridenstine. As far as plans for a demonstration in
2024, I would have to get back to you specifically on where we
are on that. I am not, off the top of my head, prepared to talk
about where we are on that whole development.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. If you could get back with us on that,
that would be great.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you
for answering our questions. I hope you understand, and I think
you do, that where we try to fill holes that may exist in the
budget is because this chairman, and this ranking member, and
the members of this subcommittee do have a lot of respect,
understanding, and support for NASA. We think what you do is
important for the future of our country. We want you to do
more. And this is--I speak for Mr. Aderholt and Ms. Roby
because I know they agree, do more with education and schools,
you know, having your folks visit schools, visit children,
visit students, visit colleges, let them know what is available
at NASA and what NASA will bring to the next generation.
So thank you, good luck, and we will see you at the end of
the process.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. And the hearing is adjourned.
[Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
WITNESSES
NEIL JACOBS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee will come to order.
Dr. Jacobs, NOAA's acting administrator, thank you for
coming back for your second time.
As acting administrator, Dr. Jacobs oversees the agency's
$5.4 billion budget, which includes NOAA's sea, air, land, and
space observing platforms, and the critical environmental data
they provide. He also covers the wet side of NOAA in all of its
work in fisheries and coastal management.
Now, the administration has requested $4.46 billion for
NOAA for fiscal year 2020. The agency's top three priorities
include improving extreme weather prediction through the
implementation of the Weather Act, expanding the Blue Economy,
and further investments in space innovation. These are good
steps but remain vastly overshadowed by the devastating cuts
that President Trump has in store for NOAA.
The request represents an 18 percent decrease or nearly a
$1 billion cut from the 2019 enacted level. In terms of job
cuts, this amounts to a reduction of 547 civilian positions
within the agency, which is quite devastating. The massive cuts
or outright elimination of vital environmental research remains
wildly unrealistic and unworkable, just as they have for the
past two fiscal years.
This proposal severely cuts funding for ocean exploration
and observations, species recovery programs, the tsunami
warning program, fisheries management, program grants to our
academic and nonprofit research institutions that conduct
research to further NOAA's goals and mission, just to name a
few.
It, once again, proposes a complete elimination of funding
for NOAA grant and education program. It deems as lower
priority, including Sea Grants, Coastal Zone Management grants,
Pacific coastal climate research, the Coastal Salmon Recovery
Fund. These remain nonstarters with the subcommittee, we must
tell you now.
I would like to remind the administration that investment
in critical research in our universities protecting coastal
habitats, where one half of the U.S. population resides, and
the livelihoods of fishermen are not low priority. Not to this
subcommittee. These grant programs employ thousands of
scientists across the country and territories, protect local
economies, and give us the tools to safeguard our communities
against sea level rise and climate change. The investments we
make today will prepare us for the challenges we face tomorrow.
As our February hearing on NOAA climate research made very
clear, we are starting to experience those challenges now.
Therefore, I do not believe this budget, as presented to us
today, allows NOAA to live up to its core mission, as the
Administration would have us believe.
Dr. Jacobs, it is good to see you. Thank you for joining us
to discuss NOAA's priorities and outlook for fiscal year 2020.
At this time, I recognize my friend, the ranking member,
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. And I
look forward to having another productive day of hearings. I
think we got a pretty full day today.
So good to have Dr. Jacobs here, and welcome back to the
subcommittee, and we appreciate you taking the time to join us
to discuss the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
better known as NOAA, fiscal year 2020 budget.
Of course, as we see, the fiscal year 2020 budget request
is $4.5 billion. Of course, a reduction, $968 million from
fiscal year 2019 enacted level. I understand that formulating
the fiscal year 2020 budget, you are required to make some
tough choices, and you got to make some--put some programs
above others. And while I have concerns that some potential
programs impact and some of the things that would be impacted
by this request, especially when it comes to key weather
research programs, I am pleased to see that the--that your
budget continues to--and NOAA continues to focus on identifying
agency efficiencies, maximizing the economic contributions for
our coastal and marine resources, and also reducing the impact
of extreme weather.
Utilizing the information that we gather from the hearing
today, this subcommittee will work hard over the coming months
to carefully review the budget proposal to provide NOAA the
resources that it needs for fiscal year 2020 to effectively
carry out this mission.
So, Dr. Jacobs, again we look forward to your testimony,
and continue to work together to better understand and predict
the changes in our world's weather system and the bodies of
water, and share that information to the public, and to
conserve our coastal and marine resources.
So with that, I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Jacobs, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Try to keep
it to five, but please understand that your whole statement
will be inserted in the record.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. The President's fiscal year 2020 budget request
for NOAA is $111 million above the fiscal year 2019 request and
emphasizes core programs while making targeted investments
which we believe will produce a substantial return for the
American taxpayer.
Accelerating advancements in the global modeling program is
a top priority. While there have been many achievements in
2018, problems exist with the current structure of weather
research to operations. The internal and external strategy is
fractured, and the computing procurement process is cumbersome
and the funding process disincentivizes collaboration.
The fiscal year 2020 request addresses many of these
challenges through the creation of the Earth Prediction
Innovation Center, or EPIC. Based on the Weather Research and
Forecast Innovation Act of 2017 and the recently authorized
National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization
Act of 2018, EPIC will severe as the hub for building and
maintaining a true community model.
EPIC's innovative structure will link scientists and
software engineers in academia, private industry, and partner
agencies with research development and operational activities
inside of NOAA. EPIC will significantly enhance our ability to
access external expertise, reestablishing preeminence of U.S.
forecast model skill, and improving our ability to provide
accurate watches and warnings.
The NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture study, or
NSOSA, which was completed in 2017, analyzed various approaches
to better meet mission requirements with greater flexibility
and responsiveness and incorporating involving technologies.
Congress recognized the importance of NSOSA codifying the
program in the NIDIS Reauthorization Act of 2018.
This budget initiates NSOSA implementation and invests to
evaluate innovative space-based solutions and partnerships,
including $12.3 million for joint venture partnerships and
hosted payloads on geostationary and polar orbits. It also
continues the importance of commercial weather data pilot
program, as well as $5 million for the option to purchase data
after successful testing.
This budget makes necessary investments for strong coastal
communities and economies. It includes an increase of $2.3
million for regional fishery management councils to analyze and
remove outdated or ineffective regulations. To help level the
playing field for U.S. commercial fishermen in a global seafood
marketplace, an additional $1.6 million is requested to enforce
Seafood Import Monitoring Program and prevent the importation
of seafood caught using illegal fishing practices.
Finally, the budget includes an increase of $3.6 million to
support aquaculture by assisting an industry with the
regulatory compliance and conducting research to ensure the
American farmed fish are safe and sustainable.
Executive Order 13840 established the National Ocean Policy
focused on providing tools to coastal communities to
sustainably manage their offshore waters. The budget includes
an additional $4 million of ocean data platforms, building on
innovative tools developed by NOAA to improve siting and
offshore activities.
NOAA has made great strides in the past 2 years to reduce
the amount of time needed for environmental review, the time to
complete formal and informal Endangered Species Act
consultations so it is reduced by over 22 and 65 percent,
respectively. Incidental harassment authorizations under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act have been reduced by 25 percent.
The fiscal year 2020 budget builds on this success by providing
an additional $3 million to further reduce the timeline of
consultations and permits.
Other sectors in the Blue Economy that this budget
addresses include marine transportation through additional
precision navigation data, efforts to reduce marine debris,
accelerate economic benefit of new and expanded marine
sanctuaries, and reducing the backlog of Natural Resource
Damage Assessment cases.
Finally, this budget includes $5 million for the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program. We intend to use these funds
to leverage investments from other Federal agencies, private
industry, and philanthropic organizations that have shared
interest in advancing ocean research. These funds can be used
for a variety of partnerships, ranging from ocean exploration
to new technology to detect and protect marine mammals.
NOAA services touch every America every day. I believe this
budget request meets NOAA's core mission by protecting lives
and property, while also positioning the agency to be more
efficient and effective moving forward.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. Thank you for your testimony, sir.
Dr. Jacobs, and I say this with all due respect, I am
having a hard time taking this budget proposal seriously. It
includes an 18 percent top line cut along with wholesale
elimination of nearly all of the grant programs. It proposes
terminating 547 NOAA employees and upending the lives of so
many students and post-docs whose funding would be pulled from
Sea Grant, the cooperative institutes, and the other external
research funding.
Do you know how many students exactly would lose the
funding they depend on to continue their studies? Is it dozens,
hundreds, thousands maybe?
Mr. Jacobs. I don't know the exact number of students that
would be impacted.
Mr. Serrano. Does anybody know at NOAA that could tell us
at a sooner rather than later date?
Mr. Jacobs. I will look into that and see if I can find a
number.
Mr. Serrano. So this budget would, in my opinion, halt the
early careers of possibly thousands of young scientists. Has
NOAA ever discussed that ramification with the department and
OMB?
Mr. Jacobs. We have. But in the situation where we had to
make some tough choices and balancing administration
priorities, we really focused on our core mission of protecting
life and property.
Mr. Serrano. Let me go back a second to my initial
question. You say you don't know how many people it would
affect. In the discussions with OMB, did it come up the
possibility that Congress would ask you how many people it
would affect? We tend to do that a lot.
Mr. Jacobs. Well, as far as the impact to our ability to
maintain our core mission, we still have what we need to do
that. As far as the outreach into the educational aspect of it,
I don't have that number.
Mr. Serrano. Continuing with education. I am extremely
disappointed to once again see severe cuts to NOAA's Office of
Education. In particular, the budget proposes to eliminate a
program I helped create over 20 years ago, the Educational
Partnership Program, with Minority-Serving Institutions.
Do you know what some of the accomplishments of this
program are, for example, that the partner institutions have
produced over 2,300 degrees in the NOAA sciences since 2002?
Mr. Jacobs. Oh, it is a very valuable program. I would
point out that we are a million dollars above the previous
year's President's budget in this program. As far as STEM goes,
there is actually quite a few aspects of this throughout NOAA.
We have K-12 programs at the forecast offices. We have a lot of
different outreach that we still do. In fact, moving the
community model development program outside of NOAA and putting
a lot of our data on external web portals gives the
universities and students and PIs and post-docs access to a
tremendous amount of information.
So my hope is that a lot of this data, while we may not
explicit be funding their research, we will be giving them
access to more information and data to do research.
Mr. Serrano. Well, one of the things that troubles me with
this whole presentation is that NOAA doesn't seem to know just
how successful they have been. I mean, that the cuts are coming
in without fully understanding that these programs mean a lot
to a lot of people and produce for the future of our country.
Are you also aware that over 50 percent of our Nation's
Black Ph.D. Graduates in the marine and atmospheric sciences
benefited from these programs? You do?
Mr. Jacobs. Again, it is--in the budget situation we are
in, we had to make tough choices and focus on our----
Mr. Serrano. What is the budget situation you are in? Is
it--I mean, because we have been around here long enough to
also know that there is another way of presenting budgets, and
that is you leave holes that are easy for anybody to see and
then Congress will take care of it. Is this what is happening
here, that you are all hoping that Congress will fill in these
holes in negotiations with the House and the Senate?
Mr. Jacobs. We made a conscious decision to focus on our
core mission of maintaining full-time employees and protecting
life and property.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just ask you one more question. This
budget proposes to cut an additional 248 employees from the
National Weather Service, despite regular reports, including
one from GAO of understaffing and subsequent negative impacts
on the quality of forecast produced.
How many hours have weather forecasters worked without pay
covering vacant operational shifts because they have hit the
overtime premium pay cap imposed by law? What efforts, if any,
has the Weather Service taken to avoid requiring its
forecasters to work shifts for which they will not be paid?
Mr. Jacobs. As far as I know, we are doing a tremendous
amount of work in actually backfilling and hiring new
forecasters. In fiscal year 2018, it was the first time since
2011 that our actual hiring had outpaced attrition. And,
granted, we had a setback during the shutdown because of
typical retirements happening at the end of the year. We are
staffed at roughly 91\1/2\ percent right now. And once we
actually get to the point where we are fully staffed, we won't
have to have people, you know, working overtime unless they
want to.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. National Water Center, it plays a key role,
as you know, in strengthening our Nation's water forecast
capabilities for floods and droughts and improving preparedness
for water-related disasters. My question to you, Dr. Jacobs,
would be, can you speak to the importance of the work that is
being done at the National Water Center? Especially, I would be
interested in speaking--if you could speak in light of the
recent flooding events in Nebraska and the fact that NOAA's
spring outlook indicated that two-thirds of the lower 48 States
face an elevated risk of flooding through May.
Mr. Jacobs. The work being done in the National Water
Center is extremely critical. It is a little known fact that
water actually is responsible for the most deaths, over a
hundred a year, and about half of those are in cars. It is a
critical component of our integrated modeling system where we
are working on forecasting precipitation, and integrating that
with the national water model, which forecasts stream flow with
the help of USGS gauges.
The downstream effects of this are not just related to the
protection of life and property, although that is the primary
concern; it is actually hugely important to the economy,
because the Mississippi River is a huge port, and the water
flow, particularly now with the amount of volume going through
there, is slowing down the shipping. So there is a tremendous
amount of value that the Water Center provides, and it is an
integral part of what we are doing.
I would like to add that in fiscal year 2019, we will be
including Hawaii in the scope of the National Water Center's
coverage, and in fiscal year 2020, we will be including Puerto
Rico.
Mr. Aderholt. As you know, the committee provided funds to
expedite hiring within the Water Prediction Operation Division
of the National Water Center. Is NOAA committed to maintaining
those staffing levels for fiscal year 2020?
Mr. Jacobs. Absolutely. So right now, we have 68 staff at
the Water Center. Our goal is to increase the staff by 25
percent by the end of fiscal year 2019.
Mr. Aderholt. Would additional resources in staff help
improve the Center's work that they do there? Is that----
Mr. Jacobs. We have the resources. We have $1.5 million
provided by Congress. It is largely a timing and hiring issue,
but we are on pace to hit the 25 percent.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. As you are aware, the southeast
experienced some of the most destructive and deadly tornadoes
in the country. Just earlier this month, I pointed out
yesterday in a hearing, that 23 people lost their lives when an
EF4 tornado tore through east Alabama, and that is why my
constituents and so many in Alabama, and even other parts of
the southeast, really value the research programs like the
VORTEX Southeast. It brings Federal agencies together to help
better understand how environmental factors in the region
affect tornado formation intensity and paths.
Yesterday, Dr. Cordova was here with the NSF, and I spoke
with her about the role in and our commitment to VORTEX
Southeast as well.
Can you take a moment to explain the role that NOAA plays
in the VORTEX Southeast?
Mr. Jacobs. So the research and the ability to both
observe and detect and predict tornadoes is right on the
cutting edge of what we are doing. Typically, I refer to a
tornado or a convective cell as sub-grid scale in the
forecasting. And while we can observe tornadoes with radar,
what we really want to do is understand the dynamics in
thunderstorms and be able to try to predict them. And we are
just now at the cutting edge of being able to predict rotation
and thunderstorm cells. We can't actually predict tornadoes
yet, but we can predict tornadic potential.
So the outcome of this project VORTEX, as well as what we
are going to be doing with the EPIC, we will be looking at
convective resolving models, convective ensembles, and
probabilistic forecasting. And eventually, my hope is to get to
a point where we can improve what we call our warn on forecast
capability, and that is actually issuing tornado warnings based
on forecasted rotation and cells, instead of actually waiting
to observe the rotation on radar imaging.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, given that NOAA has put such high
priority on improving weather forecast models to save lives and
protect property, what was the rationale in terminating this
program?
Mr. Jacobs. So a lot of the research that is being done in
that program, particularly when it comes to convective allowing
models, is going to be done on the academic community side
through the Earth Prediction Innovation Center. So while we are
streamlining our unified forecasting systems, so there has been
a lot of talk about the FV3 in the global model, but we are
also going to an FV3-based convective-allowing model, which
will be the next generation of our high-resolution convective
forecast, which will obviously be the key model in predicting
tornadic potential.
Mr. Aderholt. So this research would be carried out in a
different area of NOAA?
Mr. Jacobs. There will be several different parts, both in
the Weather Service, U.S. Weather Research Program, as well as
other parts of OAR that we will be doing convective research as
well as tornadic research.
Mr. Aderholt. You mentioned about the fact that it is--
that you cannot really predict when a tornado will occur. What
do you think it will take for us to develop a real accurate
advanced tornado warning system?
Mr. Jacobs. Really, it will be probably parallel paths
working on the convective-allowing models and probabilistic
forecast, as well as looking into social sciences and the human
response to tornado warnings and how they are issued.
Originally, we thought that more lead time would provide better
response, but how that is messaged is really a social science
issue. So we are really looking at this from a social science
angle to get the public to better respond to our warnings.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Dr. Jacobs, for coming back. We had you not too long ago.
As you might recall from our last hearing, I am very
interested in what NOAA is doing to address climate change.
Significantly, I am interested in preventing damage to the
American economy, and also, obviously, improving the science.
As stated in the fourth National Climate Assessment, which
NOAA helped produce, the impacts of climate change are already
being felt in communities across the country. The increasing
frequency and intensity of weather-related disasters, some of
which Mr. Aderholt just referred to in the southeast, is having
a real economic impact, not to mention lives lost.
Between 2005 and 2018 alone, total Federal funding for
disaster assistance in the United States has approached half a
trillion dollars, half a trillion dollars in 13 years. Just
last month, we heard from you that NOAA provides vital realtime
weather and climate data to help communities prepare for severe
weather events. We also learned there are key scientific
questions that NOAA has to continue working on to improve the
accuracy and reliability of the short- and long-term weather
forecasts and climate models.
Now, this proposed 18 percent cut to NOAA's budget
decreases funding for weather research and modeling, surface
ocean and upper air observations, and regional climate labs. It
also eliminates competitive climate research funds and the
Arctic Research Program. These are cuts that make it harder to
improve forecasts for floods, hurricanes, wildfires, let alone
trying to figure out how to predict tornadoes.
I have some questions. In our last hearing, you confirmed
that the National Climate Assessment is based on facts and
sound science. Is that still your position?
Mr. Jacobs. It is--the National Climate Assessment
basically took the RCP scenarios and extrapolated those to
generate potential weather and climate forecast impacts, and
the results based on those scenarios are grounded in science.
Mr. Cartwright. So just so we are on the same page, this
means you agree with the NCA finding that human activities,
especially emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel
combustion, deforestation, and land use change, are primarily
responsible for the climate changes observed over the last six
decades. Correct?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, in absence of any other natural force in
human production of CO2 as well as the removal of
the CO2 sinks is certainly a dominant factor.
Mr. Cartwright. Do you agree with the NCA finding that we
are already seeing the impacts of climate change, and that in
the future, we will likely experience increased frequency and
intensity of extreme weather events?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, so the impacts of climate change that we
have been seeing now, like as far as sea level rise and such,
are fairly well-documented. The scenarios of what the actual
future weather impacts would be are still being debated. There
is some frequency----
Mr. Cartwright. Let me stop you there. You signed off on
the National Climate Assessment, and that is in there.
Mr. Jacobs. Well, those are predictions based on
predictions. If you believe the assumptions on the first set of
predictions, then, yes. The discussion as far as----
Mr. Cartwright. I don't mean to interrupt you, but we have
limited time. You believe it and that is why you signed off on
it, right, Dr. Jacobs?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, those are peer-reviewed papers. But, you
know, we would have to wait a hundred years to see if they
verify.
Mr. Cartwright. Of course. Do you also agree with the NCA
finding that without substantial and sustained reductions in
global greenhouse gas emissions, the continued warming is
expected to cause substantial net damage to the United States
economy throughout this century?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, there is also a discussion of improved
agricultural capabilities----
Mr. Cartwright. It is a yes or no question, and then you
can explain. Do you agree with that? It is in the NCA finding
that you signed off on.
Mr. Jacobs. I don't disagree with anything in the NCA.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. And you can explain, I don't mean to
cut you off.
Mr. Jacobs. Well, I mean, there is--there could be
positive potential impacts as well, and some of these are
natural and some of them are human induced; it doesn't change
the fact that we should be prepared to deal with them.
Mr. Cartwright. Exactly. Mr. Jacobs, have you communicated
your views on the soundness of the NCA to the White House, who
believe that climate change is a hoax?
Mr. Jacobs. I have had numerous discussions with Dr.
Droegemeier, who is the advisor to the White House on all
things related to science.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, do you think it is responsible
leadership on the part of the Administration knowingly to
ignore the advice of its foremost scientists, like you, Dr.
Jacobs, on an issue that will cause significant harm to the
United States economy and loss of lives?
Mr. Jacobs. I don't have any evidence that they are
ignoring what they are being told.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
I understand--I think all we have at this point is your
budget and brief. I don't think we have your congressional
justifications of your budget yet. Is that correct?
Mr. Jacobs. I don't believe so.
Mr. Case. Okay. And is there any reason for a delay in
getting that to us?
Mr. Jacobs. I suspect part of it is related to the
shutdown and just delaying our ability to get it out.
Mr. Case. Any expectation about when we can get a more
detailed explanation of your budget?
Mr. Jacobs. We can certainly get you one--I can get you
one as soon as I can. I am hoping later this week, but not
completely sure on that.
Mr. Case. Okay. First of all, I just want to associate
myself fully with my chair's remarks. I just find it
unbelievable the cuts that were suggested in NOAA, and this
comes from somebody that has believed in NOAA for a long, long
time. I think many of us do. I think we believe in your
mission. I think we believe it is critical, not just to the
safety of folks and property around the world, but in a whole
range of issues, really critical to our overall mission,
scientific advancement, certainly our atmospheres as they are
entering a critical phase and our oceans that are entering a
critical phase. So I don't get the reductions and I don't get
where those came from.
I cannot believe that anybody in NOAA that believes in the
mission of NOAA supports these cuts, and so I have to assume
that somebody somewhere told you, hey, cut it. So is it correct
that this was a top-down directive to reduce by that much in
NOAA or was this some bottom-up judgment about priorities
within NOAA?
Mr. Jacobs. Our primary mission was just to focus on
dealing with some tough choices, and we really chose to
prioritize our core mission and essential functions over a lot
of the external grants.
Mr. Case. Okay. Well, let me give you an example in your
budget, as I understand it. I was born and raised in Hilo.
Hilo, Hawaii. Hilo, Hawaii, has had two devastating tsunamis in
recent history, 1946 and 1960. I actually was there in 1960, I
was a young boy. Our family routinely evacuated every time
there was an earthquake anywhere in the Pacific rim. There was
an earthquake in the danger zone, we didn't know if a tsunami
was coming or not, we got out. And we would do that about once
a year. We lived down by the ocean, we were in the danger zone.
My school was in the danger zone.
One day in 1960, the siren came on, we evacuated and we
went to high ground. I went to sleep, I woke up, my town was
devastated. There were 61 dead. And that was true throughout
the Pacific rim. There was incredible damage in Chile; Japan,
loss of life; California, loss of life, throughout the Pacific
rim from a tsunami that was generated. And that was really the
genesis for the tsunami warning systems that are so perfected
today.
The problem of why people died in Hilo in 1960 was that
they didn't believe a tsunami was coming. They had no
independent verification. They had an evacuation warning once a
year, and they got into the lull of thinking, well, it is not
going to happen this time around.
And so when I see that you have proposed in this budget to
cut the Pacific warning center, which seems to--you know, which
may be a small amount in the big picture, but it is really,
really critical to assure people of when a tsunami is and isn't
coming, which still happens. Once a year, we have an earthquake
somewhere in the Pacific rim. I don't get it. You know, that is
a budget cutter up above you somewhere saying, well, let's just
cut that. We don't understand the importance. And I am sitting
here telling you, I lived through it. And that is very, very
important to people.
So can you elucidate a little bit on that one subject, why
the tsunami warning function in the Pacific is being cut?
Mr. Jacobs. So the function itself is not. We are looking
at consolidating the warning centers. Right now, we have two.
We were looking at consolidating it to one. The actual DART
array, as well as--we are actually exploring some other
potential capabilities, so I will get into those in a second.
But the DART array is fully funded. That is not going to
decrease. It is the consolidation of the warning centers.
There is actually the potential for us--we have a plus of
$2.2 million for commercial data buys off ships, and there is
some new interesting tsunami detection capability on several
commercial ships. And now that they are installing SACCOM on
these ships, there might be a way that we can actually enhance
our tsunami-detection capability through this data.
Mr. Case. Will your scientists come before Congress and
tell us that this replacement array facility capability that
you suggest is going to be equally safe or safer from a tsunami
prediction perspective than what we have now? Or is this simply
about cutting budgets?
Mr. Jacobs. It won't be less safe. We haven't seen the
data yet, so until we actually see the data and run the tests,
it is going to be hard to quantify how much of an improvement
it will add.
Mr. Case. OK. Well, I would suggest to you that that is
putting the cart before the horse, because you are proposing to
cut out that whole warning center before you have demonstrated
and said with assurance that it is going to be safer. So I
don't know why you are sitting here cutting it right now when
you don't have the conclusions yet. But, anyway, we can move
on.
I am going to move on. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Administrator
Jacobs, thanks for coming back.
This is going to seem a lot like deja vu, same questions,
same issues, parochial to, not just my State, but to the Gulf
of Mexico States, and probably the United States. I would like
to jump in and discuss marine aquaculture.
As you know, marine aquaculture produces healthy,
sustainable, and affordable seafood, yet the United States
ranks 16th in the world in terms of aquaculture production. We
owe it to our citizens to do better, which is why I am
reintroducing the bipartisan AQUAA Act this year, to provide a
clear path for permitting aquaculture in U.S. waters.
Given that reducing the seafood deficit is one of NOAA's
top priorities, why does this budget proposal zero out Sea
Grant programs which provides important aquaculture research
that drives economic development?
Mr. Jacobs. When it comes to Sea Grants, we had to make
some tough budget decisions and some choices, and really
decided to focus on our core capability and mission.
I would like to add that there is an additional $13 million
directed at aquaculture. The funding would enhance coordination
with aquaculture siting and research, permitting agencies to
simplify the process and streamline it in Federal waters.
Mr. Palazzo. What can we in Congress do to help with that
permitting process? In fact, that is what the AQUAA Act is
designed to do. And I know my Senate colleagues are trying to
perfect it right now, as well as my House colleagues, and we
are working very closely with your team. So what can we do?
Mr. Jacobs. I think what you are doing with the AQUAA Act
is perfectly in line with what we have in mind for aquaculture.
Mr. Palazzo. Why is aquaculture one of NOAA's top
priorities? Why should we be invested in aquaculture?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, there is roughly a $16 billion seafood
trade deficit, and that is one of the things that we are trying
to mitigate. Right now, almost all of the farmed fish is
imports, and there is really no reason why we shouldn't be
doing that in our own waters.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. I know my colleague, Congressman
DeLauro, would agree with you that we need to rely more on our
domestic fisheries than foreign imports.
So again, the AQUAA bill is very much a bipartisan bill,
and I hope to be sharing that with everyone on this committee
in the near future.
OK. Moving on, let's talk about hypoxia. When you were here
last month, we discussed the importance of hypoxia research in
stopping the growth of harmful algae blooms. This year, we are
forecasting unusually high flooding levels across the country.
Thirty-two States, again, drain into the Mississippi River
basin, two Canadian provinces, and much of the nutrients of
freshwater that cause hypoxia make their way into the Gulf of
Mexico. More flooding means a growing dead zone in the Gulf.
And right now, we have some record flooding happening all
across the Mississippi River basin.
And I know the EPA spearheads the Mississippi River, the
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force. But how does NOAA also help
stop the growth of hypoxia? And anything you would like to add
to what NOAA is doing to help us understand it and hopefully
research it and, you know, shrink it or prevent it from further
growing.
Mr. Jacobs. So actually, preventing the events is beyond
the scope of our mission, but what we can do is we can help
predict them. So this is where we really need to focus on, not
just integrating our precipitation forecast models with the
national water model at the Natural Water Center, but also
integrate the runoff that the national water model produces
through areas that would be prone to take nutrients into waters
that were would trigger harmful algal blooms.
It is typically when these algae bloom that they trigger a
hypoxia event. So this is all sort of traced back to, largely,
inland water flow exiting in through the estuaries out into the
ocean. So improving and integrating the modeling system, not
just on the national water model side, but also on the harmful
algal bloom side, having the coupled hydrological, ecological,
biological models is going to be critical in this.
Mr. Palazzo. And I guess last October, we were talking to
Rear Admiral Silah, who testified before the Senate committee
about the NOAA fleet recapitalization. And I believe he stated
that we are decommissioning more ships than we are
commissioning. Can you tell us about your plans on the
recapitalization of the NOAA research survey ships?
Mr. Jacobs. So at the end of fiscal year 2019, we had a
deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $12.6 million in ORF
and 11.4 in PAC. One of the things that we are looking at is
the Hi'ialakai. There is $3 million invested in that, but it is
not for actual repairs. It is actually to determine the
critical missions that it does; you know, how can we offload
those onto other vessels, whether we contract or charter or
actually try to divide up the current hours that we use across
the other fleet.
Mr. Palazzo. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs,
for being here today.
Taking a look at this budget request, it appears that you
will be cutting as much as 75 percent of the total funding NOAA
provides for addressing harmful algae blooms. And as I am sure
you can agree, algae bloom events have significant negative
impacts on the communities that are affected by them.
Following the devastating red tide bloom off the coast of
Florida this past year, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
performed a business damage assessment survey to gain a broad
understanding of the economic impact of the algae bloom. That
survey estimated that the total physical and economic damages
between August and December of last year for the 12 most
impacted counties in Florida was just over $130 million. So 12
counties out of our 67, 5 months' time period, $130 million
lost, which is a significant number.
And unfortunately, the funding levels to support algae
bloom research monitoring and response are already
disproportionally low compared to the economic impact. So I was
very disappointed to see that this budget request proposes to
cut them even further.
Considering the significant economic impact of harmful
algae bloom events, how can you justify cutting that part of
the budget in particular even more?
Mr. Jacobs. So, again, this is a tough budget decision. We
made a conscious decision to retain. So out of that it was a
cut of roughly $23.7 million. We are retaining $8.8 million for
key personnel, particularly related to the forecasting of
harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, pathogen research, and
forecasting for habitat and species and the science related to
that. So the actual forecast tools will remain, so the HABs
prediction and hypoxia predictions will continue, but a lot of
the research will be cut.
Mr. Crist. I think I heard you say that the cut is $23
million?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, we actually do harmful algal bloom
research in a lot of different areas, but we are retaining----
Mr. Crist. That is not what I asked you. I thought you
just said--you cited a couple of numbers.
Mr. Jacobs. So for the end cost program, it is minus 23.7,
but we are retaining 8.8. There will be potentially 94
positions that, you know, will look at early retirement and
such.
Mr. Crist. Well, you know, I studied a little math in
school. So we are cutting 23 and we are keeping 8. So does that
mean before it was $31 million total and is being reduced to 8?
Mr. Jacobs. We are going to retain 8.8 for this program,
but there is actually--the work that we do for harmful algal
blooms is not--there is a lot of different work that we do in
different areas.
Mr. Crist. What is the total that you allocate for algae
bloom research and effecting it?
Mr. Jacobs. I don't have the exact number for the total.
It would--I mean, it would extend, some could argue, all the
way back to our forecast models because of the water runoff at
the National Water Center being a key component of this.
Mr. Crist. Let me ask it another way. Do you think that
this budget request to us with these reductions of
approximately 75 percent is appropriate in order for you to
continue to meet your mission and help us avoid these kind of
problems going forward, and be able to research and learn from
them?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, it will obviously, you know, slow some
of the research, but we will be able to maintain our core
forecast capabilities at--certainly at their current standards.
Mr. Crist. So what did you do with the $23 million dollars
if you could do it without it?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, that was dedicated at looking at how we
could improve future capabilities.
Mr. Crist. That would be a pretty important mission, would
it not? It is to Florida, and I am sure Mississippi and other
places that are affected, to Alabama.
Mr. Jacobs. It is definitely important, but, you know, we
had to make some tough decisions and chose to just retain the
core essential functions.
Mr. Crist. This is not a part of your core essential
function?
Mr. Jacobs. Oh, providing the harmful algal bloom
forecast, that is part of our core essential function.
Mr. Crist. Which part is not? The research?
Mr. Jacobs. The external grants and research that would
help us further improve our mission in the future.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Jacobs, the administration is proposing the elimination
of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean, NCCOS. Let's discuss
this proposal. First, your budget says that you will continue
some of the highest priority work, but you failed to provide
any information about how you will implement this plan. Can you
shed some light on it?
Mr. Jacobs. I believe you are talking about the end cost,
the minus 23.7.
Mr. Serrano. Yes.
Mr. Jacobs. So, again, we are retaining $8.8 million of
that to maintain our core functions and the tools that we
provide to the public for just--not just the harmful algal
bloom and hypoxia that we were just discussing, but pathogen
research and prevention. But, you know, the additional research
that is being done is not part of that retention of core
capability.
Mr. Serrano. But you still didn't tell us exactly how you
are going to implement the plan, though.
Mr. Jacobs. Well, implement the--the 8.8 will not be
implementing anything new; it will just be retaining the core
capabilities that we already do.
Mr. Serrano. You know, I am having difficulty with this
hearing, because a lot of these things that are coming up look
like they were not thought through completely. And as my
colleague, Mr. Case, said, there has got to be people at NOAA
who take this seriously, I mean, and I know you do. And it is
clear to me that this did not come from you folks. You might
have been told, here it is, and maybe you can comment on it,
but this sounds like a policy that comes from some other place.
But we will have to deal with that as time goes on.
The budget also cuts a program in the Arctic that models
and protects sea ice. Given that Russia is rapidly expanding
its activities in the Arctic, our knowledge and understanding
of sea ice is critical to our national security. How do you
reconcile the elimination of NCCOS with the administration's
broader national security efforts?
Mr. Jacobs. So a lot of the research that we do as it
pertains to climate in the Arctic is being cut. But I would
like to add that we are doing some enhanced work and
development on forecasting and analyzing sea ice and sea ice
flow as it pertains to both our dynamical weather model and our
general circulation climate models. And this is something that
we are working very closely with the Navy on.
Mr. Serrano. You are working with the Navy, and you feel
that then this will make up for any deficiency that I might
have pointed out?
Mr. Jacobs. It is yet to be determined if it would make up
for the deficiencies. I think that the scope of it is a little
bit different. It is more, how do we manage dealing with the
sea ice and the analysis in the next couple of years versus
very long range.
Mr. Serrano. NCCOS has been performing the work of
evaluating the impact of rising sea levels on our coastal
military installations, as Congress has repeatedly directed in
the National Defense Authorization Act. Can you explain the
seeming contradiction between the department's claims of
prioritizing national security and the elimination of a program
which is critical to it?
Mr. Jacobs. We actually are doing a tremendous amount of
work in research and getting our data out there through various
ocean data portals. Two of the things that I would like to
point out--well, one of them, the marinecadastre.gov website.
This is where you can actually access a lot of the sea level
rise data. This is made available to the public. We are
increasing this by $4 million to try to get the data out to the
public.
You know, this is something that I think would be very
useful, not just for our stakeholders, but possibly any other--
whether it is private sector or other government agency doing
planning when it comes to future mitigation of sea level rise.
Mr. Serrano. Committee members will note that I am keeping
to the 5-minute rules.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Let me go back to tornadoes. I want to take a moment to
discuss the fiscal year 2020 request for the National Mesonet
Program. Despite the fact that the National Mesonet Program is
a key component of NOAA's efforts to develop a weather-ready
Nation, the 2020 budget request proposes to reduce the
geographic scope of the program from all 50 States to
prioritize States most susceptible to tornadoes and severe
weather.
How important, in your opinion, is the Mesonet program
improving weather predictions around the country?
Mr. Jacobs. The Mesonet program is very important because
it is one of our only conduits to access data outside of the
data that we actually collect ourselves. But it is beyond the
typical Mesonet, which you would think is surface observations.
There are other observing systems in there, such as atmospheric
profilers and commercial aircraft data.
The vertical profiles that we obtain through the Mesonet
program are extremely critical. The surface obs, you could
divide the surface obs in criticality based two ways. One would
be the quality of the instrumentation, and the other one being
the geographical location. So there are certain areas where the
surface obs and the Mesonet would provide more impact in the
model skill than the other.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, I appreciate that the program was
protected in the request, but how will scaling back the program
impact areas of the country, especially rural areas which rely
on the program to define rapidly deterring weather conditions
that are not identified by other observation platforms?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, that is--I mean, that is going to be
tough to fill in those gaps. A lot of these--a lot of these
Mesonets tend to be coincident with agriculture. So you tend to
see a lot of the Mesonets in rural areas versus urban areas,
which is actually a good thing because, as you say, there is
not a lot of deployment of other systems out there.
One of the only other ways that we can offset this is just
through the better assimilation of satellite data, because in
these rural areas where we don't have a lot of data, it is
really hard to get information in the boundary layer.
One of the things that the Mesonet program does do is
regional airlines, which is a little bit different than the
data we collect from the wide-body long-haul flights, and the
regional airlines fly into these smaller regional airports, and
the vertical profiles that they provide are extremely critical.
Mr. Aderholt. The 2019 conference report included guidance
for NOAA to continue to expand the Mesonet program. How does
NOAA plan to implement this direction in the upcoming year, and
how will expanding the program improve weather forecast
warning?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, the National Mesonet Program, I would
argue the term ``national'' could possibly be a misnomer. It
would be an interesting way to actually acquire non-NOAA
related data that go well beyond the Nation's borders. For
example, information from, you know, commercial aircraft data
profilers or other Mesonets possibly in areas outside of our
country.
You know, when we really, over the next couple of years
start to focus on high-resolution global modeling systems, the
most valuable information might not actually be collected
within our borders. It will most likely be collected to our
west, whether it is over the Pacific Ocean or countries that we
work with through the WMO and data-sharing agreements.
It is entirely possible that we will find ourself in a
situation where we would be doing commercial data buys for
data--in situ data from observing systems overseas, and I can
envision the National Mesonet Program possibly being one of
those ways of doing that.
Mr. Aderholt. Let me switch briefly to improving our
ability regarding the Earth Prediction Innovation Center. I
think improving our ability to predict the Earth's systems,
including weather climate and extreme events, has the potential
to add enormous value to our economy, advance national
security, and protect the safety of our communities.
How will the Earth Prediction Innovation Center advance its
capabilities?
Mr. Jacobs. So there is two primary hurdles that the EPIC
tries to address. The first one is we really need access to
expertise outside of NOAA, and these visiting scientists don't
have security clearances to log into our machines. And it takes
them--if they apply, it takes them well over a year to get it.
So the only way I can think of to solve this problem is to move
our software development to compute resources external to NOAA.
The other thing is, per the Weather Research Innovation
Act, we are required to develop a community model, and that
doesn't necessarily just mean make the code community
available; it means make the code accessible by the community
on compute resources that the community has access to.
So EPIC will sort of be the virtual hub where we manage the
code development in commercial cloud vendors' hardware. So this
will be the compute that the community has access to, and we
make the code available and manage it through EPIC. So we are
essentially crowdsourcing model development with the academic
community and private industry.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Dr. Jacobs, in the oversight hearing last month, you
and Dr. Freilich identified several gaps in our Earth-observing
capabilities, saying that obviously it would be more--it would
be useful to have more data on things like aerosols, vertical
wind, and soil moisture, better to predict weather, manage our
resources, and understand climate change.
Why does the Administration want to cut funding for
research in these areas when it is clear more resources would
make sense?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, some of the low hanging fruit that we
are looking for in analyzing the satellite data, which is what
we were discussing at that last hearing, is actually extracting
more value from the data. So right now, with the existing
capability that we have, we do not use roughly 80 percent of
the data that we bring in, just because the file sizes are too
large. So we only use about 10 percent of the data that we
collect, as far as prediction capabilities, and only about 2
percent actually influences the initial conditions in the
models.
So for a small amount of investment on the satellite data
simulation side, if we can move that number from 2 or 3 percent
to 5 or 6 percent, we could potentially have huge gains in
forecast model skill, just using the current data that we have
access to.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, I know you are trying to invest your
limited resources wisely, but it has to be obvious that you
can't possibly make up for the slashing of all of the following
programs, and this is a mouthful, so bear with me. And it is
not a complete list of the programs this budget proposes to
reduce or eliminate.
The VORTEX Southeast, taking out $5 million, that is
something that improves tornado forecasts in the southeast
U.S., including Alabama, which as we have heard, was hit by
about 40 tornadoes in March that killed more people than all of
2018. And according to NOAA's website, the number of killer
tornadoes in the southeastern U.S. is disproportionately large
when compared to the overall number of tornadoes throughout the
country.
It cuts out $2.6 million from the Airborne Phased Array
Radar, which improves detection and understanding of severe
weather. It cuts out $60 million from the climate competitive
research activities, including NOAA's funding for the National
Climate Assessment. It takes out $3 million from the Antarctic
ecosystem research program, Antarctic research. It takes out $6
million from that to improve operational sea ice modeling and
predictions. It slashes $3.7 million from the regional climate
centers, which help regions deal with emerging droughts and
floods. It takes out $4.8 million from the Air Resources Lab,
which researches atmospheric dispersion of mercury and other
pollutants harmful to human health.
My question is, have you informed the administration that
cutting funding for weather and climate research makes it
harder for NOAA to improve forecast precision, which is an
important element for securing people and property and the
American economy?
Mr. Jacobs. We have worked hand in hand with them in
formulating this budget.
Mr. Cartwright. So, yes, you have informed them. Thank you
for that.
So why is the administration ignoring the advice of its
expert scientists on the importance of improving forecasts to
secure lives and property and protect the American economy?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, we had to make some tough budget
decisions and we were forced to essentially look at retaining
our core missions for our current state of predictive
capabilities.
Mr. Cartwright. Now, there is this ad hoc working group I
want to ask you about. Did the White House ask NOAA for input
into the formation of the White House's ad hoc working group to
question climate science? And will NOAA's climate and science
experts be any part of that?
Mr. Jacobs. I don't know that there is any ad hoc working
group that has been formed.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. You are not a part of it if there is?
Mr. Jacobs. I have been in discussions with various folks
about issues related to the climate change, that is primarily
the OSTP's director's job, but I don't know of any ad hoc
working group that has officially been formed.
Mr. Cartwright. Will you commit, Dr. Jacobs, to informing
the administration that we know with certainty that humans are
contributing to climate change and that NOAA can make available
expert scientists to help explain it? And can you report back
the results of these conversations?
Mr. Jacobs. We make available all of our data. Certainly,
the administration is aware of the research that we do. I am
happy to report that back. And within the potential scope of
NCA-5, that will be the official report.
Mr. Cartwright. Last question. Are staff and scientists at
NOAA ever discouraged from using terms such as ``climate
change'' and ``resilience''? And if you have heard of such
instances, what would you do about it?
Mr. Jacobs. I am vehemently opposed to any type of
academic censorship on this front. And transparency and
openness is key to what our agency does. Our entire mission is
based on providing open and transparent, robust defendable
science.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor, I appreciate that.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Sorry, I am still on the overall budget cuts and
trying to figure out what the message we are to take from the
Administration is on the budget cuts. And I understand that you
felt you were under, or perhaps I am putting words in your
mouth, but felt you were under directions to do substantial
reductions.
As I look at kind of where the reductions really fell the
worst on, it just seems inescapable that the programs of NOAA
that are focused on the oceans, and I don't mean on fisheries
management, I mean on the conservation and health and welfare
of our oceans overall, were the ones that took the biggest hit.
I see the National Ocean Service, if my math is correct, 65
percent of fiscal year enacted. OAR, Ocean and Atmospheric
Research, I don't know the division there, but 55 percent of
prior enacted, whereas, really your atmospheric was reduced and
your satellites were, for the most part, maintained.
Now, I have no--I made the same motion--I breathe the same
air as everybody else in Hawaii, and we have the same use for
the satellites, all of which is incredible research in
contributions by NOAA. But if you look at the map above the
chair over there, you will see that in Hawaii, we kind of live
in the middle of a big ocean, so we are more focused on the
ocean.
So was there some judgment within NOAA or somewhere else
that somehow oceanic research was, you know, not pulling its
weight or too many external grants, or is that a priority
judgment I should take from this budget exercise?
Mr. Jacobs. So as far as the OAR research, we are funding
climate at 88 million, oceans at 98, and weather at 110. But I
would point out that a lot of the weather research we are doing
benefits the climate research, so it is pretty linear across
the board. Oceans are, you know, it is part of my life, I mean,
surfing and fishing are my two favorite hobbies. One of the
things that we are funding----
Mr. Case. We have something in common, by the way.
Mr. Jacobs. I know. I have been to Hawaii multiple times,
I love it there.
One of the things I would like to point out is our National
Oceans Partnership Program. So we will be relying heavily on
public-private partnerships with key stakeholders on this to do
a lot of the work. You know, whether it is actual research or
just outreach, I think that there is a lot of opportunities
here, both on the oceanographic prediction side as well as the
observing side, not just in the water chemistry, but also
bathymetry.
Mr. Case. Can I switch back? I just need to switch. I am
not sure that I understand your answer. One part of your answer
could be that we are going to essentially privatize a lot of
the functions of NOAA and, as you say, lean on the private
sector for that. And I am not sure that that is the right
policy decision, but anyway, we can have that discussion
further.
Can I switch back to the NOAA fleet and talk to you about
the NOAA fleet, because your recapitalization program, which I
fully agree with, called for replacement of NOAA ships
overtime, but assumed that the Hi'ialakai, which is the NOAA
ship home ported in Hawaii, would be continued in place for
some period of time into the future. And as you and I know, the
Hi'ialakai is no longer seaworthy. That came as a sudden
surprise to many people. And so, therefore, the functions that
are carried out of Hawaii are discontinued from that
perspective.
I think you mentioned--well, two questions. First of all,
have you considered revising your recapitalization program to
accelerate ship construction and to home port a replacement
ship in Hawaii, number one? And then, number two, what is your
plan in this budget for fulfilling the research needs of the
Hawaii-based NOAA activities?
I think that if I look--I don't think you mentioned $3
million in your answer to my colleague, but I am not sure, is
that allocated to Hawaii replacement time or is it across the
board? I see $200,000 in here, but I don't know whether the $3
million is in the materials that you gave us.
Mr. Jacobs. So the $3 million is directed at trying to
offset all of the work that the Hi'ialakai was doing. And so
whether we can use that funding to do it on other NOAA ships or
we have to charter other vessels or contract it out is to be
determined based on the specific requirements. There are some
type of requirements that are very specific to the type of
vessel based on instrumentation and how the vessel is
outfitted. So those could be limiting factors.
As we go through the revision of this plan, we would
certainly love to work with you on this.
Mr. Case. Appreciate that. So just to recap what you just
said. The $3 million would essentially buy replacement time for
Hi'ialakai through the next fiscal year?
Mr. Jacobs. That is the plan.
Mr. Case. Okay. And what about my question on revising the
recapitalization plan to account for the Hi'ialakai's
departure?
Mr. Jacobs. We would definitely love to work with you on
the development of that.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt, do you have any more questions?
Mr. Aderholt. Unless you have something, I could submit to
the record. So whatever is good for you. If you want to
continue on for another question or two or if you want to
conclude, I can submit for the record.
Mr. Serrano. Well, let me just ask one question and then
you can finish up.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. All right. I will finish up with one
question as well.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Jacobs, Puerto Rico's coral reefs provide
nearly $1 billion in economic value to the island annually,
supporting the tourism industry and protecting lives and
infrastructure from storm surge by acting as a barrier. In
September 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria caused extensive
damage to the these valuable and slow growing reefs.
Fortunately, NOAA's coral restoration work helped dramatically
speed up the recovery.
How does the proposed 6 percent cut to the coral reef
program reflect a need to restore Puerto Rico's damaged corals
and coordinate with agencies like FEMA to conduct post-storm
damage assessments?
Mr. Jacobs. So the coral reefs are incredibly important,
and after the storm, one of the things that we did, in addition
to working with the Marine Corps to install radars and get the
basic observing system capabilities up there, was to go and
revitalize and do a lot of the marine debris removal of the
coral reefs.
One of the issues, not just with the damage to the reef,
but actually the reef itself was damaged just from debris, as
well as enhancing the coral reef. One of the great things about
the reefs that surround Puerto Rico is that they actually are
an integral part of dissipating the wave energy. So it is
incredibly important to have them in place to, you know, to
essentially protect the land from not just storm surge but
waves.
Mr. Serrano. So these cuts you think will affect that work
in any way?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, a lot of this research just on the coral
side is--it is a reduction of 1.6 from the enacted, but it
retains $26.1 million to continue on with that research. And so
there is the opportunity to focus research on coral restoration
as well as disease and such.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Of course, every day, NOAA generates tens of
terabytes of data from satellites, radar, ships, weather
models, other sources. And, of course, NOAA makes that
available to the public. What is the--tell us about the Big
Data Project, and in what way is it different from what NOAA is
already doing with the data?
Mr. Jacobs. So the Big Data Project is a great way to work
with various cloud vendors in getting our data out to the
public. So I know in the past I have discussed limitations with
compute resources, but we also have limitation on storage,
storing this data. We have well over 25, probably closer to 30
petabytes of data that the public actually can make use of, not
just the research community, but private industry and other
government agencies.
And so working with various cloud vendors, that they can
set up a sort of interface where companies can actually
download the data and generate value-add products from our data
is enhancing, obviously, their business models, but it also
benefits us. Because if we are driving industry to co-locate
their operations adjacent to where we store our data on these
cloud vendors, it is an incentive for them to work with us on
negotiating a deal on storage because we are actually improving
their revenue by generating business that wants access to the
data that the taxpayers pay, and we produce and put on these
data portals.
Mr. Aderholt. I know--and let me just change the subject,
one thing about that, but it reminded me of it. I know growing
up, I would listen to the NOAA weather radio reports and, of
course, at that time, you didn't have weather available as
quickly as we do nowadays with cellphones and apps and
different things like that. Of course, you all still operate
the weather radio program that has been in existence for--I am
sure for decades.
What--is there--in the day and age of smartphones, is there
a way to access that data without a weather radio, or is it--do
you have to have a weather radio to access that today?
Mr. Jacobs. So the NOAA weather radio is a very unique and
important program. It actually saved my life in 1997. I would
have been hit by a tornado had I not been listening to it.
There are other ways to access that information. We disseminate
our warnings and watches over various third-party vendor apps.
There is also the capability of low Earth orbiting satellites
that phone connectivity can get you access to this information,
whether it is MRSAT or Iridium or another satellite data
provider. But some of the, you know, the key core capabilities
would still be part of the weather radio.
So we are always looking at ways to try to get our message
out there. And with the help of a lot of these various third-
party app developers, certainly smartphone devices are one way
to do it, but that doesn't mean that it would ever be something
that could possibly replace that.
Mr. Aderholt. Is what--of course, the information--if you
have a weather radio that is, of course, you have free access
to that information. Is there an app that the public has access
to free of charge?
Mr. Jacobs. So we don't develop apps ourself. One of the
things that we made a conscious decision on, because if you
look at the National Academies' fair weather report, it
basically defines swimlanes of what the weather service would
do versus what private industry would do. And private industry
has done a tremendous job in developing these apps. Some are
free, some are for cost. And we would--essentially, if we tried
to develop a competitive app, would not only be competing with
a product that is probably better than what we can do, we would
rather rely on them as a key partner.
So as part of the Weather-Ready Nation, we have ambassadors
which are, you know, essentially private sector, what we call
value-add industry, that we rely on to disseminate our warnings
and watches deeper into the public.
Mr. Aderholt. And you access the information from the
weather radio. If you don't have a weather radio, can you
access it off the internet?
Mr. Jacobs. I don't know that you can access it in the
exact same format. The weather radio essentially just reads a
lot of these transcribed pieces of information.
Mr. Aderholt. So, in essence, you have to have a weather
radio in order to get the----
Mr. Jacobs. The weather--the feed that goes out encoded
for the weather radio is specifically designed to be heard over
the weather radio.
Mr. Aderholt. And there is really no other way you can get
that, at this point?
Mr. Jacobs. At this point, not that I know of. There might
be a third-party app that could transcribe it into something on
the internet. Technically, it is possible. It would essentially
just be doing what the weather radio does except, you know,
voiceover IT or something.
Mr. Aderholt. So you all made the conscious decision not
to have, through the internet or through an app, where it would
just read off the message that you get on the weather radio?
Mr. Jacobs. Well, the text--the text is just the warnings.
Those are issued over the internet, they are issued over
smartphone devices.
Mr. Aderholt. But verbally?
Mr. Jacobs. Verbally, I don't know. You would have to have
some software that would actually read the text off a web
browser out loud.
Mr. Aderholt. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just say on that point that we are big
fans of NOAA here, and I suspect you could do a better job than
private industry in putting together an app that could give us
information. In fact, I will probably get a lot of letters on
this--or some. But I bet you when they were putting together
their apps, they were working off of a lot of information that
you guys have been gathering for years. And NOAA--don't
undersell yourself.
Thank you for your testimony today. I am not making
excuses, but if at times the questioning was probing, it is
because we are big fans of NOAA here, and we want NOAA to
succeed and to continue to succeed. And when we see a budget
proposal like this one, it worries us.
And I think, in this case, you know, when it comes to
spending money, we always have differences on different sides
of the aisle. But I can honestly speak for Mr. Aderholt to say
that we are fans of NOAA, and we want NOAA to do the right job
and to be prepared and supported by Congress in doing the right
job. So that is why we ask the questions the way we did.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobs, and hope to see you again.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you for your support.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. The hearing is adjourned.
[Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
Wednesday, April 3, 2019.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WITNESS
HON. WILBUR ROSS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee will come to order.
We have an unusual situation today. We invited the
Secretary of Commerce to come to testify before us this
afternoon about his department's budget request, as Secretaries
of Commerce have done consistently for many decades. After
agreeing, he then communicated to us via or others at the
Department that he was backing out and wanted to send his
Deputy in his place. But Secretary Ross had no schedule
conflicts to speak of and no other excuse, other than the fact
that he simply didn't want to appear before this subcommittee
and be held personally accountable.
This is the second time the subcommittee has experienced
this problem during this administration; the first was 2 years
ago, when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions became worried
about the Russian investigation; the second is today.
I think that the Secretary's actions today show a stunning
disrespect for the mechanisms of our democracy and the Article
I powers of the Congress, as if we needed any reminding that
the President and his staff couldn't care less about our
institutions of democracy. We see a clear manifestation of that
problem this afternoon.
I understand that Deputy Secretary Karen Dunn Kelley has
offered to testify; that will not be happening. This
subcommittee invited Secretary Ross to testify and he is the
only one who will be allowed to testify at this hearing.
Neither the Deputy Secretary, nor any other Department
officials, will be recognized to give a statement or to answer
questions.
I strongly believe in transparency and accountability, and
that starts at the top of every government agency, including
the Commerce Department. The Secretary has a lot of questions
that he should answer directly. This is particularly true with
regard to the Census where at this hearing last year the
Secretary appeared to lie in response to questions about--from
myself and Congresswoman Meng regarding the addition of a
citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
It is also true for the overall Commerce Department budget,
which shows a shocking disregard for the American people. The
Commerce Department budget process eliminating programs that
specifically help rural and under-served communities like the
Economic Development Administration and the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program; it undermines community safety
and climate change research by proposing an 18-percent cut to
NOAA, including the elimination of several dozen important
grant, research, and educational programs.
The budget, once again, under-funds the Census Bureau, even
for the critical census taking place in the year 2020. It
proposes to eliminate funding for Minority Business Development
Centers.
The Secretary should be here to justify these harmful
proposals rather than ducking our questions.
Congress, through this committee, controls the power of the
purse, as specified in Article I, Section 9 of our
Constitution. Perhaps the Secretary has forgotten this and
needs a reminder.
At this time, I will recognize members of this subcommittee
for any statements that they may want to make, starting with my
friend and ranking member, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
yielding. And of course thank you for scheduling these hearings
that are important for us to learn more about the budget of our
different departments.
I think all of us would prefer to be able to visit with the
Secretary today, but the absence of the Secretary, I believe,
stems around the concern that this hearing might focus more on
political or legal issues than the budget itself. Some have
even speculated it might turn into a debate over the 2020
Census.
But this hearing is much bigger than that. It is an
important budget hearing, covering an agency with a dozen major
bureaus and a budget request of over $12 billion. This is the
Appropriations Committee, as you well know, and I expect that
we can and will tackle some significant issues here. There is
no doubt about that, and I believe that there is time and a
place for discussing all the matters important to this
subcommittee.
I will even say that I personally believe certain matters
involving the Census, matters that are subject to ongoing
litigation, are best not debated in Congress while the case is
pending. And I have spoken with the Secretary and he feels very
strongly about that as well.
I do regret this missed opportunity to discuss the
resources needed for the Commerce Secretary, but I
wholeheartedly support the Department's efforts to promote job
creation, economic competitiveness, and to protect our Nation's
innovators and manufacturers, and ensure fair trade.
I also support the 2020 Census, and the efforts to improve
the quality and efficiency of the Census and other important
surveys. Yet, while I take a very positive view of the work of
the Department of Commerce, exchanges with Cabinet-level
officials are always critical to the appropriations process.
I do want to make note that there are several here from the
Department of Commerce that has joined us here today. Dr.
Steven Dillingham, the Director of the Census Bureau; Dr. Neil
Jacobs, Assistant Secretary for Commerce and Environmental
Observation, dealing with NOAA; John Fleming, Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development; Henry Childes,
National Director of Minority Business Development
Administration; Gil Kaplan, Undersecretary of Commerce for
International Trade; Walter Copan, Undersecretary of Commerce
for Standards and Technology; and Michael Platt, Assistant
Secretary for Intergovernmental Legislative Affairs. So, I
understand they are available and would be happy to answer any
questions.
And, furthermore, I understand from talking with the
Secretary that at a later date of when we could mutually get an
agreement, when this Census issue is more settled at the
Supreme Court, that he is more than happy to come and testify
before our subcommittee.
So, with that, I want to say again, thank you for yielding,
and I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
I would like to now recognize the chair of the full
committee, Mrs. Lowey from New York.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am truly
disappointed that Secretary Ross believes publicly justifying
his budget request is an optional exercise.
This administration clearly needs to take a course in
constitutional law. The power of the purse rests in Congress
and in particular in the Appropriations Committee. Given his
lack of interest, I can't imagine he is listening to this, but
if he were here I would tell him how unacceptable his budget
request is, from eliminating Economic Development
Administration grants, which provide funding and technical
assistance to economically-distressed communities, to seriously
under-funding the Census. This request is clearly out of touch
with the needs of our constituents.
It is really disappointing that Secretary Ross is not here;
he should be here, and his absence disrespects this committee
and the appropriation process as a whole.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Any other members who--the next in line would be Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. I think Mr. Crist was here before me.
Mr. Serrano. Yes, he was.
Mrs. Roby. Well, I thank the chairman for yielding. To the
nine agency department heads here, thank you for your time to
be here this afternoon.
The fact that we are addressing an empty chair with nine
agency department heads here is unsettling, because we have
people here that can answer our questions about the budget,
which is the whole point of the hearing today. I wish we had an
opportunity to ask those very important questions from an
oversight perspective.
And, as we all know, the census required by the
Constitution has very high stakes. Population numbers are used
to determine how many U.S. Representatives a state receives
and, the more people in the state, the more representation in
Congress, but the data is also used to draw congressional and
state legislative districts, and for the distribution of
federal funds.
So there are a lot of important questions and we have
people here that are experts, and I appreciate you being here
and your willingness to answer our questions.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Commerce's duty is to the
people, first and foremost, and I want to say on behalf of the
people of the United States we need to hear from the Secretary
of Commerce. We have some serious questions to ask him on
behalf of the people, we want to find out.
Why does he want to terminate the Manufacturing Extension
Program, which creates so many American manufacturing jobs? Why
does he want to eliminate the Economic Development
Administration, which again is formed for the purpose of
creating good American jobs?
Why does he want to reduce this budget in a way that will
hurt the formation of American jobs?
In fact, why does he refuse to come and testify about his
own financial disclosures, which are very much an issue these
days?
When we talk about the Manufacturing Extension Partnership,
the MEP is critical to keeping American manufacturing jobs in
the United States, and helping small manufacturing companies
expand and grow. In 2017 alone, MEP centers interacted with
26,313 manufacturers, who created 110,000 new jobs, added $12.6
billion to our domestic economy.
MEP generates a 14.5-to-1 return on investment. Why would
anyone in their right mind want to cut that program out? We
need to know why the administration wants to do this; Mr. Ross
is not here to tell us.
We deserve to hear from him about the administration's
budget proposal to eliminate the Economic Development
Administration. For 50 years, this agency has provided economic
opportunities to distressed communities across the country,
including those in my home state of Pennsylvania. The EDA
assists historic coal and manufacturing communities that are
struggling with unemployment; it creates 25,000 jobs annually.
And, finally, we do deserve to hear about Secretary Ross'
own behavior. The Office of Government Ethics has rejected his
financial disclosure because it was dishonest, in their view,
and he has not submitted an updated disclosure.
Moreover, he has made public misrepresentations not once,
but twice about divesting from his own banking stock, held
stock in companies that were tied to Putin's inner circle; he
has been accused of insider trading by European lawmakers. He
paid a confidential settlement last year over alleged
fraudulent theft.
These are legitimate questions that we have for Secretary
Ross that should be asked here today and the silence that we
are getting from that chair this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is
deafening. This hearing was supposed to be about accountability
and how we can support small businesses, manufacturers, expand
our economy; instead, we get nothing.
So, Chairman, I look forward to working with you on
crafting a CJS bill that does those things, invests in
manufacturing, invests in small business, and invests in our
great American economy.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not sure which I am more frustrated with at this
point. I mean, I think about what is the goal of
appropriations. The purpose of our committee is oversight and
accountability, we have heard that here today, but I am not
sure that is what the intent is of today's hearing.
I hear that Mr. Cartwright would rather--he would ask some
questions about the appropriations process, but wants to put
Mr. Ross on trial today for something he has no information on
or evidence of. There are other avenues and venues for that.
But if this committee is really about asking the first
questions Mr. Cartwright had about the elimination of programs,
cutting of programs, and you have qualified, expert, Senate-
confirmed individuals in this room who have been offered to
answer those questions, why would you turn that down? Unless
that is not the intent of today's hearing. Maybe it was
something different, but you have people here ready to answer
the questions.
The Senate seemed to find their answers sufficient and the
ability for them to answer the questions sufficient, but yet
today's hearing has to be about an empty chair. So maybe it is
a little bit more theater today and less about really
accountability and transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I think you used the term he needed to be
held personally accountable. For what? Personally accountable--
what has he done that he needs to be held personally
accountable for today?
Is there maybe some questions about the budget request and
the proposal put before us? Absolutely, but those questions can
be answered by the qualified individuals and the experts that
are here, who probably were more involved in that compilation
of the actual budget document anyhow.
But I will bring us back to something that a couple of
years ago, Mr. Chairman, you and I were on the same committee
and still are today, and Mr. Aderholt was--I mean Mr. Ander
Crenshaw was chairman, and I was chairman next and you were on
the committee. I think you might have been ranking member when
Mr. Crenshaw was chairman. We wanted Richard Cordray to come
before our committee; denied every time, but I don't recall any
outrage then. We wanted transparency and accountability then,
we wanted to ask about the budget then, we wanted to ask about
how were they really providing consumer protection through that
bureau, but not once would he ever show up.
So it is ironic that today seems to be the day that you
choose to bring an empty chair. When I was chairman, I never
did that. Instead, we found ways to accommodate and get the
answer to the questions, and do it in a way that was fulfilling
of our duty, as these subcommittees are on this, bringing
accountability and oversight.
So, if the purpose of Appropriations is that oversight and
accountability in funding, then we have experts and individuals
here that can answer those questions. If today is more about
theater, I guess we will have to wait until another day in the
future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for arranging this
hearing. I too am utterly disappointed and angry at Secretary
Ross' irresponsible decision to not appear today. His failure
to testify on the Commerce Department's fiscal year 2020 budget
request is undoubtedly an abandonment of his responsibilities
as the Secretary of Commerce. It is an assault and an attack on
transparency and trust.
A major component of the Commerce Department's 2020 budget
involves the funding for the 2020 Census, the largest ticket
item of the Department. By my estimate, the President's budget
request underestimated the necessary funding for the 2020
Census and dangerously shortchanged the Department of Commerce
and, by extension, the American people.
Respectfully, to our Ranking Member Aderholt's comments,
this is not political. The American people deserve an open and
transparent debate on the census, because the census funding
affects both Republican and Democratic districts in every
single part of the country.
There is--let me remind everyone, there is no do-over with
the decennial census and a mistake will last for 10 years, at
minimum.
Even with esteemed agency heads in the room today, and I
appreciate you all being here, we want to find out political
motivations that have been demonstrated by communications with
the Secretary himself and agency heads may not be able to
adequately respond to those types of questions.
And so this year he is a no-show. He is a public official
who should be held accountable for his dereliction of duty.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you again, and thank all
the subcommittee staff members for all the preparation that
went into arranging today's hearing.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. I will pass. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Department of Commerce exercises a broad range of
activities that are critical to our beloved country; a few are
conducting a cost-effective and accurate census, working with
distressed communities to support economic development,
enforcing trade laws. Few departments have the potential to
directly impact the strength and sustainability of our
communities and local businesses back home.
Wilbur Ross, as a private citizen, stepped up and accepted
a job, and stood publicly and took an oath to serve and perform
the duties of the job he accepted. And, because of this, I am
deeply disappointed that Secretary Ross declined to appear
before us as part of his job. We are not some outside entity,
we are part of the government, performing our task as allocated
on this committee. He declined to--declined, ladies and
gentlemen--to appear before us to defend, explain, and support
the Commerce Department's budget in the amount of $12.2
billion, $12.2 billion.
Where is Wilbur? What is his reason for declining to do his
job? I hope he is well, but I don't know this.
I want you to know that article I, section 9 of the
Constitution designates the Congress with the power of the
purse. As members of Congress and this committee, we have a
responsibility to carry out our work in a timely fashion.
Again, I want to express my frustration to why the
Secretary is not with us today to explain the rationale for
drastic cuts to critical programs, these programs that are not
partisan. Ladies and gentlemen, the programs and the funding is
across the board. My colleagues on the other side know that
this budget affects them as well.
Now, I understand the Supreme Court this month will hear
arguments over Trump's administration decision to add his
citizenship question to the 2020 questionnaire, and at this
time we have already seen two federal judges separately block
the decision by Secretary Wilbur Ross to add the citizenship
question.
This is deeply concerning, because the 2020 Census will
help guide the allocation of more than $880 billion in federal
funds for the next decade. Every American citizen pays taxes
and we are held accountable to ensure that these dollars are
being spent, and the whole basis and foundation of us doing our
job is based on an accurate census. We have the responsibility
to ask those questions.
In my home state of Michigan, around $30 billion is
dependent upon an accurate, complete, and reliable census.
With all these priorities I just mentioned, I want to know
exactly where is Secretary Wilbur Ross and why he is not here
today.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a game; this is not a decision
that you can make once you take that oath of office. There are
some hearings I would love not to sit through, but I show up
here and I do my job, because I took the oath and I am part of
this government. And whether it is the Republicans in charge or
the Democrats, that does not stop me from doing my job.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, I am
kind of just disappointed that we are not able to hear from the
ladies and gentlemen that the Secretary did send over here to
answer our questions. We do have an oversight function and I
have a lot of questions on the budget.
I know many of the agencies and related agencies, they do
extremely great work. A lot of things are parochial to the
Mississippi Gulf Coast, but I think the people that they sent
in lieu of the Secretary are sometimes best situated to answer
our more direct questions, because when you are the Secretary
you have a huge umbrella of agencies underneath you, tens of
thousands employees, numerous issues, so sometimes it is best
to get into those subdepartments and get the answers that we
need.
So I don't, you know, really blame the Secretary for not
being here. I think him sending ten of his best and brightest
to answer our questions would satisfy. So, you know, I feel
like my colleagues are wasting a great opportunity to get the
answers to our questions that we have, and I guess we will
submit those for the record.
And at this time I would like to yield the balance of my
time to my friend Congressman Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, my
understanding is, is that the Secretary has offered to return
to this subcommittee at a time in the future. That when the
request was sent out, he offered to send experts in lieu of his
place now, eight of which are Senate-confirmed, Senate-
confirmed, and yet we won't hear their responses. Is there a
question that you don't think they can answer here today?
Mr. Serrano. No. The question is that we are elected to do
a job as appropriations. Not everybody is in the Constitution,
our job is in the Constitution. So it is for the Secretary to
come in and not hide because he thinks it is going to get
political.
The fact of life is that if every appropriations discussion
stuck only to numbers, we would have a whole new Congress and a
whole new day. There are other questions that are answered. And
if he has got nothing to worry about, then he has nothing to
worry about in showing up before us, because we may ask hard
questions, but we never disrespect anybody.
Mr. Graves. Well, in reclaiming----
Mr. Serrano. And by not showing up----
Mr. Graves [continuing]. I understand----
Mr. Serrano [continuing]. It is disrespectful.
Mr. Graves.--reclaiming my time. I don't think he is shying
away from anything and I don't think you are calling him a
coward in any way. I think the Secretary said he would be happy
to address this committee at a day in the future, it just
didn't happen to comport to the calendar that the new majority
wants right now.
But might I bring everybody back--and, Mrs. Lawrence, I
hope you all know--that Richard Cordray never would appear
before this committee. This is an individual that could not be
terminated, this is an individual that had zero oversight, this
is an individual that had basically an unlimited budget, zero
oversight by Congress at all, and we tried and tried again. We
would offer amendments to help get it done. We offered
invitations, public, private, what would it take, and every
time he refused to sit before an elected body, constitutionally
constituted, in defiance, in essence, of Congress.
So we have seen it in the past. I just wish there had been
equal outrage at that time, Mr. Chairman, because we had an
opportunity to really bring forward accountability and
transparency at that point. But, unfortunately, we heard the
outcry that, no, no, no, he can't come before this committee,
it just can't happen, and yet here we are today with an empty
chair. If only we knew these tactics would be used today, maybe
we should have done that then.
And I will be happy to yield back to Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you. I yield 30 seconds to my colleague
Mrs. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. I just--we are supposed to direct our
comments to the chair. So, Mr. Chair, I just want to know, so
often we refer to what happened in the past, the past isn't
always the right thing. We have before us now a situation that
should not be evaluated through history, but evaluated through
the urgency of the moment of now. I respect what you said, I
was not involved in it.
And I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
And I want to fully associate myself with the remarks of my
majority colleagues. The remarks that hit me most directly were
my full committee chair's reference to the Constitution and to
our obligations in Congress to be the appropriators, to provide
oversight, and recalling also that appropriations start in the
House.
And so, although both the Senate and the House have had
their oversight committees, have had their budget committees,
we now start in a process that is our responsibility to start
here today in this subcommittee and that is critical to our
work. And so I share the concerns that the Secretary would not
appear here today to help us to start that process.
To my colleague Mr. Graves' comments in a couple of
different areas. You asked about accountability, where is the
personal accountability. Mr. Ross is the Secretary of this
Department and he is accountable for the decisions that were
made and are made in putting that budget together and we are
entitled to ask him along those lines. So, yes, there is
accountability at the Secretary level. You have offered up a
different level.
And actually I have sat in these hearings with many of the
good people here to my left testifying, we have asked them
about how budgets are policies and priorities, budgets reflect
policies and priorities. This is not politics, it is policies--
what policies do you support and not support, what priorities
do you prioritize and not prioritize. And several of the
persons that you have offered up to testify here today have
basically said, hey, look, the decision was made above my head.
Now, presumably the Secretary is aware that those decisions
were made, since he is in charge of the Department and
presumably he knows how he balanced everything across all of
those departments.
So I think it is entirely appropriate for us here to expect
that that level be before this committee when we start this
appropriations process. Yes, of course, we have experts, they
are all good advocates for their divisions, but they are not
the priority-setters; they are in their divisions, but not in
the big picture. If somehow the Secretary does not have that
role, then perhaps he should not be Secretary, but I say that
just because I think this is a failure of accountability.
So, you know, I share the concerns of my colleagues on
areas that I wanted to ask about. I wanted to ask about EDA
cuts, I wanted to ask about cuts, significant cuts to NOAA that
have already been referenced here today. The capable NOAA
administrator testified just a few weeks ago that those cuts
were handed down--and I am putting words in his mouth, so with
apologies--were handed down from the top. So I wanted to know,
okay, well, how was that judgment made against something else?
He is not capable of doing that, he won't do it, but the
Secretary is responsible for it. So that is the reason here.
I think I definitely wanted to ask about the 75-percent cut
to the Minority Business Development Agency, which is so
critical to minority-owned businesses across our country. I
could give you a whole range of examples of minority-owned
businesses, 11 million minority-owned businesses that are
responsible and are benefitted from this program. Is it a
policy of this administration that they do not support
minority-owned businesses? Because that is exactly what is
reflected in a 75-percent cut to a budget. Maybe there is a
reason, maybe there is a judgment that it is done some other
way that has not been answered.
So there are a lot of questions that can only be answered
at the Secretary level and, furthermore, should be answered at
that level as a matter of us discharging our constitutional
responsibilities.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Let me just briefly say in closing that to infer, as the
Department has, that coming here would detract from the work of
the Commerce Department is just the opposite, in my opinion.
Not showing up makes our markup, makes our writing of the bill
much more difficult.
Secondly, repetition of what I said before, if anybody
thinks that you can have a hearing with an agency as large, a
department as large as the Commerce Department and not discuss
other issues that are before us and that are pending, then you
have never been on the Appropriations Committee. And I am not
suggesting anyone said that, but that is part of what was said
in the letter that the Secretary sent to us.
So we are going to recess the committee, subject to the
call of the chair, with the hope that the Secretary understands
that this is not about making his life miserable. This is about
making sure we have a good department, we have good programs
that all the agencies within that department are taking care
of, and, yes, that there is a fair and accurate census count.
And so with that we will recess, subject to the call of the
chair.
[Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 4, 2019.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WITNESS
CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to a hearing to which
the appropriate official shows up. An inside joke.
This morning, we welcome the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, Christopher Wray, in his first appearance
before the subcommittee to discuss the FBI's fiscal 2020 budget
request and related issues.
Much of your budget falls on the defense side of the
ledger, but the President's efforts to increase defense
spending do not seem to include your critical agency. Your
fiscal year 2020 salaries and expenses request is only $65
million above last year and includes some targeted investments,
such as an additional $70 million for cyber threats, $18.3
million for counterintelligence operations, and $4.2 million
for the NICS; however, this increase is not enough to cover
your new and continuing program course without some significant
efficiencies in cost-cutting. We hope to learn how you plan to
make ends meet.
Director, you have testified before Congress on
unprecedented threats from abroad and within, from cyber
threats, espionage, and terrorism. The work of the FBI is
extremely important in addressing these dangers, as well as
white collar crime, foreign election interference, civil rights
violations, including voting rights, and color of law
violations, and much, much more. You also run our Nation's
background check system, a vital oversight mechanism to ensure
guns do not fall in the wrong hands.
We also want to hear how the FBI is applying lessons from
the financial crisis 10 years ago to target the type of white
collar and institutional criminal activity that led to that
economic disaster, and help keep history from repeating itself.
And at a time when many communities suffer from rifts in
trust with their law enforcement institutions, we would like to
know how the FBI is taking steps, both in its own culture and
operations, and in working with law enforcement partners
nationwide to help bridge such gaps.
It is extremely important that you have the resources
necessary to enforce the law in all of these diverse areas
without having to choose one at the expense of another.
I have long been concerned about our overemphasis on
pursuing so-called ``Islamic terrorism'' at the expense of
important FBI missions like civil rights investigations and
white collar crime. My concerns have grown along with the rise
of white nationalist extremism. White supremacist terror
attacks in Pittsburgh, Charlottesville, and Charleston have
made headlines, and statistics show such attacks are on the
rise; yet your budget request does not mention them. I realize
the President minimizes this threat, but you should not, and I
hope you can tell us more today about your work on areas
outside of international terrorism.
Speaking of the President, I do not think that we can hold
this hearing without addressing Mr. Trump's persistent attacks
on your agency. The FBI has not faced this level of political
threat since Watergate. No one on this committee confuses
honesty--and I mean no one on this committee confuses honest
criticism of your agency, which is healthy and necessary, with
insidious attacks on the reputation of the FBI workforce. These
are poorly disguised efforts to undercut the legitimacy of an
agency that must be free to enforce the law and the
Constitution fairly, and without regard to politics of persons.
It is deeply worrisome with the variety of important missions
you have the President continues to focus on settling personal
scores.
To add injury to insult, the FBI faced its longest lapse in
appropriations in history, compelling you to tell your 36,000
employees that you were, quote, ``about as angry as I have been
in a long time,'' end of quote. I can assure you, Director,
every member of this committee on both sides shares your
feelings.
I hope to hear today how the shutdown affected your
operations and why the FBI and our whole criminal justice
system should not be held hostage again.
Mr. Serrano. With that, let me turn to my ranking member,
Mr. Aderholt, for his opening comments.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too would like
to welcome Director Wray to the Commerce, Justice, Science
Subcommittee today for testifying for the fiscal year 2020
budget request.
Director Wray, as you well know as the Nation's premier law
enforcement and intelligence agency, you are charged with
combating terrorism, transnational organized crime, gang
violence, and the foreign adversaries targeting our military,
technology, and economic institutions, just to name a few
facets of your diverse mission. Yet while these threats are not
new, the means by which criminal actors implement them are
always changing.
Today, the FBI is increasingly fighting crime by leveraging
big data analytics and employing data exploitation measures.
This morning we look forward to hearing more about how the FBI
is working to stay ahead of various developments in technology,
as criminal actors abuse new technology to advance their
lawless operations.
I appreciate your efforts to identify and close strategic
gaps, and the multi-year planning approach outlined in your
budget, as well as your efforts to leverage the reach,
expertise, and resources of your numerous intelligence
community and law enforcement partners in the midst of an ever-
changing threat environment.
Finally, as always, central to the FBI's success are the
superb individuals that support the agency and its mission. We
are all very deeply grateful for the dedicated patriots of the
FBI who persist in their efforts to bravely respond to the
domestic and the foreign threats facing the U.S., and who
faithfully endeavor to preserve the civil liberties of all
Americans while doing so.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing this
morning. Thank you, Director, for being here. And I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Director, it is your turn now. We wish you could keep
it to 5 minutes, but we give you our word that your full
statement will be included in the record, and the 5 minutes is
so that these great people alongside of me can ask you
questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Wray. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Aderholt, members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to
be here today representing the men and women of the FBI. It is
our people, 37,000 of them, who are really the heart of the
Bureau, and I am proud of their service, of their commitment to
our mission. Every day I see them tackling their jobs with
integrity, with perseverance, with professionalism.
And I should say that I have now had the chance to visit
all 56 of our FBI field offices all over the country over my
first year and a half on the job. That means I visited the home
states of every member of this Subcommittee, not only meeting
with FBI employees in all those places, but also talking in
each instance with state and local law enforcement partners in
those communities, and with other members of the community
about the issues that matter most to them. And I am grateful
for the support and insight of those partners as we work
together to keep 325 million American people safe and to make
our communities even stronger.
I want to thank this Subcommittee for the funding you have
provided us in the past. The reality is, without your support,
we wouldn't be able to do the important work we do. I have
included details about our 2020 budget request in my written
statement for the record and I am happy to address your
questions about that request, of course, but I also want to
touch, Mr. Chairman, on the wide array of threats that we face
as Americans, including the terrorist threat from home-grown
violent extremists, domestic terrorists, and foreign terrorist
organizations; hostile foreign intelligence services actively
seeking our state and military secrets, our trade secrets, our
innovation, and our ideas; the scourge of gang violence and
other violent crime, complex frauds, and transnational
organized crime; crimes against children, human trafficking,
and the opioid epidemic; and the list goes on and on.
And increasingly these threats and others are cyber-based,
and the more we shift to the Internet as the conduit and the
repository for everything that we use and share and manage, the
more we need the best tools and the most creative ways to
combat this cross-cutting and growing dimension of the threat,
which leads me naturally to the problem that is known
throughout the law enforcement community as going dark.
It is by now patently clear that those who would do all of
us harm--criminals, terrorists, hackers, and spies--are
exploiting encryption and other methods to hide their
communications and their crimes. And, in a world of apps and
smartphones, we continue to face hurdles in getting evidence
that we have the legal authority to get in a timely manner.
Let me be clear, we all recognize the important benefits of
strong methods of encryption. Cyber security is, after all, an
important part of our mission at the FBI, but it just cannot be
an acceptable end state for companies to carve out, even
unintentionally, an entire unfettered space for rogue actors,
terrorists, and criminals to hide and do horrible things to
innocent people.
This country is home to a world-class technology sector and
I believe that sector can and should work with us in pressing
forward together to find solutions.
We cannot afford to be complacent. We have got to stay
ahead of the evolving terrorist, counterintelligence, and
criminal threats, which includes things like enhancing our
technical and analytical capabilities related to counter-
terrorism vetting; enhancing our cyber and foreign intelligence
capabilities; enhancing our targeting and disruption of the
financial and Darknet networks used by transnational organized
crime groups; increasing our capacity to perform criminal
background checks; and improving our ability to render safe a
weapon of mass destruction.
These threats are all ever changing and we have got to get
even more agile and more predictive. We have got to keep pace
with technology, we have got to help our law enforcement
partners in your districts, all across the country, and
partners all around the world, and we can't do any of that
without your support.
The threats that we face as a nation have never been
greater and the expectations on the men and women of the FBI
have never been higher, but I see those men and women every day
meeting and exceeding those expectations. So, thank you for
this opportunity to discuss their work, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
BUDGET SHORTFALL
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Five minutes, incredible. Thank
you.
Let me first just make a comment. In our conversation prior
to your appearance here, you told me that you had reinstituted
or expanded on visits to different places, and conversations
with new agents and current agents to remind them what happens
when government does not treat its people fairly, its citizens
fairly, and including visiting the Holocaust museum. So I want
to commend you for that, because I think that that is something
that shows what the FBI should be thinking about as it fights
the fights that it has to fight and it can't be won at the
expense of our rights; it has to be a combination and a
balance, and so I appreciate that.
You are requesting a total of $9.925 billion in salaries
and expenses, which includes six program enhancements and
additional positions. However, the $65 million you requested
over the fiscal year 2019 appropriations is not enough to cover
the full costs of the requested enhancements, let alone cover
necessary adjustments to base, and you propose to rescind an
additional $60 million in balances on top of that.
What kinds of efficiencies could the FBI achieve that would
permit it to cover this current services shortfall you face?
Mr. Wray. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question.
Certainly, we try to be careful stewards of the taxpayers'
money in lots of ways and we are always looking for
efficiencies.
I should say, which is an important clarification, that the
fiscal year 2020 budget request was, as I understand it,
assembled before the ultimate 2019 Appropriation that we
received from the Congress, which means that it was not built
off of the 2019 budget, but rather the 2019 CR, and that has
the perverse effect of making it actually $200 million short.
So there is a gap there.
We are obviously very grateful for the 2019 Appropriation
that this Subcommittee helped secure, which includes some very
important increases for the FBI, and anything this Subcommittee
could help us do to close the gap that I just referred to would
be very much appreciated, and I can assure you we would put
those resources to good use.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. And, without telling you anything I
am not supposed to tell you at this point, you have people on
both sides of this committee that want to be helpful and have
you do the job that you need to do.
HATE CRIMES
The 2017 FBI hate crime statistics published last November
showed that hate crime incidents increased 17 percent over
2016, a deplorable third straight year such crimes increased.
This increase has been linked by some researchers, especially
in late 2016, with the impact of Russian social media
manipulation aimed at fomenting racial division in the U.S.
While 2018 statistics have not been released, what is the FBI
observing particularly in light of recent violent hate crimes
in the past several years that have grown from isolated events
to mass violence?
Mr. Wray. Well, Mr. Chairman, like you, we are determined
not to tolerate hate-fueled violence in our communities and we
are going to aggressively investigate those cases. It is true
that we have seen an increase in the reporting of hate crimes
and the FBI's own number of hate crime cases have increased. It
is not clear whether the increase is due to the number of
agencies that are now reporting who weren't before. The FBI is
doing a lot to raise awareness in the community, so that there
will be more reporting. So I think it is a good thing that
there is more reporting, but certainly we are concerned.
We have brought a number of hate crime cases recently,
including just last week, actually. We secured the 29-count
hate crime guilty plea from an individual connected with the
Charlottesville incident, for example. And, not that long
before that, we had eight defendants charged during the Rise
Above movement with rioting charges for the violence that they
had caused during various rallies.
So we have got quite a number of cases that we are pursuing
at the moment. We are using every tool at our disposal, whether
it is hate crimes charges, gun charges, explosives charges, or
as in the example of the Rise Above movement charges we
brought, we are trying to be creative in looking at other
charges that might be available to us like the Federal rioting
statute.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
What resources does the FBI need to deal with these issues
within the Civil Rights Division and your partners in state and
local law enforcement in combating the increase in hate crimes?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly we are stretched thin, there is
no question about it. We try to tackle this kind of activity
both through our criminal programs in the Civil Rights side as
hate crimes, and then in other instances we are also using our
counter-terrorism resources, pursuing them through the JTTFs on
the domestic terrorism side.
And so the more resources we have available to us in terms
of agents and personnel and tools, because of the avalanche of
data that Ranking Member Aderholt referred to, for example, the
more effective we can be in fighting this problem.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
I suspect we are going to have a vote sometime during this
hearing, so I will move it along so that we can get in as many
questions as possible from as many members as possible.
REGIONAL COMPUTER FORENSIC LAB
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
I was very pleased to be involved in the probes process
even in a small way as the Regional Computer Forensic Lab was
created in Huntsville, Alabama, and excited to hear the FBI
will be expanding its footprint in the Huntsville area with
even more infrastructure for technology-focused training and
other critical programs.
What I would want to pose to you is, could you tell us here
this morning about the importance of the Regional Computer
Forensic Lab and explain the benefits to the states and the
localities?
Mr. Wray. Thank you for the question, it is an important
topic, increasingly important. The reality is that criminals of
all shapes and sizes, virtually in every instance now, are
using one, if not multiple electronic devices, which means that
in basically every kind of case the FBI or our state and local
law enforcement partners handle there is going to be digital
evidence. And where the RCFLs, the Regional Computer Forensics
Labs, fit in is it basically becomes one-stop shopping for
state and local law enforcement working together with the FBI
to be able to do forensic exploitation of that digital evidence
through properly certified and trained personnel. So there is a
training dimension, but more importantly there is an ability to
get through and forensically exploit the evidence that is
critical to pretty much solving every kind of crime there is
out there.
And there was not--until the recent RCFL in Huntsville,
there was not an RCFL in that region of the country. So it is
not just good for Alabama, it is good for the whole region, and
it is particularly helpful to our state and local partners who
without it would be really high and dry.
Mr. Aderholt. What other activities are you planning as the
FBI to relocate into that area?
Mr. Wray. Well, we are focusing on expanding on the data
analytics side and we are ultimately expecting it could be as
many as about 3,000 FBI employees there at Redstone Arsenal.
We have of course been in Huntsville since back in the
early '70s when we stood up our Hazardous Device School, which
is the place that trains all state, local, and Federal civilian
bomb techs all over the country. We then added in the last
decade TEDAC, which is the place that forensically examines
terrorist explosive devices. So when IEDs get picked up on the
battlefield, they are exploited there at that lab.
We have added things like the Ballistics Research Facility.
There is of course a thriving cleared defense contractor
community down there. So we now have something called the
National Defense Cyber Alliance, which is a place where we work
with other cleared defense contractors and Intelligence
Community partners to exploit cyber threat intelligence.
So I think we are really excited about the prospects and
building on the momentum that, as I said, started in the early
'70s, but is really kicking into high gear over the last year
or so.
OPIOID EPIDEMIC
Mr. Aderholt. You highlighted in your written testimony
that the FBI is doing some extraordinary work disrupting opioid
trafficking networks on the dark net. What are some of the key
investments you would make with an additional $18 million you
requested to enhance your transnational organized crime
efforts, including the J-CODE initiative?
Mr. Wray. So, needless to say, the opioid epidemic is
something that exceeds the bandwidth of any Federal agency and
it is a problem that faces the entire country. We are trying to
do our part and that is where our budget request and whatever
resources Congress can send our way would be extremely helpful
through our specific contribution.
So, first, the Darknet; increasingly there is opioid
trafficking on the Darknet. We stood up an initiative a while
ago called J-CODE, which focuses on elicit opioid trafficking
and other kinds of trafficking on the Darknet. That was largely
done with a very small investment and it is already having a
very significant impact. And that is clearly where the threat
is moving, so that would be a place where the personnel and
technological investments that we have requested, those kinds
of things could help drive it.
There is the transnational organized crime piece, which is
also reflected in our budget request. The supply, right now we
are targeting that through our Transnational Organized Crime
West Program, which really deals with the cartels and others
who are supplying that pernicious substance. We also have a
prescription drug initiative, which is very focused on going
after medical professionals, because of course the opioid
epidemic is heavily fueled by over and abusive prescribing, you
know, pill mills and things like that, and we have gotten very
aggressive there. And that relies heavily on data analytics
there too, because we are looking at things like over-
prescribing patterns and there is an avalanche of data that
comes there as well.
And then, last, our Safe Streets Task Forces all over the
country focus on what I would call the distributors, the gangs,
et cetera, that are pushing heroin and fentanyl-related
substances in our streets.
Mr. Aderholt. I see my time is up and I know we have a lot
to get to, so I will yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENT
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Director Wray, I would like to continue the line of
questioning of Mr. Aderholt and I want to make sure I
understand. You have asked for $18 million additional, is that
just for the Joint Criminal Opioid Dark Net Enforcement, or is
it for all opioid, anti-opioid efforts?
Mr. Wray. I think hang on a second, let me check with my
CFO here.
It is a broad request, not just for the J-CODE initiative.
Mr. Cartwright. OK, fair enough. But you also just said
``please send us whatever resources can be sent our way,'' and
I was listening when you said that. What do you need? What do
you guys need to do an effective job of addressing not only the
dark net, but this horrible opioid crisis that is killing our
young people and people of all ages in this country?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think at the end of the day it comes down
to people and technology and tools. Our budget request
highlights some of the things that we thought were of the
highest priority and highlights the nature of the problem.
Certainly we, like Congress, try to balance the demands of our
mission with trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers'
resources.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. I also want to ask you about the
fiscal year 2020 request for 33 positions, including three
special agents, and $70.5 million to enhance cyber information
sharing abilities and increased cyber tools and capacities. It
is the same question, Director Wray: is that enough or do you
need more than that?
Mr. Wray. Well, I can assure you, Congressman, that
whatever resources you were to make available to us on the
cyber mission could immediately be put to good use. The cyber
threat has grown in its range of actors, from nation states to
criminal hacktivist and global crime syndicates; the increase
in range of attack methods, whether it's botnets, ransomware,
DDoS attacks, et cetera; and the range of targets, from Fortune
100 companies down to startups out in Silicon Valley has
increased exponentially.
So, make no mistake, it is a significant challenge and it
exceeds the bandwidth that we have at the moment.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. So when I think about 33 new
positions, I am thinking programmers and really tech-savvy
people to attack the cyber threat, but I am also wondering, do
you not outsource a good deal of that to companies that
specialize in cyber threats?
Mr. Wray. Well, I wouldn't say we outsource exactly. We do
partner with the private sector and of the 33 positions that we
have asked for, I think 25 of them would be data analysts,
which gets back to this theme that we have already discussed a
little bit here about the importance of data analytics. Let me
just put a little context around that, because I think it
affects all the areas that we have asked about.
SIZE OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE
The Las Vegas attacks, so let's take that outside of cyber
for a minute, the mass shooting in Las Vegas, that one case, a
big case to be sure--a tragic, horrible case--one petabyte of
data. Now, one petabyte of data, if you are like me and not
like my kids, you think petabyte, I don't know what petabyte
is, but----
Mr. Cartwright. More than a terabyte.
Mr. Wray [continuing]. The entire digital library at the
Library of Congress, the digital records of the entire Library
of Congress has seven petabytes of data. So Las Vegas, one
case, had about a sixth of the entire Library of Congress
digital records. Just a few years ago, we were ingesting
annually about half of what the Library of Congress digital
records has annually. So, for us to keep up with it, we are
having to do things right now, like in Las Vegas and in Boston,
where we have had to take the digital evidence and fly it clear
across the country to Quantico, whereas if we could have more
of the resources that we are asking for it would enable us to
be more forward-deployed in terms of marshaling some of this
information. So that is an example.
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mr. Cartwright. My final question is about HRA. We just
passed a bill for universal background checks with a list of
specific sensible exceptions. The question is, would a
universal background check requirement be helpful to law
enforcement in preventing and/or solving violent crime
involving firearms?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly, the more information we have,
the more effective we can be. There are other considerations. I
would have to look closely at the legislation, which I have not
done, to be able to review it and give you a more meaningful
answer.
Mr. Cartwright. I would urge to do that and maybe we will
work together.
Mr. Wray. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Director.
And I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, good to have you. Thank you for your work, thank
you for the Bureau's work. I know it is a tremendous task each
and every one of you deal with each day. And it is good to have
Georgian with us as well today.
CYBER
Just following up on cyber, that is one of my main focuses
and lanes that I stay in, and you have noted it is a big part
of your testimony as well that the private sector faces ever-
increasing threats each and every day.
So, while you are working with the private sector, is it
safe to say that when you are investigating these cyber attacks
you are engaging the private sector and you are relying on them
to cooperate with the investigation or to help gather
information or to help with attribution, is the private sector
involved in that way as well?
Mr. Wray. Yes. I think in the cyber arena, probably more
than maybe any other of the threat areas we contend with, the
partnership that needs to exist and does exist between the FBI
and the private sector is incredibly important. The reality is
that the most effective defense against cyber threats is
prevention and increasingly mitigation, right? In other words,
as soon as there has been an intrusion, detecting it quickly
and getting rid of it quickly, and that requires that
collaboration.
There are a lot of things that we do in terms of providing
so-called TTPs to the private sector, you know, providing
information about different things that we are seeing, getting
information from them about what they are seeing, forging
relationships through a variety of programs, formal and
informal, that we have so that we can have that bond. You know,
there is a saying that the best time to patch the roof is when
the sun is shining, and that is the approach we are trying to
take with the private sector in that space.
Mr. Graves. You acknowledge that the FBI, you know, limited
resources, you focus primarily on the high-level intrusions and
state-sponsored attacks. So, the private sector that doesn't
meet that threshold, what tools, what resources do they have to
help stop and prevent attacks or address attacks, what do you
recommend there? I feel like we are a little short.
Mr. Wray. Well, there is a swath--I think you have picked
up on a very important point, which is in some ways where some
things like this RCFL that we were talking about with
Congressman Aderholt is so important--there is a swath of
cyber-enabled criminal activity that is affecting businesses
that is essentially below the level of the most sophisticated
stuff that the Feds typically take on, but above the level that
currently is in the range of most state and local law
enforcement. Where these RCFLs fit in, as just one of many
tools that we have, is that it is providing resources and
capabilities to state and local law enforcement to sort of move
up market, if you will, in terms of the kinds of things they
can reach. It is also--you know, the old saying about teach a
man to fish, we are training them at the same time, which then
makes them even more effective and they can train others in
their departments.
So, in the long term, I think that will help us capture
that gap that you are alluding to.
Mr. Graves. You may be aware, I have been promoting a
concept of active cyber defense, allowing the private sector to
engage outside of their network to prevent an attack. And, you
know, the Cyber Fraud and Abuse Act hasn't been updated in
decades and I feel like the private sector is limited in what
they can do. I would love a commitment from you to be able just
to work with your team, your staff, to walk through some of the
challenges, maybe walk through the policy I have proposed and
how we might be able to enable the private sector to have a few
more tools at their disposal, instead of a passive approach and
additional defenses, maybe being able to actively defend their
network. If I could just work with your team on that a little
bit, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Wray. We would be happy to work with you and take a
look at any ideas you have. I do think that over the next 10
years the partnership that is going to have to exist between
law enforcement and the Intelligence Community and the private
sector, in the cyber arena in particular, is going to be a
significant paradigm shift, because otherwise we are not going
to be able to stay ahead of the threat.
Mr. Graves. Right, ever-increasing threats and successful
attempts every day.
FBI HEADQUARTERS
One final question, Mr. Chairman. As the Republican leader
of the Financial Services Committee, there has been this issue
developed over the years and a lot of controversy about the
location of the FBI headquarters, can you bring a little
clarity to us? We had a lot of debate with GSA just a few weeks
ago about this, but our understanding is that the Bureau
believes that the best approach to meeting the demands of the
Bureau is to rebuild at the current location and site, is that
correct?
Mr. Wray. Yes. This is obviously an important issue to the
men and women of the FBI, as well as to the American public.
A little context, you know, I worked in the FBI building a
lot on 9/11 and in the years after 9/11. The building was in
bad shape then, and I can assure you it hasn't gotten better
since then. When I came into this job, the previous project had
already been canceled, so I wasn't involved in that part of it.
So I came into it with a blank slate and we took a very long,
careful, thorough look, and it is the FBI's view that the best
balance of equities for the men and women of the FBI is to be
here downtown, ideally in our current location. Building a new
building--not trying to renovate the old one, but building a
new building in that location gives us the ability to both have
a Level 5 security facility to significantly grow the number of
people we can have there, but also--and this is incredibly
important--also make sure that our folks are within close
proximity for the hundreds and hundreds of meetings that they
have every day with their partners all within about a mile and
a half of our current location, starting with, of course,
across the street at the main Justice building. And so the
ability to do that is something that we think is important.
I think that is the best choice for the American people as
well, thousands of whom visit the FBI building every day to see
the FBI experience tour, and that is an important part of the
transparency that I think needs to exist between the FBI and
the taxpayer and the American public.
Mr. Graves. To be clear, the decision was based on what is
best for the Bureau, the security of our country, and not
because of political pressure?
Mr. Wray. Correct.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for
being with us today, it is a pleasure to have you here.
I am curious. You are under the Department of Justice,
right?
Mr. Wray. Yes, the FBI is part of the Justice Department.
MUELLER REPORT
Mr. Crist. Great. Have you had an occasion to read the
Mueller report?
Mr. Wray. I have not.
FBI HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Crist. Let me get back to a little bit of what my
colleague was just asking you about, because I sit on another
Appropriations subcommittee that has some overlap with regard
to your headquarters at the FBI.
There was some consternation around exactly the GSA and the
FBI had become--or had come, rather, to abandon a decade-old
plan to build a suburban, centralized campus in favor of a more
expensive plan, as you said, to knock down the current site and
rebuild a smaller building there on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Now, the GSA leader, Emily Murphy--you may know her, I
don't know, but in her opening statement before the other
committee she stated, ``I want to be clear, the FBI made the
decision to propose remaining at its current location. I wish
the FBI were here with me today to explain their reasoning for
having done so, but there was a new FBI Director,'' which I
assume was you, ``who joined the agency in August of 2017. And
I don't find it at all surprising that a new leader coming into
an agency would want to take a step back and look at the very
best way to address the needs that he assessed for the
agency.'' She is talking about you, I assume?
Mr. Wray. I assume so as well.
Mr. Crist. Great. You just addressed a little bit about,
you know, what--was that ultimately your decision to abandon
the prior idea of going to a campus location and stay downtown?
Mr. Wray. It is absolutely the FBI's view, the FBI's
choice, the FBI's preference to build a new building--a bigger
building, not a smaller building--at our current location,
which would allow us to, as I said, improve security, build a
state-of-the-art facility, add the number of people in terms of
consolidating our footprint, and be more accessible or remain
accessible to all of our partners and to the public.
Mr. Crist. Was it in fact contemplated that the campus
location is something that had been embraced by your
predecessors, or is that not the case?
Mr. Wray. I can't speak for my predecessors. I know that
when I came in and I asked the question, tell me why we are not
building a building here in this location, it appeared to me
that people had thought that that was not an option that was
available to us. So I don't know that, given the choice, my
predecessors wouldn't have made exactly the same choice that I
am making.
Mr. Crist. OK. Thank you, Director.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director
Wray, for being here this morning.
CRIMES AGAINST CHIDREN
And I echo the sentiments of my colleague from Alabama
about the ever-expanding footprint that the FBI has in Alabama,
and so we are grateful for those efforts and want to continue
to be a partner in that. But I want to spend my time talking
about the almost two pages in your written testimony that are
specific to crimes against children, child exploitation, and
sex and human trafficking.
I have been working with the Department of Justice in my
other role on the Judiciary Committee to look at ways that we
can enhance our laws. Unfortunately, we had a package of bills
that moved by voice vote here in the House and failed in the
Senate at the end of the last Congress. And I was very
disappointed in that, because I felt like this was providing
you, law enforcement, with even greater tools to go after these
horrible predators who are seeking to do harm against children.
So I wanted to give you an opportunity, since you only had
5 minutes to give us a summary of your testimony. Again, this
is important to all of us on this committee, this is important
to this legislative body to make sure that we are doing all
that we can to eradicate modern-day slavery and particularly
crimes against children. So I want to know as a policymaker, as
an appropriator, as a member of the Judiciary Committee as
well, number one, give us--it is in your testimony, I
understand, but give us a recap on your efforts to work with
law enforcement across this country to eradicate these horrific
crimes, but also give us suggestions as to how we can be more
helpful in assuring that you have every tool necessary to help
eradicate this.
Mr. Wray. Well, thank you for the question. This is a topic
that is not only a high priority for the FBI, but it is
something that is near and dear to my heart personally. One of
the few pro bono projects that I was pushing in private
practice at the time that I was nominated for this position was
to try to look for ways, which I don't think has historically
been done much in the private sector, to help the victims of
human trafficking.
The FBI tackles this problem through multiple programs,
multiple weapons that we bring to bear. We have our VCAC
Program, our Violent Crimes Against Children Program, is the
program that kind of manages the effort primarily. We have 81
Child Exploitation Task Forces around the country where we work
with state and local law enforcement and other folks; we have
18 human trafficking task forces on top of those.
And it is important, I think, for people to understand that
it is not just immigrant victims, you know, the majority of
human trafficking victims in this country are actually U.S.
citizens. And I think your use of the word slavery is spot-on.
I mean, frankly, I struggle for words to capture how horrific
this is. I mean, it is downright medieval in 2019 that activity
like this can happen. And barely a week goes by where I am not
hearing about our successes in taking down some sex
trafficking, typically child sex trafficking network, where we
are recovering--you know, I think the number of kids that we
rescued and recovered last year I think was well over a
hundred. And some of these kids are just horrifyingly young.
It is not something that the FBI does alone. We do it with
Federal partners, we do it with state and local law
enforcement. We rely heavily on our Victim Services Division,
because there is obviously a huge victim impact dimension to
this. So we try to work on how we can position these folks,
especially the kids, to have at least some semblance of a
normal life after this is all over and done with; we try to
work with social services providers.
So I think it starts with the Congress and Members like
yourself kind of raising awareness, and then using all the
different tools that we have asked for in our 2020 request in
some way end up touching on this. The data analytics piece, the
transnational organized crime piece, all those things tie in,
among other things, to the human trafficking piece as well.
Mrs. Roby. From a resource/budgetary standpoint, do you
feel as though you have the resources that you need in order to
carry out these programs?
Mr. Wray. Well, I would say I am very proud of the hard
work that our folks are doing and the successes we are
accomplishing with our partners, but there is also no question
in my mind that if Congress were to send more resources our way
to deal with this problem those people would be busy
immediately.
Mrs. Roby. OK. Thank you for your service to our country,
and your family as well, we very much appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Ms. Meng.
HATE CRIMES DATA
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director,
for being here and for your service to our country.
I wanted to ask about the under-reporting by local law
enforcement of hate crimes; it remains a major problem.
According to ProPublica's Documenting Hate Project, thousands
of local law enforcement agencies choose not to report hate
crime stats to the FBI at all. And a separate investigation
revealed that 120 Federal agencies have not complied with
mandates to submit hate crime data to the FBI, and also reports
that the FBI itself does not regularly submit hate crimes it
investigates to its own database.
I just wanted to know what is the FBI doing to improve the
situation, to bring not only local law enforcement agencies,
but also Federal agencies and FBI itself, into compliance for
reporting hate crimes.
Mr. Wray. Well, first, I would say you are correct that
there has historically been under-reporting of hate crimes
throughout this country. That is the bad news. The good news is
that there has been a very positive upward trend in terms of
the number of agencies that are reporting. We are still not
where we need to be in terms of getting our arms fully around
the scope and extent of the problem, but it is definitely
moving in the right direction, and I think the statistics
reflect that.
We at the FBI are trying to do a number of things from a
sort of outreach perspective, working with partners to try to
raise awareness and help our partners understand why it is in
everybody's interest for the information to be reported.
For the most part, crime statistics, whether it is hate
crimes or other types of crimes, you know, our pitch to the law
enforcement community is we are all better off if we have the
actual data and the actual facts. Otherwise, what happens is
people start trying to analyze the issue based only on media
reporting, which is not necessarily reliable.
So, good or bad, we think it is in the best interests of
the profession, and therefore the country, to have complete and
accurate data, and so we are committed to trying to ensure
that.
HATE CRIMES UNDERREPORTING
Ms. Meng. I appreciate efforts for increased outreach and
raising awareness, I think that is great.
I also wanted to ask about under-reporting specifically by
certain more marginalized or under-represented communities;
immigrant communities, people with disabilities, Arab
Americans, South Asian Americans, people who might not speak
English proficiently, many of these communities don't report,
they can't report, or they don't feel safe reporting. How is
the FBI engaging or doing outreach with these communities? And
we work together in my district to have seminars and workshops
with the FBI, for example.
And also with the rise of immigration enforcement
activities, how is the FBI countering the fear that some of
these victims might have and still encouraging them to report
their crimes?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly I believe very strongly, and I
think most people in the FBI believe very strongly, that the
better we know all of our communities and the better they know
us, the better we can protect them and uphold the Constitution.
And there are all shapes and sizes, some formal, some informal,
of community engagement with all the communities we serve. And
I say that now with the benefit of having been to all 56 field
offices and in the vast majority of them met not just with
state and local law enforcement partners, but also with
community leaders.
So I have gotten feedback directly from community leaders
from all different corners of the country, and the feedback I
get there is that they appreciate the engagement that our
offices are doing. We are always looking for new and better
ways to do that, we are never satisfied, but I think we are
moving in the right direction. And we are doing things like our
FBI Citizens Academy, where we will often include people from a
wide variety of backgrounds and communities within the broader
community, and those folks then stay involved and then help
recruit and bring more people in. And they get to understand
the FBI and law enforcement in a way that is I think very
helpful, increasing the likelihood that when they are the
victim of a crime they are going to reach out and say so,
because there is a greater level of trust. I think that is the
goal.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
I am going to start a second round now. The members know
that there will be votes, the votes will take about an hour. So
probably whatever we can do now will be the end of the hearing,
but we will stay in touch with you along the way to make sure
that we get things done.
VIOLENT EXTREMISM
So, with that in mind, let me not make my opening statement
to this question and get to the question. How would you
describe the danger to public safety that is posed by white
supremacist extremism? Is it changing in its qualities or in
the kinds of resources that the FBI and other law enforcement
agencies need to respond?
And secondly, the second part to that question, your budget
request does not mention white supremacist extremism at all.
How much funding and how many employees are dedicated to
investigating white nationalist and white supremacist
extremists in your fiscal year 2020 budget?
So what is the danger to the country and what do you need
to fight it?
Mr. Wray. Well, the danger, I think, of white supremacist
violent extremism, or any other kind of violent extremism, is
of course significant. We assess that it is a persistent,
pervasive threat. We tackle it both through our Joint Terrorism
Task Forces on the domestic terrorism side, as well as through
our Civil Rights program on the criminal side through hate
crime enforcement.
I think as to whether I would see any significant
difference or trend there, or whether it is changing, I think I
would say in general domestic terrorism in this country has
changed in the sense that it is less structured, less
organized, fewer groups, more uncoordinated one-off
individuals, as opposed to some structured hierarchy, and that
presents its own share of challenges. But certainly we tackle
it through agents, analysts, professional staff, and
technology, because there is a lot of social media exploitation
that comes with it.
So, again, it comes back to this theme of data analytics
and the volume of data that we talked about before.
FBI RECRUITMENT
Mr. Serrano. Let me just ask you about recruitment. The FBI
has always attracted talented young persons to its national
security and law enforcement missions, but it is now finding it
more difficult to compete with industry, particularly when it
comes to technology skills. As a result, the FBI, like many
Federal agencies, is trying to train current employees to fill
such positions.
What is the current skill gap the FBI faces in this regard,
both in terms of categories of positions and numbers of such
personnel, and what is the FBI doing to close it?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly we are trying to be more focused
on recruiting employees with STEM backgrounds, for example. We
have a variety of programs where we start reaching out to kids,
you know, at a much younger age to get them interested in
careers with the FBI. We have created positions like the data
analyst and computer scientist positions.
But you are correct, Mr. Chairman, that we are focusing
very heavily on training, because the reality is, in this
economy, that the sort of cyber whiz-kids that are out there
are in short supply. Even Silicon Valley can't recruit enough
of them and they have something else to offer that we don't
have as much of.
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Mr. Wray. We have mission and we think we can compete on
mission with anybody. But we think, if we are ultimately going
to be where we need to be for the future, we are going to have
to not only recruit more people with those backgrounds, but,
frankly, raise the proficiency level throughout the workforce,
because it is no longer just a case of a Cyber Division. As I
said in my opening remarks, pretty much every threat area we
have talked about here today has a cyber dimension to it or a
digital evidence dimension to it.
So we need to improve kind of the median proficiency
throughout the FBI workforce, so that the really sophisticated
nation state intrusions and things like that can be the focus
of our sort of cyber black belts, if you will, and that is the
approach we are taking.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Director.
Mr. Aderholt.
SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT BACKLOG
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask about sexual assault kits. The effort to
address the backlog of sexual assault kits nationwide has led
to tens of thousands of long-shelf kits being tested over the
last several years. And while the analysis of sexual assault
evidence seems primarily a state or a local law enforcement
matter, I understand the FBI actually played a role in helping
to ensure that these kits not go--don't go untested.
My question would be is under what program is or was the
FBI involved with the testing of these rape kits?
Mr. Wray. So, Congressman, our FBI lab has been a very,
very important partner with state and local law enforcement in
trying to clear through this backlog of sexual assault kits,
rape kits, and it is a very impressive operation. I have been
down there and seen it firsthand, and I am very proud of their
work. Not only is that clearing the backlog, but of course in
many cases these are serial rapists who are out and about until
the backlog was cleared.
So this is having a real impact in a positive way on the
safety of people all across the country.
Mr. Aderholt. What has the testing of these volumes of
these backlogged sexual assault kits have taught the FBI
about--and other law enforcement about crime in general?
Mr. Wray. Well, it certainly highlights something that we
talk about all the time, which is the value of partnership
between Federal, state and local law enforcement. It has also
taught us a lot about the value of the forensic skill set that
is required to address all of the criminal threats we have, and
of course it has highlighted the importance of Rapid DNA in
particular, which is a place that has become an indispensable
tool in this country both for catching the guilty, but also for
exonerating the innocent.
RAPID DNA
Mr. Aderholt. I want to--I will quickly just move on. Rapid
DNA, it is a term that is used to describe the fully automated
process developing DNA profile from a cheek swab without a
human intervention. Can you talk about the goal of the FBI's
rapid DNA initiative?
Mr. Wray. We are very excited about rapid DNA. Essentially,
as you say, rapid DNA would allow for much, much faster and
more agile and nimble DNA testing for the same kinds of results
I was referring to just a second ago. We are trying to be very
thoughtful about how we build up to this. Right now, we are
moving in a direction where we are starting to use it in
booking stations, in the more stable platform that that
provides. Ultimately--but that's the key word, ultimately, we
are not there yet. We want to be in a position where it can be
used at crime scenes, but that is not where we are yet and that
has got to be done very carefully, because we know there will
be court challenges and other things. And we want to make sure
that this very exciting, very promising technology to
protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution
is preserved and doesn't take a stumble by us starting out of
the starting gate too quickly. But I know that in talking to my
state and local law enforcement partners that we are all very
excited about what this could mean for the profession and the
country.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 1112 CHARLESTON LOOPHOLE
Director Wray, you and I briefly touched on H.R. 8, and
thank you for agreeing to work with me as you go through it and
think about the ramifications on what that means for your
agency. I also wanted to ask you about H.R. 1112, which is the
closing the Charleston loophole bill. Same question, have you
had a chance to review that and think about the ramifications
for the FBI?
Mr. Wray. I am afraid I have not had a chance to review
that particular piece of legislation, but I would be happy for
us to do that--view it, review it, that is.
Mr. Cartwright. Let's go over that offline, shall we? But
it struck me as odd. The Trump Administration has come out
against both H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, and obviously they did not
ask you to review those things, otherwise you would have done
it by today, I assume, with a view toward how that would affect
FBI operations.
FBI MORALE
Mr. Wray. Well, just to be clear, I am saying that I
personally have not reviewed either of the pieces of
legislation you are referring to. I don't know for sure whether
somebody in the 37,000-person workforce that we have might have
reviewed and provided an assessment of the operational impact.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, they are not terribly long bills. And
I understand you are a graduate of the Yale Law School and I
understand that is an accredited law school at this point.
Mr. Wray. The last time I checked, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Let's work together and maybe you can give
some context yourself to the White House on whether it ought to
be opposing those bills.
I also wanted to talk about FBI morale and the reputation
of the FBI. The FBI has seen really more than its fair share of
negative press coverage over the past several years. The
Administration has really gone to unprecedented lengths to
criticize and undermine the FBI as an institution and several
of its employees specifically. I am concerned about a potential
political polarization of the FBI. We don't want to see that.
The FBI works for all Americans and I know you understand that.
And I know that the men and women of the FBI are resilient,
professional, hard-working, and largely able to focus on their
mission even while subjected to unfair criticism.
Here is my question. What is your sense of the morale right
now of the FBI and its employees in light of what I think are
unfair attacks?
Mr. Wray. Well, as you say, the men and women of the FBI
are resilient, and I could give you story after story having
gone now to all 56 offices and met with all of our employees in
all those places. I would tell you that, while there are plenty
of opinions out there about the FBI, the opinions that I
encounter from our partners, Federal, state and local law
enforcement, from prosecutors, from judges, from community
groups, from private sector organizations, from the workforce
that we are recruiting, has, frankly, been uniformly positive,
in fact in a way that I think is a good measure of morale. Do
you know that since October, we have had more people applying
to be special agents of the FBI than all of the prior fiscal
years. So that says, I think, good things about the morale.
Mr. Cartwright. It would be a good leading indicator there.
Well, good.
Well, tell me, do you believe that public confidence in an
agency is impacted when an elected official relentlessly
attacks an agency and its members, and tries to undermine its
credibility, do you think there is any effect of those things?
FBI EXPERIENCE
Mr. Wray. You know, I don't think it is really my place to
be weighing in or commenting on political speech and social
media; those things have their place, I am focused on us
getting the work done. I think that is what most of our folks
are doing and the results I see there are not only strong, but
improving all the time.
Mr. Cartwright. I am certainly glad to hear that Director.
And thank you for coming today and your testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Graves--and, by the way, before I go to Mr. Graves, I
am glad you keep saying 56 places that you went to, because it
has been my mantra that there are more than 50 states of the
American flag.
Thank you.
Mr. Graves. Director, thank you again. No question, just I
really want to commend you and your team, and particularly the
personal attention that Mr. Halley gave to myself and others
earlier this year, including my family as we came to visit
headquarters and enjoy the new, I guess, tour that is
available. And I must say, it is inspiring. If there is one
thing that may be assisting with the new recruits or attention
to wanting to join the Bureau, maybe that was it, because it
was really inspiring as to the work and the history of the FBI
and the challenges you face.
But I just wanted to thank you and your team, and Mr. Haley
in particular, for their attention to us. Thanks for joining us
today.
Mr. Wray. Thank you.
Mr. Graves. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I guess it is me. We will use whatever
time we have here for a second.
FBI DIVERSITY AGENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAM
The FBI has a Diversity Agent Recruitment Program; how does
it work and what would you regard as a measure of success for
that program?
Mr. Wray. Well, Mr. Chairman, diversity is very important
to me personally, and I think it is to the whole FBI. We view
it as critical to our effectiveness, I think we make better
decisions when we have a more diverse workforce; I think it is
essential to our credibility. There have been a lot of
questions today about the trust of the community and we need,
in order to have that trust, to be credible with all the
different communities we engage with, and I think it is about
respect and treating everybody with respect.
Our Diversity Agent Recruitment Program has a number of
dimensions. We do a lot of social media exposure of what it is
like to work at the FBI and we sort of prominently feature
diverse employees to try to encourage greater application from
that standpoint. We have Diversity Agent Recruitment events all
across the country. I have gone and spoken at well over, I
think about a half dozen of them myself to set the tone. And
where we bring in people from, you know, historically African-
American colleges and things like that, community groups, et
cetera, to try to get people interested in careers with the
FBI, and there is a whole sort of job fair dimension to that.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I wanted to ask you----
Mr. Wray. And the results are actually quite encouraging.
The last couple years, we have seen----
Mr. Serrano. Excuse me, I wanted to ask you about that,
because I want it to be clear that you do participate in job
fairs the way so many other people do.
Mr. Wray. Well, these are sort of our own----
Mr. Serrano. Your own job fairs----
Mr. Wray. Job fairs----
Mr. Serrano. Right.
Mr. Wray. Because we like to make sure people are
completely focused on the FBI when we are doing them, as
opposed to showing up in some of these other settings, but we
probably do a little bit of that too.
I would say that the results are encouraging. The last few
years of our entering classes have been up in terms of the
diversity that they represent. Each of those years is also more
as a percentage matter than the current percentage of our
workforce. And, importantly, this year the percentage, the
diversity of applications--I mentioned a minute ago how
recruiting is up--within that, the percentage of diverse
candidates is up quite significantly in terms of the
applications. So I think that is also a very promising sign for
the future of the organization.
9/11 FUNDING
Mr. Serrano. Very briefly, my last question. I was part of
this committee right after 9/11 and we gave a lot of money to
the FBI, and rightfully so, to do what had to be done after 9/
11. And I started worrying then, and I still worry now, that
maybe the focus on criminals, drug dealers, and others, the
white collar crimes, if you will, would not be paid attention
to with the same fervor as it was before. What can you tell us
about that?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly 9/11 is very important to me
personally, as I know it is to you. And as I mentioned to you
when we spoke on the phone, I have actually now added a visit
to the 9/11 Memorial for every new training class, along with
the Holocaust Memorial and the MLK Memorial.
I would say that while counter-terrorism remains our top
priority, if you looked at where are our resources are
allocated in terms of just the sheer numbers of agents,
analysts, and professional staff, our traditional criminal
programs are still where the lion's share of the resources are
allocated. So you might hear us talking more about counter-
terrorism and it might get a little more attention in the
leadership just because of the stakes, the mass-casualty stakes
that are implicated by a terrorist attack, but in terms of just
the day-to-day cadence of the organization, our criminal
programs still represent the biggest program we have.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt.
MS-13 THREAT
Mr. Aderholt. Let me ask about some other gang and violent
crime issues. Other than the opioid epidemic, violent crime and
gangs seem to affect just about every part of our community.
Can you talk about MS-13 a little bit and just talk about the
current--is it still a threat, as we have, you know, seen a lot
in the news over the past several months and years on that? And
just talk a little bit about MS-13 in general.
Mr. Wray. So, certainly MS-13 remains a threat, it remains
an organization that we are tackling very aggressively. We have
had significant MS-13 cases of course in Long Island, but not
exclusively. I think in Queens and Long Island, for example,
not that long ago we took down I think about 45 of the most
dangerous MS-13 members. But what is important about the way we
tackle the MS-13 threat is that it is not just here in the U.S.
with our Safe Streets Task Forces, we also have what we call
our TAGS, which are task forces that are in El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras, where we work with local law
enforcement there to help them address more of the problem
there as well.
And so those two kind of bookends help us tackle the threat
in a more cross-border way and sort of not just kind of getting
it when it is here inside our borders.
VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Aderholt. Has there been an increase in violence
against law enforcement officers that you have been aware of?
Mr. Wray. Last year, 2018, there was an increase in the
number of law enforcement officers in this country who were
shot and killed in the line of duty. And I say that because I
personally call every time that happens the chief or sheriff or
commissioner involved to express my support and condolences.
And so every single one of those instances I am seeing myself,
the picture of the person who was killed, information about his
or her family, how long they were on the job, and it was up
last year. I don't have the percentage or the number off the
top of my head, but it was up last year in a way that I find
very alarming.
And I would also say, which is in some ways even more
concerning, that the number of those deaths that were as a
result of ambush was up last year as well, as a subset.
This year, it is not clear yet whether the number will be
up this year but this is a time for, you know, considerable
concern about the well-being and safety of the men and women of
law enforcement who put themselves at great risk. And it takes
a very, very, very special person to every day be willing to
sacrifice your life for a complete stranger. There are not a
lot of people willing to do that and we all as Americans owe
those people a debt of gratitude, and my heart and the hearts
of everybody in the FBI breaks whenever one of these things
happens.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. No questions.
Mr. Serrano. That is it.
We want to thank you, Mr. Director, for coming before us
today. Your agency is one that has our respect. When we
disagree with you, we tell you in a diplomatic way to make
changes, throughout our history, my personal history on this
committee and I know the other members. The FBI at times has
had difficult relationships with different communities, it did
so in Puerto Rico for many years, and Director Freeh opened up
those files for people to see and then changes were made to
make sure that that didn't happen again.
And so you can tell the members of your workforce, your
agents, that we respect them and we will do whatever we need to
do to make sure they do the right job and do it properly, but
do it with the support of Congress, and that is very important.
And we thank you for your testimony.
This meeting is adjourned.
[Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 9, 2019.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESSES
WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
LEE J. LOFTHUS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Serrano. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order.
Today we welcome the new Attorney General, William Barr,
before the subcommittee. As the Attorney General during the
George H. W. Bush administration, he has testified before this
committee in the past, but this is his first time in quite a
while. Welcome and congratulations to your new and old
position, sir.
We also welcome Assistant Attorney General for
Administration Lee Lofthus. Because Attorney General Barr was
not confirmed when this year's budget proposal was largely
formulated, he has asked that the Assistant Attorney General be
allowed to join him at the table to answer some of the nuts-
and-bolts questions that we will ask regarding the budget.
This year we have held several hearings for components of
the Department, including the FBI, the ATF, the Civil Rights
Division, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. I
appreciate the willingness of the Department to come and
testify, even though we may have different opinions on
different issues.
Let me take a moment to describe some concerns prompted by
those hearings. We have heard what appears to be a lack of
commitment to the Department's traditional mission to defend
civil rights, disability rights, and prevent discrimination. We
have discussed what appears to be a clear animus towards
policies that protect individuals' health care, voting rights,
access to education, and much, much more.
We have discussed the need for additional resources to
address gun violence in this country, while at the same time
hearing ATF say that the budget request would result in
staffing reductions. We have talked to the head of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review about the need to
protect due process and fairness in our immigration courts, and
the many policy changes that make such goals more difficult to
achieve. We have heard the FBI describe the threats our Nation
faces, but also that their budget request will not fully fund
their efforts to address those threats. As we discuss the
Department today, we are faced with a budget request that fails
to address many of these concerns and raises new problems.
And of course, Mr. Attorney General, we could not hold this
hearing without mentioning the elephant in the room, and I am
not referring to my colleagues on the other side. Two and a
half weeks ago, the Mueller report was completed. In extremely
quick fashion, you turned a 300-plus-page report into a four-
page letter that supposedly summarized the findings. Last week,
the New York Times reported that the Special Counsel's office
had already created summary documents that were ignored in your
letter, and that some investigators within the Special
Counsel's office felt that the summary understates the level of
malfeasance by the President and several of his campaign and
White House advisors.
The American people have been left with many unanswered
questions; serious concerns about the process by which you
formulated your letter; and uncertainty about when we can
expect to see the full report. I believe the American people
deserve to see the full report and to be trusted to make our
own determinations on the merits based on what the Special
Counsel has presented.
Mr. Attorney General, if there is one thing I would like to
leave with you today, something you already know, but just my
role to remind you, is that this Congress voted unanimously to
see that report, that the Congress and the committees of
jurisdiction want to see the report, and that the American
people want to see the report. I think it would strike a
serious blow to our system and, yes, to our democracy if that
report is not fully seen. And when it comes to redactions, we
would hope that you could tell us when something is redacted,
if you feel it has to be, what area it covered. I just see a
blackout, it doesn't tell us where it came from and why it
might have been redacted.
We are not here today to be in a confrontational situation
with you. We want to help you do your job and you need to help
us do ours, but what cannot happen is that somebody higher than
you tells you that you don't have to answer our questions or
you don't have to deal with us at all; that is not who we are
as a country, that is not who we are as a democracy, that is
not who we are as an Appropriations committee.
So let me just say this. Since 2017, our Nation's Justice
Department has too often failed to meet the needs of the
American people. I hope that with your ascension to Attorney
General we can work together to change that.
And, with that said, I would turn to my colleague and
friend Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I
too would like to welcome Attorney General Barr and Assistant
Attorney General Lofthus to the Commerce, Justice, Science
Subcommittee to testify regarding the fiscal year 2020 budget
request.
Your stewardship of the Department of Justice is important
to all our communities and your budget proposes key investments
in what we can all agree on are critical criminal justice
priorities, such as strengthening national security, reducing
violent crime, enforcing our Nation's immigration laws,
combating the opioid crisis, and reducing recidivism.
Attorney General Barr, we recognize that you have an
incredibly demanding job. Your presence here this morning
reveals how seriously you take the Department's fiscal year
2020 budget request, as well as the role of Congress and this
committee in making the funding decisions. So, thank you for
being here this morning. We want to work with you, as the
chairman said, to ensure that the programs you administer to
help keep this country safe are as effective and efficient as
possible.
I hope your testimony today will address many of the issues
that affect our local communities. I am particularly interested
in the Justice Department's efforts to help curb the deadly
opioid epidemic; I hope to learn more about high-tech law
enforcement initiatives you are using to disrupt the
sophisticated transnational criminal organizations at the heart
of this scourge, and how we can best support these efforts.
I am also interested in hearing about your perspective on
the humanitarian and the security crisis that we now have on
our Southern border that we are hearing so much about, and how
it affects the workload at your Department.
I look forward to working with Chairman Serrano on these
and many other issues with the appropriations process as we
move forward for the fiscal year 2020 appropriations process.
So, with that, we look forward to your testimony this
morning, and I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Let me now turn to the chairwoman of the full committee, my
colleague from New York, Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. I would like to thank Chairman Serrano, Ranking
Member Aderholt, for holding this hearing. And, Attorney
General Barr, welcome, and thank you for appearing this
morning.
Before getting into your budget request, I want to address
a serious oversight matter: your unacceptable handing of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report. It has been reported
that the report is 300 to 400 pages. And I use the term
``reported,'' because we have no idea how long it actually is.
All we have is your four-page summary, which seems to cherry-
pick from the report to draw the most favorable conclusion
possible for the President. And, in many ways, your letter
raises more questions than it answers.
I must say, it is extraordinary to evaluate hundreds of
pages of evidence, legal documents, and findings based on a 22-
month long inquiry and make definitive legal conclusions in
less than 48 hours. Even for someone who has done this job
before, I would argue it is more suspicious than impressive.
Your conclusion is something we have seen before. In fact,
we have seen it in your own legal writing. In June 2018, you
wrote a memo as a private citizen and a former Attorney General
to the Department of Justice laying out the President's case
against obstruction of justice. Your audition clearly went
well.
I look forward to reviewing the Mueller report myself, and
I know my constituents do as well. I understand that portions
of it must be redacted as a matter of law, but my hope is that
you will stop there and bring transparency to this process as
soon as possible. The American people deserve the facts.
Now to your fiscal year 2020 budget request. The request
provides a significant increase for immigration judges and a
modest increase for most Federal law enforcement. However, it
either eliminates or significantly cuts respected grant
programs at the Department of Justice that really make a
difference in our constituents' daily lives.
For example, your request significantly decreases essential
programs, including the COPS program, which advances community
policing on a state and a local level would be cut by $205
million; the DNA Initiative program, which provides grants to
reduce the rape kit backlog by ensuring evidence that could
lead to meaningful convictions does not sit on forgotten
shelves, and that would be cut by $25 million; and the Juvenile
Justice program, which helps prevent youth crime, violence, and
reduce recidivism, which would be cut by $48.5 million.
These are simply unacceptable reductions.
I look forward to a productive discussion today. I hope 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 daily.
Thank you again for appearing before us. I look forward to
an open discussion, an honest discussion, and address the many
challenges before us today.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
And now, Attorney General Barr, you are recognized to give
your opening statement. We ask you please to try to keep it to
5 minutes and your whole statement will be included in the
record. Thank you.
Attorney General Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam
Chair, and Ranking Member Aderholt.
I am pleased to be here today to present to you the
President's fiscal year 2020 budget for the Department of
Justice, and I am joined here today by the Department's Chief
Financial Officer, Assistant Attorney General for
Administration, Lee Lofthus. We look forward to discussing how
our requested appropriations will help protect the safety and
rights of our constituents and your constituents.
For two fiscal years in a row, the Department has broken
records for prosecuting violent crime. The Department has also
significantly increased prosecution of firearms offenses, and
in fiscal year 2018 prosecuted more firearm defendants than
ever before.
As prosecutions have gone up, crime has gone down, and in
2017, after 2 years of increases, violent crime and homicide
rates went down nationwide.
The FBI's preliminary data for the first 6 months of 2018
show a 4.3 percent decline in violent crime overall and a 6.7
percent decline in murders, and a 12 percent decline in robbery
and burglary compared to the first 6 months of 2017.
In order to continue this momentum, President Trump has
requested an additional $137 million for violent crime and
transnational organized crime prosecutions, as well as an
additional $100 million for the Project Safe Neighborhood
grants to state and local law enforcement. The Department also
requests $5.8 million to enhance violent crime and firearms
prosecutions.
Over the first 2 years of the Trump administration, we have
also gained ground against the opioid epidemic, which is by far
the deadliest drug crisis that this country has ever faced. The
Department increased the number of defendants charged with
Federal opioid-related crimes by 28 percent from fiscal year
2017 to fiscal year 2018. Prescriptions of the seven most
frequently abused prescription opioids are down more than 23
percent since 2016, to the lowest level in at least a decade,
and over the same period the DEA has lowered the legal limits
on production of the active ingredients in these opioids by 47
percent.
More importantly, drug overdose deaths may have finally
stopped rising. According to preliminary data from the CDC,
overdose deaths decreased slightly from September 2017 to
August 2018. But there is a lot more work to be done and that
is why the President's budget provides for $295 million to
combat the opioid epidemic, including $18.2 million for the
FBI's Joint Criminal Opioid Darknet Enforcement initiative or
J-CODE, which is a team of agents that work to disrupt and
dismantle the sale of synthetic opioids on the darknet.
The President requests $11.1 million for five new heroin
enforcement groups that will be deployed to DEA field divisions
that have identified heroin as the first or second-greatest
threat in their area. The President also includes $2 million in
operational funds for the National Opioid Initiative of our
OCDETF program.
The President's budget also proposes to permanently
transfer $254 million from the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy to the DEA for the HIDTA programs, the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. This change will eliminate
redundancies by placing this program under the agency that
leads our drug enforcement efforts.
We know that most of the illicit drugs in this country came
across our Southern border. In the fight against an
unprecedented drug crisis, border security is imperative.
In fiscal year 2018, the Department charged more defendants
with illegal entry into this country than in any year before.
At the same time, the Department increased the number of felony
illegal reentry prosecutions by more than 38 percent.
Our immigration courts, which are under the Department of
Justice, have also become more productive under this
Administration. Since the beginning of 2017, the Department has
conducted an unprecedented surge in hiring immigration judges.
The Department has hired more immigration judges under
President Trump than in the previous 7 years combined. We now
employ the largest number of immigration judges in history,
with 46 percent more immigration judges than just 3 years ago.
That is having an impact on immigration cases.
After 8 consecutive years of declining or stagnant
productivity between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2016, our
immigration judges have increased case completions 2 years in a
row. In fiscal year 2018, immigration judges completed the most
cases in 7 years.
In order to continue this progress, the Department requests
$71 million for 100 new immigration judges and additional
support staff in fiscal year 2020. This would bring the number
of authorized immigration judges to 634, which would more than
double the number of immigration judges on board in fiscal year
2016. Given the fact that these judges face a record-breaking
860,000 case backlog, this investment is more than warranted.
And with the crisis on our Southwest border, the Department
requests $6 million for our Southwest Border Rural Law
Enforcement Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, which will help
law enforcement agencies serving rural areas along and near the
border to fight rural crime.
The Department also plays a critical role in protecting our
national security in combating terrorism and cyber crime, and
that is why the President requests an additional $70.5 million
to enhance the FBI's cyber information-sharing abilities and
cyber tools and capabilities, as well as $16 million for our
National Vetting Center.
The President requests an additional $18 million for the
FBI to address counterintelligence threats, particularly cyber
attacks and threats from hostile foreign intelligence services.
Mr. Chairman, there are many other issues facing law
enforcement that we could talk about today, but the bottom line
is the more than 112,000 men and women at the Department of
Justice are doing important work, and we ask for your support.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Mr. Serrano. Attorney General Barr, in your confirmation
hearing you say you believed it very important that results of
Special Counsel Mueller's investigation be shared with Congress
and the public; we agree on that. FBI Director Wray, the
Nation's top counterintelligence investigator, told us last
week he had not read the Special Counsel's report.
My question is, with regard to your March 24 and 29 letters
to the Judiciary Committees, did Special Counsel Mueller or
anyone on his team have a role in drafting them or reviewing
them in advance? Did you use any of the summary documents
prepared by the Special Counsel in drafting these documents?
Attorney General Barr. The 24th and 29th. The letter of the
24th, Mr. Mueller's team did not play a role in drafting that
document, although we offered him the opportunity to review it
before we sent it out and he declined that.
The letter on the 29th, I don't believe that that was
reviewed by Mr. Mueller or that they participated in drafting
that letter.
But to go back to something you said in your opening
statement about the availability of the report. As I said, as
you pointed out, since my confirmation I do think it is
important that the public have an opportunity to learn the
results of the Special Counsel's work, and I said then that I
would work diligently to make as much information public as I
could and available to Congress as I could.
You will recognize that I am operating under a regulation
that was put together during the Clinton administration and
does not provide for the publication of the report, but I am
relying on my discretion to make as much public as I can.
Now, in my letter of March 29, I identified four areas that
I feel should be redacted, and I think most people would agree.
The first is grand jury information, Rule 6(e); the second is
information that the intelligence community believes would
reveal intelligence sources and methods; the third is
information in the report that could interfere with ongoing
prosecutions. You will recall that the Special Counsel did spin
off a number of cases that are still being pursued and we want
to make sure that none of the information in the report would
impinge upon either the ability of the prosecutors to prosecute
the cases or the fairness to the defendants.
And, finally, we intend to redact information that
implicates the privacy or reputational interests of peripheral
players where there is a decision not to charge them.
Right now, the Special Counsel is working with us on
identifying information in the reports that fall under those
four categories. We will color code the excisions from the
report and we will provide explanatory notes describing the
basis for each redaction. So, for example, if a redaction is
made because of a court order in a pending prosecution, we will
state that and we will distinguish between the various
categories. This process is going along very well and my
original time table of being able to release this by mid-April
stands.
And so I think that, from my standpoint, within a week I
will be in a position to release the report to the public, and
then I will engage with the chairmen of both Judiciary
Committees about that report and about any further requests
that they have.
Mr. Serrano. So let me just get one thing clear for the
record. My concern during my opening statement that when you
redact something we should know what area it falls under, that
you say will happen?
Attorney General Barr. Yes, yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Your March 24 letter indicated that some
actions the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising
obstruction of justice concerns have not been publicly
reported; will these actions be identified in the report sent
to Congress?
Attorney General Barr. As things stand now, I don't think
that they will be redacted. So they will be identifiable, yes.
Mr. Serrano. All right, thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
U.S. MEXICAN BORDER
Mr. Attorney General, as you know, there is a serious
humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border, and in fact the
previous Administration specifically noted that transnational
organized crime in Mexico makes the U.S. border more
vulnerable, because it creates and maintains illicit corridors
of border crossings that can be employed by other secondary
criminal or terrorist actors or organizations. Of course, your
fiscal year 2020 budget proposes an additional $18 million in
resources to help advance the fight against organized crime.
Can you talk a bit about the Department of Justice and how
it is addressing the smuggling networks that are endangering so
many of the lives that are being smuggled and trafficked across
the Southern Border, and particularly the children?
Attorney General Barr. Yes, sir. The problem we face on our
Southern Border is really unprecedented, not just the volume
and the makeup of the people coming across from an immigration
policy standpoint, but by the strength of the criminal
organizations in Mexico. One of the things that has changed a
lot in the 30 years prior when I was Attorney General has been
the strengthening of these criminal organizations in Mexico,
these cartels, that are not only involved in multiple kinds of
drugs and the transportation of those drugs and distribution in
the United States, but also into human trafficking. So
attacking those transnational criminal organizations is a high
priority.
The fiscal year 2020 budget requests a total of $3.2
billion that is targeted at dealings with these transnational
organizations, and we are seeking an increase of $109 million
this year. We are also seeking $29 million in programmatic
enhancements, including $18 million to strengthen the FBI's
ability to monitor and target the transnational organizations;
and $10 million to strengthen DEA's ability to operate its
Judicial Wire Intercept Program in Central America; and another
$1.7 million for DEA's Sensitive Intelligence Unit, which is
targeting these groups and their illicit trafficking in
narcotics.
I personally believe that an important part of securing the
Southern Border is to have a barrier system on the border, and
I think that that will help not only in narcotics interdiction,
but also in suppressing human trafficking, and it is an
important part of our enforcement.
FISA
Mr. Aderholt. Let me switch gears just a minute. One of the
most sacred rights, as you know, as Americans, is the right not
to be spied on by the Government. A FISA order may only be
issued based on a finding by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that probable cause exists to believe that
the target of surveillance is an agent of a foreign power.
One of our colleagues, Representative Nunes, has referred
eight persons to the FBI for investigation concerning alleged
misconduct during the Russia investigation, including the leak
of highly classified material, and alleged conspiracies to lie
to Congress and the FISA Court in order to spy on then-
candidate Trump and other persons. I would hope the Department
of Justice will be giving these referrals appropriate and
prompt consideration.
My question is, now that President Trump has been
exonerated of Russia collusion, is the Justice Department
investigating how it came to be that your agency used a
salacious and unverified dossier as a predicate for a FISA
order on a U.S. citizen?
Attorney General Barr. The Office of the Inspector General
has a pending investigation of the FISA process in the Russia
investigation and I expect that that will be complete in--
probably in May or June, I am told. So, hopefully we will have
some answers from Inspector General Horowitz on the issue of
the FISA warrants.
More general----
Mr. Aderholt. Do you--go ahead.
Attorney General Barr. More generally, I am reviewing the
conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around
all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that
was conducted during the summer of 2016.
Mr. Aderholt. Are you investigating who leaked the
existence of the FISA order against Carter Page?
Attorney General Barr. Who what?
Mr. Aderholt. Are you investigating who leaked the
existence of a FISA order against Carter Page?
Attorney General Barr. I haven't seen the referrals yet
from Congressman Nunes, but obviously, if there is a predicate
for an investigation, it will be conducted.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Lowey.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Mrs. Lowey. Attorney General Barr, reports suggest that
Special Counsel Mueller's report is anywhere between 300 and
400 pages long. I would be interested in knowing, how many
discussions did you have with the Deputy Attorney General and
other staff between receiving the report and releasing the
memo? Was there discussion or debate about the evidence and
conclusions? How many staffers assisted you in digesting so
many pages of complex information in such a short period of
time?
Let me tell you what I'm getting at that I find quite
extraordinary. You received a very serious, detailed report,
hundreds of pages of high-level information, weighed the
factors and conclusions at length, outlined, prepared, edited,
and released your memos in less than 48 hours. To me, to do
this, it seems your mind must have been already made up. How
did you do it?
Attorney General Barr. The thinking of the Special Counsel
was not a mystery to the people at the Department of Justice
prior to his submission of the report. He had been interacting,
he and his people had been interacting with the Deputy Attorney
General and lawyers supporting the Deputy Attorney General in
his supervision of the Special Counsel, and in that context
there had been discussions. So there was some inkling as to
some of the thinking of the Special Counsel.
Furthermore, on March 5th, I believe, the Deputy and I met
with Special Counsel Mueller and his team, and had a
preliminary discussion about the report. So we had an inkling
as to what was coming in our direction, and so even more
thinking within the Department was done about that over that
time; that was a matter of weeks. And then, when the report
came, and it came approximately midday on Friday, the Deputy
Attorney General and I and our staffs worked closely for the
balance of that day, Saturday, and Sunday.
Mrs. Lowey. I didn't want to interrupt you.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Attorney General Barr. That is----
Mrs. Lowey. Did the White House see the report before you
released your summary letter? Has the White House seen it since
then? Have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in
your summarizing letter to the Judiciary Committee?
Attorney General Barr. I have said what I am going to say
about the report today; I have issued three letters about it.
And I was willing to discuss the historic information of how
the report came to me and my decision on Sunday, but I have
already laid out the process that is going forward to release
these reports, hopefully within a week, and I am not going to
say anything more about it until the report is out and everyone
has a chance to look at it.
Mrs. Lowey. I think there are some relevant questions that
I do hope you could answer today, sir.
On the question of obstruction of justice, your memo
stated, quote, ``While this report does not conclude that the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.''
Yet President Trump has publicly stated that this report is a
complete and total exoneration.
Can you tell us who is factually accurate? And will the
released report include details on the obstruction issue and
why, as you noted, the President is not exonerated, or will
that information be redacted?
Attorney General Barr. I have already explained the
information that is going to be redacted from the report, the
four categories, that is what is going to govern the
redactions, and in fact the Special Counsel and his staff are
helping us select the information in the report that falls into
those four categories. But, again, the report--I will be in a
position, as I said, within a week to release the report,
people can then read the report.
I have already promised the Judiciary Committees that I
would appear as soon as they are able to schedule a hearing
after the report is released, so I am not going to discuss it
any further until after the report is out.
Mrs. Lowey. Could you just explain for us--I understand
that you are going to appear before the Judiciary Committee,
but in that short period of time, it is very puzzling to me
that the 400 pages could have been reviewed, and the President
states that this report is a complete and total exoneration;
who is factually accurate?
Attorney General Barr. As I say, it is hard to have that
discussion without the contents of the report, isn't it? And
that is why I am suggesting that we wait until the report is
out and I am glad to talk to people about it after then, and I
am already scheduled to testify about that.
Mrs. Lowey. I appreciate that. In closing, I just hope that
we, as members of Congress, are going to have the complete
report and have discussions with you as to the accuracy of some
of the statements.
Thank you for appearing before us today. And we will--in
closing, we will have the complete report, or are you going to
be selective as to what you give Members of Congress?
Attorney General Barr. You mean the un-redacted report?
Mrs. Lowey. Yes.
Attorney General Barr. No, the first pass at this is going
to produce a report that makes these redactions based on these
four categories, and that is something that I am hoping will be
available to the public. As I said, I am glad to talk to
Chairman Nadler and Chairman Graham as to whether they feel
they need more information and see if there is a way we could
accommodate that.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I do hope you can accommodate Members of
Congress who feel it is our responsibility to see the complete
report, and I look forward to continuing the discussion.
Thank you again for appearing.
Attorney General Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby.
SEX AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Mrs. Roby. Attorney General Barr and Assistant Attorney
General Lofthus, thank you so much for appearing before this
committee today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2020
budget request.
I would like to focus on the Department's efforts as it
relates to sex and human trafficking. In the fiscal year 2018,
the Justice Department initiated a total of 230 human
trafficking prosecutions, charging 386 defendants and
convicting a record 526 defendants. The Department continued
its successfully Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team Initiative,
working with partners in the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of Labor.
In 2018, these ACT teams saw significant prosecution
results, including increases of 10 percent, 75 percent, and 106
percent in cases filed, defendants charged, and defendants
convicted.
I wear another hat sitting on the Judiciary Committee and,
through that committee's efforts in the last Congress, we
passed several pieces of legislation working with the
Department specifically to close loopholes in the criminal code
and make it easier for the Department to go after these folks
that are exploiting children and trafficking human beings.
This is modern-day slavery. It is important for me as a
member of this committee and I suspect every member of this
committee, I think I can say that, we all want to see sex and
human trafficking eradicated in this country and want to make
sure that your Department has the tools that you need to do so.
Director Wray was here recently, I directed some questions
specific to this issue as well and would like for you to
address for the benefit of all of us as we put pen to paper in
our appropriations bills, we know the successes, but where are
the deficiencies and how can we on this subcommittee be helpful
in making sure you have every tool that you need?
Attorney General Barr. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Human trafficking is one of our highest priorities now in
the Department and we have brought in an exceptional prosecutor
as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Deputy's office,
with a portfolio of coordinating the Department's efforts
directed at human trafficking and are setting up task forces
around the country that she works with.
I met with this team within the last month, received a full
briefing on their current activities, and I have asked them to
come back to me with a plan of action that could take it to the
next level. And that could include shifting some resources
within the Department, as well as seeking some additional
legislative provisions that would help our prosecutors.
So rest assured that I am very focused on this and will be
back to the committee and the Judiciary Committee with
proposals as to how we could accelerate our efforts.
Mrs. Roby. I certainly appreciate that. And I of course was
extremely disappointed that we were able to get a package of
bills through the House by voice vote only to see them fail in
the United States Senate, which I know each of those pieces of
legislation would have made law enforcement's job much easier,
I guess. And I do appreciate too all of the work that you do
with local law enforcement to make sure that they have the
tools and the resources that they need in order to combat sex
and human trafficking and child exploitation.
INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
Most children now have access to the Internet and the
Internet technology affords children access to vast amounts of
valuable information and endless sources of entertainment;
however, it also exposes children to certain dangers. Most
worrisome, children may encounter, and oftentimes do, actual
predators that use the Internet to identify and lure victims
through chat rooms, instant messaging, and social networking
sites.
So, if you could with the short amount of time that I have
left--and I can revisit this if there is a second round, but
what does this DOJ's budget request bill do to safeguard our
children from these predators specifically on the Internet?
Attorney General Barr. Well, we are requesting $81 million
for OJP's Missing and Exploited Children Program. We have $30
million for NCMEC; we have $30 million for the ICAC task
forces, which are now operating in states--we have 81 of them
operating throughout the country; and then the activities of
the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in the Department
of Justice. So those are sort of the three pillars of our
effort and all together it is approximately $90 million.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Attorney General, for appearing before us today.
I have understood for quite some time now that there are
those in this country whose favorite pastime is attacking
health care, but your decision as our new Attorney General to
throw the weight of the United States Department of Justice
behind an effort to get the Federal courts entirely to
invalidate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as
unconstitutional is breathtaking; it is unbelievable. It stands
out, your decision does, for its breadth, its scope, its
recklessness, and its lack of legal justification to invalidate
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
If your efforts are successful, millions of Americans would
lose their health care, tens of millions of Americans would see
the premiums for their coverage skyrocket. One of our
Republican colleagues in the Senate, Senator Collins, put it
best when she wrote to you last week, her letter was dated
April 1st--did you get her letter?
Attorney General Barr. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Then you saw that she wrote, ``Your
decision to pursue this course of action in the Federal courts
puts at risk not only critical consumer protections, such as
those protecting individuals suffering from preexisting
conditions, but also other important provisions of that law
such as the Medicaid expansion, dependent coverage for young
adults to age 26, coverage for preventative services, and the
regulatory pathway for FDA approval of biosimilar drugs,''
unquote.
The Department of Justice's refusal to defend our law, the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is distressing
because of the harm that it poses to the physical and financial
well-being of millions of Americans, and also because DOJ's
refusal appears to be driven by political considerations rather
than health care policy discussions or sound legal arguments.
Attorney General Barr, you are not a health care policy
expert, but your Department is taking the lead on attempting a
massive overhaul of our American health care system. So I want
to make sure we agree on a few of the top-line facts and let's
go through a couple of quick yes-or-no questions at the outset.
Number one, have you conducted or reviewed an analysis to
evaluate the effects of DOJ's litigation position to overturn
the ACA, the effects on consumer costs and coverage, have you
done that analysis or have you reviewed one?
Attorney General Barr. Well, when we are faced with a legal
question, we try to base our answer on the law.
Mr. Cartwright. On the law. So the answer is no.
And here is the thing: I can't imagine that you would take
that kind of dramatic, drastic action without even trying to
evaluate the consequences for the American consumers, the
people using the health care, the people for whom these
premiums are paid, but let's start the process of going through
that----
Attorney General Barr. Well, do you mean----
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. If we may.
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. In the event that the
law is struck down?
Mr. Cartwright. If you are successful in this lawsuit that
you are supporting and the entire Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act is struck down, millions of Americans who
currently receive health insurance coverage under the law are
at risk of losing that coverage; am I correct in that?
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)
Attorney General Barr. I think the President has made clear
that he favors not only protections for preexisting conditions,
but would like action on a broad health plan. So he is
proposing a substitute for ObamaCare.
Mr. Cartwright. The one that is going to come after the
next election, you mean?
Attorney General Barr. The one that will come down if and
when ObamaCare is struck down.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, let me be the one to inform, should
the law be struck down, millions of people who get their
coverage through the ACA marketplace would lose their coverage,
and tens of millions more would see their premiums skyrocket.
In addition, if you are successful, 12 million people
nationally and 750,000 people in my home state of Pennsylvania
who have coverage under the Medicaid expansion would also
likely lose that coverage; am I correct in that, sir?
Attorney General Barr. Do you think it is likely we are
going to prevail?
Mr. Cartwright. If you prevail--well, you are devoting
scarce resources of your department toward that effort; are you
not, Attorney General?
Attorney General Barr. We are in litigation, we have to
take a position----
Mr. Cartwright. The answer is yes----
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. We take a position----
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. You are trying to get it----
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. In litigation----
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. Invalidated and, if you
succeed, that many people will lose their coverage nationally
for Medicaid and 750,000 from Pennsylvania alone; right?
Attorney General Barr. I am just saying that, if you think
it is such an outrageous position, you have nothing to worry
about. Let the courts do their job.
Mr. Cartwright. If you--well, my time is out. We will come
back to this.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
VIOLENT CRIME
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Attorney General, thank you for being here today.
For a couple of years at the end of the Obama
administration, violent crime in America started to tick up,
that means more robberies, more murders, and more assaults. I
am encouraged to see that the FBI's preliminary crime
statistics that were released in late February show this
alarming trend is being reversed.
Can you tell me, what is the Department doing that is
working and does your new budget add resources for fighting
violent crime?
Attorney General Barr. Thank you, sir. Reducing violent
crime, as I said in my statement, is one of our priorities, and
making sure we don't see a resurgence of violent crime. Our
base amount in the budget is $4.3 billion and we are seeking
$138 million enhancement to that; $120 million would go toward
reducing violent crime in communities and $18 million would be
to step up our efforts against these transnational criminal
organizations.
The flagship, one of the flagships in our fight against
violent crime is our Project Safe Neighborhoods. This is really
a concept that has been around for a while under various
guises, but fundamentally what it is, it is a strategy to focus
on high-crime areas that brings together the local community;
the law enforcement, including Federal and state; and also the
various social programs and social agencies that run and fund
programs that are meant to prevent crimes from occurring. And
they have had a tremendous record, there have been studies
showing how it has suppressed crime where it has been deployed.
We are seeking $100 million to increase--go from $20 million to
$100 million to extend the Project Safe Neighborhoods program.
We also are seeking $10.7 million to expand ATF's NIBIN
program, which has proved to be a tremendous tool in the fight
against violent crime. This helps us identify firearms when
they are used in a crime and trace it back to particular
individuals.
So those are some of the main initiatives we have underway
to grapple with violent crime and so far it looks as if they
are successful.
Mr. Palazzo. I definitely agree. Our local police chiefs
and sheriffs really support the Project Safe Neighborhoods, and
it is a great program with a high return on investment for
helping reduce gun and violent crime in our communities.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Also important to the State of Mississippi is addressing
human trafficking. I know the state legislature has been
working really hard on it and I know my colleague Mrs. Roby has
asked you some questions. And I want to just talk a little bit
about, I know the DOJ undertook a U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Human
Trafficking Enforcement Initiative to combat trans-border
trafficking. Can you speak on this initiative; specifically,
how effective has it been in stopping trafficking across the
border?
Attorney General Barr. I am going to have to get back to
you on that, Congressman. I really would have to talk to people
to see whether it is having an impact at this point.
SOUTHERN BORDER
Mr. Palazzo. Okay. With my limited time, I will jump over
to address some of the issues with the crisis that we have on
our Southern Border.
I know we have an immigration case backlog. There are over
820,000 immigration cases pending nationwide, with the past 12
consecutive years seen an increase in the number of cases. This
years budget request includes an additional $72 million to hire
a hundred new immigration judges.
In your testimony, you mentioned that additional reforms
are necessary to manage the backlog of cases. What reforms does
the Department of Justice need to manage the case backlog and
what can Congress to help you better manage the backlog?
Attorney General Barr. On inauguration day, there were 306
immigration judges, today we have 424. One of the problems we
had was the long lead time of hiring these judges, which we
have now cut from 2 years to 6 months. So it only takes 6
months to onboard a judge. Currently, there at 534 slots
authorized and we are asking for a hundred more slots. So we
will be going up to 634, if that is approved.
The backlog, however, we are not making progress right now
against the backlog. Our productivity is increasing, so that,
for example, in the first quarter of this year, 19,000 cases
were completed; however, during that same time 26,000 new cases
emerged. So we actually lost ground in the first quarter. As we
bring on more judges, we are hoping that we are actually going
to start working down that backlog. But until we can get some
control of the inflow, we are not going to be able to work down
that backlog.
And the inflow is a function of a number of factors. The
problems with the asylum laws and applying the asylum laws is
one of the chief factors, the fact that they can be gained, and
when people are then released--the catch-and-release situation,
so when people are released into the country and never show up
again, that prospect is what is drawing people up from Central
America, and also the fact that so many children are now
included in that population.
So we need to have reform, as the President has said
repeatedly, we need to have reform of the immigration laws, and
we need to do all we can to discourage people from making the
journey up to the United States by mechanisms such as a border
barrier system.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Meng.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, and thank you,
Assistant Attorney General Lofthus, for being here today and
for your service to our country.
I don't have a question about the substance or redactions
of the report, but I do want to know, was the President or
anyone at the White House alerted in advance of your letter's
release?
Attorney General Barr. The March 24th letter, I don't
believe so. But as I said, once the report is out, I will be
testifying and I will be glad to discuss all aspects of the
process, and also explain the decisions I have made.
Ms. Meng. Did you or anyone on your team consult with
anyone in the White House in the crafting of that letter?
Attorney General Barr. Are you talking about the March 24th
letter?
Ms. Meng. Yes.
Attorney General Barr. The answer to that is no, but as I
say, I am not going to discuss this further until after the
report is out.
Ms. Meng. Okay. So they did not have to approve for you to
release the letter, the White House?
Attorney General Barr. No.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT
I do want to ask my second question and if you could answer
yes or no, just in the interest of time, running out of time,
does the DOJ under the Trump administration consider
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act a priority?
Chief Roberts himself has stated that voting discrimination
still exists; no one doubts that.
Attorney General Barr. Yes, we do, we consider voting
rights a priority.
Ms. Meng. Has the DOJ, the Civil Rights Division, brought
any cases under the Trump administration to enforce Section 2
of the VRA?
Attorney General Barr. No, but I would point out that
during the first 4 years of the Obama administration one case
was brought. So----
Ms. Meng. Well, according to your website, the Department
of Justice under Obama, both President Bushes, and President
Clinton have brought at least over 30 cases in enforcement of
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
CENSUS CITIZENSHIP QUESTION
Secretary Ross credits the Department of Justice's need to
enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for the reason why a
citizenship question is needed on the census. The DOJ has been
enforcing the Voting Rights Act for over 50 years without the
need for a citizenship question. What are your thoughts on
that?
Attorney General Barr. My thoughts are that it is being
litigated right now and I think oral argument is on April 23rd,
so I am not going to discuss it.
ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY
Ms. Meng. Okay. I wanted to also ask about zero tolerance
policy. Do you agree with your predecessor's zero tolerance
policy memorandum issued last year, April 2018?
Attorney General Barr. Well, there is a lot of
misunderstanding about the zero tolerance policy. The zero
tolerance policy is that the Department would prosecute cases
that are referred to the Department and the thing that caused
family separation was the referral of cases to the Department
that involved families with children. The Administration--the
President has put out an executive order, I believe, saying
that we are not going--that DHS is not going to follow that
policy and, as far as I know, we are not getting referrals of
that type. But the general proposition that the Department will
prosecute cases that are referred to it stands.
Ms. Meng. Well, according to an article in the New York
Times yesterday, President Trump has been pushing to restart
this practice of separating parents from their children. The
term ``binary choice policy'' has certainly been getting
traction; is that something that you support?
Attorney General Barr. I haven't heard that.
Ms. Meng. You haven't heard that?
Attorney General Barr. No.
Ms. Meng. OK. We can submit articles to your office.
Are you aware of research showing that separation, from
initial stages to ongoing and long-term, is devastating and
detrimental to children's health and development?
Attorney General Barr. I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
Ms. Meng. Are you aware of any research that shows
separation of families and children are detrimental to their
health?
Attorney General Barr. I mean, I haven't reviewed that
research, but as I said, the President has already put out an
order stopping the separation of families.
Ms. Meng. So would you enforce and put forth policies of
new discussions that have been happening about President Trump
wanting to restart this separate practice?
Attorney General Barr. All I can say, I personally, sitting
here, am not familiar with those discussions.
Ms. Meng. Would you support continuation of separation of
families?
Attorney General Barr. I support the President's policy,
which is we are not going to separate families.
Ms. Meng. So you support that we will not separate families
anymore?
Attorney General Barr. Yes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General,
thanks for being with us.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
I will just remind the committee, we have heard a lot about
the Mueller report today. Twenty-two months of investigation,
2,800 subpoenas, $25 million from taxpayers, 500 witness
interviews, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents and who knows how many
warrants, and the conclusions were simple: no collusion, no
obstruction.
I remember when the summary letter was released there were
a lot of complaints then, Attorney General, that you weren't
releasing the summary soon enough, and then here today I hear
it was too hasty, too quick.
So now you have had time to review, and your team has had
time to review, you have indicated within the next week we will
get the report. So, for the committee, is there anything new
you have seen in the review of the entirety of the report that
would change your conclusions?
Attorney General Barr. No, Congressman. As I have
explained, my March 24th letter was meant to state the bottom
line conclusions of the report, not summarize the report, and I
tried to use as much of the Special Counsel's own language as I
could, but they were just stating the bottom line conclusions
and there is nothing to suggest to me that, you know, that
those weren't----
Mr. Graves. No collusion, no obstruction----
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. A fair statement of the
conclusions.
Mr. Graves. It is over, it is done--it is over.
Attorney General Barr. Well, the letter speaks for itself.
Mr. Graves. I thought it did too. Well, I will shift for a
second, because Members of Congress have said they intend to
ignore the public redactions and leak the full report; would
that give you pause if that were to occur?
Attorney General Barr. Someone is going to leak the full
report?
Mr. Graves. That is what----
Attorney General Barr. Well, that would be----
Mr. Graves [continuing]. That is what----
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Unfortunate.
Mr. Graves [continuing]. Members of Congress have been
saying.
Attorney General Barr. Well, that would be unfortunate,
because, you know, there is grand jury information in there
that under the law has to be redacted.
Mr. Graves. We have heard members of this committee today
say that the American people deserve to see the full report,
and so even members of this committee have indicated that. The
Chairman of the Judiciary just this weekend said that--this is
Chairman Nadler--certainly some of it would not leak publicly,
that he has discretion, and his committee has a very good
record of protecting information which it decides to protect.
So, General Barr, under Federal law, does a Member of
Congress have the power to arbitrarily decide what portions of
the Special Counsel's report they might release, redacted or
not?
Attorney General Barr. Well, not if it violates the law,
and we believe Rule 6(e) does apply to Members of Congress.
So, you know, I--it is interesting, because this whole
mechanism for the Special Counsel, as I said, was established
during the Clinton administration in the wake of Ken Starr's
report and that is why the current rule says that the report
should be kept confidential, because there was a lot of
reaction against the publication of Ken Starr's report, and
many of the people who are right now calling for release of
this report were basically castigating Ken Starr and others for
releasing the Starr report.
I have already said that I think the situation here
requires me to exercise my discretion to get as much
information out as I can and I think these categories, I think
most fair-minded people would agree are things that have to be
redacted.
Mr. Graves. Right. Just thinking about the Chairman of
Judiciary, if he were to release or any Member of Congress were
to release the full report or redacted portions of the report,
are they in compliance with the law or in violation of the law,
and how do you deal with that?
Attorney General Barr. I don't want to speculate about all
the circumstances that would be involved. I don't intend at
this stage to send the full, un-redacted report to the
committee, so I am not sure where he would get it.
Mr. Graves. OK. And then just----
Attorney General Barr. If you get it directly from the
Special Counsel, that would be unfortunate; I doubt that would
happen.
Mr. Graves. And a quick question about the subpoena. I am
not on the Judiciary Committee; my understanding is, though,
they have issued a subpoena to you to release the full report.
Would that put you in violation of Federal law if you were to
comply with----
Attorney General Barr. In the current situation, I don't
think I have the latitude to release Rule 6(e) material. As to
the other categories, as I said, I am willing to discuss those
with the Judiciary Committees. I want to try to accommodate and
satisfy their interests, but at the same time uphold the law.
And right now--and there has been a recent case decided in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Disrict of Columbia Circuit just
I think within the last week on this--the Rule 6(e) material is
not releaseable.
Mr. Graves. Well, thank you for the fashion in which you
have handled this. I think you have been upright, you have been
an example of integrity, and I know that you are going to abide
by the law and my hope is that all Members of Congress would
follow in like manner.
So, thank you, Attorney General, for your good work.
Attorney General Barr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Attorney
General Barr, for being with us today.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
On the question of obstruction of justice, you stated in
your March 24th letter that the Mueller report does not
exonerate the President. Can you elaborate on what is meant by
``does not exonerate the President'' ?
Attorney General Barr. I think that is the language from
the report.
Mr. Crist. Right, I understand that.
Attorney General Barr. That is a statement made by the
Special Counsel----
Mr. Crist. Right.
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Which I reported as one
of his bottom line conclusions. So I am not in a position to
discuss that further until the report is all out and then what
is meant by exonerate is really a question that I can't answer,
what he meant by that.
Mr. Crist. But, as you sit here today, you can't opine,
after having read the report, why it reaches that conclusion
that it does not exonerate the President?
Attorney General Barr. That is right.
MARCH 24TH LETTER
Mr. Crist. Okay. Reports have emerged recently, General,
that members of the Special Counsel's team are frustrated at
some level with the limited information included in your March
24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately
necessary portray the report's findings; do you know what they
are referencing with that?
Attorney General Barr. No, I don't. I think--I suspect that
they probably wanted, you know, more put out, but in my view I
was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to
summarize, because I think any summary, regardless of who
prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-
inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger
a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await
everything coming out at once.
So I was not interested in a summary of the report, and in
fact at the time I put out my March 24th letter there was
nothing from the Special Counsel that wasn't marked as
potentially containing Rule 6(e) material and I had no material
that had been sanitized of Rule 6(e) material. So I felt that I
should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use
Special Counsel Mueller's own language in doing that.
Mr. Crist. I am curious, did you feel that there was an
obligation upon you or your office to prepare this four-letter
overview, if you will, rather than summary, rather than having
the Special Counsel's team do it themselves? Why did that
happen, I guess is what I'm trying to find out.
Attorney General Barr. It happened because the Special
Counsel was providing the report to the Attorney General and I
was making the decision as to whether to make it public or any
part of it public. And, in my judgment, it was important for
people to know the bottom line conclusions of the report while
we worked on the necessary redactions to make the whole thing
available.
Mr. Crist. Let me ask then----
Attorney General Barr. Unfortunately, you know, that is a
matter of weeks and I don't think that the public would have
tolerated and Congress would not have tolerated at least
knowing the bottom line. And, as you know from your own
experience, from a prosecutor's standpoint, the bottom line is
binary, which is charges or no charges.
Mr. Crist. Indeed. Did you contemplate having the Special
Counsel's office help you with the preparation of your March
24th letter, or did you?
Attorney General Barr. We offered to have Bob review it
before putting it out and he declined.
Mr. Crist. I didn't ask you about reviewing. I asked if you
thought about having them help prepare the March 24th letter. I
mean, they did----
Attorney General Barr. No, I didn't think about it----
Mr. Crist [continuing]. The report after all.
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. No, I didn't think
about it.
Mr. Crist. Why not?
Attorney General Barr. Because it was my letter.
Mr. Crist. You said that the Special Counsel and his team
were not shown--or did not review the March 24th letter, right?
You offered to let him review it?
Attorney General Barr. Yes.
Mr. Crist. Did you offer to anyone else to let other people
review it besides the Special Counsel?
Attorney General Barr. Not that I recall. You mean outside
the Department?
Mr. Crist. Anywhere. Yes, outside the Department, let's
start there.
Attorney General Barr. Well, the answer, I am pretty sure,
is no, but----
Mr. Crist. You are not sure?
Attorney General Barr. I am sure.
Mr. Crist. OK. I think I will yield. I only have 15
seconds. Thank you, General.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I would love to
talk to you about your 2020 budget, but what is far more
critical at present and has much far-more-reaching consequences
to the credibility of our government is the prompt and full
disclosure of the Mueller report.
The current non-disclosure of that report has only worsened
the pervasive distrust of government generally and of Mr.
Mueller's investigation, and your Department's response to it
specifically. This really started very early on in the
investigation with excessive secrecy about exactly what we were
taking a look at. Here is the supplemental memo from the Deputy
Acting Attorney General, and this is what drives the public
crazy when they see something like this. This is what we have
to try to avoid when we get into this.
In your March 24th, three-and-a-half-page summary of the
report, you stated that you are, quote, ``mindful of the public
interest in this matter,'' and that you intend to release,
quote, ``as much of the report as you can, consistent with
applicable law, regulations, and Department policies.''
You know, of course, that on March 14th the House resolved
unanimously, 420-to-zero, all Members of this committee and
House voting, that the full report be released publicly, except
where prohibited by law, and be released to Congress
unconditionally.
Do you appreciate the importance of a full disclosure of
this report, both personally and on behalf of your department?
Attorney General Barr. I appreciate the importance of
releasing as much of the information in the report as I can
consistent with the law.
Mr. Case. OK. Well, let's get into that then. What specific
laws, regulations, and Department policies, as you cited in
your letter, do you claim require or justify you to withhold
portions of the report? You have already talked about 6(e);
what else?
Attorney General Barr. Well, as I said, there are four
categories of information that are being redacted.
Mr. Case. I understand that, sir.
Attorney General Barr. Okay, first----
Mr. Case. And one of those categories----
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. You asked what else.
The other one is we have asked the intelligence community to
identify any information that could reveal intelligence sources
and methods. The third----
Mr. Case. Yes, but what authority do you have to state that
you have discretion to withhold--I get the grand jury cite,
that is 6(e). And, by the way, you know as well as I do that
6(e) also encompasses an intelligence committee exception. So I
assume you are going to say that that falls under that
category, that there can be some release or withholding of
intelligence-specific information under your 6(e) category.
What about the other two categories? What justifies you in
claiming the discretion to withhold that information?
Attorney General Barr. Well, are you talking about the
intelligence information?
Mr. Case. No, I am talking about the other two categories.
I am talking about ongoing prosecutions, but I am particularly
focused on privacy and reputational interests, because it seems
to me that that is an exception that you can just drive a truck
through.
So, I mean, you are the one that says you have the
discretion to do that and, I am asking you, where does your
discretion lie; where is your authority?
Attorney General Barr. Regulation, because the regulation
that sets up the Special Counsel and also provides for his
report to the Attorney General, and also what the Attorney
General can release, specifies that it has to be consistent
with the Department's long-standing policies. And the
Department's long-standing policy and practice is that, if we
are not going to charge someone, we don't go out and discuss
the bad or derogatory information about them. That is what got
everyone outraged at what FBI Director Comey did in the case of
Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Case. Okay. So the regulation, back to long-standing
policy, is what justifies that exception, right, in your view?
Attorney General Barr. The regulation that says that any
release has to be consistent with that.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Mr. Case. Okay, good. Let's go to 6(e) here for a second--
well, before I get to 6(e), are you maintaining or will you
maintain any right to withhold any of the information in that
report based on a so-called claim of executive privilege?
Attorney General Barr. Am I what?
Mr. Case. Are you going to claim that you have a right to
withhold any of that report based on a so-called claim of
executive privilege?
Attorney General Barr. Any claim of executive privilege
would have to be asserted by the President.
Mr. Case. And he, the President----
Attorney General Barr. As I said in my letter, which sort
of speaks for itself, he has said that he is leaving the
decisions up to me.
Mr. Case. Okay. Are you going to claim executive privilege
to keep any of that report back?
Attorney General Barr. As I said, there is no plan, I have
no plan to do that.
Mr. Case. Okay. Do you believe that executive privilege
applies to any broader range of communications and specific
direct communications from the President?
Attorney General Barr. You know, I would have to review the
latest opinions from OLC about the precise scope of it, but it
is not relevant to me right now.
Mr. Case. And, as far as you know, does it apply to any
communications by the President before he was President?
Attorney General Barr. As I say, I am not sure what the
learning is in the Department of Justice on that.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Mr. Case. You are aware that some of the--that there are
exceptions under 6(e) under which you can in fact disclose
grand jury material; some of those are within your discretion,
but many of those are subject to a ruling of a court, correct?
Attorney General Barr. What are they?
Mr. Case. Well, there is 6(e), there are five exceptions in
6(e) that allow you to go to court to ask the court for
permission to release those. It is up to the court to decide
whether to release.
Are you intending to go to court to ask for guidance and/or
direction and/or an order where you are uncertain whether you
can in fact release or should in fact release materials?
Attorney General Barr. I mean, the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee is free to go to court if he feels one of
those exceptions is applicable.
Mr. Case. The right is yours to ask for these exceptions.
Attorney General Barr. Well, why do you say the right is
mine?
Mr. Case. Because you are the exercising authority under
6(e).
Attorney General Barr. Yeah, but I think if the chairman
believes that he is entitled to receive it, he can move the
court forward.
Mr. Case. Well, I will come back to this. It is your right
to ask, so I am asking, what is your intention?
Attorney General Barr. My intention is not to ask for it at
this stage. I mean, if the chairman has a good explanation of
why 6(e) does not apply and his need for the information, I am
willing to listen to that.
As I say, my first agenda item here is to get the public
report out, what can be gotten out publicly, that is going to
be within a week. So I----
Mr. Case. My time is up----
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Will discuss----
Mr. Case [continuing]. I will come back.
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. I will discuss these
issues in greater detail after that occurs.
Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Attorney General, according to recent reporting, the Trump
administration is pursuing far fewer civil rights cases,
including hate crimes, police bias, and disability right cases
than the Obama or Bush administrations. The DOJ's Civil Rights
Department has started 60 percent fewer cases against potential
violations during the first 2 years of the Trump administration
than during the President Obama administration and 50 percent
fewer than under the George Bush administration.
Can you please provide me why that is happening and what
are you planning to do to address that?
Attorney General Barr. I would have to see those figures
and how they are broken down. I haven't seen those figures
before. The areas that I am familiar with, such as hate crimes,
it is simply not true. We have an enviable record of
prosecuting hate crimes at the same or higher rate than
previous administrations, as far as I am aware. I would have to
see what else you are talking about.
Mrs. Lawrence. Are you familiar with the data of what the
percentage have they increased under the Trump administration--
--
Attorney General Barr. I think there----
Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. There are indications they
have?
Attorney General Barr. Have they increased?
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Attorney General Barr. Whether hate crimes versus the
prosecution of hate crimes has?
Mrs. Lawrence. Hate crimes, have they increased under this
administration.
Attorney General Barr. I haven't seen any data, you know,
going from 2017----
Mrs. Lawrence. So is it a priority? You haven't looked at
the data, you are not aware of it.
Attorney General Barr. No, as I said in my confirmation
hearings, I am very concerned about hate crimes and intend to
vigorously pursue them. The data that I have seen have showed
an increase going back to 2013. So, I agree with you that they
have been increasing, but I have seen no data to say that it is
different under the Trump administration.
Mrs. Lawrence. Attorney General, I want you to--we use the
word ``stay woke'' sometime in community activism where you are
in tune with what is happening on the ground. I appreciate your
tenure or your length of time that you have been Attorney
General, but I can tell you that this is something that is very
important and I expect for you to be informed and aware of what
is happening in this area.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)
I wanted to follow up on a question that my colleague
Cartwright asked, because I really need to ask this question. I
watched the deliberate intent of your answers when who do you
report to, the President of the United States or to the people
of America. You, during your confirmation, without duress, said
you report to the people, but you just said when it came to the
ACA ruling that you gave that the President was very clear that
he opposed it and so let it work out in legislation. I want you
to be very----
Attorney General Barr. I didn't say----
Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. I want you to be very----
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. I didn't say----
Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. Let me finish my question,
because that is what I heard, maybe you need to clarify it--I
want you to explain to me, do you understand your role, when
you issue a statement abolishing the Affordable Care Act that
you, as the Attorney General of the people of the United
States, have a responsibility to understand and support that
decision not based on the policy of a President of the United
States. It was clearly laid out the impact it will have and I
want you to respond to that, because that is what I heard, sir.
Attorney General Barr. Well, if you did listen to my
confirmation----
Mrs. Lawrence. I did, sir.
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Okay, I distinguished
between three different roles the Attorney General plays; one
is in enforcement, another is in a policy role, and the third
is in providing legal advice. And what I said then is that the
Attorney General has the responsibility to provide straight-
from-the-shoulder legal advice as to what the Attorney General
thinks is the right view of the law.
Mrs. Lawrence. So in this case of ACA you felt it was the
right decision under the law to issue that you support
abolishing----
Attorney General Barr. Well----
Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. The Affordable Care Act, that
is your legal opinion.
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. No. You didn't let me
finish, which is that the first obligation is to provide your
best view of the law. If the President or the executive branch
agencies that you are representing and are stakeholders in the
issue disagree with that advice and want to pursue a different
position, then the Attorney General litigating on behalf of the
United States should take that position, if it is reasonable
and a defensible legal position----
Mrs. Lawrence. So----
Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Even if it is not the
position that the Attorney General would take if the Attorney
General was a judge. That is the position I stated at my
confirmation hearing.
Mrs. Lawrence. So----
Attorney General Barr. Also, I did not----
Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. That we can be clear, sir, what
you are saying is that, if you disagree with the President, if
your legal experience and your expertise doesn't agree and your
President says something different, you are obligated to agree
and enforce what the President says, is that what you are
telling me as the Attorney General of the United States of
America?
Attorney General Barr. Well, it is----
Mrs. Lawrence. Is that your statement, sir?
Attorney General Barr. Well, it is the same as when we
represent and are defending a law of Congress, sometimes we
don't think the law as an original matter actually----
Mrs. Lawrence. Sir, we pass laws; the President of the
United States does not pass laws.
Attorney General Barr. Right, but I am saying that--but I
feel that if there is a reasonable and defensible argument that
could be made to defend a statute, we frequently do that.
Mrs. Lawrence. Sir----
Attorney General Barr. So the----
Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. I am very concerned at this
point. I am over my time and I will come back at my second one,
but I am very concerned with your statement.
Thank you.
VIOLENT EXTREMISM
Mr. Serrano. So, Attorney General, in your testimony you
said violent crime has declined since 2016, but as we learned
from the FBI, home-grown violent extremism has grown over the
same time. What priority and resources have you included in the
2020 budget to counter such violent extremism?
Attorney General Barr. I don't think we break out--maybe
you can help me, Lee--I don't think we break out the budget
targeting that particular category of offense.
Mr. Lofthus. We do not have a separate category for violent
extremism, but we do pursue all matters of violent crime
together. And we have $138 million and 135 new positions for
our violent crime efforts. In the FBI, we are adding 47 new FBI
agents to the FBI for a variety of new initiatives, and among
them is the FBI's work on violent extremism.
Mr. Serrano. OK. It is important for this committee to know
at a certain point how many folks will be assigned to this or
how many dollars will be assigned to it, because it is an issue
that concerns all Americans, I believe, and we need to deal
with it in a proper way.
Attorney General Barr. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but, you know,
the people who are on the watch for this kind of thing, whether
they be FBI agents or U.S. Attorneys pursuing potential cases,
are the very same people that would also be looking at other
forms of terrorism potentially. So it is hard to allocate
exactly the dollars by that category, but, you know, obviously
it is a serious issue and it is one that the FBI devotes a lot
of effort to.
Mr. Serrano. Well, as long as we know that the Department,
the agency is looking at it, is dealing with it, is taking it
seriously, we can then work together on it; that is the easier
part.
Mr. Lofthus. Mr. Chairman, if I can add a bit more? We do
have in the FBI's budget this year, we have the $16 million for
the FBI's participation in the National Vetting Center with
other Federal entities, and that helps the FBI look closely at
individuals who may be coming to the United States. So we have
that vetting money in the FBI.
We also have $4 million in the Office of Justice programs
on grants that go towards looking at extremism and domestic
terrorism.
ATF BUDGET
Mr. Serrano. Good. A few weeks ago, the ATF Director
Brandon told us that the Department's fiscal year 2020 budget
request would result in ATF being forced to let go more than
300 staff due to increasing investigatory costs. As we seek to
address rising gun violence in this Nation, how can the
Department justify a proposal that would result in fewer
resources dedicated to that goal?
Attorney General Barr. Let me just say first that I am a
huge fan of ATF, I think they are an outstanding agency and I
would--you know, any money spent on the ATF is well worth it.
One of the common themes I hear from U.S. Attorneys is how
valuable the ATF agents are and their technology is just
outstanding in helping to deal with gun violence and violent
crime.
Now, I am told that the statement made by Mr. Brandon was
actually based on faulty information and we don't think that it
would lead to--we are asking for more money for ATF and we
don't think it would result in fewer agents, but, you know,
maybe Lee could help me with that.
Mr. Lofthus. Sure. So I think very highly of the ATF chief.
I have known him for years, we have worked together very, very
closely; we took a hard look at his budget. This year's budget
will increase ATF by 3.9 percent--actually, just about 4
percent, it does have increases for ATF. If you look back over
the last 3 years, we have given an 8.7 percent increase to ATF.
So we do think ATF is important, we are trying to support ATF.
I know the ATF chief is very concerned about his agency.
His budget is susceptible to absorbing inflationary increases
and if the pay raise isn't funded, or if his rents or contracts
go up, he is very concerned about that, and he is worried that
it will translate into a loss of staff.
I can tell you that we have looked at this year's budget,
though, and at the 4 percent increase we are asking for, we
don't think that translates into loss of hundreds of staff. And
our commitment is that we want to work closely with ATF, make
sure they have what they need. As the Attorney General says,
``Any resources ATF receives, I think will be put to very good
use.'' But we are committed to working closely with the ATF
folks to make sure they make it through the year.
And again, a 4 percent increase on this budget, we think is
a strong request for ATF, strong request for their NIBIN
system, the $11 million for that. There is $4 million for their
Spartan Case Management System. So we are trying to stand
behind ATF in this budget.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I would hope that you can get this issue
resolved in terms of letting us know what really is going on
because as we put together the bill, and that will happen
pretty soon, you know, I need to be able to go to this young
woman on my right and tell her I need more money for certain
agencies. And we can't do this if they are saying they are
going to lose over 300 folks and you all say they are not, or
that it is not--we need that picture cleared up. Thank you.
Mr. Lofthus. Absolutely. And we will help you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt?
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And of course, the
Department of Justice has submitted almost $30 billion,
taxpayer dollars to use and I want to remind my colleagues that
that is what this--the purpose of the Attorney General being
here today is to talk about how that $30 billion of taxpayer
dollars is going to be used. And unfortunately, I see so many
of the questions here this morning have gone toward a grassy
knoll conspiracy theory regarding the Mueller report.
DNA FORENSICS
So I hope we can focus on the questions of having the
Attorney General giving up his time this morning to be here to
answer these questions regarding the budget. As you know,
General Barr, DNA forensic science can speed the prosecution of
the guilty, protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution, and
exonerate the wrongfully convicted.
Mr. Lofthus, as in prior years, the DOJ is proposing to use
the fund available under the Debbie Smith program for DNA
analysis and capacity enhancement, along with, ``Other local,
state, and federal forensic activities.'' So long as sexual
assault kit backlogs persist, I believe it is important that
this funding be focused on DNA analysis and capacity
enhancement.
What are some of the, ``Other local, state, and federal
forensic activities,'' that are funded under this authority?
Mr. Lofthus. The National Institute of Justice, which is
inside OJP funds a program that strengthens the medical
examiner and coroner systems within our country in a variety of
ways, supporting forensic pathologists. And there is an
alarming shortage of pathologists across the country. Opioid
crisis has created an additional strain due to overdose deaths.
So one of the focuses of our grant money today is on
medical examiners and coroners. We also provide grants directly
to forensic laboratories to encourage their research. And the
focus of the grant is to make sure that they have all the tools
they need to have effective forensic testing. And that has a
real impact on the DNA backlogs across the country. If we can
help them with their technology, we can really reduce the
backlog. So that is one of our key things we are focused on.
We have $105 million in this budget for DNA related
programs. And we have $47 and a half million to work on the
backlog of the National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative. And we
want to make sure that that money is funded in the budget
because it is very important to help the states and localities
with the sexual assault examinations, and the kits, and make
sure that is taken care of.
So we believe we have a good, solid budget in this area
that continue to work on both the DNA and the sexual assault
kit areas.
OPIOID EPIDEMIC
Mr. Aderholt. Let me switch over just a minute to opioids.
Of course, that epidemic continues to ravage communities in my
home state of Alabama. And I know you realize that fentanyl is
50 times more potent than heroin and overdose deaths are on the
rise with fentanyl. The President has called this a national
health crisis. It is impacting families and the future of this
country.
What would you say are some of the most significant actions
that the Department of Justice has taken to curb the deadly
opioid epidemic that is plaguing the country currently?
Attorney General Barr. Just fentanyl or the whole opioid
epidemic?
Mr. Aderholt. Well, you know, both, or either one that you
want to address.
Attorney General Barr. Fentanyl, there has recently been a
development, as you know, most of the fentanyl and fentanyl
analogues come from China. And the Chinese have agreed to
schedule all fentanyl or fentanyl analogues, which would make
enforcement much easier in China. And we would like to see a
comparable action taken here in the United States to allow us
to schedule fentanyl, keep fentanyl on the schedule, and all
analogues of fentanyl. That is a very important step.
Now, whether the Chinese action--they actually deliver on
it from an enforcement standpoint remains to be seen, but it is
something we have been asking them to do and we are very
pleased that they have done it.
But generally speaking, in the opioid arena, as you know,
there--one of the main problems, and essentially the sort of
the groundwork for this epidemic was set by the abuse of
prescription drugs and the diversion of licit drugs. And a lot
of our efforts are devoted toward going after healthcare
providers and companies and others that contributed to this by
over-prescription or permitting diversion.
And so there are a lot of civil and criminal actions around
the country that are going after these bad actors and there are
task forces around the country focused on that aspect of it.
And so the first effort is to contract the pool of people
who are addicted by licit drugs. On the illicit drug front, we
basically have a two-prong strategy of going after the TOCs,
the transnational criminal organizations, primarily in Mexico,
that are responsible for most of these drugs coming into the
United States, and also the local distribution networks.
And we have the FBI, the DEA, and a substantial portion of
our U.S. Attorney's Offices focused on dealing with these local
distribution networks. And so that is basically the strategy.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I yield back.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Attorney General Barr. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think it
was Congressman Crist was asking me about the letters and
whether anyone was involved in the letters, other than people
at Justice. And I checked with my staff and was told that just
before the letters went out, after they were finalized and just
before they went out, we did advise the White House Counsel's
Office that the letters were being sent. But they were not
allowed or even asked to make any changes to the letters. But
we notified them before we issued them.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist I'm sure would have asked you, did
they get to see the letter, however?
Attorney General Barr. I think it may have been read to
them. They did not get to see the letter.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Attorney General, I want to get to some
other items in the budget today because under current law,
background checks must be done within three days or the
transaction is allowed to proceed, regardless of whether a
person is lawfully permitted to buy a gun. My judgment, it is
vitally important that background checks are done thoroughly,
as we know the results of incomplete information can be fatal.
For example, we know that the shooter who perpetrated the
Charleston shooting had passed the background check, despite
information that should have disqualified him.
The House passed Enhanced Background Checks Act
substantially increases the amount of time allowed for a NICS
background check to ensure that we close these loopholes. I am
concerned that until this bill moves through the Senate and on
to the President's desk, that three days is not often enough
time to evaluate a background check with questionable
information.
In your judgment, would fewer prohibited individuals be
able to purchase firearms if this time period was extended?
Attorney General Barr. The data that I have heard is that
there are about 6,000 of these delayed responses, where these
default sales occur after the expiration of the 3 days. And
that when you go back and look at those 6,000, approximately
2,000 of those, about a third, are people that would have
flunked the background check and ATF goes out and gets the
weapon, retrieves the weapon.
I think it is fairly rare that--well, I think the Aurora
shooter may have been someone who got that default sale, that
it was sold to them after the 3 day period. So it does
occasionally happen.
Mrs. Lowey. Occasionally? Didn't you mention 2,000, 6,000.
Attorney General Barr. Well, they are not all shooters. In
other words, it does sometimes happen that somebody does----
Mrs. Lowey. Do you support extending the time period? I
have had an interaction with so many people in law enforcement
and in many cases, 3 days is just not enough. Do you support
extending the time period?
Attorney General Barr. No. I think that puts a burden on a
lot of people.
Mrs. Lowey. Maybe buying a gun that shouldn't have a gun;
is that what you are saying? When you are saying it puts a
burden on a lot of people----
Attorney General Barr. I think we are----
Mrs. Lowey. I would rather put a burden on those who are
doing the investigation than the potential shooter.
Attorney General Barr. I would put the emphasis on getting
accurate records put into the system and make sure that we are
getting all of the records into this system. I think a far
bigger problem is the problem of mental health. That is another
elephant in the room. That is where all these school shootings
are arising from. And we have to figure out a way of upgrading
the NICS system so it actually helps us to detect people with
mental illness that should not have guns. And I think we should
be investing in NICS, the accuracy of the records, the
obligations of states to put those records into the system, and
make that a stronger system, one that we can rely on. That is
where I would put the effort.
Mrs. Lowey. I am not sure what you mean by a stronger
system. In other words, if one of your colleagues was doing a
study and looking at a background check and said, ``I need 3
more days,'' do you feel that person should have 3 more days, 2
more days, 6 more days? Isn't it more important to get a good,
thorough background check than limiting the office to 3 days?
Attorney General Barr. No. What I was saying is that the
better job we do of getting the records into the system, that
we won't have those 3 days--the level of a 3 day default sale.
I mean, you mentioned sometimes federal agencies are not
putting the appropriate records in, as we saw with the Air
Force situation. Sometimes state agencies are not putting the
records in. So there are gaps in the records and that is a far
more important thing to address.
VAWA
Mrs. Lowey. Let me go on to the next question. Let me go on
to the next question. I do hope we can continue this
conversation another time. You have referred to the Violence
Against Women Act as a bad idea and not a legitimate interest
of the Federal Government. These are investments that fund
services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault that
many of my constituents, including those trapped in cycles of
domestic violence, and looking for a way out rely on.
Under Republican leadership in the previous Congress, maybe
I will just wait a minute.
Attorney General Barr. I am sorry.
Mrs. Lowey. The authorization of the Violence Against Women
Act was allowed to expire despite bipartisan support.
Thankfully, last week, the reauthorization passed the House,
again with bipartisan support. During your confirmation
hearing, you changed your position and supported VAWA's
programs, pledging to familiarize yourself with the office's
work and its program. I was delighted to hear that.
So I would be interested in knowing whether you support the
reauthorization of VAWA and do you support the House passed
reauthorization bill?
Attorney General Barr. I do support the reauthorization of
Violence Against Women Act. I am not sure about the House bill
and what is in it, but I do support the reauthorization of that
provision. Let me just say that to the extent I said something
against the Violence Against Women Statute, I believe that that
was in the context of when it originally came up 2 and a half
decades ago, or 30 years ago, somewhere in that range, and what
I said was that at that point, it was a substantive law
relating to the--federalizing certain acts of violence against
women. And that was eventually struck down as not having a
sufficient commerce clause basis.
I think that is what my concern with the Violence Against
Women Act was many, many years ago. It was a different kind of
Act. I fully support what we are doing right now on Violence
Against Women.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much and I am delighted that you
support the current actions. And I am glad to know that there
was good bipartisan support for the bill. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Roby.
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
Mrs. Roby. Attorney General Barr, I mentioned earlier in my
questions about sex and human trafficking about the
coordination between state and local law enforcement and how
important that is in combating a number of different areas of
crime. And I wanted you to address, if you would, the overall
reduction of state and local law enforcement activities, grant
programs by the amount of $583 million.
Attorney General Barr. Right. Well, I think part of that, a
big chunk of that is the reduction in the COPS grant program,
which was in the $300 millions and we are putting it down to
$99 million. But the $99 million does cover the hiring part of
the COPS grant program. So that translates into continued
hiring of state and local law enforcement officers.
The rationale for not funding the rest of COPS is that that
is really, we feel, addressed in the funding that goes to the
federal opioid task forces and other task forces that the
states can participate in and get paid by the Federal
Government, but they are part of a federal state cooperative
task force.
So it is really reorienting the spending toward those joint
task forces versus funding purely state task forces. Lee, I
don't know if you have something to add on it about the other
grant money.
Mr. Lofthus. All right, on the other grant money, the
apparent reductions in the 2020 request, one reason the grant
dollars look smaller is that the Office of Violence Against
Women is proposed to be moved into a mandatory funding account,
where we think it can ensure that there is available money for
Violence Against Women programs. The $493 million we have for
Violence Against Women programs.
There is also an adjustment to the crime victims money. The
obligation limit there goes down by about a billion dollars.
But over the last two years, that is an area that has received
$8 billion and it has received $10 billion over the last 3
years. So overall, we still have over $4.3 billion in grant
programs proposed in this budget.
The Attorney General talked about the impact on COPS, but
$4.3 billion is what we are looking for your help on in
supporting this year's budget.
ELDER FRAUD
Mrs. Roby. Okay. Thank you. The area that I represent is
home to a large number of retirees. I am increasingly concerned
about the elderly being taken advantage of by scammers and con
men, especially given the rise of technology and social media.
So I am sure you are aware of this problem, but the question is
what are you doing about it and again, as always, what
deficiencies may exist that you need more resources to help?
Attorney General Barr. Right. You know, in the area of
fraud, it is such a vast area of law enforcement that I have
always felt it is important to focus on the sleeping giants.
And when I was attorney general last time, it was healthcare
fraud, and that was, in fact, the sleeping giant. This time, I
am trying to focus on elder fraud, which suddenly awoken into a
major area of criminality.
It arises because of a concatenation of events, including
the baby boomers, a larger elder population, and the internet,
new technologies, and some of the increased loneliness that
many elderly people, unfortunately, experience later in life.
And this has mushroomed, as I think anyone whose phone
rings over the weekend with these scammers knows, more and more
of these scams are coming along. We have a major effort in this
area. We have one person in the department in the deputy's
office focused on elder care enforcement and the task forces
that are being set up to deal with that.
In March, we had a big national sweep where we indicted 200
defendants involved in these various scams. A lot of these
scams are perpetrated wholly within the United States, but
increasingly, they are actually operated by international
criminal organizations. A lot of them come out of India. There
are signs that organized crime, not La Cosa Nostra, but other
kinds of global organized crime are getting into these areas.
They are so lucrative. And the losses are substantial. And
people--this is a population that doesn't have a runway to
recover when they lose their life's savings.
So we are ratcheting up the effort. We have had two annual
sweeps with tremendous results, but I have set up a strike
force to go after the large organized criminal organizations
that we think are behind this.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. And thank you again for being here.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Cartwright.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General
Barr, I would like to finish up our discussion of the
healthcare law. Our Republican colleagues in the Senate, and in
particular Senator McConnell, have made it clear that they have
no intention of introducing, let alone passing, a new
healthcare law, a new healthcare plan for at least the next two
years. And apparently, that view has been prevailed upon the
White House and the President has accepted it.
My question is we have already discussed the devastating
effects if this lawsuit wins and repeals the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act. Given the position of the Senate
Republicans and the President himself opposing any progress on
healthcare for the next two years, if the Supreme Court of the
United States were to grant credence to your position and sweep
away the healthcare law, either in part or in entirety, would
the Department of Justice support a stay of the effect of that
ruling until Congress, the President, this Nation can formulate
a plan properly to supplant the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act?
Attorney General Barr. Well, you are asking me to speculate
whether or not we are going to--the administration's position
is going to prevail in court. And beyond that, whether if it
does prevail in court, when that is. And also whether or not
there will be a legislative response, if in fact we prevail.
Mr. Cartwright. That is absolutely true. I am asking you to
speculate on those and ``if'' questions are proper in this
room, Attorney General. If you win the case, will you agree
that we ought to stay the effect of that until a new plan can
go in place, rather than strand all of the people with
preexisting conditions, and all the people that--whose
healthcare will lapse because of that ruling?
Attorney General Barr. Well, from my experience, the
Supreme Court would likely deal with that in their opinion and
provide some kind of period to wind it down.
Mr. Cartwright. You want them to do it sua sponte, on their
own motion with no prompting from the Justice Department; is
that it?
Attorney General Barr. I didn't say that. I would say
whatever the administration's position is at that point, we
will carry out from a legal standpoint.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, I am dismayed to hear that you are
willing to drive our healthcare system off the cliff with no
plan for replacing it.
Attorney General Barr. Well, I think your premise that the
Justice Department makes healthcare policy is simply wrong. We
take legal positions in cases.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, let me--I am going to follow that up.
Numerous reports have indicated that you, the chief lawyer for
the Federal Government and Secretary Azar, who is the lead on
healthcare policy for our Federal Government, strongly argued
against supporting the complete repeal of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, reports indicate
you and Secretary Azar were overruled by Acting Chief of Staff
Mick Mulvaney and the President himself. Now, at any point, did
you convey either to Mr. Mulvaney or the President any concerns
about either the effects of this lawsuit prevailing, if it
does, or concerns about the dubious legal arguments in this
lawsuit? And did Secretary Azar communicate concerns about the
effects on our American healthcare system?
Attorney General Barr. Well, I am not going to get into,
you know, the internal deliberations of the administration on
this point. I had ample opportunity to present my views and I
believe that the final decision reached is a legally defensible
and reasonable legal position. It is a position that prevailed
in the district court. And it is a position taken by the 4
dissenting Justices in the NFIB case, which is that once you do
away with the mandate, the rest of the statute cannot stand.
Mr. Cartwright. Are you citing executive privilege by
declining to tell me about the discussions between you, Mr.
Azar, Mr. Mulvaney?
Attorney General Barr. Call it what you wish, I am not
discussing it.
Mr. Cartwright. You are refusing to discuss it. All right.
Well, it is a decision that makes more extreme, and in fact
even contradicts, the decision to go forward with this position
contradicts the DOJ's June 2018 position on the case, which was
so controversial then that 3 of the 4 career attorneys
representing the government refused to sign onto the briefs and
actually removed themselves from the case. The American people
deserve to understand if you and Secretary Azar support this
lawsuit based on sound rationale, or if it was just bald
politics talking----
Attorney General Barr. I said it was----
Mr. Cartwright.--we are requesting that you submit this
assertion of executive privilege in writing to this committee
if that is what you are doing. Don't ask us to call it what it
is. I am asking you if you are exercising executive privilege,
we need to know it, and we need to know it in writing. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Attorney
General Barr. In your testimony, you mentioned cybersecurity.
And being that the FBI is the lead federal agency for
investigating cyber attacks by criminals, overseas adversaries,
and terrorists, the threat is incredibly serious and growing.
Cyber intrusion is more commonplace, more dangerous, and more
sophisticated.
Targets include critical infrastructure, trade secrets,
cutting edge R and D, identity theft, and as well as online
predators and et cetera. While my colleagues on the left are
chasing shiny objects, I believe the American people want us to
address the real physical and financial threats that exist in
the real world. Can you elaborate on the growing threat, and
maybe provide some scenarios that we should be concerned with,
call out some of these foreign overseas adversaries? And what
is the FBI doing to transform itself and protect Americans?
Attorney General Barr. You are correct that the cyber
threat is a serious and growing threat, obviously. And it is a
threat to our intellectual capital, our trade secrets, and
therefore our economic health. It is a threat to our national
security. It exposes some of our fundamental infrastructure to
disruption. We all have heard about the attempt to penetrate
into election infrastructure and the results of that could be
devastating.
The FBI is receiving in this budget $70 million to upgrade
and enhance their cyber tools and capabilities to deal with
these threats. A total of $72 million is in the budget.
In terms of emerging threats, as you know, we have a China
initiative in the department because China, we think, poses a
very serious threat to the United States in terms of economic
espionage, as well as classical espionage. And a lot of that
does use cyber tools and threats--involves cyber threats to the
United States. And we are very focused on that, as well as not
just the industrial espionage, but also the use of non-
traditional collectors that the Chinese are able to marshal
within the United States by coopting Chinese nationals who may
be working in universities, or laboratories, and so forth.
So it is a broad gauge threat and probably our highest
priority at this point in terms of dealing with counter
espionage.
Mr. Lofthus. If I can add one thing. We have over $750
million overall in our budget. The Attorney General mentions
the $72 million increase. $70 million is the FBI. The smaller
piece, though, it worth mentioning. It is only $2 million, but
it is really going to have a lot of bang for its buck. It is
money put into the Justice Security Operations Center. That
allows us to protect our own networks from intrusions and
malware. So it is really important that the agencies protect
their own networks.
Mr. Palazzo. We definitely appreciate the FBI's work on
this. I mean, when our universities are coming up with cutting
edge research and development and technologies, just to see
them stolen by our adversaries. They didn't invest any money in
it. They didn't work hard to create it. And they take it from
us, that is--we are wasting taxpayer dollars.
When I first came to Congress, I was on the Armed Services
Committee and many of the generals and admirals said in one of
their--they have several threats that they are concerned with
that keep them up at night. There is never just one. But one of
them that was recurring was our cyber threats, knocking out our
power grids, crippling us, our financial markets. And that
would just create massive amounts of chaos.
And so these are extremely important. This is why I think
the American people are interested in having this conversation,
and making sure the FBI is using their resources in the
protection and security of America.
And to know now that that technological gap between some of
us and our overseas adversaries, where it was 25, 30, 40 years,
just 8 years ago now we are neck and neck. That is a true
threat to our economy, as well as our national security. So
Attorney General, thank you. And thank your team at the FBI for
taking care and keeping America safe. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Meng.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And Attorney General, I want to thank
you for clarifying the answers to my questions. And I just want
to confirm in relation to communication with the White House or
any of its team, you are answering that for both the March 24
and the March 29 letters, correct?
Attorney General Barr. Yes. Yes.
ELDER FRAUD
Ms. Meng. Thank you. You brought up a really important
topic in my district, and I am sure in many of my colleagues'
districts, about elder fraud. Last year, I had a piece of
legislation signed into law by President Trump, supported by
Congressman Barton and Lance at the time. And basically
targeting and allowing the United States to prosecute those
calls that you mentioned that were actually coming from outside
of the United States.
We were very happy to have the legislation signed. However,
our local law enforcement, in our case, the NYPD, is having a
difficult time in terms of actually catching and figuring out
who these perpetrators are. I don't know if you have any
further ideas on how we can approach this, and just in general
in the future, I would love to work with your office on this.
Attorney General Barr. Yes, I would like to do that,
Congresswoman. That is exactly why I set up the strike force to
be able--I think we need to get ourselves to a higher level of
sophistication in pursuing these crimes because although they
might appear to the victim to be sort of not very
sophisticated, they are, in fact, very sophisticated and we
have to get back to the people behind the scam. And we have to
use all of our tools, our treaty tools, our cooperative
agreements with the enforcement authorities in other countries
to get the information we need.
CIVIL DIVISION
Mr. Lofthus. You can help us in our budget on this. We have
$611,000 in the Civil Division's budget in the consumer
protection branch. They do a lot of elder fraud work and we
sure could use that money in this year's budget to help the
civil division continue its work in the elder fraud area.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. My second question----
Attorney General Barr. One other thing I could say is that
I have asked to put together a number of additional legislative
proposals that would give us more tools in this area, as well
as more effective penalties. And I think that is being done and
I will be proposing them. So I would like to provide them to
you once we are done.
SANCTUARY CITIES
Ms. Meng. Sure. Thank you. I just wanted to ask about
sanctuary jurisdictions. As you know, last November, Judge
Ramos of the Southern District of New York said the Trump
administration cannot compel states and cities to cooperate
with federal immigration authorities as a condition for
receiving law enforcement funds, such as Byrne JAG. In other
words, Judge Ramos ordered the administration to award fiscal
year 2017 funds without condition, and became the fourth
federal judge to rule against the administration on this issue.
The Department of Justice's 2018, 2022 strategic plan
states that you still intend to end sanctuary jurisdictions.
What is the plan? How do you intend to continue with these
conditions for the fiscal year 2019 grants?
Attorney General Barr. Well, you are right that we have
lost in a number of district courts, but that is why we have
appellate courts. So we are appealing those decisions.
Ms. Meng. So you still intend to continue then. Okay.
Attorney General Barr. Yes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Graves.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I am just
trying to close things out. Oftentimes when an individual or
folks are in denial, closure helps. And there are a lot of
unanswered questions. We have heard some here today. I want to
just read a few quotes to you and then let's go through a
series of questions.
Presidential candidate Eric Swalwell, who is a member of
the House Intelligence Committee, said, ``In our investigation,
we saw strong evidence of collusion.'' He declared President
Trump an agent, ``working on behalf of the Russians.''
Judiciary Chairman Nadler claimed, ``It is clear that the
campaign colluded. And there is a lot of evidence of that.''
Senator Blumenthal, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee,
assured us last year that, ``The evidence is pretty clear that
there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Russians.''
Now, assuming they are speaking from a position of truth
and not attempting to mislead anyone, do they have access to
any evidence that the investigators did not have access to?
Attorney General Barr. Not to my knowledge, but I don't
know what access they had. I would be in a better position to
address that once the report is out.
Mr. Graves. To your knowledge, are they withholding any
evidence from the investigators?
Attorney General Barr. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Graves. And if they did knowingly withhold any evidence
from the investigators, is that akin to obstruction or
something similar?
Attorney General Barr. I don't want to speculate about
that.
MARCH 24TH LETTER
Mr. Graves. You also stated earlier that as you were
preparing the March 24th letter, you offered the Mueller team
the opportunity to assist in that, yet they declined; is that
correct?
Attorney General Barr. Not to assist. We----
Mr. Graves. Or to review. What was your term?
Attorney General Barr. To review it.
Mr. Graves. To review. And yet reports indicate that there
were a few disgruntled investigators on the team who since
then, without names, under a shroud of secrecy themselves, have
expressed that they are upset with your findings. But your
findings basically just restated the report; is that correct?
Attorney General Barr. That is what I tried to do.
Mr. Graves. So in essence----
Attorney General Barr. They weren't my findings. I was just
trying to state the principal conclusions of the report.
Mr. Graves. So the letter just basically restated what was
found in the report as it was given to you.
Attorney General Barr. As I say, the bottom line
conclusions.
Mr. Graves. And so, in essence, they are just upset with
their own findings.
Attorney General Barr. I don't know whether they are upset.
Mr. Graves. Have you heard from any of the disgruntled
Mueller investigators?
Attorney General Barr. I think the article says something
like associates, is sourced to associates of----
Mr. Graves. Third person, too, if I might add.
Attorney General Barr. Some of the people who worked on the
Mueller report. I am not sure who it refers to. I haven't----
Mr. Graves. Were the investigators, or anyone assisting the
Mueller team, did they have security clearances?
Attorney General Barr. Yes. I would think so, yes. At least
many of them did, I am sure.
Mr. Graves. So it is possible that some of this information
that is being leaked or potentially going to be leaked is in
violation of security clearances as well?
Attorney General Barr. Well, only if it were classified
information. I haven't seen any classified information leaked
from--that I would attribute to the special counsel's office.
Mr. Graves. Right, so this information--I think as you
stated it, is multiple levels removed from the source, it
seems, so I would hope no one on this committee and no member
of Congress would take that information as fact.
CYBERSECURITY
Shifting to cybersecurity, first let me thank you. You have
done a great job today answering our questions. We did meet
with Director Wray last week and he is doing a fantastic job as
well. Cybersecurity is something that I have a passion for. I
have been very aggressive in advocating for a policy that
allows for active cyber defense, allowing one the ability to
defend his or her network outside of that network, and not
requiring he or she wait in a passive posture until he or she
has actually been impacted.
Your department has broad purview over a lot of this and I
would like the opportunity to work with you and your team to
see how we might better advance policy. The Cyber Fraud and
Abuse Act hasn't been updated in decades. It deserves a good
review and an aggressive stance. Again, I would like to work
with you, your team, or whoever you might designate as we look
ahead. Thank you again for your testimony today, for taking
time to join us, and for your good work. Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barr, during the
heat of the 2018 midterm election, President Trump pledged to
protect coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions. Are
you aware of that or were you aware of that?
Attorney General Barr. Yes.
Mr. Crist. Are you aware that prior to the Affordable Care
Act, up to 130 million Americans had some type of preexisting
condition that insurance companies could use to deny coverage,
delay treatment, or limit access?
Attorney General Barr. I didn't know that number, but it
sounds reasonable. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crist. Are you aware that the Affordable Care Act made
discrimination against preexisting conditions against the law?
Attorney General Barr. Yes.
Mr. Crist. Do you agree that the Texas Affordable Care Act
ruling, if affirmed by the Supreme Court, would eliminate the
law in its entirety, which would necessarily include
eliminating protections for preexisting conditions?
Attorney General Barr. Yes. And the President has made
clear that he supports protection of preexisting conditions.
Mr. Crist. But pursuing this case would remove them if it
is successful.
Attorney General Barr. Is that a reason to take a legal
position?
Mr. Crist. I don't know.
Attorney General Barr. You know, I hear members of the
committee basically saying, you know, you have taken this legal
position that can have bad consequences, bad policy
consequences.
Mr. Crist. Yes.
Attorney General Barr. But as you know, as an Attorney
General, you take positions based on the law, and you litigate
them in court, and the court makes the decision.
Mr. Crist. That is true.
Attorney General Barr. So if this was such a hokey position
to take, what are you worried about?
Mr. Crist. What am I worried about?
Attorney General Barr. Yes. You are acting like--you say
that the administration's position is hokey. And then you say
the sky is falling.
Mr. Crist. I didn't say that.
Attorney General Barr. Well.
Mr. Crist. Those are your words, sir.
Attorney General Barr. OK. So if it is not hokey, then----
Mr. Crist. What am I worried about? I am worried about
millions of Americans----
Attorney General Barr. I am just saying, I am a lawyer. You
know, I am not in charge of healthcare. I litigate on behalf of
the United States.
Mr. Crist. I will try not to interrupt you. I would expect
the same. What I am worried about are the people I work for,
the American people, and the people you work for, sir. And it
is our duty around here to look out for their best interest as
public servants. And that is what I am worried about.
Attorney General Barr. We are very worried about them. And
the President has made clear that he wants a strong healthcare
legislation and he wants to protect preexisting conditions in
the event that the court accepts the legal arguments that we
have presented.
Mr. Crist. Worries about it so much so that you are
pursuing a case that would take it away from them. The irony of
that is rich.
Attorney General Barr. Well, as I say, we----
Mr. Crist. I yield my time. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Mr. Case. Thank you. When you offered Mr. Mueller the
opportunity to review or edit, I am not exactly sure what your
characterization was--your 3 and a half page summary of his
report, and he declined, did he give you a reason why he
declined?
Attorney General Barr. I didn't talk to him directly.
Mr. Case. Were you provided with a reason why the Mueller
team did not want to participate?
Attorney General Barr. I don't recall whether I was--
whether a reason was given.
Mr. Case. So somebody offered to them that they could
review your summary, make comments.
Attorney General Barr. It wasn't a summary. It was a
statement of the principal conclusions. It wasn't a summary of
the report.
Mr. Case. Okay. Your 3 and a half page letter, did you take
it that there was no reason given back for their declining to
do so?
Attorney General Barr. Did I what?
Mr. Case. Did you take it that there was no reason for them
to do so? In other words, did they not tell you, in any way,
shape, or form why they declined to participate in reviewing
your 3 and a half page letter?
Attorney General Barr. As I say, I don't recall whether
that was relayed to me. My sense was that he understood that
this was the function of the Attorney General. I am the person
to whom the report is given.
Mr. Case. Okay. You know, I am listening to you on the
Mueller report and here is my problem. You say in your March
24th letter that you are mindful of the public interest on this
matter and that you will release as much of the report as you
can, consistent with applicable law, regulations, and
department policies.
You follow up with a letter of a few days later outlining
four categories in which you are evaluating redactions. One of
those categories is Grand Jury related to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 6(e). The other three are intelligence,
ongoing prosecutions, and privacy reputational interests. And I
ask you what is the authority for that. And you track it back
to department policies, which do not have the force of law.
Attorney General Barr. They do when they are embodied in
regulation.
Mr. Case. The regulation triggers back to department
policies which----
Attorney General Barr. Right. The regulation states that
any disclosure has to be in accord with those policies. It is a
regulatory mandate.
Mr. Case. Do you consider that you have the discretion as
to how you apply those department policies?
Attorney General Barr. I have discretion.
Mr. Case. Okay. And so we are sitting here, from my
perspective, with virtually unlimited discretion for you to
redact from that document. And maybe if I trusted my government
more, I would be comfortable with that. But since I don't, I am
not comfortable with that. And I am looking for some way in
which your judgment, which is going to be the arbiter as I
understand it, of what the public sees, the arbiter, it is you
ultimately, can be overseen.
I have suggested to you that under 6(e), there are
procedures under which you can go to court to ask the court to
give you guidance, direction, or an order. I am not sure
whether you will do that or not. I am----
Attorney General Barr. Well, the court is limited to the
grounds stated in 6(e).
Mr. Case. This is correct. But you do have quite a bit of
discretion to go to court under 6(e) if you review it. So that
is one category. The other category, obviously, is that there
would be some function for Congress to exercise in its
oversight responsibility under the Constitution, but I am not
clear as I sit here today whether you envision a role for
Congress in that oversight.
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION
Attorney General Barr. Well, I think I sort of addressed
that. I identified the four categories. And the team that
includes the special counsel office lawyers are implementing
that. So they are the ones redacting what is Rule 6(e). They
are the ones who conducted the investigation. They know what is
Rule 6(e) and what is not Rule 6(e). That is why I am dependent
on the special counsel to identify Rule 6(e) material.
And the intelligence community will identify the
intelligence stuff. And the lawyers who were prosecuting the
cases in the special counsel's office can identify whether
there is going to be a conflict between releasing any
information and a court order or an ongoing prosecution.
And the special counsel's office knows who the peripheral
players are that they have said shouldn't be charged. So those
are the categories.
Mr. Case. Does Congress have a role in overseeing your
decision as to what is and isn't taken out of the Mueller
report? Is there any circumstances under which any member of
Congress would have full access to all of the Mueller report,
period, maybe under conditions. But is there any circumstance
you can envision, sir, where Congress with whatever protective
procedures may be in place, would have access to the full
report to review it?
Attorney General Barr. Yes. I did say here that once that
report is ready for release, I would not only give it to the
chairmen of the judiciary committees, but I would talk to them
and engage with them about what additional information they
feel they require and whether there is a way of accommodating
that. As you, I am sure----
Mr. Case. They have to give you a reason? What if they just
want to see the report to satisfy themselves of your exercise
of discretion?
Attorney General Barr. Well, it depends. Take classified
information. I can envision----
Mr. Case. You have an intelligence committee for that.
Attorney General Barr. Well, if you let me finish. I was
saying I can envision a situation where under appropriate
safeguards that information would be shared. I also think there
may be under appropriate safeguards a way of people verifying
that these categories were not abused and that the information
is bonafide privacy related information and so forth. And I am
willing to work with the judiciary committees on that.
But I will have to say that until someone shows me a
provision in Rule 6(e) that permits its release, Congress
doesn't get 6(e), unless there is a provision that permits it.
Mr. Case. There is plenty of discretion in 6(e) for you to
make that judgment.
Attorney General Barr. Where would you find that?
Mr. Case. Judicial proceedings, akin to judicial
proceedings, if you want to go there. I am sorry. I am really
out of time. But there are a number of interpretations you can
make of 6(e) that would give you some pretty good discretion to
come up to Congress under limited circumstances possibly to be
able to satisfy somebody in Congress who gets to see the entire
report, and who gets to oversee you.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Lawrence.
Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. I want to publicly thank you,
Attorney General, for your support of Violence Against Women
Act. It is long overdue and I do look forward to your support
of that law.
Also, I look forward to your release of the report next
week, for it to be timely, and I look forward to the things
that you are saying.
HATE CRIMES
I just wanted to follow up to the previous question and let
you know that under the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the
FBI is required to collect and report hate crimes from state,
local, and federal offices. In 2017, the most recent data
available, the FBI reported a 17 percent increase in hate
crimes on race, religion, and sexual orientation. And I do
encourage you to look at those numbers.
Attorney General Barr. Can I say something?
Ms. Lawrence. Yes.
Attorney General Barr. You know, I am very concerned about
hate crimes and one of the priorities we have is to make sure
that those numbers are not understating the level of hate
crime. As you probably know, local jurisdictions are very
spotty in the extent to which they report hate crimes. There
are some major U.S. cities, major cities, that say there are
zero hate crimes.
So as you may know, the FBI is engaged in a major
initiative to try to----
Ms. Lawrence. Yes.
Attorney General Barr. [continuing]. Make sure that these
jurisdictions are accurately reporting and are converting their
crime reporting system into a new system that actually will
have a field in the system for hate crimes. So we are hopeful--
one of the things we have to do is get a better handle on the
actual level of this, where it is, and so forth, and that
depends on reporting and we are trying to improve that.
Ms. Lawrence. And taking those who committed to trial.
Attorney General Barr. Yes.
COPS GRANTS
Ms. Lawrence. I thank you. That is a lot better answer than
before. I wanted to talk to you, I was previously a mayor
before becoming to Congress and COPS grants, which I used as a
mayor, was just really an amazing support that we have in our
cities across the country. Unfortunately, there is cities who
are being told they are no longer eligible. This is creating,
we know after the economic downfall, a number of cities reduced
their number of police officers. And although they are not back
at the regular--at the amount they were before, they were able
to increase that deficit with COPS.
Can you tell me what was the thinking, and what is
happening with the COPS grant? And you are going to hear more
about this because this is a critical funding to cities.
Attorney General Barr. Right. So as I understand it, the
COPS grants had two components: one was the hiring of police
officers, and that was running at $99 million, and that is what
we are asking for in this budget, which is to continue that
program.
The other money related to the funding of state and local
task forces. And I think the thinking behind not asking for
that money was that we would rather--support joint federal,
state, and local task forces, where the money does benefit the
state and locals because when they participate in the joint
federal state task forces, they are paid. But the idea was
let's put our effort on these joint task forces rather than
putting the dollars----
CIVIL RIGHTS/CRS
Ms. Lawrence. I ask that you look at that because that is
critical. And those joint task forces, human trafficking and
drug trafficking has been extremely beneficial in cities.
The other question I want to ask is about the decision of
the President's budget to transfer the Community Relations
Service to the civil rights department. And that activity, the
proposal requests minimum funding and staff to be dedicated to
the functions of community relations.
Attorney General, you know so many of the issues that we
have had, and riots, and civil unrest, we have deliberately
infused money into the community relations. In doing this, in
consolidating, there are going to be reductions in staffing of
the civil rights community relations initiative. How do you
ensure that the Civil Rights Act is fully enforced with these
cuts to the budget?
Attorney General Barr. Right. This, I think, is the second
year in a row this is being proposed. My understanding of the
rationale is that currently the CRS has I think maybe 50
positions, and they are spread in small offices around the
country, sometimes just one or two people in whole areas of the
country.
And I think the idea is that given what they are actually
involved in, it would be more efficient to have them co-housed
with the civil rights division and have a reservoir of people,
essentially, I think 15 slots of people who could be deployed
when there is a situation that needs their services, rather
than maintaining this whole nationwide structure with very
small offices. That is the rationale for it.
Ms. Lawrence. Yes. I really need you to do a deep dive in
that because this proposed move undermines the express terms of
Title 10 of the Civil Rights Act by inserting the civil--I
mean, the community relations into a division that you are not
supposed to have in a division that litigates and investigates.
And so to me, I see this combining is a direct attack on
Title 10 and it is also--it is not in compliance with combining
those two together. And so this is an area that I will be
looking at very closely and the funding of doing that is not
something I would support. Thank you.
Attorney General Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Attorney General, before I close, I am
just going to make a very personal statement. Like so many
people in this House, I grew up politically in the 1960s. That
is where I developed a lot of my feelings about things in our
great country. And we were a group of people trying to make the
country even better than it was, knowing that it was great at
all times. It is still great.
Whenever things got rough with segregated housing, or
education issues, or civil rights issues, or voting rights
issues, we knew there was always a Justice Department we could
turn to. We always knew that that Justice Department would
defend the law and therefore defend the people, and somehow
come through for us.
It is very troublesome to see a Justice Department against
the law of the land when there are many people who if not
liking the whole law, certainly like the preexisting conditions
provision, the ability to keep their child on their plan until
that person is 26. And so I hope that if you take something
from here today, since we took a lot from you in information,
is to maybe look around and realize, or pay more attention to
the fact that we lean on you to come through for this country.
And when we see you taking sides against the law of the land,
or taking sides that we may not think is in the best interest
of the American people, it troubles us.
Nevertheless, we want to thank you for your testimony
today, for your patience with the time, and I think--I want to
thank my committee members on both sides. Mr. Aderholt, it was
a great hearing, great attendance, and I am sure your picture
is somewhere in the files today. Thank you so much, Mr.
Attorney General.
Attorney General Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. The meeting is adjourned.
[Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 30, 2019.
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2020 CENSUS PREPARATION
WITNESSES
STEVEN DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
NICHOLAS MARINOS, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBERSECURITY,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
KEVIN SMITH, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning, everyone.
Today we welcome Dr. Steven Dillingham, Director of the
Census Bureau; Kevin Smith, the Chief Innovation Officer of the
Census Bureau; Robert Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues,
Government Accountability Office; and Nicholas Marinos, the
Director of Information Technology and Cybersecurity at the
Government Accountability Office.
You are all here to talk about the 2020 Census
preparations, which are now in their final stages.
We are now in the critical stages of the rollout and
administration of the 2020 Census. Unfortunately, as we
discussed the funding needs for fiscal year 2020, we seem to
have more uncertainty than I have ever seen at this point in a
decennial cycle. That is almost entirely the result of the
decision to try and add an untested citizenship question to the
form.
While we wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the legality
and constitutionality of that addition, I am deeply concerned
that the Bureau remains unprepared for and unwilling to admit
culpability in creating this situation. In particular, I am
worried that the Bureau remains seriously unready to administer
a census that includes a citizenship question. I have heard
little of any plans to address community fears in immigrant
communities about what this information is used for. You are
only studying the impact of the question this summer when it
will be too late to address outreach and communications, based
on the results.
Your budget request of $6.149 billion for the 2020 Census
is inadequate and does not include funding for a contingency
fund previously requested by Secretary Ross. I am not sure if
these decisions are yours, Director Dillingham, but it is
apparent that the White House and the Secretary have little
interest in a fair or accurate census; in other words, the fix
is in.
I realize, Director Dillingham, this mess is not entirely
your fault. After all, you were not confirmed when the decision
was made to add a citizenship question to the decennial form
and you report to the Secretary of Commerce, who instigated
this political farce in the first place. I have no doubt about
your desire or the desire of the thousands of Census Bureau
employees to administer a census that accurately reflects how
our country has grown and changed, but you have been dealt a
very bad hand and you are being forced to administer this
census at an extreme disadvantage.
Today, I hope we can hear about the Bureau's preparations
for next year, what challenges remain, and how the Bureau will
react when the Supreme Court rules on the validity of the
Secretary's process for changing the decennial census form.
This committee stands ready to help you in every way possible,
and our questions today are designed to highlight our concerns
and our communities' needs as you move forward. We hope you and
your staff and paying close attention to these concerns.
This is, of course, something that is on everybody's mind
in many communities throughout the country. I can tell you that
in mine it is a big issue and it is everywhere, and it is on
the mind of many people in Congress. So I hope that we all pay
attention to today's hearings, both here and afar, because this
issue still has to be resolved and we need a fair and accurate
count.
And with that let me turn to my friend Ranking Member
Aderholt for his remarks.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I
too want to welcome all of our witnesses that are here to the
Commerce, Justice, Science subcommittee today to testify
regarding the 2020 Census.
It is difficult to believe that we are just now 11 months
out from Census Day, April 1st, 2020. As we all know, Census
Day will represent the culmination of nearly a decade of
research, design, integration, and testing of the Bureau's
substantial efforts to modernize the census and make it easier
for people to respond any time and anywhere.
I do appreciate the Bureau's commitment to assuring a full,
fair, and accurate count of all Americans in 2020. The Bureau
has a monumental task and it is a task that I know all four of
you take very seriously.
For fiscal year 2020, the Department of Commerce has
requested, as you know, $2.3 billion in additional funding in
order to support your efforts to meet the constitutional
mandate for the 2020 Census. This subcommittee must examine,
therefore, whether the funding requested for fiscal year 2020
is adequate to meet your needs, both anticipated and those
arising under different contingencies.
The ambitious, but worthy effort of converting to an
Internet-based enumeration has required much research,
planning, and coordination, not to mention the scaling of
complex systems to make sure they can handle the massive amount
of data that comes with counting more than 300 million people.
I look forward to learning today as we have this hearing
about the key indicators of your readiness, such as the 2018
End-to-End Test; the status and nature of your communications
campaign; the on-boarding activities well underway this year;
and, finally, I would like to say a few words about the topic I
know that there is a lot of concern about by a good number of
people. And let me just add, a lot of good people disagree on
this issue, but I will say I do believe the Federal Government
does has a compelling interest in collecting primary-source
data on citizenship.
By law, the Census Bureau cannot disclose anyone's response
or share data from which an individual can be identified, and
that goes to even other Federal agencies. The law, in my
opinion and what I understand, is very clear on this: a
person's response that they are not a citizen does not provide
the government with any reliable information about whether they
are lawfully present in the United States.
There are some who would like to turn this into some kind
of campaign of fear surrounding this question, but I really
think this can be a situation about education.
I look forward to hearing about the census effort to
mitigate the skepticism and the lack of awareness associated
with every decennial census, and expect to hear that equal
focus will be afforded to all segments of the so-called hard-
to-count populations, including a lot who live in my home state
of Alabama. Many of them lack broadband Internet service, a lot
of them have rural addresses, and there are, of course, quite a
few that distrust the Federal Government, and it might result
in an undercount.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
will yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Now it is my pleasure to introduce my chairwoman, the
Chairwoman of the Full Committee, Mrs. Lowey of New York, for
her remarks.
Mrs. Lowey. Welcome. Thank you, Chairman Serrano and
Ranking Member Aderholt, for holding this important hearing.
While I frankly was very disappointed that Secretary Ross
refused to testify before the subcommittee, and I am really
puzzled about that, I have known the Secretary for a long time
and I was looking forward to hearing from him today, but I am
very pleased to have these esteemed witnesses with us and I
thank you for appearing.
The 2020 Census is a serious constitutional obligation that
must be adequately funded and free of partisan interference.
The 2020 count will shape how federal dollars are shared
nationwide for the next decade and that means it determines how
much each community receives for schools, roads, health care,
and other public services that our constituents rely on daily.
Unfortunately, this Administration is playing football with
this fundamental function of our government.
We know that certain hard-to-reach populations are much
more difficult to count than others; those groups are
vulnerable to underestimation. My home state of New York has a
number of people who are frequently undercounted, such as
African Americans, foreign-born residents, Latinos. Part of the
beauty of New York is our diversity and we must do everything
we can to ensure an accurate census count. Underfunding the
census puts New York communities that need funding most at risk
of losing more than $73.3 billion.
On top of funding issues associated with the census, this
Administration's decision to include the citizenship question
is, frankly, highly offensive and, as multiple Federal courts
have held, unconstitutional. It is an unnecessary addition and
a clear attack on immigrant and other minority communities;
frankly, it must be stopped. Congress and this committee should
work together with the Census Bureau to protect our most
vulnerable communities, and I look forward to a productive
discussion today that highlights ways we can preserve the
sanctity of our democracy and best represent our constituents.
So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Chairwoman Lowey.
Director Dillingham, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Please try to keep it to 5 minutes and you have our word that
every word you wrote will be on the record.
Mr. Dillingham. Good morning, Chairman Serrano, Committee
Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to be with you today.
We appreciate your strong support for the Census Bureau and its
work; we are deeply grateful to Congress for funding our
programs. We are highly confident that the budget request for
fiscal year 2020 supports the operation of a complete and
accurate count of our Nation's population.
The budget request has $7.2 billion in total resources, it
includes $1 billion in carried-over funds. The request
represents a $3.3 billion, 88-percent increase from fiscal year
2019. Of that, $6.3 billion is for the 2020 Census, the rest is
for other programs, including data processing and
dissemination; data releases of the Economic Census, Census of
Governments; and a collection of monthly, quarterly, and annual
data, including the Principal Economic Indicators, the American
Community Survey, and other economic, demographic, and
geographic programs.
In fiscal year 2018, you provided advanced funding of
nearly $1 billion, allowing us to continue our 2020 Census work
during the funding lapsing, and we thank you. Funding certainty
will continue to be a vital need.
Presently, we are on schedule, on budget, on message, and
on course to complete the biggest and best census ever. We and
our partners are excited and committed. Our mission is to count
every person once, only once, and in the right place, and with
your support we will accomplish this mission.
We have made a number of major improvements, including
better technologies for canvassing and enumerating; new options
for responding--the Internet, the phone, as well as the paper--
more language assistance; customer-assistance phone centers;
more partners and partnership specialists; a sophisticated and
expanded media campaign; and advanced IT safeguards and privacy
protections.
These successes and time-tested operations increase our
confidence that we can conduct a complete and accurate census
within the budget.
During the 2018 End-to-End Test, which was our dress
rehearsal, we successfully tested and deployed census
operations and systems. The results, including the self-
response rates, exceeded projections. The systems worked
efficiently, enumerator productivity rose about 50 percent, and
responded information was securely encrypted and processed.
Confidentiality is a core part of the Census Bureau's
culture, it requires response data to be used only for
statistical purposes. Those working with the data take a
lifetime oath not to share confidential information, including
with law enforcement. Unlawful disclosures subject violators to
fines and imprisonment. The Bureau has decades of success in
carrying out this responsibility.
IT security enhancements and preparations for 2020 are
underway. In-Field Address Canvassing begins in August. Our
communications contractor team includes leaders in advertising
and multi-cultural subcontractors with experience in reaching
everyone.
We are recruiting trusted voices from communities to
motivate people to respond. We are hiring 1,500 local
partnership specialists, almost double that from the last
decennial census. We plan to establish a record 300,000
partnerships. Communications and partnerships encourage
everyone, especially the hard-to-count, to respond to the
census. We plan to reach under-counted children; areas with
limited Internet access; rural and remote areas; hard-to-count
groups; and households lacking English proficiency through
online and phone assistance in English and 12 other languages
covering more than 99 percent of all households, plus materials
in 59 languages.
We are committed to reaching the hard-to-count populations,
and have answered the committee's request as to how this might
be expanded.
In closing, I am pleased to testify with the Government
Accountability Office. We consult closely with GAO on key risks
and steps to mitigate them; we have closed about two thirds of
the GAO recommendations, we have action plans for the others.
We value GAO input and engagement, and are encouraged by recent
progress.
We thank this committee and Congress for communicating the
shared message that the 2020 Census is easy, safe, and
important. It is easy, because you can respond online, by
phone, or on paper. This creates new efficiencies, it saves
dollars, it relieves burdens, and it reassures people that
assistance is but a phone call away. It is safe, because we
have the latest and best technologies and practices to protect
the data and confidentiality. And it is important, because it
is used to apportion the House of Representatives; to allocate
the billions of dollars, as was mentioned; and to guide
decisions by individuals, communities, businesses, and
government at all levels.
Finally, we commend the members of this subcommittee, and
the full committee and the Congress, for your interest, support
and valued partnership. We look forward to working together.
I will be happy to answer your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Director Goldenkoff, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Same rules, same request, try to keep it to 5 minutes and we
will include everything in the record for you.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Thank you.
Chairman Serrano, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member
Aderholt, and members of the subcommittee. GAO is pleased to be
here today to discuss the Census Bureau's readiness for the
2020 head count.
As you know, in recent years we have identified a number of
operational, IT, cybersecurity, and other challenges that raise
serious concerns about the Bureau's ability to conduct a cost-
effective enumeration. In February 2017, we added the 2020
Census to GAO's list of high-risk government programs and it
remains on our high-risk list today.
My remarks this morning will focus on two such challenges:
implementing design innovations aimed at controlling costs and
developing reliable cost estimates that better account for
risks and inform annual budget requests. My colleague Nick
Marinos will then discuss the challenges the Bureau faces in
implementing and securing critical IT systems.
The bottom line is that, as the countdown to Census Day
grows short, the Bureau has made important progress toward
mitigating some of the risks facing the Census, and we are
encouraged by the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau's
leadership commitment toward carrying out a cost-effective
enumeration. Still, the Bureau estimates that the census may
cost as much as $15.6 billion, which is a $3 billion increase
over the Bureau's original estimate, and significant
operational uncertainties lie ahead.
For example, with respect to design innovations, to help
control costs while maintaining accuracy, the Bureau will use
new procedures and technology for 2020, including greater use
of automated data-collection methods; administrative records in
place of data collected by enumerators; verifying most
addresses using aerial imagery and other in-office procedures
rather than by going door to door; and allowing households the
option of responding to the Census via the Internet.
These innovations show promise for controlling costs, but
they also introduce new risks, in part because they have not
been used extensively, if at all, in early numerations. As a
result, testing is essential to ensure that key IT systems and
operations will function as planned. However, citing budgetary
uncertainties, the Bureau scaled back operational tests in 2017
and 2018. Without sufficient testing across a range of
geographic locations, housing types, living arrangements, and
demographic groups, operational problems can go undiscovered,
and the opportunity to refine procedures and systems could be
lost.
Another risk factor is the reliability of the Bureau's 2020
life cycle cost estimate. In August 2018, we found that,
although the Bureau had taken steps to improve its cost-
estimation process compared to prior iterations, it still
needed to implement a system to track and record variances
between actual and estimated cost elements. The Bureau plans to
release an updated version of the cost estimate sometime this
spring. To ensure that this and any future versions reflect
best practices, it will be important for the Bureau to
implement our open recommendations.
In short, while the Bureau and the Department of Commerce
have taken important steps to keep preparations for the
decennial on track, additional steps are needed. For example,
over the past decade GAO has made 97 recommendations to help
address risks facing the 2020 Census. The Department of
Commerce has generally agreed with these recommendations and
has taken actions to address many of them. However, as of April
2019, 24 of the recommendations have not been fully
implemented.
Going forward, to help ensure a cost-effective head count
in the months ahead, continued leadership attention and strong
congressional oversight will be needed to help ensure that the
Bureau implements our open recommendation; that key components
and systems work as required; that preparations stay on
schedule; and that management functions follow leading
practices.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I will now turn it over
to my colleague Rick Marinos, who will discuss the risks facing
the Bureau's IT and cyber efforts.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Director Marinos, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Marinos. Thank you.
Chairman Serrano, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member
Aderholt, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting GAO to discuss the Bureau's efforts to prepare for the
2020 Census.
As Robert mentioned, our most recent high-risk report
highlighted a number of IT-related challenges, these included
IT systems readiness and cybersecurity. To sum up where we
stand today, significant work still remains for the Bureau to
address these challenges prior to the 2020 Census.
Starting with systems readiness. The Bureau plans to rely
heavily on IT for the 2020 Census, including through using over
50 systems across different stages of Census operations. Many
of these systems will be deployed multiple times in order to
add needed functionality over the course of 16 operational
deliveries planned by the Bureau.
Last fall, the Bureau delivered the first group of systems
to support early hiring and training, and the next 4 months
will see key testing and production deadlines for many
additional systems. However, our written statement notes that
the Bureau is at risk of not meeting near-term system
development and testing schedule milestones for two upcoming
operational deliveries. These include deliveries that support
address canvassing, which is intended to verify the location of
housing units across the country, and Internet self-response, a
new innovation that the Bureau intends to rely on for a
significant portion of responses to the census. The Bureau
needs to closely monitor the risks associated with the systems
that support these two important census activities in order to
ensure that they are all delivered on time.
Regarding cybersecurity, the Bureau has efforts underway to
assess the security of its systems and identify weaknesses that
need fixing. To the Bureau's credit, it has established a risk-
management framework that requires it to conduct a security
assessment for each system expected to be used for the 2020
Census and to address any security vulnerabilities identified
through the course of testing.
We are encouraged that, in addition to performing its own
assessments, the Bureau is coordinating with the Department of
Homeland Security on cybersecurity issues. Through assessments
conducted over the last 2 years, DHS has made 17
recommendations aimed at improving the Bureau's cybersecurity
posture and strengthening its ability to respond to potential
cyber threats. These internal and external assessment
activities and their findings are critical, especially since
the majority of the Bureau's systems that will support the 2020
operations contain personally identifiable information.
However, our written statement calls for significant management
attention by Commerce and Bureau leadership in order to ensure
that security deficiencies are not only identified, but
corrected.
Specifically, we are making two recommendations today. The
first calls for the Bureau to address its security to-do list
in a timelier manner. Recent data indicates that the Bureau has
been challenged in meeting its self-prescribed time frames for
taking corrective actions for security weaknesses, including
those it designates as high or very high risk. Resolving
identified vulnerabilities within these time frames can help
reduce the risk that unauthorized individuals may exploit
weaknesses to gain access to sensitive information in systems.
The second recommendation calls for the Bureau to improve
its process for tracking and completing corrective actions in
response to DHS's assessments and recommendations. At the
present time, the Bureau has yet to fully establish such a
formal process.
The bottom line is that the security-assessment efforts
conducted by DHS and the Bureau itself will only be as valuable
as the security fixes that the Bureau fully implements.
In summary, we are running short on time before key census
operations begin. Moving forward, it will be vital for the
Bureau to devote enough time and effort to complete IT system
development activities and address identified security
weaknesses in a timely and prioritized way.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Director Dillingham, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, there is a greater degree of uncertainty with regard
to the administration of the 2020 Census than any decennial
census I have dealt with. We are currently waiting for the
Supreme Court to determine the legality and constitutionality
of the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 form, but
the Bureau has had to continue preparing for the 2020 Census
regardless.
My understanding is that you essentially have two versions
of the 2020 Census ready to go for printing; however, what is
less clear to me is whether your outreach, communications, and
partnership activities also have two parallel paths.
Question: what is the Bureau doing to prepare for the
Supreme Court's decision? You have different strategies for
deployment depending on results and can you share those changes
with us today?
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
update you and I appreciate the concerns about uncertainties
surrounding the decennial census in some quarters and in the
media, et cetera.
I can assure you that--you asked if we had two different
plans, for printing purposes in the beginning of July, we do.
We have two systems ready to go as to which questionnaire will
be printed, but after that we have a process in place and an
execution plan that will proceed regardless.
Now, one of the issues, as you have pointed out and as
Committee Chairwoman Lowey has pointed out, is what about there
could be a question on citizenship in there and how might that
impact. And we are conducting a study this summer, the results
will be available in October, for just the purpose of
operational needs. So as a result of doing a survey of 480,000
households, half with the question and half without, that will
better inform us as to any particular needs for deploying our
resources.
You mentioned how we are preparing for the census overall.
We have an extensive campaign and I would be glad to brief you
and other members of the committee, but one element that I want
to bring to your attention is our communications plan and our
integration with partnership.
We are going to deploy almost twice as many partnership
specialists into the communities, particularly the hard-to-
reach communities, and our targeting messages with the campaign
will be to reach the hard-to-count populations. So we have a
number of subcontractors creating messages specifically for the
hard-to-count populations.
Mr. Serrano. But there seems to be, unless I heard it
wrong, a contradiction here that Mr. Marinos, Director Marinos,
tells us that he is concerned or his department is concerned
that you are not moving fast enough to take care of some needs
within the Bureau for the Census and then you tell me that you
will be ready to deal with whatever decision the Supreme Court
hands down; isn't there a contradiction there?
Mr. Dillingham. We don't see a contradiction, Mr. Chairman,
but an explanation. You know, the GAO has over time and for a
number of years been monitoring and presenting progress
reports, and we are very pleased that they have done that. We
are also pleased with the Inspector General, with the Congress
and others, and the Department leadership. We have a number of
people looking over our shoulders as to where we are.
Now, most recently, in today's testimony the GAO has
highlighted four specific areas which were mentioned in their
comments, and that is the areas of innovations and some of the
challenges there with implementing IT, with making sure we have
the cybersecurity safeguards, and also in our cost estimates
and cost-control measures.
The first--when we were placed on the high-risk list, which
was deservedly so, this is one of the largest projects, one of
the largest hirings of civilian employment since World War II
and it happens every ten years, as you are well aware from
prior censuses. This is a mammoth operation, it deserves
special scrutiny, and it deserves the resources that are needed
to get the job done.
So, yes, we are on the high-risk list, I expect we will be
on there until we complete this census, and every census will
probably be on the high-risk list. That being said, the five
things, the areas of improvement the GAO previously pointed out
with the leadership, with the capacity, with the action plans,
with the monitoring, and with demonstrating results, they say
that we have made substantial progress and on the leadership
they said we have met those needs.
Now, today we are still focused on continuing needs. The
four that I pointed out with the innovations, this will be the
most innovative census by far; it is a sea change from prior
censuses. We will be collecting most of the information during
this census electronically, that is a major change. It has
always been on paper, a substantial amount will still be on
paper, but we are collecting information by the Internet, by
phone, and our enumerators will have electronic devices.
So it will be more efficient and there will be challenges,
and there are challenges, we are meeting those challenges. We
have identified more than 26,000 tasks as a part of this census
with tens of thousands of relationships. Nevertheless, we
monitor on a weekly basis more than a hundred of those critical
tasks and activities. And we do color-code it, as GAO points
out, some are in yellow and actually we have sometimes some in
red. So that is a process by which we look at all these
important tasks. We give them a green or shades of green and,
if it needs management attention, we put it in yellow. And if
it is more than 9 days late--and this has been going on for
several years--we put it in red to make sure we get the people
and the resources assigned to that particular need.
So we are very pleased. We are going to be busy, we are
going to be fulfilling these needs, we are going to continue to
make progress up until the completion of the census, but there
is a lot of work yet to be done, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I want to stop here, because I want
to let Mr. Aderholt ask his questions, so that we can move to
our chairwoman, because I know she has got 12 committees to
attend.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. I will defer to her if she needs to--I know
she has got a lot of committees to go to, so I will defer.
Mrs. Lowey. You are so gracious.
Mr. Serrano. Bipartisanship at its best.
Mrs. Lowey. Oh, my goodness.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Serrano. You realize you made me look very bad, right?
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Lowey. I really do appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Oh, you don't have a clock. I was saying I will make sure I
stick to my time.
Thank you again to the panel for appearing before us, and
this is really so important and very exciting to know what you
will be doing electronically. I hope that a great percentage of
the people can understand how to use the electronics you are
offering.
I want to get back to the citizenship question again,
because, as a career statistician and you are an expert, you
must be concerned that Census is asking the citizenship
question, which has not been asked of the entire nation in
nearly 7 zero, 70 years, are you worried? Are you worried that
in the current political environment this question could have a
very negative effect on the 2020 Census count, especially in
places like New York where the chairman and I are very well
aware of these challenges? Could you give us a straight answer
about this?
Mr. Dillingham. I certainly will, but let me first of all
mention--you mentioned New York and I had the opportunity last
week to visit areas of New York City and to visit four
districts, including your own--both the chairman and your
districts. I very much appreciated meeting with your staff
there. We also visited other members of this committee and some
not on this committee, we visited their districts.
What we looked at in those districts were the hard-to-count
populations. As you pointed out, there are--you have a very
diverse district----
Mrs. Lowey. We sure do.
Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. And you do have hard-to-count
populations. Now, in your districts, your self-response rate is
higher than the national average, and that is a good thing, but
there are pockets, there are tracts within your district. And
we track them, we have them on our website, and we during the
census will have that in real time, you can look at these
tracts and see how they are responding.
So, even though you are above average overall in your
congressional district, some of those areas are less than half
that. So what we are trying to do is get our resources and our
partnership specialists and to work with your partners to make
sure we reach those populations.
And I will say that I have seen the list of your partnering
organizations. The chairman has, I must say, the longest list
so far, but it is changing daily. And one Member who is not on
this committee was so pleased with the length of her list that
she said she may be speaking with you for a healthy
competition, and we would welcome that.
But we cannot perform this census without these
partnerships, without the people from your communities in New
York and other jurisdictions, they are the key. So we are going
to be partnering with them and partnering with them in many
different ways.
On the citizenship question, part of that is really, the
manifestation of concerns is, will it reduce the response rate
and will we perhaps not be able to count everyone. We are
designing some of the best media campaign, some of which are
located in New York City, at least the national headquarters,
who know those communities. We have some of these
subcontractors that know the various communities. And we will
have partnership specialists from those communities and, where
English is not the primary language, they will be speaking
those languages.
So, yes, we have a plan in place and, yes, we intend to
carry it out. And we are focused, laser-focused on reaching
those hard-to-count populations such as in your area. So, if a
population feels particularly that the question causes them
concern, we want to address it and we want to address it as
soon as possible and right out front, and we are going to do
that and to a large extent through our media campaign.
We need everyone to understand that the census is easy to
complete, that it is safe to complete. We do not release any
information except aggregate data; we release numbers. So there
should be no fear among individuals completing the census,
because at the end of the day we have aggregate numbers for
geographical areas.
Mrs. Lowey. May I interrupt at that point----
Mr. Serrano. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. [continuing]. Because I am really puzzled and
this is a serious question.
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Mrs. Lowey. So if you have a building with 20 apartments in
it and the person who is helping you, you said you are dealing
with all kinds of people, know that in 50 percent of those
apartments they are not citizens. OK, but they should be
counted for the census, but they are not citizens. Is there
going to be a process where someone says, look, OK, ten of
these apartments, they are not citizens, who are they?
I am puzzled at how somebody could feel comfortable being
interviewed if that material is going to this Administration
with the citizenship question.
Mr. Dillingham. Sure.
Mrs. Lowey. And certainly, as Chairman Serrano and I know
in New York, we depend--we give more money to Washington than
we get from Washington, we need the money. So I just want to
know how will the process work?
Now, many of these people may have access online, but if
there are follow-ups, one of your assistants will say, huh,
there are 20, whatever I said, 30 apartments in this building,
half of them are not citizens, what is the next step? What is
your responsibility?
Mr. Dillingham. Chairwoman Lowey, when we met with your
staff, we were lucky enough to meet with some of those partners
and some of those local government officials. We went through
the neighborhoods in your district, we found exactly those--we
saw some of the New York City Housing Authority complexes. We
were told that in some instances those people may not be
citizens, we were told in some instances there will be more
than one family per unit in those complexes. There are
challenges and that is why we are going to devote all of our
resources and talents, but more importantly working with the
partners in your community to ensure that we understand that
complex, that we know who the trusted voices are, and that we
have----
Mrs. Lowey. Excuse me for a minute, because I don't want to
take advantage of your generosity in giving me the time. I know
you are very kind and I know you are going to use all the
partners. What is your responsibility regarding citizenship?
You have a building, you have someone helping you who knows
everyone in that building, they also know 50, 60 percent may
not be citizens; what can you do, what do you do, what ought
you to do with that information?
Mr. Dillingham. Chairwoman, we are ordered to take a count
and we are going to do everything that we can to ensure people
self-respond----
Mrs. Lowey. To take a count----
Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. To take a count of those
people----
Mrs. Lowey. [continuing]. Not pass that information on to
some other authority. Let's face it, that is the concern.
Mr. Dillingham. Exactly. That would be a legal violation
and, if I was to prove that, I would go to prison, and if
anyone in the Census Bureau does it they are subject to fines
and imprisonment.
Mrs. Lowey. So let me repeat it, because I think this is
the key question that we are worried about in many of our
communities. You go to a building, and I am sure you have been
to Port Chester, Tarrytown, several of those communities, you
know or the person who is helping you know that 50 percent--I
am just saying--of the people there are not citizens. You are
just interested in the count of the number of people there, you
are not directed, you have no order, you have no responsibility
to report to anyone, Secretary Ross, how many people are
citizens and how many are not; is that correct?
Mr. Dillingham. That is exactly correct, except for the
fact that we encourage everyone to complete all the questions
on the form.
Mrs. Lowey. I know that, but if a person is a non-citizen
in a building, whether there are 50 percent, 30 percent, 20
percent--and there have been pickups by ICE in these
communities--your responsibility is to count the numbers and
you have no order or directive based on information you have
gotten by responsible leaders to report to Secretary Ross how
many people did not respond to the citizenship question and,
based on your advice or assistance, 50 percent are not
citizens, you have no directive to do that?
Mr. Dillingham. You are exactly correct, Chairwoman.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Serrano. And before I go to Mr. Aderholt, please
forgive me for this, but I can't pass this up.
So we know that you are not supposed to give information
out by law, but there is a reason for putting that question
there. On down the line, it will give us a lot of information
about who we are as a people; what we look like, where we come
from, how many of us were born overseas, how many were born
here. Why do I fear that at some point you would also say X
amount are not citizens and X amount are undocumented, which
you are not supposed to do in the Constitution, regardless of
what the court does now, they may have to rewrite that part of
the Constitution to just count the people amongst the states,
nothing else.
So you are telling her--and I want this on the record again
and then I will close--that you have no instructions, the
Census Bureau, to take citizenship question information and
pass it on to the Administration or to someone else?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly correct.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Director Dillingham and Associate Director Smith, I will
direct this question to you all. Unfortunately, about 80
percent of the 24 million American households don't have
reliable, affordable, high-speed Internet that live in rural
areas, and it is easy for individuals who reside in cities and
suburbs to overlook the fact that many of our rural
communities, particularly in my home state of Alabama, still
lack broadband Internet technology, whether it is to educate
their children, expand their businesses, whatever the case may
be, and not to mention respond to a census.
Can you talk a little bit about what you are doing to
really concentrate on those rural areas where there is no
Internet technology and how you can make sure that you can have
those accurately counted?
Mr. Dillingham. Ranking Member, thank you for that
question, it is an excellent question. We do have special plans
for rural areas and we consider them part and parcel with the
hard-to-count areas. So if people, residential areas do not
have much connectivity, we have a separate process by which we
process the collection of the data, and that is that we have a
process where in the first instance we have about five contacts
we make with these people by mail, but we will send out in the
first instance--if connectivity is low, we will send out a
letter and instructions along with the census form.
So in the other areas, in the other 80 percent of the
areas, we typically wait until the fourth contact, because we
encourage people to go online or get on their phone and to
answer the census, but we do it in those areas, those special
areas where we provide the form up front and then again, on the
fourth contact, we give them the form again. But, in addition
to that, we also are educating the people and notifying in the
correspondence and through our partnership specialists, as well
as through our media, that they can make a phone call. And in
many of those areas they have access to phones or they know
people who do have access to phones, so they can answer the
census by phone.
And then, finally, we have the non-response follow-up. So
if we don't get responses by the Internet, if we don't get
responses by phone, if we don't get the written responses, then
ultimately we do send people out and they will knock on doors.
So that is the more expensive way of getting the information
and contacting them. So we expect that people with limited
connectivity that we will reach--we will collect much of that
information electronically regardless, but we will encourage
and we will do the follow-up needed to make sure we reach them.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, all of us as Members, we talk to
groups, you know, constantly, whether they be groups from our
constituencies that are in Washington or back in our districts
that are talking to different groups, what can we do to help in
this regard? Not just in regard to those who do not have
Internet, but just in general.
Mr. Dillingham. Well, there are a couple of things. And
one, as a Member of Congress, we will be distributing some kits
to your offices on how congressional offices can particularly
be of assistance and how they can work with the partnership
groups more closely, but most importantly is really the public
message that completing the census is easy. You have got three
ways now, very easy; if you do have the Internet access, you
can do it by phone, or you can do it in the traditional written
form.
So that is the first time, this is the first time where
most of the information that we will be collecting is going to
be collected electronically, and stored and transmitted
electronically, and protected electronically. But the easiness
is a very important message.
The safety, particularly as the chairwoman and as the
chairman here have pointed out, there is a concern about
possible fears in the community, we want to make sure they
understood the dialogue that we just had is that this
information is protected, only for statistical purposes will it
be used, it will not be shared with other agencies, and their
identities, the confidentiality will be protected in a number
of ways, and some ways are brand new ways with the latest
technologies that we might discuss with you later. But it is
easy, it is safe, and then it is important.
We also want to encourage, the theme of this year's
campaign is ``Shape your future, start here.'' So you will see
that in the creative media commercials, you will see it in
print, you will hear it on the radio, you will see it in the
social media. ``Shape your future, start here.'' So we are
encouraging people to know and the stakeholder groups to
understand how important these data are. We are going to need
to reinforce that message that it is in their interest, it is
in their community's interest, it is in their group interest,
community interest, and many of the partners that we have are
spreading that word.
We are working with the libraries across the Nation, they
are going to be assisting, they are going to make their
computers available. So in some of those areas that may be more
remote, there is usually at least a library in those areas, and
the libraries of America are going to be our partners.
So there are a number of ways we are going to reach those
people and encourage. And the message that I would leave is,
again, the simplification; easy, safe, and important. And that
is kind of the theme that we are reinforcing.
Mr. Aderholt. You mentioned these kits that you will be
distributing to Members of Congress----
Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. When will those be available?
Mr. Dillingham. My understanding is within a matter of
weeks, it could be a month or two, but I will be checking into
that. I have asked that question and it will be in relatively
short order, this summer you will----
Mr. Aderholt. And, again, these kits will help us do what
now?
Mr. Dillingham. They will help congressional districts to
help organize, work with the partners; they will also tell you
more about what we have online and on the website, how you can
track your districts and you will know the tracts that are
hard-to-count populations. So you can just go right online and
see that in my district I have these tracts that where the
self-response rate is lower than my district, and you can make
special efforts in those areas. But our partnership specialists
will be working with you on that and our media campaign will be
devoting resources directly to that.
Mr. Aderholt. And I understand this is the first time that
the questionnaires for the census will be electronic and not
paper; is that correct?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, you have the option, you have the
options. You can certainly do it by paper, if that is what you
would like to do----
Mr. Aderholt. But, historically, it has always been paper,
right?
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct, that is correct.
Mr. Aderholt. So this is the first time that it won't be--
--
Mr. Dillingham. The first time the Internet and the phone
will be used.
Mr. Aderholt. Has there been any discussion about backup on
paper, so when this in the future is studied--when it is
released--of course eventually, after how many years is it,
that you can--70 years or----
Mr. Dillingham. Seventy two years.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Seventy two years, you know,
obviously we are seeing results from 72 years ago now, but this
will be very important to look back for historical reasons. Is
there any--has there been any that this will be backed up on
paper?
No paper copies are stored. The Census Bureau works with
the National Archives and Records Administration to ensure
records are stored in a format that is retrievable in the
future.
Mr. Dillingham. I could--I am not certain. Let me get back
to you, but I don't know what the printed products might be
with the actual data, but we have the electronic data. I
haven't been briefed exactly if we are going to be storing that
information in another form.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, the reason I ask that, in 72 years, I
have a feeling the electronics they will use then will be
different from what we use today.
Mr. Dillingham. Exactly.
Mr. Aderholt. So, you know, I think it is--you know, I am
thinking from a historical standpoint now, not from----
Mr. Dillingham. I can assure you, the Census Bureau, as the
Nation's largest collector of data and information, will have
ways that people will be able to access and even the electronic
data will be able to access. But let me ask our CIO if he may
have some other insights on this.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
Mr. Smith. Yes, good morning. I just wanted to add that
within technology changes and backing up of electronic data,
there are absolutely migration paths to use the more modern
technology. So electronic records have been stored for long
periods of time, 70 years, 90 years are some of the
stipulations people have, and there are technology ways to move
from old technology to new technology to keep that data
electronically archived to the right period of time.
Mr. Aderholt. All right, thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Good morning, Dr. Dillingham. Can I follow up,
please, on my committee and subcommittee chairs' questions on
citizenship, but not only citizenship, because you have assured
us that information will not be shared and I take by that that
you are referring to individual information; however, the
census does report its results.
Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
Mr. Case. And so, therefore, if you ask a citizenship
question or any other question for that matter, ethnicity,
income, there is a report, a public report of that information.
So there will be a public report, I would assume, at some level
if the citizenship question is on the census of where people
are or are not citizens; correct?
Mr. Dillingham. We will have aggregate data that sometimes
will be geographic, that is correct.
Mr. Case. Okay. And so my question then is, how granular is
that aggregate data? Do you report down to the tract level or
do you report lower than that?
And where I am obviously going with this is, okay, fine,
you talk about the individual data not being available;
however, at some level, there is a pretty good interpolation of
the data reported to make inferences as to some level of
specificity, and I am wondering how specific that is and what
the policy judgments are behind that specificity, and the
consequences.
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, that is an excellent question,
and things are changing in that regard. There is an interest
and there are some people, particularly researchers and other,
that want the most granular data possible. And we collect data
by the blocks, we aggregate blocks, and then we have tracts.
One of the new protections we are putting in place as a
result of our research was that we do not want in the future
people with great computer capabilities and with other data
sets to try to match the data and try to figure out and
identify individuals. So one of the tradeoffs that we have in
protecting data, and we call this disclosure avoidance, is that
we actually inject noise into the data at the lowest levels. So
that that data at the lowest level, perhaps at a block level,
will not be accurate at that level, but when you aggregate the
data at a certain level it will have increased accuracy.
Mr. Case. Okay, so let me just cut to the chase here. At
what level do you actually report the results, is it at the
tract level? So, in other words, X tract somewhere in Y state
has 20 percent non-citizens in it, what level is that at?
Mr. Dillingham. My understanding is that we are focused on
the tract level, but exactly the format by which and in the
units by which it will be tabulated I would have to get back to
you. But it is a change from past practice and we do have some
data users that have legitimate concerns that they will not
have the granularity that they once had.
Mr. Case. I do understand the tradeoff, so--and by the way,
I am not making a policy judgment, at least in these questions,
about citizenship or anything else, I am just trying to
understand what is that tradeoff.
And, following up on that, have you considered with a
question as controversial as citizenship--and there are two
sides to that argument--have you considered injecting more
noise at a higher level for a particular question that is a
more sensitive question, so that it cannot be traced back with
such granularity as, for example, I can look up the last census
and identify with some specificity how many Japanese Americans
are living in Y tract in downtown Honolulu. Have you considered
elevating the noise to a higher level than tract to address the
concerns over the misuse of this data--public data, by the way?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, we haven't made a
determination yet as to the level. We are still continuing to
study it with some of the best minds in the country and we can
get back and advise you of where we are in that process, but as
of yet we have not decided. We view it somewhat as a dial and
you have to set the dial on a certain level of protection.
And the intent here and the reason we are doing this and
employing the newest and best techniques from high-tech
industry and from academics is just for that purpose of
protecting people for any question identifying individual
answers to those things, but we will have aggregate data for
some geographical area that will reflect answers to the
questions.
Mr. Case. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for making time to be with us this
morning and to speak before this committee. Of course, as been
said I'm sure multiple times in my absence, we are almost
exactly one year to the date from the next year's census. And I
am sure you are aware Alabama is a state that has some concerns
that we could potentially lose a congressional seat which has
more than just the obvious implications. I mean, as you can
see, you have already talked to my colleague from Alabama, you
have two of us sitting up here this morning. And so I just want
to highlight the census and its future outcome further.
In the 2010 Census, Alabama did not do as good of a job as
we could for accounting for all of its people, especially our
youngest population, children below the age of six, but
particularly in rural communities. So we have to make sure that
that is not the case again in next year's count.
And I know Mr. Aderholt already talked about the issue of
rural Alabama, rural America, and my understanding is that
there will be a strong focus on advertising and the use of
social media platforms to get the word out regarding the
census. But you need to know, rural America doesn't always have
access to social media platforms, because they don't have
access to broadband, which is going to be a challenge in order
to make sure that folks are aware of what is going on.
So I just want to give you the opportunity to talk about
what methods do you have to build in to make sure that these
rural areas get the message and particularly those that may not
have access to the Internet or to social media platforms, what
is the plan?
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you very much for that question,
Congresswoman, and I do note there is a joinder of interest
with the other member here in this area.
So, we had a previous discussion on the rural areas and
some of the challenges. You correctly point out that the
undercount of children is a major concern. That is a hard-to-
reach population, and we are doing a number of things both,
nationally and locally, and working with our partners.
I have meetings this afternoon, as a matter of fact, with
The Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, who has been
leading in this area for making sure we remedy the undercount
and potential undercount of children. We are working with
partners everywhere, the medical community, the pediatrics
associations. Just on Sunday morning, the deputy director was
over in Baltimore at Pediatrics Association meeting and they
are very interested in what they can do.
We have Statistics in Schools program where we are working
with the educational communities. We are trying to educate from
a variety of perspectives, particularly the importance of
counting children in households. And it is using that
population, it is very difficult. There are nontraditional
family structures these days and sometimes, without any
intention whatsoever, we are getting an undercount because the
children may be with the grandmother or a trusted family friend
and they may not consider them their children, so they don't
count them.
So we are training our enumerators and we are training
others to make sure we get a complete count, particularly with
the undercount problem with children, up until age 5--that is a
particular concern--but there are other communities and,
certainly, the rural areas, as we mentioned, we are going to
use all the media we can, the radio, et cetera, so even though
the television coverage may be limited in some areas, we want
to use the radio.
We do use the social media, but as you say, if the
connectivity is low, we have to have other ways to reach them.
We do that through our partnerships. So, we have an integrated
campaign with our media and our partners. So, we have almost
double the number of partnership specialists. We should have--
we will have partners in every state and there will be
partnerships, numerous partnerships reaching every
congressional district. And when we send out the tool kits and
stuff, it will explain this in greater detail.
Mrs. Roby. And just lastly--and I appreciate your answer
and I hope you will keep us posted on any additional
developments there--but Alabama and other states across our
country have been beaten with hurricanes and tornados and other
powerful storms. There has been flooding throughout the Midwest
and fires throughout California. So, what is the Census Bureau
as it relates to make sure that those displaced from their
homes as a result of a national disaster being included in next
year's count?
Mr. Dillingham. Again, Congresswoman, that is an excellent
question. I know there is a particular interest with Puerto
Rico and we have special procedures we are going to implement
where we reach and we verify the address. Physically, someone
will go to those residences, they will verify the address, and
they will also leave information for completing the census,
including the census form. So, we call that update leave. So,
that is where we have people that actually go to every address.
There is such an area in Florida. There is one in
California that was subject to the terrible fires in
California. And should something else occur between now and
during the collection of that information, we will have that
resource available.
Mrs. Roby. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, again, for being
here.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panel
for being here today. I appreciate your cooperation.
Dr. Dillingham, do you agree that the key to an accurate
and successful census is making sure every single person is, in
fact, counted?
Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely. That is our number one goal.
Mr. Crist. And do you agree that minority, immigrant, low-
income, and rural communities tend to be some of the most
difficult to count, but that those communities often have the
most at stake in the census since the data is used to
distribute federal resources and support programs?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman Crist, we consider the hard-to-
count population our number one priority and we are going to be
working and targeting those populations. And one of the
benefits, as just pointed out with our innovations, is now we
can take the capacity to respond to the census directly into
the community. They don't have to leave the community. They
don't have to go up to a brick-and-mortar office somewhere else
in the city or somewhere else in the area. We want to reach
them directly and through their internet, through their
telephones, et cetera, we hope they will be able to answer. We
will encourage them to answer, working with our partners, from
wherever they are, whenever they want to.
Mr. Crist. Are you going to dedicate additional resources
for that purpose?
Mr. Dillingham. We have almost doubled our partnership
specialists.
Mr. Crist. I don't know what that means.
Mr. Dillingham. Where we have a partnership--well,
partnership specialists, we have almost doubled--but we are
increasing our partnerships. We have national partners. As you
are well aware in Florida, we have a state commission for a
complete count. In the local areas, we have local complete-
count committees, but apart from that, we also have national
partners and we have local partners, and we envision more than
300,000 partners.
So, when I saw a list the other day when I was in New York
City and we are looking at--I don't want to miss the number
here--but there were at least 5 dozen partners already with the
chairman's district where a list that we have, people working
in his congressional district that are already partnering with
us. So, the outreach through the partnerships are so valuable.
I can't stress that enough. Without the partnerships, we would
not be able to nearly as effectively reach those hard-to-count
populations.
Mr. Crist. Okay. Thank you. And you have stated that you
are going to have an advertising campaign to try to make people
aware to not be concerned or frightened or worried about the
census and that it will be easy. I imagine you have a budget
already dedicated for that; how much is that budget?
Mr. Dillingham. Our immediate outreach budget is about a
half billion dollars. It is the largest budget ever. I think
the last decennial census, it was somewhere around $350
million. So, it is a substantial investment and we think it
will prove to be a very wise investment.
Mr. Crist. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I wanted to
ask you, federal agencies rely on the census data to make
decisions about law enforcement, health care, equal employment
opportunities, among other things, and that LGBTQ people have
needs and experiences unique to their communities. LGBTQ
advocates have long pushed for questions regarding sexual
orientation, gender identity to be included on the census.
In 2017, the Census Bureau appeared to propose including
those types of questions in the ``Subjects Planned for the 2020
Census Report.'' Then almost as quickly as the questions were
added, they disappeared. I know this happened before your
tenure began, but in response, the Census Bureau released a
statement calling the LGBTQ inclusion, ``a mistake.''
Do you consider including questions about a marginalized,
vulnerable, and disenfranchised population a mistake,
particularly, if it helps to direct needed resources to the
appropriate locations?
Mr. Dillingham. Congressman Crist, that is a topic that we
work closely with those communities and we have representatives
of those communities on our advisory board. They are also very
prominent members of our stakeholders groups and they are
partnering with us in many different ways.
The working of this decennial census has been decided. It
was decided and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
a few years ago, and so the wording will not change for this
decennial census.
But our outreach to those communities will change. We are
going to make sure that our trusted partners in all of those
communities are working with us and ensuring that their
communities know the importance, as you well pointed out, the
importance of this data. So, the data is important in so many
different ways--not just with government, but even in the
private sector, even in individual decisions and community
decisions. But the particular community, the LGBTQ community,
that information is not collected in this decennial census.
But we do have some changes in the census. We do ask people
about the sex of their spouse, and if it is a same-sex spouse,
they can mark it on the census. But that doesn't resolve the
issues of the future about where might the wording go. I can
tell you that we have a number of people that are studying
this. We will continue to study this. We will continue to work
with those groups and we will look at options and certainly
consider in the future how those questions might be asked.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Ms. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Director Dillingham, you were in Detroit
recently and thank you----
Mr. Dillingham. I very much appreciate that visit and I
appreciate your attending that function.
Mrs. Lawrence. And I appreciate you being there because the
concern that we have, as one of the hard-to-count communities,
and as my colleague had said, being one of those communities
that need it the most, during your visit, you were talking
about the questionnaire assistance centers. I want to know--my
question is, how many locations will there be? How many staff
hours will be devoted? And do you have a plan yet to roll those
out? And when can we expect to receive the plan?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, first let me express my
pleasure with the meeting in Detroit. I learned so much about
Detroit. I learned so much about the hard-to-count areas.
Saturday morning we went on tours of the hard-to-count areas in
Detroit, along with the city officials and partners. We learned
so much.
Detroit has unique residential needs. There is much being
done in Detroit, particularly, the revitalization, but in those
neighborhoods, Detroit, as you well know, is more than 140
square miles.
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Dillingham. It is lost more than a million in
population. It has lost population every census since 1950.
When the manufacturing that kind of dried up in Detroit, it
created unique challenges in those neighborhoods and we saw
those challenges. And we are very pleased to see the partners
and appreciate them educating us to those challenges. Detroit
is--you can argue that every city is unique--but Detroit, going
through a bankruptcy, et cetera, is a very unique city
situation.
Now, the hard-to-reach populations there--and this gets
back to sort of if I have a theme here--is that we want to take
the capacity directly into those communities. When I went
through the districts, the relatively new districts in Detroit,
we saw civic centers that were vibrant. We saw areas where
people got together. There were still active churches and
houses of worship in Detroit.
And we think we need to get the capacity directly to the
people in those communities where they can complete the census.
And we can do it with laptops. We can do it with phones. And we
can do it with partners.
Mrs. Lawrence. So, those community centers will be
officially the assistance centers?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, let me explain that the
Appropriations Committee has asked us to look at two options,
to study two options.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay.
Mr. Dillingham. If we had enhanced resources, where would
we recommend applying them and what's our assessment. When we
looked at the questionnaire assistance centers, we recommended
that we would not be taking action, that it was not feasible.
That by the time you go through the process of getting the
leases, et cetera, a year-long process--a year-and-a-half-long
process, it really wasn't as cost-effective as we would have
hoped.
Mrs. Lawrence. So, we are not going to do them?
Mr. Dillingham. Well, we are going to do--every--we are
going to have partnerships and we are going to have resources
with every library. Libraries across the nation will be open
for business in helping to explain and helping to assist,
including internet use.
We are going to have other areas. We have partnership
specialists in Detroit. We want to beef that up, and we have
the multitude of partners--
Mrs. Lawrence. So, Director, I do want to put this concern.
Mr. Dillingham. Okay.
Mrs. Lawrence. One of the things, using a library, a lot of
our public libraries, especially in the poorer neighborhoods,
have been closed or have limited hours; they are only open so
many days a week. It is important that we create that sense of
energy in those communities.
Now, I didn't know you weren't going to do the assistance
centers, but we need to plan. Because for us to be partners in
those communities, we need to know where they are and how we
support it, and I am concerned about the time. So, we are
rapidly approaching, and so we can't be talking about this.
They should be identified and then we, you know, as a member of
Congress, I can monitor and engage and make sure that I am
being supportive.
So, when will I know where you are a partner and where they
are going to be?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, we delivered a report to the
committee yesterday. My understanding is that it was delivered
yesterday in response to the Appropriations' request on how we
could beef up partnerships if additional resources were added.
So, there is a plan there.
But I can tell you we have an existing plan by almost
doubling our partnership specialists in those communities, but
we did submit to the record--it was requested by Appropriations
that we present a plan on what we would do with partnerships.
And that plan actually conceptually, I think, is very promising
for the circumstances and issues you point out.
Mrs. Lawrence. Again, promising is one thing. I am very
concerned about the presence in the community, I tell you, I
want to see, once we do our work and the funds are approved, I
expect a fast turnaround to identify these communities--places
where you are going to be. And I can't tell you--this leads
into my last point here--is that where are we in the timeline
of being effective?
Because we are far behind the census. That, as a mayor of a
city, I was far ahead--further ahead than I am now. So, I don't
want excuses. I don't want, Well, you know, we don't have a
plan yet, and then I get the pushback from the communities. I
get calls every day that people are so concerned about us not
being able to do a full count.
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, we do have a plan. What I
was referring to was the committee asked us for an additional
plan if other circumstances occurred. The plan--and I think it
was a good evidence, the meeting we had----
Mrs. Lawrence. It was a good meeting.
Mr. Dillingham. All the partners in the communities that
want to work with us, the ones that took us through the city of
Detroit and showed us those special areas, they are going to be
our partners.
On our partnership-specialists hiring, I was informed this
morning that we have over 900 that are either hired or in the
process; they have accepted those jobs. So, out of the 1,501,
we have more than 900 being hired.
That being said, what is important, as you well point out,
is not just having the plan, but it is executing that plan.
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Dillingham. So, we want to work with all the partners
in the Detroit area, as well as all areas, in carrying out that
plan. And as I mentioned, the partners are absolutely
essential, and to the extent we can better coordinate and
assist those partners, the better.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Dr. Dillingham and your staff. Could you explain
to me, why is the information from the U.S. Postal Service not
sufficient to provide you with your base maps and where you
send information on the census?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, the information from the
Postal Office is very helpful, very valuable, but we have to
reach everyone and it actually is not quite sufficient. So, not
only do we use the postal information, there are rural
communities and other locations for which there may be
mailboxes and other things that need to be coordinated. So, not
all residences actually are on the mail list.
As I recall--I could be wrong on this--something like that
87 percent are accounted for by the postal mail addresses, but
we need to--it may be higher--but we need to add to that and we
do add to that. We do aerial surveillance. We do a lot of
different ways to find out where people are living and
sometimes we actually--this morning, someone was discussing
with me in certain areas of the country where people are mobile
where they are living. They are actually traveling in
recreational vehicles and living out of those vehicles. So, we
have to capture them, even where there isn't a mailing address.
Ms. Kaptur. So, driver's licenses are important, perhaps?
Mr. Dillingham. Title 13 tells us that we are to use
administrative data to the maximum extent possible to help
carry out our surveys and our censuses, and so we do that. We
do various datasets and federal agencies share data with us, et
cetera, so we can verify certain essentially information,
including addresses.
Ms. Kaptur. It is good to know, though, that it sounds like
over 80 percent of the households you need to reach would be at
addresses that the Postal Service has, they are very important.
Mr. Dillingham. It may be higher than that.
Ms. Kaptur. They are very, very important in your work.
In past census documents, there were, on the--not the short
form, but the long form, the ability of a family to indicate
its heritage if they chose to do that. Will that be on this
year's census?
Mr. Dillingham. The questions that we have on this year's
census, we do have race and ethnicity--two separate questions--
and we have--there is the ability for people to write in. So,
we have an ``other'' category, and we also have where people
can write in their answer.
Ms. Kaptur. But you are not providing the list--
Mr. Dillingham. No, we provide a list, a relatively
comprehensive list----
Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. But at the same time,
actually--there are some anomalies in the historic research
that sometimes, over time, people actually can change their
race and ethnicity, as to how they report it.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for that statement.
I was looking for--you had in your testimony, you--oh, here
we go. On page 6, you talk about the various organizations you
are partnering with--the Library Association, Boys & Girls
Clubs, Latino Elected Officials. I represent a region where we
have vast ethnic and racial diversity, so I am just going to
tick off some groups and tell me if you think you would partner
with some of these organizations: Albanian, Lebanese, Puerto
Rican--we have many, many--maybe Congressman Serrano already
went over this--I don't know--but as a result of the tragedies
in Puerto Rico, we have many, many citizens moving to Ohio,
literally, thousands, and so, that would be an important
organizational category--Polish, Turkish, Arab-American,
Hungarian. I can't speak for Congresswoman Beatty in Columbus,
but there are several new immigrants from countries in Africa.
And so, I guess my question is, how are you linking to the
national organizations or state organizations that these
individuals belong to? How do you link to them?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, we are doing it in many,
many different ways. Just by way of example, when I was in
Chicago, I went to a focus group where we were discussing the
census with the Polish community in their language. This was a
group, a focus group with people that did not speak English,
but spoke Polish. And so, we have more than 100 focus groups
across the nation where we are looking at these communities and
talking with them.
And sometimes it is very important because in our
instructions and in our outreach media, one word can matter. It
can be that a translator would want to use this word, maybe
with an academic background, but the community may have a
different interpretation of that word. So, only in our
materials in our outreach, but, particularly, in our
partnerships, we invite all of those communities to partner
with us.
So, if there are associations and groups, our partnership
specialists actually will be hiring from those communities. We
are making every effort that we hire people from those
communities, as our enumerators, as well.
Ms. Kaptur. Excuse me, and would you permit the members of
the Ohio delegation, on a bipartisan basis, to give you a list
of the groups they are aware of in Ohio?
Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
Mr. Dillingham. And we will give you further information
how we have engaged in outreach to date, but we would be glad
to work with those groups.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Director, and all of you for being here and
your service, as well. I wanted to sort of piggyback off of
what Congresswoman Kaptur was talking about in terms of
partnering with local organizations, especially in these
communities of color, immigrant communities. It remains
imperative that the Federal Government take its responsibility
seriously and continue to invest and engage in these hard-to-
count communities over the next year. I appreciate you going
around the country. I know that you were in New York last week,
as well, and I thank you for engaging.
I wanted to talk about the partnership plan and where the
Census Bureau is in its hiring process for partnership staff
and are you on track.
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, again, that is an excellent
question. We did experience some delay in setting up the
partnership specialists and bringing them onboard. Within a
month, we will be back on track. We had very ambitious goals.
As I mentioned, this morning I was informed that we had
more than 900 either hired or had accepted the positions. So,
out of the 1,500, we have about two-thirds that will soon be
operational.
But we do have already--and when I did do a tour of the
areas of New York City, including your district, we did have
partnership specialists in place in some of those areas. And as
a matter of fact, I was in a van and we pulled over to the curb
and I spoke for the New York region, which includes New York,
all the way through Maine, I spoke to some 96 partnership
specialists who were on the phone and I was encouraging them
and commending them for the job they are doing.
So, that is a very important area, and we are looking at
other ways to make sure that these partnership specialists are
working with the partners. I was looking--I thought I might
have the list from your district--but I did see a lengthy list
of partners in your area and I am sure--and I am told that list
is growing daily.
So, we appreciate the members of Congress that assisting
and their staffs that are assisting with these partnership
efforts. And it is a good way for both, the Congress to stay
involved with what's going on in their districts, and for these
people to express their opinions about the needs and the
coordination, et cetera.
So, we think we know we devoted more resources to
partnerships than ever before. We think nationally, when we
combine all the partnerships at the national, state, and local
government level, and the community level, that we will have
more than 300,000, which will be a significant increase over
the last decennial census.
But bringing on all those partners also creates work. So,
we will need to coordinate that work and make sure that our
partnership specialists are both, skilled at it and committed
to it, and I think you will find that they are.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I want to echo Congresswoman Kaptur's
request in relation to New York. If we can be helpful in
working with you on this growing list of partnership
organizations.
But I also specifically wanted to find out about the
seemingly lack of language support for native Hawaiians and
Pacific Islanders, as well as Alaska natives and American
Indians, outside of Navajo. We are told that the Census Bureau
is not providing translated-language assistance guides, whether
in print or video, for these communities.
Mr. Dillingham. Well, we are in the process of ensuring--
and some of the translation services, I am not sure they have
completed this yet--but we will offer the census questionnaire
in 13 languages, including English. And that reaches more than
99 percent of the nation's households. But in addition to that,
we will have translated materials in 59 supported languages. I
am told that those materials will represent languages spoken by
2,000 or more limited-english-speaking households.
In addition to that, though, our partnership specialists
are tasked with finding how to reach--if they find these
communities, say it is 100 people in a community with a special
language not covered by the materials and not covered by the
questionnaires, then we will find trusted sources in that
community. If it is sizable enough in some instances,
particularly in tribal areas, we will hire partnership
specialists from those communities. But in the event that we
don't have a specialist that has that language, we will find
someone with that language skill. And so, we have the ability
to contract and hire on a temporary basis, people with those
language skills, once we identify them, and that is part of the
responsibility of the partnership specialists.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And I will just quickly ask the last
part of my questioning. Last year's hearing before the
subcommittee, then Acting Director Jarmin confirmed two things;
one, that unanswered survey questions were marked as ``identity
non-response'' and, two, not answering some questions on the
census survey would not negate the entire survey response, but
responses to answered questions would still be tabulated.
About 2 months ago, Chairman Serrano and I sent a letter
urgency you to publicly confirm that full consideration and
count of household census survey responses will be conducted
regardless of any potential unanswered questions in the form.
We are still awaiting a response to this letter. Do you know
why or what has the commerce secretary instructed officials of
the Census Bureau in relation to this issue?
Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, the deputy director's
observations were correct. I apologize if the committee has not
yet received our response. I had been advised that the response
would be issued in short order recently, we will be getting you
a response on that.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Do you know now, before the letter--and I
appreciate your response.
Mr. Dillingham. The deputy director had a correct answer to
that question.
Ms. Meng. Okay. So, if the citizenship question is added to
the 2020 Decennial Census and it happens to be left unanswered
on the survey, would that survey still be counted?
Mr. Dillingham. I can assure you that we encourage everyone
to answer all questions.
Ms. Meng. Yes.
Mr. Dillingham. But it is the historical practice of the
Census Bureau in all censuses and surveys that we have varying
rates at which questions are answered, and sometimes we can
detect that some answers may not be fully accurate. So, we do
accommodate that. We have some of the best and brightest that
work on resolving that, but we will accept the information
online, on the phone, or on paper that may have some areas that
are not totally complete.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Director, your budget request for the 2020 Census is $6.149
billion, which is significantly less than your life-cycle cost
estimate and does not include a contingency fund that the
secretary had previously asked for. Given the uncertainty and
controversy surrounding this census under this administration,
how can you justify these proposed reductions?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for asking
that question, and let me thank the GAO who is always
encouraging us and pointing out the wisdom in having a complete
and accurate cost estimate. And we do go through the process
and use the procedures prescribed by the GAO, very elaborate
procedures, making sure that our cost estimates are well-
documented, that they are accurate, they are credible, and they
are comprehensive.
As you pointed out correctly, the earlier estimate for the
total cost of the census about at about $12.5 billion and that
was in 2015. The secretary, when he came in, he wanted a re-
examination of that and wanted to make sure that we have
sufficient resources to get the job done.
As a result of that both, the Census Bureau and the
Department of Congress, applied their best talents to that
process and they developed and they reconciled an independent
cost estimate. And that independent cost estimate was $14.1
billion, and then the secretary subsequently, based on his
business experience and business acumen, wanted even that re-
examined and to see if there might be a need for additional
funding. So, there was a $15.6 billion life-cycle cost estimate
that was developed.
And it really was an extension of the independent cost
estimate with adding some additional contingencies and those
contingencies were considered to be the unknowns. What if
something that we can't project happens? An example might be a
natural disaster, something of that magnitude. Would it be
advisable to have funds built into the budget for such a
purpose?
Well, the current budget request is built on the $14.1
billion independent cost estimate that the Bureau and the
Department has agreed to that followed the GAO guidance. Over
time, built on successes and time-tested operations, some of
the built-in contingencies that we had expected did not occur.
So, now we are at the stage of execution. So, now we are
less than a year away. We haven't incurred those contingencies,
yet we still have a little over a billion dollars in a
contingency fund. So, if, as a result of our current research
this summer or other factors, we have to shift some areas of
responsibilities, some priorities, we do have, basically, a
billion dollars in contingency funding and some of that comes
from the carryover funds that this committee has approved for
us.
So, we currently are very confident, based on our
experience and considering the contingencies and rationale
built into the independent cost estimate, that it can get the
job done. So, we can get the job done. We are projecting
getting the job done at $14.1 billion, total life-cycle cost,
built on the independent cost estimate, but it is at a total
figure that was below what had been considered.
So, we haven't had those contingencies. We don't think we
are going to experience those contingencies. We have a
contingency budget that we think can accommodate some
variations in the self-response rate, which is one of the
primary considerations, and that is why the current budget
request is based on and consistent with the $14.1 billion
independent cost estimate.
Mr. Serrano. Well, it is very important, Director, that the
Bureau stay in touch with us and with our staff to let us know
how things are going. Because what we don't want as
legislators, staff doesn't want it, and you don't want is for
people to say we short-changed the census after all the fuss we
made about getting a fair and accurate count. So, please don't
be--I can't believe I am saying this--don't be shy about
asking, OK?
Mr. Dillingham. Chairman, we appreciate that.
Mr. Serrano. I didn't say that.
Director Dillingham, a critical component of adding a new
question to the census is testing it. Unfortunately, a
citizenship question will only be tested for the first time
this summer with results that will come in too late to mitigate
impacts. What is Commerce's plan if the results of this test
conclude that self-response rates in 2020 will be far lower
than what is currently assumed and budgeted for? For that
matter, will the test be cancelled if the Supreme Court finds
that the citizenship question should not be included in the
census?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, we think the test that we are
doing this summer and the research and analytics associated
with it are very prudent, because we want to see if something
that we had not projected occurs in administering the census
with the question, as well as without.
This test will be completed regardless. It is going to
inform us to the future. It will provide very valuable
information. But it is--it does have--it instigated for
purposes of operational needs. If we see area in which we need
to devote more resources, that is what we intend to do.
So, we think it is going to be very valuable to conduct
that research, to use that research to see if we see a need,
and then we have the one-billion-dollar contingency fund that
we can, within certain parameters, accommodate those findings
from that research. If there is some percentage-point drop in
the self-response rate, we have a cushion built into the
contingency funding that we can accommodate that. We are not
expecting anything dramatic outside of those parameters, and so
we think we are on course for doing a complete count.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Goldenkoff or Mr. Marinos, with respect to the 2019
census test, what will GAO be looking for in terms of how this
test and its results can be utilized, given the results won't
be available until October?
Mr. Goldenkoff. We are going to be looking at the rigor of
the test. We have looked at it on its face, and so far, the
methodology appears to have some face validity to it. As Dr.
Dillingham already mentioned, the purpose of the test was to
look to see what the citizenship question, how that might
affect the non-response follow-up workload and some of the
additional operational requirements that might be needed. So,
it will be looking at the results and then we will see how the
Census Bureau is reacting to the results of the test; the
extent to which they are incorporating the results of that test
into their operations.
Mr. Marinos. I would echo Mr. Goldenkoff. I think the one
thing to articulate--and maybe stating the obvious here--is
that the reality is any late changes to a process are going to
introduce risk, so I think it just highlights those high-risk
areas that we have articulated within this area recently.
Mr. Serrano. Director, a question that is not on my list--
my staff hates that when I do that, you know----
Mr. Dillingham. My staff does, as well, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. People, at times, respond to people they know
and they see and they follow. So, will you be, in your
advertising campaign, or will be people that you hire for the
advertising campaign, be willing to look at, you know,
professional athletes, people in the Hollywood community, you
know, Broadway people, just to say, Listen, I am so and so, and
you should be counted.
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, we would like to brief you on
that campaign, where we are, and especially as we have some of
the products to share with you. I can say that a lot of thought
is going into just that.
We do, particularly, with some of our subcontractors that
are focused on hard-to-count groups and special groups, trying
to determine who is the trusted voice for that community. And I
am informed, in various instances, with some of those
communities, they have identified people they think are trusted
voices. Some might be from the--might have a background in
athletics or similar types, that are well- known in those
communities.
At the same time, we have to be very careful with doing
that because sometimes a public persona, the image or
activities can give rise to unknowns in that area. So, it is a
trade-off. We are looking at trusted voices, but, particularly,
in administering our campaign at the local level, we want local
trusted voices as part of our partnership arrangements.
So, the mayors that I have visited with--and I will be
going to the mayors' conference--they have, the ones that I
have talked with, are all onboard for partnering with us. But
the national figures and those associated with certain
communities, we are examining that and I expect there will be
some of that and, particularly, people recognizable in those
communities. I don't want to get into any of those communities
right now, because nothing has been finally settled on.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. I can tell you, for instance, in the
Latino community, Univision and Telemundo, last time, I don't
know if they were subcontractors or what or if they took it on
their own, but it was a huge campaign, where every 10 minutes,
they were telling people, Count yourself, and explaining to
them the importance of it and what it meant and the fact that
that information could not be shared and so on.
Mr. Dillingham. And I think you will be seeing that again
in this decennial census.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Just going back to the budget
question that the chairman asked about. Of course, the
President's budget proposed $7.2 billion for the census for
fiscal year 2020 if I am correct?
Mr. Dillingham. That's right.
Mr. Aderholt. And that was a level that is below the
secretary's estimate of funding needs as of last year. And as
you know, outside census analysts have said it is too low for
the Bureau to complete all its needs in the decade's final
year.
Can you talk a little bit about is that and how you--I know
you mentioned that a little bit earlier--but talk a little bit
more about that in light of the fact that there were some that
census analysts have said that it is too low.
Mr. Dillingham. Ranking Member Aderholt, as I said, we are
on course and we are on budget and we are on schedule and
consistent with the President's budget and the $14.1 billion.
That is no guarantee about the future. Something totally
unexpected and unknown could occur and that is what was built
into that $15.6 billion estimate. There were certain
contingencies. It was called a ``sensitivity analysis'' that
was included that looked at potential increases in wages,
perhaps diminished productivity, and perhaps significantly
diminished response rates. So, the sensitivity analysis, as
well, is in the category that internally we called it the
``unknown unknowns,'' and that was just, in my mind, a consider
it sort of an insurance policy if the unexpected occurs.
We are down to the wire now. We are less than a year away.
We are executing the plan and we haven't experienced the kinds
of things that the unknowns as of yet, and we are very, very
confident that we are on course to complete a full and accurate
count at the $14.1 billion life-cycle cost level.
So, that is kind of where we are, and we are working very
hard. Again, we are on budget. Our operations is consistent
with that budget. So, that is the budget that we are working
under at the present.
Mr. Aderholt. And that includes for the 2020, as well? You
include that in that, as well as----
Mr. Dillingham. Yeah, the--that is correct. That was for
the 2020 Census; that's correct.
Mr. Aderholt. But for the 2020 request for the----
Mr. Dillingham. The 2020 request, I think we had a $6.3
billion request and then we had a carryover of a billion
dollars, so that made it the 7.2, 7.3 figure.
$7.2 billion is the correct amount.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. All right. The GAO, why don't you give
me your thoughts on the budget adequacy request.
Mr. Goldenkoff. You know, we have looked at the budget. We
have spoken to the Census Bureau officials. We think that it is
good that there is a contingency fund, especially the unknown
unknowns. Our focus, too, was on the justification for that
budget with the life-cycle cost estimate; that has been an
ongoing challenge for the Bureau to come up with a reliable
cost estimate.
We have seen some improvements there, so, one of the things
that we were looking for was the extent to which the budget was
actually justified within the life-cycle cost estimate. And so,
now, we have seen that $14 billion that is baked into the cost
estimate, so that is a good thing.
And then in subsequent conversations with Census Bureau
officials, as we have heard today, the director feels that the
amount of money is adequate to conduct a complete and accurate
account.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, regarding the census, let me on my last
question, how do you determine where a person should be counted
if they are, you know, in a transitory location or they are a
foreign citizen that is spending some time here in the United
States for a period of time? How do you go about it in your
calculation of trying to count them?
Mr. Dillingham. Ranking Member, that is an excellent
question, and there is an art to it and a science to it. In
discussing some of those issues recently with the head of our
decennial census, with many years of experience--and I must say
that in conducting the census, we are very honored to have
institutional knowledge, experience, and history, from which we
are building. So, even though, as GAO points out, we have a
number of innovations, we also have a history of what we have
done and how we are doing it.
So, in that regard, the transitory populations, sometimes
it may require a judgment call. But if we know people are here
on a temporary basis, if they are visiting from another
country, if they are a tourist or whatever, we don't count
them; however, at some--you can change the information
somewhat, and if they are staying here and want to stay here
and the time in which they are leaving is indefinite and they
have been here for 6 months or longer, then we are probably
going to count them--where were you on April the 1st, because
you are not giving us any information that you are leaving
anytime soon.
So, a lot of it is a factual determination and we have
guidance and criteria, but that is both, a challenge, and as I
said, there is an art to it, that sometimes we have to seek out
that information.
Mr. Aderholt. So, one of the determining factors is their
intent to reside?
Mr. Dillingham. Intent certainly is very important; that is
correct. But if they have been here, you know----
Mr. Aderholt. Say someone is visiting from another country
and are here and staying here for 6 months doing a research
project and they are here on April 1st.
Mr. Dillingham. If they are absolutely sure they are
leaving and they have been here for--the 6 months bothers me a
little bit because that is most of the year--but if it is
absolutely certain they are leaving and they know----
Mr. Aderholt. Say they were only here for 7 months.
Mr. Dillingham. Well, again, that is a--I would have to
consult with our experts and see how they are doing that, but
they do----
Mr. Aderholt. Say they are here just for the purpose of
maybe conducting a study. They are from--and they are doing a
study, but they obviously don't want to live in a hotel for 7
months.
Mr. Dillingham. Sure. You know, one of the things about the
census is we are counting the people that are living here. So,
at some point, we draw lines. Those lines are not, to my
understanding and the information I have, those are not solid
lines, but they do sometimes require further inquiry as to the
nature of their stay, the length of their stay, and what their
intent is.
Mr. Aderholt. So, they could be counted, then?
Mr. Dillingham. They could be counted if certain facts are
that they have been living here for a significant period of
time and it is indefinite and not sure when they are going back
to wherever they are from.
Mr. Aderholt. So, would they ask that question about their
intent to leave?
Mr. Dillingham. In the non-response follow-up, our
enumerators have a series of questions and they are trained to
ask, professional, those questions, and then the information
will be entered in accordance with their assessment of that
individual's set of facts.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, a question like this makes your job
hard. I mean----
Mr. Dillingham. It does.
Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Because you have people that may
be here for a certain amount of time on April 1st and, you
know, unless you really dig down deep into what they are doing
here and how long they're going to be here and why they are
here, and, you know, there is a lot of----
Mr. Dillingham. There is a lot to it. And, particularly,
when people are, for example, as you are well aware, we have
special circumstances when people are in prison or in certain
group quarters and we have different criteria for all that. And
as I pointed out earlier, if someone is living out of their
mobile home or recreational vehicle, not only do we need to
count them, but we need to assign them a location. And so,
there will be--judgments will be made based on the individual
facts of that circumstance.
Mr. Aderholt. And I have one more question. You mentioned
that you had been to Congressman Serrano's district and met
with some folks in Congresswoman Lowey's district and
Congresswoman Lawrence's district. What the chances that we
will get you to Alabama?
Mr. Dillingham. We are working on that, Congressman. We
have made inquiries and not yet made a commitment as to, and
check the schedules, but we have asked, and we will be----
Mr. Aderholt. Can we work with you on that to try to----
Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely. We will be working with your
office.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Perfect.
All right. I yield back.
Mr. Serrano. I encourage you, as chairman of this
committee, to go to Alabama.
But you know, the ranking member brings up an interesting
question, though. People who know me know that it is very hard
for me to do one hearing without mentioning Puerto Rico, Frank
Sinatra, or baseball. So, there are baseball players who come
here April 1st when the season starts. They stay here it will
September. If they are lucky, they go into October, right? And
some of them do that year after year after year.
Do they get counted here?
Mr. Dillingham. If I understood--and I am not an expert on
the baseball players and the time which they are in the
country--but if they are here for an extended period of time
and they are here on April 1st, I would imagine, especially if
they are here for the majority of the year, they would probably
be counted. But don't hold me to that, because I don't know
if--how hard they are to catch. You know, I don't know if we
can----
Mr. Serrano. That is a nice pun there. [Laughter.]
Mr. Serrano. Some of them are very difficult at catching,
yes. Well, anyway, they show up in February for spring training
and they don't leave till the end of September and some stay
till October. And if you have a good career, you do that single
year, and then you have thousands in the minor leagues in the
same situation.
Mr. Dillingham. Sure.
Mr. Serrano. Just a--not an important question, but a fun
question.
Mr. Dillingham. It is important----
Mr. Serrano. Yes, right.
How does Commerce intend to use the data provided by DHS
for its decennial operation?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, by law,
Congress has provided that we will, to the maximum extent
possible, use administrative data, particularly for, I call it
``quality-assurance activities.'' So, we receive data. We
receive sensitive data. The Census Bureau has special statutory
authorities and we use that data to make sure that our censuses
and our surveys are accurate and complete.
So, the data comes in. The data does not go back. So, if
DHS provides us with data, we will use that data for our
purposes, but we do not send data back to those federal
agencies.
Mr. Serrano. But, you can see where this adds to the issue.
I mean, certain bells go off when you say citizenship question
and other bells go off when you hear DHS will be providing
information to the census. This was going on in prior years by
the census?
Mr. Dillingham. I can't say historically how, but I can say
there are other sensitive data sources where we have the same
issue in this forum. But it is well-known, we have access to
certain Social Security around IRS data for purposes of
verifying our data. But it is a one-way street; that data comes
to us and we use that data for I will call it ``quality-
assurance purposes'' and the data does not flow out.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. So, we don't know if it is been done
before in other censuses?
The Census Bureau has not used microdata records from the
Department of Homeland Security (or the predecessor Immigration
and Naturalization Service) for enumeration in prior censuses.
However, in the prior census the Census Bureau acquired
aggregate data for use in evaluations of the census, including
for the Demographic Analysis Program, which is an evaluation of
census coverage.
However, as the Census Bureau has sought data from many
federal agencies, we are seeking data from the USCIS and other
DHS components for potential use in the 2020 Census. The Census
Bureau acquires and protects data under Title 13, and does not
return or otherwise share these data.
Mr. Dillingham. With DHS, I would have to check to see when
that started.
Mr. Serrano. That is important because some people, if that
gets published a lot--I know there are people here that are
going to publish it right now.
Recognizing you may intend to use the data as
administrative records toward identifying non-citizens'
locations at the block level, wouldn't this exercise eliminate
your need for a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form
altogether?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, the need and the decision to
have the citizenship question is before the Supreme Court. And
what we have to do as an agency and what I have to do as the
director, is not to take a position on the inclusion of that
question, and we are waiting for the Court to decide the
question.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just ask something--this will be my
last question, Mr. Aderholt, if you have any questions--
something I have asked for, for a long time and I have gotten
various answers that all mean no, but if you are an American
citizen living in Puerto Rico--which is almost redundant if you
were born there, right--you would only get counted--you get
counted in Puerto Rico, but you don't get counted in the final
number as to what the population of the United States is. Now,
at the expense of being written up as being anti-immigrant,
which God and every reporter knows I am not, technically, you
could be undocumented in one of the states and get counted in
the final population number, which is correct, but if you are
living in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands, and you won't get counted in the
final number. So, when we say, for argument's sake, the United
States has 350 people--not really; it is got closer to 356 or
57 because those folks don't get included.
Have you heard anything during your tenure there, as to
Serrano's mantra on including everybody under the American
flag?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, I have heard----
Mr. Serrano. Notice how I said it: Everybody under the
American flag should be counted.
There are people in Europe, as you know, that are allowed
to vote in our elections, because they are Americans living in
Europe. I don't know what that arrangement is. I also
understand that they get counted in the census, and yet, they
are not living under the American flag.
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to widen this
line of inquiry, but I have been advised that you have
expressed concerns with the wording of the question for people
in Puerto Rico, how they report their information, and also, I
am now apprised that you are concerned about the tabulation of
it.
Now, on the wording of the question, the information I that
I received was that the current wording of the question was
developed by people that--the researchers that were studying it
to improve the response and that, in fact, it has done that.
That being said, with all our questions, we continuously
revisit our questions to see if improvements can be made. And I
would say the same holds true for the tabulation of our data.
I am not specifically aware, and would be glad to work with
you and your staff, on your concerns with the tabulation, and
whether there are ways that we might be able to be of
assistance or even to reconsider some of those practices. So,
we are very open. We are very open with all of our questions.
We are open with all of our tabulations for areas of
improvement, and I would be glad to work with you and your
staff in looking at that.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I am glad to hear that you are open, but
I think one of the answers we got throughout the years--and I
probably shouldn't tell you this, but somebody will tell you--a
lawyer will tell--was that the Constitution says count people
amongst the states, which speaks to the citizenship question,
right--people, not citizens.
But on the other hand, these are territories, but I am not
sure that when that was written in the Constitution, there were
people thinking ahead to the fact that someday you would have
territories with citizens living in those territories, and
people who are born, as I was, an American citizen. I was born
no different than someone who was born in New York. And my son
was born in New York.
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, again, we will work with you
on that. I can't promise you that if something has
constitutional underpinnings that I am in a position to change
it, but we will look to see what we can do.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. I don't have anything else.
Mr. Serrano. I want to thank you for coming here. As you
know, we pay a lot of attention to the census. All Americans
should. Sometimes I wonder why some folks in some states go out
of their way to--the census and so on, when it actually helps
them if everybody gets counted.
I also understand, unfortunately, that some people have
problems, some people who are not here, documented--I don't
understand it, really, but I understand those feelings that
they have, you know, they have them and that is it; I have to
deal with it--try to change their mind--but they, sometimes,
forget that those folks get counted and that means dollars for
their state. It means congressional districts for their state
and it means other things.
And so, we take this very seriously. We want to help you in
making the best and most accurate count. We are on your side.
Notwithstanding a line of questioning or how we ask you about
dollars and cents, we want this to work and we want it to work
properly. So, we thank you for today.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Serrano. And the hearing is adjourned.
[Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]