[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU
                            OF INVESTIGATION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-32

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                                __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-977                     WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
             
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, July 12, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Ohio.........................................     1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     3

                                WITNESS

The Honorable Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of 
  Investigation
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the 
  Judiciary are listed below.....................................   114

Materials submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for 
  the record
    An article entitled, ``FBI resisted opening probe into 
        Trump's role in Jan. 6 for more than a year,'' June 19, 
        2023, The Washington Post
    An article entitled, ``Showdown before the raid: FBI agents 
        and prosecutors argued over Trump,'' March 1, 2023, The 
        Washington Posts
Materials submitted by the Honorable Adam Schiff, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for 
  the record
    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee 
        on the Judiciary, from David C. Weiss, United States 
        Attorney, June 30, 2023
    A letter to the Honorable Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member of 
        the Senate Judiciary Committee, from David C. Weiss, 
        United States Attorney, July 10, 2023
Materials submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Washington, 
  for the record
    A report from the Director of National Intelligence from the 
        Office of the Director of National Intelligence Senior 
        Advisory Group Panel on Commercially Available 
        Information
    A document from entitled, ``Legal Loopholes and Data for 
        Dollars,'' Center for Democracy & Technology
An article entitled, ``Republican Eyes Sweet Home for New FBI 
  Headquarters in Alabama,'' July 11, 2023, Wall Street Journal, 
  submitted by the Honorable Barry Moore, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Alabama, for the 
  record
Materials submitted by the Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the 
  record
    A tweet by Kyle Seraphin, May 30, 2023
    A response to statement made by a Republican colleague
    A report entitled, ``Strategic Intelligence Assessment and 
        Data on Domestic Terrorism,'' October 2022, FBI and DHS
A tweet from Matthew Foldi dated July 12, 2023, submitted by the 
  Honorable Mike Johnson, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Louisiana, for the record
    A press release entitled, ``31 Individuals Involved in a Drug 
        Trafficking Organization inMarion County and Lorain 
        County Indicted,'' June 22, 2023, U.S. Attorney's Office, 
        Northern District of Ohio, submitted by the Honorable 
        Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on the 
        Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
An email thread discussing FBI SAR product ideas before 
  inauguration day 2021, Jan. 15, 2021, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Harriet Hageman, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Wyoming, for 
  the record
    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee 
        on the Judiciary, from the Honorable Rand Paul, Ranking 
        Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & 
        Governmental Affairs from the State of Kentucky, July 11, 
        2023
    A letter to Susan Ferensic, Assistant Director of Weapons of 
        Mass Destruction Directorate of the FBI, from the 
        Honorable Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member of the Senate 
        Committee on the Judiciary from the State of South 
        Carolina, and the Honorable Rand Paul, Ranking Member of 
        the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental 
        Affairs from the State of Kentucky, April 20, 2023
    A letter to Christopher Wray, Director of the FBI, the 
        Honorable Lindsey Graham, Ranking Member of the Senate 
        Committee on the Judiciary from the State of South 
        Carolina, and the Honorable Rand Paul, Ranking Member of 
        the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental 
        Affairs from the State of Kentucky, June 20, 2023
An image of a text message from Hunter Biden, submitted by the 
  Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Florida, for the record
An email thread discussing FBI SAR product ideas before 
  inauguration day 2021, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold 
  Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from 
  the State of New York, for the record
An article entitled, ``Jan 6 protestor Ray Epps reveals he's 
  forced to live in RV hiding after death threats over FBI 
  informant conspiracy: Feds confirm he's NEVER worked for them 
  as he slams right-wing theorists using him as scapegoat,'' 
  April 24, 2023, Daily Mail, submitted by the Honorable Henry C. 
  ``Hank'' Johnson, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Georgia, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the 
  record
    An article entitled, ``All the Ways Trump, not his foes, 
        sought to `weaponize' the Government,'' July 10, 2023, 
        The Washington Post
    An article entitled, ``A Deeply Ironic Reinforcement of 
        Right-Wing Misinformation,'' The Washington Post
    An article entitled, ``Restricting the Government from 
        Speaking to Tech Companies Will Spread Disinformation and 
        Harm Democracy,'' July 5, 2023, Just Security
    A letter to Chair Jason Smith, Chair of the House Committee 
        on Ways and Means, from Abbe David Lowell, Counsel for 
        Robert Hunter Biden, June 30, 2023

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions to FBI Director Christopher Wray, submitted by the 
  Honorables Ted Lieu from the State of California, Cori Bush 
  from the State of Missouri, Matt Gaetz from the State of 
  Florida, and Andy Biggs from the State of Arizona, Members of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary, for the record
    No response received at time of print.

 
                    OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU.
                            OF INVESTIGATION

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, July 12, 2023

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, 
Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, 
Bishop, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, Cline, Gooden, Van Drew, 
Nehls, Moore, Kiley, Hageman, Moran, Lee, Hunt, Fry, Nadler, 
Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Schiff, 
Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Jayapal, Scanlon, Neguse, McBath, 
Dean, Escobar, Ross, Bush, and Ivey.
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Oversight of 
the FBI. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Gooden, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes himself for an 
opening statement. Eight days ago, eight days ago on July 4th, 
in the Western District of Louisiana, the Court found that the 
Federal government suppressed Americans' First Amendment free 
speech rights. In his conclusion on page 154, the Court said 
this, the judge said this:

        Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing 
        that the Government has used its power to silence the 
        opposition: Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines, opposition to 
        COVID-19 mask and lockdowns, opposition to the lab leak theory 
        of COVID-19, opposition to the validity of the 2020 election, 
        opposition to President Biden's policies, statements that the 
        Hunter Biden laptop was true, and opposition to policies of the 
        Government officials in power. All were suppressed.

    It is quite telling that each example or category of 
suppressed speech was conservative in nature. The court further 
writes, ``the U.S. Government seems to have assumed a role 
similar to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.'' Specific to the 
FBI, the Court said this:

        The FBI's failure to alert social media companies that the 
        Biden laptop story was real and not Russian disinformation is 
        particularly troubling.

    The FBI had the laptop in their possession since December 
2019, and had warned social media companies repeatedly to look 
out for ``hack and dump operation by the Russians prior to the 
2020 election.''
    Even after Facebook, specifically asked whether the laptop 
story was Russian disinformation, the FBI refused to comment, 
resulting in social media companies' suppression of the story 
and as a result, millions, millions of our fellow citizens did 
not hear the story prior to the November 3, 2020, election. 
Additionally, the FBI was included in industry meetings, 
bilateral meetings, received and forwarded alleged 
misinformation to social media companies, and actually misled 
companies in regard to the laptop story.
    When the Court said the FBI misled, that is a nice way of 
saying they lied. They lied, and as a result, important 
information was kept from we, the people, days before the most 
important election we have, the election of the President of 
the United States, election of the Commander in Chief.
    In a survey last fall, four out of five Americans said they 
believed there is a two-tiered system of justice in America 
today. They said that because there is. They said that because 
of what they have witnessed. Think about what Americans have 
seen, National School Board Association, left-wing political 
group writes the White House and asks them to treat parents at 
school board meetings as terrorists. The Garland Justice 
Department does just that. They put together a memo, set up a 
dedicated line of threat communication and a snitch line on 
parents. As a result, parents get investigated by our FBI, get 
a threat tag associated with their name, 25 of them. Because 
whistleblowers came and told us they were investigated by the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    Americans have seen the FBI's Richmond Field Office put 
together a memorandum saying pro-life Catholics are extremists. 
They have seen 20 FBI agents, SWAT team members show up at the 
home of Mark Houck and arrest him in front of his wife and 
seven children, even though he had indicated he would be happy 
to turn himself in. What was he arrested for? Him and his 12-
year-old son were praying outside an abortion facility. Some 
guy starts screaming in his son's face and he did what frankly 
any dad would do, defended his child.
    What is interesting is the National School Board 
Association apologized for the letter, but the Attorney General 
refuses to rescind his directive. The FBI did rescind, thank 
goodness, the Richmond Catholic memorandum, but they refuse to 
tell Congress who wrote it and who approved it. Mr. Houck, when 
he got his day in court, he was acquitted by a jury of his 
peers.
    Americans' speech is censored, parents are called 
terrorists, Catholics are called radicals, and I haven't even 
talked about the spying that took place of a Presidential 
Campaign or the raiding of a former President's home. Maybe 
what is more frightening is what happens if you come forward 
and tell Congress. You are a whistleblower, come tell the 
legislature, come tell the Congress what is going on, look out. 
You will be retaliated against. Ask Garrett O'Boyle. He told 
Congress about these issues. They took his clearance. They took 
his pay. They took his kids' clothes. Ask Gary Shapley, a 14-
year veteran at the IRS. Handled some of the biggest 
international tax fraud cases at the agency. He comes forward 
and the Justice Department kicks him off the case.
    Here is what is truly unbelievable, here is what is 
amazing. With all that history, with all that, the Justice 
Department, the FBI, want the taxpayers they censored, the 
parents they labeled, the pro-life Catholics they call radical, 
they want them to pay for a new FBI headquarters. They want 
FISA reauthorization of the 702 program in its current form in 
the Director's opening statement. I mean you can't make this 
stuff up.
    There are 204,000 reasons why Republicans will oppose FISA 
reauthorization in its current form. Two hundred and four 
thousand times, the FBI improperly searched the 702 data base. 
Unlike the FBI censorship, in the Court's opinion, that was 
focused on conservatives, the FBI's illegal scrutiny wasn't 
just limited to conservatives. BLM supporters were illegally 
scrutinized by the FBI as well. I hope our Democrat friends 
will join us in opposing reauthorization of Section 702 the way 
it is currently done. I think they will. I hope they will work 
with us in the appropriations process to stop the weaponization 
of the government against the American people and end this 
double standard that exists now in our justice system.
    With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York for an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, not that long ago, an oversight 
hearing of the FBI in this Committee would have been a 
relatively bipartisan exercise. My colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle would have asked legitimate questions about the 
functioning and mission of the Bureau. Some of the questions 
may have been tough. Debate may have gotten a little heated 
when we discussed important topics like privacy and 
discrimination. Our questioning would have been grounded in 
advancing and overseeing the FBI's dual missions of enforcing 
Federal laws and countering national security threats on 
American soil. In short, despite our disagreements, we would 
have done our duty as Members of the Judiciary Committee.
    Today, unfortunately, House Republicans will fall well 
short of that mark. For them, this hearing is little more than 
performance art. It is an elaborate show designed with only two 
purposes in mind, to protect Donald Trump from the consequences 
of his actions and to return to the White House in the next 
election. Don't take my word for it. Chair Jordan announced his 
plan last August, just days after the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago. 
He told an audience at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action 
Conference, that the investigation into Trump's wrongdoing was 
designed to

         . . . help frame up the 2024 race and I hope and I think 
        President Trump is going to run again and we need to make sure 
        that he wins.

Let me repeat that. ''We need to make sure that he wins.''
    In pursuit of this goal, Chair Jordan and Committee 
Republicans have claimed for months that the FBI is corrupt, 
rotten, politicized, and their favorite word, weaponized, 
against the American people. Chair Jordan has launched an array 
of baseless investigations into the FBI, most premised on 
absurd conspiracy theories. Some so absurd that the Chair 
cannot possibly believe them to be true. This is where the 
extreme MAGA leadership of this Congress has brought us today. 
Today, House Republicans will attack the FBI for having had the 
audacity to treat Donald Trump like any other citizen. The 
strategy is simple, really. When in doubt, Chair Jordan 
investigates the investigators. The FBI dared to hold Trump 
accountable, so Republicans must discredit the FBI at all 
costs.
    You will hear claims today that the FBI's decision to 
investigate Donald Trump was somehow unfair. You will hear the 
Republicans attack the indictment of former President Trump on 
37 counts related to his gross mishandling of national security 
information, including information regarding defense and 
weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign 
countries, the United States nuclear programs, potential 
vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military 
attack, and plans for possible retaliation in response to a 
foreign attack.
    The facts are made clear in the indictment.

        The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents would 
        put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign 
        relations, the safety of the United States military, and human 
        sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence 
        collection methods.

    Indeed, the indictment goes on to describe how the former 
President made such unauthorized disclosures, with him boasting 
about and showing his classified documents to numerous 
individuals without proper security clearance. You will hear 
claims today that this indictment against Trump was unfair, 
maybe even that it was unlawful. You will hear that the FBI 
should have just asked Trump a little more nicely, one more 
time, to hand over the documents. You will hear that the case 
was a political investigation from the start, orchestrated by a 
liberal-loving FBI that ensures Trump will be wrongfully 
vilified at every turn.
    These claims, of course, are completely untethered from the 
evidence. Even if you believe, as Chair Jordan claims, that 
President Trump has committed no crime, surely we can agree 
that it is dangerous and profoundly irresponsible to have taken 
these documents from the White House and left them unsecured in 
Mar-a-Lago.
    Again, don't take just my word for it, Trump's Secretary of 
Defense Mark Esper said that the former President's handling of 
this information put U.S. service members' lives and the 
national security at risk. Trump's hand-picked Attorney General 
Bill Barr, with whom I agree on very little, hit the nail on 
the head when he described the former President's legal 
troubles as,

         . . . entirely of his own making. He had no right to those 
        documents. The Government tried for over a year quietly and 
        with respect to get them back and he jerked them around. When 
        he faced a subpoena, he didn't raise any legal argument. He 
        engaged in the course of deceitful conduct. That was a clear 
        crime if those allegations are true.

    The former President could have at any time, for months, 
simply returned the documents and avoided prosecution. House 
Republicans do not want to talk about any of that. They seem 
incapable of assigning any agency or responsibility to Donald 
Trump for problems that are Trump's and Trump's alone.
    You might hear today about a man named Steven D'Antuono, 
the former Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field 
Office during the investigation into the documents. Last month, 
Committee Republicans brought him in for an interview and 
shortly after that, Chair Jordan released a letter purporting 
to describe Mr. D'Antuono's testimony. In fact, Chair Jordan's 
summary of Mr. D'Antuono's words are a vast mischaracterization 
of what he actually said. Here is just one example. Chair 
Jordan has claimed that Mr. D'Antuono said he had ``no idea'' 
why the Mar-a-Lago investigation was run out of the FBI's 
Washington Field Office instead of the Miami Field Office. What 
the Chair hides are that just seconds later, Mr. D'Antuono 
explained that ``the venue is here'' meaning Washington, DC, 
for the classified documents, that it was ``not out of the 
ordinary for Washington to be lead office running the 
investigation'' and said that Washington has ``most experience 
and knowledge in working public corruption cases'' and are 
``the experts in classified document investigations.'' Mr. 
Jordan did not share the full record with the American public 
because it does not fit his chosen narrative.
    My staff has worked to have a minimally redacted version of 
Mr. D'Antuono's full testimony release and I urge you to read 
the words for yourself in their entirety. When you compare his 
actual words to Mr. Jordan's characterization, you will 
understand why I feel like this hearing room has become a 
theater. Frankly, that goes for many things that we will hear 
from the Republicans today. You can expect to hear that the FBI 
is retaliating against its conservative employees and has a 
deep-seated conspiracy to support liberal candidates and 
ideology. These claims are based on the words of several 
individuals, people Republicans are somewhat laughably calling 
whistleblowers. In fact, evidence shows that these individuals 
were suspended for violating serious FBI policy. One provided 
an unauthorized interview to Russian State-owned media. Another 
leaked information about an on-going investigation, placing FBI 
agents and witnesses at risk. Another said that he wanted to 
use a senior FBI official as ``target practice.''
    Chair Jordan invited some of these so-called Whistleblowers 
to testify before the Weaponization Subcommittee in May. As it 
turns out, two of the witnesses were ultimately paid $250,000 
each for their testimony, money raised in part by former Trump 
aide Kesh Patel and paid by a check with memo line reads ``for 
holding the line.''
    Yet, Republicans today will try to claim that it is the 
FBI, and not these witnesses, who are somehow corrupt. 
Republicans today will also attack President Biden, starting 
with the IRS investigation into Hunter Biden. They will ignore 
the fact that U.S. Attorney David Weiss had the authority to 
bring charges in any district he saw fit and was able to 
operate fully free of interference. They do not want to 
acknowledge that despite years of investigation, President 
Biden has not been found to have engaged in any wrongdoing. 
Instead, they will try to convince you that Hunter Biden would 
have been charged with far more serious crimes had it not been 
for U.S. Attorney Weiss being blocked by the Biden political 
machine. Once again, when they do not like the outcome, they 
investigate the investigators and work to discredit the 
outcome.
    Republicans will make false claims about the FBI's Foreign 
Influence Task Force, claiming that it is somehow censoring 
conservatives. In fact, the task force plays a key role in 
making sure that Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign 
entities do not again interfere in our elections.
    According to Committee Republicans, the task force's 
efforts to track and prevent foreign influence operations 
amount to attacks and conservative speech, a nonsensical claim 
considering that the Foreign Influence Task Force has nothing 
to do with censoring American free speech and in fact, helps to 
ensure that American voices are heard by stopping Russian troll 
farms.
    Make no mistake, in making these claims, Republicans have 
all but rolled out the red carpet and begged Russia to once 
again interfere in our elections because they believe that 
doing so will get Trump reelected in 2024. That is the goal of 
Republicans today. Republican claims that the FBI has been 
weaponized, their personal attacks on Director Wray, their 
repeated calls to ``defund the FBI,'' these are not victimless 
acts. They are a clarion call to anti-government extremists and 
that call is being heard.
    Last year, Director Wray faced multiple credible death 
threats. FBI employees faced more threats in the months after 
the Mar-a-Lago search than they had in the entire prior year. 
The problem has gotten so bad that the FBI has had to stand up 
an entire new unit dedicated to combating threats to FBI agents 
and staff. It is far past time that Republicans realize the 
consequences of their actions.
    Republicans may want to downplay Trump's behavior and blame 
the FBI for his downfall. No matter what they say, Trump risked 
the safety and security of the United States to remove those 
documents from the White House, then lied to the government 
instead of returning to them. Donald Trump must be held 
accountable and attempts to shield him from the consequences of 
his own actions are both transparent and despicable.
    Ultimately, no matter how many times Republicans attack 
Director Wray or the FBI or the investigation at Mar-A-Lago, I 
trust in the rule of law. Mr. Trump will have his day in court. 
I believe the system will hold him accountable and I thank the 
men and women of the FBI who helped bring the classified 
information to safety and protect the national security of our 
Nation.
    Thank you for being here today, Director Wray. I hope your 
agents will not be disheartened by what they hear today and 
will continue this kind of work essential to the safety of our 
Nation. I thank the Chair and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Just for the 
record, the pronunciation of the former Assistant Director in 
charge of the Washington Field Office is D'Antuono, something 
that the Ranking Member might have known if he had actually 
shown up at the deposition like I did. With that, without 
objection, all other opening statements will be included in the 
record.
    We will now introduce today's witness.
    The Honorable Christopher Wray has been the Director of the 
FBI since 2017. He previously served as the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, 
the principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Associate 
Deputy Attorney General, and as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the 
Northern District of Georgia. Director Wray has also worked in 
private practice at King & Spaulding LLP. We welcome our 
witness and thank him for appearing today. We will begin by 
swearing you in.
    Director, would you please rise, raise your right hand, you 
have done this before. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of 
perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and 
correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief 
so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witness answered in the 
affirmative. Please know that your written testimony will be 
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask 
that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. We will give 
you two extra minutes if you like, Director. Then you know how 
this works. There will be five minutes of questioning and my 
guess is every single member is going to have questions for 
you.
    So, again, thank you for being here, Director Wray. You are 
recognized for your opening statement.

           STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY

    Mr. Wray. Thank you, good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking 
Member Nadler, and Members of the Committee. In the time that I 
have before we get to your questions, I want to talk about the 
sheer breadth and impact of the work the FBI's 38,000 employees 
are doing each and every day because the work the men and women 
of the FBI do to protect the American people goes way beyond 
the one or two investigations that seem to capture all the 
headlines.
    Take violent crime. Last year alone, working shoulder to 
shoulder with our partners in State and local law enforcement, 
the FBI arrested more than 20,000 violent criminals and child 
predators. That is an average of almost 60 bad guys taken off 
the streets per day every day.
    For our work going after the cartels exploiting our 
Southwest border to traffic fentanyl and other dangerous drugs 
into communities nationwide, the FBI is running well over 300 
investigations targeting the leadership of those cartels. 
Working with our partners, we have already seized hundreds of 
kilograms of fentanyl this year alone, stopping deadly drugs 
from reaching their intended destinations in States all over 
the country and saving countless American lives.
    Or the thousands of active investigations we now have into 
the Chinese government's efforts to steal our most precious 
secrets, rob our businesses of their ideas and innovation, and 
repress freedom of speech right here in the United States. That 
is just scratching the surface. The men and women of the FBI 
work tirelessly every day to protect the American people from 
what is really a staggering array of threats. We don't do that 
work alone. The FBI now leads more than 750 task forces 
nationwide, made up of more than 6,000 State and local task 
force officers or TFOs, as we call them, for more than 1,800 
different State and local agencies. Each of those TFOs 
represents an officer, a deputy, or an investigator that a 
local police chief, sheriff, or State superintendent was 
willing to send our way, certainly not because they didn't have 
enough work to do in their own department, but because they saw 
the tremendous value that our FBI-led task forces bring. We are 
honored and humbled by their trust in us and grateful for their 
partnership.
    The numbers don't tell the whole story. To truly appreciate 
the impact the FBI and our partners are having, you have got to 
look at the cases. Just last month, for instance, the FBI 
charged 31 members of two drug-trafficking organizations 
responsible for distributing dangerous drugs like fentanyl, 
cocaine, and methamphetamine throughout the area around Marion, 
Ohio. In that one investigation run out of the FBI's two-man 
office in Mansfield, we worked with partners from multiple 
local police departments and sheriff's offices to take kilos of 
fentanyl off Marion streets, enough lethal doses, I should add, 
to kill the entire population of Columbus, Cleveland, and 
Cincinnati combined.
    It is a great example of how even a small office with a 
small personal footprint, the FBI is working big cases hand in 
hand with our State and local partners to have an outside 
impact in our communities.
    The FBI has got thousands of employees working scores of 
investigations like that all over the country to protect the 
American people. Those men and women who choose to dedicate 
their careers, their lives, really, to this kind of work and 
fulfilling the FBI mission are inspiring.
    At a time when so many other law enforcement agencies have 
had a difficult time with recruiting and retention, the Bureau 
continues to attract applicants in near record numbers. In 
fact, after the first couple of years of my tenure, the number 
of Americans applying to be special agents tripled the pace 
from when I started, reaching the highest levels in about a 
decade.
    At the same time, inside the FBI, our special agent 
attrition has remained in the low, single digits and would be 
the envy of almost any employer. Even with these bigger 
numbers, the folks we are continuing to add continue to be top 
notch. The percentage of both veterans, and special agent hires 
with prior law enforcement experience has remained as steady as 
ever, between 25-30 percent. Add to that in a job market where 
applicants have a whole lot of other opportunities, the 
percentage of those new agent-trainees that also have advanced 
degrees is up and now approaches about 50 percent of every 
class at Quantico.
    The thing that unites them all is a commitment to public 
service, a willingness to put others above themselves and that 
is true from the bottom of the organization to the top.
    Since becoming Director, I have worked hard to assemble and 
cultivate a leadership team that embodies those values and 
characteristics. It is a team that I purposely chose because 
they walked the walk out in the field. Just taking our top 
eight leaders as an example, they all came up through the 
Bureau as line agents. They have worked in 21 different field 
offices and have a combined 130 years of field experience. They 
include a West Point grad, veterans of the Army, Air Force, and 
Marines, as well as a former police officer and State trooper. 
Not a single one is a political appointee, not one.
    Today's FBI leaders reflect the best of our organization, 
an organization that is made up of 38,000 men and women who are 
patriots, professionals, and dedicated public servants, and 
that is the real FBI. I have now visited every single one of 
our 56 field offices twice, some of them more than twice. I 
speak constantly with local chiefs and sheriffs from all 50 
States who work closely with us every day; with judges, coast 
to coast, who see and hear our work up close; with business 
leaders who turn to us for help with cyber-attacks, with 
Chinese economic espionage, with victims and their family's 
people that we protect from gangs and predators. The FBI they 
tell me about consistently, almost resoundingly, is the same 
FBI that I see, an FBI that is respected, appreciated, trusted, 
and it is there for them when they need us the most. That is 
the FBI that inspires me and that I am proud to be here today 
to represent. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Mr. Wray follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you. We will now proceed under the 
five-minute rule with questions. The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director 
Wray, this is no time to mince words. The American people have 
lost faith in the FBI. All our constituents are demanding that 
we get this situation under control, and we have to do that. 
That is our responsibility. This is not a political party 
issue, sir. This is about whether the very system of justice in 
our country can be trusted any more. Without that, no republic 
can survive.
    See, the American people that we represent are losing count 
of the scandals that are mounting. The FBI has been involved; 
they have seen evidence that is being used as a political tool 
by the Biden Administration. They have seen counterterrorism 
resources being used against school parents; the homes of 
conservative political opponents being raided. They have seen 
conservative States being targeted over their election 
integrity laws and conservative Catholics and pro-life citizens 
characterized as violent extremists.
    Just last month, as you know, former Special Counsel John 
Durham sat right in that seat and testified that the Justice 
Department and the FBI should never have launched the bogus 
Trump-Russia investigation. His lengthy report reluctantly 
concluded that the FBI ``failed to uphold its mission of strict 
fidelity to the law.''
    Just last week, NBC had a poll. Only 37 percent of 
registered voters now view the FBI positively. Thirty-five 
percent have a negative view. In 2018, by comparison, 52 
percent of the country had a positive view of the FBI. There is 
a serious decline in the people's faith, and it is on your 
watch, sir.
    Then, July 4th, we had this explosive, explosive 155-page 
opinion from a Federal Court in my home State of Louisiana that 
explains in detail that the FBI has been directly involved in 
what the Court says is, ``arguably the most massive attack 
against free speech in United States history.''
    The court ordered the White House DOJ and FBI, among 
others, to immediately cease colluding with and coercing social 
media companies to suppress American speech, of course, 
conservative speech in particular.
    Director Wray, I find it stunning. You made no mention of 
this court opinion either in your opening statement today or in 
this lengthy 14-page report that you prepared on July 12th 
which is eight days after the Court ruling.
    Have you read the ruling, sir?
    Mr. Wray. I am familiar with the ruling, and I've reviewed 
it with our Office of General Counsel.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Are you deeply disturbed by what 
they have told you about the ruling, if you haven't read it 
yourself?
    Mr. Wray. Obviously, we're going to comply with the Court's 
order, the Court's preliminary injunction. We sent out guidance 
to the field and headquarters about how to do that. Needless to 
say, the injunction itself is a subject of ongoing litigation. 
So, I'll decline to comment further on that.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, let me tell you what the 
Court concluded because it should be the first thing you think 
about every morning and the last thing you think about at 
night. They said, that, quote, the Court found, apparently,

        The FBI engaged in a massive effort to suppress disfavored 
        conservative speech and blatantly ignored the First Amendment 
        to right to free speech. The evidence shows the FBI threatened 
        adverse consequences to social media companies if they did not 
        comply with its censorship requests.

The Court found that, quote,

        This seemingly unrelenting pressure by the FBI and the other 
        Defendants had the intended result of suppressing millions of 
        protected free speech postings by American citizens.

As a result, the Court states, for example,

        Millions of citizens did not hear about the Hunter Biden laptop 
        story prior to the November 3, 2020 election.

    Page 4 of the Court ruling lists some of the important 
subjects that the Biden Administration and the FBI forced the 
social media platforms to suppress. The evidence shows you, 
your agency, the people that directly report to you, suppressed 
conservative-leaning free speech about topics like the laptop; 
the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origin; the effectiveness of 
masks and COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines; speech about 
election integrity in the 2020 Presidential Election; security 
of voting by mail; even parity about the President himself; 
negative posts about the economy.
    The FBI made the social media platforms pull that 
information off the internet if it came from conservative 
sources. They did this under the guise that it was 
disinformation.
    Can you define what ``disinformation'' is?
    Mr. Wray. What I can tell you is that our focus is not on 
disinformation, broadly speaking, but on the--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, wait a minute. Yes, it is. 
Wait it a minute. Your--
    Mr. Wray. Can I answer the question?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You can in a minute. Your star 
witness said in the litigation, Elvis Chan, who's in charge of 
this, said they do it on the basis of ``disinformation.'' We 
need a definition of what that is.
    Mr. Wray. Our focus is on malign foreign disinformation; 
that is, foreign hostile actors who engage in covert efforts to 
abuse--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Wray--
    Mr. Wray. --our social media platforms, which is something 
that is not seriously in dispute--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I have to stop you for time. 
That's not accurate. You need to read this Court opinion 
because you're in charge of enforcing it. The Court has found 
that--and Elvis Chan testified under oath, in charge of this 
for you--he said 50 percent, he had a 50 percent success rate 
in having alleged election disinformation taken down or 
censored. That wasn't just foreign adversaries, sir. That was 
American citizens. How do you answer for that?
    Mr. Wray. Well, first, I'm not sure that's a correct 
characterization of his testimony, but what I--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It comes right out of the 
opinion. You should read it.
    Mr. Wray. --of his testimony, but what I would say is the 
FBI is not in the business of moderating content or causing any 
social media company to suppress or censor--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is not what the Court has 
found.
    Mr. Wray. What I would also say is, among the things that 
you listed off, I find ironic the reference to the lab leak 
theory. The idea that the FBI would somehow be involved in 
suppressing references to the lab leak theory is somewhat 
absurd when you consider the fact that the FBI was the only--
the only--agency in the entire intelligence community to reach 
the assessment that it was more likely than not that was the 
explanation for the pandemic.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Your agents, your agents pulled 
it off the internet, sir. That's what the evidence and the 
Court has found.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized.
    Mr. Nadler. Director Wray, House Republicans have attacked 
the execution of the search warrant of Mar-a-Lago last August 
as a, quote, ``unprecedented raid.'' Would you consider the 
execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago a raid?
    Mr. Wray. I would not call it a raid. I would call it the 
execution of a lawful search warrant.
    Mr. Nadler. Can you describe how the search was executed?
    Mr. Wray. Well, we had the case team follow its standard 
procedure. It has sometimes been described as a SWAT operation. 
It was not. There was no SWAT involvement. Beyond that, I think 
I want to be really careful with getting too far into the 
details now that this case is not only in the hands of a 
Special Counsel, but, more importantly, in my view, in front of 
the Court. I learned a long time ago, as a line prosecutor and 
defense lawyer, to respect the Court process as where I think 
you should speak.
    Mr. Nadler. Were particular steps taken to ensure that the 
execution of the search warrant did not draw undue attention?
    Mr. Wray. I think there were steps along those lines, yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Nadler. Can you name a couple of them?
    Mr. Wray. Well, among other things, we did not have people 
coming in so-called ``raid jackets,'' which is often something 
you would see--
    Mr. Nadler. So, in other words, the FBI agents executing 
the search wore plainclothes, so as not to attract undue 
attention, and the FBI waited until Trump had left Mar-a-Lago 
to execute the search. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Chair Jordan has attacked the DOJ and the FBI 
for not attempting to get the documents back from Trump 
consensually before turning to a search warrant. I want to walk 
through all the opportunities Trump had to produce these 
documents, and I have a series of yes-or-no questions.
    The National Archives, also known as NARA, first asked 
Trump to return all Presidential records to them in May 2021, 
correct?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I don't remember the date, but I remember 
there was a request by the National Archives.
    Mr. Nadler. OK. Then, throughout 2021, NARA made repeatedly 
followup requests, but, still, Trump failed to comply, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, I would refer you to the pleadings that have 
been filed in court that lay out in better detail than I could 
here--
    Mr. Nadler. In fact, it was not until January 2022, after 
NARA warned Trump that failing to return documents could 
violate the Presidential Records Act, that Trump finally 
produced 15 boxes of documents to it, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I would just refer to our court filings, 
which go into great detail about all this.
    Mr. Nadler. Even these 15 boxes did not contain all the 
documents Trump was required to return, correct?
    Mr. Wray. That's my recollection, but, again, I'll refer to 
the filings.
    Mr. Nadler. So, in May 2022, a grand jury had to actually 
subpoena Trump for the missing documents, correct?
    Mr. Wray. The same answer.
    Mr. Nadler. Trump was, then, present on June 3rd, when his 
attorneys handed over another folder of documents and a 
certification that all classified material had been returned, 
correct?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I just want to stick with what's in the 
Court filings. That sounds right to me, but I really want to be 
careful to stay within the four corners of--
    Mr. Nadler. The certification was false, right? Even then, 
Trump had not returned all classified material, correct?
    Mr. Wray. I think that is part of the indictment.
    Mr. Nadler. He had additional documents hiding in his 
bathroom and his storage room, in storage units, et cetera. 
Yes?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I think that's part of the indictment.
    Mr. Nadler. So, finally, DOJ and the FBI were required to 
obtain a search warrant to obtain the classified documents that 
had not been retained, correct?
    Mr. Wray. The same answer.
    Mr. Nadler. The documents retrieved during that search 
included 69 marked confidential, 98 secrets, and 30 top 
secrets, is that correct?
    Mr. Wray. The same answer.
    Mr. Nadler. So, to sum up, President Trump had many, many 
chances to voluntarily comply with the FBI and DOJ's requests. 
Instead, he made the choice to keep these highly classified 
defense and national security documents, apparently, because he 
wanted a souvenir.
    I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with 
former Attorney General Bill Barr's statement that Trump 
brought this on himself. I would add that it's absurd that 
House Republicans are attacking the FBI and DOJ for doing their 
job in ensuring that no person is above the law.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the Chair.
    Director Wray, in light of information provided to us about 
the FBI's investigation of the January 6th pipe bombs, in an 
interview with Assistant Director Steven D'Antuono, Chair 
Jordan and I sent you a letter a month ago. Some of the 
information that we found in that interview was that phone data 
that could have helped to identify the pipe-bomber was 
corrupted, was unusable. He also wasn't sure who found or how 
the second bomb was found at the DNC.
    Do you know how the second bomb was found at the DNC? When 
do you plan on answering our letter?
    Mr. Wray. Well, as to the letter, I will work with the 
Department to make sure we can figure out what information we 
can provide. As you know, this is a very active, ongoing 
investigation and there are some restrictions on that, but we 
will do our best to--
    Mr. Massie. Yes, we can handle classified information--
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Massie. --and we fund your Department. So, you need to 
provide that.
    Mr. Wray. It's not, respectfully, it's not an issue of 
classification. It's an issue of commenting on ongoing criminal 
investigations, which is something that, by longstanding 
Department policy, we are restricted in doing. In fact, the 
last administration actually strengthened those policies, 
partly because--
    Mr. Massie. That's not our policy, though, and we fund you. 
So, let's move on.
    Mr. Wray. I could State it's partly because--
    Mr. Massie. Do you know how the second pipe bomb--can you 
tell us how the second pipe bomb was found at the DNC?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I'm not going to get into that here.
    Mr. Massie. Nine hundred days ago is when this happened, 
and you said you had total confidence we'd apprehend the 
subject. We've found video that looks like somebody, a passer-
by, miraculously found this pipe bomb at the DNC, and then, 
notified the police. Miraculously, I say because it was at 
specifically the same, the precise time to cause the maximum 
distraction from the events going on at the Capitol.
    Can you show this video that we have, please? I'd like to 
know if the Director has seen this.
    [Video played.]
    This is somebody with a mask on wearing a hat. They're 
walking in front of the DNC, which is out of the view on the 
righthand side. We'll see them come into view. He goes to one 
police car. He goes to another police car. He's holding a 
backpack. He's got a mask on. He's talking to the police. 
Within a minute, they start scrambling. You'll see the camera 
turn to the pipe bomb, the location of the pipe bomb.
    By the way, that's, I believe, the Metro Police are now 
getting out of their car, and that's Vice President-Elect 
detail in the black SUV, I believe, parked about 30 feet from 
the pipe bomb, eating lunch.
    OK. Now, we go over to the location of the pipe bomb. The 
cameras are scrambling. It appears to me that's not a 
coincidence; that the person with the backpack who walked by 
that bench, and then, went up to the police and the detail 
didn't do that accidentally. They had a purpose in mind. Then, 
what transpired after that was the result of information that 
person gave to them.
    If that person found the pipe bomb, would they be a 
suspect?
    Mr. Wray. Well, again, I don't want to speculate about 
specific individuals. I will tell you that we have done 
thousands of interviews; reviewed something like 40,000 video 
files, of which this is one; assessed 500-something tips; 
reviewed the devices--
    Mr. Massie. Have you interviewed that person?
    Mr. Wray. We have conducted all logical investigative steps 
and interviewed all logical individuals at this point.
    Mr. Massie. Then, you need--it's 900 days--
    Mr. Wray. We're continuing--
    Mr. Massie. You need to tell us what you found because 
we're finding stuff you haven't released into the public.
    Mr. Wray. Well--
    Mr. Massie. In my remaining minute, I want to turn to 
another issue. George Hill, former FBI Supervisory Intelligence 
Analyst in the Boston field office, told us that the Bank of 
America, with no legal process, gave to the FBI gun purchase 
records with no geographical boundaries for anybody that was a 
Bank of America customer. Is that true?
    Mr. Wray. Well, what I do know is that a number of business 
community partners all the time, including financial 
institutions, share information with us about possible criminal 
activity. My understanding is that's fully lawful.
    Mr. Massie. Did you--
    Mr. Wray. In this specific instance--
    Mr. Massie. Did you ask for that information?
    Mr. Wray. In the specific instance that you're asking 
about, my understanding is that this information was shared 
with field offices for information only, but, then, recalled to 
avoid even the appearance of any kind of overreach. My 
understanding is that's a fully lawful process.
    Mr. Massie. Was there a warrant involved?
    Mr. Wray. Again, my understanding is that the institution 
in question shared information with us, as happens all the time 
by--
    Mr. Massie. Did you request the information?
    Mr. Wray. I can't speak to the specifics.
    Mr. Massie. OK. Well, we've got an email where it says the 
FBI did give the search queries to Bank of America, and Bank of 
America responded to the FBI and gave over this information 
without a search warrant.
    Do you believe there's any limitation on your ability to 
obtain gun purchase data or purchase information for people, 
for people who aren't suspects from banks without a warrant?
    Mr. Wray. Well, now you're asking a legal question, which I 
would prefer to defer to the lawyers, since I'm not practicing 
as one right now, including the Department. What I will tell 
you is that my understanding is that the process by which we 
receive information from business community partners across a 
wide variety of industries, including financial institutions 
sharing information with us about possible criminal activity, 
is something that is fully lawful under current Federal law.
    Mr. Massie. It may be lawful, but it's not constitutional.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from California is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Director Wray, for being here.
    I think it's actually sad that the majority is engaging in 
conspiracy theories and efforts to try and discredit one of the 
premier law enforcement agencies in the United States in the 
effort to try--without really any evidence--make the case that 
the FBI is somehow opposed to conservative views.
    In my view, actually, I'm concerned that the FBI has been 
reluctant to do its job when it comes to the former President.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record 
an article from The Washington Post, ``FBI Resisted Opening 
Probe into Trump's Role in January 6th for More Than a Year.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Lofgren. Director Wray, would you disagree with the 
premise of this article that the FBI delayed in looking at Mr. 
Trump himself? The January 6th Committee--and I was a Member--
did find that the ex-President was the center of a wide-ranging 
conspiracy to overturn the election. Did the FBI start to look 
right after January 6th at the ex-President?
    Mr. Wray. I'm sorry, I just lost the last part of your 
question.
    Ms. Lofgren. Did the FBI start looking at the ex-
President's role on January 6th starting January 7th or closely 
to that time?
    Mr. Wray. Well, let me start with, I'm not in the business 
of kind of commenting or engaging on the truth or falsity of 
newspaper articles. In this particular instance, as I'm sure 
you can appreciate, there is an ongoing, very important, 
ongoing Special Counsel investigation that's now in court.
    Ms. Lofgren. OK.
    Mr. Wray. So, not only do I not want to talk about the 
ongoing investigation--
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, I respect--
    Mr. Wray. --but the internal deliberations related to it 
are even more sensitive.
    Ms. Lofgren. I respect that you cannot discuss ongoing 
investigations.
    Let me turn to another item. There's been criticism, and 
the Ranking Member went through the scenario leading up to the 
warrant for the documents at Mar-a-Lago, but I'd like to ask 
unanimous consent to put an article from The Washington Post, 
``Showdown Before the Raid: FBI Agents and Prosecutors Argued 
Over Trump.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Lofgren. It's pretty clear from this article that there 
was a resistance on the part of the FBI to actually look at the 
President or pursue that case vigorously. Although you can't 
comment on it, the article does suggest that FBI agents want to 
just close the case because the ex-President made an assertion 
that a search had been made.
    Now, we had Mr. D'Antuono in as a witness, and he testified 
four times that the Mar-a-Lago search had adequate probable 
cause. Do you agree with that statement?
    Mr. Wray. That the search had probable cause?
    Ms. Lofgren. Correct.
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    So, you don't have any dispute that there was probable 
cause for this warrant? I just want to say, before going to my 
next question, that over and over again the FBI delayed and 
showed unprecedented caution before investigating the ex-
President, even when there was a potential threat to national 
security. That's my view. That's very far from the assertion 
that there was unfair targeting. Let me ask--
    Mr. Wray. Can I just, on that point, if I may, while I 
can't discuss any specific investigation, my expectation for 
all our investigations, repeatedly communicated to all our 
people--and this is especially important in sensitive 
investigations--is that our folks take great pains to be 
rigorous, professional, objective, following all our policies 
and procedures, and do the work in the right way. Sometimes 
that's frustrating to others.
    Ms. Lofgren. My time is almost up. I want to ask you 
another question.
    In the Senate hearing, in response to Senator Wyden's 
question of whether the FBI is currently purchasing Americans' 
location data, you indicated that it was limited to data 
derived from internet advertising. It's since been reported 
that the FBI has admitted it bought U.S. location data. Is the 
FBI purchasing location data from commercial sources without a 
warrant?
    Mr. Wray. This is an area that requires a little more 
precision and context for me to be able to answer that fully. 
So, let me have my staff follow back up with you, so that I 
make sure that I don't leave something important out.
    Ms. Lofgren. I'll just close with the FBI had 3.4 million 
backdoor searches of the FISA data base without a warrant in 
2021. Can you say whether the FBI is continuing to search the 
FISA data base without a warrant for Americans?
    Mr. Wray. Well, if you're asking about our use of 702 
queries--
    Ms. Lofgren. I am.
    Mr. Wray. --there is no warrant requirement under the 
Fourth Amendment for those queries. It's fairly well settled. 
The 3.4 million figure that you're talking about, I guess I 
would say a couple of things. First, that's not 3.4 million 
people; that's 3.4 million search terms or query terms. Second, 
those are not queries in violation of rules. Those are just 
queries under the procedures--
    Ms. Lofgren. My time has expired, but the Committee--
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Lofgren. --will look into the warrant requirement later 
in the process.
    Chair Jordan. We sure will. We sure will.
    The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. The American people need to understand what just 
happened. My Democratic colleague just asked the Director of 
the FBI whether or not they are buying information about our 
fellow Americans, and the answer is, ``Well, we'll just have to 
get back to you on that.'' It sounds really complicated.
    I have other questions.

        I'm sitting here with my father. I will make certain between 
        the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my 
        ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not 
        following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call 
        with my father.

It sounds like a shakedown, doesn't it, Director?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not going to get into commenting on that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, you seem deeply uncurious about it, don't 
you? Almost suspiciously uncurious. Are you protecting the 
Bidens?
    Mr. Wray. Absolutely not. The FBI does not and has no 
interest in protecting anyone politically.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, you won't answer the question.
    Hold on. You won't answer the question about whether that's 
a shakedown, and everybody knows why you won't answer it. 
Because to the millions of people who will see this, they know 
it is. Your inability to acknowledge that is deeply revealing 
about you.
    Let's go from the uncurious to the downright nosey. How 
many illegal FISA queries have occurred under your leadership 
of the FBI?
    Mr. Wray. Well, there are reports that have come out with 
different numbers about compliance incidents.
    Mr. Gaetz. More than a million illegal ones? Because that's 
what the Inspector General said. The Inspector General said 
that, ``in the 3.4 million of these queries, more than a 
million in error.'' Do you have any basis to disagree with 
that, that assessment by the Inspector General?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not sure, actually, that's a correct 
characterization of the Inspector General's findings on that, 
but--
    Mr. Gaetz. Oh, well, the internet will remind you of that 
in moments.
    Mr. Wray. But I--
    Mr. Gaetz. Let's now go to what the Court said. The Court 
said it was over 200,000 that have occurred on your watch. Do 
you have any basis to disagree with that assessment?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I don't have the numbers, as I sit here 
right now. What I can tell you--
    Mr. Gaetz. It seems like a number you should know--how many 
times the FBI is breaking the law under your watch, especially 
if it's like over a million. To not know that number--and I'm 
worried about your veracity on the subject as well.
    Play the video.
    [Video played.]
    So, there, Senator Lee is asking you whether or not FISA 
was in any way involved in your January 6th investigation, and 
you say no. Was that truthful?
    Mr. Wray. I said that I did not believe it was.
    Mr. Gaetz. OK. So, now, let's pull up what the Court said, 
which is something a little different than what you said.
    So here--no, that's not the right one. Yes, here we go, 
right there, it says,

        The government has reported additional significant violations 
        of the querying standard, including several relating to the 
        January 6, 2021, breach of the Capitol.

    So, I guess the question, Director Wray, is, did you not 
know, when you were answering these questions, that the FBI was 
engaging in these illegal searches, or did you perjure yourself 
to Senator Lee?
    Mr. Wray. I certainly didn't perjure myself. At the time 
that I testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I 
didn't have that piece of information. I will add--
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, that was a Court order. You didn't have 
that piece of information because the Court hadn't yet rendered 
a judgment. Did you not know, when you gave the untruthful 
answer before Senator Lee, that this was going on?
    Mr. Wray. It was a truthful answer. I did not believe FISA 
had been involved in the January 6th investigation.
    Mr. Gaetz. It was. So, you didn't--the answer is, the FBI 
has broken so bad, that people can go and engage in queries 
that, when you come before the Congress to answer questions, 
you're like blissfully ignorant--you're blissfully ignorant as 
to the unlawful queries. You're blissfully ignorant as to the 
Biden shakedown regime. It just seems like it gets into kind of 
a creepy place as well.
    Go to our next image on what the Court said.
    Just to the American people realize, the Court has smacked 
you down alleging--or ruling, ``FBI personnel apparently 
conducted queries for improper personal reasons.'' People were 
looking themselves up. They were looking their ex-lovers up. 
Who has been held accountable or fired as a consequence of the 
FBI using the FISA process as their, like, creepy, personal 
snoop machine?
    Mr. Wray. There have been instances in which individuals 
have had disciplinary action and they are no longer with the--
    Mr. Gaetz. Name them.
    Mr. Wray. I can't get into it here, but we can follow back 
up with you.
    Mr. Gaetz. Don't you see that's kind of the thing, Director 
Wray, that you preside over the FBI that has the lowest level 
of trust in the FBI's history? People trusted the FBI more when 
J. Edgar Hoover was running the place than when you are. The 
reason is because you don't give straight answers. You give 
answers that later a court deems aren't true, and then, at the 
end of the day, you won't criticize an obvious shakedown when 
it's directly in front of us. It appears as though you're 
whitewashing the conduct of corrupt people.
    Mr. Wray. Respectfully, Congressman, in your home State of 
Florida, the number of people applying to come work for us and 
devote their lives working for us is over, up over 100 percent 
since I--
    Mr. Gaetz. We're deeply proud of them and they deserve 
better than you.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Wray, thank you for continuing to serve with all 
these attempts to sully your name and suggest you've committed 
crimes, when you've done an excellent job as FBI Director. I 
don't agree with everything you've done, but mostly I do, and I 
think the FBI is a premier law enforcement agency, and I 
support law enforcement. To attack the FBI is to attack law 
enforcement in general.
    A few days after Mar-a-Lago, there was some individual who 
went after the Cincinnati headquarters of the FBI. Can you tell 
us a little bit about that and how you think that came about?
    Mr. Wray. So, the incident that you're asking about was, 
obviously, deeply disturbing. We had an individual wearing a 
tactical vest, armed with an AR-style rifle and a nail gun, who 
attempted to forcibly enter and attack our Cincinnati field 
office.
    A subsequent review of the subject's devices and online 
postings identified a pretty striking anti-FBI, anti-Federal 
law enforcement hostility. He was calling on others to kill 
Federal law enforcement, claiming that he felt he was a, in his 
words, ``civil war.''
    It's, unfortunately, part of a broader phenomenon that we 
have seen, not just against the FBI--and this is important to 
add--but against law enforcement all across the country, not 
just against law enforcement professionals themselves, which is 
appalling enough, but calling for attacks against their 
families, which is truly despicable.
    Mr. Cohen. That man eventually was captured and eliminated, 
was he not?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. A few days later, was the Arizona FBI Department 
the subject of armed violence--or not violence, but armed 
protestors?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I know that our Phoenix field office has 
had a number of very concerning security incidents where people 
attempted to attack or breach the facility. I can't remember 
the dates of when that happened, but--
    Mr. Cohen. All this has happened kind of in the same 
sphere. It's been information that's been put out on social 
media and just in general, and by Members of the Congress, 
questioning the FBI, questioning law enforcement in general. 
This has had a deleterious effect on the safety of FBI 
officials, and you said others like Justice.
    The was a story the other day, I believe, about people 
involved in the prosecution of the former President and threats 
to them, DOJ personnel, as well as FBI. Is that something 
that's going on presently? Are there efforts to have a unit at 
the FBI maybe look into how to protect and defend law 
enforcement personnel who are threatened with violence?
    Mr. Wray. We did stand up a whole dedicated unit to focus 
on threats to FBI individuals, FBI employees and FBI 
facilities, because of the uptick that we saw over that time 
period.
    Mr. Cohen. The January 6th, was beyond a weaponization of 
government; it was a nuclearization of government against the 
government. I believe I heard that you said that you didn't 
have any prior notice or reason to believe that there would be 
such an event on January 6th. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wray. We did not, to my knowledge at least, have prior 
knowledge of an attempt, a violent overthrow of and breach of 
the Capitol Building itself. Certainly, we were concerned about 
and put out a number of products, intelligence products, to 
partners and others warning of the potential for violence more 
generally on that date.
    Mr. Cohen. So, there have been--I think Tucker Carlson and 
some of the Members, colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
have said that Ray Epps was a secret government agent helping 
encourage this crime, so as to make the President look bad. Do 
you have any knowledge of Ray Epps being a secret government 
agent?
    Mr. Wray. No. I will say this notion that somehow the 
violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some 
operation orchestrated by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous 
and it's a disservice to our brave, hardworking, dedicated men 
and women.
    Mr. Cohen. Director, I agree with you. I think the FBI has 
some of the most talented law enforcement people in our Nation 
and in the world. They are concerned about safety. They tend 
to, as I understand, lean Republican, but they do their job 
down the line. That's what they're supposed to do.
    I'm happy we have the FBI operating in Memphis and other 
places to work with our police departments and joint units to 
protect our citizens, and I thank you for your service to the 
United States.
    I yield back my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you.
    Director, I'm going to followup on my colleague from 
Memphis. How many individuals who were either FBI employees or 
people that the FBI had made contact with were in the January 
6th entry of the Capitol and surrounding area?
    Mr. Wray. So, I really need to be careful here talking 
about where we have or have not used confidential human 
sources.
    Mr. Issa. Was there one or more individuals that would fit 
that description on January 6th that were in or around the 
Capitol?
    Mr. Wray. I believe there is a filing in one of the January 
6th cases that can provide a little more information about 
this, and I'm happy to see if we can follow back up with you to 
provide that.
    Mr. Issa. I just want an answer. Was there one or more? I 
mean you would know if there was at least one individual who 
worked for the FBI who entered the Capitol on that day.
    Mr. Wray. I can't--again I just can't speak to that here, 
but I'm happy to get the Court filing that--
    Mr. Issa. Look, it has been two years and you now come 
before us. The gentleman asked these questions, makes all kinds 
of insinuations, and you nod your head yes. Then I ask you 
simply was there one or more and you won't answer that. So, I 
am going to make the assumption that there was more than one, 
more than five, more than 10, and that you are ducking the 
question because you don't want to answer for the fact that you 
had at least one and somehow missed understanding that some of 
the individuals were very dangerous and that there were others 
inciting individuals to enter the Capitol after others broke 
windows.
    So, I am just going to move on because I think it is time 
to move on past January 6th. I just--seems that the other side 
won't.
    You are near-cabinet-level individual. You enjoy a term in 
Senate confirmation. You feel comfortable speaking to other 
Members, either cabinet-level or subcabinet-level when 
appropriate to resolve problems within the government?
    Mr. Wray. Absolutely.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, when the FBI censored the U.S. Government 
you wouldn't have to just take it down by calling Meta or 
Google, would you?
    Mr. Wray. I'm sorry. I'm not sure I'm following the 
question.
    Mr. Issa. Are you familiar with the official verified 
Russian language account of the United States Department of 
State that was taken down at your agency's request?
    Mr. Wray. That doesn't ring a bell as I sit here right now, 
no.
    Mr. Issa. OK. Well, now you have something to take back and 
look at--
    Mr. Wray. OK.
    Mr. Issa. --because in fact in this bundle that SBU 
constantly was submitting to various agencies was, in fact, a 
Russian language statement of the government. Literally, you 
took down the free speech of the Department of State.
    Mr. Wray. So--
    Mr. Issa. Yes, go ahead.
    Mr. Wray. --you mentioned SBU. I'm not sure we're talking 
about the same thing, but I will endeavor to provide a little 
more context, as least as to SBU.
    Mr. Issa. Yes.
    Mr. Wray. So, I believe what you may be referring to, but 
I'm not sure we're not talking about the same thing, is that 
when Russia invaded Ukraine the security service of Ukraine, 
SBU, which is a longstanding good partner of the FBI, asked us 
for help on a whole range of things. One of those things was to 
contact U.S. companies on their behalf because the Russians--
the invasion had cutoff Ukraine's communications.
    So, we did pass through information from the SBU to social 
media.
    Mr. Issa. Are you also familiar with the fact that 
President Zelensky has had to clean house at the SBU?
    Mr. Wray. I know there have been a number of personnel 
changes.
    Mr. Issa. OK. Well, we will followup with this in more 
detail.
    The question I have for you is you are the premier law 
enforcement operation, and you are a former Department of 
Justice high-ranking executive at all levels, so would you 
agree that the job of the FBI is criminal investigation?
    Mr. Wray. It is criminal investigation and to protect the 
country from national security threats, those two things.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, the idea that you take information, and 
you have it taken down, use your authority and the leverage you 
have to have Meta, Google, Facebook; Facebook being Meta, or 
Twitter--take down people's information on things like where 
COVID came from, where do you find the national security 
interest in that? Where do you find the interest in free speech 
of American citizens being taken down? I repeat, free speech of 
American citizens. Where do you have that authority?
    Mr. Wray. So, we don't ask social media companies to censor 
information or suppress information when it comes to national 
security threats, certainly. So, what we do is alert them when 
some other intelligence agency gives us information about a 
foreign intelligence service being behind some account, we will 
call social media companies' attention to that. At the end of 
the day, we're very clear that it's up to the social media 
companies to decide whether to do something about it or not--
    Mr. Issa. The suggestion of the most powerful law 
enforcement operation is not a suggestion. It is in fact 
effectively an order.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are here 
today because MAGA Republicans will do anything to protect 
Donald Trump, their savior, no matter how unfounded or 
dangerous it may be to do so. Welcome to the legislative arm of 
the Trump reelection campaign.
    A grand jury found probable cause that among other crimes 
Trump illegally kept highly sensitive national security 
documents, which put our country and our sources in danger if 
they got out and which photographs show Trump kept those 
records in bathrooms, showers, closets, and in the Mar-a-Lago 
ballroom. MAGA Republicans are afraid that the justice system 
might hold Trump accountable for his actions so to protect him 
Republicans are trying to intimidate FBI officials. In case 
that does not work, Republicans are trying their hardest to 
discredit the FBI in the eyes of the American public.
    When Trump lost in 2020, they tried to make Americans 
distrust their election systems. Now that the FBI and the 
Justice Department have sought to hold Trump to the same 
standard any other American citizen would be held to, MAGA 
Republicans are telling Americans not to trust the FBI. To 
protect Trump Republicans are trying to distract us from the 
real work that the FBI does every day, which is fighting 
violent criminals, child predators, and fighting domestic 
terrorists and extremists so as to protect our democracy and 
our national security. Even worse, MAGA Republicans are 
stirring up threats that pose a danger to the safety of FBI 
employees. It is past time that Republicans realize the 
consequences of their words and put the good of this country 
over politics.
    Now, Director Wray, I want to thank you for your service 
during a time of unprecedented travail. Director Wray, you were 
a partner in an international law firm before you took a 
drastic pay cut to accept the job of FBI Director, isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, that's something my wife reminds me of from 
time to time.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you this, sir: You took 
this office after Trump fired the former FBI Director Jim 
Comey, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Did you contact the Trump 
Administration to offer yourself for this job or did the 
administration recruit you for the job?
    Mr. Wray. They contacted me and asked me if I would be 
willing to consider taking on the role.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, Trump handpicked you to be the 
FBI Director?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. He expected you to do what he 
wanted you to do, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Well, that I can't speak to. I can tell you the 
same thing I told him which is that I'm going to do this job by 
the book.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I'll put it like this: He's 
unhappy with you now, isn't he?
    Mr. Wray. I'll let him speak for himself.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I think a lot of his acolytes 
here reflect his intent at this particular time.
    Director Wray, are you aware that MAGA Republicans have 
repeatedly called for the FBI to be defunded?
    Mr. Wray. I have heard some of that language.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. In fact, Republicans on this very 
Committee have said that your institution should be dismantled, 
isn't that correct?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I think certain Members have.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. One Member even tweeted, quote, 
``Defund and dismantle the FBI.'' Another told Fox News that, 
quote, ``Republicans should defund the bureaucracy.'' A third 
told the press that he thinks the FBI, quote, ``needs to be 
split up and moved out into pieces.'' Those are direct quotes 
and only a small sample of what is out there.
    Can you briefly describe for us what the effect would be on 
our national security and on our domestic tranquility if the 
FBI were to be defunded or dismantled?
    Mr. Wray. Well, certainly it would be disastrous for 38,000 
hardworking career law enforcement professionals and their 
families, but more importantly in many ways it would hurt our 
great State and local law enforcement partners who depend on us 
every day to work with them on a whole slew of challenging 
threats. It would hurt the American people, neighborhoods, and 
communities across the country, the people we're protecting 
from cartels, violent criminals, gang members, predators, 
foreign and domestic terrorists, and cyber attacks. I could go 
on and on.
    The people it would help would be those same violent gangs 
and cartels, foreign terrorists, Chinese spies, hackers, and so 
forth.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Member--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Buck. I thank the Chair.
    Director Wray, thank you. Thank you for your work with the 
FBI and thank you for your history of work in law enforcement. 
You started out as an AUSA. I am getting this information from 
Wikipedia, the great font of knowledge in the digital age, so 
I'm assuming that it is true. You started out as an AUSA. You 
were nominated by Republican President Bush for the position of 
Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division at the 
Department of Justice, and you were confirmed by a Republican 
Senate, if I am correct in that.
    Mr. Wray. Yes, by a unanimous voice vote.
    Mr. Buck. You were then nominated by Republican President 
Donald Trump to be the FBI Director and again confirmed by the 
Republican Senate for that position?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, I think there were only five votes against 
me, and they were all from Democrats.
    Mr. Buck. According to Wikipedia you are still a registered 
Republican, and I hope you don't change your party affiliation 
after this hearing is over. I want to thank you. I want to 
thank you for leading an agency, as you mentioned in your 
opening statement, that protects Americans from foreign 
terrorists, an agency that protects Americans from spies from 
China and Russia, cybercrime, public corruption, organized 
crime, drug cartels, human traffickers, and white-collar 
criminals. I want to thank you and the FBI for protecting law-
abiding Americans from the evil that exists all around us.
    Director Wray, you know this, but it is worth mentioning 
again anyway. The FBI doesn't protect America because this is a 
beautiful country. It doesn't protect America just because of 
the citizens who live in this country. You and the FBI protect 
America because of the values that we hold, because of our 
constitutional republic, because this is a special place. The 
rest of the world knows just how special this place is.
    Director Wray, I am concerned about FISA. I am not 
concerned about FISA in a partisan way, and, frankly, I am not 
in favor of defunding the FBI, nor am I in favor of splitting 
up the FBI, nor am I in favor of using the Holman rule for the 
FBI Director. I am concerned about FISA because I am concerned 
about what makes this place special and the threats to us. I 
would love to work with the FBI on how we can protect Americans 
at the same time protecting the civil liberties of Americans. 
That area of FISA is what really concerns me.
    I know you have gone to great lengths to try to work with 
FBI agents on how they access information under 702, and I know 
that at times it has been successful and at times it has not 
been successful. The spirit of FISA and the spirit of our 
constitutional republic really demands that the FBI culture 
shift and it shifts to a place where FBI agents understand that 
protecting Americans' civil liberties, that protecting the 
privacy that we all enjoy in this country and even though we 
screw up, we still enjoy this privacy. In court we have the 
highest burden of proof the world has ever known, to prove a 
case beyond a reasonable doubt. That information has to be 
gathered by the government in a legal way.
    So, I fear that we are going to overcorrect on FISA in 
Congress. That we are going to take away some tools that are 
necessary because there is a trust factor here that is missing. 
I would love to know how we can draw that line in a way that 
assures the civil liberties.
    I agree with my colleague from California, and I don't 
often agree with folks from California, but I agree with my 
colleague from California that it is essential that we do not 
get geolocation information from what I consider criminals at 
big tech and that we protect that information for Americans. 
You as a law enforcement official should not know where I am 
necessarily unless you have probable cause to get that 
information.
    I am also concerned about the ability of law enforcement, 
and particularly the FBI, to access information. When I go on 
the internet, and I search for a gun vault, or I search for a 
holster I don't want the government to know that I own a gun. I 
think I have that privacy right to make sure the government 
doesn't know that I own a gun, or any other information that I 
search for on the internet unless you have got probable cause 
to make that search.
    So, I want to ask you a question with my few seconds, and 
that is how can you work on the culture in the FBI and help us 
reach that sweet spot on FISA?
    Mr. Wray. Well, thank you for that. Certainly, we start it 
with first principles, try to drive home every day to our 
entire workforce that our mission is to both protect the 
American people and uphold the Constitution. We have on the 
issue of FISA clearly had failures in the past. I've been very 
plain about that. We've implemented a whole series of reforms.
    If you look at the reports that have started to come out 
now from the FISA Court, ODNI, the Justice Department, and from 
others who have looked at the effect of your reforms, over and 
over again they are showing significant improvement in 
compliance. We're talking about the most recent FISA Court 
opinion finding 98 percent compliance and commending us for 
moving in the right direction. A DOJ report found 99 percent 
compliance. Our internal audit found a 14-percent jump up to 96 
percent. These are all separate reports looking at the impact 
of our reforms.
    A lot of the public commentary about our failures--and 
let's be clear, we have had problems. Those problems are 
unacceptable, and I am determined with my leadership team to 
fix them. Those problems almost entirely predate those reforms, 
even though some of them have just come out recently.
    So, we're going to keep working at this. That is not a one-
and-done from my perspective. I recognize that we need to work 
with the Congress on this issue, but this is an incredibly 
important tool. As you know from your own public service--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the--
    Mr. Wray. --as a prosecutor as well, this is an incredibly 
important tool to protect the American people from very serious 
foreign threats.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Director. I want to pick up 
where Mr. Buck began as well by thanking you for your service. 
I am glad that we have an opportunity for one Democrat, one 
Republican in close succession to thank you for your service to 
the country.
    You are being attacked and vilified by some of the Members 
of this Committee and others outside this Committee because the 
Justice Department, the FBI has had the audacity to investigate 
serious allegations of criminal conduct by a former President. 
I just want a chance to recap how we got to where we are.
    During the last administration and for four years the 
Justice Department took the position, not unprecedented for the 
department, that a former President could not be--a current 
President could not be indicted. Now, I think that is a flawed 
matter as a constitutional principle, but nonetheless that was 
the view of the Office of Legal Counsel and the Justice 
Department during the Trump years that the President of the 
United States could not be indicted.
    My Republican colleagues seem to believe that a former 
President similarly cannot be indicted. That would effectively 
make a President above the law, beyond the reach of the law. In 
my view, there would probably be only one thing the Founders 
would find more politically precarious and dangerous to our 
Constitution than the indictment of a President or former 
President, and that is the failure to indict a President or 
former President when they have engaged in criminal conduct.
    The Justice Department, I believe, as Representative 
Lofgren, my fellow Member of the January 6th Committee, 
asserted, took a very long time to begin the investigation of 
Donald Trump and his involvement in January 6th. I believe it 
began with urgency when it came to the foot soldiers who broke 
into the Capitol and assaulted police officers that day, but at 
least what I can tell from the public record the activities of 
the President himself, some of which were a matter very much of 
public record such as his tape-recorded conversation with the 
Secretary of State in Georgia in which he badgered the 
Secretary to, quote, ``find 11,780 votes that don't exist,'' 
while that was the subject of investigation by the local 
District Attorney in Fulton County, it did not appear to be the 
subject of investigation for more than a year by the Justice 
Department. To me that is inexplicable. This was never the kind 
of case in which you could roll up the foot soldiers on the 
higher-ups because there were multiple lines of effort in this 
plot to overturn the election.
    I do think that the appointment of the Special Counsel has 
accelerated the investigation of the former President's 
misconduct and I think that is a positive step for the 
department and for the country so we can get resolution to 
this.
    Likewise, with Mar-a-Lago, notwithstanding the protests of 
my colleagues, they were repeated, repeated requests by the 
Archives to get those documents back from the former President. 
Then when those were unsuccessful, there was a Grand Jury 
subpoena that was administered. When that was unsuccessful and 
only when that was unsuccessful and there was evidence that the 
former President was still withholding highly classified 
materials, did the FBI go to the step of a search warrant. That 
was more than a 1\1/2\ years after those initial requests. This 
was anything but a rush to judgment in the Mar-a-Lago case.
    So, I believe the department if anything has exercised 
enormous caution, I would say too much caution, in the June 6th 
Commission--Committee's work and oversight to proceed against a 
former President when there are serious and credible 
allegations of criminal conduct.
    I want to thank you for your stewardship during this 
incredibly difficult time. I don't think there has been a more 
difficult time for an FBI Director. Notwithstanding concerns I 
have expressed none of them go to your integrity or your 
commitment to the country and I want to thank you for that.
    Let me ask you about a different topic, although related to 
January 6th as well. Let me ask you broadly about domestic 
violent extremism. I offered an amendment in this Committee, 
voted down by the Republicans, that we should oversee the 
increasingly dire threat of domestic violent extremism. One of 
your recent reports underscored the rise of this prevalent 
threat and I would ask you if you would address it today.
    Mr. Wray. So, the rise of domestic violent extremism is 
something that I and we have been identifying for quite some 
time. It goes back well before January 6th. In fact, a lot of 
people don't know this, but the Joint Terrorism Task Forces 
that we hear about so often at the FBI were largely created in 
response to domestic terrorism, not foreign terrorism.
    In my first few years, as Director we were identifying this 
issue more and more and that's why we elevated in the Summer of 
2019 racially motivated violent extremism to a national threat 
priority level. We saw I think about a 40-percent increase in 
the number of domestic violent extremism investigations all 
before anything to do with January 6th. Obviously since then it 
has continued.
    Domestic violent extremism cuts across the spectrum from 
the racially motivated violent extremism, militia violent 
extremism, anarchist violent extremism, environmental violent 
extremism, and, of course, recently, we've had a lot of violent 
extremism attacks against prolife facilities. We're 
investigating those.
    So, it really covers a wide spectrum. What they all have in 
common is three things: Violence or threats of violence 
motivated by some ideology. It varies in violation of Federal 
criminal law. That's the domestic violent extremism that I'm 
talking about when I've identified this phenomenon.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chair, could I request unanimous consent to 
enter into the record two letters, both from David Weiss, the 
Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney in Delaware, rebutting 
allegations concerning partiality in the investigation of the 
Hunter Biden case?
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank you.
    Thank you, director.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Director, what is the difference between a traditional 
Catholic and a radical traditional Catholic?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not an expert on the Catholic orders.
    Chair Jordan. Well, your FBI wrote a memo talking about 
radical traditional Catholics. I am just wondering if you can 
define it for us.
    Mr. Wray. Well, what I can tell you is you're referring to 
the Richmond Product, which was a single product by a single 
field office, which as soon as I found out about it, I was 
aghast and ordered it withdrawn and removed from FBI systems.
    Chair Jordan. You were aghast? Then why won't you let us 
talk to the people that put it together?
    Mr. Wray. We are working on finishing an internal review 
into what happen there.
    Chair Jordan. We have to wait; we the Congress and the 
American people have to wait until you do an internal review--
it is not a criminal investigation going on here--an internal 
review before we can talk to the people who wrote this?
    Mr. Wray. When we finish our internal review, which will be 
very soon, we will come back before the Committee and provide a 
briefing on what we found. Then we can--
    Chair Jordan. Any idea how many Catholics in America?
    Well, we appreciate the briefing, but we want to talk to 
the people who wrote it.
    Mr. Wray. Then we can--
    Chair Jordan. Any idea how many Catholics are in America, 
director?
    Mr. Wray. No, sir.
    Chair Jordan. There are a lot, over 60 million. What 
percentage of those are radical traditional Catholics according 
to the Richmond Field Office of the FBI?
    Mr. Wray. Again, that product is not something that I will 
defend or excuse. It's something that I thought was appalling 
and removed it.
    Chair Jordan. Let's read from that product. Page 4 of that 
product--by the way, the copy you gave us--when can we get a 
copy that doesn't have all these redactions on it, so we can 
actually see what the American taxpayers were paying for, to 
see their rights, their First Amendment religious liberty 
rights attacked? Let me just read from page 4.

        Provide new opportunities to mitigate extremist threat through 
        outreach to traditional Catholic parishes and the development 
        of sources with the placement and access to report on places of 
        worship.

    That is pretty fancy language for they are trying to put 
informants in the parish, in the church. That is what this 
memorandum said, Director, from one of your field offices. You 
won't let us talk to the people who did it. Any response to 
that?
    Mr. Wray. I didn't know--I was waiting for the question.
    Chair Jordan. No, you think priests should be informants 
inside the church, Director?
    Mr. Wray. We do not recruit, open, or operate confidential 
human sources to infiltrate, target, report on religious 
organizations.
    Chair Jordan. That's not what this said.
    It sounds like you were trying to do it in Richmond, 
Virginia.
    Mr. Wray. No, sir. No, sir.
    Chair Jordan. You weren't?
    Mr. Wray. That's--
    Chair Jordan. This didn't happen? You can assure us that 
this didn't happen?
    Mr. Wray. That product did not, as best as we can tell, 
result in any investigative action as a result of it. None.
    Chair Jordan. You know what the motivation for this was? 
Why would they even think about doing this? You know what the 
motivation was?
    Mr. Wray. Well again, I think that's what our internal 
review will find, and I'd rather wait until I hear what the 
results of that internal review are.
    Chair Jordan. Well, I don't need an internal review. I can 
read the document. I assume you can do the same. Because it 
says right there on the same page,

        Richmond assesses extremist interest in radical traditional 
        Catholics is likely to increase over the next 12-24 months in 
        the run-up to the next general election.

Same paragraph,

        Events in which extremists and radical traditional Catholics 
        might have common cause include legislation, judicial decisions 
        in such areas as abortion rights, immigration, affirmative 
        action, LGBTs, immigration, affirmative active, and LGBTQ 
        protections.

    It is politics. That is the motivation. In the run-up to 
the next election. They talk about the border, affirmative 
action, and abortion rights. It is total politics. I think it 
is interesting that affirmative--we just got a decision from a 
bunch of Catholics who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court relative 
to affirmative action. Politics was the total motivation here. 
That is what is scary. That is what I think is so frightening 
and why we--how this happens I don't know.
    Five people signed off on it. Five people including the 
Chief Division Counsel at the Richmond Field Office. I would 
like to talk to this lawyer. A lot of people in this room went 
to law school. You had a course on the Constitution. Talks 
about the First Amendment. I find that really scary.
    Again, when do you think we are going to have a chance? How 
soon you going to complete this internal investigation so we 
can talk to these folks who put this together?
    Mr. Wray. I expect us to be able to brief the Committee on 
our internal review later this summer.
    Chair Jordan. Will that briefing include the names of the 
individuals who put this document together attacking Americans' 
First Amendment liberty?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not sure yet what it will include because 
it's not done yet, but when it is, we'll provide you with an 
appropriate briefing.
    Chair Jordan. What are you doing to fix it, so this doesn't 
happen again?
    Mr. Wray. Well, we've already started putting place a 
number of fixes, and those will be further informed by the 
results of the review.
    Chair Jordan. What are those fixes? More training, more 
things, that is the same thing you told us on FISA. While you 
may have some improvement, you still got 204,000 times the data 
base was illegally searched. So, what are the training and 
procedures you are putting in place?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I'll put the FISA stuff to the side, 
although if you have time I can engage in that.
    Chair Jordan. Well, I am just using that as an example of 
where you have told the same thing, you fix something, and you 
haven't.
    Mr. Wray. I do not believe the number that you just invoked 
on the FISA side is since the reforms. The fixes, as you called 
them--
    Chair Jordan. Can we get an unredacted--
    Mr. Wray. --post-date the numbers that you're referring to.
    Chair Jordan. Director, can we get an unredacted copy--
while you are still doing this internal investigation can we at 
least get an un-redacted copy of this memorandum?
    Mr. Wray. I will find out if there's more of the document 
that can be shared with you. We've tried to be very careful in 
what we redact and there's always a basis for it. So, let me go 
back and see if there's more that we can provide. I know my 
instructions are to be as sparing as possible in the redactions 
that we provide.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Swalwell. Director, I think it is quite rich that the 
guy that has accused you of lawlessness and weaponization is 
400 days into violation of his own Congressional Subpoena over 
January 6th. Quite rich to me that you are hearing all these 
allegations from somebody who won't even respond to a lawful 
subpoena.
    I want to talk more about your workforce because that is 
where you started. A couple weeks ago at the bureau you had 
Family Day. Can you tell us what Family Day is?
    Mr. Wray. Family Day is an opportunity for employees from 
really all over the FBI. It tends to be primarily from the 
nearby geographies because of the trip that they have to make, 
employees to bring their families into FBI headquarters so that 
they can see a little bit about the place their loved ones work 
and why mom or dad is spending so much time away from home--
    Mr. Swalwell. Do you see any little kids at Family Day?
    Mr. Wray. Many, many, many. It is an opportunity for us to 
say thank you to the families. We talked a lot in law 
enforcement about sacrifice. The reality is that law 
enforcement officers and professionals are sacrificing to do 
what they love. Our families are sacrificing because of who 
they love.
    Mr. Swalwell. What would you say in your experience is the 
No. 1 worry of a little kid about a mom or dad who is a special 
agent out in the field?
    Mr. Wray. Obviously, they are worried that their mom or dad 
won't go home at night because they have been killed. That, in 
fact, has happened unfortunately all too--
    Mr. Swalwell. It happened in Fort Lauderdale a couple years 
ago. Is that right?
    Mr. Wray. Laura Schwartzenberger and Dan Alfin, two of our 
agents, killed in a connection with a child exploitation case 
down there. It was the single darkest day I have had in this 
job.
    Mr. Swalwell. I want to turn your attention to an 
organization called Marco Polo. It is run by a former Trump 
aide named Garrett Ziegler.
    Over the past couple weeks, he has doxed the addresses of a 
former Special Agent connected to the Hunter Biden case. He has 
put up the dates of births and pictures of two current special 
agents who work for you. He has said the name, which I will not 
say, of an Assistant U.S. Attorney who worked on the Hunter 
Biden case, that she will answer for her crimes. He will focus 
everything on her. Justice will be done. It is out of my hands. 
She will answer.
    Do these types of threats and doxing concern you about 
threats to your workforce and what it could mean?
    Mr. Wray. Well, obviously, what we are most concerned about 
are the actual acts of violence, which themselves have happened 
and as we just discussed. This kind of phenomenon, doxing, is 
itself hugely problematic because the more information, 
personal information about law enforcement professionals that 
are out in the internet, the more people who may be unstable or 
inclined to violence that are out there who can choose to act 
on it. We are seeing that all too often.
    The number of officers across law enforcement killed in the 
line of duty has been up alarmingly over the last few years. I 
know that because one of the things I committed to doing early 
in my tenure was every time an officer, anywhere in the 
country, is shot and killed in the line of duty, I was going to 
personally call that sheriff or that chief and on behalf of the 
FBI express our support and condolences and relay that to the 
family. I have done that now close to 400 times since I have 
been in this job.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you for doing that. You not only do 
that, but you also send your SACs, your special agents in 
charge, to their funerals as well. I have seen that.
    Chair, I have counted in this hearing, and we are only 
about an 1\1/2\ hours, the use of the word laptop about 20 
times. In fact, in the Chair's opening statement, he said that 
he is upset that he believes the FBI prevented more Americans 
from learning about a private citizen's laptop. That is bananas 
to me. You all are bringing up FISA every single question. You 
are essentially saying to the American people that you are 
guardians of personal security and privacy. The 2020 election 
was determined--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Swalwell. --because the FBI, no, because the FBI didn't 
let more Americans see a private citizen's nonconsensual nudes. 
Is that what we are saying here; that you lost the election not 
because of your ideas, but because a private citizen's laptop 
wasn't out there?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Do you want an answer? Will you 
yield?
    Will you yield?
    Mr. Swalwell. That's bananas. Like you should be a party of 
ideas not a party of nonconsensual nudes to help you win an 
election.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Will you yield for an answer?
    Mr. Swalwell. It seems like that is what the objection is 
here today. We should be talking about the mass shootings that 
occurred over the last 10 days. Instead, this hearing has 
turned into absolute chaos.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    We bring up FISA because it is up for reauthorization, if 
the gentleman didn't know, at the end of this year. It was in 
our witness's opening statement. I didn't bring up the laptop--
    Mr. Swalwell. Whose time are you speaking to, Chair?
    Chair Jordan. The judge last--
    Mr. Swalwell. Point of order. Whose time are you--
    Mr. Nadler. Chair, point of order. Whose time are you 
speaking on?
    Chair Jordan. I am speaking on, not a point of order.
    I recognize the gentleman from Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
    Director, thanks for being here. Who is Matthew Graves? Who 
is Matthew Graves?
    Mr. Wray. I believe Matthew Graves, at least the person I 
am thinking of, is I think the U.S. Attorney in the District of 
Columbia.
    Mr. Biggs. That is the person I am thinking of, too. Are 
you aware that he has promised more than 1,000 more individuals 
will be charged or indicted related to January 6th?
    Mr. Wray. I had not heard that he had said that.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, it seems arbitrary. There are reports that 
it is kind of a quasi-quota system that he has put together for 
January 6th prosecutions. Do you approve of targets, goals, 
quotas in prosecuting alleged criminal conduct?
    Mr. Wray. Well, certainly not quotas. That doesn't make any 
sense. I mean, goals are a little bit more of an ambiguous 
term.
    Mr. Biggs. Certainly not quotas.
    Mr. Wray. Certainly not quotas.
    Mr. Biggs. Do you know if any of your personnel at the FBI 
is involved in the investigations promised that will lead to 
indictments by the January 6th quota established by U.S. 
Attorney Graves?
    Mr. Wray. That doesn't sound familiar to me.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. In June 2021, you told this Committee that a 
small group of people at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th had 
``all sorts of weapons.'' Do you remember being here for that 
Committee hearing and testifying that way?
    Mr. Wray. In general, yes.
    Mr. Biggs. It has been reported that more than 40 FBI 
personnel, agents, or contractors were in the crowd on January 
6th. Is that number accurate?
    Mr. Wray. I don't know if that number is accurate.
    Mr. Biggs. Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund 
reportedly has asserted that the protest crowd was filled with 
Federal agents. Are you aware of his assertion?
    Mr. Wray. I am not.
    Mr. Biggs. Would you agree with him that it was filled with 
Federal agents on January 6th?
    Mr. Wray. I would really have to see more closely exactly 
what he said and get the full context to be able to evaluate 
it.
    Mr. Biggs. How many agents were actually, agents or human 
resources were present at the Capitol complex and vicinity on 
January 6th?
    Mr. Wray. Well, again, it is going to get confusing because 
it depends on when we deployed and responded to the breach that 
occurred. Obviously, there were--
    Mr. Biggs. How many were--
    Mr. Wray. --Federal agents--
    Mr. Biggs. Sure, yes, you are talking--and you and I both 
know we are talking different things here. Please don't 
distract here, because we are focusing on that those who were 
there in an undercover capacity on January. How many were 
there?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I am not sure that I can give you that 
number as I sit here. I am not sure there were undercover 
agents on scene.
    Mr. Biggs. I find that kind of a remarkable statement, 
Director. At this point, you don't know whether there were 
undercover Federal agents, FBI agents, in the crowd or in the 
Capitol on January 6th?
    Mr. Wray. I say that because I want to be very careful. 
There have been a number of court filings related to some of 
these topics. I want to make sure that I stick within what is 
in--
    Mr. Biggs. I understand that. I just, I thought I heard you 
say you didn't know whether there were FBI agents or informants 
or human sources in the Capitol or in the vicinity on January 
6th. Did I misunderstand you? I thought that is what you said.
    Mr. Wray. Well, I referred very specifically to undercover 
agents.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. So, are you acknowledging then there were 
undercover agents?
    Mr. Wray. As I sit here right now, I do not believe there 
were undercover agents on scene--
    Mr. Biggs. Or any assets?
    Mr. Wray. --FBI agents.
    Mr. Biggs. Did you have any assets present that day in the 
crowd?
    Mr. Wray. When it comes to what you are calling assets or 
what we would call confidential human sources, that is a place 
where, again, I want to be careful, much as I said in response 
to an earlier question. There are court filings that I think 
speak to this that I am happy to make sure we get to you, 
assuming they are not under seal. That can better answer the 
question than I can as I sit here right now.
    Mr. Biggs. In the same, or excuse me, June 2021 Committee 
hearing you told us that,

        The FISA Court approved FBI procedures, minimization 
        procedures, collection and procedures, courting procedures, did 
        not find misconduct.

That is what you said. Specifically, you said the FISC found no 
misconduct.
    Yet, three months later the Inspector General found 
widespread problems in FBI's FISA applications, raising serious 
questions about the FBI review process of applications, 
including hundreds of examples of noncompliance with Woods 
Procedures, for example. We know that from December 2020-
November 2021 the FBI conducted 3.4 million warrantless 
searches of U.S. data under FISA, 3.4 million, up nearly triple 
the amount of the previous year. It got worse as you were 
telling us there was nothing to worry about.
    Now, your reforms have produced about, reduced it down to 
119,000, over 200,000 total, but 119,000 discrete Americans. 
That just doesn't seem like you have accomplished much there if 
you have 119,000 illegal searches and queries under FISA.
    I will yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to 
ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately, this Chair ignored a 
bipartisan Congressional subpoena served on him. The actions of 
this Chair have undermined the credibility of all Congressional 
Committees in seeking information from witnesses and have 
undermined the rule of law.
    Now, Director Wray, thank you for your public service and 
for the service of the brave FBI agents. I am going to ask you 
a series of basic questions to get facts out to the American 
people about our system of justice.
    Trump advisor Roger Stone was convicted in a Federal Court, 
correct?
    Mr. Wray. That is my recollection.
    Mr. Lieu. All right. Trump donor Elliott Broidy was 
convicted in a Federal Court, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Also, my recollection.
    Mr. Lieu. The Attorney General at the time for those two 
convictions was Bill Barr. Which President nominated Bill Barr 
for Attorney General?
    Mr. Wray. President Trump.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen was 
convicted on two separate occasions in a Federal Court, 
correct?
    Mr. Wray. I believe that is correct.
    Mr. Lieu. The Attorney General at the time for Cohen's 
second conviction was Matthew Whitaker. Which President 
appointed Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General?
    Mr. Wray. President Trump.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. Trump's former Campaign Chair Paul Manafort 
was convicted in a Federal Court, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. Trump's former Deputy Campaign Manager Mr. Gates 
was convicted in a Federal Court, correct?
    Mr. Wray. That is my recollection.
    Mr. Lieu. Trump's campaign Foreign Policy Adviser George 
Papadopoulos was convicted in a Federal Court, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, I think he, yes, he pled guilty, yes.
    Mr. Lieu. The Attorney General at the time of those three 
cases was Jeff Sessions. Which President nominated Jeff 
Sessions for Attorney General?
    Mr. Wray. President Trump.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. You were their FBI Director for all those 
cases at the time. Which President nominated you?
    Mr. Wray. President Trump.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. What these facts show is we don't have a two-
tiered system of justice. We have one Department of Justice 
that goes after criminals regardless of party ideology.
    All these folks were convicted under the administrations of 
three separate Republican Attorneys General. It is not the 
fault of the FBI that Donald Trump surrounded himself with 
criminals. Donald Trump brought that on himself. Thank you to 
the FBI for exposing the cesspool of corruption of these Trump 
associates.
    Now, I would like to talk about efforts by MAGA Republicans 
to defund the FBI. I think it would be useful for the FBI to 
explain to the American people what your missions are and how 
critical they are, so, again, a series of basic questions. The 
FBI's mission includes counterterrorism, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. That means the FBI works to stop terrorist 
attacks on American soil, right?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. The FBI's mission also includes 
counterintelligence, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. That means the FBI works to stop espionage of 
American companies and organizations. Is that right?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. The FBI's mission includes stopping 
cybercrime, right?
    Mr. Wray. Correct.
    Mr. Lieu. The FBI's mission includes stopping public 
corruption, right?
    Mr. Wray. Correct.
    Mr. Lieu. The FBI's mission includes stopping weapons of 
mass destruction from being detonated on American soil, right?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, we work with others on it, but yes.
    Mr. Lieu. The FBI's mission includes going after organized 
crime, right?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. You go after violent crime, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. You also go after White collar crime, right?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. The FBI's mission also includes going after child 
sex trafficking, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Lieu. OK. Republican Members of their caucus, including 
Members on this Committee, have asked to defund the FBI. One 
Member on this Committee from Arizona wrote that the FBI 
``should be defunded and dismantled.'' What would happen if the 
FBI was defunded and dismantled?
    Mr. Wray. We would have hundreds more violent criminals out 
on the street, dozens more violent gangs terrorizing 
communities, hundreds more child predators on the loose, 
hundreds more kids left at those predators' mercy instead of 
being rescued, scores of threats from the Chinese Communist 
Party being left unaddressed, hundreds of ransomware attacks 
left unmitigated, terrorist attacks, both jihadist inspired and 
domestic violent extremists, not prevented that would succeed 
against Americans.
    Single seizures of fentanyl, it is not uncommon right now 
for a single FBI office in a single operation to seize enough 
fentanyl to wipe out an entire State. So many, many, many, many 
more of those lethal doses would be sweeping the country. We 
have close to 400 I think it is, somewhere between 300-400 
investigations into the leadership of the cartels trafficking 
that fentanyl. So, you would have a significantly greater 
threat from the southwest border from the cartels. So, those 
are just a few things that would happen.
    Ultimately, the people most hurt by some ill-conceived 
effort to defund our agency, the people most hurt are the 
American people that live in every district represented on this 
Committee.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Director Wray and the FBI agents, for 
protecting Americans.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, is recognized.
    Mr. Kiley. Good morning, Director Wray. I would like to 
take you back to 2021. In many parts of the country, schools 
remained closed month after month for no good reason. Once 
schools did nominally open, many instituted draconian testing 
and quarantine regimes, such as one student is possibly exposed 
to COVID, everyone goes home for the week. Children as young as 
toddlers were subjected to harmful mask mandates that defied 
international norms.
    The way some students were treated truly shocks the 
conscience. Just consider a few examples from my own State of 
California. A school district in Davis sent an email to parents 
announcing that their children will be required to eat outside 
in the rain to reduce exposure to COVID. A school in Sonoma 
County made young children chew with their masks on, explaining 
this was to minimize the time spent unmasked. Some schools in 
Los Angeles limited students to one bathroom break per day and 
barred them from drinking water outside of the lunch period. A 
school in the San Ramon Valley made students eat lunch on the 
ground.
    In October of that year, the American Academy of Pediatrics 
would declare a National State of Emergency in children's 
mental health, citing dramatic increases in emergency 
department visits for all mental health emergencies, including 
suspected suicide attempts.
    In the face of this, Director, the Biden Administration 
decided to take action. It mobilized the sweeping powers of 
Federal law enforcement. It wasn't to spare kids from such 
cruelty. Rather, it was to target the parents who were speaking 
out against it.
    The administration coordinated with the National School 
Board Association on a letter that began with the alarming 
claim America's public schools and its education leaders are 
under an immediate threat. The letter cited a handful of news 
stories, almost all which involved purely expressive activity 
by parents at school board meetings, and called such activity a 
form of domestic terrorism. The letter called for the full 
counterterrorism and law enforcement powers of the Federal 
government, including authority granted under the PATRIOT Act, 
to be mobilized to investigate, intercept, and prevent such 
activity.
    The Biden Administration was ready to take this letter and 
run with it the moment it was received. After all, 
administration officials had participated in its drafting. 
Within five days of receiving it, Attorney General Merrick 
Garland fired off his infamous memo directing Federal action in 
response to a ``disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, 
and threats of violence against school administrators, board 
members, teachers, and staff.'' In response, the FBI opened 25 
assessments against parents and even created a new threat tag.
    Director Wray, did Attorney General Garland consult with 
you or the FBI before issuing that memorandum?
    Mr. Wray. I can't get into discussions that did or maybe 
more importantly did not happen between the FBI and the 
Department in advance of the--
    Mr. Kiley. Why do you say more importantly did not?
    Mr. Wray. Well, because I will say to you the same thing 
that I said to all 56 of our field offices as soon as I read 
the memo, which is that the FBI is not in the business of 
investigating or policing speech at school board meetings or 
anywhere else for that matter, and we are not going to start 
now.
    Now, violence, threats of violence, that is a different 
matter. We are going to work with our--
    Mr. Kiley. Right. So, that is what the memo was predicated 
on. What I am asking you, was there any evidence that you 
provided to Attorney General Garland that supported that 
premise that there was an increase in harassment and threats of 
violence?
    Mr. Wray. I am not aware of any such evidence. I know that 
we have had a number of our folks who have been up here for 
transcribed interviews. So, unless some of them shared it, I am 
not aware of any--
    Mr. Kiley. Well, actually what they have shared with us 
points to just the opposite. You had, for example, a letter 
from Christopher Dunham, Acting Assistant Director, in March of 
this year where the FBI acknowledged that it has not observed 
an uptick of threats directed at school officials since it 
began tracking the data. Does that sound accurate to you?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Kiley. Is it also true that according to the FBI itself 
none of the school board related investigations have resulted 
in Federal arrests or charges?
    Mr. Wray. I think that is correct. I think of the 25, and 
for context that is 25--
    Mr. Kiley. I am sorry. I have limited time. So,--
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Kiley. --if that is correct, I would like to move on.
    This Committee's investigation concluded that the Justice 
Department's own documents demonstrated there was no compelling 
nationwide law enforcement justification for the Attorney 
General's directive. Do you have any reason to dispute that 
conclusion?
    Mr. Wray. No.
    Mr. Kiley. So, we had an investigation of parents. We had a 
sweeping mobilization of Federal power against the most 
protected core First Amendment activity, the right of citizens 
to speak and petition, on the most important of issues, the 
education of their children. You are telling me that the entire 
basis for that, there was no evidence to support it.
    Mr. Wray. Well, I want to be clear. We, the FBI, as I said, 
were not and did not investigate people for exercising their--
    Mr. Kiley. Should Attorney General Garland rescind the 
memo?
    Mr. Wray. I am sorry?
    Mr. Kiley. Should Attorney General Garland rescind that 
memo?
    Mr. Wray. Oh, that is a question for the Attorney General.
    Mr. Kiley. Do you believe he should?
    Mr. Wray. Again, that is a question for the Attorney 
General.
    Mr. Kiley. Do you believe that the Attorney General should 
apologize to parents who were the subject of that memorandum?
    Mr. Wray. I am not going to speak to that.
    Mr. Kiley. Will you apologize for the FBI's own role?
    Mr. Wray. I think the FBI conducted itself the way it 
should here, which is that we have continued to follow our 
longstanding rules and have not changed anything in response to 
that memo.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Washington.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Wray, thank you so much for being with us. Thank 
you for your service to the country.
    I do want to focus on some areas of concern around 
American's civil liberties that I have had longstanding 
concerns about. In testimony to Senate Intelligence in March, 
you stated that the FBI had previously purchased commercial 
data base information that includes location data derived from 
internet advertising, but that to your knowledge the FBI does 
not currently purchase data.
    Just last month the ODNI declassified a report revealing 
that the FBI and other agencies do purchase significant amounts 
of commercially available information about Americans from data 
brokers. The report notes that commercially available 
information:

         . . . has increasingly important risks and implications for 
        U.S. persons' privacy and civil liberties as commercially 
        available information can reveal sensitive and intimate 
        information about individuals.

    It is public information that the FBI uses Babel Street and 
Venntel, and has a Lexus account. All these companies provide 
data for purchase. Can you tell me how the FBI uses that data?
    Mr. Wray. Respectfully, this is a topic that gets very 
involved to explain. So, what I would prefer to do is have our 
subject matter experts come back up and brief you, and they can 
answer your questions in detail about it, because there is a 
lot of confusion that can be unintentionally caused about this 
topic.
    Ms. Jayapal. Does the FBI purchase data?
    Mr. Wray. My testimony that you referred to before remains 
the same. The story about the ODNI report doesn't change that. 
Again, there is a lot of precision and technical dimensions to 
this.
    Ms. Jayapal. Well, I do appreciate that. I am looking at a 
report that is from the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence saying that the FBI purchases data.
    Mr. Wray. I understand that.
    Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter 
this into the record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Jayapal. Do you know if the contracts with data brokers 
like the ones I described provide location data?
    Mr. Wray. My testimony about purchasing commercial data 
base information that includes location data derived from 
internet advertising remains the same, which is that we 
currently do not do that.
    Ms. Jayapal. The information that you have that has already 
been purchased, does it contain location--
    Mr. Wray. Again, I am not trying to be obtuse or difficult 
here. I just know from experience that the more you drill into 
this whole issue of commercial data, geolocation data, et 
cetera, that it gets very involved, in some cases involves 
pilot projects that are in the past. In some cases, it involves 
national security information, et cetera.
    Ms. Jayapal. Director Wray, I do understand that you are--
    Mr. Wray. So, I just want to make sure that we get you the 
information that you need.
    Ms. Jayapal. OK. That is great. I will take that. I do want 
to say that this is just an extremely important issue for the 
American people to understand how their data is being used. 
That is location data. That is biometric information. It is 
medical and mental health information. It is information 
related to individuals' communications. It is information about 
people's internet activity. While I understand that this is 
complicated, that is the reason that you come before us, so 
that the American people can hear this.
    Let me ask you this. Does the FBI have a written policy 
outlining how it can purchase and use commercially available 
information?
    Mr. Wray. There are a number of policies that bear on this 
topic. Again, that could be part of the same briefing that we 
are happy to provide. I don't dispute at all that this is an 
important topic. I am simply saying that precisely because it 
is such an important topic that a minute and 12 seconds 
counting down is not the best way--
    Ms. Jayapal. No, I understand that.
    Mr. Wray. That's all.
    Ms. Jayapal. I am asking whether there is a policy. It 
sounds like there is a policy. When was that policy last 
updated?
    Mr. Wray. That I can't, as I sit here right now, I don't 
have the answer for you on that. Again, there a number of 
policies that are relevant to this. So that may affect the--
    Ms. Jayapal. You will commit to providing those to us so 
that we can explore them--
    Mr. Wray. I will commit to providing you a briefing that 
will provide hopefully very helpful information to help you 
understand better this whole topic.
    Ms. Jayapal. What about a written policy governing how 
commercially available information can be used in criminal 
investigations?
    Mr. Wray. I think it is all wrapped up in the same answer I 
just gave.
    Ms. Jayapal. The reason that this is so important is 
because the question is whether the FBI uses that data to 
generate leads for investigations only or further along in the 
investigative process.
    There is public reporting on DHS contracts with the same 
data brokers that I mentioned earlier totaling millions of 
taxpayer dollars. As you know in the 2018 Supreme Court 
decision in Carpenter v. The United States, the Court held that 
it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the government to 
access historical location data without a warrant.
    Does the FBI have a written policy interpreting the Supreme 
Court's decision in Carpenter?
    Mr. Wray. If I recall correctly, there was guidance, I 
can't remember if it is a policy or what, that came out after 
the Carpenter decision. Again, I think that will be encompassed 
in the briefing that we are talking--
    Ms. Jayapal. Well, I am going to followup with you. I want 
to thank you again for your service. This is a critically 
important issue for the American people to understand.
    We have bipartisan support around FISA reauthorization and 
the concerns we have around FISA reauthorization. Unless we 
really understand what measures the FBI is taking to ensure 
that people's privacy is protected, I think it is going to be a 
very difficult reauthorization process. I am sure you know 
that. Thank you, Director Wray.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. I would just say 
well said. I appreciate your work with colleagues and 
bipartisan approach in this area. You have friends over here 
who want to help you on that.
    We now go to the gentleman from--I know, Director Wray. If 
we can go just a couple more, then we will take a little break, 
if that works for the Director. A couple more on each side, 
then we can take a break.
    [Off mic comments.]
    Chair Jordan. OK. All right. We will go. I think Mr. Moore 
is up.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Wray, thank you for being here today. In 2022, you 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated, ``I 
condemn in the strongest possible terms any prospect of 
retaliation against whistleblowers.'' Do you still agree with 
that statement?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. Do you feel that your actions as the FBI 
leadership during your tenure live up to that sentiment?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. Director Wray, a few months ago we heard from--
are you familiar with a Special Agent Garret O'Boyle?
    Mr. Wray. I am familiar with the name.
    Mr. Moore. After Mr. O'Boyle came to Congress and blew the 
whistle on the misconduct at the Bureau, his clearance was 
unsurprisingly suspended. Did that surprise you? Do you find 
that suspicious?
    Mr. Wray. I can't discuss a specific security clearance 
matter, partly because the security clearance determinations 
are made by ODNI directive, by the security clearance manager, 
which is not the FBI Director. I don't want to insert myself 
into the process while appeals are pending, for example.
    Mr. Moore. Well, as a leader, I think it is important. We 
need to have the opportunity, and you know by law that they 
have the opportunity to be whistleblowers and talk to Congress 
and inform us on issues. I think to restore trust in the FBI, 
it is imperative on you to allow whistleblowers to come forward 
and for us to have the oversight we need to have to make sure.
    We are seeing the polling numbers. The FBI is tanking. It 
is under your watch, sir. It concerns me for the American 
people. When I am in the district, the No. 1 concern, and I 
come from a fairly rural district, is weaponization of the FBI 
and the DOJ, coming after conservative American citizens who 
just simply want to have a voice in the process.
    So, I would encourage you--Mr. O'Boyle, I understand he has 
been suspended since September 2023, almost 10 months now. In 
2022, he was suspended in 2022. So, almost a year now the man 
is trying to go without a paycheck. I don't know. Could you 
make it 10 months without a paycheck, Mr. Wray?
    Mr. Wray. I prefer not to answer that.
    Mr. Moore. Well, you talk about your wife not being really 
happy, yes, taking a pay cut. Well, can you imagine 10 months 
later, and you are still going through a process for just a 
whistleblower coming to the Congress and trying to inform us on 
issues he sees within the FBI?
    I think we could help you in the process if you would allow 
us. In some ways, we have to look at this whistleblower and 
other whistleblowers and encourage them to come forward and be 
truthful with the American people.
    Two real quick questions. Why would the FBI offer 
Christopher Steele a million dollars to verify a dossier about 
Trump Russian collusion and then the same FBI offer $3 million 
to Twitter to squash a story on the Hunter Biden laptop? Do you 
have any idea why a law enforcement agency would be playing 
into elections?
    Mr. Wray. Well, you raised a number of different issues 
there. So, first, as to the Steele dossier, that, of course, is 
a subject treated at great lengths in the Durham Report, which 
we, and again, predates my time as director in which we--
    Mr. Moore. I understand that.
    It was the same agency paying a million dollars to push one 
story out or try to collaborate one story and $3 million to 
quiet another story for political opponents. I don't quite 
understand.
    Mr. Wray. Then I would, as to the second part related to 
Twitter, I would disagree with your characterization 
respectfully. When there are payments to social media 
companies, that is by a longstanding Federal law going back, I 
think, about four decades where we have to pay companies for 
their costs in responding to a legal process. It is not just 
social media companies. It is other kinds of businesses as 
well.
    Mr. Moore. Well, when those stories get out, and you 
understand certainly the dossier story, and I know that wasn't 
under your watch, but also the Hunter Biden laptop story, that 
to me looks political. To the American people, it looks 
political. I am just an everyday guy. I am not an attorney, Mr. 
Wray, just an everyday guy. To me, it looks extremely 
political. That is why you are having trouble keeping the FBI's 
reputation afloat.
    So, with that, Mr. Chair, I am going to yield the balance 
of my time. I want to enter one thing to the record, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Can you do that after and just yield? Then we 
will enter it into the record after.
    Mr. Moore. Sure, sure.
    Chair Jordan. Director Wray, did the FBI ask financial 
institutions to turn over their customers--he yielded the time 
to me. Did the FBI ask financial institutions to turn over 
their customers' debit and credit card purchase history in the 
Washington, DC, area for January 5-6, 2021?
    Mr. Wray. I don't know the answer to that as I sit here 
right now.
    Chair Jordan. Well, we do, because Bank of America gave 
this email from the FBI to Bank of America.
    Mr. Wray. Well, I am aware that Bank of America provided 
information to the FBI. What communications occurred between 
the FBI and Bank of America about it--
    Chair Jordan. Well, let's read it.

        To recap our morning call, we are prepared to action the 
        following threshold, customers transacting debit card, credit 
        card, Washington, DC, purchases between January 5-6, 2021.

That is scary enough. Then the next bullet point is even more 
scary. ``ANY HISTORICAL,'' capital letters, all capitals, ``ANY 
HISTORICAL PURCHASE OF A FIREARM.'' You guys asked financial, 
at least Bank of America, we think more. Did you guys ask them?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I don't have the full sequence of the back 
and forth. You have got one. It looks like you have one email 
that I haven't seen before here. So, I don't know that I have 
the full exchange that--
    Chair Jordan. Well, does this email trouble you as much as 
it does Members of the Judiciary Committee, that the FBI is 
asking for every single--we had Members of Congress here that 
week, first time they are getting sworn in as a new Member of 
Congress, their family in town. You are sweeping. They may 
happen to be a customer of Bank of America. You are sweeping up 
every debit and credit card purchase of their family who are in 
town that week because their husband or their dad or their mom 
is getting sworn in as a new Member of Congress? Then you are 
also saying overlaying that information with did you, did this 
person buy a firearm?
    Mr. Wray. The question is?
    Chair Jordan. I am just nervous about that. Are you nervous 
about that?
    Mr. Wray. As I think I have testified before, my 
understanding is that our engagement with Bank of America was 
fully lawful, but that we recalled the leads that were cut to--
    Chair Jordan. Well, if it is lawful, that was my next 
point. If it is lawful, why did you say we are not going to use 
these leads? That is what Mr. Jensen testified to when we 
deposed him, the Director of the Terrorism Unit at the FBI. 
That is what he testified to. Why did you not use the leads if 
it was lawful to get the information?
    Mr. Wray. Well, there are--
    Mr. Nadler. The Chair is one minute and 18 seconds over 
time.
    Mr. Wray. Sir, there are plenty of times where there are 
things that we lawfully can do, but that we decide is better 
that we not do.
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Wray. I think that is what happened--
    Chair Jordan. The idea that Mr. Massie said earlier. This 
is lawful, that you can ask this is scary. This is something 
else we are going to have to change.
    With that, I would yield to the gentlelady from, recognize 
the gentlelady from, excuse me, well, we got a unanimous 
consent request from Mr. Moore?
    Mr. Moore. Mr. Chair, yes, the Wall Street Journal article 
I would like to enter into the record says, ``Republicans eye 
sweet home for new FBI headquarters in Alabama.''
    Chair Jordan. All right. Without objection.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for five 
minutes. Then we will take a break, Director.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, 
Director Wray, for your presence here. Thank you to the men and 
women of the FBI, in particular, for the work that you have 
done on gun violence and as well the work that you have done in 
keeping Americans safe.
    Let me very quickly move on some issues that have been made 
a chief part of the work of our friends on the other side of 
the aisle. Republican Members of this Committee have spent much 
time of this Congress claiming that various aspects of the U.S. 
Government have been weaponized against the American people.
    Director Wray, are you or your staff or auxiliaries 
weaponizing the FBI against the American people?
    Mr. Wray. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. Let me thank you as 
well for your civil rights work and emphasize that, in 
addition, there have been representations that the FBI 
exaggerates domestic terrorism reports or data. Certainly, 
January 6th had its many different storytellers. That was an 
act of domestic terrorism. I don't know how you could have 
exaggerated that, as evidenced by the Special Congressional 
Committee we had.
    Let's just think of domestic terrorism as it relates to the 
good men and women of our law enforcement. Take an example in 
February 2020 in Texas where a White supremacist was engaged in 
conspiracy involving swatting, a harassment tactic, and all of 
the emergency services showed up over and over again. Does 
domestic terrorism impact negatively and dangerously on 
America's law enforcement and first responders?
    Mr. Wray. Absolutely. Sometimes law enforcement are 
themselves the intended victims or targets of domestic violent 
extremism.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Though you have good, committed 
individuals, does the--critique is legitimate. That is our job. 
Does the constant condemnation impact the morale of FBI 
personnel or those trying to join the FBI?
    Mr. Wray. Well, look, our people are human beings, and 
nobody likes to see the organization they have dedicated their 
careers, really their lives, to unfairly criticized. I will 
tell you, as I said in my opening statement, that the good news 
is our people are also tough and resilient. Our attrition is in 
the low single digits and would be the envy of almost any 
employer. Our recruiting, unlike what is happening in law 
enforcement more generally--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Great news.
    Mr. Wray. --is actually up very significantly.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I look forward to it being 
diverse.
    Let me start with our whistleblower journey here. Are you 
familiar with FBI special agents Kyle Seraphin?
    Mr. Wray. I am familiar with the name.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that yes?
    Mr. Wray. I am familiar with the name.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yep. The Committee heard testimony that 
Mr. Seraphin was suspended after he mishandled his service 
weapon and then said he wanted to use two female FBI executives 
as shooting targets. That was testimony of Jennifer Moore, HR, 
under, human resources under oath from the FBI.
    Mr. Seraphin describes himself as a Congressional 
whistleblower. Committee Republicans will not tell us whether 
he has been in contact with them. Are you familiar with former 
FBI agents Garret O'Boyle and Marcus Allen?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I am familiar with the names.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. O'Boyle was suspended for 
accessing information about an ongoing case and then leaking to 
the press. Allen was suspended for interfering in an 
investigation of a January 6th suspect. Both Allen and O'Boyle 
testified before the Weaponization Committee in May. Were you 
aware of that?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I think they are clearly there for all 
friends and family to see. I assume they wanted to be seen.
    Do you know who Kash Patel is, if you know?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, I know who he is.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. He is an aide to President Trump, isn't 
he, or was an aide or is an aide to President Trump?
    Mr. Wray. Well, he was an individual who served in a number 
of different roles, both up here on the Hill and in the 
Executive Branch.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Here is another picture. It is 
the checks that Seraphin sent to both O'Boyle and Allen. Each 
check was for $255,194. Let me say that again. These men were 
paid $255,194 after they testified as so-called whistleblowers. 
It should be noted that it says here, as it says, for holding 
the line.
    Director, at the time that Seraphin and Patel gave Garret 
O'Boyle and Marcus Allen these checks, do you happen to know if 
they were still employees of the FBI?
    Mr. Wray. I can't speak to that. I don't know the answer.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If they were, 5 CFR 2635, and I would 
appreciate it if we can get an answer in writing after you go 
back, whether they were or not, prohibits FBI employees from 
accepting cash gifts, doesn't it?
    Mr. Wray. Well, there are a whole number of rules that 
would apply to this. Again, I don't want to weigh in on a 
specific personnel matter.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If they were, that rule applies about cash 
gifts.
    Mr. Wray. I am not aware of a situation in which they 
could--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No, but just--
    Mr. Wray. --appropriately accept cash gift.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Just generally--
    Mr. Wray. Oh.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --if that applies to FBI agents about not 
taking cash gifts. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wray. There are definitely rules that apply to special 
agents accepting cash gifts.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Let me just finish this. Can 
you explain why an FBI agent should not receive cash?
    Let me move to one that I think is extremely important. Mr. 
Chair, just a moment. Here is what I think is the most 
interesting piece of this whole puzzle. O'Boyle and Allen are 
represented by an outfit called Empower Oversight.
    Chair Jordan. Time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Empower Oversight is run by former 
Republicans staffers. Do you know who else Empower Oversight 
might represent in any way?
    Mr. Wray. I do not.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous 
consent request.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady's time has 
expired.
    [Off mic comments.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. Thank you. The so-
called IRS whistleblower who Jim Jordan had relied on. Does 
anyone need any further proof that these allegations are ginned 
up, corrupt political stunts advanced by those who don't want 
to see us follow the law.
    Finally, Mr. Chair, here is another person who wants to 
join you on the 702. The FBI has begun major reforms. I think 
we should recognize that. You have been very kind. I yield back 
my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    I would just point out my guess is they got the money 
because, they wanted the money because they had to try to, they 
were trying to feed their family.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. They actually haven't received 
the money.
    I have a unanimous consent request, Mr. Chair, of a tweet 
Matthew Foldi put out here during this hearing. Right off the 
bat Jerry Nadler lies about whistleblower getting $250,000. He 
says here Marcus Allen has not received $250,000. He has not 
received or cashed the check that Kyle Seraphin posted online. 
Enter that into the record.
    Chair Jordan. Into the record.
    The Committee will take a five-minute recess, five minutes 
and then we will come back.
    [Recess]
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come back to order. The 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Wray, thank you for being here. Since we last 
spoke in Appropriations on April 27, and Special Counsel John 
Durham delivered his report detailing intelligence activities 
investigations arising out of the 2016 Presidential Campaign.
    When Mr. Durham presented here at the Committee, I asked 
him these questions. He was able to answer me in yes-or-no 
answers. I would ask you to do the same.
    Did the FBI have an adequate basis on which to launch 
Crossfire Hurricane?
    Mr. Wray. My understanding is that Mr. Durham found that it 
did not have a proper basis to elevate it to a full 
investigation, but that he thought it was an assessment or a 
preliminary inquiry was appropriate.
    Mr. Cline. Did the FBI fail to examine all available 
exculpatory evidence?
    Mr. Wray. Well, you say to examine it? Certainly, I think 
there are failures, significant failures with respect to 
exculpatory information.
    Mr. Cline. Did the FBI interview all key witnesses in 
Crossfire Hurricane?
    Mr. Wray. I think Mr. Durham I think found that they did 
not.
    Mr. Cline. Did the FBI abuse its authority under the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
    Mr. Wray. Well, certainly, there were violations that were 
totally unacceptable and in my view cannot be allowed to happen 
again.
    Mr. Cline. As noted in the report, Crossfire Hurricane 
investigators had hoped the returns on the Carter Page FISA 
application would ``self-corroborate.'' Do FBI or DOJ 
guidelines permit investigators to submit uncorroborated 
allegations in a FISA application in the hopes that the returns 
will self-corroborate?
    Mr. Wray. I have never heard of that concept.
    Mr. Cline. OK. Is Crossfire Hurricane the only time the FBI 
has violated the procedures for the FISA process?
    Mr. Wray. Well, there are a lot of different procedures, 
but certainly not the only compliance incidence that we have 
had with respect to FISA.
    Mr. Cline. Director, as I expressed to you upstairs, the 
American people are outraged. Just this week I had at a 
townhall, constituents expressing outrage about the actions of 
those within your agency who have damaged the FBI's reputation 
and undermined the work, the good work, of the vast majority of 
hardworking men and women within your agency.
    Going down the list, you have the Biden family 
investigations, you have the anti-Catholic memo. By the way, 
you mentioned five individuals who contributed to the anti-
Catholic memo in the Richmond Field Office. Are they still 
employed by the FBI?
    Mr. Wray. I don't think I mentioned any specific 
individuals. I did say that this was a product by a single 
field office that we took action on immediately. We have an 
inspection that is underway right now that is looking at how 
this happened and how we make sure it doesn't happen again.
    Mr. Cline. So, it is possible that individuals will be 
fired as a result of your review.
    Mr. Wray. Well, I don't want to predetermine or forecast 
where the review will go. We are going to look at everything 
from exactly how it happened and what went wrong, and then--
    Mr. Cline. It is possible--
    Mr. Wray. If there are appropriate steps to be taken, we 
will take whatever the appropriate steps are.
    Mr. Cline. OK. You have the violence against pro-life 
clinics, you have the investigation of parents speaking at 
school board meetings, you have the collusion with Big Tech. 
The FISA abuses of Section 702 is where I want to focus right 
now.
    As you know, Section 702 authorizes warrantless 
surveillance that is supposed to be targeted toward foreigners 
abroad, but the surveillance sweeps in a large amount of 
Americans' communications, and the FBI routinely runs searches 
of Section 702 data looking for phone calls, emails, and text 
messages of Americans in so-called back-door searches.
    Depending on the year, FBI has conducted anywhere from 3.4 
million in 2021 to 200,000 in 2022. Given this fact, do you 
honestly think it is fair to continue describing Section 702 as 
authority targeted only at foreigners abroad?
    Mr. Wray. I do.
    Mr. Cline. It looks like a framework that enables the FBI 
to spy on countless Americans. Would you agree with that 
assessment?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I can't speak to what it looks like to 
certain people. I can tell you that it is an authority focused 
on foreigners overseas in the context of national security 
investigations.
    I would add to that the FBI's piece of that, the FBI only 
accesses--so everything we are talking about FBI-related only 
goes to about three percent of the entire 702 collection. Then 
within that three percent, this is important now--
    Mr. Cline. OK, I have 30 seconds.
    Mr. Wray. It is important that people understand this. The 
FBI ends up only accessing content in like 1\1/2\ percent of 
that. So, a little context is appropriate.
    Mr. Cline. I understand. Well, if you are conducting 
hundreds of thousands or even just hundreds of warrantless 
searches of Section 702 data for Americans' communications, it 
is clearly a domestic surveillance tool.
    I would argue that I believe it does pose a real problem 
within the FBI's conduct toward Americans. I speak for many 
when I say it poses a real problem for the reauthorization of 
FISA authority for your organization.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Director Wray, for being here. I am troubled by 
many of the statements and questions we have heard today that 
embrace conspiracy theories and disinformation. With these 
comments, it appears that some of my colleagues are trying to 
sow division and score political points rather than conduct 
legitimate oversight of the actual actions and policies of the 
FBI.
    I, like many Americans, would rather Congress focus on 
doing the people's business and ensuring that the FBI is able 
to do its job and do it well within the bounds of our 
constitution and laws.
    Now, one of the most serious issues facing American 
communities now is drug abuse, particularly opioids and 
fentanyl. In your opening remarks, you mentioned the arrest of 
31 U.S. citizens in Northeast Ohio just a couple weeks ago, 
most hailing from Marion, for drug trafficking.
    Can you just take a minute, because I have some other 
questions, to describe what the FBI is doing to end the scourge 
of fentanyl and what additional tools you might need from 
Congress.
    Mr. Wray. So, the FBI is attacking the scourge of fentanyl 
coming from the Southwest border, in particular, in a variety 
of ways.

    (1)  We are using our organized crime task forces to target 
the supply, the cartels in particular.
    (2)  We are using our Safe Streets task forces to go after 
the gangs that are principally responsible, violent gangs, for 
distributing a lot of this all over our streets.
    (3)  We are targeting provider abuse, prescription, pill 
mills, and things like that through our healthcare fraud 
authorities.
    (4)  We have something called J-CODE, which focuses on the 
trafficking of fentanyl on the dark web, which is a real 
problem.

We have had a number of very significant take-downs there.
    We are also doing things like engaging in outreach, raising 
awareness. We put out a video called Chasing the Dragon with 
DEA that has been showed in a lot of schools around the 
country. We are trying to work with the health community.
    So, there's a lot of things that we are doing, but this is 
an epidemic. I don't believe that it is an overstatement. It is 
something that requires all hands on deck.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. If there are things you think Congress can 
help you with, please submit that to us afterwards.
    Another major threat to our Nation is domestic terrorism, 
and that is something you have spoken about repeatedly. Like 
many Americans, I find it unpatriotic and dangerous when 
Members of Congress embrace dangerous conspiracy theories that 
undermine our Federal law enforcement and ultimately our 
democracy.
    I find it disingenuous for Members of Congress to harangue 
the head of the FBI about people losing faith in the FBI when 
those same Members have been trumpeting lies and conspiracy 
theories about the agency for months. Words matter, they have 
consequences. When leaders lie or embrace disinformation, that 
is dangerous.
    In recent years we have seen increasing threats and 
violence levied against public servants at all levels, 
including journalists, elected officials, election workers, 
doctors, nurses, school officials, teachers, librarians, and 
more.
    What these public servants have in common is they became 
targets for threats and violence when they had the guts to 
stand up to lies and conspiracy theories promulgated by the 
former President and his allies.
    We have seen MAGA extremists, Fox News pundits, Russian 
internet trolls, and elected officials parrot conspiracy 
theories and use heated language to convince the American 
public, without facts, that dedicated public servants are 
dangerous enemies who should be feared.
    Most Americans understand that this is not legitimate 
political discourse and that this kind of overheated and fact-
free rhetoric can in fact encourage political violence. It is 
not normal, and it should not be part of American public life.
    So, Director Wray, you have repeatedly testified about the 
serious threat that domestic violence extremists present to 
Americans. These are people who commit violent and criminal 
acts in furtherance of social or political goals, whether 
racial and ethnic motivation or anti-government motivation.
    Can you talk about the role that mistrust in government and 
disinformation and conspiracy theories play in the 
radicalization and recruitment of extremists?
    Mr. Wray. Well, certainly there is a whole host of 
misconceptions that are out there about any number of 
institutions, whether it is law enforcement, whether it is the 
Supreme Court, whether it is any number of institutions. That 
in the environment that we are in where there are people who 
increasingly channel their rage into violence, that causes a 
problem.
    There is a right way under the First Amendment to express 
what you are angry about and who you are angry with, and we 
take that very seriously and view as part of our mission not 
just to protect the American people, but to uphold the 
Constitution.
    When those views are then turned into violence and threats 
of violence, then we got a problem. Then I think the FBI has to 
act.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I see my time has expired, but I 
would seek unanimous consent to introduce into the record a 
press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Northern 
District of Ohio entitled, ``31 Individuals Involved in a Drug 
Trafficking Organization in Marion County and Lorain County 
Indicted.''
    Chair Jordan. No objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
    Mr. Director, when we abandoned Afghanistan, we released 
about 5,000 terrorists from the Parwan Detention Facility. One 
of those terrorists showed up at Abbey Gate 10 days later and 
killed 13 U.S. Marines. Where are the other 5,000?
    Mr. Wray. I don't know that I can tell you where all 5,000 
of them are.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, let me put it more simply. Have you 
encountered any here in the United States?
    Mr. Wray. We have quite a few ongoing investigations into 
foreign terrorist-related subjects, whether they are Al Qaeda-
related or Isis-related, that we are conducting as you and I 
are having this conversation. Certainly,--
    Mr. McClintock. So, have you encountered any from Parwan 
here in the United States?
    Mr. Wray. Specifically, I am not sure I can say that. Let 
me followup and make sure if there is anything more I can 
provide you on that.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, meanwhile, we have had about one and 
a half million know got-aways cross the border as this crisis 
has unfolded. Any estimate of how many among, of those 5,000 
among one and a half million known got-aways may be terrorists?
    Mr. Wray. I know that we have seen an uptick, which is 
obviously concerning to me, and I can tell from your question 
concerning to you, in KSTs, as we call them, known or suspected 
terrorists coming across the Southwest border. Our folks are 
working very hard to try to do our part to try to keep tabs on 
those individuals.
    Mr. McClintock. Speaking of upticks, have we seen an uptick 
in criminal cartel or cartel-related gang activity in the 
United States over the last several years?
    Mr. Wray. Yes. The cartels, working in kind of an unholy 
alliance with dangerous, violent gangs here in the U.S. are 
responsible not just for the abominable distribution of 
fentanyl all over the country, but also an awful lot of the 
violence that comes along with it.
    Mr. McClintock. That is coming principally across our 
Southern border?
    Mr. Wray. That is a huge driver of it, certainly.
    Mr. McClintock. A huge driver. It is reported we have lost 
contact with the guardians of more than 85,000 unaccompanied 
minors who have been brought here by the cartels through the 
Southern border. How many of these children are still 
unaccounted for?
    Mr. Wray. That I am not sure we have the answer to that. 
That may be a question for DHS.
    Mr. McClintock. What is the Woods Procedure?
    Mr. Wray. The Woods Procedure is a procedure for--it has 
nothing to do with 702. It has to do with traditional FISA, 
Title 1 FISA, as we call it, and involves having files that 
have all the underlying documents to support each of the 
factual assertions in--
    Mr. McClintock. Is that important to the integrity of FISA 
applications?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McClintock. In February 2020, you assured the Committee 
that you took these FISA abuses seriously, that you were 
working to address them. A 1\1/2\ year later the Office of the 
Inspector General reported that you weren't. They reported 
systemic noncompliance and essentially that some FBI field 
personnel took the Woods Procedure as a joke.
    If we can't trust your past reforms, how seriously should 
we take your promises of future reform?
    Mr. Wray. I appreciate the opportunity to address this one. 
So, that OIG finding actually applies to, first, a compliance 
problems that occurred before all the fixes that I was 
testifying to you about. Even though the report came out later, 
it was covering a time period that predated all the fixes and 
reforms we put in place.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, your General Counsel assured Mr. 
Durham that the abuses would not have happened because of the 
new procedures for supervisorial review, yet some of the worst 
abuses in Crossfire Hurricane were committed by supervisory 
agents. So, why should we have any great confidence that it is 
not going to happen again?
    Mr. Wray. There are a couple different sets of reforms 
here. So, the first is on the reforms that we put in place in 
response to the Inspector General's Crossfire Hurricane report.
    Mr. McClintock. We can't trust your supervisors is the 
problem. The problem seems to be that this power exists at all 
and human beings, being what they are, will tend to abuse them. 
Could you describe the term parallel construction as it relates 
to evidence produced in FISA searches?
    Mr. Wray. Parallel construction? I am not sure I have used 
that--
    Mr. McClintock. Doesn't that refer to the FBI using 
forbidden information from a 702 search to alert local law 
enforcement to search for and then produce the same material 
without revealing that it came from an improper search?
    Mr. Wray. I am just not sure about the use of the term.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, has the FBI ever employed that 
particular tactic in prosecuting American citizens?
    Mr. Wray. Not to my knowledge. Again, I can look into that 
and get back to you.
    Mr. McClintock. What percentage of FISA warrant 
applications are rejected by the FISA Court?
    Mr. Wray. I don't know that we have that number. There is 
usually a back-and-forth with the Court. It is not unusual for 
the Court to--
    Mr. McClintock. It is a fraction of percentage, isn't it?
    Mr. Wray. A fraction of a percentage?
    Mr. McClintock. Yes.
    Mr. Wray. Yes, I don't know if that is right, but it is 
definitely a small number. I think that is partly because our 
folks learn over time what the Court expects.
    Mr. McClintock. Which makes that sound an awful lot like a 
rubber stamp. I see my time has expired. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Georgia recognized.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair.
    Good afternoon, Director Wray. Thank you for coming before 
the Judiciary Committee this afternoon. I have read your 
testimony.
    I want to redirect this questioning for a moment, and I 
want to focus on the important work that the FBI is tasked with 
when it continues to do its work with gun violence prevention 
and keeping our communities safe.
    As of today, there have been over 300 mass shootings. That 
is more the number of days that we have in this year. 
Statistics will continue to show us over and over again that 
during the summer, these numbers continue to rise.
    Extreme risk protection orders play an important role in 
law enforcement's response to preventing mass shootings from 
happening.
    What are also known as red-flag laws or orders, they 
empower law enforcement, along with family members and 
household members, to petition a court to actually have an 
individual that appears to be in crisis have those firearms 
just temporarily taken away or removed from them with a court 
order, to be returned during expiration of that order.
    I have a few questions for you, so if you can answer as 
directly as you can, I appreciate it. Family members and 
members of law enforcement can often identify individuals who 
would pose a risk to themselves or to others within the 
community when they actually possess a gun.
    As the head of the United States' Federal law enforcement 
agency, do you believe that these red-flag laws and these 
programs enhance public safety?
    Mr. Wray. I don't want to speak on behalf of any specific 
legislative proposal, but I will say that I know from 
experience that a number of States have had good experiences 
with those laws.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you. In the past several years, several 
States have actually enacted those extremist protection orders. 
In total, we actually have 21 States and the District of 
Columbia have enacted their own forms of red-flag laws.
    If a person who is subject to such an order tries to buy a 
gun from a federally licensed firearm dealer, would the FBI 
approve or deny the sale?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I believe if the order is required by State 
law making it a State prohibitor, and therefore is loaded into 
the NICS system, then when the background check is run, when 
the FFL, the Federal Firearms Licensee contacts NICS to proceed 
with the sale, what would pick up the so-called--the order that 
you are talking about.
    If that is a prohibitor, then that would block the 
transaction is my understanding.
    Ms. McBath. So, in the absence of an application or 
applicable State law, is there a way for the FBI agent to seek 
an order under Federal law?
    Mr. Wray. I am not aware of any Federal law to that effect.
    Ms. McBath. Exactly. If an FBI agent has information that 
someone has been violent many times in the past, but is not 
able to seek a criminal conviction, is there a way for the FBI 
to deny the sale of a gun to that person?
    Mr. Wray. We only deny sales for people who are prohibited 
by law from possessing firearms.
    Ms. McBath. My bill, the Federal Extreme Risk Protection 
Order Act, which was passed by the House last Congress, would 
provide Americans in all States access to these truly 
lifesaving measures. I have reintroduced this bill again this 
term.
    Last summer Congress also passed the bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act. Among other critical gun violence provisions 
in that, the legislation begins to address the problem of gun 
trafficking.
    What steps has the FBI taken to implement or utilize this 
new law that actually helps to stop gun trafficking?
    Mr. Wray. Well, we are, of course, working closely with the 
Justice Department to implement all the provisions of the laws 
that relate to NICS, in particular. The place that has had the 
biggest impact on us is, certainly, on the additional checks 
that now would be run for the 18-20 year olds.
    We started implementing that last October. It was fully 
implemented starting in January. It is a big change for us and 
for the State agencies that are on the receiving end of the 
request for information. As well as for the FFLs, both the big 
stores and the mom-and-pops. It is a big change in the system.
    I think we have done about 100,000 or so checks of this 18-
20, in other words U21 group that we are talking about since 
the implementation of the act. Those are not all denials, to be 
clear. Most, in fact, the vast, vast, vast majority of them 
were sales that appropriately proceeded.
    There were some that were of course denials based on the 
statute.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, I'm out of time.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 
gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Roy. Thank the Chair. Thank you, Director Wray, for 
appearing.
    Brian Auten was one of the FBI intelligence analysts who 
interviewed Igor Danchenko, the principle source of the Steele 
dossier in January 2017, correct?
    Mr. Wray. I believe that is in the Durham Report.
    Mr. Roy. Danchenko explained that the dossier allegations 
were BS, yet the FBI did not reveal that to the FISA Court. 
Instead, the FBI continued to use those allegations in two more 
sworn FISA applications about President Trump and Putin, 
correct?
    Mr. Wray. Well, again, I want to let Mr. Durham's Report 
speak for itself.
    Mr. Roy. OK, but as Director of the FBI, those are the 
facts of the FBI under your watch. The FBI--
    Mr. Wray. Well, no, sir, I'm sorry. Just, it's important. 
Not under my watch. Those were the facts before I--
    Mr. Roy. I'm getting to the part under your watch.
    Mr. Wray. OK.
    Mr. Roy. The FBI conducted an internal investigation of 
Auten and sought to suspend him, but Auten appealed, correct?
    Mr. Wray. I can't discuss a specific pending personnel 
matter.
    Mr. Roy. OK, well according to recent reports, those are 
the facts. Nevertheless, in 2020 after Senators Grassley and 
Johnson highlighted evidence of potential financial crimes and 
corruption against the Biden family, the FBI assigned Auten to 
compile an assessment, which was used to characterize the Biden 
revelations as Russian disinformation.
    The evidence Grassley and Johnson had collected were mostly 
financial records and could easily have been corroborated as 
authentic. By then, the FBI had the Hunter laptop in its 
possession for over a year. So, it knew the lucrative payments 
to the Bidens from corrupt and anti-American regimes were 
authentic.
    How on earth did the FBI empower an agent under 
investigation for potentially corrupt performance and abuse of 
FISA in one politically fraught investigation, a Democrat 
operative driven case against President Trump, to a play a key 
role and to undermine a second politically fraught 
investigation, a case against the Bidens?
    How is that possible? How can you allow that to occur in 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, say the elite law enforcement agency 
of the United States? How does that occur?
    Mr. Wray. I can't at the moment discuss a pending personnel 
matter. I can tell you that every employee who in any way 
touched the Crossfire Hurricane matter has been referred to our 
Office of Professional Responsibility, our disciplinary arm.
    Mr. Roy. Are you concerned about this activity by the FBI 
and what was communicated to the FISA Court? Does that concern 
you as the Director of the FBI?
    Mr. Wray. I consider the conduct that was described in the 
Durham Report as totally unacceptable and unrepresentative of 
what I see from the FBI every day and must never be allowed to 
happen again.
    Mr. Roy. Have there been consequences as a result? Is Mr. 
Auten--has he had consequences?
    Mr. Wray. Well, again, I can't speak to pending personnel 
matters, as you would perhaps remember from your own time in 
law enforcement. Because we were working closely with Mr. 
Durham and I assigned agents to help him, at his request we 
slowed down the administrative process to allow his 
investigation to complete itself.
    Now, that it is complete, our personnel processes are very 
much ongoing.
    Mr. Roy. Well, I think it is more than troubling that under 
your watch, we see that this continued to occur. You have Auten 
continue to be empowered after there was an investigation and 
after there was an effort by the FBI to look into why he would 
go to the FISA Court and give wrong information.
    The issue here has been wrapped up in a cloud of politics, 
but the fact is the American people deserve to know how the 
FISA Court is being abused and how it is being abused against a 
former President and against them in light of the reports that 
we saw Mr. Johnson of Louisiana put forward that was in a court 
filing, in a court report.
    Want to move on to another topic. On September 23, 2022, 20 
heavily armed agents stormed the home of Mark Houck. You are 
familiar with this?
    Mr. Wray. I am familiar with the Houck case, a little bit, 
yes.
    Mr. Roy. This was after Mr. Houck's lawyer reached out and 
said he would appear voluntarily because the incident in 
question occurred almost a year earlier in October 2021. So, a 
year earlier.
    The question here I have, local authorities investigated 
the incident, but concluded there was no case. After the jury 
met for roughly an hour, Houck was acquitted. How on earth did 
Mark Houck end up having the FBI send several armed agents 
along with local authorities to arrest him at gunpoint? Do you 
approve it, did you approve of that?
    Mr. Wray. Well, let me start where you ended. Decisions 
about the manner of an arrest are not something that the FBI 
Director approves. I defer to and rely on the judgment of the 
experienced career agents on the ground, who have both the most 
intimate understanding of the facts and have the training 
experience to decide how best to effectuate an arrest.
    Mr. Roy. Do you know who did order it?
    Mr. Wray. My understanding is that this arrest was 
conducted in our Philadelphia Division by career agents with a 
combined 40 years of FBI experience.
    Mr. Roy. Do you approve of the raid now in retrospect? Do 
you think it was appropriate? Do you think it was appropriate 
for a father to have armed FBI agents along with local agents 
go to his home, arrest him at gunpoint for alleged violation of 
the FACE Act a year after the alleged incident after the father 
had said through his lawyer that he would appear voluntarily?
    Do you believe that FBI agents should go to the home of a 
father in Philadelphia suburbs?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not going to second-guess the judgment of the 
career agents on the ground who made the determination.
    Mr. Roy. You job is to second-guess--
    Mr. Wray. I think your description--
    Mr. Roy. Look at what they are doing. Your job is to review 
what they do. Your job is to protect the American people from 
the tyrannical FBI storming the home of an American family.
    Mr. Wray. I could not disagree more with your description 
of the FBI as tyrannical, and I think--
    Mr. Roy. You don't believe it's tyrannical that FBI were a 
part of storming a father's home in suburban Philadelphia?
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman--the time of the 
gentleman--
    Mr. Wray. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
witness may respond, and then we will move to our next witness.
    Mr. Wray. So, respectfully, they did not storm his house. 
They came to his door. They knocked on his door and identified 
themselves. They asked him to exit. He did, without incident.
    Mr. Roy. [Off mic.] Armed at gunpoint.
    Mr. Wray. Whenever our agents--well, not at gunpoint. 
Whenever our agents conduct an arrest, they are armed. Our 
agents are armed virtually all the time, as you may remember 
from your own experience as a prosecutor.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Ranking Member 
has a unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask unanimous consent that this document be 
placed in the record.
    Chair Jordan. That's pretty--that's not too specific.
    Mr. Nadler. I ask unanimous consent to enter the full 
January 15, 2021, email thread between the Bank of America and 
the FBI that is about threats to Inauguration Day, instead of 
the edited version that was shown on the--
    Chair Jordan. I'm happy to have that into the record. 
Without objection. We champion that. We are going to bring that 
up again here if we get a chance.
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Wray, good to see you. I thank you for being here 
today. I just want to remind those who are watching at home or 
here in the room that we are here as an oversight function. We 
are not here as a political tool to hammer you or your 38,000 
public servants, law enforcement men and women, and to try to 
use you politically.
    It surely doesn't feel that way all the time during this. 
So, I thank you for your service. I thank the men and women for 
their service. I have a first cousin, technically I guess a 
first cousin-in-law who for a very long time in the 
Philadelphia suburbs served as an FBI agent with integrity and 
honor. So, I think of him, I think of Jack today, as I am doing 
this.
    I read your testimony. Often, over and over, you State the 
mission of FBI, to protect the American people and uphold the 
Constitution of the United States. Twofold, protect the 
American people, uphold the Constitution. Do it by the rule of 
law. That is what we should be asking about, are we doing that 
to the best of our ability.
    I want to use and examine the case of the Mar-a-Lago 
documents, because it has been used by the former President as 
a pitying moment, as though he has somehow been victimized. 
None of that is normal. These are serious times, and your 
people have serious missions about the safety of the American 
people and doing it lawfully.
    Director Wray, a ballroom, a bathroom, a bedroom, are those 
appropriate places to store classified, confidential 
information?
    Mr. Wray. Well, again, I don't want to be commenting on the 
pending case, but I will say that there are specific rules 
about where to store classified information, and that those 
need to be stored in a SCIF, a secure compartmentalized 
information facility. In my experience, ballrooms, bathrooms, 
and bedrooms are not SCIFs.
    Ms. Dean. Mine too. Yet, that is where the former President 
chose to put vital information about our national security. He 
exacerbated the risk, as alleged in the damning 37-count 
indictment, by evading law enforcement and allegedly even 
showing some of these classified documents to others who were 
not either in a SCIF or up to having these informations sent to 
him.
    It was January 2021, having lost the election, 2021, when 
at noon Mr. Trump has to leave the White House. Of course, it 
is shown in the affidavit and in the indictment that he left 
with quite a few boxes.
    In May 2021, the National Archives emailed requesting the 
missing documents from Mr. Trump. His lawyer said that he would 
provide them, and then never did.
    On January 18, 2022, so we are talking a full year later, 
Mr. Trump finally turned over 15 boxes. Fourteen of them 
contained documents with classified markings, 30 documents Top 
Secret.
    In June 2022, this is now a 1\1/2\ years later, DOJ and FBI 
recover an additional 38 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago, 
your FBI, our FBI. A lawyer for Mr. Trump signed a statement at 
that point. To the best of her knowledge, she said, ``all 
classified materials had been returned.''
    Surveillance footage of course showed that wasn't the case.
    In August 2022, a Federal judge approved a warrant to 
search Mar-a-Lago. This was not a raid, as some on the other 
side would like to have a pity party for Mr. Trump. This was 
not a raid.
    They then retrieved another 102 documents with classified 
markings. Three hundred and some documents taken by the 
President, improperly stored, and then tried to evade and 
obstruct justice, as is alleged.
    Do you think that the FBI went over the top or was out of 
line in your participation in retrieving these documents?
    Mr. Wray. Well, again, I don't want to discuss the 
specifics of a pending case. From everything I have seen, our 
folks in this case have proceeded honorably and in strict 
compliance with our policies, our rules, and our best 
practices.
    Ms. Dean. It seems from what overview we can do, I am 
taking a look here at the affidavit to get the search warrant 
to go on in, it was one of your special agents assigned from 
the Washington Field Office, obviously, we don't know who. 
Pointed out and made the case for probable cause to go in and 
to collect these documents.
    So, let's take a look at the flip side. What is the harm, 
what is the danger to either human assets, your employees, 
national security for Mr. Trump holding onto, moving around, 
showing Top Secret documents, where is the harm? Eighteen 
months of this going on.
    Mr. Wray. Well, again, respectfully, I am not going to 
comment or weigh in on a case that is now pending in front of 
Federal judges. Speaking more generally, the rules governing 
the handling of classified information are there for a reason, 
and people need to be very mindful of those rules.
    Unfortunately, the FBI has a steady part of its docket a 
number of investigations involving mishandling. The reason 
those rules are there is because classified information, if it 
gets into the wrong hands, can put human sources in jeopardy.
    It can put other kinds of intelligence collection at 
jeopardy. It can jeopardize our partnerships with foreign 
liaison services, which are the lifeblood of the intelligence 
community in many ways.
    So, it is serious business, and it needs to be taken 
seriously. Again, I am not speaking about a particular case, I 
am just speaking generally.
    Ms. Dean. I very much appreciate it, Mr. Chair. I 
appreciate it, but I do want to just point out to the world, 
none of this is normal. It was not normal what took place here.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. Bedroom, 
bathroom, ballroom. How about a box in a garage.
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair--
    Chair Jordan. A beach house in Delaware and the Biden 
Center. I don't think those are SCIF--
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, point of order.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Gooden. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to talk about China, but before I do, I want to just 
comment, in the last exchange with Mr. Roy, I heard you say 
certain practices were outrageous to you, and I appreciated 
that.
    I think maybe we would have liked to have heard more of 
that this hearing, about things, acknowledging failures. I 
realize there are a lot of positives to talk about, but we do 
as a Committee want to work with you.
    When Chair Jordan asked why so much is redacted in a 
document, could we perhaps sit down with you, even if it is 
privately, and you tell us why that needs to be the case? If we 
ask for the names of these employees that were behind the 
Catholic issue in Virginia, can we get a commitment that we 
will eventually get those names? I didn't hear that in that 
exchange with Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Wray. Well, you certainly have my commitment that we 
will work collaboratively with the Committee. We obviously have 
rules that govern what we can share, and we have to be mindful 
of those too.
    In my experience, that is what the longstanding 
accommodation process between the Executive Branch, especially 
law enforcement agencies, and Congress is there for. We 
absolutely will pursue that in good faith.
    I know we have been providing an enormous amount of 
information. If there are places that we can do better on that, 
we want to try to do better on that. Again, consistent with our 
rules.
    I'm very mindful of the fact that the whole reason I am in 
this job is because my predecessor was fired. In a fairly 
scathing Inspector General Report, one of the things he was 
criticized for was sharing more information both with the 
public and frankly with Congress than was consistent with 
Federal Rules.
    Mr. Gooden. Thank you, thank you for that pledge.
    Now, to China. Most Americans don't realize, I don't think, 
that U.S. companies doing business in China are required to 
have joint venture agreements. That has been around since 2017 
or 2018 I believe. It requires the Chinese Communist Party to 
have political cells within these enterprises, American 
enterprises in China.
    In the last few weeks, it has come to my attention that 
they have taken that up a notch and actually gone further, the 
Chinese have, and said that not only must they be present and 
have access, but they now control these American businesses. 
So, they are in essence nationalizing American enterprises in 
China.
    The CEOs I have talked to are afraid to say something. They 
say they have gone to the FBI; the FBI I think is aware of 
this. I am about to turn it over to you. My question is: Is 
this happening and what can be done about it, what do we need 
to do about it?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I think you have put your finger on a very 
important issue, and frankly, one that does not get the 
attention that it really deserves, so I appreciate you bringing 
it up.
    I will say that in my view, there is no country, none, that 
presents a broader, more comprehensive threat to our ideas, our 
innovation, our economic security than the Chinese Government 
and the Chinese Communist Party. In many ways, it represents I 
think the defining threat of our era.
    When it comes specifically to the business community, while 
there is no law against joint ventures, the problem that we 
have is that the Chinese Government all too often has exploited 
those joint ventures to then use them as ways to get improper 
access to companies' secrets and information.
    Mr. Gooden. Do you find that they have stepped it up, 
though, to where they are in essence nationalizing U.S. 
companies quietly?
    Mr. Wray. In a variety of ways, I hadn't really thought of 
using that term, but I think you are on to a very important 
point.
    I will give you an example that I think a lot of people in 
America still don't know about and would be shocked to hear, 
which is that really any company of any size in China is 
required, required by Chinese law, to have what they quaintly 
call a Committee. It is essentially a cell inside the company, 
whose sole function is to ensure that company's compliance with 
Chinese Communist Party orthodoxy.
    If we tried to install something like that in American 
companies or if the British tried to do it in British 
companies, or any number of other places, people would go out 
of their minds, and rightly so.
    Mr. Gooden. Agreed. Well, thank you. I would like to work 
with you more on that. I would yield the balance of my time to 
the Chair. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. That is exactly what you did. The judge said 
it last week. Every week you were meeting with Big Tech 
companies saying hey, look at this, this violates your policy. 
Take this speech of Americans down. You were doing the same 
darn thing you just described the Chinese about.
    Can we put up the email that Mr. Nadler entered into 
unanimous consent request. We put this up from the FBI to Bank 
of America. Because I want to know something. This is the full 
email. Go to the bullet point where it says, ``Any historical 
purchase going back 6 months generally for weapons, weapons-
related vendor purchase.''
    Do you see that, Director? You see that bullet point, the 
one that says ``ANY'' in all caps, that bullet point. This is 
the email. How did you know? How would you know if it is a 
firearm purchase? How is the FBI going to know this? Would you 
put your mic on, please.
    Mr. Wray. I am sorry. I am not going to start engaging on 
specific correspondence. I don't have the whole string here. As 
I have said before, my understanding is that our engagement 
with Bank of American was lawful, but that we also took steps, 
as we discussed in our earlier exchange--
    Chair Jordan. If it is lawful, why did you take steps not 
to use the material? You can't have it both ways.
    Mr. Wray. I disagree with that, actually.
    Chair Jordan. Really?
    Mr. Wray. There are plenty of things that we lawfully can 
do that we decide are better not to do. That is my 
understanding is what happened here.
    Chair Jordan. Wow, wow.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Wray, thank you for your testimony and thank you 
for your public service.
    Last week in my district and my hometown of El Paso, Texas, 
a domestic violent extremist was sentenced to 90 consecutive 
life terms for a horrific attack he carried out on my community 
on August 3, 2019. On that day, he confessed that he drove over 
10 hours from his community in East Texas to mine to slaughter 
Mexicans and immigrants.
    Before he walked into that Walmart, he published his screed 
online. He used some of the same ugly, xenophobic rhetoric that 
I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use. Then 
he walked into that Walmart with an automatic-style weapon and 
began shooting indiscriminately.
    He killed 23 people, injured dozens more. My community 
remains profoundly impacted by that attack. The victims and the 
survivors and the loved ones still live with profound pain and 
trauma.
    What is the FBI doing, Director Wray, in response to 
racially motivated domestic terrorism?
    Mr. Wray. Well, first, let me say I feel your pain. I 
actually visited the Walmart crime scene shortly after the 
attack and spent time with our folks on the ground who were 
processing the crime scene in blistering heat in the parking 
lot there. Obviously, got briefed by the investigative team and 
met with our local partners.
    Obviously, it was a horrific, tragic event. The individual 
stories about some of the individual victims stick with me to 
this day.
    As to the broader phenomenon of racially motivated violent 
extremism, we have done a number of things. We elevated it to a 
national threat priority back in the Summer 2019, I believe it 
was, which means that it is squarely in scope of all our joint 
terrorism task forces and treated as a priority at the top 
level. That is our highest level of priority.
    We also have engaged; we created a domestic terrorism hate 
crimes fusion cell. You might wonder what is the point of that? 
Well, what we found was that sometimes the same acts of 
violence could either be called a hate crime, or it could be 
called an act of domestic violent extremism.
    In the way the FBI is structured, the first is treated by 
our Criminal Investigative Division. The second is focused on 
by our Counterterrorism Division.
    By bringing the two subject matter experts together, we 
could make sure that we are not letting anything slip through 
the cracks. More importantly, we can be proactive in thinking 
ahead.
    That same fusion cell, for example, was then very important 
in us identifying and preventing a potentially devastating 
attack against a synagogue outside of Colorado. It was really 
one of the first times in recent memory that a hate crimes 
prosecution was able to be preventative.
    All too often, unfortunately, those cases are brought after 
there is a horrific attack. So, we were very proud of 
disrupting that plot.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Director Wray. I am also 
very curious about what steps you have taken to improve 
coordination between the FBI and the Department of Homeland 
Security in terms of reporting the domestic terrorism data.
    Mr. Wray. Well, there were a number of places--this gets a 
little bit technical. The reports that Congress called for, I 
have had a number of engagements with Senator Peters on the 
Senate side about this, where data about how many domestic 
terrorism attacks there had been and what cases there were.
    I think there were different ways in which in the two 
agencies what they were counting and so forth. So, to kind of 
get better at providing that information as required by 
Congress, we have worked more and more closely with DHS on 
ensuring a common set of metrics and so forth to make sure that 
the reports are getting in on time and that they are complete.
    We still have some work to do to make them better, but I 
think we have made significant progress.
    Ms. Escobar. I appreciate it. That data is critically 
important, as you know. I am just about out of time. Thanks 
again for your service.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Excuse me, the gentlelady yields back. The 
gentlelady from Florida is recognized.
    Ms. Lee. Good afternoon, Director Wray. Director, how many 
sworn special agents are there currently in the United States?
    Mr. Wray. You mean outside the FBI?
    Ms. Lee. Oh, no, in the FBI.
    Mr. Wray. Just in the FBI? I think we have about 14,000 or 
so FBI special agents.
    Ms. Lee. They are spread across field offices and resident 
agencies in the U.S. and in some cases around the world, is 
that right?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. All right. Now as a former Federal prosecutor and 
judge I have had the opportunity to work with a number of men 
and women of the FBI from my home State and one thing that I 
know and that we have heard in your testimony today is that you 
have very broad responsibilities. Is it correct to say that the 
FBI, among other things, investigates counterterrorism, 
counterintelligence, cybercrime, public corruption, civil 
rights offenses, transnational organized crime, violent crime, 
and domestic terrorism?
    Mr. Wray. Then other things as well, but yes.
    Ms. Lee. Yes. In addition to that would you agree with the 
statement that the bureau provides important support to local 
law enforcement agencies around the country on those subjects 
and others?
    Mr. Wray. I would say indispensable support and something I 
hear about--I'm talking with chiefs and sheriffs probably every 
week in this job since I've started and if there's one refrain 
I hear from the consistently is keep it coming; we need it; can 
you give us even more help? Yhat's what I hear from them.
    Ms. Lee. I would like to focus on the subject of domestic 
terrorism today. When we talk about domestic terrorism the 
bureau's work includes investigating and bringing to justice 
those who do profound harm to the homeland given the 
opportunity. The bureau has been involved in cases involving 
hate crimes, violent extremists, and even some of our country's 
most notorious criminals like Timothy McVeigh and Ted 
Kascinski. Is that right?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. OK. Of course, there are many such individuals who 
have plans to do harm to our homeland that America never hears 
about because you successfully intercept and prevent before 
those incidents occurs?
    Mr. Wray. Yes. In fact, one of the things that I think 
people would be surprised to know because terrorism is not as 
much in the news as it was during the era when I was serving in 
the Bush administration in the 9/11 era--but we have, just 
since I've been Director, disrupted attacks against a July 4th 
parade in Ohio, any number of attacks against churches and 
other houses of worship, an attack, an attempted attack, a plot 
to attack a hospital during COVID, the pier in San Francisco in 
sort of a peak tourism moment, a crowded beach during a 
Memorial Holiday. These are not all domestic terrorism. Some of 
them are--and that's important for people to know. Some of 
these are jihadist-inspired terrorist attacks, too. That has 
not gone away even though a lot of the public discussion has 
been about domestic terrorism.
    Ms. Lee. So, here is what I am hoping you can help us 
reconcile today: So, we know that there are a limited number of 
agents, a limited number of resources, and a vast 
responsibility to prevent a broad array of very serious 
offenses. What I would like to do with that in mind is turn 
your attention to the decision within the bureau to use 
investigative resources to investigate and surveil parents who 
attended school board meetings for the purpose of sharing their 
concerns about the nature of their children's education and the 
efficacy of the policies that were being implemented by school 
boards around the country.
    Is it correct that in 2021 the FBI created a threat tag 
specifically designed to identify parents attending school 
board meetings?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, I think it's important for people to 
understand what a threat tag is and is not. It is not what we 
base investigations on. It's not an investigative tool. It's an 
administrative function in our system and it doesn't change 
anything, anything about how we investigate, tools we use, any 
of our longstanding standards for predication.
    Ms. Lee. In those circumstances--
    Mr. Wray. You mentioned the whole resource allocation 
question--
    Ms. Lee. --it is correct is it not however that agents 
surveil, that agents did in fact surveil and investigate 
certain parents who were attending school board meetings?
    Mr. Wray. No, ma'am, that's actually not correct. We opened 
25 assessments into reports that were tagged, but none of those 
involved incidents at school board meetings. To my knowledge 
the FBI has not opened investigations on any parent for 
exercising speech at school board meetings.
    Ms. Lee. Would you be concerned that to do so would be an 
infringement or perhaps a chilling on the First Amendment 
rights of parents to participate freely and opening in those 
meetings? Do you believe that would be an appropriate function 
of the bureau?
    Mr. Wray. I believe that our mission is to protect the 
American people and uphold the Constitution. The uphold the 
Constitution part is very important to me and to our people. I 
will say to you the same thing I said to all 56 of our field 
offices as soon as I read that memo, which is the FBI is not 
and has never been in the business of policing or investigating 
speech by parents at school board meetings and we're not about 
to start now. We're going to keep doing what we've been doing. 
That includes when there's violence, threats of violence, we're 
going to work with our State and local partners as we always 
have on that and following our normal procedures and our normal 
investigative steps and our normal standards for predication.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Director Wray.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Wray, thank you for being here, thank you for your 
testimony, and thank you for your service to our country under 
some pretty difficult circumstances. We are certainly grateful. 
I am certainly grateful. The people of the State that I 
represent, Colorado, are grateful to the 38,000 members of the 
FBI team, as you have articulated, that are working every day 
to keep the American people safe and to keep the people of my 
State and my community safe. So, we are grateful for you being 
here.
    This Committee obviously has a legitimate role in terms of 
conducting oversight. Generally, that oversight has extended to 
the policy areas, the areas of law enforcement that, of course, 
you are responsible for. Unfortunately, much of the 
conversation today--and it is disappointing I think for those 
Americans who have been watching--has not been focused on those 
legitimate areas of inquiry, but instead conspiracy theories 
and the like. Obviously, you have been given an opportunity to 
respond to some of the attacks that have been made against the 
law enforcement agency that you direct and the dangerous calls, 
or at least in my view the dangerous calls that have been made 
by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in terms of 
defunding Federal law enforcement, which is deeply dangerous. 
You have articulated the many reasons why.
    I would like to focus in on two areas that are important to 
my constituency in Colorado and that I believe are relevant to 
the work that you do, and that is the fentanyl epidemic and gun 
violence prevention.
    With respect to the latter, you may recall you testified in 
front of the Committee previously, I had an opportunity to ask 
you about an incident that occurred back in 2020 in my State in 
Colorado. In 2021, the GAO issued a report in response to this 
particular incident. Just by way of background a gun dealer in 
Colorado transferred a firearm to an 18-year-old resident of 
Florida without first verifying the purchaser's age, 
eligibility, and her State of residence. The guy buyer then 
threatened to commit a school shooting akin to the mass tragedy 
that occurred at Columbine High, causing the lock-down and 
closure of multiple schools in my district back in Colorado.
    The report recommended, the GAO report, that the FBI 
strengthen its system for the sale of firearms to out-of-state 
purchasers. Specifically, it recommended that the FBI update 
the NICS system to verify the age requirements of an out-of-
state firearm purchaser in both the purchaser's State of 
residence and the State of sale to ensure basic age 
eligibility. We have introduced legislation that I believe the 
Department of Justice is aware of to make that requirement 
statutory.
    Wonder if you could expound a bit on whether the--I am sure 
you are aware of the report--whether the FBI has implemented 
the recommendation that the GAO has made? If not, the FBI's 
plans to do so.
    Mr. Wray. Well, I think the specific legislation that would 
require that is something, as you said, that I think the 
department is studying, and so I can't weigh in on a specific 
legislative proposal. When it comes to the specific issue of 
18-20-year-olds, in particular, and gun purchases, that is of 
course the subject of the bipartisan Safer Communities Act that 
was passed.
    There are a number of significant checks that now occur. We 
started implementing that last October; fully implemented it 
starting in January. That provides for enhanced checks for 
that--that critical population, the 18-20-year-old range. 
Juvenile criminal records, mental health records for that 
population, and contact in some ways--most importantly contact 
with local law enforcement in that person's community.
    I've actually be out to NICS, met with and sat with the 
operators who process those checks. So, I've seen kind of 
firsthand how it works and the important work it represents. I 
think if you were to talk--I'm talking to chiefs and sheriffs 
all over this country every week and you will hear most of 
them--if you talk to them for very long, you will hear about 
their concern and our concern about juveniles and violence--
almost guarantee you with the first 10 minutes of any 
conversation. It's a real problem in this country.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I thank you for your answer and I think 
it underscores the importance of the NICS program and would 
look forward to perhaps following up with your team on this 
particular administrative issue of trying to just make sure 
that the data base is working efficiently.
    Limited time left, but I just want to give you an 
opportunity--I know we have talked a bit about the fentanyl 
epidemic devastating communities across the country. Certainly, 
in Colorado it is one of the reasons why we created a Fentanyl 
Prevention Caucus here in the Congress. It is bipartisan. 
Representative Issa is one of our Co-Chairs.
    Wonder if you just might be able to, for those Americans 
who are watching, kind of provide us with your sense of some of 
the trends, the most dangerous and disturbing trends that you 
think the American people and policymakers should be aware of?
    Mr. Wray. Well, there are a whole bunch of trends, but in 
the limited time--but because of the importance of this topic, 
I'll hit a couple.

    (1)  We were just discussing this recently internally, we 
are finding over the course of the last year that, maybe even a 
little less than a year, almost every gang takedown we have 
now, and we're doing them all over the country all the time--
almost every single one now seems to involve as well a seizure 
of fentanyl. We've been doing gang takedowns since 
Congresswoman Lee was a prosecutor as well. So, that's not new. 
What is new is that over and over and over again it seems 
consistently we're finding fentanyl in these--again these 
violent crime takedowns.
    (2)  A phenomenon, which is deeply disturbing, and I know 
the DEA Administrator is very concerned about as well, is that 
we're seeing more and more adulteration or lacing of fentanyl 
into all sorts of different kinds of prescription drugs that 
lots of Americans take all the time.

    If you think about the phenomenon of the youth of this 
country, which is itself a problem, of getting prescription 
drugs from their friends or their friends' parents or whatever 
it happens to be, they may not know that there's potentially a 
lethal dose of fentanyl in some prescription drug that they're 
taking. So, it just underscores the importance of only getting 
your prescriptions from an appropriate medical provider.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is the Southern border secure?
    Mr. Wray. I think the Southern border represents a massive 
security threat.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, what we have heard from you today is that 
fentanyl has become a really big problem and that you are 
having to put more resources to it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wray. Toward fentanyl, yes. Yes, we are.
    Mr. Tiffany. The related gangs. You just regaled us with 
some of the story.
    Mr. Wray. Right.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, this all happened over the last couple 
years as the border has become unsecure. Is the Southern border 
secure?
    Mr. Wray. Well again, we're not--I want to defer to the 
Homeland Security which has responsible for the physical 
security of the building. I will just tell you from the FBI's 
perspective that we are seeing all sorts of very serious, very 
serious criminal threats that come from across the border.
    Mr. Tiffany. Getting worse, correct? You are putting more 
assets toward it.
    Mr. Wray. We certainly do. We have, as I said--
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is becoming more of a priority for you?
    Mr. Wray. It is becoming more and more of a priority for 
us, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, in the Durham Report, and we heard from 
Mr. Durham just a couple, weeks ago, he said the FBI failed to 
uphold the important mission of strict fidelity to the law. 
That predates you. Do you agree with that statement that Mr. 
Durham made?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Tiffany. Was Russia collusion a hoax? So, in light of 
the Durham Report in that was Russia collusion a hoax?
    Mr. Wray. Well, what I would say is this: First, as to the 
Durham Report itself, as to the issue of Russia malign 
influence. As to the Durham Report itself--
    Mr. Tiffany. Be quick.
    Mr. Wray. --I will try--the conduct it describes is conduct 
that I consider unacceptable and unrepresentative of who I see 
the FBI is every day and must not ever be allowed to happen 
again.
    Mr. Tiffany. On the other side?
    Mr. Wray. Second, on the other one it is not seriously 
disputed that the Russians, among other foreign adversaries, 
have attempted to interfere in our elections. There have been 
any number of findings to that. In fact, President Trump 
himself rightly declared a national emergency about foreign 
interference in our elections in 2018.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, as a result of the actions of James Comey, 
the disgraced James Comey and the FBI, they have interfered 
with the elections in both 2016 and 2020. Will that 
interference happen again in 2024 by the FBI?
    Mr. Wray. The FBI is not going to be interfering in 
elections.
    Mr. Tiffany. They did in 2016.
    Mr. Wray. Well, I don't know that's what Mr. Durham found. 
What I would tell you again is that it was conduct that I 
consider unacceptable and unrepresentative.
    Mr. Tiffany. You can be in denial if you want to.
    Mr. Wray. I'm not in denial, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Director, you can be in denial on this. 
That is exactly what happened.
    Last year, the FBI gave a defensive briefing to my home 
State Senator Johnson. You can see the slide up there now. Then 
that defensive briefing was leaked to The Washington Post. Who 
ordered that briefing?
    Mr. Wray. So, defensive briefings, when it comes to 
election matters, including in the last administration, under a 
procedure set up by the last administration, are an interagency 
process coordinated by the Office of Director of National 
Intelligence. The way that works is the interagency concludes 
that a defensive briefing is appropriate and the FBI is given 
information from whatever intelligence community agency 
supplies it and then we provide it. Defensive briefings, it's 
important to understand--
    Mr. Tiffany. Senator Johnson. That is his quote. He is up 
there with you and Hunter Biden. ``I knew it was a setup.'' He 
asked you this question back in November of last year and he 
said ``I knew it was a setup.''
    That goes back to the point about interfering in elections. 
Senator Johnson was one of the most vulnerable Republican 
incumbents, if not the most vulnerable Republican incumbent, 
that was a target of the Democrats in the 2022 election. Then 
you see this briefing happen and he knew what was happening, 
that there was someone or some people within the FBI and the 
intelligence arena that were going after him.
    Did Joe Biden take payment from Barisma or any other 
foreign companies as Vice President, President, or Private 
Citizen Biden?
    Mr. Wray. As you may know there is an ongoing investigation 
being led by the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, Mr. Weiss, 
appointed by President Trump in the last administration, that 
our Baltimore Field Office is working with. I would refer you 
to him as to what if anything can be shared.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the President is under investigation?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not going to confirm or speak to who is or 
isn't under investigation for what. I'm simply going to tell 
you--
    Mr. Tiffany. So, he is not under investigation?
    Mr. Wray. I didn't say that either. By longstanding 
department policy and practice I'm not going to be confirming 
or denying who is or isn't under investigation or for what.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. I will close with this: Russia 
collusion started it, Mr. Chair, and the targeting and the 
suppression and the censorship has continued until this point. 
We need to thoroughly review what the FBI is doing. At a 
minimum I will be allowing FISA to sunset if we are not going 
to see significant reforms in the agency. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Director Wray, for your service and your 
patience. In 2018, 10 leaders of Temple Beth Or, a synagogue in 
my district, received threats mailed to their homes. These 
threats led to the cancellation of programming and continued a 
disturbing trend of rising antisemitism in North Carolina.
    In the years since my State has confronted new threats from 
domestic terrorists at minority institutions. This past April a 
man was arrested on the campus of North Carolina A&T State 
University, the largest HBCU in the country with multiple 
firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition as well as a 
makeshift explosive, brass knuckles, crossbow, knives, and 
other weapons. Thankfully this man was arrested before he could 
cause any harm, but the threat he posed to the campus mirrors 
threats we have seen to HBCUs around the country.
    In North Carolina and across the United States we have also 
seen increased threats against reproductive care providers in 
the wake of the Dobbs decision last summer. North Carolina 
recently enacted a 12-week abortion ban that has severely 
restricted access to reproductive healthcare in my State and 
people often have to go through threatening crowds to be able 
to access the care that they need. While some in North Carolina 
have highlighted vandalism of crisis pregnancy centers since 
the overturn of Roe, they have failed to acknowledge or respond 
to the increase in violence at abortion providers.
    Does the FBI currently provide antiterrorism training to 
civilians, to HBCUs, places of worship, religious centers, 
individuals providing abortion services, and LGBTQ groups? Does 
that training include a domestic terrorism component, so that 
they can help you and law enforcement?
    Mr. Wray. Well, we do a whole bunch of things to engage 
with the community, institutions that are targeted with 
violence that include a number of the kinds of institutions you 
mentioned. I know, in particular, we work very, very closely 
with the Jewish community, which has the unfortunate 
distinction of despite the percentage that they represent of 
the American population of being [audio malfunction] around the 
country and nationally.
    We also spent a lot of time engaging with campus law 
enforcement including at HBCUs. We spent a lot of time on that 
especially last year with the bomb threats that were coming in. 
I was just recently with all the campus law enforcement leaders 
from around the country just the last couple weeks. We 
certainly try to provide awareness to different kinds of 
institutions about how to deal with potential mass casualty 
events and things like that. We also provide information about 
things to be on the lookout for in people's communities.
    I should say though, when you mention on the abortion side 
reproductive facilities, of course, I would be remiss if I 
didn't also point out that there has been a pretty significant 
uptick in violence going the other way since the Dobb decision.
    Ms. Ross. Yes.
    Mr. Wray. In fact, most of the investigations that we've 
opened since the Dobb decision, probably about 70 percent of 
them have been violence against prolife facilities. We recently 
had a significant charge in the Madison, Wisconsin area of a 
guy who was trying to firebomb a prolife facility there.
    So, we're out there with communities across the spectrum.
    Ms. Ross. OK. How would an investigation differ if it is 
domestic terrorism as opposed to just an ordinary criminal 
case?
    Mr. Wray. Well, our investigation focuses on the violence 
first and foremost.
    Ms. Ross. Yes.
    Mr. Wray. I think there is no domestic terrorism statute. 
There's no offense of domestic terrorism--
    Ms. Ross. Yes.
    Mr. Wray. --but we define domestic terrorism for purposes 
of opening an investigation as having three things: Violence or 
threat of violence in furtherance of an idealogy; in other 
words, that's what's driving the violence in that particular 
instance, and in violation of Federal criminal law. If we have 
those three things, enough evidence to indicate that might be 
what's going on, then we would treat that as a domestic 
terrorism investigation.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    We have got votes, director. We are going to do one more on 
our side, then we will take a break and come back for the 
remaining Members.
    The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
    Ms. Hageman. Yes, Director Wray, we have established that 
the FBI and other Federal agencies met weekly with executives 
from major social media companies including Facebook, Twitter, 
YouTube, Google, Microsoft, LinkedIn, Yahoo, and Verizon. Were 
you involved in any of those meetings, yes or no?
    Mr. Wray. I wasn't involved in the kind of meetings that 
you're talking about, or I didn't participate I guess in 
meetings like that.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Are these meetings still occurring? If so, 
how frequently?
    Mr. Wray. Well, right now as you may know there is a 
preliminary injunction that's been entered--
    Ms. Hageman. Prior to the preliminary injunction were these 
weekly meetings taking place?
    Mr. Wray. I don't know if weekly meetings occurred again 
before the injunction, but certainly we've been very open about 
this, engaged with social media companies.
    Ms. Hageman. Does the FBI intend to continue to have such 
meetings leading up to the 2024 election to police election-
related speech?
    Mr. Wray. Well, we're not going to be policing election-
related speech.
    Ms. Hageman. That what you previously did?
    Mr. Wray. That's not--I do not agree with that description.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, here is what I would say: This 
committee has learned that the FBI acted to quote, ``discredit 
leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was 
published,'' that, quote, ``Twitter's contact with the FBI was 
constant and pervasive as if it were a subsidiary,'' and that, 
quote,

         . . . a surprisingly high number of requests by the FBI for 
        Twitter to take action on election misinformation even 
        involving joke tweets from low follower accounts.

Are you aware that this has been reported?
    Mr. Wray. I am aware of some of what the Committee has 
found in its report.
    Ms. Hageman. OK.
    Mr. Wray. I will add that I'm not sure I agree with the 
findings in the Committee's Report.
    Ms. Hageman. That is what we found. Director Wray, you and 
I both know that the Federal government is forbidden from doing 
indirectly what it cannot do directly. In other words, neither 
you nor the FBI have any legal authority to circumvent the 
First Amendment by using a surrogate to do your dirty work, yet 
that is exactly what you have been doing. The bureau under your 
watch has been using proxies to violate the First Amendment. 
Were you the person who gave the orders to use these social 
media companies to violate the First--violate Americans' First 
Amendment rights?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I don't agree with your description of our 
engagement with social media companies.
    Ms. Hageman. So, who made the decision to use social media 
companies as a proxy to suppress the First Amendment rights of 
American citizens?
    Mr. Wray. Because I don't believe that's what we did I'm 
not sure there's anyone that would have made such a decision.
    Ms. Hageman. Do you really expect the American public that 
you were not involved in the decisions related to using social 
media companies to suppress the First Amendment rights of 
American citizens?
    Mr. Wray. I can't help what people believe or not. I can 
only speak to what the facts are.
    Ms. Hageman. Was anyone ever fired or otherwise reprimanded 
for pursuing mass censorship? In other words, has anybody been 
held accountable for taking the actions that were described in 
the decision by the District Court out of Louisiana?
    Mr. Wray. Well, the District Court's decision just came out 
on July 4th as I recall--
    Ms. Hageman. Has anybody been reprimanded or held 
accountable for what has--
    Mr. Wray. At the moment we have issued guidance to everyone 
in the organization who could be affected as to how to follow 
that.
    Ms. Hageman. Has anyone been reprimanded?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not going to speak to personnel matters 
because we have not made any such determination at this stage.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Wray, I have some letters from Lindsay 
Graham and Rand Paul that were sent to you on April 20th and 
June 20th requesting a meeting to discuss the Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Directorate's work investigating the origins of 
SARS-COVID-19. Your office has never responded to these 
letters. Do you intend to respond to Senators Lindsay Graham 
and Rand Paul to find out more information about the origin of 
COVID-19?
    Mr. Wray. Well, we try hard to respond to all 
correspondence we get from the Hill. We get a lot. I'll have to 
check--
    Ms. Hageman. So, I assume you will be responding to this?
    Mr. Wray. --but, my intention is that we would have an 
appropriate response. Sometimes our responses--by longstanding 
procedure our responses have to go through the department 
before they go out, so it could be that it's held up there. I 
don't know that's--
    Ms. Hageman. So,--
    Mr. Wray. --I don't know if that's the case in these 
particular ones, but--
    Ms. Hageman. --Senators Graham and Paul should be receiving 
a response from your office pretty soon?
    Mr. Wray. Some kind of response. As you may know we were 
the only agency in the intelligence community, until more 
recently when the Department of Energy did as well, to reach 
the assessment that in our folks' view we thought--
    Ms. Hageman. I understand, Mr. Wray.
    Mr. Wray. --it was more likely to be a lab leak.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Wray, from the Twitter files, Missouri 
v. Biden disclosures, the Durham Investigation and Report, and 
exposure and collapse of the Russian collusion hoax, the 
American people fully understand that there is a two-tiered 
justice system that has been weaponized to persecute people 
based on their political beliefs and that you have personally 
been--that you have personally worked to weaponize the FBI 
against conservatives.
    I asked Mr. Durham about this to which he answered,

        I don't think that things can go too much further with the view 
        that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of 
        Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. The Nation can't 
        stand under those circumstances.

Director Wray, what are you prepared to do to reform Federal 
law enforcement in a manner which earns back the trust of the 
American people?
    Mr. Wray. Well, first, I would disagree with your 
characterization of the FBI and certainly your description of 
my own approach. The idea that I'm biased against conservatives 
seems somewhat insane to me given my own personal background.
    As to how we are approaching our work of protecting the 
American people and upholding the Constitution, it starts with 
me having emphasized to all our folks over and over and over 
again in everything we do that we need to do the right thing in 
the right way, and that means following the facts wherever they 
lead no matter who likes it.
    It starts--then goes on from there to all kinds of enhanced 
procedures, safeguards, approvals, double checks, triple 
checks, record keeping requirement, accountability policies, 
and funding of new functions like an Office of Internal Audit 
that didn't exist before, the installation of an entirely new 
leadership team from my predecessor.
    Where I can take action, where we can take action to hold 
people accountable by removing people from the chain of 
command--
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time is expired. Director, 
we are going to take a 30-minute break for votes. We will be 
back--I am going to try to start right at 2:15.
    Ms. Hageman. Unanimous consent to introduce statements into 
the record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection it will so be entered.
    We will start with Ms. Bush and then Mr. Bishop on our side 
when return. We will stand in recess for approximately 30 
minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
    The gentlelady from Missouri is recognized.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being 
here, Director Wray.
    Before I get into the primary topic of my remarks, I want 
to ask you about a separate issue. On June 16th my esteemed 
colleague, Ranking Member Raskin of the Oversight Committee, 
sent you a letter asking the FBI to publicly reiterate certain 
nonclassified information that it provided in an oral briefing 
about Form FD-1023 subpoenaed by Oversight Chair Comer.
    It has now been almost a month since Mr. Raskin sent his 
letter. When can he expect a response?
    Mr. Wray. I'll have to check with my staff because we have 
gotten so many letters from so many Members and that's--each 
one of them is important to me. As I sit here right now I don't 
know when the timing is but we'll get back to you on that.
    Ms. Bush. OK.
    Mr. Wray. More importantly, we'll get back to you on that 
one.
    Ms. Bush. OK. OK. All right. Thank you, and we will 
followup. OK. Especially because I did ask directly of your 
staff. So, we'll followup.
    Now St. Louis and I are here today in continuing solidarity 
with the protesters, the advocates, and movements that are 
actually targeted by surveillance and other law enforcement 
abuses in this country.
    Director Wray, I know that you are aware of the FBI's long 
and sordid history of targeting Black protesters and activists. 
At a hearing before this Committee in December 2017 you 
characterized the abuses related to Cointelpro as, quote,

         . . . one of the darker moments in the FBI's history. It's 
        something we're not proud of, but it is also something we have 
        learned from.

    Director Wray, isn't it true that an FBI agent improperly 
ran a batch query of unminimized FISA information using the 
identifiers of 133 individuals arrested in connection with the 
protests after the murder of George Floyd in 2020? Just a yes 
or no is fine.
    Mr. Wray. Well, I am aware of the incidence you're talking 
about. Whether that correctly describes it or not I'm not 100 
percent sure. I know it's in the most recent FISC opinion.
    What I will tell you is that this incident is noncompliance 
I considered unacceptable and most importantly, it predates all 
these fixes and corrective measures and reforms that we have 
put in place, which I think would have prevented it from 
happening now.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Now on to ZeroFox.
    Isn't it true a firm hired on a $14 million contract by the 
FBI, which we have heard already today, to monitor social media 
threats previously labeled Black Lives Matter activists as 
threat actors requiring constant surveillance? Yes or no.
    Mr. Wray. I'm not sure that's a correct description of the 
way we do work with ZeroFox. I don't know that's a correct 
description of how we do it.
    Ms. Bush. So, did the FBI hire the firm?
    Mr. Wray. My understanding of ZeroFox is it has a tool 
which allows us to, in certain instances, engage in social 
media searches to prevent threats. The specifics of--
    Ms. Bush. So, the FBI--so they were hired?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I don't know, again, the terms of our 
arrangement, whether it's a retention or what. I've heard the 
term ZeroFox before and my general experience is it's usually 
used in connection with preventing violence out of a particular 
critical incident of some sort.
    Ms. Bush. So, to the tune of $14 million, though, there is 
reporting that threat actors was actually what they labeled 
Black Lives Matter activists, two of whom I know very well, and 
I served more than 400 days on the ground during the Ferguson 
uprising myself, more than 400 days, many of those days with 
those two people that were named and who are not violent.
    Isn't it true that the FBI has been actively involved in 
the law enforcement response to people protesting the Atlanta 
Public Safety Training Center, a response that has included 
State charges of domestic terrorism against protesters? Yes or 
no.
    Mr. Wray. Well, our Atlanta division is working in support 
of our State and local partners when it comes to violence and 
threats of violence that occurred amid the unrest that you're 
referring to.
    Ms. Bush. So, the FBI is involved. These are not isolated 
incidents and, as I said, they're part of a long history of 
abuses by the FBI against Black and Brown communities and 
progressive movements.
    These are the real oversight issues. They matter to my 
district where there is real and justified skepticism of 
whether the civil rights of Black and Brown people are 
adequately protected.
    I know this from personal experience in the Ferguson 
uprising and from other protest movements that I have been a 
part of. That's why I asked you about the targeting of 
protesters the last time that you were before us because they 
also included me.
    What my district is not concerned about is the Republican 
conspiracy theories and selective targeting of law enforcement 
agencies who tried to hold their twice-impeached twice-indicted 
cult leader Donald Trump accountable. The Insurrection Caucus 
wants to use this hearing to score immediate political points. 
They want to evade oversight. They don't want to conduct it.
    We're talking about real issues, real reform that can 
actually save lives. So, once again, I urge my Republican 
colleagues who claim to care about government overreach and 
weaponization to do the exact same.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    I would just remind the lady that what we'd actually likely 
to do is work with you to protect Americans' privacy whether 
they've been targeted on the right or on the left.
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, point of order. Point of 
order. Point of order.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman may State his point of order.
    Mr. Ivey. It's not your time.
    Chair Jordan. I appreciate the point of order, and I was 
just getting ready to yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina who--
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I greatly appreciate that.
    Chair Jordan. I appreciate the reminder.
    Mr. Bishop. I want to followup, Director Wray, about the 
Foreign Influence Task Force. There have been exchanges with 
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana and Ms. Hageman over that, and I 
understand the difference. I want to respect the differences in 
characterization.
    Earlier this weekend in denying a stay of its order the 
Federal Court essentially said this isn't complicated. Follow 
the law as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the area of 
the First Amendment and that was it as far as it was concerned.
    The Foreign Influence Task Force is not a predecessor's 
decision. You set that up, right?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. You've known about the continuous interaction 
with social media companies. You've known about--I'm sure you 
know about testimony of Elvis--agent Elvis Chan, correct?
    Mr. Wray. I don't know everything he's testified to, but 
I'm aware that he was--
    Mr. Bishop. Did you read his testimony?
    Mr. Wray. I've read parts of it, yes.
    Mr. Bishop. That there were thousands of posts that were 
flagged by the social media companies. These meetings with 
social media continued across time on a periodic basis and this 
court has found--and I understand where the point of 
disagreement is, I guess, at this stage is and I believe it's 
fairly common sense--that if you've got constant, expectant 
suggestions from the FBI to social media companies with respect 
to social media posts at some point in times it becomes a 
government decision or it becomes coercive in nature. That's 
what the Courts preliminarily found. That apparently is the 
line you decided to walk in setting this up.
    Today it's striking that you come in and you sort of 
casually acknowledge and among other things that we did pass 
through, I think you said, information from the Ukrainian SBU 
to social media as if it's normal for the FBI to serve 
effectively as the agent of a foreign power to help pull 
information out of circulation to which Americans otherwise 
would have access because the foreign intel service doesn't 
like it.
    Now, those are my characterizations. I have tried to be a 
little bit more neutral in my language and you can differ with 
them. Here's what I'm wondering.
    Why would you walk that fine a line with respect to 
Americans' fundamental constitutional rights at scale 
especially with knowledge of past abuses by the FBI like 
Cointelpro?
    You said earlier that the FBI wasn't even concerned about 
disinformation, per se, but the foreign origins of the 
information. Assuming so, how does that comport with Lamont v. 
Postmaster General?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I'm not going to try to engage on Supreme 
Court jurisprudence, but what I can tell you is that the--
    Mr. Bishop. Well, that's the point, though, Director Wray, 
and let me just ask you, do you know about that case? Do you 
know that case?
    Mr. Wray. I've heard of the case.
    Mr. Bishop. All right. Right in the heart of the cold war 
at the behest of an American plaintiff--a communist, by the 
way--the Supreme Court said that Americans have a First 
Amendment right of access to information even if it is 
propaganda originating abroad and, in that case, the United 
States Postal Service could not interdict it.
    Do you know that, in essence?
    Mr. Wray. Again, I'm not familiar with the holding of the 
case. I'd have to review it to be sure that--
    Mr. Bishop. That's seems to me the trouble. I keep 
wondering as I read all these revelations how that could be. 
Then let me go to this. That the FBI engaged with the social 
media companies, continuously warning them of hack and leak 
operations in 2020--not 2018, by the way, but before the 2020 
election--lots of warnings about hack and leak. You're aware of 
that?
    Mr. Wray. I'm aware that we gave them lots of information 
about intelligence that we were receiving from some of our 
intelligence--
    Mr. Bishop. At the time you were giving them those warnings 
the FBI had the Hunter Biden laptop for more than nine months 
and--but, of course, Cointelpro itself was the mother of all 
hack and leak operations.
    Leftist activists at the time broke into the FBI's office 
in Media, Pennsylvania, stole the files, gave them to the media 
and the newspapers published them. You're bound to be aware of 
New York Times Company v. The United States--The Pentagon 
Papers case?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Bishop. That says that even if information had been 
stolen or inappropriately taken that you can't get a prior 
restraint in almost any circumstance to prevent their being 
distributed.
    So, how is it that your Foreign Influence Task Force is out 
warning of hack and leak operations to innocent--not involved 
in the hack--that would be criminal--but news or social media 
organizations where information may be circulating?
    Mr. Wray. Well, first, we're not engaging in any prior 
restraint. Second--the second--
    Mr. Bishop. Wow.
    Mr. Wray. Let me--if I could finish, please.
    Second, there is no serious dispute that foreign 
adversaries have and continue to attempt to interfere in our 
elections and that they use social media to do it.
    President Trump himself in 2018 declared a National 
Emergency to that very effect and the Senate Intelligence 
Committee in a bipartisan--overwhelmingly bipartisan way, by 
the way, not only found the same thing but called for more 
information sharing between us and the social media companies.
    Mr. Bishop. I hate to say this, Director--I hear you, but 
it doesn't justify trampling the established First Amendment 
rights of Americans as the Supreme Court has declared them 
whether or not, frankly, I agree with them, or you agree with 
them. I just don't--that's what I don't get.
    You come here and the comments are sort of blase answers. 
Accountability is always down the road. It never arrives and 
I'm not trying--I guess I'm joining the gang up.
    What I'm concerned about and I think Americans are 
concerned about is they just never see it. I don't know of an 
answer other than to take an appropriation from you that's very 
significant or to do something to take your intel powers away 
and put them in another agency.
    I honestly want to know.
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Bishop. I think Americans want to know.
    I yield.
    Chair Jordan. They sure do.
    The gentleman from Maryland who keeps us on time is 
recognized.
    Mr. Ivey. Until it's my turn. Then I'm going to run 
overtime.
    Mr. Bishop. Wait until he gets his five minutes. Yes.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time is about ready to start.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director, I appreciate you coming in today. I saw a 
characterization of this hearing as a GOP-FBI grudge match. I 
must say that the only grudge that's been seen here is from the 
Republican side.
    I think you've done an outstanding job with your testimony 
today. Even though you've been admitting that there are 
shortcomings by your office, that mistakes have been made, I 
appreciate the fact that you are willing to do that because 
it's not easy for agency heads to do that and also, more 
importantly, to point out the changes that you've made to try 
and address those concerns.
    I want to say this, too. There are a couple points that 
have been made here about--you were just talking about the 
Foreign Influence Task Force and I know there's a lot of talk 
about this as being some kind of prior restraint or First 
Amendment violation.
    I want to say that I'm on the side that thinks this is a 
very important tool for the FBI and the U.S. Government to 
have, especially with respect to potential intervention or 
interference especially by Russian State actors with respect to 
American elections.
    There are some people who think, and I'm kind of starting 
to agree, that one of the reasons some of my colleagues are 
pushing so hard against this and other aspects of information 
protection within the United States is because they want to 
have Russian interference in the 2024 election.
    Chair Jordan. Oh, please.
    Mr. Ivey. I certainly don't. So, I certainly thank you for 
continuing your efforts on that front.
    There was an issue that was raised about whistleblowers 
earlier in the hearing and I wanted to bring this up. I know 
you can't speak to this, Mr. Director, but these are the two 
checks that were written to some of these witnesses--two of the 
witnesses that testified here--and they are for over $250,000.
    Now, they came after they gave their testimony I think by a 
few days. From my perspective, this is something that the 
American public should know when they evaluate the testimony of 
these individuals. Hopefully, I don't know if the majority knew 
about this, but didn't disclose it at the time or what was 
going on with it.
    In my book, this really brings the credibility of these 
witnesses' testimony into question, and I think we should keep 
this in mind when we evaluate the allegations that they've 
made.
    I also want to say this, too. My Republican colleagues have 
come a long way from the law-and-order days of the Republican 
Party back when I was a kid. Now, we're a defund the FBI, I 
think one of them selling T-shirts to try and raise money using 
that slogan.
    Another colleague is talking about abolish the ATF. Another 
one wants to say defund the Department of Justice. As you 
mentioned in your testimony earlier, the FBI is doing a lot of 
great work protecting the country from terrorism, foreign 
intelligence threats, international cartels. There are weapons 
of mass destruction that you mentioned in your testimony. I 
appreciate that.
    Also, there has been a great deal of talk about the 
domestic terror threats. For me the planned attempt to kidnap 
the Governor of Michigan and apparently kill her was showing to 
the extreme and I appreciate the fact that you were able to 
intervene on that.
    I want to say this quickly, too. I'm running short on time. 
The misinformation and weaponization claims that have been made 
by my Republican colleagues I want to offer these two articles.
    One is called--it's by Aaron Blake of the Washington Post, 
``All the ways Trump, not his foes, sought to weaponize the 
government,'' and then another one--this is Philip Bump. This 
is on the Missouri v. Biden case, which was quoted extensively 
at the beginning of the hearing, ``A deeply ironic 
reinforcement of right-wing information.''
    The point of this article is that the Missouri v. Biden 
decision, which--and I know you can't comment on it because 
it's pending litigation, but I also think it's being challenged 
by the Department of Justice and rightly so because it's 
riddled with factual inaccuracies and legal inaccuracies as 
well.
    One other article for the record--this is by Leah Litman 
and Laurence Tribe, ``Restricting the government for speaking 
to tech will spread disinformation and harm democracy.'' I'd 
like all those admitted.
    Then, last, with respect to the Hunter Biden issue there's 
a letter from Abbe Lowell, who represents Mr. Biden--this is to 
Representative Jason Smith, but I think also to Chair Jordan as 
well--that raises the push back on the allegations that points 
out that the investigation began during the Republican Trump 
Administration, was supervised by two Republican Attorney 
Generals, was carried over by a holdover Republican U.S. 
Attorney.
    The last point I want to make--I promise I won't run over 
my time much--I happen to represent the district where we 
contain two of the sites where the FBI headquarters could be 
moved to.
    The Chair made a reference to maybe not wanting to fund the 
move, but I must say I think I had an office near your building 
that got nets around it to keep parts of the building from 
falling down and hurting pedestrians. If the move is important 
and also would give you a chance to consolidate hopefully, 
you'll bring it to Prince Georges County, and we'll save $1 
billion for the taxpayers.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Wray, the FBI's mission is to protect the American 
people and uphold the U.S. Constitution, correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Ms. Spartz. OK. So, we had a couple of years ago--it was in 
hearing and I actually looking in all the concerns and I've 
seen was really warrantless surveillance and abuses of Section 
702 of FISA.
    I compared the agency to KGB, and spending two years on 
this Committee reading a lot of reports, now doing a lot of 
hearings I'm really shocked that your agency is involved not 
just unlawful surveillance of American citizens, intimidation 
of American citizens, censorship of American citizens, 
potential coverups of convenient political figures, potential 
setups of inconvenient political figures, and a lot of my 
colleagues has a lot of questions.
    I think when we look at that and, unfortunately, we haven't 
been doing our job authorizing spending which was not 
authorized by our Committee already for over a decade, we're 
going to have this serious conversation and including 
reauthorization of Section 702.
    I want to talk about some other issues that you mentioned 
about that my colleagues were talking about and you mentioned 
that you focus on malign foreign actors.
    So, in Durham Report, which describes 2020, he states, and 
this is a quote,

        Steele's sources could have been compromised by the Russians. 
        FBI never gave appropriate consideration to the possibility 
        that the Steele Report was Russian disinformation.

    No vetting happened. You have some falsified FISA court 
application. You have some very shady confidential human 
sources that you can pay for them. Nothing was vetted. Some of 
your head of counterintelligence division was accused of taking 
money from a Russian oligarch just recently this year.
    So, you said all those bad. Now, we go to 2022. Your agency 
is involved with SBU, security service of Ukraine to actually 
provide information to big tech to censor, just use, of 
American people. No vetting, it seems, is happening. This is 
information.
    Actually, a lot of this information was pro-Russian against 
Ukraine and pro-Putin. Your agency just passed it along. It 
seems like nothing happened. It's interesting for me that when 
I raised some issue actually the beginning of July and what's 
happening in Ukraine, I don't have any confidential human 
sources, just using common sense and intelligence that 
something is wrong happening in Ukraine. It seems like there 
was a lot of infiltration. I was attacked--oh, my gosh, how can 
you question.
    Well, strangely enough, after me raising this question in 
the middle of July President Zelenskyy fired his SBU top guy, 
opens over 600 investigations as potential infiltration by 
Russians and then fire a lot of other people for corruption. An 
anticorruption prosecutor was suddenly installed.
    What is really interesting for me, is how could you have 
these processes, and are you doing actually any investigation 
to look? Because it seems to me, as I understand you still have 
our agencies working with SBU with coming from KGB time and FSB 
time has a lot of potential to have this infiltration. Are you 
doing any investigations on those issues?
    Mr. Wray. Doing investigations on--
    Ms. Spartz. Yes, to look at that, why we're doing unvetted 
information we're taking from SBU which actually was 
infiltrated and given to censor Americans to our big tech 
companies. Are you looking into that as an agency?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not sure there's an investigation that is 
directly on point to what you're saying. Certainly, the SBU is 
an agency that we have worked with for a long time.
    Ms. Spartz. So, we're not doing an investigation. So, did 
we change the processes now since we know your guys work with 
SBU, SBU was infiltrated by Russia and big tech was censoring 
American citizens. This unvetted information that actually was 
provided by Russians did you change any processes or it's still 
happening? You have some of the same processes that happened? 
Is this still happening now?
    Mr. Wray. Well, the engagement that we had with SBU was 
during--
    Ms. Spartz. I'm talking right now.
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Ms. Spartz. Because recently some of your agents had 
actually a joint meeting and they were bragging how their top 
corporation was SBU. Did you change processes?
    Mr. Wray. I'm not sure what processes you're talking about.
    Ms. Spartz. To vet information.
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Ms. Spartz. What's happening?
    Mr. Wray. Again, during the period at the beginning of the 
invasion--
    Ms. Spartz. No. No. I'm talking right now. Do you change--
do you vet information that you get from agencies like SBU? I 
mean, I don't know. If we're trying to--are we being stupid? I 
understand--are we being infiltrated by Russians or corrupt?
    I don't understand why we're not vet information was such a 
real challenge in the agency. So, are you changing anything of 
that? I would like to have a briefing or something on this 
because if you're not looking at it, I have a huge problem with 
that.
    Mr. Wray. I'm happy to try to see if we can arrange to get 
you a better briefing on the subject.
    Ms. Spartz. Because this is a serious national security 
issue. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from South Carolina.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Oh, I'm sorry. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chair, the 
Lone Ranger on this side.
    Chair Jordan. Thanks for sticking with us.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We appreciate you for a moment and all my 
members.
    Let me just quickly indicate that I have a document that is 
a tweet that is--I'm wanting to submit it into the record. Two 
of the Republican witnesses were gifted $255,000 checks--
$255,000 in checks immediately after they testified before this 
Committee. It seems to be quid pro quo.
    The fact of--the tweet that I'm submitting from Mr. Kyle 
Seraphin says the fact that Mr. Allen has not yet cashed the 
check is not that he did not receive the check. So, I submit in 
the record the tweet from Mr. Seraphin who indicated that two 
gentlemen, Garrett and Marcus, receiving a check of--
    Chair Jordan. Continuing your attack on whistleblowers, 
without objection those are--those are--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Just for clarification, Mr. Chair.
    Then finally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
Department of Homeland Security's strategic intelligence 
assessment and data on domestic terrorism dated October 2022, 
Appendix A--the document itself, Appendix A, Appendix B, and 
the categories of domestic violence extremism.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Your kindness is appreciated. Thank you 
very much.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you. The gentleman from South Carolina 
is recognized.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    A few weeks ago, Special Counsel Durham confirmed the FBI 
had bias against President Trump and took unprecedented steps 
to go after him during the 2016 Presidential Election.
    The Durham Report showed:

    (1)  The FBI did not have an adequate basis to launch the 
investigation;
    (2)  it didn't verify or examine all the evidence; and,
    (3)  the FBI was politically charged against then candidate 
Trump.

    This, of course, was before your time. Here we go again. In 
August 2022, the FBI raided the personal residence of President 
Trump. This unprecedented raid was a shocking escalation in 
what we talk about with the weaponization of the Federal 
government against political opponents.
    Our country is almost 250 years old. We have had 46 
Presidents. This is unprecedented and when we say it's 
unprecedented, we mean it. This has never been seen before in 
our country's history. Just like we saw in the Durham Report, 
the FBI did not follow traditional protocols and this 
investigation was chock full of abnormality.
    So, I kind of want to go into those a little bit. Director 
Wray, as you know, the Committee recently conducted a 
transcribed interview with Steven D'Antuono, the former 
Assistant Director in charge of the FBI's Washington Field 
Office. He has over 20 years of FBI experience and he expressed 
some strong concerns with your department's handling of the 
case, the DOJ's handling of the case.
    The first abnormality deals with the FBI office, that they 
conducted the raid themselves.
    Director Wray, generally speaking, which FBI office 
oversees Palm Beach, Florida?
    Mr. Wray. The Miami office has an office in Palm Beach. To 
the question you're asking it is not unusual for a field office 
that is investigating the case to send the case team down to be 
involved in conducting the search.
    Mr. Fry. President Trump's residence is in Palm Beach, 
Florida. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Fry. Director Wray, did the Miami field office conduct 
the investigation and search at Mar-a-Lago?
    Mr. Wray. The Washington Field Office conducted the search, 
although I think there was some assistance by people from 
Miami.
    Mr. Fry. It was primarily run out of Washington and not the 
Miami field office?
    Mr. Wray. Which was the case team that had opened the 
investigation based on a referral--
    Mr. Fry. Did the FBI headquarters--
    Mr. Wray. --based on a referral from the National Archives, 
which is in DC.
    Mr. Fry. Did the FBI headquarters in Washington instruct 
the Washington Field Office to start that investigation and 
that raid at Mar-a-Lago?
    Mr. Wray. Well, the investigation was opened in the field 
by the Washington Field Office.
    Mr. Fry. Right. So, it was not Miami. It was Washington.
    Mr. Wray. Which the Washington Field Office opened the 
investigation based on a referral from the National Archives, 
which is also in DC, so that made sense.
    Mr. Fry. Who made the decision to have the Washington Field 
Office execute that search warrant rather than the Miami field 
office?
    Mr. Wray. I can't speak to the specific individual. As you 
know, this is an ongoing case and internal deliberations are 
ongoing on the case.
    Mr. Fry. We're not asking about--I'm not asking about the 
facts of the case. I'm asking you about who made the call to go 
to Washington and use the Washington Field Office as opposed to 
Miami. Would that had been you?
    Mr. Wray. Well, no. The Washington Field Office opened the 
investigation because they're the office where the National 
Archives is, which is what referred the investigation and 
kicked off the whole investigation.
    Mr. Fry. Director, on May 15, 2023, the FBI, your special 
counsel--or excuse me, not your special counsel, your general 
counsel--sent a letter to Special Counsel Durham in response to 
his report. In that letter the FBI wrote, quote,

        FBI executive management has instructed investigations to be 
        run out of the field and not from headquarters.

    So, despite the location of the search occurring in the 
territory of the FBI's field office the Washington Field Office 
instructed the raid. This is inconsistent with the FBI's 
statement from two months ago.
    I want to move on to a second abnormality.
    Mr. Wray. Sir, I'm sorry. It's actually not--it's not--
    Mr. Fry. I've got 1 minute left. I've got 1 minute left, 
Director. Now, is it normal for a U.S. Attorney to be assigned 
to an investigation--a high-profile investigation?
    Mr. Wray. Well, that's a decision that's made over at the 
Justice Department as to how they allocate responsibilities.
    Mr. Fry. That's normal protocol. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wray. There are investigations, prosecutions in cases 
that are handled by main Justice. There are trial attorneys 
there. Again, I only speak to the FBI's decisionmaking, not to 
the Justice Department.
    Mr. Fry. A U.S. Attorney was not initially assigned to this 
investigation, were they?
    Mr. Wray. I think that's correct. Again, I would refer you 
to the Justice Department for any questions about what--U.S. 
Attorneys versus main Justice.
    Mr. Fry. The third abnormality that I find really 
troubling--probably the most troubling, quite frankly, is the 
FBI did not first seek consent to search the residence, did 
they?
    Mr. Wray. Well, there is a fairly detailed filing in court 
that goes through in fairly excruciating detail the process 
that was followed that led up to the execution of the search 
and it goes through in great detail the efforts that were made 
to secure documents and because this case is now pending and 
moving forward in Federal Court I want to respect that and not 
engage in more discussion beyond. I will refer you to the 
filing--
    Mr. Fry. You can hear the frustration, Director Wray.
    Mr. Wray. --which lays out in great detail, the answer to 
your question.
    Mr. Fry. Here's the frustration that I see, Director.
    The Durham Report laid out very clearly that in cases just 
in general that you cross every T and dot every I, that this 
was not done here. You didn't run it out of the field office. 
You didn't have a U.S. Attorney assigned to the case.
    Senior officials did not listen to people on the ground as 
the testimony of Mr. D'Antuono talked about. You didn't ask for 
a consent from their attorney. You didn't ask for a consent 
search despite the President having cooperated and handed over 
documents for a long period of time, and you refused to wait 
for President Trump's own attorney to get to Mar-a-Lago to do 
this with you.
    So, what has changed since Durham? You've acknowledged this 
in 2023 that things should be run out of the field, that you've 
made internal process changes, but nothing has really changed 
since 2016 and that's my big concern.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Wray. I could not disagree more, but we'll just have to 
disagree on that one.
    Chair Jordan. Well, here's what he said. This is questions 
from the Democrat lawyer in the depositions to Mr.--in the 
deposition of Mr. D'Antuono--``Can you explain to the attendees 
here why the case was not assigned to, for example, the Miami 
field office?'' and Mr. D'Antuono's answer was, ``I have 
absolutely no idea.''
    Then they said the investigators handled it differently and 
he said--his answer was,

        It was handled differently than I would have expected to be 
        than any other case is handled.

    So, I think that was the Member's point and that's the 
concern that we have in spite of the letter we got from your 
general counsel.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for five 
minutes and then we'll go to Wisconsin.
    Mr. Hunt. A recent poll found that 37 percent of Americans 
have a positive view of the FBI and that's from an NBC poll. I 
wouldn't exactly call that right media propaganda and I think I 
know why.
    Here's what the American people know and believe about the 
FBI today, sir. If you are a Trump, you will be prosecuted. If 
you are a Biden you'll be protected, and the American people 
that I represent are sick and tired of this double standard.
    It seems like every single hearing that we have in this 
room we talk about the two-tiered justice system of Biden's DOJ 
and the FBI and, as we were talking earlier, here we are again.
    President Trump endured an unprecedented raid at his home 
in Mar-a-Lago. President Biden's home, however, was 
respectfully browsed.
    President Trump is facing up to 400 years in Federal prison 
for allegedly being in possession of classified documents he 
obtained as the Commander in Chief of these United States of 
America and meanwhile President Biden is facing no charges for 
the classified documents he had held at his time as a Senator 
and a Vice President, not the President of these United States 
of America, and last I checked he had no legal authority to 
declassify those documents.
    Assuming President Trump was in possession of some 
classified documents would those documents be more secure 
surrounded by Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago or in a box in a 
garage behind your Corvette? You don't have to answer that 
question.
    A question for you, sir. What can you tell us about the 
status of the FBI's investigation of President Biden's 
classified documents found next to his Corvette in Delaware and 
those found at the Penn Biden Center? Do we have an update on 
that, sir?
    Mr. Wray. What I can tell you is that there is an ongoing 
Special Counsel investigation led by Mr. Robert Hur and we have 
FBI agents affiliated with it, working on it, working very 
actively and aggressively with him on that case.
    I, obviously, disagree with your description of the two 
standards. In my view, at least under my watch we have one 
standard--
    Mr. Hunt. OK.
    Mr. Wray. --and that is we're going to pursue the facts 
wherever they lead no matter who likes it, and I add that last 
part because especially in sensitive investigations almost by 
definition somebody's not going to like it.
    Mr. Hunt. So, I understand that and that's actually why I 
led with the sentiment of the American people. I understand 
that sentiment.
    Mr. Wray. So, let me--
    Mr. Hunt. I do want to finish this. So, I want everybody to 
talk about this dichotomy that we have seen. I get your point, 
sir, but that's just not what we see as the public as We the 
People.
    We see one case being fast tracked and one case being slow 
walked. We see one person's home being raided; the other 
person's home being kindly searched. You have one government 
agency--the Secret Service--protecting the former President and 
his home and another government agency--the FBI--raiding the 
same home.
    Now, to me, sir, that's tragically ironic and we expect 
more from a functional Constitutional republic and these things 
shouldn't be happening.
    Now, it's my opinion that Joe Biden is the most unpopular 
President we have seen in a century and that's why he knows the 
only way to stop President Trump from beating him in November 
is by putting him in jail.
    You talked about this, Mr. Fry. In the 247 years of this 
existence of this great Nation only one President has ever been 
indicted by the DOJ and his home raided by the FBI.
    Now, some have said that President Trump's indictment means 
that no one is above the law. OK. All right. I would love to 
see that.
    What about Hillary Clinton and what about Joe Biden and 
what about Hunter Biden, who was America's favorite son?
    Let me tell you something. I got a four-year-old daughter 
and a two-year-old daughter at my house. Hunter Biden, to me, 
is like glitter. He is on everything, and you cannot get rid of 
him, and yet nothing is going to be done about this and we're 
sick of it.
    James Comey decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton 
despite overwhelming evidence that she committed crimes, and as 
I recall it was the position of the FBI to not prosecute 
because they didn't want to interfere with a Presidential 
Election.
    What do you call this? The Iowa caucuses are in six months. 
Six months. I think the American public would expect to see 
this from Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and China, but not here.
    The people expect us to have blind justice. They expect 
equal justice under the law. It is not the job of the DOJ or 
the FBI to prosecute Joe Biden's top political opponent who was 
leading in every single primary poll and the Iowa caucuses are 
in six months.
    Let the people decide. It's our job to uphold the 
Constitution. As a West Point grad, a military veteran, this is 
the Constitution I'm giving my life to protect, and I expect us 
all to uphold it likewise.
    Thank you so much for being here.
    Mr. Wray. Mr. Chair, may I briefly respond?
    Chair Jordan. Sure.
    Mr. Wray. So, first, as to the investigations related to 
Ms. Clinton, as you noted that happened under my predecessor, 
and I'm not going to either speak for or defend that decision.
    Mr. Hunt. I recognize that. I recognize that.
    Mr. Wray. Second, as to your descriptions of the 
investigations related to Hunter Biden, as you know there is an 
ongoing investigation being led by the Delaware U.S. Attorney 
appointed by President Trump and we are actively working on 
that investigation with him.
    Mr. Hunt. Well, we look forward to seeing the result of 
this quickly and swiftly.
    Mr. Wray. Third and finally, to your point about the 
American people and their views, I worry less about NBC polls 
or polls by any other news outlet. I will tell you that the 
number of people in Texas applying to work for us since I've 
been in this job has gone up 93 percent and, in fact--
    Mr. Hunt. I'm not going to quote Mr. Gaetz. I heard the 
responses earlier.
    Mr. Wray. In fact, we have--
    Mr. Hunt. That's great.
    Mr. Wray. --more applicants from the State of Texas 
annually in the last several years than any other State in the 
country.
    Mr. Hunt. That makes sense because Texas is the greatest 
State in the country.
    Mr. Wray. Then I think that speaks very well of the view of 
Texans about the FBI.
    Chair Jordan. Director, are any agents who served on the 
Crossfire Hurricane investigation or the Mueller 
investigation--are any of those agents on Mr. Hur or Mr. 
Smith's special counsel team?
    Mr. Wray. I don't believe so, but I can't from the top of 
my head go through the list of--there's a lot of agents 
involved in the two investigations and so let me check into 
that and see if there's any way we can get back to you on that 
because I don't want to get out over my skis.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Director Wray, thanks for being here today.
    On June 21st, the Committee heard testimony from Special 
Counsel John Durham. Have you reviewed his findings, and did 
you dispute any of those?
    Mr. Wray. I have reviewed them. It is a big multi 100-page 
binder sitting to my right on my desk and I refer to it 
frequently.
    I can't say that I'm aware of anything specific that I 
would dispute in it. I would certainly--as you may know, not 
only did we fully cooperate with him in the investigation, as 
he noted in his report, but I actually assigned a bunch of 
agents and FBI personnel to work on it with him to help him and 
I'm very proud of the fact that the reforms that we have put in 
place in response to the inspector general's investigation, 
also in the Crossfire Hurricane as well as some other changes 
that we made working closely with Attorney General Barr.
    If those reforms had been in place back at the time that 
all this stuff that Special Counsel Durham found, I don't think 
any of this would have happened.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, the confirmation bias which was brought 
up time and time again when Durham was here before the 
Committee you feel those have been addressed? I think Jason 
Jones says that he put together a letter and that includes a 
lot of that information. Do you feel it's adequate or--
    Mr. Wray. Well, I'm ambitious by nature for us as an 
organization so we're constantly looking for more things we can 
do. I'll give you an example on this issue of bias because I 
think it's so important.
    One of the things that I did as FBI Director, and I did 
this a couple of years ago and this, frankly, was in reaction 
in many ways more to both the Hillary Clinton investigation as 
well as the Crossfire Hurricane investigation--was that I put 
in place training for the entire workforce that focused 
specifically not just on the importance of avoiding bias, but 
the importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias.
    One of the things that I did to make sure that I was 
sending that message was that rather than like what normally 
happens in a bureaucracy where all the training gets saddled on 
all the folks on the front lines right out of the gate, I 
started with the top 200-300 or so people in the organization, 
brought them all to Quantico for an entire day's stand down.
    We heard from the Federal judiciary, the Inspector General, 
the Hatch Act Office of Special Counsel, and the whole point of 
it was the importance of not just objectivity but making sure 
that we are faithful to the appearance of objectivity as well.
    Then we had a smaller version of this that went out to the 
whole workforce. The idea was to send the message that 
everybody at the top has to take the medicine first.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, there's two other things that were in 
there. Serious lack of analytical rigor was one of the other 
things that Durham brought up numerous times, and then I'll 
just--there was a noticeable departure from how it approached--
how the FBI approached matters involving possible attempted 
foreign election interference plans amid, as you just brought 
up, at the Clinton Campaign.
    So, the question would be: Has the FBI protocols 
surrounding investigations--I want to know specifically in the 
Presidential Campaigns what's the policy now? We're on the 
verge of another nationwide election and I'm wondering is there 
anything specific in writing that you could inform the 
Committee of this afternoon?
    Mr. Wray. Well, we have put in place a whole slew of 
reforms that help to try to mitigate against the kind of 
concerns you're raising. Whether there's a specific one that I 
would think is kind of--I don't think there's any one that's a 
single silver bullet.
    I know that Attorney General Barr and I put in place 
certain reforms that dealt with particularly sensitive 
investigations and approvals that would have to be required 
before anything like that could happen. I know that was very 
important to him and we worked together on that.
    We have a whole slew of additional approvals, sign offs, 
triple check safeguards, et cetera, that go into a lot of these 
kinds of issues. When you raise the issue of analytical rigor, 
obviously, that's--I talk about rigor.
    I bet my folks would tell you they hear the word rigor 
coming out of my mouth probably every single day and that is 
something that we're always aspiring to get better at.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, if you had somebody within the FBI that 
you found out was involved in trying to manipulate or rig an 
election, especially at the national level, how would that be 
handled by the FBI? How would you handle it as the Director?
    Mr. Wray. Well, it obviously would depend on the specific 
facts as to exactly what it is the person was doing. Accepting 
your premise, that's the kind of thing that would have the 
person referred to our disciplinary process.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. To be fired or terminated?
    Mr. Wray. The process would play itself out. We have a 
whole offense code that goes into what different rules we have 
and different punishments and there's a whole complicated 
system that goes into the disciplinary process. Our 
disciplinary process is, for the most part, I think, one of the 
better ones in Federal law enforcement. There is a process that 
we have to follow.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Has anybody that was involved in that type 
of action in the past been disciplined for that at the FBI?
    Mr. Wray. Well, let me answer that this way. Obviously, 
former employees--the important point here is that all the 
senior managers in any way involved in the Crossfire Hurricane 
investigation are all gone from the FBI for a variety of 
reasons in a variety of ways.
    To the extent that there's anybody left you're talking 
about a small handful of currently line level employees, all of 
whom have been referred to this disciplinary process. That 
process, as you may have heard me say in response to an earlier 
exchange, as is typical working with Special Counsel Durham we 
had put that kind of on a hold until he could finish his case 
because the criminal case had to come first, and that process 
is now fully underway.
    Again, you're talking about a few relatively line level 
people where we erred on the side of inclusion so anybody who 
touched it we sent them to the process, and we'll see where 
that plays itself out.
    The key point is that all the main players, if you will--
the senior people--are all gone. I put in place an entirely new 
leadership team.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Director, 
for your patience.
    So, you're very, very good at your job as illustrated by 
the last four hours and I just want to say that you're way 
better at defending than you are at explaining what you're 
going to do about the problems that led to your dismal public 
profile.
    I wish it was better, but I have the most recent poll here 
from--I think it's from Harris. Yes, it is--the Harvard CAPS 
Harris poll. Seventy percent of respondents said that they were 
either very or somewhat concerned about interference by the FBI 
and other intelligence agencies in elections. Seventy-one 
percent agreed that changes post-2016 had not done enough to 
prevent further interference and that wide ranging reform is 
still required.
    Now, I also--pretty interesting article, the Inquirer I see 
damning the Durham Report and I'll just read from you this 
quote from Mr. Durham.

        The promulgation of additional rules and regulations to be 
        learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be 
        a fruitless exercise.

    So, you must have done something more than promulgating 
additional rules and regulations because, to me, that doesn't 
do much at all when we're going to an issue that probably is 
cultural.
    To that end, I just want to share with you some of the 
things I hear from my sheriffs across my 20 counties. So, I 
have 20 county sheriffs. In fact, one of my brothers used to be 
one for 15 years.
    So, I called him--my brother--and I said, hey, what was 
your experience with the FBI? He said, they're very qualified 
but when they appear you know you have to be aware that part of 
their job is to enforce Section 1983, and he pointed that out 
just because there's a constant tension between FBI and local 
law enforcement. Would you agree?
    By the way, when you go out and you talk to sheriffs 
nobody's going to say to the Director of the FBI, we don't like 
you. Why would they do such a crazy thing? They want your help.
    By the way, I asked for your help down in southern Oregon 
against all the drug cartels and to your credit and your office 
out of Portland's credit you did your best to help. You don't 
have very many people there, but you did your best to help.
    For you to come in here and say, I've never heard from a 
sheriff that we're doing a bad job, well, no, you haven't. Now 
tell me, am I wrong? Am I saying that sheriffs would just walk 
right up to you and say you're doing a bad job? How many have 
said that to you?
    Mr. Bentz. You have done your job today to defend your 
agency, and good for you. It is not what we are here today. I 
want to go to Durham's, page 228 of his report, and this is 
going to the heart of what your problem, part of your problem 
may be. He is making his observations; he is very careful to 
protect you. He says, in making observations, we are mindful of 
the benefit of hindsight. Then he says this:

        Some employees, FBI employees who were interviewed by our 
        investigators' advice, they had significant reservations about 
        aspects of Crossfire Hurricane and tried to convey their 
        misgivings. Others had doubts about the investigation did not 
        voice their concerns.

In some cases, nothing has been said because of a sense there 
had to be more compelling information in positions closest to 
the--and still other and current former employees who 
maintained they did their best to take reasonable investigative 
steps and acted within your procedure and guideline.
    What I am getting at here is I don't think people within 
your organization are comfortable calling out negative things. 
I don't think they are, and I wouldn't be either. I would be 
worried because I look at what happens to whistleblowers and 
others. I would go, oh, man, this is not a safe place to be, I 
am going to keep my mouth shut. I think that is not a good 
thing for your agency.
    You know where it starts? It starts with actually admitting 
that you have got a problem, and I don't think you are very 
good at that either. I am going to your testimony, page 13. You 
might want to look at it. I am sure you wrote it, so you 
probably don't have to. On page 13, the last paragraph, you 
write: ``To be sure, nobody more deeply shares members' 
concerns regarding past FBI''--and here is the words--
``compliance violations.'' Compliance. Is that all they did? 
Aren't there a whole bunch of better terms? I went to ChatGPT 
to find out, and I found these words that might have been 
better. I am really asking you is that all they did? Didn't 
they break a law? Didn't they do something more than failure to 
comply? I am asking you. If the culture is the issue, doesn't 
the leader have to at least call out bad acts a little more 
aggressively is my question.
    Mr. Wray. First, depending on what the violation is, that 
may or may not be the right description. Some of the things 
that have happened in the past are things that I have deplored 
in the strongest possible terms. Some of the things that have 
happened in the past I think are described as compliance 
violations. So, there is no one description that fits 
everything that has gone wrong at the FBI over the last five or 
10 years.
    My language, in general, tends to be fairly measured. I 
think that is a fair statement about me. Some people refer to 
me as low key, but no one should ever mistake my demeanor for 
what my spine is made out of. I have made very clear to our 
people over and over and over again that I expect them to do 
their work in the right way with rigor and objectivity.
    As to FBI employees' willingness to speak freely and to 
complain, much like our exchange about sheriffs, I will tell 
you your description of our employees doesn't fit with my 
experience. When I get out to all 56 field offices, one of the 
things that I do, especially on this last round, my second 
round, was to meet with employees without their executive 
management present, just me and them, including people who are 
retirement eligible. We have a term, an affectionate slang term 
for people who are retirement eligible. It is called KMA. You 
can guess what KMA stands for, and it reflects their ability, 
because their retirement eligible, to be able to speak freely. 
They complain to me about all kinds of things, and we have a 
very lively conversation.
    So, I am quite confident that my employees feel comfortable 
talking to me about problems and things that we need to fix. My 
demeanor is part of what you are--
    Mr. Bentz. Forgive me for interrupting, but my time is 
over. I want to thank you for your candor, and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew, is recognized.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Wray, thank 
you for being here. Believe it or not, I am basically just a 
simple country dentist, but I do know my dentistry. One thing I 
know about are abscesses. If you have an abscess, you can have 
a mild or moderate one and you treat it with antibiotics and 
warm salt rinses and, in a week to 10 days, it will be better.
    If you have a severe one, I am going to take a scalpel to 
that abscess. You have got to cut it open, and you have got to 
let the pus, blood, and the gas drain out. If you don't, that 
abscess will travel. It will travel to the patient's brain 
possibly or their heart, and it definitely can kill them. That 
is the type of infection that I feel is within the FBI today. 
It has gotten so deep that we need to get in there with a 
metaphorical scalpel before it kills our Nation. We need real 
structural change, and this Committee is that metaphorical 
scalpel.
    A clear sign of the rot is a memo where your agents, and I 
know you say you feel bad about this, too, but nevertheless, 
and I don't think you like to talk about it, but your agents in 
a field office attempted to spy on Catholic churches and their 
congregations and frame them as extremists. This is 
unbelievable. How do we get there? Who exactly are the 
Catholics you are going to go after here or they were going to 
go after? The charitable men of the Knights of Columbus that 
help their communities, that help charities, that help people 
in every way they can, or maybe we meant the folks that are 
fighting for the sanctity of life, or are you talking about 
those who hold true to their beliefs rooted in the traditional 
values and teachings of the Catholic faith?
    As a Roman Catholic myself, and I believe you are, as well, 
I was deeply, deeply disturbed by this memo. It is shameful it 
was only rescinded after, basically, it got leaked to the 
public. That should scare each and every American from parents 
at school board meetings to grandmas clutching their rosary 
beads. The misguided priorities of our intelligence community 
put every American at risk, and it is wrong. It is un-American, 
and it undermines two of our most important tenets: Freedom of 
speech and freedom of religion. It is what our Nation is built 
on.
    Director Wray, you work for the American people. They pay 
your salary. They pay all our salaries. They don't work for us; 
you work for them. You are supposed to protect them from the 
bad guys, and now many feel they need protection from the FBI.
    I have a few questions here. Despite multiple requests, why 
hasn't the FBI produced an unredacted copy of this memo that 
really outlines this? It isn't public security, it isn't 
national security, and it isn't public safety. This is an 
internal thing that you did that was wrong, and we, as a 
Committee, this Committee, have a right to look at it. When are 
we going to get it? Why haven't we gotten it already? 
Unredacted.
    Mr. Wray. We redact information for a variety of reasons 
that cover various rules that apply to us--
    Mr. Van Drew. Sir, I want to know why this one--I don't 
know about the rules. I told you, man, I am not a lawyer, all 
right. You know what I want to know? I want to know why we 
don't know what happened here, that people in their churches 
had to worry, and it isn't something that is going to affect 
national security. So, whatever damn rule it is that you have, 
we should change that rule because when something like this 
happens and it isn't a matter of national security, then we 
should know. So, I would like to know when we are going to get 
it. I would like a date certain.
    Mr. Wray. What I can tell you is that we are almost done 
with our internal review and, as I said to the Chair, we are 
going to be providing a briefing to the Committee on what the 
internal review--
    Mr. Van Drew. When?
    Mr. Wray. It should be later this summer.
    Mr. Van Drew. Why do we need your internal review? Good you 
are doing an internal review. You should do a lot internally. 
Why don't we get the information when we ask for it, when we 
subpoena for it? We clearly are not creating any risk to our 
Nation or national security. You could give us that tomorrow. 
Why don't we get that part tomorrow, and then you can give us 
your briefing on the internal review?
    Mr. Wray. As I said, we are going to give you a briefing on 
the internal review, and then we can discuss additional 
information that may--
    Mr. Van Drew. Because you are going to try to shape it 
differently and make it out that it was kind of OK.
    Mr. Wray. No. On that, no. I will tell you that I am not 
going to defend or excuse that memo--
    Mr. Van Drew. I understand you said that. Simply yes or no. 
These are really easy questions. Has the FBI created or 
maintained any list of Roman Catholic churches, yes or no?
    Mr. Wray. Any list of Roman Catholic churches?
    Mr. Van Drew. Correct.
    Mr. Wray. Well, we're certainly not targeting any Roman 
Catholic churches.
    Mr. Van Drew. Well, they were, they were. The field office 
was since we found out.
    Mr. Wray. No--
    Mr. Van Drew. As a yes or no, do you have a list? If you 
don't have a list, it is easy to say no.
    Mr. Wray. We have 30,000 employees. We engage with churches 
of all kinds--
    Mr. Van Drew. So, you may have a list of churches that you 
are looking at for--
    Mr. Wray. No, no, no, no, no, no, not for possible 
investigation.
    Mr. Van Drew. How about Russian Orthodox churches?
    Mr. Wray. Same answer.
    Mr. Van Drew. Greek Orthodox churches? Tell me yes or no. 
Evangelical churches? Tell me yes or no.
    Mr. Wray. We do not maintain--
    Mr. Van Drew. Yes or no.
    Mr. Wray. Excuse me?
    Mr. Van Drew. Please answer yes or no.
    Mr. Wray. It is not a yes or no question.
    Mr. Van Drew. It is a yes or no. If you have got a list of 
churches that you are targeting and looking at, the answer is 
yes. If you don't, the answer is no.
    Mr. Wray. If your question is do we have a list of churches 
that we are targeting, then the answer is, no, we do not have--
    Mr. Van Drew. How about Jewish synagogues, yes or no? Same 
question.
    Mr. Wray. We do not maintain any kind of list of religious 
institutions that we are targeting because we are not targeting 
religious institutions.
    Mr. Van Drew. Let me tell you, it is a sorry State of 
affairs that these questions are questions I have to ask, and 
it is a damn shame to see what has become of our once 
universally respected FBI. We need structural change. Mr. 
Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Director, the five 
individuals who signed off on that memo, have any of them lost 
their security clearance during this internal investigation?
    Mr. Wray. I don't believe anybody has lost their security 
clearance, but, again, we have an internal review pending, and 
I will let that finish and come to its conclusion.
    Chair Jordan. How did you become aware of the Catholic memo 
that the gentleman just referenced?
    Mr. Wray. How did I become aware of it?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman may say his point of order.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Whose time is the Chair consuming 
with his--
    Chair Jordan. I thought that the Committee--it is not a 
point of order. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas for five minutes.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, sir. I will say this, Mr. Wray, I am 
one of those sheriffs that will be very blunt with you today. I 
have had an opportunity to look at your testimony, lots of 
stuff, and hear about numerous task forces, crimes being 
committed against children, including even infants and 
toddlers; MS-13 gang members coming across the open Southern 
border; the poisoning and killing of the American people with 
fentanyl; the sex trafficking; and the human trafficking. It is 
quite clear, it is clear that you guys are dealing with some of 
the sickest bastards in our society.
    I have an article here from CNN in January 2022 calling the 
January 6th investigation the biggest investigation in FBI 
history, and what shocks me about this, quite honestly, is that 
you don't mention January 6th, again, the biggest 
investigation, not one time in your 14-page testimony. You 
don't mention it one time, and that makes me ask myself the 
question what the hell are you hiding?
    Sir, you mentioned 38,000 agents and support personnel in 
your agency. How many FBI agents and support personnel have you 
assigned to the January 6th investigation?
    Mr. Wray. I don't know that I know the number. I know we 
have a lot of people working on it and--
    Mr. Nehls. OK. Lots. Fair enough. Lots. Knowing that you 
are dealing with some of the sickest people in our society with 
investigations related to child sex trafficking, have you 
reassigned any of these agents or personnel to investigate 
January 6th, yes or no?
    Mr. Wray. I don't believe we have reassigned people away 
from child exploitation--
    Mr. Nehls. OK. Now, let me just say this, Director--
    Mr. Wray. --to January 6th, to my knowledge.
    Mr. Nehls. --I find that answer disturbing because last 
month Steve Friend, he testified before the Weaponization 
Committee. Mr. Friend, was a domestic terrorism investigator 
for you, and he was told by one of his superiors that January 
6th was, I quote, ``a higher priority than pursuing child 
pornography cases.'' For those of you watching in America, 
understand today's FBI is more concerned about searching for 
and arresting Gram and Grandpa for entering the Capitol 
Building that day than pursuing the sick individuals in our 
society who prey on our children. Mr. Wray, your priorities are 
flawed.
    Let's rehash what we know so far, all right. It is the 
largest investigation in FBI history, and you don't mention it 
in your testimony. Agents have been reassigned from child 
exploitation cases and so on.
    So, now let's get into the money, Mr. Wray. How much 
taxpayer money has been spent on January 6th?
    Mr. Wray. I don't know that I have the figure off the top 
of my head but--
    Mr. Nehls. OK, fine. Mr. Wray, I have got an article here, 
December 22, 2022, two years after the events of January 6th, 
and it says the Justice Department has requested another $34 
million from Congress. First, you shouldn't get another dime. 
The FBI shouldn't get another dime for this political witch 
hunt against the greatest President in my lifetime, Donald J. 
Trump.
    I want to turn my attention now to this fellow, this 
character, Mr. Ray Epps. We have all heard of them. We have 
heard of Mr. Ray Epps. He was number 16 on your FBI most wanted 
list. He was encouraging people the night prior and the day of 
to go into the Capitol, and Mr. Ray Epps can be seen at the 
first breach of Capitol grounds at approximately 12:50 p.m. 
Play the clip, please.
    [Video played.]
    Mr. Nehls. There he is, breaching the line, going in at the 
first breach into the Capitol grounds and restricted area. Mr. 
Wray, you have arrested hundreds of people related to January 
6th, and there have been people arrested for breaching Capitol 
grounds. Couy Griffin is an example and Raechel Genco is an 
example. Then we go to Mr. Brandon Strikta. Brandon was 
arrested for disorderly and destructive conduct, which included 
yelling, I quote, ``go, go, go,'' as rioters tried to enter the 
Capitol. These three never went into the Capitol. They never 
assaulted anyone.
    So, let's be honest with each other. There is very little 
difference between the actions of Ray Epps and Brandon Strikta 
that day, but, yet, Strikta was arrested and Epps wasn't. Epps 
also testified to the January 6th Committee he was back at his 
hotel when video evidence showed that he wasn't. He lied. He 
was on the Capitol grounds, just as Brandon Strikta was. Epps 
even texted his nephew at 2:12 p.m. and said, I quote, ``I was 
in the front with a few others, it was on the video; I also 
orchestrated it.''
    Now, look into the camera, sir, when you answer my next 
question. Are you going to arrest Mr. Epps, yes or no?
    Mr. Wray. I am not going to engage here in a discussion 
about individual people who are or are not going to be 
prosecuted.
    Mr. Nehls. OK. Here we go. Can I get a commitment? You just 
watched the video. I am an old law dog. I understand a little 
bit about probable cause. He did very little, there was very 
little difference what he did and Mr. Strikta. You can see him. 
He is encouraging. I almost think he is inciting a riot. He is 
encouraging people the night prior to go into the Capitol, the 
day of, go into the Capitol, and he was at the first breach and 
he breached the restricted area. Everybody, a lot of people, 
getting arrested for not going into the Capitol, but they are 
in the restricted area; but, yet, Ray Epps, who many people 
feel fed, fed, fed, right, and there is a lot of cloud over 
this.
    So, my point is this, you arrested a lot of folks for 
unlawful activity. You just saw the video. I will tell you, if 
you don't arrest Mr. Epps, there is a reason behind it. I 
believe you know what it is, and it appears to me you are 
protecting this guy.
    I strongly recommend you get your house back in order. With 
that, I yield back.
    Mr. Wray. Mr. Chair, if I might briefly.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman may respond, and then we have 
got a couple of point of orders. Go ahead, Mr. Wray.
    Mr. Wray. It has never been appropriate for an FBI Director 
in Congressional testimony to be weighing in on who is or isn't 
going to be arrested and who is or isn't going to get charged, 
which is a prosecutor's decision. If you are suggesting that 
the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some 
operation orchestrated by FBI sources or FBI agents, the answer 
is, no, it was not. To suggest otherwise is a disservice to our 
hardworking, dedicated law enforcement professionals.
    Mr. Nehls. Can I respond to that now that--the point is he 
was number 16 on your list. He was 16 on your list, and you 
never arrested him. Hundreds of Americans were arrested. Shame 
on you.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for unanimous 
consent.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent for all 
Members have five legislative days to submit any additional 
materials, as well as any questions for the record for the 
Director, and I would hope that those questions for the record 
we would submit would receive more timely responses than some 
of our letters have. I would further seek unanimous consent 
that the WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden I used earlier in 
the hearing be submitted for the record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a 
unanimous consent request that an article from the Daily Mail 
dated today with the headline ``January 6th Protestor Ray Epps 
reveals he is forced to live in an RV in hiding after death 
threats over FBI informant conspiracy. Epps confirmed he has 
never worked for them, as he slams right-wing theorists using 
him as a scapegoat'' I would like to offer this into the 
record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    Chair Jordan. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Wray, thank you 
for your time today. You said earlier in response to 
Representative Issa's questions that the job of the FBI is to: 
(1) Undertake criminal investigations and (2) protect the U.S. 
from national security threats. Would you agree with me that, 
in doing those activities, the FBI has to do a lot of that in 
what are effectively confidential conditions; is that correct?
    Mr. Wray. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. When you are undertaking those activities and 
those confidential conditions, you are going to require tools 
that have been appropriated by Congress in the past, tools that 
say to you we are going to trust you to use those tools 
correctly and, in return, the FBI then is expected to not abuse 
the trust of those tools that are provided to the FBI to 
undertake its activities. Is that a correct statement, as well?
    Mr. Wray. Yes, I would agree with that.
    Mr. Moran. So, trust is a very important thing, both the 
giving of trust when you give those tools and then making sure 
that you do not abuse that trust once those tools have been 
given to you.
    Were you aware that, according to a recent poll by Harvard 
CAPS/Harris, 70 percent of respondents in the United States 
said that they were either very or somewhat concerned about 
interference by the FBI and other intelligence agencies in the 
elections. Were you aware of that?
    Mr. Wray. I am not aware of the particular survey, poll, 
study, or whatever it is.
    Mr. Moran. In that same poll, 71 percent of Americans, 
which is certainly a bipartisan group, agreed that internal FBI 
changes post-2016 had not done enough to prevent further 
interference in elections and that, quote, ``wide-ranging 
reform was still required.'' Again, you are not aware of those 
numbers?
    Mr. Wray. No.
    Mr. Moran. Does any of that shock you?
    Mr. Wray. I don't spend a lot of time as the FBI Director 
worrying about pools. What I do look at is whether people want 
to work with us, whether people want to work for us. On both of 
those metrics, we are actually going up quite significantly. In 
fact, in your home State of Texas, we have got a 93-percent 
increase in the number of Texans applying to work for the FBI 
since I have been in this job.
    Mr. Moran. Well--
    Mr. Wray. In fact, it is the highest, Texas has more people 
applying to work for the FBI than any other State in the Union.
    Mr. Moran. Even if you do not watch polls, certainly you 
appreciate the fact that you want the trust of the American 
people. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Wray. Absolutely.
    Mr. Moran. All right. Does it bother you that so many 
Americans do not trust the FBI presently?
    Mr. Wray. Well, again, I don't spend a lot of time worrying 
about polls. I do care about what I hear from the American 
people otherwise.
    Mr. Moran. I am asking about the trust.
    Mr. Wray. It bothers me any time any American has lost 
trust in the FBI. Of course, that concerns me.
    Mr. Moran. Earlier, you were talking to Representative 
Hageman, and you said where we can take action where possible 
to remove them from the chain of command, and then you got, you 
ended your time, you got cutoff because we had to get to the 
votes. You were going to say something further on that. Do you 
have any plans to remove anybody from the chain of command or 
go through a process to determine who should be removed from 
the chain of command?
    Mr. Wray. Well, I have already removed any number of people 
at different stages of my tenure from the chain of command. I 
have also referred people to our disciplinary arm, which has 
resulted, in some cases, in termination.
    Mr. Moran. Do you have any plans to do any more of that?
    Mr. Wray. If somebody has violated a rule, absolutely.
    Mr. Moran. When we talk about a good faith basis for trust 
of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, does it bother 
you that these legal queries have continued, even with efforts 
of the FBI to try to reduce them, that we now have somewhere 
between a couple hundred thousand and at least a million of 
illegal FISA queries?
    Mr. Wray. Well, there are two things going on there. First, 
I think your numbers of what are actually illegal are off. 
Second, more importantly to me, all the changes that we have 
put in place to address compliance failures that I consider 
unacceptable have pointed to the effectiveness of the reforms 
that we have put in place. So, I am talking about--
    Mr. Moran. What number of illegal FISA queries would you 
put on the table as those that you know of?
    Mr. Wray. Well, here is what I can tell you: The most 
recent FISA Court opinion found, I think it is a, like, 98-
percent compliance rate. The most recent DOJ audit found a 99- 
or 98-percent compliance rate.
    Mr. Moran. Is that acceptable to you? Is that one percent 
or two percent--
    Mr. Wray. No, we strive for 100 percent. All of those 
things, all of those things, but it is the FISC, the FISA 
Court, whether it is ODNI, the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence, whether it is DOJ, whether it is our own 
Office of Internal Audit, which I created by the way, all four 
of those things have shown that the reforms that we have been 
putting in place have already had dramatic positive impact. Am 
I satisfied with that? No.
    Mr. Moran. Has anybody been fired or removed as a result of 
their inappropriate use of FISA?
    Mr. Wray. Well, the last time somebody has had truly 
abusive behavior with respect to FISA goes back a way, but 
those people have been gone from the organization.
    Mr. Moran. Are you making a distinction between truly 
abusive and just abusive? What is the distinction there?
    Mr. Wray. Well, the distinction I would draw is between 
intentional or reckless conduct versus somebody who makes a 
good faith mistake. To me, a good faith mistake is still a 
compliance violation and still somebody needs to be counseled, 
trained, coached, and taught to do it right, but that is 
different from somebody who intentionally or recklessly breaks 
the rules.
    Mr. Moran. Director Wray, I am going to go back where I 
started, and that is with trust. We trust you. When we give the 
FBI tools, we trust that those tools would not be abused. In 
the last six years, certainly we have seen a number of abuses 
of the tools given, and I think, as a result of that, you are 
going to see a curtailment of some of the tools that are 
provided to the FBI. That is not a choice that we are in a 
position that we want to make but we have to make as a result 
of the abuses of the trust of the American people. Thank you 
for your time today.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Director, I have 
just a couple of extra questions, but, in fairness to the 
minority, I will recognize Mr. Johnson. So, he will go for a 
few questions, I will have a few, and then we appreciate you 
being here for this length of time, and then we will be able to 
adjourn the hearing.
    The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Director Wray, you have 
acquitted yourself admirably today under severe and constant 
fire. So, your day is about to come to a close with your head 
still held high and your soul, I am sure, further empowered to 
continue doing the right thing on behalf of the American people 
through your service as Director of the FBI, and I thank you 
for that.
    You were asked multiple times about the Missouri v. Biden 
injunction. This is a preliminary injunction issued on a 
holiday, July 4th, Independence Day. It makes various 
allegations that, thus far, have been totally unproven but 
relied on as true here by Members of this Committee. What is 
your response to the allegations that the FBI has been engaged 
in censoring social media platforms or anyone else?
    Mr. Wray. Well, while I respect the Court's decision, I 
think there are a number of factual findings that we don't 
agree with and, certainly, the FBI is not engaged, in my view, 
in censorship or content suppression.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. My Republican colleagues also seem 
to think that the FBI is being weaponized against the American 
people. What is your response to that allegation? That will be 
my final question for today to you.
    Mr. Wray. The FBI that I see every day and, again, when I 
see the FBI, nobody gets to see it the way I do it. I have been 
all to 56 of our field offices at least twice. I have spoken 
with partners; law enforcement partners in all 50 States 
multiple times; with Federal judges all over the country; with 
business leaders; community leaders; prosecutors; victims, more 
importantly, and their families. The FBI that I see every day 
is working their tails off to protect the American people from 
a really staggering array of threats. They are an inspiring, 
incredibly dedicated group of people.
    The FBI that I see is best captured by the Chicago agent 
who had his arm shot up by an AR-15 chasing a fugitive and 
retrained himself left-handed and then re-qualified for SWAT 
left-handed, by the Atlanta agent who unexpectedly came across 
a fugitive, a gang fugitive, chased the guy into a car, got 
caught in the car drove. The guy drove off with the Atlanta 
agent stuck in the door and the guy headed out onto the 
freeway. The poor agent broke his pelvis and Lord knows how 
many other things, and, yet he still managed to apprehend the 
subject. The FBI that I see is captured by the Portland agent 
who, out for a run, comes across a mentally ill woman down on 
the train tracks and climbs down in the train tracks to try to 
wrestle her out of the way of the oncoming train while she is 
trying to bite him and everything else, and gets her to safety; 
or the bomb tech who comes across a booby trap, blows up on 
him, and the next business day he is back at work. That is the 
FBI that I see. I can give you countless examples. That is the 
real FBI.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I thank you again for your 
service, and I appreciate the fact that you have allowed 
somewhat loquaciousness to emerge during this hearing with that 
final response. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. I think the gentleman yields back. Director, 
we appreciate those, the whole country does. In fact, I said 
this in an interview this morning, a TV interview this morning, 
two of those agents who served for years in the FBI and did 
great work now work for the Committee on the Republican staff. 
We appreciate the work they did then, the work they are doing 
now. They share the same concerns raised by Members of the 
Committee. That is why they came to work for us.
    So, I just got a couple of other questions. Any of the FBI 
personnel who did improper queries of the 702 data base, have 
any of those individuals lost their clearance?
    Mr. Wray. Well, it depends on how far back you want to go 
in time. We have had individuals, if you go back to, say, like 
2018 was the last I remember we had somebody who engaged in 
intentional conduct, and the person, for example, is gone. I 
think there were security clearances revoked for people back in 
that time period, but I don't know that we have had somebody 
who has engaged in intentional or reckless conduct more 
recently than that.
    We have, as you may know, Mr. Chair, and this actually 
didn't come up today, but it is important for people to know, 
we recently put in place a whole new set of accountability 
policies specifically focused on 702. They go through cascading 
consequences, and so that is an important--
    Chair Jordan. It has been reported that donors of a 
Congressional Member of Congress were illegally searched. Has 
that individual lost their clearance?
    Mr. Wray. I am not sure I am familiar with the specific 
example.
    Chair Jordan. Well, it has been widely reported that the 
donor base for a Member of Congress has been searched, and I 
just wonder if the person responsible for that has had any 
consequences, like a loss of a security clearance.
    Mr. Wray. I don't know the answer--
    Chair Jordan. OK. Is the FBI assisting the Secret Service 
in the investigation as to how cocaine wound up at the White 
House?
    Mr. Wray. Yes. I want to be a little bit careful about what 
I can say here because the Secret Service is leading the 
investigation. As is standard in an investigation where white 
powder is found, the FBI's lab personnel did an evaluation to 
determine whether or not there was a biological--
    Chair Jordan. Is that the only assistance?
    Mr. Wray. That is the only assistance we have done so far. 
We have offered the full range of our assistance to the Secret 
Service if they want to use us for that purpose, but, beyond 
that, I will refer you to the Secret Service.
    Chair Jordan. That offer has been denied; is that what 
you're saying?
    Mr. Wray. No, I didn't say that. We have offered it to the 
Secret Service, but, beyond that, I would refer to them.
    Chair Jordan. In October 2020, when Facebook asked the FBI 
is the Biden laptop story Russian disinformation, the FBI's 
answer was no comment. Who gave that answer?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Before you answer, sir, if I might 
just interject the fact that we agreed that I would have two 
questions and you would have two questions.
    Chair Jordan. I think I said a couple of questions.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes, and you have asked a couple--
    Chair Jordan. In fact, I don't think, I know I said a 
couple of questions. I gave you five minutes. Do you want 
another question?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No, I want us to conclude this 
hearing and--
    Chair Jordan. We will be done in two minutes and 10 
seconds.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. We appreciate that, and we obviously 
appreciate the Director being here. In October 2020, when 
Facebook asked the FBI is the Biden laptop story Russian 
disinformation, the FBI's response was no comment. Do you know 
who gave that response?
    Mr. Wray. I do not.
    Chair Jordan. The court knew and the Court said it was 
Laura Dehmlow. Do you know who Laura Dehmlow is?
    Mr. Wray. I do know who Laura Dehmlow is.
    Chair Jordan. What does she do?
    Mr. Wray. Laura Dehmlow is an agent in our 
counterintelligence division, and she currently works with the 
Foreign Influence Task Force.
    Chair Jordan. Doesn't she head the Foreign Influence Task 
Force?
    Mr. Wray. I think she leads it, yes.
    Chair Jordan. She leads the Foreign Influence Task Force. 
Did you tell her to give that comment?
    Mr. Wray. Did I what now?
    Chair Jordan. Did you instruct anyone, when Facebook asked, 
did you instruct them to give the no comment?
    Mr. Wray. I don't remember giving any instruction along 
those lines, although I should say I am not sure whether Laura 
Dehmlow was in that role at the timeframe that you described, 
but I--
    Chair Jordan. Again, the Court in Louisiana said she was 
and said when Facebook asked her specifically, she said no 
comment. This is the Foreign Influence Task Force leader, the 
Foreign Influence Task Force that you created as Director of 
the FBI, correct?
    Mr. Wray. I am sorry--
    Chair Jordan. All that is correct. You created the Foreign 
Influence Task--
    Mr. Wray. I did create the Foreign Influence Task Force.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, you put that together and she heads it 
up. OK. When did you become, how did you become aware of the 
Catholic memo, the one in Richmond that we have talked about a 
couple of times today?
    Mr. Wray. As I recall, in one of my regular morning 
meetings, I learned that there was this product and that was 
the same day that I ordered that it be removed.
    Chair Jordan. Was that before or after it was already in 
the press?
    Mr. Wray. That I can't tell you. My guess is it was 
probably around the same time, but I don't know.
    Chair Jordan. Did you learn about it--did the people who 
brought it up to you, did they learn about it from the press, 
or was it some internal communication?
    Mr. Wray. I can't speak to how they learned about it. I 
just know that I was told about it by them, and we had a 
conversation about it immediately, taking steps that we then 
did--
    Chair Jordan. We appreciate that. OK. Director, we 
appreciate your time today. I know it has been a long day. We 
already had the unanimous consent for Mr. Gaetz, so the 
Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116192.

                                 [all]