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

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2025

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas GRACE MENG, New York
BEN CLINE, Virginia C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
MIKE GARCIA, California DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
TONY GONZALES, Texas JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas

NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

Robert Yavor, Chris Esparza, Alley Adcock,
Elizabeth Barczak, and Elizabeth Markus
Subcommittee Staff

__________________________

Page

Federal Bureau of Investigation Budget
Request for 2025......................................................1

Department of Justice Budget Request
for 2025.............................................................
51
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Budget Request for 2025.............................. 145

Drug Enforcement Administration Budget
Request for 2025....................................................195

Department of Commerce Budget Request
for 2025........................................................... 245

Public Testimony................................................. 293

GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

___________________________________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2025

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2025

_______________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

___________________________________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman of the full
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

Robert Yavor, Chris Esparza, Alley Adcock,
Elizabeth Barczak, and Elizabeth Markus
Subcommittee Staff

_______

Page
Federal Bureau of Investigation Budget
Request for 2025.....................................................1

Department of Justice Budget Request
for 2025.............................................................51

National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Budget Request for 2025..............................145

Drug Enforcement Administration Budget
Request for 2025....................................................195
195
Department of Commerce Budget Request
for 2025...........................................................4245

Public Testimony..................................................293

GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57-665 WASHINGTON: 2025

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

----------
TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
Chair Emeritus STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
KAY GRANGER, Texas ,MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
Chair Emeritus SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama BARBARA LEE, California
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER,
KEN CALVERT, California Maryland
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada GRACE MENG, New York
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington PETE AGUILAR, California
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BEN CLINE, Virginia NORMA J. TORRES, California
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania ED CASE, Hawaii
MIKE GARCIA, California ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa JOSH HARDER, California
TONY GONZALES, Texas JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana SUSIE LEE, Nevada
ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina

Susan Ross, Clerk and Staff Director

(ii)

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2025

---------- --
--------

Thursday, April 11, 2024.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

WITNESS

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR
Mr. Rogers [presiding]. The subcommittee will be in order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
Welcome to the first fiscal year 2025 hearing for the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies.
Before I start, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger for her
years of dedication to this committee, and formally
congratulate Chairman Cole on becoming the new chairman of the
committee. We look forward to continuing to work with both of
them.
I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening
statement.
We want to welcome our witness, the Honorable Christopher
Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, back to
this subcommittee.
Director Wray, who has nearly 30 years of DOJ and FBI
experience dating back to the late 1990s, has served in his
current role since August of 2017. In his capacity as Director,
he oversees an agency of over 35,000 people, including special
agents, intelligence analysts, language specialists,
scientists, and information technology specialists.
The 2025 budget request for FBI salaries and expenses is
$11.3 billion, with $6.7 billion of that amount, about 60
percent, designated as defense spending. The request amounts to
a 6 percent increase above the fiscal year 2024 enacted level
for salaries and expenses.
Overall, the FBI budget request includes $119 million in
program increases and approximately $700 million in other
adjustments, representing the substantial increased cost of
continuing the FBI's current activities.
In particular, the largest program increase request is for
what the FBI has labeled ``restoration of 2023 national
security and law enforcement personnel.'' This request is for
$85.4 million and aims to fund 270 headquarter positions, of
which only 60 would be actual agents. The Bureau claims these
resources are necessary to limit reductions in function areas.
Let's be crystal-clear, cartels continue to flood our
streets with fentanyl and poison. Americans are being hurt in
record numbers. They are exploiting our southern border and
devastating families and communities. Violent crime levels--
murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault--all too high.
There's no question the FBI's mission is more critical than
ever.
The requested increases in the fiscal year 2025 budget are
significant, and it is my hope that they are fully discussed at
today's hearing in relation to many of the issues this country
is facing.
However, it is no secret that the Nation's federal debt
stands at approximately $34 trillion. Let me repeat that
number--$34 trillion. And hardworking Americans continue to
face elevated costs for everyday items.
Congress, and this committee, in particular, cannot ignore
the unsustainable path that we are on. It is essential that we
ensure every dollar appropriated to agencies is spent
effectively, efficiently, and appropriately. Anything less
would be ignoring our constitutional duty.
To that end, our fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill made
some difficult, yet necessary, funding reductions for many
agencies, including the FBI. As with all appropriations bills,
the fiscal year 2024 CJS bill was the product of careful
consideration and collaboration within Congress. We review
budget submissions, call hearings, analyze program inquiries/
requests, engage with the agencies, have countless debates, and
make final judgment calls. Not everyone will be satisfied with
the final appropriated levels, but ever-increasing debt levels
require tough decisions.
Director Wray, we look forward to the opportunity to
discuss with you today the President's fiscal year 2025 budget
submission for the FBI. We are looking forward to a full
conversation on the major cost drivers within this budget
request.
Beyond the funding implications of the budget request, I'm
also interested in the ongoing issues at the FBI that include,
but not limited to, the erosion of public trust in the Bureau.
This includes the FBI's overly aggressive tactics, questionable
investigative standards, and the overall politicization of the
Bureau.
Importantly, I also want to ensure we fully explore the
grave crisis at our southern border and the FBI's
responsibility when it comes to combating the wide range of
illegal activities happening at the border that not only impact
the Nation's southern states, but the entire country as a
whole.
I believe the fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill achieved
the right balance and represented a step in the right direction
with targeted cuts aimed at pushing the Bureau to refocus on
its core mission. Mission creep in federal agencies beyond
their required duties is a real problem and it must be
corrected.
I believe in the FBI's mission to protect the American
people and uphold the Constitution of our great country. I
recognize the challenging, yet critical, work the agency
performs daily--defending the United States against terrorists
and espionage, combating deadly fentanyl, protecting the
Nation's children from becoming victims, and more.
FBI agents are our Nation's defenders, and it is not lost
on Members of Congress the sacrifices they make to protect our
country. To be clear, the FBI's mission is critical to the
health of our entire Nation.
Mr. Wray, once again, we appreciate you being here to
answer our questions. We appreciate your hard work on behalf of
the American people.
Let me now recognize my ranking member of the subcommittee,
Mr. Cartwright, for any remarks he may wish to make.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
And I join Chairman Rogers in thanking our overall
appropriations chair, Kay Granger, for her years of dedication
and service to this Appropriations Committee, and congratulate
Chairman Cole, as he takes over that very important role.
And I also join Chairman Rogers in welcoming Director
Christopher Wray to testify today. As we all know, the FBI does
an enormous amount of work to help protect the American people.
As a primary law enforcement agency for the U.S. Government,
the FBI employs, roughly, 36,000 people in 56 field offices,
350 resident agencies, and several specialized facilities and
analytical centers across the country, as well as in over 60
legal attache offices in 80 countries around the world.
The FBI works to investigate and disrupt crime, including
everything from violent gang networks, cyber criminals, white
collar crime, human trafficking, and domestic and international
terrorism. And I could not agree more with Chairman Rogers as
he talks about FBI's mission, including combating opioid and
the opioid epidemic, including fentanyl poisonings that are
killing well north of 100,000 people, American citizens, every
year.
In addition, since Russia's brutal and unprovoked invasion
of Ukraine last year, the FBI has also successfully worked to
disrupt criminal, cyber, and hostile intelligence activities
from Russia that endanger Ukraine, our partners, and American
citizens.
The Biden administration is requesting funding for several
FBI initiatives in fiscal year 2025, including investments to
restore and enhance the FBI's efforts to combat violent crime
and cyber crime, and to enhance the FBI's counterintelligence
and counterterrorism capabilities, among other initiatives.
Director Wray, I look forward to hearing more from you
about these and other priorities surrounding the FBI's budget
request.
Again, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back to you.
Mr. Rogers. We want now to recognize our witness, Director
Wray, for an opening statement.
Without objection, his written statement will be entered
into the record, and I would ask him that we would like to see
him keep his remarks to 5 minutes or less, so we can have
additional time for questions.
Director Wray.
Mr. Wray. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman Rogers,
Ranking Member Cartwright, members of the committee. I'm proud
to be here today representing the, roughly, 38,000 men and
women who make up the FBI.
Every day our people are working relentlessly to outpace
our adversaries and to stay ahead of complex and evolving
threats. So, I would like to start out by thanking you and the
rest of the committee for your support over the years for our
efforts to achieve our mission of protecting the American
people and upholding the Constitution.
At the same time, I also realize the reality of the
environment we are in today where so many agencies are dealing
with tightening budgets. And this year, the FBI is one of those
agencies--with our fiscal year 2024 budget having now come in
almost $500 million below what the FBI needs just to sustain
our 2023 efforts. And candidly, this could not have come at a
worse time.
When I sat here last year, I walked through how we were
already in a heightened threat environment. Since then, we have
seen the threat from foreign terrorists rise to a whole other
level after October 7.
We continue to see the cartels push fentanyl and other
dangerous drugs into every corner of the country, claiming
countless American lives.
We have seen a spate of ransomware and other cyber attacks
impacting parts of our critical infrastructure and businesses,
both large and small.
Violent crime--violent crime--which reached alarming levels
coming out of the pandemic, remains far too high and is
impacting far too many communities.
China continues its relentless efforts to steal our
intellectual property and most valuable information.
And that is just scratching the surface.
As I look back over my career in law enforcement, I would
be hard-pressed to think of a time where so many threats to our
public safety and national security were so elevated all at
once. But that is the case, as I sit here today.
And while we have always found ways at the FBI to innovate
and make the most with what we have, this is by no means a time
to let up or dial back. This is a time when we need your
support the most. We need all the tools, all the people, and
all the resources required to tackle these threats to keep
Americans safe.
So, to take each of those in turn, the tools, the people,
and the resources.
First, an absolutely indispensable tool that Congress can
give us in our fight against foreign adversaries is the
reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. It is critical in securing our Nation and we
are in crunch time with our 702 authority set to expire next
week. So, let me be clear: failure to reauthorize 702 or
gutting it with some new kind of warrant requirement would be
dangerous and put Americans' lives at risk.
Second, we need people. And I will stack the FBI's
workforce up against anyone, anywhere, anytime. They are
innovative. They are efficient. They are relentless. They are
professionals. They are patriots.
And we have been fortunate at the FBI in recent years that
our recruiting has gone through the roof. Americans are
applying in droves to devote their lives to a career with us
protecting others. But we need more positions to be able to
bring all the good people we can to the fight--certainly not
fewer. Now is not the time to cut back. It is time to lean
forward.
And third, we need resources, which you will see in the
2025 budget request that we are here today to discuss. So, we
need funding to protect America from terrorism. I touched on
this earlier, but there was already a heightened risk of
violence in the United States before October 7th. Since then,
we have seen a rogues' gallery of foreign terrorist
organizations call for attacks against Americans and our
allies.
And given those calls for action, our most immediate
concern has been that individuals or small groups will draw
some kind of twisted inspiration from the events in the Middle
East to carry out attacks here at home. But now, increasingly
concerning is the potential for a coordinated attack here in
the homeland, akin to the ISIS-K attack we saw at the Russia
concert hall just a couple of weeks ago.
We also need funding to counter the threat from the
People's Republic of China--a government sparing no expense in
its quest to hack, lie, cheat, and steal its way to the top as
a global superpower and to undermine our democracy and our
economic success.
We need funding to counter cyber threats, certainly those
from China, but also from a crowded field of sophisticated
hostile nation-states and criminals--nation-states like Russia,
Iran, and North Korea.
We need funding to mitigate the range of threats from the
border--fentanyl, gangs like MS-13, and human trafficking.
We need funding to address the violent crime that remains
at levels in this country that are still too high.
And we need funding to keep going after child predators and
to rescue young victims from their tormenters.
On all those areas I just mentioned, we are working closely
with our partners at all levels of government to achieve our
shared goal of keeping our communities safe. Every day, FBI
agents, analysts, and professional staff are working shoulder-
to-shoulder with thousands of task force officers from hundreds
of different police departments and sheriffs' offices all over
the country on our FBI-led task forces.
On top of that, we provide technology and expertise,
valuable leads, like DNA matches, and cutting-edge training to
law enforcement nationwide to help them protect Americans from
harm.
So, cuts to us are cuts to our partners, state and local
law enforcement agencies and officers who are on the ground
putting themselves in the line of fire--often quite literally.
And that is just one way those cuts are going to have real
impacts on the American people.
So, yes, we took a hit in the 2024 budget, but the 2025
budget is a chance to get back on track, to provide the FBI's
men and women the tools and the resources the American people
need us to have to keep them safe.
So, thank you again for having me here today, and I look
forward to our discussion.
[The information follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Director Wray.
We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions
for the witness. I will begin by recognizing myself.
Director, has the Bureau observed any improvements in our
efforts to dismantle the fentanyl pipeline? And what role can
the Bureau play here?
Mr. Wray. So, I would say it is a mixed bag. Certainly, the
scourge of fentanyl is still claiming way, way, way too many
lives. And I will tell you that, from the FBI's perspective,
one of the things that we have been observing is that, in our
takedown of violent gangs--which is, of course, something that
we are doing all over the country all the time--we are
noticing, almost without exception now, that those takedowns of
violent gang members also include seizures of fentanyl. So, the
fentanyl that is coming from the cartels, built on precursors
from China, ending up all over the United States, is often
being distributed, of course, by these violent street gangs.
So, that is one of the things that we are observing.
We are trying to do our part. This goes way beyond any one
agency, and frankly, beyond law enforcement, as I know a lot of
your efforts recognize.
But some of the things that we at the FBI are doing to try
to do our part, I will mention a few.
Our Safe Streets Task Forces are going after the gangs that
are distributing so much of this poison.
Our organized crime, our TOC, Transnational Organized Crime
Task Forces are going after the cartels. We have close to, I
think, close to 400 investigations that go just after cartel
leadership.
We also have things like JCODE, which is an initiative
where we bring together 12 agencies that is focused on the dark
web trafficking of fentanyl and other dangerous substances,
dismantling darknet marketplaces, when we do that.
We have a prescription drug initiative. Because, of course,
especially in certain parts of the country, pill mills and
irresponsible prescribers of opioids are a driver of much of
this epidemic. So, we are using our healthcare fraud expertise,
for example, to try to go after some of those folks.
We are working with our partners on the other side of the
border. And there, I would say it is very uneven. We have had
some instances where we have had a key arrest, an extradition,
a key operation. We are starting to work with vetted teams down
there, which is an important effort in the right direction, but
we need much, much more than we are getting from the Mexican
Government.
So, I guess I would summarize my answer to your question by
saying a lot of things to be encouraged by in terms of the
effort and the work across multiple agencies people are making,
but a lot of things to be very, very concerned about.
Last year, I guess the last 2 years in a row--I will just
leave it with this point--the FBI seized enough fentanyl to
kill 270 million American people. And that gives you a sense of
the scale of what we are up against.
Mr. Rogers. When it comes to Mexico, what is the level of
cooperation between our law enforcement agencies, especially
when it comes to drug trafficking? Are they working with you in
Mexico?
Mr. Wray. Absolutely. I think one of the really bright
spots that I see, especially when I compare it to earlier in my
career, is how close the partnerships are across all levels of
law enforcement. All the Federal agencies, State and local law
enforcement is so intertwined with today's FBI; foreign law
enforcement in a lot of instances; the intelligence community
working with law enforcement. So, partnerships are in many ways
stronger than ever, and that is one of the things that is
keeping this from becoming an even worse problem.
We work with, say, DEA on everything from OCDETF Strike
Forces. We have DEA task force officers on a lot of our task
forces, and vice versa. We work out at their SOD, where there
is intelligence-sharing. So, there is a whole range of ways in
which we all work together.
Obviously, always room for improvement. We are always
looking for ways to innovate and take that to the next level.
But if there is one bright spot that I can leave the committee
with, it is that the partnerships among law enforcement are in
my career the best I have ever seen.
Mr. Rogers. Well, is Mexico honoring our law enforcement
efforts to bring the cartel leaders to justice?
Mr. Wray. As I think I said earlier, uneven--uneven. So, we
have had instances, individual instances, of successes,
including events involving significant cartel figures and
extraditions. But, then, the reality is that especially the two
major cartels, Sinaloa and CJNG, are the drivers of the vast
majority of what we are dealing with here. And we need more
from the Mexican government.
There are instances to be pleased about. We have had a top
10 fugitive, for example, of ours that they helped us arrest
and send back recently. So, there are individual instances that
are bright spots, but this is such a big problem; we need
consistent, sustained, scalable assistance from them.
Mr. Rogers. Well, that border is so open and unchecked, and
we are letting in the cartels, who not only do drugs, but they
do human trafficking and everything else in the book. And my
observation is we are not getting enough cooperation out of the
Mexican Government on seeking out the cartels. Can you agree or
disagree with that?
Mr. Wray. Well, the way I would put it is we certainly need
more from the Mexican Government. I'm pleased with what we have
gotten, but we need a lot more.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chairman Rogers.
I want to follow up Chairman Rogers' line of questioning,
Director Wray. We are getting some cooperation from the Mexican
authorities, but we need more, and it is what they are giving
us is incomplete, is inconsistent. The question is, what can we
do? What are we doing to encourage their cooperation? What more
can we get out of them and what is the best way to approach
that?
Mr. Wray. So, I think, you know, much of this goes beyond
sort of the FBI's lane, of course, in other parts of the
government. I want to be mindful----
Mr. Cartwright. But your opinion matters.
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Mindful of trying to stay in my
lane. But what I would say is we need their help cracking down
on the cartels harder. We need help rooting out labs where the
poison is being produced. We need help stopping the purchase
and influx of precursor chemicals from the Chinese, from the
PRC. So, those are a few things.
As far as what more can we do, specifically, I would say,
again, at the lower law enforcement kind of working level,
there are any number of operations that show us what success
could look like at scale.
We have now started doing--which is something I'm pleased
with, with the Mexicans--we now have sort of vetted law
enforcement teams, much like we used to do, and still do, in
Colombia. You know, kind of going back to the efforts that we
have had with the Colombian Government over the years. I think
that is a step in the right direction.
But it is extraditions. It is sharing of information. And
it is, like I said, the key is having it at a scaled,
consistent, sustained level. It is not that there aren't bright
spots, but we just need a lot more of it.
Mr. Cartwright. Now, you mentioned going after the cartels
and 400 separate investigations at the FBI involving them. What
about what you just mentioned, interrupting the flow of
precursor chemicals from China to Mexico? How many of those
investigations centered on that effort? And how much more help
do you need from the Mexican Government on that effort?
Mr. Wray. Well, we certainly need more help from the
Mexican Government on that part of it. We also, of course,
frankly, need the Chinese Government to do a heck of a lot more
than they are doing. I mean, you have this dangerous
intersection of increasingly sophisticated Mexican cartels with
malicious and unscrupulous actors in the PRC, who are all too
happy to be supplying the chemicals that, then, fuel the
cartels' production.
We are trying to tackle it on a whole bunch of different
levels. Our focus, going back over decades, in terms of the
FBI's approach to organized crime, is to try to look for ways
to dismantle the enterprise. And so, that means trying to go
after the leadership, whether we are charging them or whether
somebody else is charging them.
That means trying to go after their money. A big part of
this is going after--after all, this is a profit business for
them. So, the more we can go after their assets through asset
forfeiture and things like that, and go after their money-
launderers--it doesn't work for them if they don't have people
and institutions to launder their money.
So, we are trying to kind of tackle the infrastructure
around them, too, as opposed to just onsies/twosies in terms of
arrests. So, that is the approach we are trying to take, but it
very much has to be a team effort.
Mr. Cartwright. And do you need more money to do that or
less money?
Mr. Wray. We need more money to do that.
Mr. Cartwright. You need more money.
Now, you mentioned takedowns of violent gangs, and you are
noticing that it so often includes seizures of massive amounts
of fentanyl. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Wray. That is absolutely right. I think something like
75 percent of the fentanyl we are seizing is coming in gang
takedowns, something in that magnitude.
Mr. Cartwright. Now, tell me about these gangs. Are these
American citizens?
Mr. Wray. Most of the gangs themselves are neighborhood
gangs. I mean, there are gangs that come from the Northern
Triangle, like MS-13, and so forth, as well, but a lot of the
takedowns that I'm describing that we are dismantling are,
frankly, neighborhood gangs, who are then the ones peddling the
fentanyl on the streets, not just in the border states, but all
over the country.
Mr. Cartwright. And how are they getting the fentanyl and
the opioids from Mexico?
Mr. Wray. I think that much of that is probably a question
better directed to DHS. I can tell you--because most of our
seizures are happening not at the ports of entry. They are
happening after the stuff is already here somewhere inside the
United States.
We had a big takedown in New England, about as far away
from the southern border as you could get, and some of the
biggest takedown, I think, in New England history involving,
you know, mountains of fentanyl.
So, that is really where we are seeing it, but the actual
traffic across the border and the ports of entry, you know, is
DHS's lane. I know they have got a heck of a challenge on their
hands, to put it mildly.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Director.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director, for being here.
I wanted to ask about, continue to ask about the border and
your involvement at the border in assisting with identification
of individuals. You would agree that it is a national security
risk to allow individuals into the country who are not properly
identified, correct?
Mr. Wray. That does raise national security concerns, yes.
Mr. Cline. Okay. The FBI has been engaged in DNA testing
for several years of individuals crossing the border. In fact,
DHS recently, or within the past few years, mandated that that
identification occur, correct?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Cline. And when DHS rolled out that program authorities
found that about 19 percent of family units crossing were
fraudulent. Does that sound about right?
Mr. Wray. That part I don't--I don't have any reason to
dispute it, but I--as I sit here right now I can't remember
that specific piece.
Mr. Cline. Okay.
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Cline. But failure to properly identify individuals
coming across the border engaged in human trafficking, sex
trafficking, child and sex trafficking are attempting to evade
identification, correct?
Mr. Wray. Right. I mean the whole identification piece of
this, as I think you are rightly putting your finger on, is
such an important part of it, and that is why, for example, we
have--as trying to be good partners with DHS we have been
providing them with DNA kits that then--our lab is the one who
would then test. And it has proven to be critical in
identifying murderers, rapists, and all sorts of, you know,
dangerous individuals.
Mr. Cline. But you have a shortfall, right? You have a
backlog?
Mr. Wray. And we have a backlog, and that backlog--because
of the sheer volume at the border with the volume of people
coming across the volume of the need for samples has gone
skyrocketing as well. So there is a backlog and the backlog
should be of concern to all of us.
Mr. Cline. Do you think it would be appropriate or would
address this national security risk, as you say, if we were to
ensure that these individuals would not be released until their
identification is complete?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly I think that is something we
should be taking a look at. I mean, that gets into sort of DHS'
authority so I am a little reluctant to, given the sheer number
of things that on our plate, before I start weighing in on what
should be on somebody else's plate. But I will tell you that we
have any number of instances where somebody who is of concern--
where there wasn't adequate biometrics or other identification
information at the time they came across, then later
information is found that highlights why they are of concern.
And then it is the FBI and our partners who have to then go try
to find the person, take whatever action we can to disrupt the
threat that that person poses.
Mr. Cline. Okay. Rather than ask if it should be mandated,
let me ask it this way: Would it improve security at our border
to ensure that only those who have been properly identified are
released into the country?
Mr. Wray. At least as I sit here right now I don't see how
that couldn't help.
Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you. I want to also ask about--you
touched on it in your testimony, FISA section 702. You have
said that a warrant requirement would gut, I think was your
term--compliance with the fourth amendment would gut a tool
that you have. Is that essentially----
Mr. Wray. Well, I did use the word ``gut,'' and I stand by
it. I would say a couple things: First, when you say compliance
with the fourth amendment, let's be clear, no court, as in
none, has ever held that a warrant is required under the fourth
amendment for the FBI to run queries of information that is
already lawfully under--in our holdings under section 702. And
the only courts to have addressed the issue have gone the other
way. So that is one.
Mr. Cline. But isn't that information--the intent of the
law designed to provide the information of foreign nationals,
not American citizens who are--and wouldn't that really be an
end-run around the statute, as you say, to lawfully obtain this
information?
Mr. Wray. No. No. I appreciate the question. I think the
purpose of Section 702 is to identify foreign threats to us, to
Americans. And so when you have--I will give an example to
illustrate the point: It is critical for our ability to
identify foreign terrorist organizations communicating with,
inspiring, or working with people here in the U.S. And that is
how we identify and stop attacks. We had an example just last
year where we had an individual, foreign terrorist overseas who
had some kind of contact; not sure what it was at that point,
with some person we believe to be in the United States.
So we did a query. We ran a U.S. person query on that U.S.
individual's identifiers. But at the time we ran that query we
didn't know what we had. Could have--was it the equivalent of a
wrong number, was it just innocuous chit-chat, or was it
something that was concerning. Well because we were able to run
the query--again, information already lawfully in our holdings,
that is when we discovered, whoa, wait a minute, we got a live
one here. This is serious. This is urgent.
Investigation kicked in very quickly and within less than a
month, within less than a month from that first query we were
able to arrest the person who had by that time weapons, bomb
making equipment, targets circled and everything else. And the
point I would try to make here is that if we had had to get a
warrant----
Mr. Cline. In a day.
Mr. Wray [continuing]. To run that initial query--no. No,
sir. It doesn't work that way. Somebody's had to get warrants.
If we had to get a warrant for that initial query there is no
judge on the planet that would have given us a warrant based on
what we knew at the time. All we knew at the time was foreign
terrorist overseas, some kind of contact with some person in
the U.S., no idea what it is about.
Mr. Cline. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have gone way over.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. You mentioned earlier DNA testing. As I
understand it, in 2020 Department of Homeland Security mandated
an expansion of DNA collections to essentially everyone coming
across the border. Is that correct?
Mr. Wray. That is my understanding.
Mr. Rogers. And what is the purpose of taking DNA samples
of all migrants?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think there are multiple purposes. I
mean, I think one of them, which goes to I think the question
that Congressman Cline was asking about, is, you know,
sometimes you have people who--we find a lot of times somebody
that tries to reenter the country. They are deported, as they
should have been, but then they try to reenter. And because we
have the--and they come across, you know, in some other way and
they turn up somewhere else. Because we have the DNA sample----
Mr. Rogers. But presumably doing DNA testing on all people
entering the country at the border is to be able to find
criminals among the lot. It is comparing the DNA test sample of
that person against the national criminal records. Has that
been effective? Have we caught criminals that way?
Mr. Wray. Absolutely. It is two-prong: And the people who
of course try to illegally reenter the country are also
committing a crime. But I think the point you are getting at is
a very important one, which is that this authority and the
funding that this subcommittee has given us over the years on
this has enabled us to identify, you know, rapists, murderers,
any number of other dangerous criminals and crimes around the
country. And so the DNA collection and the testing and the
timely testing is critical to solving sometimes very heinous
crimes here in the United States.
Mr. Rogers. Well, in the 2024 budget we included the $53
million that you had requested to address the increase in
numbers of DNA samples. And the border has become more open
since that time with much more people coming across than
before. And yet you made no request for money in fiscal 2025.
What is going on?
Mr. Wray. Well, partly what we have done is to try to
prioritize that collection effort with the funds that the
subcommittee has already given us. They key to our 2025 request
is to try to restore the roughly 1,000-position cut that the
net effect of the 2024 budget would have. That is what--in our
judgment because we have had to make hard choices, very
consistent with the spirit of your opening remarks, Mr.
Chairman. And so that--we didn't want to take away money from
the DNA collection and so we have--and in our budget request we
are trying to restore the positions that go to everything from
ransomware to violent crime to fentanyl interdiction to
counterespionage against the Chinese. I could go on and on,
but----
Mr. Rogers. Well, now there is a 15-month backlog on DNA
testing. So by the time these people are tested and counted
they are going to be long gone because you got that backlog.
Mr. Wray. You will get no argument from me, sir, that the
backlog is a negative development and that if this subcommittee
were to give us more resources for more DNA testing, we could
bring down that backlog even further. You mentioned hard
choices. We got good funding from this subcommittee before for
this particular effort and we haven't taken money away from it,
but we have had to prioritize the significant hit that we took
in terms of the impact on our personnel in the 2024 budget. And
that is what you see. But if you would see fit to give us more
money for it, I can assure you it will help. And the effort
that the DNA collection is designed to accomplish is something
that you and I both agree is extremely important.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you make the request, we will take it up.
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director Wray. I along with several of my
colleagues in the House and Senate have previously communicated
with the DOJ and FBI about the importance of the FBI's Uniform
Crime Reporting Program's reports on hate crime statistics. I
am concerned about the trend of a decrease in the number of
local law enforcement agencies providing the FBI with incident
data. This is the fifth year in a row that the number of local
agencies providing data to the FBI has declined.
I wanted to ask how your agency may be working with local
law enforcement agencies to increase participation in this
reporting system.
Mr. Wray. So I think you are right to ask about the issue
because one of the things we know about hate crime reporting,
just in general as a starting point, is that it is chronically
under-reported. And so for quite some time now we have been
trying to engage in different forms of outreach to our law
enforcement partners to make it easier for them to understand
what to report and how to report it and so forth. And so that
effort is continuing and we are always trying to find new and
better ways to improve their responsiveness, if you will.
The second thing that I think contributes to the trend that
you are describing is the conversion to NIBRS, the National
Incident-Based Reporting System. And of course that affects
statistics not just on hate crimes, but on all sorts of other
crime reporting as well. And the NIBRS transition is something
that has been in the works for years and years and years. I
mean, getting back to well before I became FBI Director. And we
have been repeatedly telling state and local law enforcement
this is coming, this is coming. And once it gets to the point
where we have shifted over to that, you are only--that is the
only way you are going to be able to report. But there are a
lot of departments that haven't yet made the conversion to
NIBRS reporting. Every year it has been going up. We are
getting closer and closer where we need to be on that. And I
should add that the NIBRS reporting system is something that
all the major law enforcement associations wanted us to switch
to. It is not something we just came up with on our own.
But so in the meantime we are trying to work with them to
supplement that reporting to make sure that, you know, any gaps
in the completeness of the statistical picture are compensated
for during this kind of transitionary period. So that--those
are some of the things we are doing on that.
Ms. Meng. Appreciate that. And then you know in recent
years there was a rise in hate crimes committed against people
of Asian descent. In fiscal year 2021, I was proud to partner
with the DOJ to bolster federal data collection in response to
hate crimes.
I am concerned about language obstacles and what the FBI
can maybe be doing more to reach those who may have limited
English proficiency and also to make sure that we are
increasingly building trust with local underrepresented
communities. I don't want the DOJ and the FBI to lose the
momentum of all the efforts that have been happening to reach
communities like the Asian American community.
Mr. Wray. So we agree with you that outreach to the
community is an incredibly important part of the effort here.
We have been doing I think over the last few years, you know,
hundreds of training and liaison efforts with the AAPI
community specifically, both locally and some nationally. We
have some of the materials that we have produced that help
people understand, you know, how to recognize hate crimes and,
you know, what is--what it is and what it isn't, and, you know,
how to report it and so forth. We have actually had it
translated into multiple languages including all of the major--
the most common AAPI languages. And we have tried to have our
people out in the community.
I think one additional piece to this that doesn't always
get connected up with the so-called--with sort of the hate
crimes piece of it is what we call transnational repression,
which is efforts by the Chinese Government, specifically the
Chinese Communist Party, to harass, stalk, blackmail, or worse,
you know, Chinese Americans and people of Chinese descent here.
And so we have been trying to reach out to the same communities
on that as well so that they understand that we are there for
them and to try to help protect them against the common enemy,
frankly, that we both have, or the common adversary I should
say, namely the Chinese Communist Party.
Ms. Meng. On that note I will end with I just want to make
sure that the law enforcement agencies are also utilizing
culturally competent trainings and--with their agents. Thank
you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director Wray. I will be honest with you; and
this pains me to say this, but I don't trust you. I don't think
that this is necessarily a funding problem that we have for
your agency as much as a leadership problem. And between the
lack of transparency in hearings like this and intel hearings
your weaponization and politicization of issues and instruments
of national security against innocent Americans and against
institutions like churches and the fact that you have held no
one truly accountable for prior FISA abuses that we have all
seen and recognized--I think you yourself have acknowledged
that there has been abuses.
And because of the fact that as the FBI director that you
stood relatively silent and passive about the biggest national
security threat to our nation, that being our very open
southern border, as the chairman has been discussing, I give
very little credence in either your ability to do this job or
frankly lead the brave agents below you.
And I don't trust you to protect us. And that is a very
difficult thing for me to say. It pains me to say that because
your job is critically important to the safety of this nation
and American lives. And I think because of your inability to
lead and also shape the policies in the DOJ and at the White
House we are now in a more precarious position than we were--I
would submit than we were on September 10 of 2001.
You yourself say in your written testimony that ``over the
past year the threats facing our nation have escalated. The
breadth of these threats and challenges are as complex as any
time in our history and the consequences of not responding and
countering these threats have never been greater.'' These are
your words. And we don't only pay you to warn of us a threat,
which you have eloquently done here, although that is important
and appreciated that you are warning us, but we also pay you to
prevent and protect us from the threats.
And you are on--in an agency and I am on committees where I
am your authorizer on the Intel Committee and I am your
appropriator here on the CJS Subcommittee on Appropriations and
I find it difficult to trust you to protect us. And any data or
budget requests you bring to us as a result of that is, in my
opinion, suspect. And in your nearly 20-pages of written
testimony you have mentioned the southern border only
approximately four times, and even then you kind of gloss over
it. And we now have 7 million people in our country, 350 people
on the FBI terror watch list who have been apprehended, plus
another 1.7 million known got-aways here within our borders as
a result of your leadership's border policies.
And I say your leadership and not your bosses' because your
bosses are the American people, right? Your customers are the
American people. You work for them. You work for the people to
protect them. So your leadership, the President of the United
States, AG Garland, and Director of Homeland Security Mayorkas
are literally intentionally putting the people that you work
for, the average American citizen, to a clear and present
danger situation that you yourself have acknowledged in your
written testimony.
So you have testified before the Intel Committee with
worldwide threats briefs and other committees that there are
giant red warning lights and warning signs and lots of flashing
signs from a threat and terrorism assessment perspective. You
know, and it is evident that you know and agree with this
notion and that we should all be concerned, yet despite this
you have been unable to change the policies driven by your
leadership, by the President, the AG, DHS Mayorkas.
And so it is difficult, but in addition to being
untrustworthy you are also ineffective at a very important part
of your job, which is shaping the policies that do affect
national security. The open border should be the biggest
challenge that your administration is recognizing right now and
unfortunately is not. And I think your biggest problem
personally is that it is not just me that doesn't trust you; it
is the American people that don't trust you right now as a
result of that.
Can I just get a simple yes or no in response to this
question? Does the open border policy make your job easier or
harder? Are we safer or less safe as a result of the open
border policy?
Mr. Wray. I have been consistent over the years, frankly,
in citing my concerns about the threats that emanate from the
border.
Mr. Garcia. Okay.
Mr. Wray. And as to the long narrative that you went
through at the beginning, needless to say I disagree very
strongly with a number of aspects of it, but I recognize that
we are time limited----
Mr. Garcia. I understand. In the interest of time I want
you to acknowledge that the open border policy makes us more
insecure than strong. So I want to know what have your
discussions been with the President? Have you been able to go
into his office and say, boss, this is--this open border policy
is a galactically stupid policy from a national security
perspective? Have you had that conversation? If so, what did
that look like? What has been the response? And how are we
shaping this to make us more secure in the future?
Mr. Wray. Well, I am not going to get into specific
conversations with people. I have been consistent in my
message, externally and internally, about my concerns about the
threats that are from the FBI's perspective that emanate from
the border.
Mr. Garcia. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, always for your
leadership. And thanks to the ranking member.
Director, I want to say that I do trust you, one, very,
very grateful for your service on behalf of this entire country
and the people who put their faith in you and the Federal
Bureau of Investigations. And I frankly find it somewhat
astonishing at this date and the age in which we live that the
American leadership here at times questions the role of the
FBI. I don't question it. I know you have a tough job and I
appreciate all the incredible work that you do.
If I may, I just wanted to--despite decreasing--and I think
you mention in your testimony decreasing rates of homicide and
non-fatal shootings. In my community of Rochester, New York,
Upstate New York, we remain in a gun violence state of
emergency.
As you know, the passage of the 2022 Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act implemented changes in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, NICS, including a
comprehensive background check on gun buyers under the age of
21 years old. In this fiscal year you are requesting 43 million
to sustain implementation of that act as well as 8.4 million to
support enhanced background checks, which includes funding to
address provisions such as the under-21 background checks.
And I just would ask, considering the critical role NICS
plays in preventing firearms from reaching the wrong hands, can
you just share with me how the budget request will allow the
FBI to address these what I expect are, and assume are pretty
labor-intensive enhancements to the operation of NICS as
transactions continue to grow?
Mr. Wray. So I appreciate the question. The Bipartisan
Safer Communities Act added a number of additional checks that
NICS was responsible for conducting, specifically focused on as
we would call it the U21 group--population. And this committee;
and we are very grateful for that, helped get us at the time of
the passage of the act funding to bring on board positions and
make certain systems changes. But the problem is it was one-
time funding.
And so if we are going to sustain the work, then we need
funding to continue it. And that is what you see reflected in
the request here. It is both to continue those positions,
because it is, as you say, very labor-intensive, but also for
systems enhancements to have the human workforce have them be
even more efficient in their work.
I have been out there myself and sat with the operators who
were doing the checks on a couple of occasions and to see--and
so I can see kind of how labor-intensive it is. I am very
pleased with the fact that they are already getting much, much
faster at them. And I think that is only going to improve, but
we still do need the funding. Again, the way to remember it is
funding was there, but it was one-time funding and we just need
the funding to sustain it. Otherwise, it sort of loses its
effectiveness.
Mr. Morelle. And that is going to be obviously an annual
request then to be able to continue to maintain this and I
suspect it may even require additional dollars in future years
to be able to deal with the growing number of challenges that
we have there.
If I can, coordination and partnership between the FBI and
state, local, and Tribal entities is integral to the security
of communities across the nation. In my community the FBI leads
the Rochester Area Major Crimes Task Force, the Child
Exploitation Task Force, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force and
participates in the Rochester Safe Streets Task Force.
Considering your successful nationwide efforts alongside
state and local law enforcement partners to combat violent
crime could you describe how the proposed budget will further
enhance and strengthen information sharing and coordination
among not only the FBI, but all the--your local partners?
Mr. Wray. So the biggest part of our budget request in 2025
is to restore the--and essentially the cuts that we endured in
the 2025 budget, which there is no way to sustain without
having an impact on our efforts on violent crime, on child
exploitation, on a whole range of threats that we are
responsible for protecting the American people from.
And so the request will allow us to continue the good work
that is being done in Upstate New York and elsewhere on gang
violence, on child exploitation, on cyber attacks, on the
cartels and organized crime, which as I said before, that is
not just a border problem. It affects all 50 states. And we are
seizing huge amounts of fentanyl all over the country.
So all these things are incredibly important. Our folks are
doing great work. On the violent crime side for example just
last year we were arresting through our task forces 50 violent
criminals and child predators per day, every day, all year
long. So a cut means more bad guys on the street, more gangs
terrorizing neighborhoods, more kids at risk, et cetera.
Mr. Morelle. Yes. I see my time is expired. Mr. Chair, you
are always very gracious. I appreciate it.
Director, thank you for your continued service, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Chairman Rogers.
Director Wray, as I am sure you know, this week the House
has been considering the reauthorization of section 702 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, commonly known as FISA.
I have been deeply troubled with the abuse of section 702 of
FISA in recent years and so your testimony today is very well
timed. Thank you.
So, Director Wray, does the FBI currently comply in every
way with the current section 702 of FISA?
Mr. Wray. My understanding is that we're in compliance with
the law.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. So, you think you do. All right. How do
you respond to an unsealed document released by the U.S.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on May 19, 2023, which
states your agency, the FBI, illegally misused this tool more
than 278,000 times between 2020 and early 2021?
And, is this number of 278,000 abuses accurate?
Mr. Wray. So, I appreciate the question. I'm glad to have
the opportunity to clarify that. So, first off, I would say
that that opinion covers activity, querying activity that
occurs all before all these reforms that we've put in place.
So, that's number one. Second, when that----
Mr. Clyde. When did you start putting those reforms in
place?
Mr. Wray. Maybe after----
Mr. Clyde. Was it after this?
Mr. Wray. Mid-2022, somewhere in that range.
Mr. Clyde. 2022 or 2023?
Mr. Wray. They started in 2022. And, they kind of rolled
into '23.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right.
Mr. Wray. We obviously don't just flip a switch.
Mr. Clyde. All right.
Mr. Wray. But, the second thing I would say too, is when
you look at the FISA Court, the same judges evaluating our
compliance with 702, after all those reforms had been put in
place, you see consistent compliance rates well into the high
90 percent range.
And, the Court was actually commending the FBI for the
improvements that they've seen because of the reforms. So,
that's the second point.
Mr. Clyde. Okay.
Mr. Wray. The third point I would make too, the third
point, and this is important, because you asked. A third point
that is important is that the querying that you're talking
about in that opinion that again, covers older activity,
something like 99.7 percent of it would all have been prevented
by the reforms that we've put in place.
Mr. Clyde. Okay.
Mr. Wray. And, on top of that----
Mr. Clyde. But what----
Mr. Wray. On top of that, the vast majority of those
queries, the 278,000, are not actually 702 queries, much less
noncompliance 702 queries.
Mr. Clyde. Well, let me ask you this. This report ended in
early 2021. And, you started in mid-2022. So, that would be an
entire year.
So, during that time frame, how many times did the FBI
abuse its FISA authority? Do you know?
Mr. Wray. I don't have any period of noncompliance that I
can report here from that period. But, I can tell----
Mr. Clyde. Okay.
Mr. Wray. But, I can tell you this, around the query that--
--
Mr. Clyde. Thank you for giving that.
Mr. Wray. That covers the more recent period----
Mr. Clyde. As you know, the government agencies typically
need a warrant issued by a judge before they can access
American citizens' phone calls, texts, internet searches and
emails.
However, the government, in our opinion, has been able to
query Section 702 acquired communications as an end run around
the Fourth Amendment.
My colleague, Andy Biggs, the Representative from Arizona,
has an amendment to the current FISA Reauthorization that would
require the government to obtain a warrant or to obtain a FISA
Court Order prior to conducting a U.S. citizen query of
information already collected through the 702 FISA Program.
Now, you previously stated in a Senate Hearing in December
that it would be unworkable to require the government to get a
warrant before collecting Americans' private communications.
Yet, former NSA lawyer, George Croner, recently estimated the
warrant requirement would force the FBI to get about three
warrants a day.
Now, Director, you've got more than 30,000 employees that
work for the FBI. Are you seriously saying that three warrants
a day is too much of a burden for the FBI to protect our fourth
amendment rights?
Mr. Wray. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is
number one, no court has found that the fourth amendment
requires us to use a warrant to look at information, to query
information that's already in our 702 holdings lawfully.
And, the only courts to look at it, have gone the other
way. That's one. Number 2, the problem with the warrant
requirement goes beyond any kind of burden or delay that comes
with it.
A big part of the problem is that it's often only by
running the query that we get to see the information that tells
us whether or not we would need a warrant requirement in the
first place. Because it is----
Mr. Clyde. All right. I've got one more question for you
before my time runs out. All right. We have, looking at the
breakdown of the FBI's $11.3 billion budget, like last year,
almost 60 percent of the budget is categorized as defense
spending and only 40 percent as non-defense spending.
And, to me, that seems odd. I read your mission priorities,
and I did not see any reference to DoD. I mean, the FBI is not
part of the Department of Defense, and they are a domestic law
enforcement agency.
So, why is the FBI's budget categorized as 60 percent
defense spending?
Mr. Wray. I believe the answer to your question, and I'm
not an appropriation's expert, but I believe the answer to your
question is that it's what's the so-called NIP funding. Which
is overseen by the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence.
So, a significant chunk of our budget is considered defense
spending because of its part of the intelligence community
budget, if you will.
Mr. Clyde. All right.
Mr. Wray. So, it gets a little more complicated than that.
But, I think that's the high level answer to your question.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right. My time has expired. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First thing I
want to say, I think that your questions are important.
And, I think, a lot of people who haven't been involved in
law enforcement, are not sure what 702 is and all those issues.
I was a former prosecutor, investigative prosecutor, I ran a
strike force, so I know that.
And, I've been working in the intel committee and defense
my whole career here. And, it's been over 20 years.
Now, and I think, you answered the questions. And, I think,
those questions are right. That you would clean up 70--we've
cleaned up 702, and it's really happening.
I'm not happy with the comments. And, he's not here anymore
and I'll talk to him personally, too just to criticize you.
I've worked with different FBI agents, and you're as good
as any of them. You're good, you're quality, and you're
respected by your peers, and that's what's important.
Now, we're in a serious situation in this country right
now. And, you know, with respect to what's happening, you know,
with China and what's happening with Russia and all these
issues and I'm really, really worried about where we're going
to go.
And, I think we're at the worst spot. Republicans and
Democrats are fighting each other all the time. And, this issue
is both sides of the aisle as far as what's going on in the
country.
What I would like you to do, is talk about what FISA, 702,
why it's so important. And, why it's one of the most dangerous
issues we're dealing with.
And, I think, the FBI is being caught up right now. And
really, President Trump, people who are supporting him, they
can support him, that's fine. And, I don't want to interfere
with that. That's whatever you want to do.
But, don't mess with the United States of America and our
national security, because that's what you're doing. This is as
serious as anything.
I do a lot with the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. I
work with them also in this regard. This issue is one of the
most important issues.
So, could you please say why it's so important that we pass
this and not get caught up in a Trump issue because he's mad.
He authorized this law when he was President.
So, come on. Let's not play the hypocrisy. Could you please
tell the public at this point, or us, where we are and why it's
so important?
Mr. Wray. So, section 702 is indispensable in keeping
Americans safe from a whole barrage of fast-moving foreign
threats. It is crucial to identifying terrorists in the
homeland, working with, or inspired by a rogues' gallery of
foreign terrorist organizations who have publicly called for
attacks against our country.
It helps us find out who these terrorists are working with
and what they're targeting. And, we may--and, what we need to
stop them before they scare Americans.
702 is crucial when countries like China or Iran target
dissidents and Americans here in the homeland. In Iran's case,
literally even for things like kidnapping and assassination,
702 is what helps us know who to warn and help disrupt the
plot.
702 is crucial to our ability to warn and protect our
critical infrastructure from hackers in China, in Russia, Iran.
Including cyber threats to our electricity, our water, our
hospitals.
So, if Congress lets 702 lapse, which it's set to do now
next week, it will massively increase the risk of missing
crucial intelligence during a time of heightened national
security threats across a whole multiple of fronts.
And, if we're blinded from seeing what our adversaries are
doing, who they're working with, I can tell you, that's going
too most definitely have consequences for our ability to
protect the American people.
Because, I can assure you that none of our adversaries are
tying their own hands. So, now is not the time for us to hang
up our gloves to take away tools that we need to punch back.
And, failing to reauthorize 702, or gutting it with some
kind of warrant requirement, would be dangerous and put
American lives at risk.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And, this is the Director of the FBI. I
don't know anyone who knows this law that doesn't feel strongly
about this issue with respect to 702.
Mr. Wray. I would add to that, that there's a pattern
across multiple administrations, Republicans and Democrats
alike. If you look at the professionals who have actually
worked with this authority and dealt with these threats, from
the working level to the presidentially appointed level, again,
across administrations, including a whole range of my
colleagues from the last administration.
Because after all, I was nominated by President Trump and
that is a--overwhelmingly confirmed without a single Republican
Senator ever voting against me, whether I was nominated by
President Bush or President Trump. Every single one of them
supports the importance of 702.
And, I think that should tell people something.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I thank you for our country and
what you're doing. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman. And, thank you,
Director, for your service to this great nation. I want to
acknowledge the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force that recently
was able to apprehend an individual in Idaho that had ISIS
related ties.
That's exactly the type of things we need to do to keep
Americans safe. And so, thank you for your men and women and
for that.
My first question is, if FISA were to expire, would our
southern border be more or less secure?
Mr. Wray. I think if FISA were to expire, it adds one more
challenge to our ability to secure us from foreign threats,
including border related threats.
Mr. Gonzales. I'll tell you, in my district, a lot of
people talk about the border. I live the border. We are on the
border every single day. So, people throw rocks from afar.
We're the ones that have to live it.
My next question is, have there been any cases where the
DOJ prosecutors chose not to prosecute a case that your agency,
that your bureau identified as a significant threat to the
homeland or community interests?
Mr. Wray. I can't think of a specific case as I'm sitting
here right now. I will certainly tell you that disagreements
between agents and prosecutors at the working level, are
something that happens.
It's a healthy discussion that happens all the time when we
think we have enough, and the prosecutor doesn't think we have
enough. I've seen that from both sides, having been a
prosecutor too.
But, I don't have any specific case that I can think of
that fits this question.
Mr. Gonzales. This is what I worry about. Is we have a case
teed up that is identified as a security threat to the
community or the homeland, and it doesn't get prosecuted and
something bad happens.
And, we look back and we see this. You know something's
going to happen. It's only a matter of when. And, I don't want
us to be going, playing armchair quarterback.
How do we get ahead of some of these issues? And, I think,
there needs to be a closer relationship with the prosecutors
and the agents on the ground.
Mr. Wray. One thing in that regard that we do, that I've
seen a big change in the FBI since, again, I was somebody who
was in FBI Headquarters on 9/11. So, I'm well familiar with a
lot of this stuff.
What I would say too, is today's FBI also works very
closely with state and local prosecutors too.
Mr. Gonzales. Sure.
Mr. Wray. So, if there's ever an instance where a charge,
you know, in the state system is a better way to quickly
disrupt----
Mr. Gonzales. Sure.
Mr. Wray. An attack, or we--we're not shy about working
with local prosecutors and not just federal prosecutors.
Mr. Gonzales. My next question, what is the FBI doing to
combat the rise in transnational criminal organizations,
specifically the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, TdA?
Mr. Wray. So, we're certainly tracking that particular
gang, TdA, as we would refer to it. We have Safe Streets
Violent Gang Task Forces in all 56 of our field offices, which
are focused specifically on gangs and other similar violent
criminal enterprises.
And, that's the vehicle through which we are looking at
TdA. Whether it's leaders, members, associates. We have ongoing
engagement with intelligence community partners, state and
local law enforcement, in some cases foreign partners.
You know, looking at whether it's their, you know, drug
trafficking, extortion, kidnapping for ransom, you know,
different kinds of violent crime, different kinds of
trafficking and smuggling. Even things like organized retail
theft. So, it's a real menu of different crime organizations.
Mr. Gonzales. I would ask that you take a hard look at
this. Because no one's talk--very few people are talking about
TdA right now.
In 3 years, we're going to be talking about TdA no
different than we're talking about MS-13. And, it's going to be
the communities that get ahead of it, that create these task
forces, that utilize these task forces at the local, state, and
federal level, to combat these Venezuelan gangs.
Once again, I live the border. We're in year four of this.
Year four is much different than year one. The people that are
coming over are different people. They're different actors.
To that point, I was just out in West Texas. I did a swing
through West Texas. I am seeing a significant increase in oil
theft in West Texas.
All my sheriffs are asking for help. Are there any
opportunities to expand the FBI Oil Theft Task Force?
Mr. Wray. So, absolutely. We're very proud of the work that
our West Texas offices are doing in terms of the Permian Basin
Oil Field Task Force.
It's created due to the fact that, I think, something like
40 percent of the oil in the U.S. comes from the West Texas
region. And so, that task force, you know, has not only state
and local law enforcement participation, but we also have,
which is a bit innovative, cleared oil field security
personnel, you know, that typically they're former law
enforcement as well, but, also on the task force.
And, it's a way to kind of track oil field crime to ensure
that investigations move as quickly as, and as effectively as
possible. It is complex and a form of crit--it's a form of
critical infrastructure threats. And, it's something we're very
focused on.
Mr. Gonzales. Director, this is a threat that I'm seeing is
correlated directly to the open border. I'm seeing more and
more foreign nationals, in particular, Cubans that are here
illegally, that are operating in this space.
And so, we need once again, as this border crisis expands,
we need to get ahead of this. And, I'd ask that you consider
taking a hard look at that Oil Field Task Force.
With that, Chairman, I'm out of time and I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I want to now recognize the Ranking Member of
the full Committee, Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Cartwright. My apologies for dashing in and eventually
dashing out. There are several hearings, so I'm trying to make
as many as I can.
And, Director, so pleased that the President's budget for
2025 increases funding to hire additional FBI personnel.
Helping to bolster your capacity to deter cyber crime, combat
foreign intelligence activity against the U.S., and improve the
national instant criminal background check system. And, I know
my colleague, Mr. Morelle, discussed that issue.
First of all, I should say, thank you to you for making a
visit to New Haven, Connecticut, just, you know, just a few
weeks ago. And, really delighted to have you there.
It was the opportunity to be in a field office, if you
will, and, to talk about the FBI's work in my state. And, to
piggyback off of my colleague's comment, what I wanted to do,
was to address the work with task forces.
I view what you are doing with regard to State and local
government is an overall infrastructure. Like, we have a public
health infrastructure. We rely on state laboratories, et
cetera.
And, when you look at defunding those efforts, you look
like at the collapse of the ability to move forward with
regard, that the CDC has the inability to move forward.
But, I think, sometimes I think, some of my colleagues are
unaware of just how frequently the FBI works in very close
partnership with state and local law enforcement, to be able to
deal with crime.
If you could talk about whether the lessons learned by both
the FBI and state and local law enforcement, about ways in
which the task forces that were mentioned, maximize that
effectiveness in fighting crime. And, I don't know if there are
any stories that are especially worth highlighting.
But, I would finally add, what happens, because there are
many, as you know, that would look to defund the FBI. And,
there's a lot of discussion about that. Cut back on the
resources.
What does that mean to the support of that national
infrastructure, if you will, that you rely on and they rely on
you, in order to deal with violent crime and other things in
the U.S.? If you could comment on that.
Mr. Wray. So, I think one of the things that a lot of
people don't fully appreciate, is how integrated today's FBI is
with state and local law enforcement. And, how dependent,
frankly, state and local law enforcement is on us when it comes
to fulfilling our shared mission of keeping Americans safe.
You mentioned the task forces. Through our Safe Streets and
Violent Crime Task Forces, we've got thousands of police
officers and sheriffs deputies, who--from hundreds of different
departments and agencies that serve on our task forces.
Taking, you know, as I said, I think earlier, last year
together we took 50 violent criminals and child predators off
the streets per day, every single day, all year long. Three
hundred sixty-five days a year when you average it out.
A cut to our budget means a cut to our efforts to do that
work. Which means more of the burden then gets shifted on the
state and local law enforcement to handle those threats alone.
I could go the same on, the same thing through multiple
other threats, because we have task forces on terrorism, cyber,
child exploitation, et cetera. But, it's not just arrests.
I think, if you talk to chiefs and sheriffs like I do every
week, you will hear constantly a refrain about how much they
depend on the FBI for things like our technology and our
expertise. So, it's the DNA testing. It's cellular analysis.
It's all sorts of complex forensic expertise that small
departments in this country don't have. But, they lean on us to
provide that. And, that's one of the first things that they
cite.
You talk about our CJIS Division in West Virginia, which is
the one that is responsible for NCIC background checks when
some officer is stopping somebody on the streets. That's how
they know whether the person is dangerous or not.
Or, fingerprint identification. Or, the threat reporting
that comes into our National Threat Operations Center which are
often threats to live school shootings, whatever else happens
to be, that we're then pushing out to state and local law
enforcement.
Cuts to those programs mean those, all those ways that
state and local law enforcement are flying blind. And then,
you've got things like training, right?
A lot of people don't know this, the FBI is, for example,
responsible for training all the civilian bomb techs. The bomb
techs for every police department in the country that have bomb
techs, are trained by the FBI in our facility in Huntsville.
And, cuts to our ability to provide that training, means
impacts on our ability to train, you know, bomb tech personnel.
There's all sorts of other training. We've got all sorts of
training of State and local law enforcement at Quantico.
And, I, as I said, I am talking with chiefs and sheriffs in
one way or another, pretty much every week. And, there's only
two ways the conversation goes.
Thank you, Director, for all the great things the FBI is
doing for us. We need even more. And just, Director, we need
even more. I've yet to meet a chief or sheriff who wants the
FBI to give them less.
And so, I think, people need to understand that cuts to our
budget don't just hurt the FBI. They hurt all those state and
local law enforcement parties, many of whom, unlike the FBI,
have recruiting challenges and retention challenges. They're
all down in terms of their headcount.
They've got their own budget challenges. So, hurting us
compounds their challenges and makes it harder for them to
protect the neighborhoods and communities that we're all
working together to try to protect.
Ms. DeLauro. I'll just make a final comment to you. I think
it would be critically important for what you've just said, and
for members to understand and maybe talk with, hear from, their
local law enforcement folks.
And, understand what the connection is between state and
local law enforcement and the FBI. I think, we see a lot less
movement in the direction of saying, let's defund, let's
eliminate.
Let's do all of these things, when we look at the overall
law enforcement infrastructure of the United States, which is
part of our national security and defending the homeland and
doing whatever we want in that direction.
Thank you so much for your service. I really appreciate it.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Director Wray, a lot of it doesn't
always get a lot of media coverage, but there's been a lot of
hostility against churches and religious organizations at
alarming rates over the last few years.
There was a report that was published back in February of
this year that showed that more than, there's been 430
incidences of hostility or violence against churches across the
United States. That's a 100 percent increase from 2022 and 800
percent increase from 2018.
I guess, my question to you is, what are the Bureau
resources that are being dedicated to explore and address this
concerning trend that we're seeing?
Mr. Wray. So, that's a really good question. And, I would
say the threats to houses of worship that we're seeing, cut
across a variety of settings.
And, I say that with the perspective of somebody who, when
I was a line prosecutor, one of my most significant cases was
against the guy who was a serial church arsonist. He went all
over the country burning down churches, including, right up in
our mutual neck of the woods, in Georgia, where he killed in
Banks County, he killed, you know, a firefighter and almost
killed another one.
And, so, I've always taken those cases particularly
seriously. I would say, there's a couple of things. We're
seeing terrorist attacks against churches. We've, just in the
time that I've been the Director, we've thwarted multiple
attacks against churches and synagogues.
I can think of an ISIS inspired plot against a church in
Pittsburgh. I can think of synagogues in the Colorado and the
Las Vegas area, just as a few examples.
There's also, I would say, a range of threats from a
perspective of abortion related violence. So, you know, a lot
of people historically have focused on abortion related
violence when it comes to pro choice facilities.
But, in fact, if you look at our work, post the Dobbs
opinion, it's been a while since I've looked at our numbers,
but, I think, something like 70 percent of our abortion related
violence cases after the Dobbs decision, were against what I
would call houses of worship or pro life facilities.
In fact, just yesterday, we had a case, a guy got seven and
a half years in a great case that our folks did against a guy
who firebombed a facility up in the Madison, Wisconsin area.
So, we're tackling it depending on what the motivation for
the threat is. You know, sometimes it might be some ISIS
inspired type attack. Some cases it might be some domestic
ideology. And, some cases it might be something else
altogether.
So, in addition to our investigative work and working with
state and local law enforcement on that, we are also, in every
field office, I find that there's a whole lot of outreach and
engagement with houses of worship in that area, so that the
folks in those houses of worship know who to contact, what to
be on the lookout for, that kind of thing.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, I just, you know, let me just say, you
know, thank you for the mention of that. But, you know,
targeting and threatening of churches and religious
organizations is something that, that I've really noticed.
And, I would just implore that you would make sure that you
do investigate. And, you try to make sure that this is a focus
of yours, and of the Bureau.
The names, Phoenix, Holly, Harriet, Christopher X, Angel,
they are the names that were given to the DC Five. Those were
the five unborn children that remain, whose remains were
salvaged by a whistleblower after their lives were brutally
ended by a late term abortionist here in the Washington, DC
area.
There's evidence that suggests federal crimes may have been
committed in their deaths through violations of the partial
birth abortion ban and the born alive infant protections.
As you know, the law, this is the law of the land. And, the
Administration has the duty to enforce the law without
prejudice to political philosophy or those in violation of the
law.
Instead of seeking justice for these babies or answering--
or answers to whether federal crimes were committed, I am
concerned that some in the administration have decided to
weaponize the FBI and its resources against pro-life Americans
by investigating and arresting individuals for the FACE Act
violations.
Is the Bureau aware of the DC Five case? And, if so, is the
Bureau investigating the DC Five case?
Mr. Wray. As I sit here now, I'm not familiar with this
specific case. I can follow up with our folks on that. I will
tell you, when it comes to the FACE Act enforcement, we're
generally, we've used that authority in, kind of in both
directions.
In fact, I know that we had a case not that long ago, where
we secured the FACE Act and conspiracy indictments against four
individuals who were invoking the Jane's Revenge movement and
who targeted pro life facilities in their areas.
So, we don't care which side of the abortion issue you're
on. There's a right way and a wrong way to express your
passionate views.
But, violence and threats against facilities is not it. And
then, we'll go after it no matter which side. So, there's that.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Well, I'd like to get your commitment to
use funds to investigate this DC Five case.
Mr. Wray. Well, I'm happy to find out where we are with
that. Like I said, I'm not familiar with this specific case.
But, we obviously want to make sure that if there's any
properly predicated investigation we can conduct, we'll do
that.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. If you could get back with us and let us
know what you all are doing on that. Thank you.
Mr. Wray. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Let me do a little polling here. Do we need a
second round of questions? Anyone here? I want to keep it as
short as we can because we want this gentleman back at work.
So Mr. Clyde, you are on.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Director
Wray, on page 16 of your budget request, you talk about civil
rights. So the FBI has the primary responsibility to
investigate all alleged violations of federal civil rights
laws.
And then you talk about color of law violations in there,
which is any person using the authority given to them by a
government agency to willfully deprive someone of a right.
So you talk about the FACE Act and voter suppression, etc.
Have you ever investigated a Second Amendment rights violation?
I mean, you have got the Bruen decision, which struck down a
New York law which took away people's Second Amendment rights.
And I have never seen anyone in government ever prosecuted for
violating citizens' Second Amendment rights.
Can you think of any time when the FBI has actually, you
know, used color of law to prosecute someone for violating
their--someone's second amendment rights?
Mr. Wray. Well, not as I sit here. But obviously we are a
115-year-old organization with 30,000 employees and something
like 300 offices all over the United States. So I have no doubt
that there could be any number of investigations that I
wouldn't be aware of.
Mr. Clyde. Okay, all right. Then you have a request in your
budget for $284,000 for official reception fund. That is almost
six times what the United States Attorney himself receives. I
mean, his is $50,000, the ATF is $36,000, the DEA is $90,000,
U.S. Attorneys are $19,600.
But the FBI is $284,000. Why? Why is the FBI's literally
six times what Attorney General Merrick Garland's reception
funds are?
Mr. Wray. I don't know that I can tell you as I sit here
right now. I know that we have a lot of engagement with foreign
partners, and that could be a big driver. But I can't as I sit
here right now give you the specifics. But I am happy to have
my staff follow back up with you.
Mr. Clyde. I would appreciate that very much. And then
lastly, the Department of Justice is asking for a 1.25 percent
increase, totaling $467 million, all right. But the FBI is
asking for a 6 percent increase, totaling $629 million. So the
FBI is asking for literally a 350 percent increase in funding,
more than the overall Department of Justice is.
In fact, if the total spending for the DOJ is going up 467
million, and the FBI is asking for $629 million, then the DOJ
actually has to take a cut somewhere in order for the FBI to
get their increase in funding of at least $162 million.
So what on earth, what justifies that kind of an increase
for the FBI?
Mr. Wray. So what I would tell you is, and we certainly
appreciate the Department's support, including the Attorney
General's support, for our budget request. You know, the effect
of the fiscal year 2024 budget that was appropriated to us is
the equivalent of about 1,000-position cut. It is about a $500
million cut in our ability to get our job done.
And so when you look across the range of threats that we
are responsible for protecting Americans from, violent crime--
50 bad guys per day, every day; ransomware--a hundred different
ransomware variants that we are investigating.
The Chinese--a 1300 percent increase in Chinese economic
espionage; the Chinese hacking programs, which outnumbers us by
well over 50 to 1; fentanyl--we seized 270 million persons'
worth of fatal fentanyl in the last 2 years.
And so the range of threats that the FBI is statutorily
responsible for protecting Americans from is significant, and
the impact of the 2024 budget is such that most of what our
budget request that you have talked about there calls for is to
put us back on track so we can keep doing the hard work of
keeping bad guys away from those people.
Mr. Clyde. Okay, so what are the technical adjustments? One
hundred and ninety-two million dollars for technical
adjustments and $286 million in adjustments to base. What is
that?
Mr. Wray. I think the adjustments to base is for
appropriations speak for the point that I was just making about
getting us back on track in terms of the positions that
essentially we would lose because of the impact on our cost of
operations of the 2024 budget.
Mr. Clyde. And the technical adjustments?
Mr. Wray. That part, again, I would have to go back and
look at the specifics.
Mr. Clyde. Okay.
Mr. Wray. But I can tell you that most of our budget is to
get us back on track. We have a few enhancements, specifically
on cyber, counterintelligence, and NICS. But that is
essentially the, this year, that is essentially our budget.
Mr. Clyde. All right, thank you, my time is expired. I
yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rogers. I yield myself for five minutes.
Mr. Director, let me ask you about these global terrorist
networks that you have mentioned. You recently testified that
the threats, ``have gone to a whole other level,'' and that
foreign terrorists, including ISIS and Al Qaeda, have renewed
calls for attacks here in the U.S. Could you expand on that?
Mr. Wray. Yes, sir. So first off, I would say even before
October 7, I would have told you, and I was telling other
committees, that we were at a heightened threat level because
across a range of different terrorist vectors we were, like I
said, at a heightened threat level.
After October 7, though, is when we went to whole other
level. And part of that is that we have seen a rogue's gallery
of foreign terrorist organizations calling for attacks on us.
You have got Hezbollah expressing support and praise for Hamas
and threatening to attack U.S. interests in the region.
You have got Al Qaeda issuing its most specific call for an
attack against us, against the U.S., in the last five years.
You have got AQAP, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, calling
for jihadists to attack Americans and Jewish communities in the
U.S. You have got ISIS urging its followers repeatedly to
attack Jewish communities in the U.S.
And the irony is that, as anybody who has studied terrorism
knows, these are terrorist organizations that don't typically
see eye to eye, but they seem to be united in one thing, which
is calling for attacks on us.
And so you add on top of that my concern, which I have
repeatedly flagged, which is that when you look around the
world at foreign terrorist organizations, you can see in
Afghanistan the concern about whether it is Al Qaeda or ISIS-K,
growing strength and reconstituting. And of course we have lost
some of our ability to gather intelligence on the threat there.
You can look at Africa and look at ISIS and Al Shabab and
the growth of those organizations there. In fact, Al Shabab is
now the best-funded branch of Al Qaeda.
You could look at Syria, and ISIS' repeated efforts to free
some very dangerous fighters that are in the prisons there. And
so then you look at things like the attack we just had in
Moscow, an attack in Iran before that, ISIS attacks.
And so when organizations like Al Qaeda, like ISIS express
an intent to conduct attacks against us, it is something we
need to take very seriously. And so that is part of why I have
highlighted this as a heightened threat.
This is not a time for panic. It is a time for heightened
vigilance.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Wray, the topic of anti-FBI rhetoric raised its
head today, and I wish to associate myself with the comments of
Mr. Ruppersberger that I am dismayed about it. And particularly
that it found its way into today's hearing. And I regret that
it has become fashionable in some corners to attack the FBI.
This is an elite law enforcement agency, the top law
enforcement agency in this country. Protects us from all manner
of mayhem, from child predators, to cyber threats, drug
trafficking, gang violence, international terrorism, Hezbollah,
Hamas, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Shabab.
These are men and women that have dedicated their lives to
the protection of American citizens. They don't deserve to have
threats leveled against them with anti-FBI rhetoric ginning
them up. Last week, a man crashed an SUV into the security gate
at the FBI's Atlanta field division building. He then resisted
efforts by FBI agents to bring him into custody.
Although this investigation is still underway, I am
concerned about threats to FBI agents and FBI facilities in the
field, particularly in light of anti-FBI rhetoric from far too
many public officials.
And I would like you to comment on that. To what extent are
you seeing an uptick in threats against the FBI, and what does
that do to morale within the agency?
Mr. Wray. Well, you asked a couple different questions
there. I guess let me start with the threats, because that is
ultimately what matters the most. You know, rhetoric is
rhetoric, and there is a lot of heated rhetoric in this country
across a range of issues.
But when it comes to threats and threats of violence, that
is something we take extremely seriously. And we have seen a
substantial jump in threats towards FBI personnel and
facilities from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2023. In fact,
we created a dedicated unit to try to deal with those issues.
You mentioned the Atlanta field office one. I won't discuss
that specific case. But just last year in our Cincinnati field
office, we had an individual wearing a tactical vest armed with
an AR-style rifle and a nail gun that tried to forcibly enter
and attack our personnel.
And after he was thwarted, in reviewing his devices and his
postings, he was calling on people to kill federal law
enforcement, and to fight, in his own words, a civil war.
Unfortunately, this is part of a broader phenomenon and
that we see in the country right now, which is an uptick in
violence against law enforcement. Not just FBI, but state and
local law enforcement. And we have had breathtaking paces of
violence against law enforcement.
Having a badge is dangerous enough as it is. It shouldn't
make somebody a target. And some of these threats target law
enforcement's family members, which is despicable. Like I said,
these are dangerous jobs.
And I talk every week, one of the things--to state and
local law enforcement are going through a lot of the same thing
in their own way.
I call every--one of the things I started doing when I
started this job was every time an officer or a sheriff's
deputy is killed anywhere in the country in the line of duty, I
call the chief or the sheriff myself to express my condolences
on behalf of the FBI. And we talk about the individual's family
and career and everything else.
And I have made 381 of those calls since I started as FBI
Director, 14 just so far this year. We have lost, in 2021, we
lost three of our own. Two agents killed in Miami and a task
force officer ambushed right outside of our office in Terre
Haute, Indiana.
So violence against law enforcement is real. It is
appalling, and it is something we take very seriously. Now,
when you talk about morale, which is the other part of your
question, obviously no one likes to see the organization you
have dedicated your lives to unfairly attacked and criticized.
But our people are more focused on the people we do the
work with, the people we do the work for, and the work itself.
And I don't get too hung up and I think our folks don't get too
hung up on rhetoric.
Our focus is on do people want to work with us. You bet
they do. They are applying in droves. It has gone up,
recruiting has gone up significantly since I have been
director.
Do they want to work with us on task forces? State and
local police departments, who are all down in terms of their
head count, are sending more and more task force officers to
work on our task forces, and it sure as heck isn't because they
don't have enough work in their home department.
Do people want to turn to us for help? You bet they do. I
see business leaders more and more turning to us with cyber
attacks and Chinese economic espionage.
I see the public calling our public access line in West
Virginia. More and more are turning to us for all manner of
tips and threats. It is almost like we have sort of defaulted
into becoming like a national 911 center.
So do people want to work for us? More and more. Do people
want to work with us? More and more. Do people want to turn to
us for help? More and more. And so that ultimately is what our
folks really care about. Would we prefer not to be criticized?
Of course.
Mr. Cartwright. Director Wray, thank you for your comments
and thank you for your work.
Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Cline, do you
desire time?
Mr. Cline. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Cline. And I want to thank the large number of law-
abiding agents within your agency who work hard for the
American people every day. But we can't ignore the violations
that have occurred within the FBI by some individuals and the
policy changes that were necessitated by those abuses.
And for some on the other side to talk about anti-law
enforcement rhetoric when morale is at an all-time low in local
law enforcement offices because of the defund-the-police
movement on the left, it is rich. It is rich to hear this come
from the other side.
So my colleague who spoke critically about the performance
of some in your agency, Mr. Wray, was doing so with a love for
country, a love for the Constitution, and a desire to see the
confidence of the American people in their institutions
restored after it has been so eroded by the performance of some
within your agency acting in violation of the law and in
violation of policies.
So I am happy to take up what amounts to a large chunk of
my time to stand up for my colleagues who have left and who are
under criticism from members of this very subcommittee and to
restate that there is a First Amendment.
We have a right to criticize when there is evidence of
wrongdoing. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this
country when there are individuals within your agency who
violate the rights of American citizens.
And so I needed to stand up for my colleague, and I do want
to. But I do want to ask, as part of FISA, I have an amendment
that would codify a policy of the Bureau related to abouts
collection. Abouts.
So the FBI has decided not to engage in what amounts to
collection of upstream communication from companies that
operate internet cables that interconnect with ISPs' local
networks to include the collections of communications about a
target.
Why did you all stop abouts collection?
Mr. Wray. Well, I will confess to you it has been a little
while since I looked at that issue. It was very much on our
mind back around the time of the last reauthorization, as I
recall.
I think, again, my memory is not perfect on this, but I
think it was a judgment that the benefits from having that were
outweighed by, in our view, the potential that the authority
could result in a compliance violation of some sort.
Again, my memory is a little fuzzy on that, so with that
big caveat.
Mr. Cline. Do you have any intention of resuming abouts
collection at this time?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Cline. A since-declassified set of FISA court opinions
from 2011 shed a light on the pervasiveness of the collection
at the time and noted that it resulted in tens of thousands of
wholly domestic communications collected each year do to what
was described as technical limitations in the implementation of
abouts collection.
So would it in any way interfere with department policy or
activities to codify the practice of the FBI and their
suspension of abouts collection?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, without--I would have to review any
specific legislative proposal. We have tried to put in place a
whole range of policies and system enhancements. And I think
the effort in a number of the legislative reform proposals that
are swirling around up in Congress right now are intended to--
similar language to what you are using, to sort of lock in
reforms that we have put in place.
And I think as a general matter, that is something that we
are in favor of. But the specific issue, I would have to take a
closer look. But we are happy to do that.
Mr. Cline. I appreciate that.
Yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Does Mr. Ruppersberger----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, I would respond to a couple
comments.
First thing, let me say this: I respect everybody on this
board, in this hearing. We all have different points of view,
we look at things differently. But I also look at the big
picture too.
My speciality throughout my life, most of it, other than
being account executive or something, has been law enforcement.
And when you are in law enforcement, you are trained, you
develop relationships, and you learn.
And one of the most important things is for Federal, State,
and local to work together. And I think that the comments that
were made--and I respect that individual, I said that before. I
even talked about it. And I do respect him because he is a hard
worker, he served at the Naval Academy.
And I was just shocked that his whole, the whole five
minutes or whatever he had, it was in criticizing someone who I
happen to respect and I think a lot of other people respect,
who has one of the hardest jobs in America.
What bothers me is that we are probably in one of the worst
situations for national security in the history of our country,
and he is a major part of dealing with those issues. And I
would hope that someone with his expertise and smarts, and he
is very smart, and I will talk to him personally because I know
him personally.
But would spend doing this and not talk about what are we
going to do with this issue, or this, which everyone else here
has talked to him about. And I just was shocked. And believe
it, I get probably more heat from my left than I get from you
all. And but that is just my politics, and that is the way each
one of us has our point of view.
Mr. Clyde, he didn't--in the beginning when he started, he
asked good questions. He didn't have the experience that some
of us have in law enforcement or dealing with you all and that
type of thing. But at least you tried, you wanted to know, you
asked good questions. And I respect that. Whatever your
conclusion is, I respect it. I might not like it, but I
respect.
So I just wanted to respond a little bit on why I felt it
was really important to stand up for somebody who I think is
qualified. He is doing a good job. And the FBI has really, in
my opinion, grown. And I love the fact that they are now
working with federal, state, and local as a team, and that
makes them a lot better.
Mr. Rogers. Gentleman yield back?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, I do.
Mr. Rogers. That concludes today's hearing. We want to
thank our witness, Director Wray, for being here. Without
objection, members may have seven days to submit additional
questions for the record. The subcommittee now stands
adjourned.

Tuesday, April 16, 2024.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WITNESS

MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time.
Today, we welcome the Attorney General of the United
States, the Honorable Merrick Garland, to our subcommittee to
testify on the Department of Justice's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget
Request. The Department requests about $38 billion in
discretionary sources, an increase of nearly 2 percent over the
fiscal year 2024 enacted level.
Once again, the Department's budget submission uses themes
such as ``upholding the rule of law'' and ``keeping our country
safe.'' It is the job of Congress to examine whether agency
priorities line up with these themes and fund the Department
appropriately and accordingly.
Unfortunately, the Department's budget underwhelms and has
not thoughtfully identified areas where strategic reductions
could be made, aside from aid to local law enforcement. I am
not advocating for arbitrary, large-scale reductions that would
make the Department ineffective and our country less safe.
However, I do believe that robust law enforcement and strategic
reductions are not conflicting goals. It just requires hard
work and thoughtful prioritization.
So let's examine the Department's fiscal year 2025
priorities. The Department prioritizes combating drug
trafficking and preventing overdose deaths, and you know that
the fentanyl epidemic accounts for some two-thirds of the more
than 110,000 drug overdose deaths each year. While the
submission rightly highlights ``defeating drug cartels and
combating the drug poisoning epidemic and communities,'' the
budget puts a department-wide emphasis on equipping federal
agents with body cameras. Drug cartels and their crime
syndicates in the United States must be decimated, period. The
death and devastation the cartels and gangs are inflicting on
American families and bringing them to justice ought to be the
Department's top priority. Whether the agent doing the
decimating has a camera attached to them is secondary by far.
Despite this administration's best efforts to push the
issue to the back burner, the Biden border crisis continues and
shows no signs of stopping. People and drugs continue to flow
across the southern border in blatant contravention of our
laws.
In an ever-evolving situation last year, 50 times more
Chinese citizens were apprehended illegally from Mexico,
compared to 2 years ago, 50 times worse. When land owners
attempt to protect their life and property, they end up being
arrested. When will this madness stop? Perhaps when this
administration takes the cuffs off law enforcement and allows
them to do their job.
Next, the Department prioritizes combating violent crime
and gun violence. In their 2023 violent crime survey, the Major
City Chiefs Association noted a decrease in homicide, rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault in American cities. However,
these decreases were slight and the numbers remain unacceptably
high. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that this change in direction
signifies a lasting ``about face'' by those who embrace the
Defund the Police Movement and vindication for those of us who
decried it from the very beginning.
With the trends for now seeming to go in the right
direction, it confounds me that the Department seeks to cut law
enforcement assistance, including reductions to state and local
law enforcement assistance grants and the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program.
Another priority listed by the Department is protecting
national security by countering terrorism, cyber threats, and
nation state threats. To that end, I will commend the National
Security Division for acknowledging in their budget submission
the October 7th terrorist attack on Israel by the terror group
Hamas, noting that the attack has led to an increase in
``terrorism-related conduct,'' both domestically and overseas.
Such a warning has taken on greater importance in recent weeks
as chants of Death to America are no longer confined to Middle
Eastern capitals, but are now being heard on American streets.
If such chants are not ``terrorism-related conduct,'' I tell
you, it is pretty close. I would like to hear if the Attorney
General agrees in what action the Department might take
regarding these developments aside from issuing statements of
condemnation.
The Department of Justice, over the last four years, has
picked sides on prosecuting and ultimately failed to uphold the
rule of law equally and fairly when it comes to American
citizens and even American businesses. It is not surprising
that two phrases notably absent from the budget request are
``equal justice under law'' and ``respect for separation of
powers.''
In closing, Mr. Attorney General, where we can find
agreement, you will find support here. But when priorities
diverge and agency actions are at odds with what we consider
good government and common sense, we will respond accordingly.
We recognize you have an incredibly demanding job. I appreciate
your being here today. We look forward to working with the
ranking member and all members of the subcommittee to
appropriately fund the important missions of the Department of
Justice as this year's appropriations process moves forward.
At this time, I want to recognize Mr. Cartwright for any
remarks he may wish to make.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, and I would
like to echo you in welcoming Attorney General Merrick Garland
back to this subcommittee to discuss the Department of
Justice's fiscal year 2025 budget request.
AG Garland, I thank you for your continued leadership at
the Department of Justice for leading the men and women who
work tirelessly to continue the pursuit of truth and justice.
Resources provided to the Justice Department are and will
continue to be under a microscope, but the mission of the
Justice Department remains unchanged. I look forward to working
with you to ensure we are making smart investments to keep our
communities safe.
Just last week, FBI Director Wray was before us and we
heard about the real challenges that the FBI, along with its
state, local and Tribal law enforcement partners are facing,
especially in keeping deadly fentanyl off our streets. I heard
him clearly. State and local law enforcement are asking for
more support from the FBI, not less, and I trust that could be
said for many other bureaus of the Department as well.
Further, the defense of our national security and
mitigation of emerging foreign and domestic threats including
cyber, is critical. I view it as the main mission, our
paramount responsibility keeping Americans safe here in
Congress and the Department's role in upholding the rule of law
and preserving our democratic values for free and fair
elections cannot be understated.
To carry out the Department's broad missions, your fiscal
year 2025 budget request seeks $38.9 billion in discretionary
funding, a 5 percent increase above the fiscal year 2024
enacted level. Your request prioritizes funding for the over
100,000 employees of the Department of Justice and makes vital
increases to every federal law enforcement agency and the U.S.
Attorney's Offices. You have requested a strong increase for
the Violence Against Women Act grants, as well as strong
increases for COPS hiring grants, and the Byrne Justice
Assistance grants formula funding for state and local law
enforcement.
And I look forward to working with Chairman Rogers and you,
Attorney General Garland, on ensuring that we sustain
investments that our State and local law enforcement partners
rely on. Congress cannot ignore the challenges that our
communities face back at home.
Attorney General Garland, once again, welcome. Thank you
for being here. I look forward to your testimony and working
with you on ensuring that we provide what the Department of
Justice needs for fiscal year 2025.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Attorney General, you are now recognized
for an opening statement. Without objection, your written
statement will be entered into the record. I would ask that you
try to keep your statement to 5 minutes or thereabouts so we
can have additional time for questions from the panel.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you, Chairman Rogers,
Ranking Member Cartwright, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss the Justice
Department's funding requests for fiscal year 2025.
Since I last appeared before you, more than 115,000 public
servants who make up the Justice Department have continued to
work tirelessly to fulfill our mission, keep our country safe,
protect civil rights, and to uphold the rule of law. Over the
past year, our U.S. Attorneys' Offices, law enforcement agents,
and grantmaking experts have worked together with police and
community partners across the country to help drive down
violent crime. We have zeroed in on the individuals and gangs
responsible for the greatest violence, made critical
investments in police departments to hire more officers, and
dedicated resources to initiatives aimed at preventing and
disrupting violence before it occurs.
We have gone after the cartels responsible for trafficking
deadly fentanyl into our communities and brought their leaders
to justice here in the United States. We have prosecuted fraud,
recovered funds stolen from American taxpayers, and challenged
illegal monopolies that hurt consumers and workers.
We have worked to defend the reproductive freedoms that are
protected by Federal law and to monitor laws and actions that
infringe on those protections. We have worked to combat a
disturbing spike in threats of violence against those who serve
the public, against judges, police officers, members of
Congress, and even against our own employees. We have worked to
aggressively investigate, prosecute, and disrupt the hate
crimes that not only harm individuals, but strike fear across
communities. And in everything we do, we have worked to ensure
the equal protection of law that is foundational to our
democracy. I am proud of the work we have done.
And I am deeply proud of the way the Department's public
servants from our agents to our attorneys to our administrative
staff have gone about their work. They have conducted
themselves in a way that would make the American people proud.
But we recognize that we have so much more to do. Our fiscal
year 2025 budget request reflects the difficult budget
environment we are in and the extremely difficult budget
choices we have had to make because of it. It also reflects the
resources that we need now more than ever to continue our work.
When I became Attorney General three years ago, I knew that
grappling with the violent crime that surged during the
pandemic would be one of the greatest challenges we would face
at the Justice Department. I am glad to be able to report that
last year, we saw a significant decrease in overall violent
crime across the country compared to the previous year,
including an over 13 percent decline in homicides. That is the
largest one-year decline in homicides in over 30 years. And
data indicates that this decline is continuing. As the Wall
Street Journal reported just this week, in the first three
months of this year, homicides dropped 20 percent across 133
cities compared to the same period last year. But I want to be
very clear. There is no acceptable level of violent crime. Too
many communities are still struggling and too many people are
still scared. The hard-fought progress we are seeing can easily
slip away, so we must remain focused and vigilant.
To continue our efforts to drive down violent crime and to
help keep our country safe from a range of threats, we are
seeking a total of $21 billion to support the efforts of the
FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshal Service, U.S. Attorneys' Offices,
as well as the Criminal Division and the National Security
Division. We will use these resources to continue our fight
against gun violence, to prosecute illegal gun traffickers and
straw purchasers, and to invest in advanced technological tools
like ballistics analysis, firearms tracing, gun intelligence
centers, and local fusion cells. We will use these resources to
strengthen our work to counter both foreign and domestic
terrorism.
As the FBI Director has testified, we are facing an
increasing threat of foreign terrorism since October 7th. We
will also use these resources to continue to counter the
threats that the Governments of Iran, Russia, China, and North
Korea pose to our national security and our economic stability,
and we will use these resources to continue our efforts to
dismantle the global fentanyl supply chain and to break apart
the cartels that are responsible for flooding poison into our
communities.
As we deploy our own prosecutorial and investigative
resources, we also recognize that the Department's partnerships
have been and will continue to be some of the most powerful
tools we have to battle violent crime. That is why we are
seeking investments in the Department's three grantmaking
components, the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, and the Office on
Violence Against Women. They provide direct support to
community and law enforcement partners through more than 200
grant programs.
Our budget requests more than $4.3 billion to support the
public safety efforts of our state, local, Tribal, and
territorial law enforcement and community partners. Of that
amount, we are requesting $2.5 billion for our COPS hiring
program to support law enforcement agencies across the country
in their efforts to hire full time law enforcement
professionals. And we are requesting $120.5 million as part of
our new Violent Crime Reduction and Prevention Fund to fund 940
detectives at the state and local level.
As I have noted before, when the Justice Department was
founded in 1870, one of its principal purposes was to protect
civil rights. Today, protecting the safety and the civil rights
of everyone in this country remains our urgent obligation. Our
budget seeks $201.3 million for the Civil Rights Division to
continue its essential work, including its efforts to deter and
prosecute hate crimes, to ensure constitutional policing, to
enforce federal laws prohibiting discrimination in all its
forms, and to protect the right of all eligible citizens to
vote and to have that vote counted.
The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy.
Protecting that right also requires us to protect the citizens
who we rely on to fairly administer voting. Our democracy
cannot function if officials, workers, and volunteers who
administer our elections have to fear for their lives just for
doing their jobs. The Justice Department is aggressively
investigating and prosecuting those who threaten election
workers with violence and we will continue to do so.
As I said, I am extremely proud of the Department's
employees who are doing the work necessary to advance the
Department's mission. Every day, their work brings them face-
to-face with some of our country's greatest challenges. Every
day, many of them risk their lives to protect the public. I am
grateful to them.
I respectfully ask for your support for the President's
fiscal year 2025 budget request so that we can continue our
work on behalf of the American people.
[The information follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Attorney General Garland. We will
now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions for the
witness. I will begin by recognizing myself.
You mentioned in your testimony about being here last year
at this time. This time last year, too, there were 112,000
people who died because of our inability to stop the flow of
fentanyl especially. Most recent data from CDC shows that from
May 2022 to May 2023 for the first time in American history
over 112,000 Americans died from a drug overdose, 2200 of those
from the State of Kentucky alone. Fentanyl remains the primary
driver of that increase in overdose deaths and young Americans
have been particularly hard hit. For teenagers, 84 percent of
fatal overdoses involved fentanyl, almost all.
Last week, Director Wray, the FBI Director, was testifying
here. When he said that ``the last 2 years in a row, the FBI
seized enough fentanyl to kill 270 million American people.''
There can be no doubt that a tragically high amount of
narcotics are slipping through our southern border and the
border crisis created by this administration is a dream
scenario for cartels. They have never had it so good.
The Department's budget submission has listed combating
drug trafficking and preventing overdose deaths as a top
priority. With multiple agencies and components within the
Department of Justice implementing strategies to counter
fentanyl, how are you assuring and ensuring that agencies don't
silo their intelligence and that these efforts complement
rather than inhibit each other?
Attorney General Garland. It is a very important point, Mr.
Chairman. Fentanyl is the deadliest drug threat this country
has ever faced, both because it is extraordinarily cheap to
make, extraordinarily profitable to sell, and because how often
it can be fatal. As the DEA has said in its public affairs
campaign, just one pill can kill. So the Justice Department and
the Government as a whole, is an all-government and all-
department approach to this question. And you are exactly
right. We have to prevent any kind of siloing. So FBI, DEA,
Marshals, OCDETF, Criminal Division, Civil Division, and our
grants to local and state government law enforcement are all
combined to work together to battle this scourge. It begins
with the precursor companies in China. You can't make the
fentanyl without the precursors. So we are doing everything we
can. We have charged, indicted the precursor companies. The
Treasury Department has sanctions the precursor companies.
The precursors then move into Mexico. I have personally
traveled to Mexico three times. The Deputy Attorney General, I
believe, has also traveled at least three times. Other high-
government officials have traveled to persuade the Mexican
Government to put controls on the precursors and to stop the
precursors from coming in.
In Mexico, we are working with the Mexican Marines and the
Mexican Army to destroy the labs and to take down the cartels
and in particular, to get assistance in the extradition of the
cartel members who we have indicted in the United States. We
have indicted dozens of members of the Mexican cartels. We have
obtained successful extraditions of people like Ovidio Guzman
who was one of the Chapitos, son of El Chapo. We have gotten
some support in bringing these people into the United States.
And the next thing that happens is exactly as you say. It
crosses our southern border. As the Secretary of Homeland
Security has testified, most of this comes through the ports of
entry crossing the border. And what is necessary at that point
is for more money for the Department of Homeland Security. I
hate to be here asking for money for another department, but if
we are going to stop fentanyl from coming in, they need those
large x-ray machines, the fast x-ray machines that can look at
these trucks and these SUVs and these passenger cars as they
come across the border. Then FBI and DEA in the United States
picks up the traffickers once they come into the United States
and in combined operations including work from the Marshals and
the U.S. Attorney's Offices, investigates using the latest
investigative tools and prosecutes.
The DEA has at the very end of the line a public affairs
campaign. We have to cut off the demand as well, and that is
why we emphasize that one pill can kill. That is why I went to
DEA headquarters and met with the families, the very kind of
families that you are talking about, young people who have died
taking a pill they had no idea it was fentanyl.
Mr. Rogers. Attorney General, what percentage of your drug
trafficking work, what percent is tied to illegal smuggling
from Mexico?
Attorney General Garland. I can't give a number in that
regard, but as I said, the vast majority of fentanyl comes into
the United States, smuggled in trucks and cars coming across
ports of entry. That is what the Department of Homeland
Security has identified.
Mr. Rogers. Do be even clearer, would your counter drug
efforts be even more successful if we had complete control of
our southern border?
Attorney General Garland. If we had the x-ray machines and
other investigative devices necessary to detect fentanyl as it
was coming across the border, absolutely. We could cut off that
flow. That would vastly decrease--the other ways that people
will try to get in, through the mail, through shipping, et
cetera, but if we could cut off fentanyl crossing the border
using these new technologies, that would make an enormous dent
in the dangerous poison that is flooding our cities.
Mr. Rogers. Last week, we had FBI Director Wray sitting in
the seat you now occupy. He noted that he wished there was more
cooperation from Mexico about drug trafficking. From a
Department-wide, counter-drug perspective, what is the level of
cooperation we are receiving or not from Mexico?
Attorney General Garland. I would echo what the Director
said. I wish there were more cooperation. We are getting
cooperation. We have had extraditions. They have destroyed some
labs. They have reduced precursors coming into the country, but
we need much, much more cooperation.
Mr. Rogers. As I understand it, the current Mexican
Government has severely constrained DOJ's ability to work
alongside their Mexican counterparts to disrupt the cartels.
What is the Department and this administration doing to restore
full law enforcement partnerships with Mexican partners?
Attorney General Garland. So the FBI is, I think as the
Director testified, has been successful in setting up some
vetted teams. I have personally gone to Mexico with the
Attorney General to re-up the degree of cooperation that had
previously existed with the DEA. I would say I have not been
completely successful in that effort yet, but I am persistent
and I will not give up until the cooperation with DEA is as
fulsome as possible.
Mr. Rogers. There are people, based on that lack of a
border control, who say that the Mexican Government really is
complicit with the cartels. Would you say that?
Attorney General Garland. I don't want to comment on that
specifically. The cartels are enormously profitable. They have
more money than some nation states and there are places in
Mexico where it is difficult to deal with the cartels.
I will say that when Mexican law enforcement and
particularly the naval forces, the marines, and the army have
gone to arrest people that we have extradited, this has come at
enormous loss to them as well. I called the Secretary of the
Navy there to give them my condolences for the deaths of
marines in connection with the arrest of Ovidio. They have a
very difficult job as we do.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Garland, it didn't escape my notice that
you commented on crime statistics a little bit in your opening
statement. Is that correct?
Attorney General Garland. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. And we keep track of crime statistics here
in the United States, not just Federal crimes, but all state
and local crimes. We keep track of violent crimes. We keep
track of crimes against property. Am I correct in that?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, that's what the FBI's
uniform crime reports now, the NIBRS reports.
Mr. Cartwright. And you said homicides dropped more last
year than any other year in the last 30 years. Is that right?
Attorney General Garland. That's right.
Mr. Cartwright. It's not just limited to a drop in
homicide, though, is it, Attorney General Garland?
Attorney General Garland. No. The FBI shows a decrease in
violent crime across the board as well.
Mr. Cartwright. And it is not just limited to a decrease in
violent crime. Yesterday, a reputable analytics company came
out with a report that reviewed all of the national information
on crime.
And if you separate out violent crime versus property
crime, take violent crime. He noted violent crime is down a
considerable amount--violent crime, including murder down,
manslaughter down, rape down, robbery down, aggravated assault
down, all of them down a considerable amount, and then, even
into property crime, with the exception of motor vehicle theft,
burglary down, larceny theft down, all of these down a
considerable amount. Am I stating that correctly, Attorney
General Garland?
Attorney General Garland. You are. Obviously, there's
differences in different places in the country, and some have
gone up and some have gone down, but those are overall numbers.
I also want to say I think I understated the success on
homicide. It's actually the largest reduction in 50 years.
Mr. Cartwright. It is down more than any other year in the
last 50 years?
Attorney General Garland. Right. I think I said 30, but 50
I think is the correct number.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for the correction, Attorney
General Garland.
And thank you for the good, hard work of solid police work
and solid prosecutorial work done not only by the Department of
Justice, but also by the State and local police and
prosecutors. That is who deserves the credit for this, isn't
it?
Attorney General Garland. They are the ones who deserve the
credit. We support them. We help them. We deal with the most
difficult crimes. We provide them with technological support.
But the people who are actually face-to-face with violent crime
in our communities are the state and local police and law
enforcement.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, you are here today before the
appropriations panel, and we are the ones that fund your
efforts. One of the most important areas that I look into are
the COPS hiring grants and, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants.
I have been very proud to bring grants home in both of
those areas to fund local police and also to fund efforts by
our local district attorneys, and these are the ones that
deserve the credit for that huge drop in crime over the last
year, aren't they?
Attorney General Garland. I quite agree with that, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. And don't let me put words in your mouth,
Attorney General. Who else deserves the credit for this big
drop in crime that America has experienced?
Attorney General Garland. We know, because we've had
experience over decades now with the right kind of strategies
for reducing violent crime, these involve, these strategies
from the Federal point of view require the kind of cooperation,
the non-siloing that the chairman was speaking, among all of
our agencies. Are, then, creating joint task forces with state
and local law enforcement who are enormous force multipliers
for the Department.
Our U.S. Attorneys' Offices, who reach out to communities;
our grant programs to support community violence interrupters,
who go out into communities and prevent the crime from
happening in the first place, who are willing to meet with
potentially violent people and talk them down.
So the importance of our grants to local communities to
enhance good relationships between the police and the
communities, because we don't get good policing and effective
policing unless the community trusts the police. So it's a
combination across the board of federal law enforcement, state
and local law enforcement, community engagement.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, that's well said.
I want to focus on hiring of attorneys to go into
prosecution work. Attorney General, what is the Department of
Justice doing right now to prioritize creating efficiencies in
its hiring and reducing the time to hire, so that we have
enough attorneys working for the Department of Justice and in
prosecution generally?
Attorney General Garland. Well, with respect to law
enforcement reduction in time to hire, this is a significant
issue with respect to retention, promotion, and recruitment in
law enforcement. Sometimes both federal law enforcement and
state and local law enforcement takes so long to hire the
person, to go through the whole background and vetting process,
that the person already accepts another job before we can
finish that process and before state and locals can.
So our COPS office has created a playbook for state and
local law enforcement to increase and streamline that process.
And, of course, we are looking internally to do the same thing.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, my time is expired, Attorney General.
And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Attorney General Garland, for being here today.
I view these annual appropriations hearings as similar to
investor briefs, annual investor briefs, right? We get to talk
to you about what is going on in your organization, the money
you are asking for, the past performance, the vision, the path
forward.
I don't think most Americans know what the Department of
Justice does. I don't think most Americans know what the
Attorney General does. So I went on your website and just
printed out the mission statement.
The mission statement of the Department of Justice is: ``to
uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to
protect civil rights.'' Pretty straightforward, pretty simple.
You have been in office since 2021. You report directly to
the President, and you know your mission.
For your investors, the American taxpayers, how would you
grade your performance over the last 3 years relative to that
mission?
Attorney General Garland. Well, I would grade the work of
our----
Mr. Garcia. And I'm talking about, I'm talking about you,
Attorney General.
Attorney General Garland. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. With all due respect to you and your team, I
have all the respect in the world for the agents in the field.
They are doing God's work on a daily basis. So this line of
questioning is specifically about you, as someone who is on the
Cabinet, reports directly to the President, during a period of
record high crime rates.
Before my colleagues across the aisle get offended, I am
not talking about the agents in the field here. I think they
are doing God's work. They are doing A+ with the resources that
they are given and the policies that they are working under.
I'm asking you, how would you grade yourself, as the
Attorney General of the United States?
Attorney General Garland. Well, you ask about violent
crime. I think what the Attorney General does with respect to
violent crime is set forth a strategy for fighting violent
crime and ensures that it's carried out throughout the
Department and throughout the country.
So what I did almost immediately after I came into office--
--
Mr. Garcia. Just I don't mean to cut you off, but we are
short on time. I'm just asking for a grade, A through F. How
are you doing----
Attorney General Garland. I'm going to give myself an A,
but with room for improvement.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. Let me explain to you why I would give
you an F. And we just hear why Mr. Cartwright from Pennsylvania
was citing the decline in crime nationwide.
Your mission is to uphold the rule of law, and crossing the
border is a crime. It is illegal. Per penal code 8 U.S.C. 1325,
crossing international border is a crime. We have 7.5 million
people under your tenure who have come across our border.
When you say there's a decline in homicides by about 20
percent, a historical high in decline in homicides in 30 years,
or 50 years, whatever the number is, does that include the
75,000 people who were killed by fentanyl or poisoned by
fentanyl by in many cases dealers who knew they actually were
selling fentanyl and the victims did not? Does that decline in
homicides of 20 percent include the 75,000 fentanyl poisonings?
Attorney General Garland. I'm sure that it does not include
the fentanyl poisoning.
Mr. Garcia. Those were American lives lost, though, right,
who were killed by illicit drug dealers for the most part?
Attorney General Garland. That's right.
Mr. Garcia. So why is that not considered a homicide?
Attorney General Garland. That's right. The U.S. Attorneys'
Office do pursue fentanyl traffickers and including even the
sale of small amounts, where we can establish that the
trafficker is the one who caused the death.
Mr. Garcia. Do you charge them with homicide when that is
the case?
Attorney General Garland. There's a narcotics statute that
includes sentencing enhancement for death. We don't prosecute
homicides. Those are state law----
Mr. Garcia. Okay. So I just want to be clear. When we're
putting the cape on and saying there's a 20 percent reduction
in homicides, we are not counting the 75,000 Americans that
have been killed by this drug over each year.
Attorney General Garland. I don't believe----
Mr. Garcia. The second metric of keeping our country safe,
we talk about the ``Death to America'' chants in some of our
cities. We heard Wray's testimony last year that we are in one
of the most precarious positions our Nation has been in our
Nation's history and the last several decades.
We have 10,000 people entering our border a day illegally,
a 7,000 percent increase in Chinese immigrants coming across
our border illegally, 10,000 people a day coming across the
borders. And that is about a 40 percent increase since your
watch began in fiscal year 2021. Three hundred and fifty people
on the known terror watchlist. Eight in 10 Americans feel less
secure than they did just three or four years ago, per the Pew
Research Center.
So your assessment of yourself, I think someone is in your
position, literally, reports directly to the President, an
attribute of a leader in that position has to be self-aware.
They have to have the courage to tell the boss if the boss is
screwing up, especially when it is leading to the loss of lives
at a level that is unprecedented.
And I think your giving yourself an A under these
circumstances demonstrates a lack of self-awareness, frankly. I
think you have earned an F. I think you need to talk to your
boss and tell him that the policies are killing us.
It is not the lack of money. I respect the $37 billion
investment request here. If I was in charge, I would give you
more. But it is the policies that are broken.
And so with that, I'm out of time. I'm happy to discuss
more things, but I will wait for the second round to talk about
the treatment of law and the application of law to certain
demographics.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like
to yield some time to Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Yes, and I would like to give the Attorney
General a chance to respond to what he just heard.
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So I didn't hear question in
that at all and I disagree with almost everything that you've
said.
But I want to be clear that the border responsibility,
you're talking to the wrong department here. The Department of
Homeland Security is the department responsible for preventing
things from coming across the border. The President and the
Secretary of Homeland Security have proposed a bipartisan bill
to protect the border, to reduce the number of people who come
across, and to increase the money spent to prevent fentanyl
from coming across the border. So that would be my
recommendation in that respect.
Mr. Cartwright. And I will yield back to Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And I will just editorialize. This is the second hearing I
have been at, both with the Director of the FBI and the
Attorney General, that they have been personally attacked.
And I want to underscore, there was a bipartisan deal on
the table, and as I understand it, the former President
persuaded people not to participate in that because he didn't
want a political win. He cared about the politics over the
safety of the United States people and the American people. So
I'm getting tired at these hearings of listening to these
attacks, when they can be addressed.
Having said that, Mr. Attorney General, thank you for
taking the time to be with us today, and I certainly thank you
for your long service to the country.
I want to begin by thanking your staff and you for having
provided detailed feedback on a bill which I have reintroduced,
the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act. This is to
prohibit the disclosure of non-consensual deepfake pornography,
obviously, a growing and alarming problem in the United States.
Ninety-six percent of all deepfakes involve pornography on the
internet. And as I work to pass this legislation into law, I
hope that I can continue to have lines of communication open to
you and to the Department. And I want to thank you for that.
If I can, sir, there's, obviously, been a lot of public
reporting on the release of the Special Counsel Robert Hur's
report back in February of this year. I'm certainly not asking
you to comment on the substance of the report, which has been
talked about publicly, but, as a member of the President's
Cabinet, someone who has regular contact with the President,
would you like to comment on President Biden's fitness
generally?
Attorney General Garland. Well, look, I will start by
thanking you for recognizing that I can't comment, and won't
comment, about the Special Counsel's report at all.
But if you're asking me about my own observations, as a
member of the National Security Council and a member of the
President's Cabinet, I have complete confidence in the
President. I have watched him expertly guide meetings of staff
and Cabinet members on issues of foreign affairs and military
strategy and policy in the incredibly complex world which we
now face, in which he has been decisive in instructions to the
staff and decisive in making the decisions necessary to protect
the country.
Likewise, with respect to domestic policy discussions.
These are intricate, complicated questions that he has guided
all of us through in order to reach results that are helpful
and important and beneficial to the American people.
I could not have more confidence in the President.
Mr. Morelle. Very good. Thank you, sir.
I have a number of questions which I may submit in writing.
But one thing I did want to get some additional comment you
mentioned in your testimony. In addition to my role as an
appropriator, I'm proud to serve as the ranking Democrat on the
Committee on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over
Federal election reforms.
In July 2021, the Department of Justice launched a task
force to address the rise in threats against election workers
and election officials. In addition to threats of violence and
intimidation, our country's election workers face new and
unique pressures driven by the rapid spread of misinformation
by extremists.
With less than 8 months before the general election, can
you provide an update on the activities of the task force and
the Department's plan to ensure that election workers are
protected from threats?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. Thank you.
As I said in my opening remarks, I think threats to
election workers, particularly the volunteer election workers,
but obviously also secretaries of state and the appointed
administrators, this is a real threat to our democracy to have
the people who are running our elections afraid to continue
their work.
I have personally spoken to all of our United States
Attorneys by video and, in addition, in person during our
conferences. The FBI has agents devoted to this issue, and we
have this task force that you're talking about.
We have prosecuted more than--around 20 cases now, many of
which have yielded significant sentences. And we have
investigated many, many more and disrupted other kinds of
threats.
So we are completely seized with the importance of
preventing, deterring, disrupting threats against our election
workers.
Mr. Morelle. Very good. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Chairman Rogers.
Attorney General Garland, as I understand it, the Hatch Act
generally prohibits federal employees from lobbying Congress on
legislation while on the job. Last week when the House was
considering legislation to reform and reauthorize the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, did you or anyone in your office
make phone calls to Members of Congress urging them to oppose
the Biggs amendment to require the government to obtain a
warrant prior to spying on American citizens through FISA
section 702? And a yes or no will suffice.
Attorney General Garland. The Hatch Act and the
Constitution permit the members of a President's administration
to speak with Members who are interested in questions about the
effect of legislation, just like you are asking me today about
a----
Mr. Clyde. If we ask, that's one thing. But if we don't
ask, and you actually reach out, that's a different thing.
Attorney General Garland. That does not violate any law of
any kind.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. So will you answer my question?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I discussed the vital United
States interest in extending 702 with Members----
Mr. Clyde. How many Members did you call?
Attorney General Garland. I'm not going to get into my
conversations with Members.
Mr. Clyde. I'm not asking about the conversations. I'm
asking how many Members did you call?
Attorney General Garland. I'm not going to get into that
question. But I'm telling you there is nothing unlawful. This
is the basic----
Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right.
On March 3, 2024, at the Tabernacle Baptist Church in
Selma, Alabama, you made comments regarding our country's
elections and election security laws passed by various states.
Specifically, you claimed that democracy was under attack by,
and I quote, ``discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary
restrictions on access to the ballot.''
Attorney General, do you believe requiring an ID to vote in
a federal election is discriminatory? Yes or no?
Attorney General Garland. I spoke at the iconic church from
which the march for voting rights began. The system----
Mr. Clyde. Just a yes or no will be fine.
Attorney General Garland. The answer is the Supreme Court's
decision says that undue burdens on voting rights caused by
voter IDs can be unconstitutional, but that----
Mr. Clyde. What?
Attorney General Garland [continuing]. The burdens--that's
right. That's what the Supreme----
Mr. Clyde. Voter ID can be unconstitutional?
Attorney General Garland. It can be, depending on the
burdens and the discriminatory way in which they are taken.
This is a----
Mr. Clyde. Okay. So do you think it is important to
positively identify every voter to ensure that they are a legal
voter? I think, as you called it, ``a legitimate voter.''
Attorney General Garland. No. You have to be a United
States citizen. You have to meet the qualifications for it to
be a voter. It's important that only those people vote----
Mr. Clyde. So how do you prove that? I mean, how do you
prove what a person is if you don't require an ID? I mean, you
require an ID to get on an airplane. They are not going to let
you on an airplane--well, unless you are an illegal, I guess.
Attorney General Garland. I don't know what your experience
has been, but I have voted every year my entire life, and I've
never been asked to show an identification.
Mr. Clyde. I have always been asked to show identification.
Attorney General Garland. Oh, then, we have--but I----
Mr. Clyde. Wow.
Attorney General Garland. Somehow, the democracy has gone
on without that.
Mr. Clyde. Attorney General Garland, do you believe that
illegal aliens residing in the United States should be allowed
to vote in Federal elections? Yes or no?
Attorney General Garland. No.
Mr. Clyde. All right. Great. We agree on something.
Other than U.S. citizens, are there any other legitimate
voters?
Attorney General Garland. You have to be a U.S. citizen to
vote in a federal election.
Mr. Clyde. You must be a U.S. citizen. Okay, great. All
right.
I ask unanimous consent to add this to the record, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, sir.
This is a poster found in the city, outside the city of
Matamoros. It was posted around the migrant camps. And it is a
poster from HIAS, the Immigrant Aid Society. And this
particular poster says, ``The resource center is a six-unit
complex that is home of HIAS.'' And at the very bottom, it
says, ``Reminder to vote for President Biden when you are in
the United States. We need another year of your mandate to stay
open.''
That's what this poster says. It reminds illegal immigrants
to vote for President Biden.
So is the Department of Justice concerned about illegal
aliens voting in federal elections?
Attorney General Garland. The Department of Justice is
concerned about any illegalities with respect to voting. I've
never seen that poster. I've never heard of that poster. That's
the first time I've ever heard anybody even mention that
poster.
Mr. Clyde. Well, now you have. So if any non-citizens vote
in federal elections, are you going to prosecute them at the
federal level?
Attorney General Garland. Anybody who violates the voting
laws, and if they are federal voting laws, we will investigate
and prosecute, as appropriate.
Mr. Clyde. All right. That's good to hear. I appreciate
that.
With the additional money you asked for the Civil Rights
Division, I hope that you prosecute illegal voting.
Now, last year, you promised to provide the prosecution of
crime statistics for the city of Washington, DC, for the last
five years. It was a question that I asked you. I have not yet
received them. So I'm asking you again today, do you commit to
provide these statistics, the prosecution of crime statistics
for the city of Washington, DC? Will you provide these in the
next 30 days?
Attorney General Garland. I will ask my staff to get in
touch with yours. I don't know what the problem is with respect
to providing those. It doesn't seem like there should be a
problem.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Great. Thank you. I appreciate your
commitment to provide them, Attorney General.
And my time is expired and I yield back.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Rogers. The committee will be in order.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Rogers. The chair reminds our guests that disruptive
demonstrations from the audience are a violation of House
rules. Any additional disruptions will require law enforcement
to remove protestors from the room and restore order.
Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Cartwright.
And I thank you, Attorney General Garland, for appearing
here today, and thank you for your patience, as you deal with
this committee.
I'm a co-chair of the Bipartisan Second Chance Task Force,
and we are concerned about staffing shortages at the BOP. The
BOP is funded at 93 percent, but are only staffed at 86
percent. What has happened is education, wraparound services
for mental health, et cetera, which could improve our outcomes,
job training, get left behind.
So we are all in agreement on that. We would like to figure
out how to implement the bipartisan First Step Act
successfully. And to do that, we have got to have the staffing.
Could you talk a minute about what this does to lead to
lousy outcomes, where we can't cut our prison budget because we
don't give folks a second chance to win and succeed?
Attorney General Garland. I think the--thanks for the
question. I think that First Step Act was extremely important
focusing on education of inmates. It helps reduce recidivism
after people leave.
And of course, if we can reduce recidivism after reentry,
we can drive down the violent crime rate and prevent it from
going up. Bureau of Prisons makes every effort to ensure that
the staffing shortages that you're referring to don't impact
the First Step Act programming as well as medication assisted
treatment programming. But to be frank, if you're asking me
what we need most in order to protect the ability to have full
staffing at the Bureau of Prisons, we need the money for hiring
and retention incentives.
Being a correctional officer or being a First Step
administrator, these are dangerous jobs in facilities that are
not--that have not been kept up over decades. And where there
are adjoining facilities, sometimes state and local facilities
pay more money. So I'd say if you're asking me for the one
thing that will give us a better chance here for the First Step
Act and for the Second Chance Act, it would be to give us the
money that we're requesting which is 205.4 million dollars for
hiring and retention incentives.
Mr. Trone. So quite simply, the dollars that give you the
proper amount of money will result in saving millions, tens of
millions more down the line by cutting recidivism?
Attorney General Garland. I do think that the money we have
to provide more incentives for people to stay on the job in the
Bureau of Prisons means the chances of reducing recidivism will
increase.
Mr. Trone. That sounds like a smart investment to me. A
quick question, 75 percent of BOP inmates do not have a photo
ID when they leave prison. They can't secure housing, apply for
jobs, open a bank account, federal benefit programs, et cetera.
The Bureau is addressing this by providing some IDs to U.S.
citizens now.
We have a bipartisan bill, the BOP Release Card Act, that
supports this effort at the BOP by ensuring new IDs fulfill all
the requirements and directs BOP to work with the states to
have a one-on-one exchange so we can work right with the states
to move these folks into getting their new ID card and then
successfully be able to exchange that for state ID cards. So we
would appreciate your help in moving this bill forward. Does
that make sense to you?
Attorney General Garland. Yeah, we would be happy to give
technical assistance. And I think we may--our staff may have
already--our staffs may have already consulted on this. But of
course we'd be happy to give technical assistance. The BOP has
implemented its own release ID program in October of 2023. And
they're on track for full implementation by this spring.
Mr. Trone. Excellent, thank you. The DEA has extended
current telemedicine flexibility for prescribing controlled
medications through December 31, 2024. But there's not a
revised proposed rule, and many patients are at risk of losing
access to prescriptions needed for mental health and substance
use disorder.
Last year, my colleagues and expressed concerns about the
proposed DEA rule that would've limited patient access to
buprenorphine and encourage an evidence-based approach to make
permanent the use of audio only or audiovisual telehealth
technology for buprenorphine prescribing. This is crucial to
reach these patient populations, including unhoused, rural,
Tribal.
So the follow up to that letter, we introduced the TREATS
Act which allows medication for opioid use disorder to be
prescribed via telemedicine. What's DOJ's position on the
continuing use of telehealth flexibilities to ensure access to
these medically necessary substance use disorder treatment and
how is this supported in your budget request?
Attorney General Garland. So as you noted, the DEA and HHS
have extended the current telemedicine flexibilities until
December 31 of this year. DEA has issued a proposed rule which
would allow authorized providers to prescribe medicines for
opioid use disorder via telemedicine. They are working to
promulgate a final year by the--I'm sorry, final rule by the
fall of this year.
Mr. Trone. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much. Just
quickly, restrictive housing, otherwise known as solitary
confinement, outdated an inhumane practice often used way too
far too often. We believe the BOP has been dragging its feet to
reform this area of restrictive housing. In the past 10 years,
DOJ has conducted studies and task forces to improve
restrictive housing, yet we fail to make any progress. What
steps can DOJ and BOP take together so we can make this more
effective and improve restrictive housing policies?
Attorney General Garland. Well, the new BOP director is
very much committed to what you're talking about. BOP recently
published a proposed rule on discipline designed to reduce the
use of restrictive housing for disciplinary segregation. BOP is
trying to hire more psychologists and provide de-escalation
training which would help reduce the need for restrictive
housing.
Mr. Trone. Excellent. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here.
I listened with interest to your opening statement. And I have
to say that I'm concerned that your actions are speaking louder
than your words, especially when you say there's one set--
there's not one set of laws for Democrats and another for
Republicans.
My constituents and many Americans are watching your
actions which are speaking louder than your words when it comes
to--there really is a crisis of confidence in this country in
your department being created by the dual treatment of American
citizens depending on their viewpoints or their political
positions or their political officers. As your department is
currently prosecuting a former President for handling
classified documents.
Your office, and I'm assuming you personally, declined to
take action against President Biden for his woeful mishandling
of classified documents. I appreciate you making the report of
Special Counsel Robert Hur public as was done historically with
every other Special Counsel. Did you review the report prior to
its release?
Attorney General Garland. Before I released it, yes. I read
it before I released it, yes.
Mr. Cline. Did you approve of the--obviously, you approved
the recommendations because you have it within your power to
prosecute, correct?
Attorney General Garland. I'm not going to comment or
editorialize on the Special Counsel's report. I promised I
would release it. I did release it. The report speaks for
itself. The Special Counsel sat for something like five hours'
worth of testimony on the subject. And any question about
results he reached could've been asked----
Mr. Cline. So you won't say whether you concur with the
conclusions?
Attorney General Garland. I will say as I said at the time
it was released I was not going to editorialize or comment on
the report. I think that's inappropriate for an Attorney
General.
Mr. Cline. So you won't agree that Biden would've come
across to a jury as a sympathetic, well meaning, elderly man
with a poor memory?
Attorney General Garland. I've said before and I'll say
again with respect to the report that it's improper for the
Attorney General to editorialize.
Mr. Cline. You talked about your----
Attorney General Garland. I take that separately from the
question you're asking and ask--if you're asking me about my
own observations about the President.
Mr. Cline. No, you've testified to that fact, and I heard
you the first time.
Attorney General Garland. I have complete confidence in the
President.
Mr. Cline. Have you ever seen evidence of impairment in
your meetings with the President?
Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. I testified and I'll
repeat again what I just said.
Mr. Cline. Well, that's different than my question.
Attorney General Garland. Well, I have seen the President
effectively guide the members of the department, of his
cabinet, and his military----
Mr. Cline. But you won't say you've ever seen any
impairment on this part?
Attorney General Garland. The President has no impairment.
The President----
Mr. Cline. You've never seen any?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know how many ways I can
say this.
Mr. Cline. Okay.
Attorney General Garland. I have complete confidence in the
President, and I reject your characterization.
Mr. Cline. Okay. Let's talk about the audio recordings of
Special Counsel Hur's interviews with President Biden's
ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer. You're in possession of those,
correct?
Attorney General Garland. Justice Department has possession
of those.
Mr. Cline. Has the White House been permitted access to
those recordings?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know what Mr. Hur
provided. But I expect that the answer is yes.
Mr. Cline. So they have access. Let me let you know--well,
maybe you're aware. How many times the Judiciary Committee has
asked for those documents or asked for those recordings?
Attorney General Garland. I know that the Judiciary
Committee has asked. We have sent a letter explaining our
position with respect to the recordings.
Mr. Cline. Three times.
Attorney General Garland. We have provided transcripts of
the recordings. Mr. Hur has testified about his observations
during his interviews. These are interviews or a witness. It is
a longstanding practice of the Justice Department to keep these
kinds of documents confidential in order to not chill future
investigations.
Mr. Cline. Confidential, but you provided copies to the
White House?
Attorney General Garland. They are the--this is the
witness. The witness is only----
Mr. Cline. Do you normally provide witnesses in
investigations access to their recordings of their interviews?
Attorney General Garland. Sometimes we do and sometimes we
don't. But here, there are--as you well know, there are
privileges to be with respect to national security and other
information that were addressed in those recordings and in the
interviews. And the transcripts themselves had to be cleared
through an interagency process. You know that because we said
that in the letter to the committee.
Mr. Cline. Okay. In my 20 seconds, I want to ask about
something you answered to Congressman Clyde. You said following
the court's rulings that IDs to vote can be an undue burden. Do
you know of an example or is there any case in which you would
consider a photo ID to not be an undue burden? Say if it's a
free ID given to everybody.
Attorney General Garland. IDs--you have a good--very good
example there. There was the case in which the Supreme Court
noted that there were free IDs completely available to everyone
without discrimination. In those circumstances, the court
upheld the law, yes.
Mr. Cline. And you agree with that decision?
Attorney General Garland. Well I follow the law and the
Supreme Court. And whether I agree or not, it's the law. And
the rule of law requires us to follow it. And that's not what
I'm talking about here.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject
to the call of the chair.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 11:16 a.m., the same day.]
Mr. Rogers. The committee will be in order. And the chair
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Ms.
DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much. A lot of hearings
happening at the same time. But I'm delighted that you're here
this morning.
And what I wanted to look at is the issue of crime, if you
will and trade. DOJ plays a critical role in deterring crime
through robust investigations, prosecutions, incarcerations,
and the application of penalties. My concern about DOJ is that
there may be some serious blind spots and lack of resources in
critical areas, particularly the U.S. International Trade
Enforcement.
Example, 2022, U.S. imports were 3.27 trillion dollars.
Conservative estimates based on available data from Economic
Policy Institute projected 5 to 10 percent of those imports
were fraudulent. This means that there's annually 163 to 327
billion dollars in illegal trade which impacts U.S. workers,
manufacturers, consumers, and our free trade partners.
I understand DOJ's infrastructure to combat trade crimes is
lightly resourced. 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
collected $19.4 million in penalties on 3.27 trillion dollars
in trade. That seems to me to be a drop in the bucket.
I understand that international trade prosecutions are also
low to nonexistent. A couple questions, can you give us a sense
of DOJ resources you are using to prosecute these bad actors
associated with crimes and violate trade laws? How do you work
with CBP and HSI to increase the number of prosecutions?
Would you say based on DHS enforcement data that combating
international trade crime is a priority within DOJ? Why or why
not? And how familiar are you with DOJ's efforts in resources
dedicated to investigating and prosecuting international trade
crimes? What's your assessment of the department's actions,
including the number of prosecutions and penalties? Thank you.
Attorney General Garland. You put your finger on an
important risk to our economy which is fraudulent trade goods.
That's why we have a trade fraud task force which enhances
collaboration between the Justice Department and the other
agencies that you were discussing to investigate trade fraud.
It helped initiate more than 70 investigations involving
hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulently imported goods.
One good example is just last month, the Ford Motor Company
agreed to pay 365 million dollars to settle customs civil
penalty claims related to misclassified and undervalued items.
So I recognize the significance of this for our economy. And I
believe our Justice Department task force is working well with
other departments on this matter, including the Department of
Homeland Security.
Ms. DeLauro. Do you have enough personnel to take on this
issue and resources in a more robust way? I said 3.27 trillion
dollars. We collect 19.4 million. That seems be some great
disparity. And I'm just asking.
Attorney General Garland. No, no.
Ms. DeLauro. What do you need from us to be able to deal
with this area on international trade where we're getting
killed?
Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department would
always like more money.
Ms. DeLauro. I understand that. But we need an assessment.
Attorney General Garland. Yeah, I think that the money that
we're requesting for our civil divisions, Consumer Protection
Branch which deals with this kind of fraud, and our criminal
division's fraud section which deals with this on the criminal
side, and the U.S. Attorneys' offices that deal with this in
each of the 94 districts, and the FBI's corporate crime and
fraud sections, given the budget priorities, I think we're
asking for the appropriate amount. There's obviously always
tradeoffs. But we are, I think, able to fund a robust program.
The most difficult aspect of this, of course, is
identifying the fraudulent goods as they come in. And that
really is a customs and therefore a Homeland Security issue.
And they, I'm sure, would say the same to you, that they need
more money for this purpose.
Ms. DeLauro. I'd like to pursue that. I'm just going to say
something very quickly and I'm running out of time. As you
know, Anti-Trust received--this is the Anti-Trust Division--
roughly a 4 percent increase in 2024 over the prior year.
I want to ensure that we can continue to justify these
critical investments, protect consumers from unfair and anti-
competitive business practices. Do I have your commitment that
we can work together? I would like to work with you and with my
staff on answering questions that we have on what resources the
Anti-Trust Division. And frankly, this could apply to all of
DOJ that you will need for 2025.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, of course. We're very eager
to speak with you about that. The total we've requested is 288
million dollars which is an increase of 55 million dollars over
the enacted FY 2024.
I will say I have always been concerned about this. I
entered the Justice Department in 1979. And we barely have more
attorneys in the Antitrust Division now that we had in 1979. I
think this is the first year we've been able to bring the
number up to the number of attorneys we had when I first
entered the department.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, we'd like to work with you on how well
we can track the resources that are necessary for you to be
able to do your job. And as a final comment, I'm very, very
interested, lastly, to listen to the FTC Commissioner about
working together with DOJ because we have serious issues which
affect consolidation which raises prices and essentially makes
anti-competitiveness a reality and how between DOJ and the FTC
we can address these issues in a very, very robust, strong way
to get at ending these monopolies, if you will, that only
increase prices for the American people. Thank you very much. I
yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Chairman Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. General Garland, good to have you
here. Thanks for your time. I want to focus on something I
don't think we've--any questions have been so far and that's on
the Bureau of Prisons.
And I understand according the Bureau of Prisons website,
there are less than 35,000 employees to ensure the security of
all the federal prisons and services that include 156,000
federal inmates. What steps is the Bureau of Prisons taking to
address gaps in correctional officer and training--and leader
training? And is there a reason that the Bureau of Prisons
correctional leaders have not participated in the prison
fellowship warden exchange which is offered without cost to the
federal government?
Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. I don't know about the
latter question that you asked. But I'd be happy to have our
staff look into it on the warden training and get in touch with
you.
The pandemic delayed Bureau of Prisons' ability to provide
in-person training. But BOP has since resumed many in-person
training and is trying to clear the backlog in that respect.
You are right with respect to the number of employees we have
in the Bureau of Prisons. It's really not sufficient.
It's not sufficient either for the necessary protection, or
for the educational programs that we have. And as I discussed
earlier with a member of the panel, the problem here is
recruitment, retention, and promotion. And the best I think
that the--the most important thing that the committee can do is
to give us the money that we're asking for, for hiring and
retention incentives.
Mr. Aderholt. Do you know of any law or regulation that
prevents or limits the Bureau of Prisons from accepting
donations or services or programs from a nonprofit, as long as
they don't accept federal funds?
Attorney General Garland. I'm afraid I don't know about
that, but I would be happy to have our staff look into that and
get back to your staff.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. If you could look at it and see if
there are examples where their community or faith-based
programs could be helpful? My understanding is that, as long as
they don't receive federal funds, then there are programs out
there to be of assistance. And I would appreciate you looking
into that and letting me know if that is something that might
be possible. Because I think it is real, it could be real
helpful.
Of course, back on October 7 of last year, we all know what
happened, and along with the attack on Israel, there were 30
Americans that were killed by Hamas terrorists in Israel, as
part of a larger coordinated attack that left 1200 Israelis
dead and over 200 abducted. And it is my understanding that
eight Americans remain hostage in Gaza, I understand three of
whom are no longer alive.
But you announced that the Justice Department was
investigating the death and the kidnappings of the Americans
during the attack. Can you give us here on the subcommittee an
update on the investigation into the death and kidnapping of
those Americans? And is the Justice Department looking to
pursue criminal charges against individuals responsible for
those attacks?
Attorney General Garland. So the killing or kidnapping of
Americans abroad is a federal crime. So, of course, that is
what we are investigating, as I said, for potential criminal
prosecution.
We have been involved in discussions with Israeli law
enforcement and intelligence services to help us get evidence
and information in this regard. I really can't say anything
more about the progress of the investigation, but this is a
matter of extreme concern for us. This was, in addition, of
course, to the killing of Americans, this is the largest mass
killing of Jews since the Holocaust.
Mr. Aderholt. Can you say that you all, that the Department
is pursuing criminal charges against these individuals?
Attorney General Garland. We're investigating that. We're
investigating. We have a criminal investigation in connection
with the deaths and kidnapping of Americans in Israel on
October 7, yes.
Mr. Aderholt. Can you speak more broadly to the
Department's work in investigating Hamas threats to the United
States, including efforts by Hamas to raise money in the United
States?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So just at a high level of
generality--because I don't want to talk about matters that I
can't talk about in an open session--but we do have
investigations, financial investigations, with respect to
Hamas, which we have had for a number of years.
October 7, as the FBI Director noted in his testimony, has
raised our threat level considerably with respect to concerns
of foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas that might foment
problems in the United States. That includes not only Hamas,
but Hezbollah, the Iranian Quds Force, ISIS, ISIS-K, various
sects of, branches of Al Qaeda.
We are concerned and are making sure that all of our joint
terrorism task forces are on the lookout for these matters
since October 7. There was a heightened concern before October
7, but, obviously, October 7 has only redoubled our concern
here.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I yield back.
Attorney General Garland. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member.
Attorney General Garland, the first thing I do want to say,
I think that you are doing a good job. I wouldn't say it is
always an A, as you said, because we have to watch giving
ourselves an A, but you are close. And I like your experience
in justice as a jurist and you excelled there, and now, as
running the FBI. So I feel secure at this point that you are
the best person for that job.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. With that, I'm going to get into China
and cybersecurity. The Chinese Communist Party has an army of
hackers that persistently attack the United States. They stay
dormant and keep access to our networks and critical
infrastructure. The Chinese Communist Party uses these hackers
to steal economic information and intellectual property. We
also know that the Chinese Party has been working to steal and
smuggle banned U.S. tech from our shores into mainland China.
They are our biggest threat and adversary.
This past March, the unsealed indictment of the APT31
group, which you are familiar with, revealed a 14-year cyber
campaign for intimate dissenters to steal U.S. trade and
intellectual property to damage critical networks and spy on
U.S. politicians. That's 14 years.
Now, a recent intelligence advisory stated that these
hackers, known as Volt Typhoon, have been dormant for five
years, waiting just in case we are in a larger conflict with
China. China is a real threat.
Can you enlighten us as to the best tools we have to fight
Chinese hackers? What other resources do you need, and did our
fiscal year 2024 budget put the Department in too deep of a
security hole?
Attorney General Garland. Well, first of all, I completely
agree with your characterization of the Chinese threat. The
People's Republic of China, the communist party, the government
of China, represents a long-term, persistent, across-the-board
threat to America, in particular, in the area of cybersecurity
that you're talking about.
The two major actions you are talking about just from this
year, the January Volt Typhoon disruption, this was a botnet
that was implanting malware into our infrastructure in very
significant parts of our delivery of public services, which, if
activated, could have been very dangerous for us. The March APT
indictments involved the hacking of computers and emails. And
those are just two examples of a considerable amount of cyber
hacking.
So we have asked for more than $1.3 billion to combat cyber
crime and for cybersecurity. The FBI, the National Security
Division, have asked for $894.6 million, which is an increase
of 11.9 percent over fiscal year 2024.
As you know, fiscal year 2024, the fiscal year 2024 budget
has required us to reduce positions substantially, and we are
in a position of trying to get us back to where we were before
that. But this is an area where we are doubling down and are
very much concerned.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
Now, I want to get to the Key Bridge, just a quick
question. I know the FBI has been onsite at the bridge. And
there are a lot of questions that need to be answered about
what happened, like did the captain and crew of the DALI know
that there were power issues before the ship ever left? A
criminal investigation is usually opened when authorities have
reason to believe negligence may have caused an accident to
rise to the level of criminality. We need to make sure we hold
people accountable.
Attorney General, is there anything you could share about
the investigation?
Attorney General Garland. So as you know, Congressman, the
Justice Department doesn't normally comment on whether
investigations exist or not, but plenty of people saw FBI
agents onboard the ship. So the FBI has confirmed that its
agents were on the ship. I can't really say anything more.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Garland, welcome back.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Mr. Ellzey. I appreciate the work the DOJ does going after
legitimate criminals and protecting American citizens from
foreign adversaries, and especially the COPS program, which is
very important in my rural district, as we discussed a year
ago.
But today, I would like to talk about the Foreign Agents
Registration Act, or FARA. I bring up FARA in the context of
shenanigans--that is a clinical term--going on in Texas. Now,
there is a proposed high-speed rail project connecting Dallas
to Houston. About a decade ago, a private company called Texas
Central started pushing a proposed high-speed rail project
between Houston and Dallas, and they have been engaged at the
federal, state, and local level in lobbying in that effort.
I am vehemently opposed to this proposed project that would
cut up highly arable land in my district and rid people of
their well-earned land and their private property.
So there's a long list of controversies surrounding Texas
Central--from funding and financing, eminent domain, lack of
transparency, dismissing every officer and board member, and
now, they appear to be merely a company on paper with no board
of directors. And as an aside, Texas Central has zero
experience operating or building any type of transportation
company.
There are a few entities connected to or under Texas
Central, and there is a consulting company called New Magellan
Ventures that is pushing the project. Since the beginning of
the project, sovereign wealth funds of the Japanese government
are financially backing that high-speed rail proposal.
A very concerning recent action was Amtrak's partnering
with Texas Central in applying for a fiscal year 2022 Corridor
Identification and Development Grant, and a $500,000 grant was
approved.
On April 9, there was a news article published about Texas
Central and a letter dated April 5th addressed to you, signed
by Steve Roberts from Holtzman Vogel law firm. It states that
Mr. Roberts was hired by Texans Against High-Speed Rail and
wrote it on behalf of Texans Against High-Speed Rail.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have that letter, and I ask for
unanimous consent that this article and letter be introduced
into the record.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Mr. Ellzey. I will read part of the letter to you that I
think captures the concerns that I have.
``Texas Central appears to have acted, and may still act,
as an agent of the Japanese government with regard to numerous
political activities intended to influence both lawmakers and
the public within the United States with reference to
formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic policies of the
United States. Yet, neither New Magellan Ventures, nor any of
the Texas Central entities or their representatives, have ever
registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938.''
So with that laid out for you, I have two questions.
Do you agree that it would be concerning if a private
company or principals of a private company over the course of a
decade failed to register as foreign agents under FARA if the
facts are clear that they were legally required to?
Attorney General Garland. Well, if you put me in that exact
box, the answer has to be yes. I, obviously, don't know
anything about this matter at all.
Mr. Ellzey. Fair enough.
Attorney General Garland. But, obviously, if someone is
required to register under FARA, then we would be concerned if
they don't.
Mr. Ellzey. As I said, I'm not surprised that you haven't
heard of this, but it is important in our district. And so I'm
going to the big man on campus to ask those questions.
The final question is--I will wrap it up--if a private
company whose principals fail to register as foreign agents,
when the facts are clear that they were required to do so,
enters into a partnership with the federal government, would
that concern you, as the chief law enforcement officer of the
United States, and would that cause you to question whether the
federal government is properly using taxpayer dollars?
Attorney General Garland. This is less of a clean
hypothetical than the previous one. I'd have to know a lot more
about the facts before I could make a determination on----
Mr. Ellzey. But if those were the facts, hypothetically----
Attorney General Garland. Well, that description was a
little--even with those facts, it is still a little more vague
than makes clear. FARA is a complicated statute. We would
always be concerned about an effort by a foreign government to
try to influence the government of the United States. If I can
put it at that level of generality, that's clearly true.
Mr. Ellzey. And, you know, I understand that, and you,
obviously, have to be somewhat obtuse about that.
And so to summarize----
Attorney General Garland. I would rather have circumspect
if----
Mr. Ellzey. Okay. In Texas, there is a so-called private
company that has no board of directors that has now gotten
eminent domain from the State of Texas to take private
citizens' land and gotten a grant from Amtrak to take people's
land and build a project that currently doesn't exist, and they
haven't registered--on behalf of a foreign government--and they
haven't registered as federal agents.
So thank you for your time.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cartwright.
Thank you, Attorney General Garland.
I wanted to ask about a bill of mine that was signed into
law in 2021, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, which directs the
Attorney General to provide guidance to state and local law
enforcement agencies to bolster reporting of hate crimes. I was
glad to see that the President's Budget Request for fiscal year
2025 requests $10 million for Community-Based Approaches To
Prevent and Address Hate Crimes, a grant program that I
authored in fiscal year 2022.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your
leadership in responding to violent crime, and specifically,
hate crimes in the United States in the last several years. It
means a great deal to Asian Americans and so many historically
underserved communities to have a President and an Attorney
General who cares deeply about these issues.
I wanted to ask a question that I also asked FBI Director
Christopher Wray in last week's hearing. I'm concerned by the
trend of a decrease in the number of local law enforcement
agencies providing the FBI with incident data. This is the
fifth year in a row that the number of local agencies providing
data to the FBI has declined. I know that the decline may
partially be due to the transition that agencies are making to
the NIBRS system.
But what additional resources does the DOJ need to support
local and state law enforcement agencies using NIBRS? And I
would like to also hear more from you about other ways that the
DOJ is actively working to support local law enforcement
agencies in reporting hate crimes.
Attorney General Garland. Well, thank you for the question,
and this is a high priority for us. I do think that, as the FBI
Director suggested, that much of the problem is just a
transition problem from one form of statistical compilation to
another.
But, of course, all of our information has to come from
state and local communities. And so what we have to do is reach
out to them constantly to ensure that they are providing the
numbers.
The FBI and our Office of Justice Programs in the Bureau of
Justice Assistance have sort of identified the places that have
been less compliant than they should be, and I'm trying to
reach out to encourage that level of compliance.
I think the money we have in the budget is sufficient for
those kind of reachout programs, but we won't be satisfied
until all the crimes are reported.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
And just a follow-up. As you have said, State and local law
enforcement agencies play a crucial role in the nationwide
response to hate crimes, but I also want to make sure to ask
about how the DOJ works with community-based organizations,
which also have a crucial part in building up community
resilience and preventing future hate crimes. Can you talk
about how the DOJ is coordinating with both law enforcement and
local organizations to respond to hate crimes?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So each of our U.S.
Attorneys' Offices has a Civil Rights and Hate Crimes
Coordinator, and each of the U.S. Attorneys has been instructed
to reach out to the communities to have discussions well in
advance of any crisis occurring. You know, our strategy here is
to develop trust within communities before something bad
things. So that, if something bad happens, the community trusts
law enforcement--these are joint meetings of the U.S.
Attorneys' Offices and our various law enforcement components.
As I know you know well, we have a United Against Hate
Campaign that the U.S. Attorneys' Offices are implementing and
have been implementing for the past couple of years to reach
out to communities in just the way that you said. So that
federal law enforcement, State and local law enforcement, and
communities can cooperate and work together.
I have attended one of those meetings in Denver, and I have
attended a couple of other meetings of community outreach in
other places, including in St. Louis.
Ms. Meng. Thank you so much.
And I will quickly ask about, another question about the
aftermath of the China Initiative. As we all know, in February
2022, the end of the China Initiative was announced.
Previously, an unacceptably high number of these cases ended in
dropped charges, dismissals, and acquittals because prosecutors
could not prove allegations.
Chinese American researchers and scholars who made valuable
contributions in so many fields in this country for decades
reported feeling targeted by a racial profiling campaign. I
want to be clear, as a member of this subcommittee, I am fully
supportive of the DOJ's real and necessary work to combat
espionage by adversarial governments.
But I just want to make sure, how does the DOJ ensure that
agents working on these investigations, No. 1, avoid wasteful
investigations into legitimate academic research? And second,
how is the DOJ also educating the institutions themselves and
the public about the real national security threats and how
they can best defend themselves and our country from these
threats?
Attorney General Garland. So as you pointed out, we now
have a consolidated section in the National Security Division
to address the threats posed by the People's Republic of China,
Russia, North Korea, and Iran, focusing our attention on all
the myriad ways in which these adversaries attempt to either
attack us from a cyber point of view; prevent--present efforts
to harass dissidents in the United States; steal our personal
identifying information and our technology.
So to take that latter part of your question first, that is
the way in which we are doing that. And then, each U.S.
Attorney's Office has a National Security Coordinator and the
FBI has Joint Terrorism Task Forces in each of its 54
districts.
As to the more general question, we have a robust review
process. All national security cases have to touch base with
the National Security Division, which can review to ensure that
the principles of federal prosecution, which determine which
kinds of prosecution should be brought and which kinds
shouldn't, are done.
I want to emphasize that we do not prosecute based on the
ethnicity of any person. We are only looking to prosecute
people who are working for our adversaries in an effort to
injure the United States. But that is not in any way a part of
the ethnicity of people in the United States.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
That concludes the first round of questions. I know the
General needs to be through here by 12 noon. So we have a few
minutes to go.
Is there a desire by members for a second round? Two down
here.
All right. General, if that is agreeable with you.
Attorney General Garland. I'm happy to be here for the
questions, of course.
Mr. Rogers. We will get you out of here by noon.
Attorney General Garland. Excellent. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Garcia, do you desire time?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Three minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
And, Attorney General, I want to follow up on the
assertions made by my colleagues from Pennsylvania and New York
that I was engaging in personal attacks. I take great pride,
and frankly, great caution, in making sure I don't engage in
personal attacks in these hearings.
I want you to know that my assessment of you, as appalled
and shocked as I was of you giving yourself an A, was not meant
to be a personal attack. It was a professional one. As my
chemistry teacher who gave me an F on my midterm at the Naval
Academy told me, ``This is to help you get better.'' So I do
that in the interest of accountability and frank and objective
assessments, not personal attacks. I know someone of your
caliber was not personally offended by that, and I'm happy to
have conversations offline.
I want to follow up on Mr. Cline's conversation around the
Hur report. First of all, in your written testimony, on page 3,
you say, ``There is not one set of laws for the powerful and
another for the powerless; one for rich, another for poor; one
for Democrats, one for Republicans; or different rules
depending upon one's race or ethnicity or religion.''
You would say that that is probably true for age, right?
Anyone over the age of 18, regardless, unless there is a
cognitive impairment, should be treated the same, and there is
one set of laws, regardless of age?
Attorney General Garland. Without addressing the hidden
premise behind your question, I'm just going to say there is
one tier or standard of justice. We prosecute under the federal
principles of prosecution, and we do not distinguish based on
politics, based on ethnicity, or based on ideology, based on
race, or any non-meritorious factor.
Mr. Garcia. Or seniors who are a protected class in the
workplace, obviously, as well, anyone over the age of a
certain--I think it is 55 or 65.
You also, in your testimony, your verbal testimony, say you
have no doubt that there is no cognitive impairment of the
President. You said the Hur report speaks for itself, ``and I
have complete confidence in the President'' of the United
States.
And so my question is--and I sit on the Intel Committee, so
I have seen the classified documents and I'm aware of the
nature of at least some of these documents. They are of the
highest level of national security intelligence and they are
extremely relevant, even today, these documents that were found
in the garage of President Biden.
And so if it is not a cognitive impairment problem, if he
is competent, and you are confident in that, why is he not
being charged for--and in his testimony, or in his Special
Counsel report, Hur said, ``He willfully detained and disclosed
sensitive classified information.'' So what is the explanation
for not charging President Biden for mishandling of classified
documents?
Attorney General Garland. I will address both questions
again. I have complete confidence in the President in every
possible respect.
On the question of why there were no charges, Mr. Hur
described in detail in his report his explanation for why he
decided not to bring them. He was subject to some five hours of
testimony, and that is something----
Mr. Garcia. But you disagree with the foundational premise
of his assertions, which is the rationale was that he was
cognitively incapable of understanding what he was doing; he
was too old to face charges. And you disagree with that
premise, right?
Attorney General Garland. I'm going to say two things.
First, that is not at all what Mr. Hur said, and I urge
everyone to read again what he said. He did not say anything
like that.
But second, Mr. Hur described his explanation for why not
to bring the case, bring this case, and he distinguished other
cases involving classified information where charges were
brought. And I just refer you to that.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. I will go reread it and will submit
questions for the record.
Mr. Garcia. I believe my time is up. Thank you, Attorney
General.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General, in 2023, the CDC reported that over a
recent 12-month period more than 112,000 Americans died as a
result of drug overdoses or poisonings, and we have touched on
that subject earlier in this hearing.
DEA was one of the few agencies that saw a funding increase
in fiscal year 2024. And the work that the Administrator is
doing, especially with the U.S. Attorneys, to go after the
cartels and the entire network, is critically important to
stemming the flow of illicit fentanyl into our communities, but
enforcement is only part of the solution. We also have to have
recovery and rehabilitation tools for those with substance
abuse disorders as well.
You talk a little bit about the Comprehensive Addiction and
Recovery Act Grants, especially the drug courts and the
veterans' treatment centers.
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So you are quite right that
our ability to eliminate drug trafficking and to protect the
country includes our concerns about the people who are the
victims of drug trafficking and the need, of course, to reduce
the demand for these poisons in our country.
So we have asked for more than $490 million in counterdrug-
related Office of Justice program grants. These include, in
particular, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act
grants, for which we are requesting $443 million, which is a
$23 million addition over the enacted. Those include the
Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program,
the so-called COSSUP program; the mental health and residential
substance use treatment; our drug courts, the drugs courts,
which we are asking for $94 million; the veterans' treatments
courts, for which we are asking for $33 million, as well as for
prescription drug monitoring to ensure that this doesn't get
out of hand again.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
And can you give me a sense as to whether you are seeing
increases in applications for these important programs you have
just touched on?
Attorney General Garland. I would say that there is always
more applications than we have money to give out. That is
definitely the case.
Mr. Cartwright. And in what other ways does your
Department's fiscal year 20025 budget request seek to address
this terrible problem?
Attorney General Garland. Well, again, on the overdose and
addiction side, those are the principal issues. On the
trafficking side, which is, unfortunately, what causes in the
end these problems, we are asking for $10.7 billion for all of
our law enforcement agents and U.S. Attorneys to respond to
this problem. That is a 5.1 percent increase over enacted
fiscal year 2024.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Attorney General Garland, and
thank you for being here today.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Garland, my colleague Congressman Chip Roy
has twice requested a copy of the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act prosecution data. He first asked for it in
October 2022, and then, again, two months ago on February 16.
He has yet to receive this data.
And my question to you is, when will this data be provided
by the Department of Justice?
Attorney General Garland. I don't know, specifically, about
the request, but, like the other requests you asked about, I'm
very happy to look into this. And criminal----
Mr. Clyde. And provide the data.
Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
Mr. Clyde. And provide the data.
Attorney General Garland. Of course, if we have the data,
yes.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Attorney General Garland. Yes.
Mr. Clyde. In the FBI's request, fiscal year 2025 request--
excuse me. In the Department of Justice's budget, you are
requesting $437.6 million for protecting civil rights. That is
an increase from what I see here.
Under the civil rights heading in the FBI's request, it
says, ``Color of law violations are actions taken by any person
using the authority given to them by a government agency to
willfully deprive someone of a right.''
Now, since you have been Attorney General, has anyone in
the government, or otherwise, been prosecuted for a color of
law violation for denying people their Second Amendment rights?
That is a civil right.
Attorney General Garland. I understand that. I don't know
the answer to that and I have not heard that there has been
that kind of prosecution.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Well, since the SCOTUS decision
overturning the New York law, which was the New York Rifle &
Pistol Association v. Bruen, which denied New Yorkers their
constitutional rights, I would think that there would be a case
there. So I would ask the Department of Justice to look into
that because the Second Amendment is a civil right, and when
people are denied that civil right, then I think, under the
Civil Rights Division, the Department of Justice should engage.
Now also in last year's congressional hearing, I asked
about your Department's most recent congressional
authorization. Has your Department been reauthorized, or is the
most recent authorization the one that expired in fiscal year
2009?
Attorney General Garland. I will say you taught me
something about authorizations and appropriations at the last
hearing that I did not know. My understanding is that that was
the last authorization, the one you are talking about. Of
course, the Justice Department would always like to have an
authorization. My understanding is that the yearly
appropriations count as authorizations, but, of course, it
would always be better for any entity to have a formal
authorization.
Mr. Clyde. Well, we are not an authorizing committee. We
are an appropriating committee. It is the Judiciary Committee
that is the authorizing committee for the Department of
Justice.
Attorney General Garland. Oh, I understand that.
Mr. Clyde. So DOJ remains unauthorized and you are running
an unauthorized agency by the Department--or excuse me--by the
Judiciary Committee. So are you going to seek a new
congressional authorization from the Judiciary Committee?
Attorney General Garland. I haven't had those kind of
discussions. I will be happy to take that back and think about
it. Again, given the appropriations, I have been advised that
that is not required, but I will be happy to think about it
some more.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, I have written to your office in the
past about the importance of prioritizing Federal prosecutions
of firearms cases, and pleased to see the success of the Guns
Involved Violence Elimination Initiative operating in the U.S.
Attorney's Western District Office of New York.
I would like to just ask if I can follow up with staff
after the meeting to ensure we have sufficient resources to
continue the Western New York initiative.
Attorney General Garland. Yes. I can talk about a few
things in that regard, but I think you are correct that our
work in the Western District of New York is ongoing and has
been successful; and that we have the money that we need for
that purpose.
Mr. Morelle. Terrific. Thank you, sir.
And then, I will just ask one other question. Last week, I
was very pleased to see the Department finalize a new rule to
update the definition of ``engaged business,'' as a firearms
dealer. As you know, unlicensed dealers who do not conduct
background checks are the largest source of firearms that are
illegally brought into our communities. And if you could just
talk about the budgetary impact on that requirement by firearms
dealers and the ability for the Department to make sure that
that new rule is carried out?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So this is the
implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. And we
have asked for money in the ATF budget for that purpose. The
money that we have asked for should be sufficient for that rule
and for the other work that ATF does.
Mr. Morelle. Terrific.
Thank you. I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman and I have similar questions
today.
And, oh, by the way, let's work on that reauthorization. I
will send over a proposal. I may have a few changes to propose
in that reauth.
[Laughter.]
Attorney General Garland. Maybe that's a good idea for us
not to be thinking about that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cline. Given that ATF claims it can barely keep up with
the workload of inspecting the current number of licensed
dealers, what is the point of this new rule? Is it actually to
encourage firearms sellers to become licensed or to discourage
them from engaging in the constitutionally protected activity
of selling and trading in firearms at all?
Attorney General Garland. The purpose of the new rule is to
implement the definitional change brought by the Bipartisan
Safer Communities Act, which changed the definition of being
engaged in the business from ``engaged in the business for the
purpose of maintaining a livelihood'' to being ``engaged in the
business for the predominant purpose of earning a profit.''
With that change, it required regulations explaining what
that means.
Mr. Cline. Okay.
Attorney General Garland. The purpose is to prevent guns
from being sold to prohibited persons without a background
check, to be sure that a prohibited person doesn't get a gun.
That includes somebody who served time as a violent felon, for
example.
Mr. Cline. Okay. The rule also institutes a series of
rebuttable presumptions to supposedly clarify when the
licensing requirement attaches to gun sales, but these
presumptions appear nowhere in statute. To the degree that they
have any legal foundation at all, they are said to interpret
the old, not the currently existing, language on who is a
dealer.
And the rule itself estimates that tens of thousands of
firearms sellers will be required to become licensed dealers
under its terms, which would, obviously, necessitate a
significant increase in ATF oversight as well.
Did ATF coordinate with the FBI or seek their input on the
capacity of NICS, the background check system, to absorb the
additional workload this rule would create? It seems that it
would have a cascading effect on a variety of the departments
and divisions and the workload.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I believe that the
Department's regulation discusses workload impact. I don't know
the answer to that specific question you are asking, and I will
try to have somebody get back to you on that specific question.
Mr. Cline. And I would just express concern that this seems
to be an end run around the authority of Congress to set the
laws, rather than the Department, and especially when it comes
to the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens
to keep and bear arms. I think your actions are headed in the
wrong direction.
Attorney General Garland. Just to be clear, this is really
not about the second amendment in any respect. It is about
implementing Congress' statute and the prohibitions on selling
guns to people who Congress has said should not have them. It
is not about the Second Amendment otherwise.
Mr. Cline. When you keep and bear arms, you have to
purchase and sell, and that is part of keeping and bearing
arms. So I would just urge you to keep that in mind.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last year, we helped pass the Bipartisan Law Enforcement
De-Escalation Training Act, which provides $124 million in
grant funding over four years on de-escalation training for
police officers. This is going to save lives, improve police-
community relations.
Although this program is new, could you talk briefly about
its implementation and, more broadly, how DOJ's budget
prioritizes mental health and crisis stabilization?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I don't have the specifics
with respect to that program. But, as a general matter, our
COPS office and our Office of Justice Programs provides de-
escalation, money for de-escalation training. It is an
important way to protect the lives of officers and first
respondents, as well as the people who are calling for help.
You are also right in the implication of your questions,
that many of these calls involve people who are mentally ill or
have mental impairment; and that the sensitivity of respondents
to that possibility is an important element of the need for de-
escalation.
Mr. Trone. Thank you for your efforts there.
Seventy to 100 million Americans have criminal records that
appear on routine background checks, often preventing them from
getting jobs. Over the last 7 years, my company has hired about
1,400 returning citizens, which is good for business and cuts
down recidivism.
State-passed clean slate/automatic clearing records, these
type of efforts are costly and have been a barrier to
widespread adoption. What resources does DOJ need to help
support these clean slate laws?
Attorney General Garland. Well, I don't think I'm going to
be able to talk to you specifically about the clean slate laws.
You know, in the area of criminal justice reform and the
implementation of the Second Chance Act, which involves reentry
programs, we are asking for $125 million for those reentry
programs.
In addition, there is a new program called the Accelerating
Justice System Reform Grants, which is a $300 million request
for fiscal year 2025 and $15 billion over 10 years. I'm not
sure exactly whether the clean slate would fall within those.
But I will ask my staff to get back to you on which of the
grant programs go to the program you are talking about.
Mr. Trone. Yes, I would love to keep working with you.
I will ask a quick question to build on Ranking Member
DeLauro on the Antitrust Division.
Should this committee take another look at the language
that eliminates, stops you from having full access to the
merger-filing fees and locks you into that $233 million?
Attorney General Garland. Oh, I'm going to leave it to the
Members of Congress to resolve this question. The Justice
Department is in favor of the Antitrust Division getting the
full access to the fees. But, you know, in the end, the
Congress makes those determinations.
Mr. Trone. It seems like a good idea. Thank you.
Attorney General Garland. It does seem like a good idea,
yes.
Mr. Trone. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. That concludes the hearing.
Mr. Ruppersberger. May I have just, Mr. Chairman, may I
have just one quick----
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I know we are 7 years into the consent
decree with respect to Baltimore.
Attorney General Garland. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And we have reached compliance with two.
And you don't have to give that, unless you have it here right
away. But give me an update on what is left and how we are
doing. And if you could have somebody from your staff get back
to my office about that, I would appreciate it.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I can just give you a little
now and I will be happy to get more detail back to you.
So we do think that the Baltimore Police Department has
made substantial progress towards satisfying the key provisions
of the consent decree. And in January of this year, we filed a
joint motion to declare the city and the Baltimore Police
Department in full and effective compliance on three points:
the safe transportation of people in custody; officer
assistance and support, and ensuring health and well-being of
BPD employees. The court granted that motion. And now, BPD has
to sustain a record of success in these areas for one year, and
then, those provisions will be to terminate--will be
terminated.
The Department continues to work with the police department
on compliance with the other parts of the consent decree. In
particular, these include use of force, use of lethal force,
use of force, stops, seizures, and arrests. But this is good
progress.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes. Well, thank you, sir. You don't
have to get back to me.
Mr. Rogers. That concludes today's hearing.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. I want to thank our witness, Attorney General
Garland, for being very generous with his time and being open
and frank in his testimony.
Without objection, members may have 7 days to submit
additional questions for the record.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Wednesday, April 17, 2024.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WITNESS

HON. BILL NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Rogers. Without objection, the chair is authorized to
declare a recess at any time.
Senator Nelson, good to see you again. We welcome your
testimony regarding NASA's fiscal year 2025 budget request. The
Biden administration is asking $25.4 billion for NASA. It is a
roughly 2 percent increase over fiscal 2024.
Funding NASA is critical to getting back to the moon,
advancing our scientific understanding, and driving innovation,
however we remain accountable to the taxpayer. And with the
national debt skyrocketing, it is critical that NASA remain
focused on its core mission.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration founded
in 1958 in response to the so-called space race with the Soviet
Union to land the first man on the moon. Today we find
ourselves in yet another space race, this time with China.
China has made aggressive investments in both deep space
exploration and low-Earth orbit. NASA's funding is critical to
making sure the United States remains the international leader
in space.
Recently Morehead State University in my district and their
staff stepped up to help NASA during the Odysseus robotic moon
landing, the first ever private spacecraft to land on the moon.
Working with NASA, Morehead State was able to assist with
establishing a command bridge to overcome communication line
issue after challenges in the landing process. I have reached
the limit of my intellectual capacity thereby.
And Senator Nelson, one of our former House colleagues and
then later the Senate, for taking on this challenging job he is
in. But you accurately described it to me earlier saying that
Morehead State University was the savior of this historic
mission. That is quite remarkable.
We are fortunate to have with us in the audience today Dr.
Ben Malphrus who led this effort at Morehead State.
Doctor, stand up for us. Thank you for your work.
[Applause.]
Mr. Rogers. This amazing story is just one example of the
important work Morehead State is doing in a part of the country
not traditionally known for space innovation. I am so proud of
the incredible work being done at Morehead State University to
build the next generation of the space workforce to ensure the
United States remains the global leader in space.
Many of NASA's missions are important for our country's
international leadership, economic success, and scientific
advancement, however it is the duty of this subcommittee to
ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and to continue
to thoroughly examine spending levels, as we did in fiscal
2024. Given the current spending environment I want to urge
NASA to continue to innovate through partnerships to reduce
costs while not sacrificing mission advancements. NASA has set
forth an ambitious but important agenda and we look forward to
hearing more about it today.
So thank you, Bill Nelson, for joining us today.
Let me recognize Ranking Member Cartwright for any remarks
he may wish to make.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Senator Nelson, for joining us again and all
the work you do to lead our very proud NASA Program.
NASA continues to be respected throughout the United States
and the world as a leader in advancing our knowledge of the
Earth, solar system, the wider universe, as well as in
advancing human space exploration, developing new technologies
with wide applications, and helping to establish more fuel-
efficient and environmentally-friendly aviation, among other
things.
But it is an inspiration of young people that go into
science, technology, engineering, and math. That is where the
real value of NASA is. And you can tell young people are
inspired when they wear those ugly NASA tee-shirts, right? It
is not fashion they are after; it is inspiration.
I hope that NASA will continue to inspire young Americans
and pursue--get them to pursue STEM-related careers because it
is from STEM-related careers that we create wealth in this
country. It has always been that way. You look at the Fortune
500 list of corporations. The ones crowding the top weren't
even around a couple of generations ago because they are based
on some scientific or technological breakthrough and that
created wealth and things like NASA inspire young people to go
into STEM.
I am also proud--I am going to--sure, we can talk about
Morehead State all you want, but there is the University of
Scranton to talk about here, too, Mr. Chairman. I am proud that
Dr. Nathaniel Frissell of the University of Scranton was
selected by NASA to lead a citizens' science investigation for
the study of this month's solar eclipse. He and several of his
students along with an international network of A.M. radio
operators researched changes in the Earth's ionosphere during
the eclipse including how the sudden loss of sunlight during
totality affects radio signals.
In my time on this subcommittee NASA has moved from
strength to strength. And under your tenure, Senator Nelson, I
mean, the things that we have pulled off: flying Ingenuity on
the surface of Mars, a helicopter powered by a battery in an 1
percent atmosphere. Nobody thought we could do that. NASA did
it.
Opening up the James Webb Space Telescope. It had to
perform 340 separate operations, each one of them perfectly in
order to open up and start operating and transmitting. There
were amazing images that we got. It did. If one of those
operations hadn't gone off correctly, it would have been space
junk a million miles away, really expensive space junk. But it
worked. And it has been working. And the list goes on and on.
Includes the Mars Perseverance Rover, OSIRIS-REx mission, that
returned an asteroid sample to Earth last year, among many
other missions.
NASA also continues its work on a number of critical Earth
science programs aimed at advancing our understanding of the
Earth and providing key information to guide efforts to tackle
the climate crisis and mitigate natural hazards. In addition,
NASA's Aeronautics Research Program continues to be critical to
advancing the Biden administration's goal of reaching net zero
carbon emissions from the aviation sector by no later than
2050. And again, it is technological advances, engineering and
science breakthroughs that are going to help get us there.
I look forward to hearing more today from the administrator
about NASA's plans to manage, in a cost-effective manner, these
many critical missions and programs.
With that, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Cartwright.
Senator Nelson, you are recognized for an opening
statement. Without objection, your written statement will be
inserted in the record.
I would ask you to keep your statement hopefully to 5
minutes or less so we can have additional time for questions.
You are recognized.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, I will keep it to 5 minutes. There
is so much to talk about. I can hardly say my name in 5
minutes, but let me just come in on what you have already
noted, the position of Morehead State.
This is exemplary of the can-do attitude in the NASA
community because the Ingenuity Lander came down on the south--
in the south pole region of the moon and apparently one of its
legs hit a rock and it tipped over. The antenna that is
supposed to be pointed at Earth is now pointed in an opposite
direction. Although they got enough telemetry to know that it
was alive, all the experiments on this lander, they couldn't
get the data.
We are trying to find out who it is so we can give special
recognition--it may have been somebody at JPL, Congressman
Garcia. I just don't know at this point, but I am going to find
out. They figured that Morehead State, who has the antennas
that were communicating, since this was a commercial lander, it
had six NASA experiments on it, one of which by the way was the
way that it was able to land. It was a LIDAR which is like a
RADAR. As it is circling the moon, the LIDAR on the lander is
on the blink. They figured out quickly to patch through to the
NASA experiment LIDAR, and they were enabling them to land, but
it tipped over because it hit a rock. Some very smart person
figures out Morehead State has the ability to communicate
commercially, but Morehead State also has the ability to
communicate with government missions through the Deep Space
Network. That is our Deep Space Network. They figured out how
to do a patch, so that in our big dishes we could put enough
throw weight in the message and could receive as well. Every
experiment, both commercial and NASA, all were able to receive
the information.
Again, it is symbolic of how commercial and government can
work together. It is a part of what we are doing. We are going
back to the Moon, this time with commercial partners and with
international partners. The CLPS Program, of which Intuitive
Machines was one, is a commercial lander. NASA gives them seed
money and then they go out and build a manifest and get clients
on their lander. It becomes a business enterprise and, by the
way, going to the south pole we had six NASA instruments on
there.
This is symptomatic of the changes in our Space Program
from a half a century ago when we went to the Moon, but we went
as the government program. We are going in a different way. A
lot of the things that you all will ask about and talk about
today will have that theme running through it.
I am within the 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. I will just stop
there.
[The prepared statement follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Mr. Rogers. I appreciate the director's recognition of
Morehead State, which is in a small Appalachian community. And
the director was generous with his time recently by visiting
Dr. Malphrus and the Space Science Department at Morehead
State. They now have their own department. You can get a degree
in space science at Morehead State. And so they are attracting
businesses now to come to be near that campus just for that
reason.
So thank you so much, Mr. Director. You were very generous
with your remarks about Morehead State.
We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions
for the witness, and I will begin by recognizing myself.
Well, we are into a new space race in my judgment, this
time for a sustained presence on the Moon as the gateway to the
exploration of Mars and beyond. China has made very significant
investments in its space program. Mr. Director, can you provide
some specific examples of investments NASA is proposing in your
2025 budget request to maintain the U.S. edge over China in
space?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. We intend to land humans first on the
Moon. We are going back to a different part of the Moon. Last
time it was the equatorial part of the Moon. We are going to
the south pole of the Moon for a different reason. We are going
back to the Moon for a different reason. We don't need to go to
the Moon just to go to the Moon. We did that a half century
ago. We are going to the Moon this time to learn, to live, to
invent, to create how we can exist in that hostile environment
so that we can go to Mars.
We are going to the south pole, because we think that there
is water there. We know there is ice in the crevices. If this
is the Moon and this is the south pole of the Moon, the
sunlight comes in at an angle. Any kind of indention is
permanently shadowed. The Moon doesn't revolve. We have seen in
those permanently shadowed crevices ice. If there is ice--we
are sending a couple of those landers; by the way, those
commercial landers, the remainder of this year and they are
going to dig and see if there is ice. If there is ice, water,
there is hydrogen and oxygen, we got a gas station.
Your question is about a competition with China. China has
made extraordinary strides, especially in last 10 years, but
they are very, very secretive. We believe that a lot of their
so-called Civilian Space Program is a military program. I think
in fact we are in a race. China, for example, has said, and
they usually telegraph what they are going to do. Their latest
date that they have said that they are going to land is 2030,
but that keeps moving up.
I think it is incumbent on us to get there first and to
utilize our research efforts for peaceful purposes. We now have
upwards of 40 nations that have signed the Artemis Accords,
which is a commonsense set of declarations of the peaceful uses
of outer space.
My concern would be if China got there first and suddenly
said, okay, this is our territory, you stay out. That is not a
peaceful use. There is--obviously you don't want to interfere
with each other, but don't go in and declare that this whole
territory is suddenly yours. By the way, anybody that doubts
that, look what China has done in the South China Sea with the
Spratly Islands. That is a quick answer to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Well, those accords have brought
countries all over the world together to have an important
conversation about the future of space exploration.
What role does NASA play in the current geopolitical
environment that we are in, particularly as China continues to
advance both its military and civilian space activities? What
is at stake internationally if America loses its edge as the
global leader of space exploration?
Mr. Nelson. We are not going to lose that global edge, but
you have to be realistic that China has really thrown a lot of
money at it. They have a lot of room in their budget to grow.
Their science is good. Their engineering is good. The proof is
in the pudding. They now have a Space Station up there. It has
three elements. They usually have three taikonauts, which is
what they call the Chinese astronauts. I think that we just
better not let down our guard.
Now, you know we have utilized NASA because of the
fascination with space around the globe. NASA is usually
welcomed in most countries and we have gladly reached out to
other countries with not only good will, but a lot of practical
things that we can do to help other countries.
It is not just necessarily in space. It may be our assets
in space that are looking at the Earth. For example, we can
look at a farmer's field and we can tell what the moisture
content is there, we can predict floods, we can predict
droughts, and we can look at a forest and determine if there is
disease in the forest. We are looking from space, and
therefore, that forest is subject to fire because it's diseased
trees. We have gotten involved with regard to the wildfires, of
being able to try to head those off by giving the cautionary
note to the fire service.
There is a lot that we are doing. I would hope that China,
the Chinese space program would come to its senses and
understand that civilian space is for peaceful uses, but we
have not seen that demonstrated by China.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Senator Nelson, you just mentioned something that I
wanted to ask you about. I think all of us remember last year
we sent the better part of week trying to breathe smoky air on
the East Coast of the United States. God bless them, they are
kind of used to that in California and parts in the West. We
weren't used to that. And we found out it came from Canada. It
came from Quebec wildfires. And that is new.
Now you just touched on that about wildfires. The NASA
budget submission for fiscal year 2025 includes an increase in
Earth science, and I would like you to talk about this effort,
in particular with the Earth science budget, something a lot of
people not--might not immediately think of when they think of
NASA. And that is this Wildland Fires project in cooperation
with other federal agencies. Could you explain for us how you
anticipate this effort from NASA's Earth Science Division can
help communities all across the country, and indeed North
America, better prepare for and respond to wildfires?
Mr. Nelson. This request is a mere $20.4 million for the
Wildland Fires project which supports what you just said,
congressman, the improved prediction, management, and
mitigation of overall impacts of wildfires. That is not only
within the U.S., that is around the world as well.
Mr. Cartwright. And how does that happen? I mean, you
mentioned it detects diseased trees.
Mr. Nelson. Exactly. Also our improved ability to predict
the weather. You think of the weather as the National Weather
Service, NOAA. We design, build, and launch those spacecraft
that NOAA utilizes, but we also have ours that look at
different things. We can, even from space, look at a desert and
we can tell you if there is water underneath the sand. We have
a project, a joint project with USAID, for example, called
SERVIR, that we give the data for farmers to help them, and
then USAID implements that in developing countries.
Mr. Cartwright. We can even detect if there are methane
leaks from space, can't we?
Mr. Nelson. It is unbelievable. We have a spacecraft we put
up a year ago, and it was to look at dust storms, and lo and
behold, one of the byproducts of it, it can detect methane
emissions. We have been able to go to industries that didn't
even know they were emitting methane, and they are happy to
receive that information so that they can stop the emissions.
Mr. Cartwright. Because leaking methane was losing money
for them.
Well, let me shift subjects for a moment. NASA's request
for aeronautics research highlights an effort to reduce non-
CO2 greenhouse gas emissions noting that with
increased scientific and engineering focus this research could
eventually lead to completely eliminating a major aviation
greenhouse gas effect. Could you tell us more about the effort
and how NASA is working to achieve emissions reductions in
aviation?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. First of all, we are working to get
an all-electric airplane. We haven't been totally successful on
that yet, but we have about three-quarters of a billion dollar
project going with a major manufacturer. They have put in about
$5 or $600 million; this is Boeing, to develop the next medium-
range single-aisle transport aircraft that will save 30 percent
of its fuel. The design is a high wing on the fuselage, and a
very long and thin wing, so long, and thin, that it has to have
struts. Because of the greater efficient wing, and it being
high, you can put the bigger fanjet engine so that you could
get all the more efficiency. The combination of the wing and
the engines will bring 30 percent fuel savings. That is one
example.
Mr. Cartwright. Terrific. Final question, Cancer Moonshot.
The International Space Station budget request includes a
renewed focus on cancer research that supports the President's
Cancer Moonshot effort. Can you tell us how this research will
help find cures for cancer?
Mr. Nelson. This research is just coming into its own. I
have been very frustrated over the years because 38 years ago
when I flew, my experiment was sponsored by the University of
Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center. That was my
primary experiment, growing protein crystals in space. The
results were dramatic how much clearer, purer, and larger they
were of the identical protein grown on Earth in gravity.
Now over the years it is just taking off, because of the
dedicated time of a National lab on the International Space
Station of the pharmaceutical industries going and
experimenting. We are having major breakthroughs on stem cell
research, protein crystal growth research, and how this applies
to cancer research. I am happy to provide details.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Administrator Nelson. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator, good to be with you today. Thanks for being here.
And your work at NASA, as is very evident by your comments, you
take your job very seriously, and thank you for doing that. And
I know you enjoy what you do. And so, that certainly shines
through.
Of course, we talk a lot about Russia here on Capitol Hill,
but even with the illegal and unjustified invasion that we have
seen recently in Ukraine, the American-Russian partnership on
the International Space Station remains very cooperative, at
least from my understanding.
Considering this cooperation that has existed, do you see a
future where we could work closely with Russia in space after
the deorbit of the International Space Station?
Mr. Nelson. Let me say that this cooperation has been going
on since 1975, when in the middle of the Cold War an American
spacecraft, Apollo, rendezvoused and docked with a Soviet
spacecraft, Soyuz, and the crews lived together, and that
started what has been a continued cooperation--first, us going
to their Space Station, Mir. The Space Shuttle docked there,
and then, the joint project of building the International Space
Station together with the Russians, operating it together. It
would be very difficult to operate it by one or the other
without the other.
It brings up the question, given the fact of the
inexcusable things that President Putin is doing in Ukraine,
will that cooperation last? There is absolutely no indication
that anything has changed in our professional relationship
between astronauts and cosmonauts, between the NASA people in
Moscow at Mission Control and the Russian people at Mission
Control in Houston. It has continued in a very professional and
effective manner of operating the Space Station; receiving and
sending astronauts; receiving and sending cargo. That has
operated without a hitch. However, it brings a very important
point.
Mr. Aderholt. Thanks.
Well, let me ask you this question: should we be concerned
about a potential realignment of partnerships in space where
the Russians work more closely with the Chinese?
Mr. Nelson. We are concerned about that, absolutely--and
not only the Chinese, but others.
Mr. Aderholt. And if so, what would you agree to, would you
say is the case--what indications do you see that demonstrate a
closer collaboration with these nations currently?
Mr. Nelson. Say that again now?
Mr. Aderholt. With that being the case, that you are seeing
this realignment, what are you seeing that demonstrates this,
that backs this up?
Mr. Nelson. The realignment?
Mr. Aderholt. The realignment, yes.
Mr. Nelson. Thus far, there's no realignment. There's not a
hitch at all in our relationship with the Russians in civilian
space. When you get into military space, you've got a whole
different thing.
It is something that we have to be concerned about. In our
budget request to you is the fact that we desperately need in
the emergency supplemental appropriations, once you get through
with this first tranche that you are considering, there's
another one that is coming. It has been blessed by the White
House. It is our request, not only to repair the damaged deep
space antennas on Guam, when the typhoon hit Guam--and that
happened to DoD as well--but, also, an emergency appropriations
request for a deorbiting vehicle, so that we can start now, and
in six years, when we want to deorbit the Space Station--and
remember, this thing is 120 yards long. It is as long as a
football field from goal post to goal post, and we have got to
get it down safely.
What happens in the next six years? Are we still going to
have the same relationship that we can get it down with the
Russians? We can't count on that. We have got to start now to
build that U.S. deorbit vehicle that could get the whole
station down safely, so it won't hit anybody or anything.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. My time has expired. So, I yield
back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Nelson, for joining us today, and
Chair Rogers and Ranking Member Cartwright.
Maryland is the proud home of Goddard Space Center, 35,000
jobs, billions of dollars of economic output. OSAM, OSAM-1, an
important mission being led by Goddard. It promises to deliver
significant economic strategic benefits to NASA, to the Space
Force, and the commercial space sector.
The ability to have space mobility, including satellite
servicing, orbital debris removal, these are vital capabilities
that will bolster the capacity and affordability of NASA's
ongoing human and scientific exploration.
In 2024, we invested, Congress, $227 million in the
President's budget request for OSAM and put the language in
place for a 2026 launch. While we understand you have a lot of
top-line pressure, pressure that NASA is under, cancelling that
program would be catastrophic for scientific innovation in
Maryland and result in the loss of jobs--100 civil servant,
with a total loss of 700 jobs.
I am told the workers at Goddard are working hard to
rescope the mission prior to the October review that Congress
mandated in the 2024 bill. Please share with us how NASA plans
to implement the report language and how you will honor the
rescoping of the mission and allow our contractors to continue
with their approach to the processes.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Congressman.
Understand the hand that you have dealt us, and I say that
you have dealt us. Had I been still a Member of Congress, I
would have voted for that compromise when you got to the point
that you had to raise the debt ceiling, so that the Government
of the United States full faith and credit wouldn't go into
default. In order to get the votes to get the debt ceiling
raised, you had to agree to less spending. That less spending
came in primarily on the non-defense discretionary spending, of
which NASA is a part--so much so, it was a $2.5 billion hit to
NASA in fiscal year 2024, the current year, and another $2.3
billion hit to NASA in fiscal year 2025 from what we had
requested to take care of all of these things.
The hit to science was a billion dollars in just 2024, and
the hit to science in 2025 was about $850 million. With less
money, we have to make some very tough choices. Your program is
one of them. California's program is another one.
Now, specifically, OSAM, let me tell you what happened to
OSAM. There was an independent review board that said the
original forecast was to cost no more than $750 million and
launch by 2020, and it is now seven to eight years behind
schedule and its latest figure is $1.6 billion.
At the same time, what has happened to the marketplace is,
when OSAM was created, it was thought you would go to low earth
orbit, punch holes in satellites, and figure out a way to
refuel them. That technology has surpassed that. We now create/
design satellites that can be easily refueled in low earth
orbit. The challenge is up 23,000 miles to resupply in
geosynchronous orbit, but that is not what OSAM was designed to
do.
By us having to make hard choices, we understand the
direction that you gave us. I know what the Maryland delegation
did. I used to sit in the chairs that you all sit in. I
understand that, we have to make choices.
And we are, for 2025, basically, wanting us to move on from
OSAM. We will follow your direction for 2024 in the
appropriations. It is $227 million in this year that is being
spent, but we are going to have to move----
Mr. Trone. What percent does that bring us to full
completion on OSAM? When we spend that $227 million, where are
we going to be at? How far deep in are we? I mean, Artemis is
years late, too, and billions over budget also.
Mr. Nelson. Well, you know----
Mr. Trone. So, it is like, you know, the plague is
everywhere.
Mr. Nelson. You are nowhere near, but the things that we
had developed and learned in OSAM, now we can go and help out
DARPA. Now, we can go out and help out DoD for the projects
that they are trying to figure out to do on orbit servicing up
there at 23,000 miles up in geosynchronous. That is our
recommendation to you for 2025.
Mr. Trone. So, you recommend scrapping the 2026 launch
date?
Mr. Nelson. In the parlance of the South, this dog doesn't
hunt.
Mr. Trone. I yield my time back. We will come back to this.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it is good to see you again, Administrator/Senator/
Astronaut Nelson. I feel like you are padding your resume here
a little bit now, but that is all right.
You and I have had a lot of discussions over this Mars
Sample Return. You just made an allusion to it, obviously. And
you know how I feel right now. I'm not happy that the
reprogramming decisions were made before we actually had bills
passed. You ended up landing on the lower end of the spectrum
between the band that the House passed and what the Senate
passed.
It is not just me; it is pretty much the entire California
delegation, and probably one of the only times I have agreed
with Schiff and been on a letter with Representative Schiff--to
give you testimony on how deeply this cuts.
And it is not a California thing. My concern is not only
about the 500 jobs already lost, you know, in the last couple
of months with the JPL layoff notifications, but the national
security implications of losing more jobs and getting below
what I would consider critical mass in terms of workforce at
JPL. And you know the adjacencies between not just JPL relative
to NASA, but also NRO and other national security implications.
Those 500 jobs are gone. Those people have in many cases
left California. They are in other industries now. They are
working everything else.
And I appreciate what NASA has done with the private-public
partnership and I realize there is a reshuffling of acquisition
strategies and reprogrammings and IRBs taking place on the Mars
Sample Return Mission itself, and re-tech, you know, re-
baselining the technical solutions there. But I'm concerned
that we are below critical mass at JPL.
So, I want to remind everyone that the United States has
actually never accomplished a soft landing on Mars without the
talented minds at JPL. And, you know, they call it ``the center
of the universe'' for a reason.
And so, while I echo Mr. Trone's sentiment that, you know,
we are making these cuts, and I understand, and you are going
to give me the same answer that you just gave him, I'm sure, on
OSAM. But I worry, when we make certain decisions, that we are
cutting to the bone and, actually, in this case, potentially
amputating JPL. So, I understand the rationale. I understand
the re-baselining.
And you are asking us to invest nearly $10 billion on the
Moon to Mars Mission for fiscal year 2025, and I just want to,
again, underscore the scientific and national security
implications of what we have done here and JPL's role.
So, I guess the question is, what is JPL's future role in
the Moon to Mars Mission? And what are you doing, what is NASA
doing now to protect the institutional knowledge, you know,
probably thousands of years of institutional engineering and
program management knowledge at JPL that is getting scattered
into the winds, as we speak--and not necessarily staying in the
space industry or aerospace industry?
And, you know, what is necessary to keep American boots on
the Moon and on Mars, if we are going to disintegrate this
workforce? How do we reconstitute this? How do we preserve
jobs? And my understanding is there's probably going to be even
more layoffs coming up with fiscal year 2025. You committed to
not doing more in fiscal year 2024, but I think the buzz saw is
coming out in fiscal year 2025 again. So, what is the plan to
make sure JPL remains relevant?
Mr. Nelson. First of all, my answer to you is not the same
with regard to OSAM.
Mr. Garcia. Okay.
Mr. Nelson. It is an extremely important objective that we
return those samples on Mars. We have got, will have about 30
titanium tubes the size of a cigar filled with cores that have
been drilled. They have been drilled on a dry lakebed where a
river came into that lake. That is prime for us determining if
there was life there.
Then, when we send our astronauts to Mars, then they won't
go there, because we will have that proof. They can go to
another promising area to see if there was life.
When you are dealing with a budget that is overall almost
$5 billion cut over two years, and science itself is cut $2.7
billion in those two years, and hopefully, the following fiscal
year we won't be under these constraints that the bill to raise
the debt ceiling caused, the constriction. Hopefully, then, we
will have a lot more flexibility.
I am quite sanguine about the future, and this is why I----
Mr. Garcia. At JPL or on the MSR Mission itself?
Mr. Nelson. All of the above.
Mr. Garcia. Okay.
Mr. Nelson. That is why on Monday I announced, as I had
discussed with you on Sunday, that I was going to ask that we
simply cannot afford $11 billion; that all the independent
reviews have said, and you can't even get the samples back
until 2040. That is when we are going to be sending astronauts
up there. I said let's start and think outside the box.
We have gone to JPL. We have gone to the rest of the NASA
Centers. We have gone out to industry with a Request for
Information: by the 17th of next month, bring us your ideas as
to how we could get this done cheaper and quicker.
On the basis of that, the experts at NASA will make a
decision. They will give the seed money, in the appropriation,
we asked for $10 million, so that we could put out that seed
money and this Request for Information for 2024.
Let's see what we come back with in the answers this fall,
and then, at that point, we can make a decision. Now, as I
mentioned to you, the head of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Dr. Laurie Leshin, is very confident that they are going to be
able to come up in their proposal--it is going to be faster and
cheaper.
We want to see what other projects are out there. Remember,
this is the most difficult thing, that we are talking about
having an asset come off of another planet, rendezvous in
Martian orbit with the European return vehicle--and that is
Europe's cost--and bring those samples back to Earth.
That is what I have directed, and that is what is underway.
I'm very optimistic, as I talk to our scientists, that it can
be done.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. I appreciate it. I'm out of time.
Competition is good. I just don't want to lose that crown jewel
down in Pasadena, JPL, while we do that.
So, thank you, sir. Thank you again for your service.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and I thank the ranking member always.
And thank you, Administrator Nelson, for your long service
and dedication to our country and your leadership.
I will admit I feel a little bit like a kid in the candy
store. When I was a young man, NASA was everything to me. I
thought it was, through the lens of NASA, my childhood, it was
perhaps a time of great excitement, grand adventure, and new
discovery. And so, I think of it fondly.
I had hoped when I was about 10 years old to be an
astronaut. That was really my goal in life. But it turns out my
skill set wasn't quite in line with what my dreams were. But it
is not a bad consolation prize to be sitting here with you and
talking about this grand future.
I want to start by thanking you and NASA for coordinating
Astronaut Lee Morin's visit to Rochester. So, thank you and
your staff. He was in Rochester. We were on the path of
totality and he came up and spent the day with us at the
Strasenburgh Planetarium, and he was like a rock star. People
lined up to take pictures with him and chat with him, and he
was a great ambassador. So, thank you. We were in cloud cover,
but he helped bring a ray of sunshine, despite the fact that we
didn't quite see the eclipse. But really grateful for that and
for the cooperation of your team.
I was pleased to see in your budget request the inclusion
of $252 million for the NEO Surveyor's important mission, some
of which is being conducted in my district at the University of
Rochester. And NASA completed the mission confirmation review I
think in 2022, committed to launching the Surveyor by 2028.
And I just wonder, what critical next steps toward your
goal as an agency of Planetary Defense?
Mr. Nelson. A new Surveyor. I wanted to say to Congressman
Garcia that it is also a JPL project as well.
Mr. Morelle. Well, he had a lot of time, but I appreciate
you continuing to take----
Mr. Nelson. NEO Surveyor is on track for 2028. NEO Surveyor
is a spacecraft. Also, the University of Arizona State is
involved. It is going out there and it is searching for killer
asteroids.
As you know, 2 years ago, we sent a spacecraft to intercept
an asteroid 7 million miles from Earth. We hit it at 14,000
miles an hour, bull's eye, and it moved it. We now know that we
can do that.
NEO Surveyor is going to help us find a killer asteroid.
This is one of the things that you all had mandated to us, is
to go out there to look for asteroids that could threaten
planet Earth.
Mr. Morelle. Again, thank you.
You talked a little bit about the investment in the
International Space Station, which doesn't enable a large group
of people in the supply chain companies, including those in my
home State of New York, to be a part of this, and to support
the ISS.
NASA works with private companies under something called
the Crew and Cargo Program to safely transport astronauts and
supplies to and from space. Can you talk about why maintaining
a regular cadence of flights is important? You talked a little
bit about the ISS, but why is this important to their continued
operations?
Mr. Nelson. With regard to low earth orbit, with regard to
the Moon, or both?
Mr. Morelle. Both.
Mr. Nelson. Okay. Well, the more experience and testing
that you do on a continual basis in a very hostile environment,
the more you build your confidence and the more you reduce your
risk. That is why a continued cadence is so very important.
It is also prudent to have a backup plan. Years ago when we
said we are going to get commercial companies into delivering
astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station, we
wanted two. The two were SpaceX and Boeing.
Lo and behold, as it turns out, SpaceX has been flying
cargo and crew for the last four years, and Boeing's first
launch of the test crew of two astronauts will be somewhere
around May the 1st.
That constant repetition reduces your risk. The same is
true for the Moon. However, the Moon is a much different thing,
a much more expensive proposition, and that cadence is a lot
more infrequent, but we still hope a cadence of about one a
year.
Mr. Morelle. Very good. I had additional questions, but I'm
not sure whether there will be a second round. But I can submit
in writing, if there is not.
I appreciate the time, Mr. Chair, and yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Senator,
for being here today.
When will China become the global leader in space
exploration?
Mr. Nelson. Well, if we have anything to do with it, they
won't.
Mr. Gonzales. That is exactly the right answer. And we have
to make sure that China is never the global leader. The United
States will always lead that way.
Senator Nelson, maintaining the Artemis mission schedule is
essential to ensuring we return U.S. astronauts to the lunar
surface before China accomplishes a crude Moon landing. We know
there are delays in Artemis 2 and 3.
Does NASA have the flexibility to adjust the CONOPS as
necessary to maintain the Artemis schedule?
Mr. Nelson. Well, the Artemis schedule is going to be
operative when it is safe for our astronauts to fly. The
present schedule is that we will launch the first crew around
the Moon to check out the spacecraft Orion and its life support
systems. That will occur in September of next year, which is
September of 2025.
The schedule presently is for the first landing to occur
one year later in September of 2026. That landing is dependent
upon the first commercial lander, which is SpaceX. They are
presently testing their big rocket--it is the largest, most
powerful rocket ever--from Boca Chica, which is just to the
north of the mouth of the Rio Grande.
We have as a backup, the second round of competition which
was run by Blue Origin. They have said, since they are two or
three years behind on that second round, that they don't expect
to be landing until 2029.
There is a lot riding on the first successful lander. If
that is successful, Artemis 3, the first landing, then Artemis
4 is a larger, taller, more powerful rocket. It is an evolved
Space Launch System. It goes off on a new and larger mobile
platform because it is carrying not only the spacecraft Orion,
it is now carrying a component of what is known as Gateway,
which is like a Lunar Space Station. That is scheduled to go
about 2 years after the first landing. That is still SpaceX.
Artemis 5, which would be a year or so later, would be the
first landing of the Blue Origin landing.
Mr. Gonzales. You have highlighted this timetable, this
domino effect, if you will, why it is so critical to make sure
that that first domino lands correctly. And it is nothing easy
about this, right? There are some growing pains that happened.
You made some mistakes along the way. I think SpaceX has
done an amazing job at correcting that. But we have to make
sure that we do not get in their way. As long as they are
meeting all the criteria and they are moving the ball forward,
that first domino is critical to making sure that that fifth
domino lays on, lays on time, on time/on target is important.
My next question: are there any plans to further reduce the
number of scientists and engineers that are working for NASA?
Mr. Nelson. We need all that we could get. I see no plans.
We have about 15,000 civil servants, and we have about
45,000 contractors, all of which wear the NASA badge. A total
workforce of about 60,000, we are not anticipating any major
layoffs at all.
Mr. Gonzales. Excellent. Because I would urge you, as you
are making these tough decisions, you can't just grow
scientists, you can't just add them to the equation. They are
an invaluable asset overall.
And then the last question that I have for you is do we
know how many scientists and engineers are working on the China
space program?
Mr. Nelson. I don't. Of course, even if I dug, it would be
hard to pull that out. Maybe you could get it from the Intel
Committee.
However, I caution that they have made huge strides in the
last 10 years, and you better not take anything for granted.
Mr. Gonzales. I mention this because if we are, we are in
this space race with China, and if we are going to defeat this
space race it will not be defeated with words. It will be
defeated with actions. And those actions are our scientists
going to work and delivering just like they always have.
And with that, Chairman, I am out of time and I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rogers.
Okay. Senator, good to see you, sir.
As the Chinese Communist Party escalates its investment in
space exploration--I want to piggyback on what Mr. Gonzales
said a little bit here--I want to underscore the critical
importance of NASA in countering it.
NASA's primary work not only advances our understanding of
the universe, but also develops cutting edge technologies
important for maintaining military and economic superiority in
the evolving space domain. However, I am concerned that NASA's
advancements in space exploration, specifically its Artemis
missions, are not remaining on track and on budget.
A March 2024 ``60 Minutes'' report detailed significant
questions surrounding this program and its continued bleeding
costs and schedule overruns. In this report, NASA's Inspector
General stated that, and I quote, ``Significant reductions in
cost and better planning that the current''--that ``Without
significant reductions in cost and better planning, the current
trajectory of the Artemis program is not sustainable.''
In response, NASA's Associate Administrator in charge of
the Artemis program said that NASA disagreed with the Inspector
General's characterization of the current situation, and stated
that NASA has taken a ``affordable path for the Artemis
missions.''
So, Senator Nelson, what do you think? Do you agree or
disagree with your Inspector General's characterization that
the current Artemis trajectory is not sustainable? Please give
me your thoughts on that.
Mr. Nelson. Remember what President Kennedy said? He said,
``We go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is
hard.''
Any time you go and try to create a safe set of technology
to put humans, particularly at the South Pole--I gave you that
illustration, so that is the Moon, this is the South Pole, and
the light is coming in there.
Mr. Clyde. I was listening.
Mr. Nelson. It is pockmarked with craters, and the craters
are completely in shadow or darkness.
Mr. Clyde. Dark.
Mr. Nelson. Therefore, you have to be very precise in your
landing. There is no room for error.
Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong taking manual control had to keep
flying, and when he landed, he had just a few seconds left. He
was avoiding boulders, he was avoiding craters. He had just a
few seconds left when he shut down the engines.
It is hard, but you have to do it as safely as you can.
When it is hard and safe, it is going to cost money.
The James Webb Space Telescope that went over twice the
amount of money, and took twice as long, look what we are
reaping from the James Webb Space Telescope: an understanding
of the universe in ways that we never had, seeing galaxies that
we never knew existed, et cetera.
We are trying to tighten up the spending on bringing a lot
of those, some 15 individual contracts, and bring them together
into a unified whole. I am not going to sit here and tell you
it is not going to be expensive, because it is.
Mr. Clyde. All right. Well, we just want to make sure that
the taxpayer's dollar is spent the most effective and efficient
way possible. That is why we are here.
You know, we are already $34 trillion in debt. And so,
everything that we spend we have got to, you know, make sure
that we get the best value for it.
Mr. Nelson. May I just add a comment? I don't want to take
away your time.
Mr. Clyde. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Nelson. I will do it at the end of your time.
Go ahead.
Mr. Clyde. All right. Well, the OIG estimated that each
Artemis mission, that the launch would cost $4.2 billion per
launch for Artemis missions.
What do you say to that? I mean, do you think that is
affordable?
Mr. Nelson. As you launch more over time, you bring down
the per unit cost.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right. Okay, that is all the questions
I have got for you. You are welcome to elaborate on what you
wanted to talk about.
Mr. Nelson. Yes, please.
Understand that this isn't all like we are pouring money
down a rathole. Look what it is doing for our country.
Look what happened when we spent the money on the Apollo
program. Two generations of technology development came out of
it. The microminiaturization revolution came out of the Apollo
program when we had to make things light in weight, small in
volume, and highly reliable.
Look at how that technology has spread through the American
economy. Look at the jobs as a result of this program
throughout the entire U.S.
Look at the educational benefit. The fact that we are going
and doing daring things, you go into any classroom in this
country and talk about it, and immediately you have the
attention of those children in that classroom. They are getting
excited about technology, engineering, and mathematics.
That is an intangible value to the space program that has
reaped financial rewards many times over to what it cost on
Apollo a half a century ago, and what it is costing in our
space program now.
Mr. Clyde. I appreciate that perspective, Senator. And with
that, I am way over time. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you, Director. Good to have you here.
I would like to continue the discussion of the Artemis
Accords themselves and bring it down a little bit. They have an
important role to play in demonstrating a new level of American
exceptionalism to create a formal legal framework for space.
And with Switzerland and Sweden becoming the 37th and 38th
countries to join the Accords, this stands in stark contrast to
China's competing International Lunar Research Station
Cooperation Organization.
What role in importance does continuing our international
partners in low Earth orbit have on our long-term exploration
strategy for the Artemis Accords?
Mr. Nelson. We have 15 partners on the International Space
Station. For example, in addition to the Russian section of the
station, we have a Japanese module, and we have a European
Space Agency module. All these nations are directly
participating.
Nations are flying with us as international astronauts. A
lot of those that are cooperating now are going with us to the
Moon as well.
For example, the mini-space station that is going to be
orbiting around the Moon, it already has the partners that will
contribute to the building of it: Canada, UAE, the European
Space Agency, Japan, and there are more to come.
This international cooperation has been phenomenal wherever
we are, whatever we are doing. Look at the international
cooperation on the James Webb Space Telescope. I mean, this is
going out to the entire international community of astronomers.
Mr. Cline. Is Canada the largest contributor to the
agreement other than the United States?
Mr. Nelson. Which agreement?
Mr. Cline. Well, Artemis. I would say the lunar mission.
Mr. Nelson. The short answer is no.
Mr. Cline. Okay.
Mr. Nelson. Eventually the cost, for example, on the rocket
the life sciences, the life supporting equipment is in what is
known as the European Service Module. That is attached
underneath the capsule, which is Orion.
At this point it is probably Europe. Although Japan is
investing very, very heavily in our space program.
Mr. Cline. Gotcha.
Now, the International Space Station was where I was moving
toward, has also played its part on its own to many different
types of advanced and expensive scientific equipment, most of
which was not designated to be brought back to Earth. According
to the National Academy's 2023 Biological and Physical Sciences
Decadal Survey, it would cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.5
billion to rebuild and launch these to some other commercial
low Earth orbit destination.
Can you talk about what is being done to preserve the
equipment on the International Space Station as we make plans
for a de-orbit?
Mr. Nelson. Well, the ones that have technological life, I
am sure there is going to be some kind of thought put into that
of preserving that. Stripping it out if it is still of economic
value and bringing it back before you de-orbit the
International Space Station in 2031.
By the way, we don't de-orbit until we have a commercial
space station or stations, which we now have given the
incentive money to at least three companies to build a
commercial space station and show its economic vitality and its
business case for being there.
That is our intention. Once we have a commercial space
station, we can train our astronauts there, because our focus
is not low Earth orbit at that point, our focus is out there at
the Moon and beyond.
Mr. Cline. Right. But what we want to avoid is a gap that
would cede the U.S.'s leadership in space to China, especially
regarding low Earth orbit.
Is there a plan in place to maintain American prominence
and avoid gaps in human space flight capability and presence in
a low Earth orbit?
Mr. Nelson. If I have anything to do with it, there is not
going to be a gap.
Mr. Cline. Right.
Mr. Nelson. I am expecting we are going to have commercial
space stations.
Mr. Cline. In the next 10 years? Is that your estimate?
Mr. Nelson. Well, by 2030.
Mr. Cline. Okay.
Mr. Nelson. If we didn't, then I would make the case. If I
were still at this table, I would make the case that we need to
continue the station until we do have alternatives, because I
don't think we want to give up the permanent presence in space.
Mr. Cline. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Director, we hope you still have that seat.
Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, Senator. Good to see you again. Thank you for being
here.
Real quick, getting right to it, let's talk about
aeronautics real quick and the Low Boom Flight Demonstrator.
What do we see down the road as a benefit to spending money
on that and the hypersonics? Real quick. I got a couple more
after this.
Mr. Nelson. We are a research organization, but we are
working on hypersonics. The commercial use of hypersonics is to
get from point A to point B on planet Earth quick.
There are, obviously, a lot of national defense issues with
regard to hypersonics, but we do the research.
Now, with regard to the Low Boom, this is the needle-nosed
X-plane that is going to fly at the end of the year to see if
we can go supersonic and not create that jarring sonic boom,
but because of its design it recreates the shockwave so that it
becomes a muffled roar.
Mr. Ellzey. And so the idea is to translate that research
that you do into a standardized wing that other commercial
carriers can start to pick up and advance much faster flight
around the world?
Mr. Nelson. A design so that commercial aircraft can then
fly supersonic overpopulated areas, so that you could go from
L.A. to New York, and you could do it in maybe two-and-a-half
hours.
Mr. Ellzey. Okay, perfect.
This next, this next subject is more of a comment that
doesn't require an explanation.
I will say that in the business that you are in and the
operations that you conduct my comment is this: anything that
is not based on merit and performance in the risky operations
that you undertake, and any money extended outside of that is a
waste of money.
That is my comment. I think you know what I am talking
about there. I just want that to be on the record because I
know we are spending $22 million on programs like that. And I
think that while that, in a $25 billion program that is a
minuscule amount, but it is $22 million that belongs to the
American taxpayer.
Now, something more positive. Let's talk about your T-38s,
which I have seen. Haven't flown in yet but would like to
someday. They are pristine and they are the earliest T-38s ever
built.
Do you see a transition coming for a different trainer type
aircraft? And, if so, what is your time line and what do you
need?
Mr. Nelson. The answer is likely yes, but I don't know the
details on the trading out of the T-38s.
Mr. Ellzey. Okay.
Mr. Nelson. They are still operating well.
Mr. Ellzey. Okay.
Mr. Nelson. That is one thing that NASA does well is its
maintenance program.
Mr. Ellzey. Yes. You have a flaw--I mean, they are, indeed,
60, in some places older, years old, 60-year-old aircraft, the
T-38 supersonic trainer aircraft. And these are the first off
the line.
So, I have seen the professionalism and the love that is
put into those aircraft. And with the more infrequent space
flights I know that keeping pilots and keeping astronauts
airborne is extremely important. And doing so economically and
safely is important to me, too. So, I just want to make sure
that as that need comes up, we need to turn it as quickly as
possible to make sure you all have what you need.
Mr. Nelson. You know, the T-38s are so good for the
military they are used as an aggressor aircraft in a lot of the
war games.
Mr. Ellzey. That is right. That is right.
My time is winding down. Thank you for your time. Always
good to see you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back.
There is I think a request for a second round of questions.
Mr. Director, if we do a second round we will try to keep it as
brief as we can, given your schedule.
Is that okay with you?
Mr. Nelson. I am here at your pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
We will do a second round. We will limit remarks to 3
minutes each. And we will lead off with Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson, in the budget request NASA identified
Mobile Launcher 2 as being the critical path to Artemis 4. That
means that delays to the Mobile Launcher 2 would delay the
Artemis 4 launch.
Am I correct so far?
Mr. Nelson. Correct.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. And that will be the second
Artemis Moon Landing Mission. The first crewed Gateway mission
is currently scheduled to launch in September 2028.
The question is what steps is NASA taking to reduce the
risk of delay to Mobile Launcher 2 that would inevitably delay
the launch of the Artemis 4 mission?
Mr. Nelson. I have met personally with the CEO of the well-
known international company that has built that. They had
really dropped the ball, but they have really picked it up. I
am led to believe that I think they are on schedule now.
Mr. Cartwright. Keeping a close eye on them, are you?
Mr. Nelson. So much so, eyeball to eyeball with the CEO.
Mr. Cartwright. Good to know. Good answer.
Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. I just, I just have one question for you,
Senator.
Has NASA ever provided an official cost estimate for the
Artemis 3 mission?
Mr. Nelson. By breaking it out into one mission?
Mr. Clyde. Yes.
Mr. Nelson. Normally what you do is you would take your
research and development cost and you would amortize that over
all the missions that you are going to have in the future
instead of piling all of that on the first landing, which is
Artemis 3, which is what you asked.
Mr. Clyde. Right. That is correct.
Mr. Nelson. We can get you whatever figure you want.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right. I would like to see kind of
what you all figure Artemis 3 would cost.
And if you are going to, you know, take that and then build
upon it, as you said, Artemis 4, Artemis 5, it would be
interesting then to see what--I would like to see what the
additional costs of what you think that the further missions
would be, so that we can kind of see a whole end game here.
Mr. Nelson. We don't intend just to go to the Moon for
three or four flights and that is it. I mean, we can, we are
planning this to keep going out into the future until we get
sufficient technology and systems that we think we can go to
Mars.
I think that is in the 2040s. In the meantime, we are going
to be doing a lot of science on the surface of the Moon, such
as just last week the Japanese Government is going to do the
cost and building of a pressurized rover. That is going to give
our astronauts the ability to go out and to stay on the surface
for 30 days, because they will have a mobile environment in and
out of the rover. They go in and out of a lockout room and they
can take off the spacesuits that they have to use outside, and
then they can live and run around.
When the astronauts are in it, it is going to be
autonomous. They can operate it from Earth as it will roam
around, so it will give a greater range that we can explore the
South Pole of the Moon.
Mr. Clyde. I am looking forward to seeing your plans. Thank
you.
I yield back.
[The information follows:]

MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD BY CONGRESSMAN CLYDE REGARDING COST FOR ARTEMIS
3 MISSION

Congressman Clyde: Has NASA ever provided an official cost
estimate for the Artemis 3 mission? I would like to see what
kind of what you all figure Artemis 3 would cost. And if you
are going to, you know, take that, and then build upon it, as
you said, Artemis 4, Artemis 5, it would be interesting then to
see what--I would like to see what the additional costs of what
you think the further missions would be, so that we can kind of
see a whole end game here.
NASA Response: Since the beginning of the programs in FY
2012, what is now Artemis has been appropriated by program, not
by mission. Correspondingly, the programs established their
contracts by program, not by mission. Therefore, NASA has
rigorous processes in place to manage costs by the Artemis
program rather than by mission and does not separately
calculate costs for individual Artemis missions. The agency is
capitalizing on lessons learned during initial manufacturing
efforts to reduce overall costs in each program, including
increasing cost-efficiency through bulk purchases, implementing
unique contracting structures, and standardizing workflow. NASA
remains committed to transparent cost reporting that captures
the unique nature of space exploration planning and mission
development.

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, sir,
Mr. Administrator, while China is aggressively deploying
more spacecraft to the Moon, they had another successful launch
on March 19. Here in the U.S. we have an opportunity to catch
up by combining forces with some of our domestic commercial
industry partners. The CLPS missions are wonderful, as recently
demonstrated by the Intuitive Machines' successful lunar
landing.
So, why are we not using the same techniques to get these
lunar orbiters around the Moon that China has?
Mr. Nelson. Well, that is exactly what we are doing with
the CLPS missions, C-L-P-S, that you mention. We are using
commercial enterprises to bear the costs of landers of which we
put NASA instruments that, in effect, become scouts for us
before we ever send our astronauts to that part of the Moon.
Now, is that what your question is?
Mr. Trone. Yeah, we are trying to get at what the Chinese
are doing, do you think, on the backside of the Moon? Do you
have any insights on that?
Mr. Nelson. Well, they are going to have a lander on the
far side of the Moon, which is the side that is always in the
dark. We are not planning to go there.
Mr. Trone. And why not? And what is the benefit of doing
so?
Mr. Nelson. We don't know what is on the backside of the
Moon, so that would be something that they would discover. Our
decision is that it is more profitable for us to go to the
South Pole of the Moon, because we think that is where the
water is.
Mr. Trone. Why do you think they made that decision? I am
curious.
Mr. Nelson. I have no idea.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Let's talk a second about the imbalance
sometimes we are concerned with in Maryland between science
versus exploration missions.
What future missions do you have intended for Goddard and
the Science Mission Directorates?
And how does the budget request affect those missions?
Mr. Nelson. Well, Goddard is one of our great assets. You
have all kinds of things at Goddard.
For example, you have coming up, we just announced today
that we approved the Dragonfly mission. It is in Maryland at
the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins. That is going to the
Saturn Moon of Titan.
If there is a Planetary Science Mission, Goddard usually
has something that it is involved in.
Mr. Trone. What about the Habitable Worlds Observatory?
This would be in Goddard. We got $50 million for that. And are
you willing to work with the committee to make sure this
program has some increased funding to really make it work?
Mr. Nelson. Not only work with you, we want it to work,
because the Habitable Worlds, which is one that we go in the
2040s, we have got to start it now. Its whole goal is to go out
there and find other Earths where there is carbon, there is
water, and that it has the right amount of distance from their
Sun, looking for life. Which is one of our charters, by the way
is to look for life.
You also have DAVINCI. It is going to Venus.
You have Landsat which is, you know, looking back at Earth,
giving us all kinds of data. We have nine of those Landsats.
The most recent one is, I think, Landsat 9.
You have one that we just approved called Dragonfly.
Just around the corner, you have the next big telescope
after the James Webb. The James Webb is good for not only now,
but for at least 20 years.
Mr. Trone. Spectacular. Spectacular.
Mr. Nelson. You have the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope that,
again, is helping identify other potential Earths out there as
we are searching.
When we find those, by the way, not only looking for life,
we start to understand their development, and we better
understand who we are, why we are here, how we got here, and
all of this evolution of the cosmos.
Mr. Trone. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, sir. I just have one question.
Your budget request proposes a rapid ramp-down of the
Chandra X-ray Observatory budget. It was partly assembled in my
district by Eastman Kodak. But the district synergizes with the
James Webb Space Telescope and has nearly, as I understand it,
a decade of mission life left.
So, I am concerned that the decision diminishes our return
on investment with the JWST and cedes U.S. leadership on X-ray
astronomy.
Would you be willing to look at reconsideration of that
ramp-down?
And, if not, tell me how we will continue to have
leadership in this, in this area?
Mr. Nelson. Remember I said we had to make hard choices?
Now, Chandra has been a mission that has given us so many
gifts, but it has been there for 25 years. It is time for new
missions.
When you cut us, and I am not saying that in any accusatory
way, I am saying had I been a member, I would have voted for
that too, to save the full faith and credit of the U.S.
Government. That was the compromise you had to do. You had to
cut non-defense discretionary, and you cut us $2 billion on
science, just science, over the two years, 2024 and 2025.
Let's start making that up in 2026.
Mr. Morelle. Well, I appreciate that. And it has been in
operation for 25 years.
My understanding is it is continuing to add to our
knowledge base on X-ray astronomy, and that it does have useful
life left.
So, I would think, and I understand new missions are
important, but one that is working and really generating some
results, I would think we would want to continue working. I
would hope. I mean, obviously I understand the need to
prioritize. And I would like to be spending more in your space,
in your area.
I would just ask you to, perhaps if we could have
additional conversation, I would like to ask you to reconsider
on this.
Mr. Nelson. Of course.
Mr. Trone. Yes. Thank you, sir.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Well, that concludes today's hearing. We want
to thank our witness Administrator Nelson for being here with
us, being generous with his time and information.
Sir, we thank you for your service to your country.
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, may I make a personal comment?
Mr. Rogers. Please.
Mr. Nelson. Of course I've had the good fortune to have
known you for quite a while. We served together in the House
many, many moons ago. As I look at your wall here and see all
of those portraits, I served with all of those former chairmen
all the way back to Jamie Whitten.
It is a great privilege for me to return from whence I
came. Thank you for the privilege.
Mr. Rogers. Well, we are delighted with your presence and
your service to both the House and the Senate, as well as now
with this most important job with the nation's space program.
Without objection, members may have 7 days to submit
additional questions for the record.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Tuesday, May 7, 2024.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

WITNESS

ANNE MILGRAM, ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning, everyone. Without objection, the chair is authorized
to declare a recess at any time.
Administrator Milgram, we want to welcome you to the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
today to testify regarding the Drug Enforcement
Administration's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request.
On a personal note, I want to thank you for your attendance
earlier this year at the Annual Prescription Drug Summit in
Atlanta. Your passion for the efforts to combat the drug
epidemic is commendable. And your presence at the summit was
greatly appreciated and understood.
Before we delve into the specifics of the budget request, I
want to address a broader theme that has emerged in our
examination of DEA's operations. While the mission of the DEA
remains crucial and the commitment of Administrator Milgram
appears sincere, it is evident that the support the agency
receives from both the Department of Justice and this
administration, in general, is lacking. Recent remarks by the
Attorney General and the FBI Director regarding our law
enforcement relationship with key partners have raised
concerns.
Three weeks ago, when discussing law enforcement of
cooperation with Mexico, the FBI Director testified ``I am
pleased with what we have gotten, but we need a lot more.''
That is the FBI Director.
When the DEA encounters obstacles such as difficulties in
securing visas in a timely manner for agents to operate in
Mexico, and there are outstanding warrants that the Mexican
Government fails to act upon, it suggests that the state of our
relationship with Mexico may be far from ideal.
Additionally, it is troubling that the DEA Administrator,
despite her efforts, has not been able to secure a single
meeting with a Mexican Government official since assuming her
position. This lack of engagement the nonsensical, bureaucratic
delay in approving visas and blatantly ignoring extradition
requests for cartel members should be far from pleasing for
anyone who cares about our efforts to combat the cartels.
Furthermore, despite this administration's announcement in
November 2023 that it has secured China's cooperation to take
steps to curtail the transit of fentanyl precursor chemicals,
tangible progress in this regard seems to be lacking and more
work remains to be done.
In fiscal year 2024, our subcommittee was faced with a
challenging allocation which required significant cuts to many
critical agencies' budgets. Despite this, the DEA was the only
law enforcement agency to receive an increase in funding, the
only one. I believe this speaks to our commitment to the
mission of the DEA and our hopes for your success. Notably, the
largest increase in the DEA's Fiscal '25 budget request is for
the expansion of the DEA's Counter Threat Targeting Teams.
While this expansion is commendable, we must ensure that these
investments yield measurable results, and that includes buy-in
from the Department of Justice.
The Attorney General's testimony before this subcommittee 2
weeks ago highlighted a concerning sentiment regarding the
DEA's role in combating the fentanyl crisis. When describing
the whole of government approach this administration has taken
to combat fentanyl, the Attorney General noted Treasury's role
and sanctions, Homeland's role in border security, the FBI's
role in investigating cartels, the Marshals' role in securing
fugitives, and then said ``The DEA has at the very end of the
line, a public affairs campaign. The perception that the DEA's
role is limited to an education campaign undermines the
agency's vital enforcement efforts. Nevertheless, we continue
to believe in the mission of the DEA and recognize its
importance in the war on drugs.''
Administrator Milgram, we look forward to hearing from you
today about the DEA's plans for fiscal year 2025 and how the
agency intends to address the challenges we discussed here. I
am especially interested in hearing your frank and honest
assessment of our law enforcement relationship with Mexico,
your agency's assessment of any progress in stopping Chinese
precursor chemicals, and whether the DEA is truly receiving the
support it needs from this administration. Thank you for being
here. I yield back the balance of my time.
Let me recognize Mr. Cartwright for any remarks he may care
to make.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. And Chairman
Rogers, I join you in welcoming back Administrator Milgram for
her second appearance before this subcommittee while we discuss
the Fiscal Year 2025 President's budget request.
First, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the
tragic loss of our brothers and sisters of the Department of
Justice, last week, when Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas M. Weeks
and three members of a Marshals Fugitive Task Force lost their
lives. It is a stark reminder of the risks and threats our
federal law enforcement and their partners face every day and
the ultimate sacrifice too many have had to make in the name of
keeping our nation safe. I would also like to convey my deepest
sympathies to their families, friends, and colleagues.
Administrator Milgram, last year, we focused on how the
types of drugs on our streets have dramatically shifted from
plant-based narcotics, such as cocaine and heroin, to those
made in laboratories that require no growing season. The
accessibility and affordability of these synthetic drugs leaves
DEA and its Federal, State, and local partners in a continuous
defensive posture to keep dangerous narcotics out of our
communities and to combat the drug-trafficking networks who are
trying to put them there. It is estimated by the CDC that in
the last year, we have lost over 112,000 souls to fentanyl
overdoses and poisonings. DEA is in many ways the last line of
defense we have to save American lives against this epidemic.
So I look forward to discussing with you today what DEA has
done over the last year to identify and dismantle the entire
network and what investments and other tools are most important
to you in your fiscal year 2025 budget to continue this
important work. I also look forward to hearing how the work you
are doing on the international stage further enhances your
ability to prevent these dangerous drugs from ever entering our
country.
We have already heard from both FBI Director Wray and
Attorney General Merrick Garland this year about the Mexican
Government and the chairman touched on this, how the Mexican
Government can be doing more to help us in this fight. We know
the precursor chemicals are largely being imported into Mexico
from the People's Republic of China. We know the Mexican
cartels are utilizing their decades old business models rapidly
to produce fentanyl and distribute it. We know they are
exploiting their existing drug trafficking routes to smuggle
millions of dollars' worth of fentanyl pills into our country.
We need Mexico to be a partner in this fight. So I look forward
to discussing that more with you here today.
I want to say ultimately all of DEA's work relies heavily
on Congress to provide the resources needed to address the
existing and emerging challenges in combating drug trafficking
operations. Continued investment in DEA sends a clear signal to
our adversaries on the global stage that we will not allow this
attack on our communities to continue without consequence and
that those responsible will be held accountable by our justice
system.
Administrator Milgram, I want to applaud the work of the
men and the women of the DEA and I look forward to working with
you on how we can best invest in this agency in FY 2025. So
once again, thanks for being here. Welcome back. And I look
forward to your testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Administrator Milgram, you are recognized for
an opening statement. Without objection, your written statement
will be entered into the record. Thank you.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Rogers,
Ranking Member Cartwright, members of this committee. I want to
thank the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today on
National Fentanyl Awareness Day. It is appropriate that on
National Fentanyl Awareness Day that I am given the opportunity
to highlight for you the national tragedy that is being caused
by fentanyl.
According to the CDC, in 2022, 107,941 Americans lost their
lives. Forty-two percent of Americans in the United States now
know someone who has died. This tragedy has not spared cities,
suburbs, rural communities, or Tribal lands. Fentanyl is
killing all Americans.
Our communities today are being flooded with fentanyl
hidden in other drugs or pressed into fake pills by two Mexican
cartels, the Sinaloa cartel and the Jalisco cartel. We, during
the past year, DEA has seized fentanyl throughout the United
States at unprecedented levels. Just last year, we seized
nearly 79 million fake pills laced with fentanyl and nearly
12,000 pounds of fentanyl powder. Together, this is more than
380 million potential deadly doses of fentanyl.
For the nearly 10,000 employees working at DEA, there is no
greater urgency than to defeat the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels
in order to save American lives. The $3.8 million increase that
you have provided to DEA this fiscal year is invaluable support
for our mission. Thank you. We know that you are under
financial constraints and we are grateful. This increased
funding will enable us to continue our critical work to defeat
the cartels to combat the fentanyl epidemic and to save lives.
Building on our many successes over the past year requires
continued support and resources from Congress. With your
support, we have continued to transform DEA to meet this
unprecedented moment. Our Counter Threat Teams, which we set up
in 2022 and 2023, are active against every single part of the
Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels and their criminal networks. These
teams include special agents, intelligence analysts, targeters,
program analysts, data scientists, and digital cyber
specialists. We also have partners from across the U.S.
Government that have joined our team.
The Counter Threat Teams are providing DEA with an
operating picture of each cartel that enables us to adapt to
the ever-evolving threat. We added a third Counter Threat Team
in 2023 to focus on the elaborate illicit finance of the
cartels. This team is providing DEA with a detailed financial
picture of the cartels including their global money laundering
operations and I am sure we will talk more about this today,
but we are now tracking billions of dollars that are being
moved by the cartels across the globe. The work of this team
has allowed us to open a significant number of new money
laundering investigations targeting these two cartels.
In 2023, DEA took action against every single part of the
global fentanyl supply chain run by the cartels. When I
testified before you last April, we had just announced charges
against 28 members, suppliers, chemical brokers, laboratory
managers, weapons traffickers, assassins, and smugglers of the
Chapitos Network of the Sinaloa cartel that are responsible for
bringing deadly fentanyl into the U.S.
In May of last year, we announced the Operation Last Mile
where we arrested 3,337 people across the United States for
working in partnership with the two cartels to sell deadly
fentanyl in our communities and on social media. Those
investigations showed us that half of all cases were directly
linked to the sale of fentanyl on social media.
In June and October of last year, as part of our
investigations into Chinese chemical companies, DEA charged 12
Chinese chemical companies, 24 Chinese nationals, and took 2
Chinese nationals into custody. These are the first-ever
charges to be brought against Chinese companies for fentanyl
trafficking and they demonstrate that precursor chemicals are
being sold, that they are cheap, that they are sold online on
websites, they are shipped through common carriers, and payment
for those chemicals are being made through crypto currency,
Bitcoin, Western Union, PayPal, Alibaba, and other common
sources.
In 2024, DEA continues to innovate and to work with urgency
to save American lives. The insights we have learned from our
Counter Threat Teams, we are taking them and we are building
the next step in the global fight against fentanyl by standing
up the Trident Directorate. This directorate consists of two
DEA led, joint operational task forces that will be staffed by
individuals from across U.S. law enforcement, military, and
intelligence communities so the United States can use every
possible tool to defeat the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels.
Trident will allow us to leverage all of DEA's critical
information on the cartels with our state, local, federal
intelligence and defense partners. We believe that this joint
task force will allow us to significantly disrupt the two
cartels globally. We very much hope that Congress will continue
to support this work and to help us defeat the cartels.
Before I close, I imagine that you have read press reports
regarding the DOJ proposal to reschedule marijuana. Because the
formal rulemaking process is ongoing, and my role in that
process is to determine the scheduling of drugs, it would be
inappropriate for me to respond to questions on this
rescheduling matter.
I also want to take a moment and offer my deep thanks to
every member of this subcommittee for the work that you do on
this National Fentanyl Awareness Day. The men and women of DEA
are working tirelessly every day to defeat the cartels and save
American lives and we all thank you for your support in Fiscal
Year 2024. The threat continues and the work continues. Thank
you.
[The information follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Ambassador. We are now going to
proceed under the five-minute rule with questions for the
witness and I will begin by recognizing myself.
Administrator Milgram, I understand that as of last month,
DEA has approximately 13 visas pending Mexican approval. This
has resulted in some DEA employees waiting six to eight months
for visa approval to work in Mexico. Additionally, there are 13
DEA warrants pending extradition from the Mexican Government.
Do you believe your agents would say they are pleased with our
law enforcement relationship with Mexico the same way the FBI
Director did?
Ms. Milgram. Thank you so much, Congressman. And if I can,
let me just start by talking about the global supply chain that
the two cartels operate. Those two cartels are based in Mexico.
The cartels are sourcing chemicals from China, bringing those
chemicals along with pill presses, dies, and molds to Mexico,
mass producing fentanyl in Mexico, taking some of that
fentanyl, pressing it into pills in Mexico, and then
transporting it across into the United States.
So the role that Mexico plays in this--and then they are
involved in illicit finance and money laundering to get the
dirty money back for their profits. So the role that Mexico
plays across the global fentanyl supply chain is obviously a
significant and critical one for all of us to be focused on.
And as I said before, before this committee, we are
relentlessly focused on this.
So let me say a few things about Mexico and the issue you
raise. First, we are committed to working shoulder to shoulder
with anyone across the globe who will work with DEA in
partnership on this fight. The second is that I thought
Director Wray said it very well when he said that the
cooperation has been uneven and that we need much more. And I
would echo that we have had some extraditions. We have seen the
Mexican law enforcement destroy some labs, but there is so much
more work to be done and we would very much like to partnership
with Mexico in doing this.
And finally, when you talk about the visas, just a moment
to just sort of really recognize the incredible work that is
happening by the men and women in DEA in 69 countries across
the globe including Mexico. That work is hard. They work
relentlessly on this and we are waiting on those 13 visas. I
believe one has been pending for about eight months. And
unfortunately, everyone sitting in this room, we know the price
that we pay to the country when we wait that long.
Mr. Rogers. Well, let me ask you again, do you believe--are
you pleased with our relationship with Mexico on this matter?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, I would describe myself and I
would say this very clearly on National Fentanyl Awareness Day
that I think there is so much more work that needs to be done
urgently to stop this threat.
Mr. Rogers. So you are not pleased?
Ms. Milgram. I could not have higher regard for the men and
women of DEA and the way that they are carrying out our mission
and I believe that we need more assistance globally as we fight
this threat. We also are doing more internally to meet this
moment and I couldn't say enough to you that my position is I
am never going to look a family member who has lost a loved one
in the eyes and tell them I didn't do everything I could to
stop this threat from happening.
Mr. Rogers. I gather you are not pleased.
Ms. Milgram. There is much more work to be done.
Mr. Rogers. You are not pleased.
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, I would say that--here is when I
will be pleased. I will be pleased when there are no more
American deaths from fentanyl.
Mr. Rogers. Amen.
Ms. Milgram. And that is when I think we will all be able
to say that we succeeded.
Mr. Rogers. I understand Mexico has created approval
committees, but these all appear to amount to bureaucratic
hurdles that did not previously exist. What steps have the
Department of Justice and the administration taken as a whole
to improve DEA's relationship with Mexico? Have you observed
any progress?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, I am not familiar with those
committees. I do know that the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General have gone frequently to Mexico and are often
advocating on our behalf for visas, for extradition, and for
our ability to work jointly on operations together.
Mr. Rogers. With so much fentanyl flowing across our
southern border from Mexico, and all the new limitations Mexico
has placed on DEA, how would you respond to Americans who view
our counter fentanyl efforts as a war and the Mexican
Government complicit with the cartels?
Ms. Milgram. What I say often, Congressman, is right now we
are in a fight to save American lives and this is as
significant a fight as I think we have ever seen. You have
heard me say this before, but we are losing the same number of
Americans every 11 days that we lost on 9/11, so it would be
impossible for me to overstate how important it is that we all
be working together to stop this threat and it is a grave
threat, I believe, to the United States.
Mr. Rogers. I understand that since being confirmed and
assuming the role of Administrator of DEA in June of '21, you
have been unable to meet with a single Mexican Government
counterpart. Is that true?
Ms. Milgram. I met with Attorney General Gertz, the head of
the--the Attorney General from Mexico. I met with him in 2021,
I believe in the fall of 2021 at the Department of Justice.
Mr. Rogers. How can we sincerely believe the Mexican
Government is a partner in our counter drug efforts when they
won't even meet with the head of our Drug Enforcement
Administration?
Ms. Milgram. I understand the challenges that we face are
grave and again, Congressman, we stand ready to partner and
work with any foreign counterpart that is willing to join us in
this fight to save lives.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I want to tell you that for one member of
Congress I think you are doing a whale of a good job under the
most difficult of circumstances, without any support from your
superior functions in the Government. They are not giving you
the weapons that you need, nor the support that you have to
have and we will tackle that problem here in the subcommittee.
Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, Administrator Milgram, I want to
follow up on the chairman's line of questioning about
partnering with the Government of Mexico. We have to do it. I
understand you are not in the State Department and
international relations is not your thing, but we have to talk
about this and this is where the rubber hits the road when we
talk about the distribution of fentanyl into this country. It
is coming from China. It is going to Mexico. It is coming here.
And it is killing our kids.
The chairman was asking you about delaying issuance of work
visas to DEA agents and that is what we are talking about,
Mexico is delaying work visas to American DEA agents working in
Mexico to get after the Jalisco and Sinaloa cartels. I want to
give you a chance to elaborate on exactly what effect that has
on our operations.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you for the question and let me say a
couple of things which is as I started to say to Congressman
Rogers, to Chairman Rogers, we have been waiting eight months
for one visa and we know the cost of what that means for us in
terms of our ability to get work done. Every year in the United
States we are losing more than 100,000 Americans. So time
matters and I couldn't speak with enough urgency as to how
important it is for us to get those 13 agents and intel
analysts into the country.
The second thing I want to assure you and the committee is
that our work does not stop. So we have more than 2,000 active
investigations into those two cartels. We have many money
laundering investigations, precursor chemical investigations
across the entire supply chain and into those two criminal
networks. So I want to assure you that the men and women of DEA
are working nonstop to defeat those cartels and we shouldn't
ask them to work under difficult circumstances, but they do,
and they are incredibly effective. I have seen first-hand for
the last almost 3 years.
Mr. Cartwright. And you did mention the four indictments
brought against Chinese companies and individuals for the
manufacture and distribution of precursor chemicals. But you
are not stopping there. You are continuing the investigation
along those lines about Chinese companies producing precursor
chemicals. Am I correct in that?
Ms. Milgram. So you are correct, Congressman. The global
supply chain that the cartels are running for fentanyl and
these two criminal organizations dominate the entire global
fentanyl supply chain, it starts and it ends in China. It
starts with precursor chemicals, also pill presses that are
being manufactured in China. We are actively investigating the
beginning, middle, and end of the supply chain.
And just to talk for a minute about the end, we have seen a
switch to Chinese money laundering. So essentially right now
the cartels are working with Chinese money laundering
organizations essentially as their bank to clean money, to
launder money throughout the globe and that money has been
going back to the cartels in Mexico.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, we are the appropriations panel that
funds your operation and do you need less money or more money
to get after this, the Chinese bad guys?
Ms. Milgram. You know, I will tell you one of my first
weeks I spoke to one of our senior agents in the field and he
said I am tired of doing more with less. I would like to do
more with more. So I would quote him that my commitment to this
committee is whatever you give us we will use in this fight and
already we are grateful for the support.
Mr. Cartwright. Now we talked about delays in Mexico. Let's
talk about delays in the United States for hiring DEA agents.
Last year, you committed to working on reducing the time to
hire special agents. In FY 2023, your average time to hire was
roughly 452 days and I understand as of February this year,
your average time to hire in FY 2024 is down to 345 days, but I
think it is still too long when we are talking about applicant
pool that is eager to get to work. They don't have a year to
wait around for an offer.
What can you tell us about how you have changed your hiring
practices since last year, and what is your target for average
length of time to onboard special agents?
Ms. Milgram. So I really appreciate the opportunity to talk
about this work. It has been ongoing at DEA. We have made a lot
of progress to get to 245 days to hire. It is still too long in
my estimation. I would like to see us between six and eight
months to hire at the outside.
Now what we have done is we have mapped our entire hiring
process and we have created a dashboard so we can literally
track every single applicant where they are in the process. If
there is a delay, we can figure out very quickly why there is a
delay and we have a weekly meeting where we are working to
execute on our goals. And one of our goals is to significantly
reduce this amount of time.
I would say to you, Congressman, every time we put out a
job application notice, when we invite people to apply, those
notices close in a day or two. So I agree with you. We are
seeing the desire out there for Americans to join DEA and we
need to make sure we are working quickly to get them on board.
Mr. Cartwright. So we are ironing out the kinks and
eliminating the bottlenecks, is that it?
Ms. Milgram. Yes. And we are making a lot of progress, but
there is still more work to do.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, good. Get after it. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Administrator Milgram, for being here.
The honorable men and women of the Drug Enforcement
Administration play a vital role in interdicting illicit,
deadly drugs before they end up in the hands of unsuspecting
Americans. But it is evident that, while you have our support
here in this committee, it is unfortunate that, while the
stakes couldn't be any higher, you have to deal with an
administration that is actively undermining your efforts.
I notice you have a 5 percent budget increase proposed, but
can you speak to the $10 million rescission by OMB from your
budget request?
Ms. Milgram. Thank you, Congressman.
Yes, my understanding is that all agencies have been asked
to take that rescission by OMB.
Mr. Cline. So it is just across the board?
Ms. Milgram. That's my understanding.
Mr. Cline. Okay. We want to support you, but we also
recognize that sometimes the best of intentions by agencies
like yours have unintended consequences. I want to discuss one
of those.
In 2020, DEA proposed a rulemaking to register emergency
medical services agencies, EMS agencies, under the Protecting
Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2017. While the
rule isn't set to go into effect until November of this year,
I'm hearing concerns from rural EMS operations in my district.
My understanding is that some EMS providers may have to scale
down their certifications from advanced lifesaving treatments
to basic in order to achieve compliance with what limited
resources they have.
Are you concerned that this proposed rule may result in
decreased availability in ALS treatments for those when they
need it most?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, I have not, I have not looked
specifically into that rule. I would welcome the opportunity to
do that and to follow up with you.
Mr. Cline. We would like to work with you on that.
The proposed rule targets drugs Scheduled II through V.
However, it would end up pushing rural EMS to obtain a
Controlled Substances Registration, a CSR, in order to maintain
a supply of basic Schedule VI drugs in one-for-one exchanges
with hospital pharmacies. This includes drugs such as
epinephrine, Albuterol, and Zofran.
Volunteer EMS in rural communities in my district, like
rural Bath County, are already bracing to try to afford these
compliance costs to provide the most basic of lifesaving
services. Taking out loans is being considered.
Is DEA working on a solution or can you commit to working
on a solution to reduce the cost of compliance before my
constituents experience the unintended consequences firsthand?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, I would be pleased to look at
that. I'll start looking at it this afternoon and we'll follow
up with you.
Mr. Cline. Okay. We would like to find ways to reduce those
compliance costs.
I want to go back to Chinese precursors. Last year, you
said the only limit on how many fentanyl pills and how much
fentanyl powder the cartels can make is how many chemicals they
can buy. Following their November 2023 summit, Presidents Biden
and Xi announced a verbal agreement in which the Department of
Commerce would delist China's Ministry of Public Security from
the Entity List in exchange for counternarcotics cooperation.
However, a recent House China Select Committee report found
that any form of cooperation was any empty gesture, considering
the Chinese government is continuing to directly subsidize the
manufacturing and export of fentanyl by awarding monetary
grants to companies openly trafficking fentanyl materials.
In combating the fentanyl precursor trade, you have made it
your top priority, and that is ours as well. Do you think that
this rhetoric from the Biden administration rings hollow,
considering that MPS has failed to make any arrests and has,
instead, been found to have warned targets of U.S.
investigations?
Ms. Milgram. So, Congressman, thanks for the opportunity,
because I think that this is one of the most important things
we can be focused on and talking about. And as I noted earlier,
the supply chain begins and ends right now in China. And so
there's no way we could do the work we need to do without being
focused on it.
I personally went to Beijing in January after the two
Presidents met, and I had the opportunity to have a number of
meetings with MPS and with senior leadership and law
enforcement people in China.
And I would say a few things, which is, one, my commitment
to you, this committee, is that we are going to continue to do
the investigative work that we need to do around the cartels
and the supply chains, wherever that takes us, including a deep
focus on precursor chemicals and illicit finance.
Two, we will work shoulder-to-shoulder with any law
enforcement agency that will work in partnership with us. This
is a global threat. We know that those two cartels are now
engaged in either drug trafficking or money laundering, or, you
know, getting chemicals in more than 50 countries around the
globe. So this is vital to the United States.
The last piece is, we have had constructive meetings to
date with MPS. What I would say to you is that it is too soon
for us to know where this will end. My feeling is that, because
there is a limitless supply of chemicals, we need to do
everything we can to stop that from happening. And so we will
do everything we can investigating, and also if we can partner,
we will, but we are not going to stop the work we have to do.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Well, the first thing, I understand DEA is recommending a
reclassification of marijuana as a less dangerous drug, is that
correct?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, under the Controlled Substances
Act, there's a formal rulemaking process for scheduling or
rescheduling Controlled Substances. That process is ongoing.
The next step in that process will be a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and then, an opportunity for public comment.
Because DEA is involved very much in that scheduling
process, and the DEA Administrator is personally involved in
it, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it at this
time.
Mr. Ruppersberger. My home State of Maryland allows for
adult-use cannabis to be sold under a licensed regulatory
framework. Without fully descheduling cannabis from the
Controlled Substances Act, there will be apparent conflicts
between federal and state law.
With whatever direction you recommend, I urge you to strike
a balance between exercising your federal oversight and
enforcement responsibilities while preserving each state's
ability to determine for itself the best approach to cannabis.
What is happening in Maryland is working well and we want
to preserve each state's ability to determine for itself the
best approach to cannabis. Can you talk about the impact this
recommendation will have?
Ms. Milgram. Thank you, Congressman.
Again, I can't get into details since this is an ongoing
regulatory matter. I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Also about fentanyl, at the
beginning of the year, DEA had a huge bust of pills laced with
fentanyl here in the DC region, 639,000 pills, 2,000 pounds of
drug in powder form, an almost 300 percent increase from the
previous year.
Please talk to us about the drug cartels or how the drug
cartels are working with local gangs, and what tools or
resources do you need to combat the cartels and gangs? Also
please talk about the use of cryptocurrency as a tool to
facilitate their activities. And honestly, what I'm interested
in is technology like artificial intelligence and how it is
used by the DEA in Operation Overdrive.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you so much.
So let me just start with talking about seizures for a
moment. Last year, as I noted, we seized almost 79 million fake
pills, 12,000 pounds of powder fentanyl. That is the most
fentanyl that DEA has ever seized. Every year since I have
joined DEA, year upon year, we are seizing more deadly
fentanyl.
We are also seeing that the amount of purity in the
fentanyl powder has gone up and the number of pills that have a
potentially deadly dose has gone up. So in 2021, when I
started, it was 4 out of 10 pills; it is now 7 out of 10 pills
that have a potentially deadly dose. So I think the work that
the men and women of DEA are doing taking deadly fentanyl off
the streets is saving lives.
Talking about gangs and local drug trafficking
organizations, when we did Operation Last Mile last year--and
that is the operation we did across the United States to
identify people in local communities that are working with
these two cartels, Sinaloa and Jalisco, to, essentially, you
know, cross that last mile--because the cartels need to get
those pills into Americans' hands; that is how they make money.
And the way that we have seen this done, we have seen it--
obviously, it continues to be on the streets sometimes--but,
overwhelmingly, we have seen a shift to the digital world, to
social media. We say all the time that the most dangerous place
in the world right now is our homes because everyone has a
smartphone, and within two or three, you know, essentially, two
or three clicks on a smartphone, people are having pills
delivered to their front doorstep like Uber Eats, like they get
pizza delivered.
We are losing 22 Americans, teenagers between the ages of
14 and 18, every single week right now. So this is a national
tragedy. And I would suggest to you, first, we need help on
technology. We are committed to using the best technology we
can.
And my personal feeling is we cannot allow the speed of
crime to move faster than the speed of government. We have to
be agile. We have to be able to meet these moments.
The work I have seen from our cryptocurrency tracking, our
illicit finance team, in the last year is second to none. It is
some of the best work I have ever seen in my career. So we have
a lot of data. We have a lot of technology. We need to do more
and we need more, but we are making progress, being able to
track that money across the globe.
So the answer is yes, we would like to do more, and we
really appreciate the support of this committee. And I believe
that we are setting ourselves up to be able to do this very
effectively in the long term.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My apologies to my colleagues. I'm cutting in line. I
appreciate it.
Administrator Milgram, it is good to see you again. Hard to
believe another year has passed of this devastating issue that
we have in our country.
You know, 47,000 men died in Vietnam, 33,000 in Korea. That
was over the course of 23 years. And we equal that every year
just in the loss of fentanyl. So if you want to take fentanyl,
fentanyl poisonings plus overdoses, in one year it equals all
the wars since World War II combined. That is a war, and that
is a proxy war being put on us by China, being administered by
the cartels in Mexico.
Put another way, if you crashed an Airbus 321 from one
airline every day in this country, do you think this body would
act? Do you think the international community would act? So if
you killed 200 people every day in one airplane 365 days out of
the year, we would be howling in this body. We would be passing
laws. We would be grounding airplanes. And that is what they
are doing. So this is China's way of ensuring that we don't
have a military down the road, or workers, or welders, or
plumbers, or police officers, or teachers.
On December 6, 1941, we were at war with Japan; we just
hadn't declared it yet. And right now, we are at war with the
cartels at least, and you are at the frontline of that job.
So I want to thank you for what you and your team do every
day and everybody who wears the badge. And I would also like to
say that, just yesterday in my State, you worked very closely
with local law enforcement in Georgetown, Texas--the local
sheriff, the local police department--and you caught a guy who
had 2 kilos of meth, 1 kilo of heroin, and 10 pounds of
fentanyl. How many people would that kill?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, I would have to do the math for
you with our lab, but I can tell you----
Mr. Ellzey. Tens of thousands?
Ms. Milgram. Tens of thousands.
Mr. Ellzey. Tens of thousands.
Ms. Milgram. Yes.
Mr. Ellzey. And so I just want to point out--I really don't
have a question, especially in lieu of the time that I have
been granted--I just want to say you do a great job. And I know
that each and every one of you has on your shoulders the idea
that we are losing 70,000 Americans just to fentanyl every
year, and you are the frontline of defense. And that has got to
weigh heavily on you, and I appreciate the sacrifice that each
and every one of you make--the stops that you are making, the
work you do with local law enforcement. I went to visit your
station in Dallas right next to the FBI, that it takes a
partnership with local and federal law enforcement, and your
job never ends.
And so other folks have some questions for you. I would
like to yield back the balance of my time. Thank you for what
you do.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Milgram, thank you, certainly, for taking
time to speak with us today, but also for your service to the
country. And thanks to your entire agency, the agents who work
tirelessly in my district and around the country to keep our
communities safe.
I wanted to, if I could, talk a little bit about Operation
Overdrive. In 2022, the DEA initiated it, an operation driven
by data- focus, DEA law enforcement resources in communities,
including my own in Rochester, New York, where criminal
networks are causing the most harm. And I want to thank you and
your staff for continuing to be in a position to
comprehensively brief us on the phase of the operation and its
successes.
Can you just give me an update on phase two of Operation
Overdrive and what your team saw on the ground in, I think it
is 57 operating locations last year, including the one in
Rochester?
Ms. Milgram. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
So we launched Operation Overdrive in 2021. We started it,
really effectively launched it in 2022. And the idea is really
to go into local communities, where we live and work, and where
every American is being impacted, and focus on two things:
violent crime and drug poisonings and deaths.
And so we do that in partnership with our state and local
law enforcement, with the local prosecutors, with the U.S.
Attorneys. We have now been in 86 locations across the United
States, and we are very actively working on our next phase,
which will be phase four.
What we have seen from this work, I would note a few
things, which is, one, just remarkable partnerships with our
local law enforcement, police departments, sheriffs. That is
the kind of work that we need to be doing together to really
effectively stop the next shooter in a community or stop the
person who is going to sell the next pill.
One of the things I was reading recently was a report on
Little Rock, Arkansas. We just finished work in Little Rock,
Arkansas. And the team, working together--and again, I want to
give credit to the entire team--we geospatially mapped the
community.
And what that means is, we are able to provide to local law
enforcement a map of where the crimes are happening; where the
shootings are happening; where the drug poisonings are
happening. And that, together, lets us figure out how do we
stop that harm. And we saw significant reductions in both
violence and drug poisonings.
So we are about to announce that we are going to start
moving on a rolling basis, so we can keep moving in communities
across the United States. And we are also moving to do that
kind of geospatial mapping work across the country, wherever we
are working, because that allows us to provide local law
enforcement with more insight into what we see in the
community, and they are able to provide us with insight into
what they see. And then, together, we can identify what are the
greatest threats; who are the individuals that are causing the
most harm. And then, together, we can pretty rapidly target
those individuals to make sure that they cannot commit harm.
Mr. Morelle. Great. And are you confident that the
requested budget amount will allow you to do what you need to
do in phase one?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, I'm confident that we can do that. And
again, you know, what I would like to be able to do is really
get to a point where the kind of geospatial work we are doing,
we are able to leave behind in communities. I don't think we
are financially there yet, but I would love to be able to help
our local police departments.
I was a state attorney general and had the privilege of
overseeing more than 500 police departments for the great State
of New Jersey, and I know how much they could use that kind of
help, to be able to have that kind of assistance with the
geographic mapping of threats, and then, getting access to what
we see as the threats.
So I would like to evolve and get there, but, right now,
I'm absolutely confident that we can do phase four, and that,
again, what makes this work is the partnership between the
local and state law enforcement community, the prosecutors, and
DEA, all of us together. And often, we have other federal
partners. We have had ATF, Marshals, FBI. So I am really
pleased with the work and the partnerships.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
Last year, you were kind enough to host myself, Mr. Clyde,
and Mr. Ellzey, to a day in Quantico. And during that
conversation, we talked about illicit finances aiding the
illegal drug trade, which I actually thought was fascinating.
And to that end, I understand your Counter Fentanyl Threat
Targeting Teams have been essential to combating money
laundering organizations and their expanded influence in the
Mexico transnational criminal organizations.
Can you just discuss a little more DEA's work to identify
and mitigate the cartels' illicit finance networks that are
pushing fentanyl into communities like mine?
Ms. Milgram. Yes. So we founded the first two Counter
Threat Teams in 2022. And the idea is a very simple one of
having people from across the agency--agents, analysts,
targeters, data scientists, people with chemistry expertise--
working together, focused directly on what do the networks look
like, mapping those networks, and then, identifying
vulnerabilities that we can target to take down and defeat the
cartels.
We were doing so much work very quickly around illicit
finance, that we realized last summer, in the summer of 2023,
that we needed to create a third team around illicit finance.
So we have some of our finance experts from across the United
States and across the globe that have now come together. They
are some of the most creative people I have ever seen. They
were able to really figure out how to leverage every piece of
DEA's financial data in order for us to understand the threat
and start tracking it globally.
We have a great number of money-laundering illicit finance
cases/investigations ongoing, the majority of which right now
relate to Chinese money laundering. And so you will see in the
coming months a lot of that work coming forward.
Mr. Morelle. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you allowing me to go
a little bit over, and I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Administrator. Thank you for being
here and for your work.
I know you had mentioned you don't want to speak about the
process of going to the Schedule I to III in the marijuana, but
I do want to ask you a little bit different question. I hope
you can answer that or talk a little bit about that.
There was a 2023 study by the National Institutes of Health
that referenced a rise in influx of cases of reports of
cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. And I'm probably saying that
incorrectly, but I think it is CHS, is what is referred to. And
it states that, typically, individuals experiencing CHS exhibit
a distinctive pattern of cycling through nausea, vomiting,
abdominal pain, and often, other things over a several-month
period prior to cannabis use. And the CDC said approximately 3
in 10 people who use marijuana have this disorder.
Can you speak to the adverse effects of marijuana use
disorder?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, because that is going to be a
part of this regulatory process, it would be inappropriate for
me to comment at this time. But I appreciate your mentioning
that study and, of course, I will read it.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Well, my understanding is that this
same study that NIH referenced did numerous studies
establishing a connection between marijuana use and elevated
risk of psychotic conditions, including psychosis, depression,
anxiety, schizophrenia, and substance use disorder.
And I can speak to it. So let me just put my thoughts about
it. It is I believe the United States is in the midst of a
mental health crisis. And with the adverse effects that I had
just mentioned, such as psychosis, depression, anxiety,
schizophrenia, substance abuse disorder, my concern is
rescheduling marijuana would make the crisis worse.
And again, I know you say you can't comment on it, but I do
want to go on the record with that because I do think it is a
real concern. And I'm very, very concerned about this
rescheduling and it is just very disconcerting to hear this.
And I'm deeply concerned about the impact that it will have,
especially on the population of young Americans who are more
susceptible to drug use for the first time and as they are
forming lifetimes of addiction.
So with that, let me say there's many of us in Washington
and in the Congress--and I'm sure not all--but there's a lot of
us who are very concerned about that and we hope that this is
something that is not done.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Milgram, I just wanted to follow up on my
colleague Mr. Morelle's questions and express appreciation, as
a Representative of communities in New York City, Queens
specifically--appreciation on the many ways that the DEA
partners with our State and New York City local law enforcement
agencies to take guns off our streets and to make our
communities safer.
I'm also proud of how the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,
which President Biden signed into law in 2022, has empowered
law enforcement and the courts to hold firearms traffickers
responsible. As you know well, this Act created the first
federal criminal offense for firearms trafficking.
I was glad to see that the DEA had worked with NYPD to
dismantle a gun trafficking operation in Brooklyn. In March of
this year, the defendants pleaded guilty to multiple charges
related to the distribution of fentanyl and firearms
trafficking. This case became one of the first cases in the
country to use the provision of the Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act that made trafficking a criminal offense in
federal law, which makes a huge difference in a city like New
York where the overwhelming majority of crime guns were last
sold from a licensed dealer from another state.
Administrator, can you speak to how these provisions of
this bill, this Act, support the work that your agents are
doing to take guns off our streets and reduce violent crime?
And how is the DEA allocating resources to coordination efforts
with local and state law enforcement to crack down on
interstate, interjurisdiction firearms trafficking?
Ms. Milgram. Thank you so much, Congresswoman.
You know, DEA, we are focused relentlessly on drug
trafficking, and particularly, on the fentanyl threat. That
said, we have been doing extensive work around violence in our
communities because we know the intersection between drugs and
violence. They are inextricably intertwined.
And so we do work around Operation Overdrive, as you heard
earlier. We also seize an enormous amount of illegal firearms
as part of our law enforcement work across the United States.
Last year, I think we seized more than 8,200 firearms as part
of our operations.
So we also partner very closely with all of the DOJ
components--the FBI, ATF, Marshals. And in New York City, as
you know, the ATF hosts a daily meeting with the NYPD, with
federal law enforcement. Prosecutors are in that room, state
and federal. And they are talking about, you know, who are the
individuals that are likely to be the next shooters, and really
focused on, you know, how do they stop the threat of violence
on the streets.
And so DEA has a regular presence. We are at that meeting
every single day. We have deep partnerships across the United
States with our state and local law enforcement counterparts.
And again, our main focus is on drugs, but we are
absolutely working in violent crime in communities and very
strongly working in partnership. And one of the most important
things I think is those partnerships, because we call upon one
another when we can be proactive in stopping the next crime
from happening or when we need to investigate and prosecute
something that has already happened.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Milgram, good to see you again.
It dawned on me you have probably one of the most
unenviable positions in the country right now. I don't envy you
your job. It is like being a goalie where your own coach is
actually calling plays to score against you right now, and it
has got to be very frustrating. You don't have to comment on
that.
But we do have a President right now that has an open-
border policy. You do work for an Attorney General that has,
effectively, relegated the DEA to be, in his words, ``the very
end of the line'' with a public affairs mission or campaign.
This has got to be very frustrating for you. And what that
inference is, is that your job is to focus on the demand side
and not the supply side, which is, literally, the opposite of
what the DEA is supposed to do. Your job description has the
word ``enforcement'' in it.
So we look forward, as a subcommittee, to giving you the
tools to do your job, which is the enforcement side, to make
sure that we can catch the bad guys, stop the cartels, and give
you the resources, despite the leadership above you. And by the
way, AG Garland gave himself an ``A'' in front of this
committee just a couple of weeks ago, which was, in my opinion,
offensive to the victims of the fentanyl.
I was going to ask you if we are winning or losing this war
against fentanyl, but I think the metrics are self-evident. We
are losing this war right now, and I think it is okay for you
say that you are not pleased--I think the chairman asked that
several times--because I don't think any of us are pleased with
the number of deaths that we are seeing as a result of this
poison coming across our borders.
Last year, you responded to Mr. Cline's testimony. He asked
if you would commit to calling China a major illicit drug-
trafficking or -producing country. And you answered in the
negative in that questioning. I'm assuming now that the PRC has
been put on the major drug transit and illicit drug-producing
company list, that you would say the PRC is actually a country
that we should be targeting as such?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, Congressman. The Majors List was changed
to include precursor chemicals and so Congress, along with the
State Department, has listed China as a source of fentanyl
production from those precursors.
Mr. Garcia. We appreciate your support on the communication
up the chain of command for that. We talked about the fact that
some Chinese companies have been charged to this date.
You have a $500 million budget footprint for foreign
international companies going after those folks. Can you talk
about if that budget is fulfilled what does that mission look
like and how do we continue on that?
And I used the metaphor, I think, last year in this hearing
that if we had a small or a large ship--a slow-moving ship
crossing the Pacific full of VX gas coming from China we would
stop that ship before it got to the Port of Long Beach or a
Mexican port inbound for the U.S. borders.
Talk to us about the sort of TTPs and the policies that
this $500 million will enable for us.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you so much, Congressman.
If I could start by just saying one thing about demand as
well because I sit in a lot of rooms across the United States
and across the world where people talk about demand, and we
very much understand substance use disorder.
What we are seeing happening in the United States is not
demand driven and I want to be really clear that this is the
cartels that are driving what we're seeing. That's why they're
hiding fentanyl in other drugs.
That's why they're pressing fentanyl into fake pills.
That's why they're not selling fentanyl as though it were
fentanyl.
So I think it is a really important point. We do a lot of
work around--we do do work around public awareness, One Pill
Can Kill, because the cartels are being so deceptive about how
they're trying to get these drugs to Americans.
Talking about, you know, your analogy of stopping the ship
I think is a great way to think about the analogy. What we have
done over the past few years is try to map these criminal
networks so we can get proactive and get in front of them. I
believe that we will not be effective unless we are able to
target these networks proactively.
We cannot wait until the harm has happened or until there's
a particular thing that happens to galvanize us. So what we do
with the foreign work--foreign work is vital to DEA. We're in
more than 69--we're in 69 countries right now, more than 90
offices around the world.
All of those offices their number-one focus is the United
States of America and the harm happening to the U.S. Of course,
we assist our foreign partners with their local issues but our
prime work across the globe is how do we stop the fentanyl
threat, how do we stop these two cartels.
So having mapped--and I see the map in the committee and I
look at it and I think about the map that the teams have done
showing 50 countries that the cartels are active.
So we're working in multiple countries across the globe and
with many foreign partners.
Mr. Garcia. I just want to thank you because in L.A. we
have a district attorney that won't charge fentanyl dealers
with murder if they deal known poisoned pills or corrupted
pills.
So we are able to raise those at the federal level under
the DEA and we really appreciate the ability to do that, and
your comments that this is not demand driven is not lost on us.
This is policy driven and education is key. But we
appreciate everything that you and the agents in the field are
doing to mitigate this as much as possible.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Milgram, good to see you again today and
thank you for coming to my office yesterday.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you.
Mr. Clyde. If you recall, in last year's budget hearing you
made a commitment to provide me and this committee certain
information regarding the use of no-bid contracts under your
tenure, specifically the total of no-bid or sole source
contracts administered during your tenure and the total value--
dollar value of these contracts.
My staff emailed your Congressional Affairs Office eight
different times over the last year following up on this
commitment May 24, June 8, June 23, July 5, July 14, et cetera,
et cetera, and despite your staff promising that this request
would be fulfilled soon we never received a response.
Now, your staff wasn't the one who made the commitment,
Administrator. You made this commitment and in this very room.
Ms. Milgram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clyde. You know, and I realize the Department of
Justice Inspector General is currently investigating your
contract dealings but Congress is also an investigatory body.
You know, when I was a young Navy officer my first active
duty station was Strike Fighter Squadron 161 and I had a
commanding officer, Commander Al Gorthy, and he had three words
printed in our hangar bay 3 feet high so every solitary member
of the squadron could see it and those three words stuck with
me my entire life, and those words were ``Performance, not
excuses.''
Because all I have gotten for the last year has been
excuses. I believe you're one of the few agencies within the
Department of Justice to actually get a budget increase last
year but, yet, I still do not have the information I have
requested.
And so you can add to that list not just the number and
dollar value of no-bid contracts but also list them
individually by recipients so we can see who got them and with
what dollar value was associated with each one.
I mean, I guess I can add them up. You don't have to give
me the total. But my question to you then is when will you
provide me with this information?
Ms. Milgram. So, Congressman----
Mr. Clyde. By what date?
Ms. Milgram. Let me start by apologizing for the delay on
this. As I said to you yesterday, it is not acceptable and you
have my commitment that it will not happen again. We do a
weekly meeting where we track a number of things.
At DEA we have been tracking letters back to members of
Congress. We have not been tracking QFRs until recently. We are
now tracking that. So you have my solemn commitment on that.
I have worked with--and, again, I want to take
responsibility for this. The answers went to the Department of
Justice just last week and so we are working very actively with
them to get them to you. I had hoped to get them to you by the
end of the day yesterday. That did not happen.
So I think it's imminent. I'd be happy to actually call
your office. We can call your office every day and give you a
status update. It's not in our hands right now but I think it
will be very, very soon.
Mr. Clyde. And I would appreciate that. Thank you. I will
take your offer.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you.
Mr. Clyde. Please let us know on a daily basis.
Ms. Milgram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clyde. Actually, no, a weekly basis would be just fine.
Ms. Milgram. You got it.
Mr. Clyde. Let us know when we have that information--when
you have that information--because we would like to follow up
on it.
In the fiscal year 2023 budget there was a $30 million
program increase for the information sharing center that your
administration requested. Was that for what's called mission--
the Mission Operating System or Mission OS or was that for
another purpose?
Ms. Milgram. I'm not sure, Congressman. I'd have to look
closer at it. I do know that there was some funding that came
for our internal data overhaul--our technology overhaul.
Mission OS would be a part of that. We continue to work on
developing that. But I'm not sure about that specifically.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Can you briefly describe to me then what
you're doing with the Mission Operating System or Mission OS?
Ms. Milgram. Yes. So to come very high level and then a
little more granular, when I came in I found that we had a lot
of technology that was over 20 years old and, as you know, and
you'll see this when you look at our sole source contracts
which we have reduced by more than a third, but you'll see that
a lot of those relate to technology.
Our systems are so old that to have coders--nobody codes in
the same languages that our systems were built in a long time
ago. All of that needs to be upgraded.
At the same time, we need to make changes so that--another
example when I came in is we were only tracking one drug at a
time. Obviously, right now we live in a poly drug world so we
cannot be effective unless our system lets us capture multiple
drugs.
So we have already made a lot of those changes but Mission
OS is basically the broader system we're creating that will
allow, one, us to collect all the information we need to
collect digitally and then, two, our systems to be able to talk
to each other.
So think about the hiring conversation earlier of how we
track across systems, how we basically are able to make sure
that--and what our counter threat teams are able to do is any
agent working in Des Moines, Iowa, can connect with the
information from any agent in Maine.
So we're already able to do that. But that system is still
developing and, again, my feeling is--yeah?
Mr. Clyde. So what's its current status?
Ms. Milgram. We have made a number of changes but the sort
of overall--I would use Mission OS to describe our overall,
like, the sort of place we want to get to, which is we're not
there yet but we have made a number of system changes and we
are already, I think, taking a lot of ground on it.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. I think my time has expired so I yield
back, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you,
Administrator.
We always talk about the problem. We always put blame on
somebody else. But, yet, our country continues to fall further
and further behind and I'm very frustrated with that. I want to
talk about solutions.
I think back to my time in the military. You train the way
you fight. You fight the way you train. Your allies are your
allies and your enemies are your enemies. Let's line them up.
Let's go to war and, you know, may the strongest person win.
When I look at allies, we need more allies and I think the
allies are the allies on the ground that are doing the work--
the sheriffs, the police chiefs, the constables, the local law
enforcement.
So my question--I fully support--my question is this. I
fully support state and local task forces. I continue to hear
every day how critical they are for the ongoing criminal and
counter drug smuggling efforts.
This is absolutely critical that we have a federal, state,
and local nexus that tackles and wins and makes sure our
communities are more safe.
You reported in your budget that through the fourth quarter
of fiscal year '23 that there were approximately 2,800 special
agents and 3,000 task force officers across 600 task forces
dedicated to transnational crime and drugs.
Is there any--is there a need for additional special agents
or task force officers?
Ms. Milgram. So a couple of things, Congressman.
First is as we stand up these Trident teams one is being
set up along the border--we're going to use our El Paso office
because we have great capacity there--and one is going to be
set up in New York to start.
These will be State, local, Federal teams that also have
the intelligence community and the defense community. So that's
an example I think of evolving to the next step where we'll be
able to use every piece of information that DEA has to target
this international threat.
We serve in task forces across the United States every day.
We have remarkable partnerships. We lead many OCDETF task
forces. We also serve on many task forces, OCDETF, HIDTA, and
otherwise.
And so this is one of the ways in which I think we do
really important work across the country. One of my personal
views is that we need to figure out how we can share more
information with our state and local partners.
Again, I sat as a state attorney general and I know, you
know, we're talking about tens of thousands of law enforcement
professionals across the United States that are on the front
line every single day and are incredible partners to us and can
be very effective and work with us on a daily basis with this
threat.
But how do we provide even more support and information on
the cartels and on the threats to them to help them do----
Mr. Gonzales. The DEA needs a win and America needs a win,
and I'm tired of everyone else placing the blame on the
problem. We need a win and that win starts at the local level
with these task forces.
We need to go out and take it block by block street by
street. I had the FBI--on Friday I'm going to be in west Texas
and we're doing a roundtable with local, State, and Federal law
enforcement to specifically talk about expanding some of these
task forces that are out there.
This is how you win. You don't talk about the problem. You
solve the problem. You solve the problem by getting more good
guys than bad guys and rolling them up one block at a time.
Blank checks aren't going to solve the problem. Blaming
China or someone else that's all fine and dandy. That doesn't
keep our kids safe and it doesn't make sure people don't die.
That's what this game is about. This is about life or death.
It's a life or death game that we're playing and the DEA
used to be at the center of this game. They used to be a major
chess piece in this game and it feels as if now they're a
smaller part of it and that needs to change, right.
That needs--you have my commitment but I need your
commitment where we can work together on building out these
task forces in a more robust manner. And also when we do roll
up somebody that the world knows about it. It can't just be in
secret.
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, first of all, you know, again, on
National Fentanyl Awareness Day you have my deepest commitment
that I will never stop doing everything I can to stop this
threat. I do believe we have a plan and we're making
significant progress.
But we have lost 107,941 American lives in 2022 so there is
a lot more work to do. We're committed to doing it in
partnership with you in Texas and with this committee and with
every American community.
Mr. Gonzales. I have limited time left. I'll end with this.
I'm very interested in the Trident directorate and the
direction that that's going.
Intel is absolutely critical to solving the problem and
being able to give that in an actionable way with boots on the
ground to be able to do that I think is so critical, and many
times they want to be able to do it but they don't have the
intelligence to be able to perform that. I'm very interested in
that. Would love to stay abreast of that.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Administrator, and I
yield back.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back.
That concludes the first round of questions. I assume that
there is a desire for a second round by some members at least
so we will do just that, and that's consistent with your desire
to be out of here by noon and we will live up to that
commitment.
I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ma'am, you've
previously testified before this subcommittee on the flow of
fentanyl precursor chemicals from China to Mexico.
In November of 2023 President Biden announced a partnership
with China where they would help stem the flow of precursor
chemicals. I understand that China's new efforts are mainly
civil enforcement matters with little to no actual criminal
enforcement.
Has the DEA observed any significant decrease in the amount
of precursor chemicals flowing from China to Latin America?
Ms. Milgram. So, Congressman, at this moment in time--and
we work very closely with our partners at CBP on the flow of
precursor chemicals--at this point in time we continue to see
precursor chemicals going to Mexico for the production of
fentanyl and, again, we continue to see fentanyl being produced
at historic and catastrophic rates.
What I would say to you is that we--DEA began our
reengagement with MPS in January of this year. We had partnered
with MPS and, again, in 2019, China had scheduled finished
fentanyl so we began that reengagement in January of this year
and have had some constructive meetings.
We are committed to working with any partner across the
globe that we can work with to fight this threat. We also are
continuing to do all the investigative work that DEA does and
has done over the last couple of years and, again, bringing the
first criminal charges against Chinese chemical companies and
really focusing on the movement of those chemicals.
So we're going to continue to do that work investigating.
We would like to see our partners in China take similar actions
and, again, we're a law enforcement agency and we always ask
our law enforcement counterparts to engage in law enforcement
activity.
Mr. Rogers. So not only do we not see a decrease in
precursors out of China but we're seeing an increase. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, I couldn't say that. I would have
to bring in my colleagues from CBP to sort of point to the
exact numbers.
What I can tell you is that fentanyl has increased over the
last three years in the United States and this partnership,
this work, has been constructive so far but I believe it's too
early to know whether we'll have the results that we want to
see.
But, again, you know, my commitment to you is that we are
doing this work and we will continue to do this work, and as
long as there's a global fentanyl threat we're going to
continue to investigate every part of that supply chain.
Mr. Rogers. Based on recent actions how would you
characterize our relationship with China when it comes to the
fight against fentanyl and what would you say to those who
view--who like to view China as complicit with the cartels?
Ms. Milgram. So, Congressman, when I came in we had no law
enforcement cooperation or even communication, really, with
MPS, which is the Chinese law enforcement agency, that change
starting last November when the two presidents, President Biden
and President Xi, met and they agreed to resume counter
narcotics cooperation.
So there are a few things that we have done. One is asked
for their help in prosecuting and shutting down chemical
companies, stopping pill presses from going out of China;
number two, being willing to stop global money laundering in
crypto currency that is originating, we believe, in many
instances from there, going into the capital flight issue which
we could talk a little bit about if you'd like; and then number
three, scheduling additional chemicals. So one of the things
China did effectively in 2019 was to schedule finished
fentanyl. So there are many fentanyl chemicals--the precursor
chemicals that are the building blocks that we have now asked
them to schedule.
Just to be clear also, what we know from our investigations
is that there are people working at those chemical companies
that are chemists who are actively assisting drug traffickers
or people they believe to be drug traffickers with how to
produce fentanyl. So they are essentially teaching them how to
make fentanyl.
So I want to be clear in saying what a grave threat I
believe this is and also that I believe if we could stop the
flow of precursors from China we could have a significant
impact on the amount of fentanyl being made.
Mr. Rogers. How are we supposed to reconcile the
administration's November 2023 announcement that China is a
partner on the efforts to combat fentanyl with what our DEA
agents are actually seeing out in the field?
Ms. Milgram. So, Congressman, I think, you know, what I
would say to you is that the meetings have been constructive
but it's too early to tell what the results will be. So I'd be
happy to come back to the committee as this goes on to let you
know whether we're seeing the results that we believe we need
to say.
Mr. Rogers. How would you rate Mexico's lack of action to
get your people into Mexico in place? How would you
characterize China's impact on that better?
Ms. Milgram. So, you know, I would sort of take the same
position as to both countries which is, number one, we stand
ready and willing to work with any law enforcement partners
that will work with us in this fight that are committed to
helping us stop American lives from being lost.
Second, we're going to keep doing the investigative work
that we do and DEA has incredible capabilities. I'm so proud of
the men and women in the United States and across the globe
that are working on this threat day in and day out, even in
difficult circumstances.
And third, I do think we have seen some progress but, you
know, again, to sort of refer back to Director Wray, we need
much more and we have got to see sustained, scalable
cooperation in order for us to be able to have the impact we
know we need to have. And, again, the threat is driven by two
global criminal enterprises that are headquartered in Mexico.
Mr. Rogers. Keep up the good work.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Administrator Milgram, not to put too fine a point on
it, I am interested in more questions about precursor
chemicals.
Your written testimony includes the following statement: On
June 23, 2023, indictments were announced against four chemical
companies and eight individuals, all based in the PRC, the
People's Republic of China, for knowingly providing customers
in the United States and Mexico with the precursor chemicals
and scientific know-how to manufacture illicit fentanyl. These
indictments were the first ever charges against fentanyl
precursor chemical companies. Is that correct that was the
first time?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. How long has fentanyl been hurting
Americans?
Ms. Milgram. The threat really began in around 2014 or so
and slowly increased year upon year.
Mr. Cartwright. So there have been a few presidential
administrations during the fentanyl crisis but this
administration is the first one to prosecute Chinese companies.
Is that right?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, sir. The first charges were last year.
Mr. Cartwright. And do you intend to keep that up?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay, good. I want to shift gears and talk
about marijuana for a moment. Last week the administration
announced that they would be looking to reclassify marijuana
from a Schedule I narcotic--for example, heroin or LSD--to a
Schedule III narcotic--for example, steroids or Tylenol with
codeine.
That will still need to go through a formal rulemaking
process and you alluded to that in response to Mr. Aderholt's
questions. You are restricted substantial in how much you can
go into that by--I think it's the Administrative Procedures
Act.
Ms. Milgram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. So I won't ask you to get into DEA's formal
position on the decision to move forward with that rulemaking
but I do want to ask you to give us a sense for how that
reclassification of marijuana might allow DEA to allocate more
resources to chasing fentanyl and other narcotics that are
killing people.
In other words, do we have agents that are working on
marijuana investigations that could be freed up to go to work
on cases tied to fentanyl?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, because some of this will
implicate decisions that become a part of that rulemaking
process I'm not going to be able to comment on that.
What I can tell you very, very high level is yes, we do
currently do work around marijuana across the United States
where it rises to the federal level and, you know, for an
example we have done work in a number of states on current
illicit marijuana grows that are led by Chinese organizations,
for example.
So there is work we do. Our top focus is, obviously,
fentanyl, the drug that's killing Americans, but we do do work
on it currently.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Now, you have said or, in fact, you
led off your testimony by saying flat out there is no greater
urgency than defeating the Jalisco and Sinaloa cartels on
fentanyl. But beyond that, can you walk through what your top
priorities are in the fiscal year 2025 budget request?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, sir. So the two main pieces that we have
requested in this budget are additional funding, more than $18
million for the counter threat teams.
This is allowing us to map the cartels and these criminal
networks across the globe--who are members, who are
facilitators, who are associates, what countries are they
operating in, and what are they doing--what are their roles in
the organization.
That allows us to look for vulnerabilities and to really, I
think, target in a way that can defeat the cartels. We're then
going to sort of expand this into the Trident work I was
describing.
So a lot of the work is coming out of the counter threat
teams right now, and I should--sorry--step back and say we have
started counter threat teams in the field. So each of our field
divisions now has one. Some are just getting up and running.
But the idea with the funding would be to allow us to sort
of establish the teams that we have at headquarters now--those
three teams--in a permanent way, add staff to them, and then
create broader teams in the field that will allow us in every
single part of the United States to be able to know what's the
specific threat there, is it Sinaloa, is it CJNG Jalisco, what
are they doing, who are the money launderers responsible and so
on.
And so it really is the evolution of that work as well as
the expansion to Trident. The other request, which I think is a
little more than $15 million, is for body-worn cameras.
The Department of Justice, DEA, we have made a commitment
to expand the use of body-worn cameras and so as a matter of
public accountability and transparency that work continues.
Mr. Cartwright. Understood. Well, thank you for your
testimony.
Administrator Milgram, you've been a State prosecutor.
You've been a Federal prosecutor. You've been a Federal law
clerk. You've been a State attorney general.
We are grateful for your service in the DEA and this
administration. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again,
Administrator, for obliging us a second round.
I ended the last line of questioning with the partnership
between the local law enforcement and the DEA at the federal
level, specifically the federal charges being raised against
dealers who are selling this stuff.
We have text messages coming off of phones of dead children
and 16-year-olds where the dealer admits that the batch that
they gave them may be tainted and not made correctly because
little Johnny died yesterday so, little Susie, when you take
this makes sure someone is with you with Narcan to make sure
that they can bring you back to life. This is self-evident in
terms of an aggravating assault--of a murder, effectively.
And we talked about in my county. North L.A. has the
highest density of fentanyl poisonings in all of L.A. County.
We had 80 just in my district alone last year in the 27th
Congressional District.
We have a DA George Gascon who's like the Penguin of Gotham
City. He actually helps the criminals rather than helps the
victims of the criminals and it's very frustrating.
So having this ability to go to the federal government to
prosecute with the aggravators is key. I submitted a Combating
Fentanyl Poisoning Act bill which allows for two Byrne's JAG
grants, one to directly fund local law enforcement for the
efforts of chasing down these dealers in cooperation with the
DEA and another for nonprofits to educate kids, parents,
grandparents.
By the way, I think that's not your job. Your job is the
enforcement side. Our job as parents and grandparents and
neighbors and teachers and friends is to educate kids on the
fact that this is a very real threat. One pill one kill is very
real.
So I guess my question is what can we do to better
synergize so that the federal government and the local law
enforcement regardless of county DAs, regardless of state AG
paradigms that may be pro crime, how do we better synergize so
that one plus one equals three?
Because that is the challenge. The policies are the
problem. The open border policy is the source of the problem.
China is the source of the precursors. But how do we get to one
plus one equal three on the enforcement side?
Ms. Milgram. So this is a really important area of our
work right now. We call it OD Justice and a lot of the work
we're doing across the U.S. is based on our original----
Mr. Garcia. What does that stand for, OD Justice?
Ms. Milgram. OD Justice--it's basically one of our
operations that we now have in every single field division. A
lot of that work is based on the work that the teams in L.A.
have stood up.
I mean, there's remarkable work that's been happening
there, I think, for many years between local law enforcement
and the DEA and we have used that and work in a couple of our
other field divisions as a model for how we can do this
partnership with state and local law enforcement.
We now have this in every single field division across the
United States and I'm pleased that, you know, we have
significantly increased the number of cases that we can do
where we charge death resulting, meaning that someone has given
a pill or powder that contains fentanyl, they die, and we're
able to bring federal prosecutions, holding them accountable.
So we have also set up a special unit at our special
operations division in Virginia for local law enforcement. We
have checklists for what they should look for when they get to
the scene where somebody has been poisoned or overdosed.
We have got a checklist--what do they do, who do they call,
and we have agents in the field who are on call at all times to
answer those questions and then when we can we adopt those as
to federal cases.
So it's really important work and I think we have really
significantly increased it, and L.A. has been a model for the
work that we have done.
Mr. Garcia. Yeah, we appreciate that because seeing these
parents grieve and, frankly, seeing the sheriffs' frustrations
at the local level, they have clear cases where they have all
these text messages and then the DEA doesn't file charges. It's
absurd.
So that partnership is literally the only lifeline of hope
being given to some of these victims' families right now and to
the sheriffs who are out there trying to do God's work, enforce
the law.
They have a venue and a vehicle now to bring federal
charges and I applaud you and I thank you for allowing that and
encouraging that. I'm glad that's spreading across other major
cities and throughout the country as well.
I think the technology piece is also very important. You
have access to technologies that maybe some of the local law
enforcement agencies don't, whether it's surveillance or
drones, et cetera, where we stay within the limits of the
Constitution but we also improve the probabilities of
successful arrests and preventing this poison from getting on
the streets.
So thank you again for your service and regards to all the
agents in the field. Thank you.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, first thing, I want to thank you
for all of your experience. You bring a lot of experience to
this job.
I was, years ago--and I mean many years ago--a former
investigative prosecutor. And most of what you do, we worked
federal, state, and local together, and it was really
effective--probably more effective than any other law
enforcement that I have seen.
I think that the biggest problem that we have now, I think,
is money--no question. But I think that DEA--and I'm giving
based on my experience as a prosecutor, but, more so, just in
this committee--that the DEA, people who work at DEA,
especially the agents, are very unique. They work in tough
places where it is very dangerous, where FBI in other areas
probably don't have the backup, and yet, they are there on a
continual basis working in that regard. So I just want to say
that. And you seem to be in love and want to help them in any
way you can, and we appreciate that.
Now, can you talk more about the Chinese money laundering
and about fentanyl, and what can the Appropriations Committee
do to help you? I know there is not a lot. What staff resources
do you need to investigate tracking and stopping all of this
that is going on? And do you know what Treasury is doing about
all of this, also?
Ms. Milgram. So we work very closely with Treasury. And
again, they often will bring sanctions when we have done an
investigation. So we have a very close partnership with them.
They have folks that are stationed with us at our headquarters,
and we have invited them to join the Counter Threat Team. We
think they could be very, very helpful on the finance work
along with us.
In terms of what we are seeing on illicit finance, to
explain it just a little bit, in 2016, China passed a law
limiting the amount of money that Chinese nationals can take
out of the country. And so that has created a space where
individuals in China who would like to get money out of China
above that amount--it is about 50,000 U.S. dollars, the
equivalent--so somebody who wants to get that money in the
United States needs to use a money broker, and those money
brokers are now, essentially, becoming the engine of global, at
least in the United States, fentanyl money laundering.
Because the people in the United States that have cash,
that have cash that is available for individuals who want cash
in the United States, are the cartels. They, obviously, drug
trafficking, we believe that the cartels are making each fake
pill for around 10 cents a pill and they are selling it in the
United States for between $5 and $30. So again, we are tracking
billions of dollars globally.
A lot of the reason that I think it has shifted to Chinese
money-laundering organizations is this desire to get money out
of China. We are seeing across the United States that these
Chinese money-laundering organizations are almost, essentially,
the bank for the cartels, where they can put their dirty money,
launder it, and then, that money eventually gets back to the
cartels.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. I yield back.
By the way, do you know someone by the name of Payton
Abbott?
Ms. Milgram. Yes. She is amazing.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, she was trained by me.
Ms. Milgram. Yes, thank you. Thank you. She is an
incredible part of our team.
Mr. Ruppersberger. An incredible part of the team.
Ms. Milgram. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you for letting her come to us.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Very good.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Chairman.
Administrator Milgram, okay, according to a letter dated
December 19, 2023, from the DEA's Office of Congressional
Affairs, the DEA has the final authority to schedule,
reschedule, or deschedule a drug under the Controlled
Substances Act. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. So you are the final? You're it?
Ms. Milgram. Yes. There is a regulation, yes.
Mr. Clyde. All right. In your statement, you mentioned that
it has been publicly reported and confirmed by the DOJ a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I
to Schedule III, and it is currently being considered by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
this particular article. It is: U.S. DEA will reclassify
marijuana, ease restrictions, according to the AP News, from
April 30, 2024, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Mr. Clyde. In this particular article, it says, ``The
proposal, which still must be reviewed by the White House
Office of Management and Budget,'' and it says, also, ``Today,
the Attorney General circulated the proposal to reclassify
marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.''
So, Administrator Milgram, is the decision to reschedule
marijuana being initiated or encouraged predominantly by the
White House Office of Management and Budget, the Attorney
General's Office, or the DEA? Which is it?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, there will be a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that is released. Unfortunately, I am not
going to be able to get into this conversation right now.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. So you have said multiple times that it
would be inappropriate for you to talk about this. Okay.
``Inappropriate'' or illegal? A violation of law or just
inappropriate?
Ms. Milgram. Inappropriate, according to our counsel, that
I should not be engaged in a conversation about it.
And just to sort of explain a little bit of that since DEA
is, ultimately, the decider of scheduling and rescheduling, and
the DEA Administrator is in that role, it would be
inappropriate for me to make comments about this process or
parts of that process.
Mr. Clyde. Well, we are the United States Congress. You
wouldn't have authority if we didn't give it to you. Okay? I
mean, we make the law; you execute the law. We give you the
authority. We are asking the questions.
So, I mean, it is like you are an extension of us when we
create the law. So I'm asking you the question: where is it
coming from? Is it coming from the DEA? Is it coming from the
Attorney General? Is it coming from the White House Office of
OMB? Where is it coming from?
Ms. Milgram. As you know, under the Administrative
Procedures Act, which Congress has made into law there is a
formal rulemaking process that goes on. That leads to the
issuance of an NPRM.
Then, the opportunity for public comment, and then, the
process plays out beyond that--with an ultimate decision being
made at DEA as to the scheduling or rescheduling of a
substance. So again, as the agency that will be the ultimate
decider, I'm not going to engage in conversations about issues
that could be part of this conversation.
Mr. Clyde. I mean, marijuana is a very, very dangerous
drug--okay?--not as dangerous as some of the others we have
talked about here, but it certainly is much more dangerous than
what you see regularly that people partake of, like alcohol, et
cetera.
You have a significant increase in traffic accidents that
we have seen that have sent people to the emergency rooms, like
simply because they have been partaking of marijuana.
So have you had any outreach from the White House or the
Vice President's Office regarding the rescheduling of
marijuana?
Ms. Milgram. Congressman, again, I'm not going to be able
to get into any of the process that takes place or has taken
place on this.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Are you aware of any instance in which a
rulemaking that schedules, reschedules, or deschedules a drug
under the Controlled Substances Act is not signed by the
Administrator of the DEA?
Ms. Milgram. Just again, stepping out of marijuana and
talking about this generally, I am not.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right. So are they ever signed by the
Attorney General----
Ms. Milgram. I'll look and confirm that is accurate. But,
at least in my experience--I'll confirm that with your office--
but I'm not aware personally.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right. All right. That is all I have.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again, Administrator.
First of all, I was going to ask about the Trident
Directorate. Mr. Cartwright asked the question. So I appreciate
your response to that.
But one of the things that I'm interested--and you could
perhaps help expand on this--is, you know, I have always
assumed that the cartels' interest was in creating sort of
dependency, addiction, and, you know, have a market that you
continue to supply because there is a demand. I understand that
that has changed--part of what has resulted in your One Pill
Can Kill project to educate the American public.
So it is really no longer in the interest of the cartels
per se to make sure that people stay alive, so they can
continue to feed that addiction. The model has changed pretty
dramatically.
I wondered if you could just help the American public
understand what we are dealing with right now and sort of the
new mode of operation, if you could just walk through that, and
then, why the One Pill Can Kill campaign is so important to
that.
Ms. Milgram. So you just asked the question that I think we
get asked more than any other, including when we go to schools.
Wherever we are, people always ask the same question: why would
a drug dealer kill their customer?
And it is sort of the right way to think about it in the
older model of drug trafficking. When I was coming up in the
Manhattan DA's Office, we strongly believed that drug
traffickers did not kill their clients. And in part, it was
based on some relationship. Even ``relationship'' is a strange
thing to say, but drug traffickers knew their clients; clients
knew who to go to, to purchase drugs from.
We now live in a largely digital world where more than 200
million Americans are on social media. And the cartels can
operate largely anonymously without ever knowing their client,
and the clients don't know their traffickers. And so this has
completely changed what we see.
We are also in a world where, again, the cartels are
actively trying to deceive people. They are not selling
fentanyl as fentanyl. They are selling it as fake pills that
look identical to real oxycodone, to real Xanax, to real
Adderall, or they are hiding it in other drugs that they sell
as though it were cocaine, when it is actually cocaine laced
with fentanyl.
And so this whole model has changed. And we think about
this a lot. As cartels want to sell more drugs, fentanyl is the
most addictive substance we have ever seen--50 times more
powerful than heroin. So they are using it to get people to
come back again and again, and as long as people survive, they
believe that they will have more customers. And if they die, to
the cartels, that is the cost of doing business and they are
going to go back on social media and they are going to find
someone else. And so----
Mr. Morelle. So it is interesting that, in a sense, you can
become addicted. Clearly, one pill can kill, but it may not. So
you are building, essentially, a market of repeat customers,
but, you know, to the degree they might die, it is just, you
know, as you said, the cost of doing business--because of the
addictive nature of this, and because of the deception in their
practices.
So it is not only that you need to get hooked on this; they
don't even care about that. It is, if you needed legitimately
an opioid for a medical condition or you are buying it, you
think you are buying it through a prescription, and you are
not, that is really part of the additional danger now to
Americans?
Ms. Milgram. So any American--and I always like to
emphasize this--anyone who gets a prescription from your doctor
and fills it at their pharmacy, you have nothing to worry
about. Those painkillers or other drugs are absolutely fine.
Mr. Morelle. Because they are highly regulated.
Ms. Milgram. They are highly regulated.
What the cartels have done is buy pill presses from China,
along with dyes and molds. So they can make a pill that looks
identical to an oxy, identical to a Xanax, identical to an
Adderall. They, then, advertise them for sale oftentimes on
social media as though they are real oxy----
Mr. Morelle. So I'm a patient who may be dealing with some
knee issue, some issue that requires this prescription. I get
the prescription from the doc. But, instead of going to my
local pharmacy, I go online and think, ``Oh, I can get it
cheaper this way.'' Is that, essentially, how it works then?
Ms. Milgram. What we see a lot is that people are looking
for, whether it is an oxy, an Adderall, a Xanax, some of those
people have had prior prescriptions; some have not. Some are
young people who are looking for a painkiller, for anxiety, or
some other issue.
We should be really clear in saying you cannot buy a
legitimate prescription drug on social media at all.
Mr. Morelle. Yes.
Ms. Milgram. That is not for sale. And so anything that any
young person finds on social media, we can tell you, is going
to be, most likely, fentanyl. And again, that is killing
people. And so we want to be really careful.
We are also seeing this--this goes across the United
States, all ages----
Mr. Morelle. Yes. So I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm just
running out of time. I just wanted to ask one quick follow-up.
Have you been in consultation with the major platforms
about advertising those on social media?
Ms. Milgram. So we are pushing social media very hard to do
more. I don't think we would get to 107,941 deaths if not for
the scale and scope of social media. And again, you know, we
are asking them to take a zero-tolerance policy, to raise
public awareness. There are a host of things we are pushing
them to do.
Mr. Morelle. Very good. Again, thank you for your service.
Ms. Milgram. Yes.
Mr. Morelle. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. The DEA's budget request outlines a substantial
increase--a substantial increase--for Counter Threat Teams to
combat fentanyl. While you are having so much trouble operating
abroad, and don't appear to be receiving the necessary support
from the administration, how can we be assured that we are
making a smart investment in the agency at this time?
Ms. Milgram. So, Congressman, let me say that we did talk
about it being difficult to work in some parts of the world,
but let me assure you we have incredible foreign partners. I
have met with dozens of foreign partners over the last year,
and we have incredible cooperation, as the United States of
America.
I was at the Five Eyes law enforcement meeting just last
week here in Washington. And our relationships and our
partnerships are very strong and the work we are doing together
is very effective.
So on the Counter Threat Teams, the reason this is a top
priority for us is that this lets us pull together every single
piece of information from across DEA, from every investigation,
every seizure, and it allows us to do it at a strategic level.
If you think about targeting the entire network, which is the
switch we have made, we need all that information to be pulled
together, so we can identify the key vulnerabilities and now
take this next step forward to share that information with the
intelligence community and get to a point where, you know, we
together can figure out what is the right way to dismantle
these organizations.
Mr. Rogers. How is the agency planning to measure the
success of these new intelligence-driven initiatives? And what
progress have we seen so far?
Ms. Milgram. So we measure success in a number of ways. As
I said, we have a weekly meeting where we hold ourselves
accountable. Because you can have the best plan, but if you are
not executing on that plan, you are not going to get something
done.
So we are actively looking at a number of things.
First, of course, as I said earlier, the one number that
matters, and the one number we care about above all, is
American lives.
In terms of our internal work, we measure a number of
things, including how many active investigations we have. We,
right now, have more than 2,000 against the two cartels. How we
are able to identify; how many members of those cartels we are
able to identify; where leads are being sent; where
prosecutions are being done.
And again, as we work across the entire network, we are
tracking this in each part of the network. And that lets us
say, okay, you know, how many operations do we have going on
precursor chemicals? Do we have enough? Are there other ways we
can bring them?
So we are using the metrics, really, to drive us to work in
a strategic way. And then, again, of course, we always measure,
for example, the amount of fentanyl we have seized. Every
single deadly dose off the street we believe is a potential
life-save. So we take that very seriously as well.
Mr. Rogers. I understand you are conducting a review of
your foreign operations that could lead to possible closures or
relocations of certain foreign offices, is that correct?
Ms. Milgram. So we had a foreign review report that came
out about a year ago and it had 17 different recommendations.
We have taken on a number of those recommendations, including
running a foreign footprint review.
So for the first time in many years, we have asked the
question, you know: where should DEA be? What is the threat
posed to the United States from drugs coming from or through
those countries? What is the risk of operating in that region?
And how much operational capability do we have?
So that is ongoing and we will make hard decisions at the
end because we need to be in the countries that will allow us
to be most effective to combat this threat.
Mr. Rogers. This concludes today's hearing. We thank you
for your service to the country.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. And the fact that you are making, in one of the
most important developments in our Nation's history, that is,
the fentanyl action that we talked about today.
So thank you for your service and thank you for doing a
great job as DEA Administrator--tough chore.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cartwright, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Cartwright. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you for coming.
And without objection, all members will have 7 days to
submit additional written questions for the witness or
additional materials for the record.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.

Wednesday, May 8, 2024.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WITNESS

HON. GINA M. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY
Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee will be in order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time.
I want to welcome everyone to this morning's hearing, back
here to our subcommittee members that are here and to Secretary
Raimondo for being here with us as well.
The Department of Commerce's Fiscal Year 25 budget request
totals $11.4 billion which is $654 million or 6 percent
increase over the Fiscal Year 2024 enacted level. This includes
initiatives related to bolstering trade enforcement,
innovations in manufacturing technology, economic development,
and many others, all initiatives that are vital to American
prosperity. I am pleased to see increases requested for
workforce development initiatives and strengthening supply
chain security.
The Department of Commerce's mission to spur economic
growth and opportunities for all Americans grows more and more
important every day. We are facing foreign economic influences
and challenges that can only be halted by prioritizing domestic
competition and American labor. From outbound investment
strategies to improving industrial standards, the Department of
Commerce is on the front line in our fight to combat China
economically. Through hearings like this one and a close
examination of the budget priorities that you submitted, I,
along with my colleagues, will ensure the Department of
Commerce uses all the tools and resources to take on China
directly.
Beyond international matters, the Commerce Department plays
a significant role in economic expansion and prosperity within
our nation's borders. My district is in the heart of Appalachia
in southeastern Kentucky. I have witnessed the distress caused
by the downturn of the coal mining industry. I have seen
firsthand the great things that can happen when we empower
small and rural communities through job creation and economic
opportunity. The Economic Development Administration and its
assistance programs encourage innovation by providing
competitive incentives for job creation in struggling
communities.
This year's budget also proposes investments in newer
programs, such as the recompete pilot program and the regional
technology and innovation hub program. Both programs aim to
create sustainable innovations to train the next generation
workforce. It is no secret the American economy was and
continues to be built on ingenuity, making smart and calculated
risks. The Federal Government, and particularly the Department
of Commerce, should not stand in the way of hard-working
Americans. I look forward to hearing about how this year's
budget request prioritizes American innovation and
competitiveness.
So let me now recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning to you, and good morning to our witness and welcome,
Honorable Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce.
Madam Secretary, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say
the Department of Commerce right now is more central to our
national interests than ever. It is responsible for a broader
than ever set of priorities. Your Department is at the
forefront of critical efforts driving American competitiveness,
American national security, American technological leadership.
You are responsible for an awful lot, overseeing billions of
dollars to help expand access to broadband, maintaining export
controls that protect our national security, identifying
weaknesses in our supply chains, providing accurate and
reliable weather forecasting, bringing good jobs to distressed
communities. The chairman just mentioned the recompete program
and I am also interested in that. Jump starting our
semiconductor manufacturing industry, conducting an accurate
census, advancing the trade interests of American businesses,
and leading the way on safety and development for critical
emerging like artificial intelligence, and that is just a
sample of your highest profile work.
I look forward to hearing today about the Department's
commitment to keep American manufacturing, our supply chains,
and overall global competitiveness strong. The President's
Fiscal Year 2025 budget request of $11.4 billion in
discretionary funding for the Department of Commerce represents
an increase of 5.9 percent for the Department's important and
diverse missions, all of which are critical for the success of
American workers and businesses in the 21st century. The
request focuses on many of the Department's needs and it was
interesting to read the census request as the Bureau prepares
for the 2030 census, seems just like yesterday we were gearing
up for the 2020 census.
The Department continues to implement key components of the
bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act and the IIJA, the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Programs under these
acts will expand broadband access across the country and
revitalize America's competitive edge in semiconductor
research, development, and manufacturing. So I look forward to
hearing further about these issues and others and I thank you,
Madam Secretary, for your ongoing work and for your presence
and testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. We will now recognize our witness, Secretary
Raimondo, for an opening statement. Without objection, your
written statement will be entered in the record. Welcome to the
subcommittee, Madam Chair.
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you. Good morning to all of you.
A special thank you to Chair Rogers, Ranking Member Cartwright,
thank you for your leadership and all the members of the
subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity this morning to
discuss the President's budget and I want to say thank you for
your strong support of the Department in a bipartisan way. We
have received excellent support from your committee and I want
to say thank you for that.
As you have said, the Commerce Department is implementing
major initiatives authorized by Congress through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction
Act, the CHIPS and Science Act. Thanks to you and these laws
and the funding you have provided, every day at the Commerce
Department we are tackling our nation's most pressing economic
and national security priorities. It is not an exaggeration to
say that the Commerce Department is doing more now than we ever
have before. The budget request, as you have said, is for $11.4
billion in discretionary funding and $4 billion in mandatory
funding for fiscal 2025. And I am here to discuss the budget
and, of course, to ask you for your support for the budget.
Permit me to highlight just a few of our key priorities.
First, the budget positions America to prevent China and other
countries from obtaining U.S. technologies, capital, and
expertise for activities that threaten our national security.
Specifically, it includes a $223 million increase for BIS to
expand export control enforcement and $5 million for ITA to
address risks from outbound investments of investments in
defense technologies in China.
Second, the budget promotes America's technological
leadership and responsible innovation in artificial
intelligence. We all know AI is the defining technology of our
generation, so we are asking for $30 million for the AI Safety
Institute at NIST and also money for NTIA to establish an AI
and emerging technology policy lab. With AI, we need to invest
and go fast and at the same time keep a lid on the risks. The
budget supports resilient supply chains. It includes an
increase of $12 million in ITA to support a supply chain
resiliency office and it includes $37 million for NIST's
Manufacturing USA program and $175 million for NIST's
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. We cannot be a great
country unless we manufacture in America and have resilient
supply chains and so that is what these investments are for.
The budget provides resources to strengthen our
relationship with our allies, to advance our shared values, and
shape the strategic environment in which China operates. We
have to out compete China. That means we have to show up around
the world. So the budget includes $379 million for ITA to
expand U.S. exports and services to help U.S. businesses grow
in foreign markets. The budget invests in good jobs and
equitable growth, as the chairman referenced. It requests $4
billion in mandatory funding for tech hubs and $523 million in
discretionary funding for EDA, in order for EDA to advance its
mission of tech hubs, job training with the Good Jobs
Challenge, and foster geographic diversity and innovation. It
also invests $80 million in the MBDA to continue our services
for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses.
The budget invests to address climate change. It includes
$6 and a half billion for NOAA, including $2 billion for the
nation's weather and climate satellites, $1.4 billion for the
National Weather Service, $2.12 million for climate research.
Finally, the budget invests in our fundamental science
infrastructure. The budget invests over $400 million in
fundamental research infrastructure, science research at NIST
and NOAA and NTIA. This includes critical investments in
maintenance, renovations, and improvements at our NIST
campuses.
So in closing, I just want to echo what the chairman said
and the ranking member said. Our work at the Commerce
Department focuses on strengthening America's competitiveness,
both at home and abroad, so that American workers, families,
and businesses can participate and prosper in 21st century
global economy and most important, we protect our national
security. So with that, I am happy to answer any of your
questions.
[The information follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. We will now
proceed under the 5-minute rule for questions. I will begin by
recognizing myself.
Madam Secretary, between each decennial census, the U.S.
population grows and changes. Therefore, effective and
efficient government requires high-quality and objective
sources of information. How does the Census Bureau determine
what questions will be included in the decennial census?
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for the question and we are
gearing up for 2030 which is closer than you might think. I am
so proud to say that we have unbelievably high quality data
scientists, statisticians, economists at the Census and they
are constantly in the process of using the best data science
and statistics techniques to figure out how do you ask these
questions to get the best information. Fundamentally, the
census should have nothing to do with politics. It should just
be about getting the data, so we have the best objective
picture possible of all the people who are in America and every
information that we can gather about them and their needs.
Mr. Rogers. Illegal immigration is out of control. There is
a crisis at our Southern Border and just like you need to be an
American citizen to vote, I think that you should be an
American citizen to be counted in the census. Just like voting,
census data has a direct impact on our representation. If a
locality knows they can receive greater representation in
Congress and greater resources from the Federal Government,
doesn't the current policy encourage that locality to flout
illegal immigration laws to inflate its own census number?
Would the Secretary like to comment?
Secretary Raimondo. Respectfully, sir, I do not agree with
that. The Constitution is crystal clear. Our job is to count
all persons without regard to their immigration status and as I
said before, I am very proud of the professionals who work at
the Census. And honestly, my job is not to inject my political
views or the President's political views or anyone's political
views into the way they do their job. Their job is to be
nonpartisan, collect the best data possible, and count every
person.
Mr. Rogers. Given China's increasing dominance in various
industries including technology, I would hope the International
Trade Administration is working towards a plan to prioritize
national security concerns alongside efforts to promote U.S.
exports and reduce the trade deficit with China. What measures
is ITA taking to prevent the transfer of sensitive U.S.
technology to China?
Secretary Raimondo. So thank you for the question. This is
probably the thing I spend most of my time on which is making
sure we do everything we can to deny China our most
sophisticated technology. So BIS, working with ITA, we try to
have a robust program.
I am very proud to say that in my tenure, we have put more
Chinese companies on the entity list than under any other
Commerce Secretary. Last year, we had more convictions of
export control violations than ever before and we are just
constantly, I wake up every single day figuring out how we
might tighten our controls to make sure that China cannot get
access to our most sophisticated chips, AI, quantum, et cetera.
This budget requests additional funding for BIS. It has
been flat since 2023, but licensing requests are going up. The
budget also requests money for ITA so we can do outbound
investment screening to make sure that U.S. money doesn't go to
advance Chinese capability in these sensitive areas. So I am
out of time. I will leave it at that, but I absolutely share
the priority.
Mr. Rogers. How will ITA ensure that U.S. businesses are
not inadvertently supporting China's military ambitions or
engaging in activities that could cause a threat to U.S.
national security? What steps is ITA taking to strengthen its
screening processes and ensure compliance with export controls?
Secretary Raimondo. So as I said, we are constantly
looking--the thing here that we watch out for mostly is dual
use, the technology that can be used in a commercial
application, but also in the military. And so that is the hard
work of what we do, trying to figure out what are commercially-
available technologies by U.S. companies that China doesn't
have that they want access to to advance their military. And so
it is a constant vigilance like constantly interfacing with
U.S. companies, constantly gathering data, and importantly,
enforcing. You know, under my leadership, we have imposed the
largest single civil penalty ever for a company, in this case,
Seagate, who went around our export controls. We have had more
convictions last year than any year before. So it is a
combination of changing the policy, working with companies, but
also being really serious about enforcement.
Secretary Raimondo. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Raimondo, you finished your opening statement rightly pointing
out that our top priority in the Commerce Department is
national security and I agree with that. So I want to follow up
on some questions the chairman had about BIS.
In the interconnected and rapidly modernizing world, our
biggest challenges in national security are often problems of
economics and technology, two areas where the Department of
Commerce leads. Now you have been using the three letters BIS a
lot and a lot of people aren't familiar with that. BIS stands
for the Bureau of Industry and Security and I think we ought to
say that whole title for people that don't know what that is.
The Bureau of Industry and Security, this year, your request
includes a $32 million increase and a request for 26 new
positions. I would like you to discuss how this Bureau of
Industry and Security request helps address national security
challenges, especially the threat posed by China's military
modernization.
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you, sir. The Bureau of Industry
and Security wasn't very well known until the last handful of
years and the reason is because of what the chairman said, the
threat from China. When you think national security, you might
think guns, tanks, missiles, fighter jets. I think semi-
conductors, quantum, AI model weights, et cetera. And so what
we are doing at the Commerce Department is constantly studying
these dual-use technologies to figure out what do we have,
where is China, and make certain that China cannot access our
technology for their military.
So for example, in the budget request, there is the number
$8 million for export control officers. If we are going to go
after the bad guys, we need to be on the ground collecting data
to find them when they do an end run around export controls. We
are asking for $3.5 million for IT systems, right? Like we need
to know where they are at all times.
And by the way, it is not just China. We find Chinese and
Iranian equipment in drones in Russia. So in any event, the
Bureau of Industry and Security is at the leading edge of
protecting this country's national security. The budget has
been flat. The threat is quadrupling and I am respectfully
requesting additional monies.
Mr. Cartwright. Your request is noted. Madam Secretary, as
the scope and complexity of the agency's work continues to
expand, do you worry about being able to hire and retain staff
with the necessary technical expertise and what is being done
to address this challenge?
Secretary Raimondo. That is such a great question. I worry
about it constantly. If we are going to compete, the U.S.
Government needs the top tech talent that there is and it is
why, for example, I am requesting money for artificial
intelligence, the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute. If
we are going to know what is going on at the cutting edge of
AI, I need the best scientists there are. So yes, I worry about
it. That being said, I am very proud of our track record. We
just recruited somebody from OpenAI to come and work for us who
is a leading scientist there. The CHIPS team is run by some of
the best semiconductor professionals in the industry, so it is
a daily challenge. It is why we are requesting funding, but I
will say I have been very impressed with the quality of people
we have been able to get.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, speaking of AI, what specific
investments are you proposing?
Secretary Raimondo. So in AI, we are asking for funds for
the AI Safety Institute which is to create standards for AI.
You know, everybody, including myself is worried about
synthetic contents, so we want companies to watermark what is
AI generated. Well, what is adequate watermarking? What is
adequate red-teaming? So we are going to build a team, the AI
Safety Institute, to develop standards so that Americans can
know--be safe.
We are also investing in scientists and we are investing in
policy people at NTIA to help us develop policies for AI. I
would just say in this respect I very much am looking forward
to working with the Congress. We are doing what we can do, but
at the end of the day, Congress needs to legislate as it
relates to AI and I look forward to supporting that effort.
Mr. Cartwright. And last question, the AI Safety Institute,
that will be part of NIST, am I correct in that?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, exactly, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Secretary Raimondo. Science and Technology. Where we have
two Nobel Prize winning scientists. People don't understand how
top notched the scientists are at NIST.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you Secretary.
Iran hates the United States and our allies, like Israel and
Ukraine. And Iran is eating America's lunch.
My question is the Department of Commerce plays a key role
in enforcing U.S. sanctions on Iran. I am concerned that
reports that Iranian drones used in Ukraine were determined to
have been built with numerous components from American firms.
Tehran and its proxies throughout the Middle East are using
drones with American-made technology to attack American
personnel and our allies. What is the Commerce Department doing
to address the illicit exports to Iran?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Listen, I share your concern and
if you have any ideas of what more we can be doing, I would
like to hear them. I really would.
When the war broke out, we immediately put export controls
in place against Russia with 39 other countries and they were
effective. They are effective. Part of the reason we know they
are effective is Russia couldn't get our stuff, so they went to
Iran and China and now we see what you are seeing. So we
continue to tighten, like we are constantly adding entities to
our list.
With respect to Iran, we put together a task force with the
DOJ and DHS to do everything we can to enforce our export
controls. I will be the first to admit that there is more work
to be done. What I would tell you is we are just throwing--
every tool we have, we are throwing it at the problem,
tightening the actual policy controls. Some of the money I am
asking for is for export control agents, right? We have to be
able to enforce these rules and just stay vigilant on it every
single day.
Mr. Gonzales. I have some ideas. I would love to be able to
visit with you and maybe walk through making some of this come
to fruition. Maybe we can follow up with that.
Secretary Raimondo. Absolutely.
Mr. Gonzales. Great. My next question is I continue to hear
concerns from rural communities. My district is larger than the
State of Pennsylvania and a large part of it is in rural
communities and folks in South and West Texas talk about their
potential ability--the communication providers in these areas
talk about their potential ability to participate in the
agency's BEAD initiative, the lack of it, due to the large size
of the areas and that some states will require applicants to
serve as well as the challenges delivering services at a very
low mandated rate to certain consumers.
What has the agency done about these concerns, basically
large areas that you are trying to cover? It is very different
from an urban area.
Secretary Raimondo. So, once again, this is something, you
guys are hitting are all the topics that keep me up at night.
My job in implementing this $42 billion is to make sure
every American has access, everyone. We have never had a task
like this before including rural. We are massively focused on
rural. That is what the subsidy is for. So we are working very
closely with your governor and with the governor's team, using
our maps to figure out who is not covered and providing
subsidies to companies so that they, in fact, cover everyone
including in rural areas.
What I can tell you--listen, I do feel confident, based on
everything I know that we will get every community, even the
most rural. We are going to have to be agnostic. It may be
fiber. We have fiber preference, but it may not be. That may
not be affordable. And we are going to make sure that everybody
has access that is affordable at the end of our implementation.
The way it works is every state has to submit a plan.
Mr. Gonzales. Sure.
Secretary Raimondo. Texas is different than Pennsylvania,
different than Kentucky and before we are giving any money to
your state, we have to be satisfied that everybody will have
access.
Mr. Gonzales. Rural broadband is a very serious concern of
mine because I feel as if there is a greater divide happening
in this country and it has nothing to do with the color of your
skin or how much money you have in your bank account. It has
everything to do with where you live and that is not fair to
many people. Now it is a difficult problem set. It is not an
easy wave the wand, throw some money at it and all of a sudden
it goes away. But I would be very interested in how do we
incorporate technology maybe into speeding up this process.
There is a lot of options there.
My last question is I want to ask you about--we talked
about NIST earlier. I want to ask you about the delays at NIST
for certifications through the agency's cryptographic modular
validation program, CMVP. NIST is sitting on an enormous
backlog, some going as far back as 2021. There are certain
components that go into civilian and Department of Defense
systems of data security and encryption. What is your plan to
address this backlog?
Secretary Raimondo. So let me get you a more detailed
answered because as a former governor, backlogs drive me crazy.
I have got to get you the specifics, but I promise you I will
get back to you.
Mr. Gonzales. Excellent. Thank you. I appreciate the time
and chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. DeLauro is recognized, the ranking member
of the full committee.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and at the
outset if I might ask unanimous consent to put my opening
statement in the record. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Ms. DeLauro. And I want to welcome Secretary Raimondo, and
I do want to say just a moment before I get to questions that
I'm so delighted to have you here today.
When the Biden administration took over 3 years ago this
Nation really was in the throes of an economic crisis and
public health catastrophe.
Your leadership, and with the help of this committee, have
improved our supply chains, you've invested in our communities,
you've increased manufacturing, helped small businesses grow,
and through the appropriations process and legislative efforts
like the CHIPS and Science Act, infrastructure, really have
been an infrastructure that allows us to be able to do what you
said at the outset is to be competitive and to make America
competitive.
Let me just--I think you know what question I'm going to
start with first--my hope is is that we'll have a second
round--but that is outbound investment. We have talked about
this many times.
I think the review mechanism is critically important to the
nation's security and that American investors are not advancing
the military and, as we just pointed out, as you pointed out,
technological capabilities of our adversaries.
When we spoke at the hearing last year you were discussing
the importance of targeting this policy to investments that
directly impact our national security.
The administration since then has issued an executive
order. Create an outbound investment program, prohibit certain
U.S. investments in countries of concern involving sensitive
technologies and products. It will also require notification
for investments involving lower risk products.
While I understand Treasury is leading the effort, I
understand that the International Trade Administration--ITA--
will provide key support through analysis and industry specific
technical expertise.
This will be critical to understanding the security risks
that are associated with rapidly advancing cutting-edge
technologies.
The budget requests an increase of 5,000,012 positions
within ITA to create this new office, hire experts with the
needed technical expertise.
As Treasury continues to work on regulations can you
describe to what extent ITA has already started supporting
implementation of the outbound investment executive order this
year in 2024?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. DeLauro. And do you have staff dedicated to this work?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Yes, we do. So, first of all,
thank you for your persistent focus on this issue. It's
incredibly important. It relates to what we were talking about.
Technology is one thing but we can't let them have our
money and know-how. We have decided to focus on semiconductors
and quantum and AI to make sure that U.S. money isn't funding
those initiatives in China.
Like you said, Treasury is in the lead. As I understand it,
by the end of this year--by the end of this calendar year the
rule we'll be done and so we can really start to implement it.
What we're doing now in the meantime is building a team and
we have asked for $5 million to continue to study the industry.
So Treasury is, obviously, in charge of the finances and
which funds and how to do the rule but we are helping them to
figure out which pieces of AI should we be most worried about,
which kinds of companies should we be most worried about.
When we talk about quantum, you know, what does that
actually mean? So we're providing, like, the commercial,
industrial, technological know-how to match up against
Treasury's financial know-how and we're already hard at work
doing that.
Ms. DeLauro. Let me just--beyond what's included in the
budget is there anything else that you can share with us about
your resource needs, how ITA will ramp up outbound investment
support activities?
And given the type of technical expertise required do you
expect to be--that hiring will be a challenge? So what are the
spaces for you where we might be able to help with?
Secretary Raimondo. I appreciate that. It's a few spaces.
One is just data. You know, the kinds of investments we're
talking about are not in public stock market companies, you
know.
It's private money. It's hard to track, candidly. So any
data that we can get access to to track these sorts of private
investments by us and our allies is very important.
So some of that is, like, buying data sets, buying IT
systems. And then the other thing is people. So we need to
attract, like we were talking about before, AI specialists,
quantum specialists.
Not so much scientists but commercially minded people, like
former venture capitalists, for example, which is hard. It is
hard. But we have done it in the CHIPS program. We have, former
investors and such.
I think we can do it in ITA. But that's what we're trying
to do and that's the challenge.
Ms. DeLauro. There's a final point. How will ITA anticipate
and identify technologies and products that may be needed to
add to those covered by the program now? You and I have had a
conversation in the past about critical minerals, batteries, et
cetera, so forth. But what will be the process with ITA of
looking at what we should add to this portfolio?
Secretary Raimondo. So one of the other budget requests--
and I can't remember the precise number--but we're also asking
for additional money for our supply chain management office. I
think it's about $12 million that we're asking for in ITA.
I will tell you all, members of the committee, when I
started as secretary we were using Excel spreadsheets and
getting on the phone with companies to do supply chain tracking
and now we are building a team.
We built a team. I'd be happy to model the product we have
built for anybody here. It's a bespoke IT system where we can
track and monitor our most critical supply chain
vulnerabilities.
We need to keep building that. We need to be much more
proactive instead of reactive, predicting where we're going to
have a supply chain problem, where is China poised to take
advantage of us.
So that's the direction we're moving into instead of just
being reactive--you know, we're out of baby formula on the
shelves react.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for the
additional time. Much appreciated.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here.
The Bureau of Industry and Security is the Commerce
Department bureau that enforces export controls, correct?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
Mr. Clyde. All right. According to the guiding principles
found on its website the Bureau of Industry and Security should
ensure that the regulations it promulgates does not, and I
quote, ``impose unreasonable restrictions on legitimate
international commercial activity,'' end quote.
The Bureau's guiding principles also state that they should
avoid regulatory actions that, and I quote, ``compromise the
international competitiveness of U.S. industry.''
Now, you're asking for a budget increase for the Bureau of
Industry and Security, $32.4 million, and also the
International Trade Administration, whose responsibility it is
to strengthen international competitiveness of U.S. industry
promoting trade and investment, you're asking for $34.5 million
dollars for them as well, both increases totaling over $60
million.
And, yet, the Bureau of Industry and Security finalized its
interim final rule on April 30th of this year that permanently
extends the current pause on firearm export licenses, violating
both the previously outlined bureau guidelines by severely
restricting American firearm, ammunition, and other component
manufacturers from acquiring the necessary licenses to export
their products for sale.
Under this interim final rule the duration of firearm
export licenses will be reduced from four years to one with
approvals now occurring on a case by case basis.
Following implementation of this rule approximately 2,000
active firearm export licenses that were previously approved
will be automatically revoked, compelling the affected
companies to submit new applications for export licenses. So
much for the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In fact, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates
that this could have an adverse economic impact of greater than
$250 million for the United States firearms industry, severely
hurting the countless firearms industry manufacturers,
suppliers, and jobs that are supporting--that are supported
across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to submit to the
record this firearm and ammunition industry economic impact
report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Mr. Rogers. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
You know, this rule will cause massive confusion in the
market. It will terminate current business. It will damage the
goodwill of the brands of firearm manufacturers and it
eliminates future business.
So, Madam Secretary, $250 million is a huge amount. Would
you consider that an adverse economic impact and would you
consider that as compromising the competitiveness of the U.S.
industry abroad?
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for the question. I will say
this. National security has to come before commerce. It's one
of the hardest parts of my job. I tell semiconductor companies
that they can't sell their chips to China. It denies them
revenue. But, first and foremost, it's national security.
I want to say I hear you--I hear you and I appreciate your
concerns. But the reality is this is a very narrowly targeted
change to tighten up our license requirements.
It's based upon good data we have around diversion. Guns go
one place but wind up in the hands of criminals or drug
traffickers or terrorists, and we're denying or making it very
hard to sell guns to 36 countries that have unrest, huge drug
cartels, all of the--it is not in America's national security
interests to export guns that wind up in the hands of criminals
that could destabilize those countries or, quite frankly, our
own country.
I will tell you, every one of those people that had their
license revoked can reapply. But it's going to be under
stricter scrutiny in light of the evidence we have around
diversion.
Mr. Clyde. Well, ma'am, I mean, these are vetted countries.
You know, obviously, these licenses were approved in the past.
Okay. I mean, this is going to cost the United States arms
industry a tremendous amount of money.
So was there any communication with the White House
regarding this rule?
Secretary Raimondo. Probably but, no decisions we make have
any--if you're insinuating was there any political element to
this, absolutely not.
We have data from the GAO and other places that say, you
know, when law enforcement agencies confiscate guns in these 36
countries in connection with crimes, drug crimes, cartels,
terrorists, they're guns that have been diverted.
They were sold to a legitimate commercial user and diverted
and that's against American national security and that's why we
took these steps.
By the way, as proof that these are narrowly targeted as
everything we do in BIS the restrictions will affect less than
10 percent of all gun exports. So I don't agree with you. I
agree--I admit it is some commerce.
But I think national security comes first and I don't agree
that it's large swaths of commerce. These are narrowly tailored
to meet the national security mission.
Mr. Clyde. Ma'am, a $250 million economic impact is not
narrowly tailored. I, certainly, cannot possibly support this
increase in funding when BIS comes out with this particular
type of a rule.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Cartwright, for holding this important hearing and,
Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us today and for your
service and that of your staff. We interact often with them and
the whole operation has been incredibly professional and very
helpful.
I want to talk briefly about regional tech hubs and
appreciate, again, your leadership in this space, which has
been extraordinary. But if you could just help articulate. You
know, my hope is that we will find ways to have robust,
consistent, predictable funding for the regional tech hub
program over the next decade.
It seems to me that's important not only to aid those areas
we're going to invest in but also to attract private capital,
something, obviously, you know, a great deal about.
I wonder if you could just talk about from the perspective
of both achieving the mission and attracting private capital to
many of these communities why that robust consistent funding is
important to predictability.
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you, Congressman.
I have to say I can't believe I've gone this far in a
hearing without someone asking about tech hubs and here's why.
In my entire time in government I've never seen a more popular
program on a bipartisan basis in rural communities and, it's
unbelievable to me.
It's a great program that you created and authorized. We
have 400 applications worth about $2 billion. We will have the
money to make half a dozen tech hub investments of size, $30
million, $40 million.
I wish we could--we have identified--of the 400 we
identified 31 that we thought were really the best. Every
single one of those is worthy of funding but due to the funding
constraints in EDA, we'll do, like, six to 10-ish investments.
This is necessary for national security. I mean, I can do
everything possible in the world with Bureau of Industry and
Security to deny China.
The way we will beat China is by out innovating China and
that means tapping into the technology, resources, and talent
in every nook and cranny of America including, by the way,
Chairman Rogers, in coal country and in rural country.
Kentucky has a great tech hub proposal. I don't have them
all memorized but in all of your districts your states have put
in great tech hub programs.
Silicon Valley, Boston, New York City, don't have a
monopoly on great talent, great ideas, and great technology,
and the whole point of tech hubs is to get outside of those
communities and consistently fund innovation in America to make
us stronger to outcompete the world.
So, the budget asks for additional funding for that. I
respectfully request that additional funding. It'll make
America stronger in every way possible.
Mr. Morelle. Well, I appreciate that. I'm not sure if I get
points for being the first person to ask but if you want to add
points to my ledger that would be great.
I wanted to turn quickly to AI. We have talked about it a
fair amount. I actually have introduced legislation which would
prohibit the disclosure of nonconsensual AI deep fake in
pornography which, as it turns out, and this is really
troubling, 96 percent of deep fakes online are pornographic or
intimate in nature.
But what I really appreciate about the AI Safety Institute
and NIST is I believe part of this is to look at content
authenticity detection, which is really important, so people
can be, certain or have some degree of confidence that what
they're looking at actually is real and it hasn't been adapted
or faked in some way.
Could you just talk a little bit about what you anticipate
or what you envision NIST doing to be able to identify that?
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah, thank you for your legislation.
It is really scary and unbelievable to see some of these deep
fakes. I'm sure you guys have seen them.
So what we're going to do in the budget request for NIST is
a couple things. One, develop the science to be able to
identify what is authentic versus what is AI generated.
But, two, I think we need to get to a place where we--and
we will need Congress' help to do this--where we require
companies to identify is this AI-generated content or is it
real content and they'll do that by some process of water
marking.
And what we're going to have to do at NIST is figure out
what's adequate watermarking. So that it's all about trust. You
know, AI is exciting. We can cure cancer faster, create
medicine faster.
But people have to trust it, and so we're going to develop
standards around synthetic content and watermarking so that an
individual when they see it will know is it fake or is it real,
and that if it's watermarked, fake or real, they can trust in
that watermark.
Mr. Morelle. I appreciate that. And I know my time is up
but I'd also say we need to think about the data sets used to
train AI models and I don't think there's enough conversation
around that. I'd love to interact with your staff and just get
additional thoughts on that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here today.
I'd like to, first, give you a compliment on the Bureau of
Industry and Security restricting sale of chips from Intel and
Qualcomm to Huawei in response to a letter from Senator Rubio
and Representative Stefanik--the turnaround on that was
fantastic--as well as using NTIA for $420 million in grants to
offset what Huawei has done.
They are a real threat and have been for 20 years and I
think we're realizing that. So I wanted to start with just a
compliment.
I want to transition to Taiwan and the South China Sea. Can
you describe for me exactly approximately how much of the
world's commerce goes through the South China Sea?
Secretary Raimondo. Massive amounts. Just 10 seconds on
your prior thing. Technically, I'm not allowed to talk about
any particular license revocations. However, back to our
conversation, Huawei is a threat. AI is our focus.
As we get more data around our threats we make changes to
tighten the screws including revoking licenses that have been
previously given.
So without commenting on those two companies specifically I
just want to reassure you we're constantly on it tightening
screws where we need to including revoking licenses.
I don't have a number for you but, I don't know, massive--
--
Mr. Ellzey. It wasn't meant to be a--it's about a third.
It's about a third of the world's commerce.
Secretary Raimondo. A third, yes. Massive amount of
commerce.
Mr. Ellzey. And that is right in the vicinity of Taiwan. So
could you very briefly describe for me what happens if China
invades Taiwan and locks down the South China Sea to American
commerce and takes over TSMC?
Secretary Raimondo. It would be absolutely devastating.
Mr. Ellzey. How devastating?
Secretary Raimondo. Well, right now--I'm not commenting on
whether that's going to happen, how it's going to happen, if
it's going to happen but what I can tell you is right now the
United States buys 92 percent of its leading-edge chips from
TSMC in Taiwan.
Mr. Ellzey. And that's because they're two generations
ahead of anything that we can build here in the United States,
correct?
Secretary Raimondo. No. They are vastly ahead anything
we're doing in the United States. However, the announcements
TSMC just made in Arizona will be to build two nanometer and
three nanometer, which is their most sophisticated stuff.
Mr. Ellzey. Got it. But until then they're a strategic
asset in Taiwan, which makes it essential for us to defend the
South China Sea and Taiwan, not just one place. Would you
agree?
Secretary Raimondo. I would agree, yes.
Mr. Ellzey. Okay. So moving on from that, on the chips
issue we're finding that chips from North Korean drones being
used by Russia to attack Ukraine have American chips in it--in
them. So what is BIS doing to stop that flow?
It appears that they can use what we think are harmless
commercial grade chips to use for lethal purposes around the
world at a time that very--looks very much like 1940.
Can we be doing more or are you doing everything you can
and some just slipped through? How does that work?
Secretary Raimondo. A few things. One, the fact that they
have to use chips from breast pumps and refrigerators and such,
which is what they're doing, is because our initial controls
worked, right.
We're denying that sophisticated stuff, which has slowed
them down hugely and so they're going to do what you're doing,
which is getting, quote/unquote, ``commodity chips'' and
jerryrigging their equipment.
It's less--and they're having to rely on Iran and China to
do this. So that's not good news but it is what it is. So we
are doing everything we know how to do as fast as we can with
the resources that we have. For example, when we find out that
a Chinese company is going around our export controls to Russia
we put that company on the Entity List.
When we find out--I was telling you--someone before we have
created a task force with DHS and the DOJ to help us identify
and prosecute countries or companies that go around our export
controls.
So, listen, if you have ideas of more you think we could do
I want to hear them. I think we're doing everything we can with
the resources we have.
But it's massively frustrating and angering when you see
Russia do what they do and work with folks like China to get
around our export controls.
Mr. Ellzey. I know you're doing the best you can do and
especially in the national security realm so I appreciate it.
Thank you for your fascinating testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
First thing, I think you're doing a great job. Keep doing
it. You have different areas of--that you're involved in and
you're coming together as a team for America and it makes a
difference.
Firstly, I want--I also want to thank you for designating
Baltimore as a tech hub. We're very excited to go after the
funds, which total $10 billion over the next five years.
Mohan Suntha, who's president and CEO of University of
Maryland medical system as well is chair of the Greater
Baltimore Committee's board of directors said the application
reflected the collective belief in the potential of predictive
health technologies to revolutionize our industries and elevate
entirely the community.
I've spent close to 21 years in Congress advocating for
national security. When I was in leadership on the Intelligence
Committee, Mr. Chairman, I worked to keep Huawei equipment out
of the United States systems.
We knew that Huawei was a backdoor threat that could
cripple the U.S. if we were ever to put them in an adversarial
situation and it almost happened when the governor of Texas
brought them into the United States.
For a long time we knew China stole from us. They were
taking everything from fertilizer recipes to advanced
technology. The threats that come from the stealing of U.S.
technology is great.
Look at China's space program. Made massive advances by
stealing from us. In the technology races of today like space
exploration, quantum computers, artificial intelligence, and
computer chips we have to do everything we can to protect these
technologies.
We have to protect them from our adversaries and Department
of Commerce is on the front line of that.
Now, in your ``60 Minutes'' interview a lot of the issues
you talked about were alarming and spot on. In our efforts to
address competition and threats from the China government we
need to make sure the Department of Commerce has the tools and
resources like our other front line defender as the Department
of Defense.
First, we can always give you money and manpower but what
technology tools do you need to work smarter like supply chain,
mapping, et cetera? Second, how is Commerce working with the
FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to address the law
enforcement issues?
And, second, what are we talking about here is balance
between enforcement and helping the economy. What we have here
is a Boeing paradox.
Boeing has to sell planes to China but what happens if
we're in a situation that's more aggressive with China? Can you
talk about how you balance our national security with economic
need?
Secretary Raimondo. Okay.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Did you get all that?
Secretary Raimondo. Okay. I'll do my best.
First of all, I'm familiar with your tech hub. Doesn't mean
it'll get funded but I'm familiar with it. I think it's
excellent.
Mr. Ruppersberger. It makes me a little excited when you
say that.
Secretary Raimondo. And the governor has called me numerous
times so I got the memo. Secondly, we do need people. Some of
it is just human beings to enforcement, right--the conversation
we just had. We're trying to cover the world here.
So, yes, we work with the FBI. Yes, we work with the
intelligence community. Yes, we have several new efforts with
the DOJ. The fellow Matt Axelrod who runs enforcement comes
from the DOJ.
But we do need more manpower, to your point. We also need
more IT systems. We need more data sets, the amount of
information available, and also we need to use AI.
So we need to buy products that are AI enabled that allow
us to scour every data set all over the world and every piece
of data public and private to tell us what's really going on.
So that is what we need. Here's the one thing I would say
to you. You mentioned Boeing. We aren't trying to cut off all
trade with China. We're not trying to cut off all tech trade
with China, right.
We're going to continue to sell them and that's good for
America's economy--semiconductor chips, all kinds of
technology--and the reason is because, they make a lot. They
make a lot themselves. They can buy a lot from the rest of the
world.
We just need to focus on these choke point technologies,
things that we have that they can't otherwise get access to,
not commodity type goods.
And it makes it more doable if you can identify what are
the choke points and focus on that and work with our allies.
Work with the Japanese and the Dutch, for example, in
semiconductors to fully completely deny China, to slow them
down, to slow their military down.
I think that's important. We need to focus on we're after
their military capability. I will tell you, we have controlled
almost 700 types of dual use items to Russia to the questions
before and we are constantly adding--I think we have added
almost a hundred Chinese entities to the Entity List because
they are trying to aid and abet Russia going around our export
controls.
So this really is a hand to hand combat every day. We got
to get up and go at it every day and the resources I'm asking
for will help us to do a better job.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I agree. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary for being here.
Secretary Raimondo. Good morning.
Mr. Cline. Good morning. I want to talk to you about Bayh-
Dole, which generally allows Federal contractors to take
ownership of patents on inventions created with federal
funding.
As you know, the federal government has the power to march
in and grant compulsory licenses to third parties in some
circumstances.
On December 8 of last year, NIST issued a draft framework
to provide guidance to federal agencies on what to assess when
considering whether to exercise marching authority. That
explicitly included price as a factor for the first time since
the Act was passed in 1980 with strong bipartisan support.
The authors of Bayh-Dole have stated that the law makes no
reference to a reasonable price that should be dictated by the
government. And, that this omission was intentional.
Aren't you concerned that the administration's proposal to
consider price as a factor for exercise marching rights will
send us back to a time when government-funded research just sat
on the shelf, not benefitting anyone?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So, let me say this, we stand
strongly on the side of IP protection. And, the document to
which you're referring, is non-binding.
It is an interagency memo for guidance, which is just that.
All of this is a balancing test. The President has rightly
focused excessively on, extremely on bringing down the cost of
pharmaceuticals and bringing down the cost of medicine and
drugs successfully.
But, we don't want to give you any impression, we stand
strongly on the side of IP protection.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. Let me stay with IP. Over the past
decade, standards essential patents, SEPs, have become a focal
point of controversy.
The European courts, notably in Germany, frequently issue
injunctions against U.S. companies for the use of common
industry standards, such as WiFi, which do not align with the
practices in the United States.
These injunctions don't serve to address competitive harms.
But, instead, to compel companies to agree to excessively high
royalty fees.
The recent establishment of the Unified Patent Court in
Europe poses an increased risk as its injunctions will have
broader implications across multiple countries in Europe.
Given the significant impact of these legal standards on
U.S. businesses, can you explain the administration's stance on
the proposed EU regulation concerning standards essential
patents and how it plans to stand up for U.S. companies in the
face of challenges posed by entities like Huawei and others who
engage in aggressive patent monetization?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. What I can tell you is, we just
had Kathi Vidal, who runs the Patent Office in China, focus on
many of these issues. And, she was recently in Europe.
I have to get back to you with a proper answer. But, I will
do it. And, maybe you and Kathi and I could have a phone call
and go into the details.
Mr. Cline. That would be great. As the President's
principal advisor on spectrum issues, NTIA plays a critical
role in ensuring that technologies of the future continue to
advance.
U.S. telecommunications industry is developing and
deploying 5G technologies, but is at risk of falling behind our
adversaries like China, due to a gridlock on spectrum. Do you
agree that the United States must restore the FCC's auction
authority, and, when it does so, identify a pipeline at
spectrum that can support commercial innovation and U.S.
leadership?
Secretary Raimondo. I do. Here's what I think, certainly we
need to restore their auction authority. I think, this is a
balance, which is to say, we support NTIA studying the
spectrum, seeing what could be made available.
And, looking at maybe spectrum sharing. DoD needs what it
needs to do its mission. And, a lot of this spectrum is really
important.
So, but I strongly support figuring out how we can find
some spectrum to advance commercial innovation without ever
impairing their mission. And, I think it's possible.
By the way, here's what I also think, we can't think of
national security so narrowly. I said this before, national
security isn't just tanks, missiles, satellites, et cetera.
It's also our ability to out compete Huawei. Our ability to
out compete China. And so, if you look at the amount of midband
spectrum available say in China, versus here, for commercial
sector, we've got a lot of catching up to do.
So, I think it's complicated. And, I don't want my comments
to be interpreted as saying, you know, go take from the DoD
whatever we need.
But, I do think, it's a discussion we have to have. And, we
absolutely need their auction authority reauthorized.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. One more. NTIA has approved only four
State's BEAD plans so far.
Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
Mr. Cline. You've testified repeatedly, acknowledging that
the underlying statute prohibits NTIA from regulating broadband
rates, and you're not rate regulating, not price setting.
But, I'm hearing that approval of the plan by my State,
Virginia, has been held up, because it declined to just do just
that, set prices at NTIA's request. It's been nearly five
months since NTIA approved Louisiana's plan, which was
submitted at the same time as Virginia's. And, Virginia has
still not been approved.
There are no remaining outstanding issues, as I understand,
with Virginia's plan under the rightful acknowledgment that
neither NTIA nor the State, have the authority to set prices,
as NTIA is requesting.
So, can you commit to approving a state plan that complies
with the law's prohibition on rate regulation? And,
specifically, approving Virginia's plan as submitted to NTIA?
Secretary Raimondo. I cannot commit to the last one. I'll
commit to the first one.
Mr. Cline. Okay.
Secretary Raimondo. Let me say this, these are super
complicated. There will be more next week, and more the
following week. We're getting our flywheel going.
I will look in on Virginia when I go back this afternoon.
What I can promise you, is we aren't regulating. We are not
telling any State, including yours, if you don't provide it at
X dollars, we're not going to, you know, give you the money.
But, the statute requires us to have low-cost options. So,
we are, obviously, pushing States to make sure they are
providing low-cost options.
I will tell everyone here that, by the end of this year, by
the fall, I'm pushing the team to have all these plans
approved. I meet with them every week to say, where are you,
and, how to go faster.
And, I'll look in on your plan.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you,
Secretary Raimondo for your tremendous work and for being here
today.
I wanted to go back to the citizenship question that was
mentioned earlier. As you know well, and you alluded to the 14
amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it states that
representatives shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole
number of persons in each State.
I know that you and the public servants who lead the Census
Bureau take this mandate from the Constitution seriously. Is
there any agency in the Federal Government that keeps track of
non-citizens?
Secretary Raimondo. You have stumped me, Congresswoman.
Ms. Meng. I assume like the U.S.----
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. I mean, not--you know, other--not,
certainly not in my permit no--remit, no.
Ms. Meng. And, why is the practice of counting every person
leaving in each State needed to produce an accurate and full
census?
Secretary Raimondo. Because, as you well know, and every
Governor knows, and I know this from being Governor, the census
is just about getting information. Right.
So, how much housing is required in a particular State? How
many people are going to be in the schools?
And, that's why I bristle at any, political interference,
frankly, from either side as it relates to the census. It's
just the facts, ma'am.
So, we have experts collect, as you say, follow the
Constitution, every person. Undercounting, undercounting is a
problem, because it's an inaccurate picture of what's going on
in every State and what kind of public safety services are
needed? What kind of educational services are needed?
If people are afraid because of their immigration status,
to talk to the census counter, then we're not going to get an
accurate number. And, that inaccuracy prevents us from doing
the best job we can at running government, at the State level
and the federal level.
Ms. Meng. And, if we were to violate what the Constitution
has charged the Census Bureau to do, would that potentially
affect the amount of federal funding that a State could
receive?
Secretary Raimondo. Absolutely, yes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I wanted to also thank you for your
Department's recent action on regulating licenses for firearms
experts.
I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are extremely concerned, as we are, about the threats posed by
transnational criminal networks and adversarial governments.
So, I must say that I'm confused by their opposition to their
proposed change.
I want to ask if this rule will keep American guns out of
the hands of drug traffickers?
Secretary Raimondo. We hope it will. That's certainly its
intention. And, that's how we're going to enforce it. I will
say, I was recently in Costa Rica, a region of great
instability.
And, the President there was--they are a democracy. They
are trying to develop their economy. And, that's good for the
United States to have an ally with a thriving democracy in that
region. Contrast that to say, Ecuador.
So, we're doing this, again, not for political reasons,
but, for our own foreign policy. It's not in our interest for
drug traffickers, terrorists, murderers, people interested in
fomenting instability and destroying democracy, to have guns.
Ms. Meng. And, will this rule decrease the number of
American guns in the hands of foreign terrorists and
transnational criminal organizations?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. We believe that it will.
Ms. Meng. And, will this rule make our world and our
country safer?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. We believe it will.
Ms. Meng. And, finally, how will the funding that the
Department of Commerce has requested for fiscal year 2025,
enable the Bureau of Industry and Security to continue its work
of protecting our national security, especially as it relates
to gun violence?
Secretary Raimondo. We are asking for additional funds for
more analysts, more technologists, more datasets, more
technology, and more enforcement agents. So, you know, we can
have the best policy in the world, but if we don't have enough
people to enforce it, we're not going to be effective.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the census
conversation, I agree, everyone should be counted for the
purposes of infrastructure and public safety. But, not for the
purposes of representation, either at the State level
assemblies or in the House of Representatives, which is
currently, it does wag the dog in terms of representation. And
so, that's the point of what we're trying to do.
Madam Secretary, you and I share the aspirations of
reciprocal trade agreements with China. I agree, we can't cut
off all trade with China.
But, imparting on them the same terms and conditions of
contracts and share ratios, access to intellectual property
that they put on us when we do business in their country, I
think, is important when they do business in our country. So,
we'd love to keep those conversations going on offline, if we
can. And, figure out how we can help you in that regard. That's
a broader conversation.
The former program director in me can't help but look at
the CHIPS Act as a very massive program that should have
program management reviews on a regular basis. This is probably
one of the forums where we get to do that.
So, I'm going to ask you some questions there's some
indexes, SPI and CPI, schedule of performance index, cost
performance index. The original budget of CHIPS was roughly
$280 billion.
And now, we're approaching about the two-year anniversary
of the passage of CHIPS. We didn't really have an objective and
State goal in terms of dates. But, we all kind of understand
that 2027 is an important calendar line in the sand, relative
to the highest risk potential of China invading Taiwan.
So, with those numbers and that paradigm, how are we doing
from a program management perspective? Are you on schedule? Are
you on cost?
And, before you answer, I want to overlay the feedback that
I'm getting from folks in Silicon Valley, also smaller mom and
pop shops in Southern California and throughout the country.
They don't feel like we're going fast enough.
They feel like they are being over regulated. They feel
like we are overlying other requirements and specs that have
nothing to do with the technology, that have nothing to do with
the performance, or maybe in the construction of facilities.
There are actual DEI metrics being imparted on these
contracts and tracked as conditions of awards. NEPA issues, and
environmental qual issues, that continue to just get worse and
deeper.
There are some companies that are having to retroactively
go back and show compliance to Davis-Bacon labor policies that
they would not have otherwise had to have done, with
construction that would not have been done by outside union
labor organizations.
You're pushing a lot of smaller companies away, with these
regulatory requirements, from participating. This is exactly
what we were afraid of happening.
I appreciate all the time you spent in the SCIF with me,
explaining the nexus to the DoD and making sure that we're
satisfying those requirements. I'd like to take that
conversation offline and follow up.
But, talk about the health of the program in terms of
metrics. Are we on schedule? Are we on cost? How do we go
faster? These barriers to speed are real.
And, how can the contracting officers value speed as much
as they value other things maybe, such as DEI or some of these
labor policy requirements being enforced? If you can comment on
that?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, great. Thank you. First, real
quick on reciprocal trade. One of the things that we did
recently, was through BIS, was around connected vehicles. Yes,
you can't drive your Tesla to the airport in Beijing.
Mr. Garcia. Hum.
Secretary Raimondo. You can't. You can't drive an American
made connected vehicle around certain areas in China. So,
what's fair is fair.
So, what we are saying is, we are concerned about Chinese
connected vehicles on the roads in the United States, not for,
tariffs and such, but economic disparities, but data. Think of
all the data.
Mr. Garcia. Yes, like electric buses being driving around
Plant 42 that are made by a Chinese company, would be a
problem. This is what we have in our district, right?
Secretary Raimondo. Collecting data.
Mr. Garcia. Collecting data, yes.
Secretary Raimondo. The driver, what they say, where they
go, their driving patterns. So, just a second to let you know,
our aim trying to move out on some of these reciprocities ideas
that we've been discussing to protect Americans.
Mr. Garcia. Great. Thank you.
Secretary Raimondo. Look on CHIPS, here's what I'll say,
and I'll try and do it in 30 seconds. I think, we are on path.
That's the bottom line.
And, you say we're approaching the 2-year anniversary. I
have 6 months before the 2-year anniversary date. So, that's a
lot of working time----
Mr. Garcia. Yes. I'll give you that.
Secretary Raimondo. Between now and then.
Mr. Garcia. Yes.
Secretary Raimondo. I started with nothing. I now have 200
people, amazingly talented people. We'd welcome you to come
meet them any time. We have put out, I think, $29 billion. This
week, we've been on a roll recently. Okay?
I know people were frustrated until the beginning this
year. In the last three months we have done, I think, seven or
eight big deals, putting out nearly $30 billion, all to the
leading edge providers.
To the conversation we had earlier, TSMC has committed to
build three fabs, including two nanometer chip fabs in the
United States. Samsung is included, leading edge, plus research
and development, plus packaging. Micron will be at scale.
So, look, I know I have to go fast. But, it's much more
important that I get it right. The metric I look at is, will we
be making 20 percent of the world's leading edge chips in the
United States by 2030? And, I say, yes, I think, we can.
With respect to the smaller companies, it's a challenge.
But, we're trying. We have just put out an application for
smaller companies to apply. So, I can get you that information.
Mr. Garcia. Yes.
Secretary Raimondo. Get the word out to your constituents.
Mr. Garcia. Yes.
Secretary Raimondo. It's harder for little companies to
interact with government. That's why we have a specific
application. We're going to do another one, a $50 million
research and development that only small companies can apply
to.
With respect to NIPA, work is tough. I have a whole team
that is helping companies work through the NIPA issues. We are
getting there. But, it's a challenge.
Davis-Bacon is in the law. Davis-Bacon is in the statute.
We will comply. We are complying. And, I don't think, look,
every condition that we are putting in there, some related to
workforce, some related to childcare, some related to DEI, I
can honestly tell you, Congressman, it's designed to make sure
these projects are successful.
They need to find workers. Look, if you say to me, what's
the biggest risk? It's lack of workers. So, we're pushing these
companies to broaden the way they think about workforce, the
way they train workforce so they can have the talent they need
on the timeline that they need it.
So, this is a big discussion and I'd be very happy to
follow up with you.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Fair enough, thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Rogers. That concludes the first round of questions for
the witness. There is a request for additional questions, so
we'll do a second round.
But, I ask unanimous consent of all members that we limit
remarks to 3 minutes to allow the witness to meet an obligation
at noon that she has.
So, Madam Secretary, we will get you out of here----
Secretary Raimondo. I appreciate that.
Mr. Rogers. In due course of time. I recognize myself for 3
minutes. Let's talk about space business, space commerce.
The rapidly growing of thousands of new, small and medium
sized satellites being deployed to low earth orbit yearly. This
office has been designated as the organization for tracking and
managing those assets, those small satellites. There's
thousands of them.
And so, what will the Space Commerce Unit at the Department
of Commerce do to count these satellites?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. There are so many, as you have
said. So, we are developing a space situational awareness and
traffic coordination program. I think of it as like air traffic
control for space.
And, we received $65 million last year to develop this.
We're requesting another $75 million in this budget to continue
that.
It's on track. We have an excellent person running the
Office of Space Commerce. And, that's our primary focus right
now, is developing this tracking system so we can have an
awareness of where all of this space satellite activity is.
Mr. Rogers. Well, Space Commerce has been given the mandate
to begin to track those assets existing, and new ones, to
ensure that they don't prevent the deployment of new systems in
low earth orbit. And, perhaps more importantly, that they do
not inhibit civil and other space satellite deployment, as well
as rocket launches, for various NASA missions.
Tell us how this is going to happen? This is a big task.
Secretary Raimondo. It is a big task. It is a big task. I
think, look, space commerce is a burgeoning industry. And, it's
critical the U.S. leads, right, in the civilian space areas,
commercial space.
And so, fundamentally, what we have to do, is make sure the
U.S. leads in that area. Developing this space situational
awareness system, which we are doing in the space traffic
coordination system, enables us to do that by if you keep track
of everything, it reduces collisions, it reduces problems, and
it creates safety.
And, quite frankly, it's an incentive for investors to
invest in U.S. commercial space industry if we have this space
trafficking system effective.
Mr. Rogers. And, one complicating factor is, we're going to
de-orbit the International Space Station in 2030. And, many of
the commercial providers now on that station, will be looking
for a new home in lower orbit, which complicates your chore
even more.
Is that right or wrong?
Secretary Raimondo. That's right. It's a balance that we
have to balance these interests.
Mr. Rogers. Yes. Well, thank you. Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Raimondo, I want to talk about the United States Economic
Development Administration, which is housed in the Department
of Commerce.
EDA has an important role in spurring job creation and
economic diversification in communities that have suffered
decline and stagnation as the industrial economy rapidly
evolves. That's true in my district.
You know that in northeastern Pennsylvania, our economy has
been bumping along since the decline of coal mining, since
NAFTA, which bestowed benefits and burdens across our nation,
but unevenly across our geography. And, we suffered a lot of
manufacturing loss in Northeastern Pennsylvania because of
NAFTA.
And, legislative efforts since then, have not fixed that
problem. But, EDA is one of the solutions. And, I'd like to
hear--by the way, thank you for visiting Pittston in
Northeastern Pennsylvania. You know that Pittston Mayor Mike
Lombardo, has done amazing things to bring back that small
city.
Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. And, we want to do more. But, I'd like to
hear broadly, what key economic development needs are you
hearing most often as you go around the country visiting places
like Pittston?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. I had fun going so I enjoyed the
visit.
What I hear, and it's across all of your states, it's coal-
affected communities, NAFTA-affected communities. Where I'm
from in Rhode Island we used to be the jewelry manufacturing
capital of the country and it all withered away.
So what I hear is a need for U.S. manufacturing. There's
something special about manufacturing jobs. They're high
paying. They don't require a college degree. There's a job for
everyone in the facility. People say, like, why can't we make
more in America.
That's why it's so exciting for me when I'm out in Arizona
where I recently was with TSMC and Intel it's amazing. Tens of
thousands of manufacturing jobs are brought about by the CHIPS
Act.
I hear the constant need for retraining, which is why I
created the Good Jobs Challenge when I became secretary. People
want to work, and put yourself in the shoes of a 42-year-old
woman who's just been a retail clerk her whole career or a
waitress and got put out of work in COVID.
She can't retire. She wants to work but she needs skills.
She needs digital skills or AI skills or something. So a
desperate need for retraining and a desperate need to invest in
infrastructure that will attract companies, and you see that,
in Pittston or wherever.
I mean, sometimes you might have a vacant mine or a vacant
manufacturing facility. They have to be resuscitated to new
uses and that takes money. EDA, by the way, spends money on all
of that. We're investing in infrastructure to retrofit these
buildings.
We're investing in job training. The recompete program is
about helping the most distressed communities and those are the
ones that are the hardest and they take a lot of investment but
it's worth it.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Madam Secretary, I'm concerned about the
department's handling of the long-standing issue over imports
of Vietnamese plywood into the United States.
Two companies with operations in my district have been
assessed countervailing duties over imported Vietnamese plywood
in 2021 and 2022 even though the department had previously
assured importers that plywood imports with a Vietnamese core
would not be subject to such duties.
The retroactive decision issued in 2023 has had significant
negative impacts on U.S. companies which imported this product
in good faith and, moreover, these companies have independently
audited proof that the plywood they imported originated in
Vietnam and not China, which was the target.
Yet, the department refuses to consider such proofs and
merely relies on the failure of Vietnamese exporters to
satisfactorily respond to Commerce questionnaires.
So the ultimate issue is where did the product come from,
Vietnam or China, and this matter is currently pending
administrative review with an interim decision expected by July
30.
So and I'd ask you to, hopefully, accept and consider the
independent audits to resolve this matter, and if you have any
response.
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, just a couple of things.
This is a quasi judicial process with which I can't really
interfere. The concern, which we see a ton of, is China dumps
into Vietnam, Vietnam into the United States, and it's an end
run around our anti-dumping regulations.
But it's appropriate for me to look at it and certainly
have my staff reach out to you. We don't want to hurt your
local company. We do want to hurt China trying to get around
our rules.
Mr. Cline. Completely agree. I'd just ask for a fair
evaluation of the evidence being put forward.
Secretary Raimondo. I will do it.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. With regard to counterfeit Chinese
vapes--we'll stay with China--in the December 2023 press
release announcing FDA and CBP's joint seizure of illegal e-
cigs with a retail value in excess of $18 million the FDA said
that many of these unauthorized e-cigs were intentionally
misdeclared as various items such as toys or shoes and listed
with incorrect values.
So if shipping containers full of illegal e-vapor products
from China are misdeclared at U.S. ports of entry either as to
the country of origin to avoid the 25 percent China tariff or
as to the product category to avoid the 2.6 e-vapor tariff this
would represent criminal violations of custom laws on an
industrial scale. But it would also amount to massive fraud on
the U.S. Treasury in terms of lost tariff revenues.
I'm assuming you're aware of how big this problem is. What
steps have you taken with FDA and CBP to address the problem
and recover those lost revenues?
Secretary Raimondo. Once again, I can get back to you--this
is mostly a CBP issue, I will say. I mean, we work closely with
CBP. We furnish them all the data that they need and we
cooperate with them.
But this is--what you're talking about is primarily in
their remit.
Mr. Cline. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With regard to dumping, I think closing the de minimis
loophole is something that ought to be considered as well. I
think that's within the USTR realm.
But with regard to that, and talking about countering
unfair trade practices what role does the department have in
confronting China's manufacturing dominance through trade
policy?
And working with the USTR to address trade issues that have
concern with allies, partners, and adversaries what--you know,
what is--how, if at all, is the department working with USTR on
some of these?
Secretary Raimondo. We work hand in glove with them on so
many issues. I want to say I'm very concerned about this.
It's no secret that China's economy is growing slower than
it has and that they have wanted to and it's also no secret
that their strategy is to crank up production. They now
represent about 30 percent of the world's manufacturing output.
They could decide to go to 60 percent to keep Chinese
people working, which would be disastrous for the global
economy.
So I worry greatly, Congresswoman, about the possibility
that they do that and dump their cheap products, whether it's
electric vehicles, legacy semiconductor chips, critical
minerals--the list is long if they crank up production and dump
it on the world market.
So we're working very closely with USTR to try to identify
where are we most vulnerable and what actions could we take.
One thing specifically that we have done at Commerce we
just used the Defense Production Act to do a mandatory survey
about legacy semiconductor chips produced in China.
We're trying to find out where are these legacy Chinese
chips in U.S. supply chains and do we see any evidence of China
dropping the price, which would distort the market and make it
impossible for U.S. chip companies to compete.
So I'm laser focused on that area in particular.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, there's the emerging markets as well.
They're exporting manufacturing and technical standards for
emerging markets and certain technology efforts, as you pointed
out, information, communications, advanced manufacturing, and,
obviously, you're aware of the challenge and I take it from
your comments that other department is preparing and designing
what structures you need and, again, what resources you may
need to be able to counter, to combat that effort.
Secretary Raimondo. That's exactly right.
Ms. DeLauro. Just very, very quickly, the $4 million for
global markets--the ITA request for that--which markets does
ITA see as strategic for this purpose and how will you address
it?
Secretary Raimondo. Africa. I was just in Kenya. Extremely
important. China is all over Africa. We have to show up in
certain areas of Southeast Asia.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, do you think the number of illegal aliens
that were counted in the 2020 census had an impact on the
apportionment of the House of Representatives that we have
today?
Secretary Raimondo. I don't think so but I----
Mr. Clyde. You don't think so?
Secretary Raimondo. But I don't have a great answer for
you.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Can you get me a great answer?
Secretary Raimondo. What do you think?
Mr. Clyde. I think it did. I think it really did at a--I
mean, if we're looking at over 20 million illegals in this
country and I think that it has a significant impact.
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah. My job, though, isn't--go ahead.
Mr. Clyde. Well, let me--you mentioned that the census is
counting the whole number of persons in each state. I agree
with you. It's what the 14th amendment says.
But it also says in section 2 of the 14th amendment when it
talks about representatives in Congress it says the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the portion in which
the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number
of male citizens 21 years of age in such state.
Now, I know the 19th amendment added both male and female--
made it both male and female--and the 26th amendment lowered
the age to 18. But the 14th amendment still says male citizens
is the basis of--excuse me, it says citizenship is the basis of
representation.
And I'm grateful to take the clarifying action this week to
prevent the marginalizing of citizens' voting power by finally
requiring a citizenship question on the decennial census and by
modifying the House of Representatives apportionment to be
based only on United States citizens.
I look forward to voting for H.R. 7109, the Equal
Representation Act of which I'm a proud original co-sponsor.
Now, can you tell me a little bit about the Census Bureau's
annual business survey? What is the cost of that annual
business survey and why did it go from five year in 2017 to one
year?
Secretary Raimondo. I can probably get you the cost but
I'll have to get back to you on the exact cost.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. That's fine.
Secretary Raimondo. I do want to say something to your last
question. The census' job is to identify persons living in this
country and I know from experience--I lived it--when you start
to ask people about their immigration status they then don't
answer the door and won't be counted and it will lead to
inaccurate data.
Mr. Clyde. Ma'am, I appreciate that. But I'm moving on to
the Census Bureau's annual business survey. So my next question
to you is how much money is spent on follow-up with those
businesses that do not initially respond to the Census Bureau's
annual business survey? Do you have that?
Secretary Raimondo. I don't, but I can get it to you. But a
great deal of money. I mean, we try to get everyone to respond.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. And how do you determine who you ask?
Secretary Raimondo. You'd have to ask the scientists.
To be clear, I don't interfere with any of this. This is
statisticians figure out what's likely to lead to the best
outcomes and I defer to their judgment.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. So then I can be assured that you will get
me that information?
Secretary Raimondo. One hundred percent.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
voting against the bill that is called the Equal Representation
Act but literally does the opposite, and to pretend that
noncitizens do not live in our communities and that's exactly
what this bill will do, pretend, will only as you mentioned,
Madam Secretary, instill fear, force people into the shadows
and take critical Federal funding away from every single
state--red, blue, purple, rural, urban, suburban--which that's
not the point of the census to count like this.
In 2018 the previous administration repeatedly tried and
attempted to add a citizenship question to the census, which
I'm proud to say that Senator Mazie Hirono and I and others
fought against in Congress and was subsequently blocked by the
Supreme Court.
I wanted to ask a quick question about the Minority
Business Development Agency which offers many programs and
services that help businesses to grow and be competitive. I
represent a diverse district in Queens, New York, where many
minority-owned businesses are in many ways the backbone of our
community.
Secretary Raimondo, how does the fiscal year 2025 budget
request ensure that those who most need the MBDA's assistance
and resources can continue to access them?
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah, thank you. We have asked for an
additional $12 million in MBDA to do exactly that. So our
mission is to help business owners who are economically and
socially disadvantaged including Asian Americans, members of
your district--in all of your districts.
So we're looking to add more offices, more staff, more
service offerings, so we can be more available to these small
businesses.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, people in the Sixth District we're a very
rural district. They're very worried about, in many cases, the
debt of our Nation being $34 trillion, and a lot of the budget
requests we have asked for--you've asked for here are increases
and some new agencies, particularly the supply chain resiliency
for $37 million.
Offline, not necessarily here, please give me a
justification for that and what the Office of Supply Chain
Resiliency intends to actually do, because once a bureaucracy
grows it's very hard to dial it back whenever it's not needed,
I believe, in the market.
I'm just curious how this is going to help the market. So
later on please send me the answer to that. But I want to talk
about China again and the threat that we're facing from four
dictatorships, Israel--Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia and
the chip issue.
You know, it seems like China is controlling all the
strings. Everything that they do in this country
technologically is a military operation from the CCP and
everything that they do is a study on the pattern of life. So
everything's got a transponder in it.
From the big cranes in the ports to the boxcars they tried
to dump which we successfully stopped to the technology that's
coming in is a pattern of life study which is what you do
whenever you're going to study how to best attack a nation.
I believe that we're already in a proxy war with China with
them using the cartels to kill 200 Americans every day as an
equalizer for their one-child policy which is about to send
them into oblivion.
Can you describe for me what you think the threat is from
the electronics of China in the United States?
Secretary Raimondo. A couple of things.
One, I was very pleased to see Congress take action on
TikTok. That's an example of TikTok being on the phones of,
hundreds of millions of--tens of millions of Americans,
collecting all that data. So that was one thing.
Second, one thing we're doing is looking into electric
vehicles--connected vehicles. Chinese electric vehicles on our
roads at scale could be collecting massive amounts of data on
Americans--who they are, what they say in their car, where they
go to, their patterns of driving.
So we have opened an investigation at the Commerce
Department looking at that. Also, very much looking at cranes.
The vast majority of cranes at U.S. ports are Chinese.
Cranes are no longer, steel in the air. They're all
connected collecting data. So, look, I'd say this is--we are
building the capacity of our ICTS unit at the Commerce
Department and looking very seriously at all of these connected
apps, whether they're games or cars or really anything that
collects data on large numbers of individuals--their GPS
location, where they are, where they go, their family members.
I think that we need to take the threat much more seriously
and that's why we are moving out on these things.
Mr. Ellzey. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. In March it was devastating
for so many Maryland families and businesses and, I'm sure you
know, especially for the Port of Baltimore. Last week, my
colleagues and I saw in person the terrific effort underway to
clean up and replace this bridge but our state is still feeling
many of the ripple effects after the collapse.
Secretary, can you describe what your department has done
so far to support these Maryland-based businesses? What are the
department's plans for the future of this program and how can
we make sure Maryland's businesses can make it through this
rebuilding process?
The Maryland Port of Baltimore is one of the largest ports
in the Nation and the entire United States relies on it.
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah. Look, my heart is with you and
all those businesses and everyone there. I've talked to your
governor on numerous occasions about this. By the way, NOAA and
the Weather Service and our scientist team were on it right
away to provide help in the immediate aftermath.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I want to say it's one of the best
efforts and, hopefully, it will pull United States together,
Republicans and Democrats, for the benefit of our country.
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, I agree with that. I agree with
that.
In any event, we are reaching out. The MBDA and EDA are
reaching out to the businesses in that community, working with
the governor's office, working with the governor's Economic
Development Agency to see what services we can provide to those
businesses.
I think it's on the books already--I'm going to do an event
in Baltimore with the governor, with small businesses. I'm
going to go myself just to let them know all the services we
have available for small businesses, figure out ways that we
can help them get back on their feet.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, it's going to cost about $2
billion to replace it. But it's a very unique place and affects
the Port of Baltimore. So thank you for your cooperation and
your involvement, too.
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I can just talk for a moment about quantum technology.
I was at a group meeting with some national quantum experts
last week and one of them mentioned to me that in 2017 the
Chinese used a satellite to send entangled particles between
space and the ground.
Since then, as I understand it, China has constructed a
2000-mile quantum link between Beijing and Shanghai. Obviously,
quantum technology, whether it's communications, computing, et
cetera, is a huge leap forward in technology and that we need
to be at the leading edge of it.
But is there a value in building--should the United States
consider a significant national link between major cities that
will allow us to use quantum networking?
Secretary Raimondo. I'm afraid I would have to research
that. A quantum expert I am not. So we can follow up on that.
It is an area--look, I'll say a couple things. It's
definitely frontier technology which is why we are export
controlling seriously. It's up on investment screening list.
We have asked in the budget for $68 million, which is an
increase of $14 million, at NIST to hire 41 people to develop
new standards and create research partnerships for quantum. So
we're really leaning in at NIST with universities to push
forward on the research whether or not what you say is the
right idea. We can follow up.
Mr. Morelle. Okay. I'd love to follow up and see if there's
some value on----
Secretary Raimondo. But what I can tell you is although I
don't know the people at NIST will have an opinion and so we
should make that happen.
Mr. Morelle. Okay, good. You mentioned earlier a real
problem around the chips space, which is workforce and
workforce development.
Talk to me a little bit about what the department's
strategy is to promote workforce development in this space so
that we can meet the needs of these businesses that are
struggling.
Secretary Raimondo. By the way, this is such a huge issue.
Yesterday I was with the CEO of one of the biggest construction
firms in America.
He said that the attrition rate on their projects is 50
percent because they're going to competitors--that they're
turning down work because they can't find enough construction
workers and his number-one biggest problem is lack of skilled
workers.
So we're doing a number of things. We're asking every
semiconductor company before they get our money to show us
their workforce plan. We're giving--as part of the money--the
grant that we're giving to chips companies a piece of it is for
workforce.
So, Intel, all these companies, are getting tens of
millions of dollars just to do workforce, and also we're
developing a chips workforce center of exellence just to train
people.
I think this has to be a moonshot. Like, if we succeed--if
we fail with this chips effort it's because we haven't taken
the workforce stuff seriously enough, which is why we have a
whole workforce team that reports to me just to work with
colleges, universities, labor unions, high schools, to train
people to go to work in the semiconductor industry.
Mr. Morelle. And I won't--I'll yield back and say, if I
could just comment and you don't have to respond to this, but
it does seem to me for all the talk about illegal immigration
we have hundreds of thousands of people who would like to come
to the United States like my grandparents did to work in the
United States to fill critical jobs that we need to be
successful.
With a low birth rate and maybe if we worked on a
reasonable thoughtful immigration policy we could meet some of
the workforce challenges that all these companies in
construction and health care and hospitality, and the list goes
on and on, that we're desperately going to need.
So thanks for your comments always and, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Madam Secretary, you have been very generous
with your time and your opinions.
Secretary Raimondo. Hopefully not too generous with my
opinions.
Mr. Rogers. We thank you for giving us this time together.
We will look at your budget request in detail as we proceed. So
thank you for the work you're doing.
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Lots of good things happening in a difficult
world that we all of a sudden realize we live in. So thank you
for your work. This concludes today's hearing.
We want to thank Secretary Raimondo for being here today
with us. Without objection, members may have seven days to
submit additional questions for the record.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]