[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2015
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Mike Ringler, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Diana Simpson, and Colin Samples,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 6
Page
The State of Efforts to Stop Human Trafficking.................. 1
FBI's Budget Request and Post 9/11 Reform Efforts............... 37
DEA and State of Research on Drug Abuse in America.............. 113
Department of Justice........................................... 185
Bureau of Prisons............................................... 317
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2015
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Mike Ringler, Jeff Ashford, Leslie Albright,
Diana Simpson, and Colin Samples,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 6
Page
The State of Efforts to Stop Human Trafficking.................. 1
FBI's Budget Request and Post 9/11 Reform Efforts............... 37
DEA and State of Research on Drug Abuse in America.............. 113
Department of Justice........................................... 185
Bureau of Prisons............................................... 317
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-183 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
TOM LATHAM, Iowa JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
KAY GRANGER, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho ED PASTOR, Arizona
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas SAM FARR, California
KEN CALVERT, California CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas TIM RYAN, Ohio
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2015
________
Wednesday, February 26, 2014.
THE STATE OF EFFORTS TO STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING
WITNESSES
STEPHANIE VU, HUMAN TRAFFICKING SURVIVOR-ADVOCATE
WILLIAM WOOLF, DETECTIVE, FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
CINDY McCAIN, CO-CHAIRPERSON, ARIZONA GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON HUMAN
TRAFFICKING
JOHN D. RYAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CENTER
FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Mr. Wolf. The hearing will begin. We want to thank
everybody for coming here.
I want to welcome all the subcommittee Members to this, our
first meeting and hearing of the 113th Congress. We have many
familiar faces returning to the subcommittee and we will have
some new Members.
Mr. Fattah returns as the ranking member and I look forward
to our good working relationship together as we have had over
the previous years.
New Members are Judge Carter of Texas; Mr. Diaz-Balart of
Florida. And the reason, some Members--there are so many other
committees going on--are at other meetings; and Mr. Amodei of
Nevada.
Mr. Aderholt has been designated as our new vice chairman
taking on the mantle from Mr. Bonner, who served in that
capacity the last session, and great things come out of
Alabama. We are sorry to see Mr. Bonner leave.
We expect the President's budget for fiscal year 2015 to be
released in March. The subcommittee will pursue an aggressive
schedule of budget hearings in late March and April. We will
have subcommittee hearings with the heads of major departments
and agencies to justify their requests.
While we await the President's budget, we will have two
oversight hearings this week, today on combating human
trafficking and tomorrow on federal investments in neuroscience
research which has been a--really the driver behind that has
been Mr. Fattah.
A few years ago, a local church group, my church, actually,
sought my assistance to help end human trafficking in Thailand
and Albania. I was happy to lend my support, but pointed out
that sex trafficking was not just occurring in far away places.
It was happening just across the river in northern Virginia, in
Annandale, rather than Albania, and Tysons Corner as well as in
Thailand.
We can and I think we must confront this injustice. I have
personally long admired the abolitionist efforts of William
Wilberforce. Many have called human trafficking the slavery
issue of our time and ending this insidious criminal activity
will require the same doggedness that Wilberforce exhibited.
This committee has been very active on this issue for a
number of years and I might say on a bipartisan basis. Most
recently the CGS portion of the 2014 omnibus spending bill
signed into law last month includes a number of provisions to
help combat trafficking.
The bill directs the FBI to increase the amount of
resources dedicated to human trafficking. It also says they
need to improve coordination with other law enforcement
agencies to better address trafficking and regularly report to
Congress on what it is doing to fight trafficking.
The Attorney General under the law has passed and signed as
required to go on and submit a comprehensive report on all DoJ
anti-trafficking activities including legislative proposals to
bolster anti-trafficking enforcement.
The Justice Department under the law is required, required
to detail action it has taken to investigate allegations of
human trafficking or abuse of non-immigrant Visa holders, to
enforce a policy of zero tolerance for sex and labor
trafficking by federal contractors.
The U.S. Attorneys under this law are expected to maintain
their human trafficking task force. The year before that, we
said every U.S. Attorney needs to have a task force.
And let me just pay my tribute to Neil MacBride. He was a
U.S. Attorney here in the eastern district. He since has left
to go off to other things. But he probably was the best U.S.
Attorney on this issue. So modeling after Neil's efforts,
everyone has to also do this.
We want to continue to undertake proactive investigations,
not just wait, but work with groups like Polaris and other
groups to proactive investigations including investigations of
persons or entities facilitating trafficking of persons through
the use of classified advertisement on the internet.
Finally, under the law, the Justice Department must
continue its outreach in the form of public notices with regard
to the prevalence of human trafficking activities and report to
the subcommittee on its efforts.
The bill also provides nearly $14.25 million for grants to
help victims of trafficking and $67 million for missing and
exploited children programs.
In addition, it should be noted that in addition to the
language on trafficking, the bill provides out of this
committee $417 million for the Office of Violence Against
Women, which is higher than both the fiscal year 2013 level and
higher than the President's 2014 budget request.
Today we will hear from four witnesses to learn about the
state of efforts to halt and prevent the trafficking of human
beings and ask what more can be done, can this Congress do to
deal with this issue.
Just last week, a jury convicted an Indiana man for human
trafficking. The man forced four women including a 16-year-old
girl into prostitution. As DoJ noted in its press release
announcing the conviction, quote, ``They did this in part by
posting photographs of the females on backpage.com.''
Backpage.com is going to come up over and over and over. If you
do not close down backpage.com, you can have all the hearings
in the world. It is not going to--you can treat the symptoms,
but you will not solve the problem.
Unfortunately, this is all too common. Last March, an
Atlanta man pleaded guilty in federal court in Alexandria to,
quote, ``running a commercial sex business,'' and Neil MacBride
brought this case, ``that prostituted multiple juvenile girls
in Herndon.'' Herndon used to be in my district. I lived
several miles from Herndon--``and other locations throughout
Virginia, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and
Florida.''
The FBI press release announcing the guilty plea
specifically mentioned the Web site, quote, ``Daily,'' the
Enterprise posted, this is FBI language, ``multiple
advertisements on backpage.com.''
How do the people who own backpage.com, how do they live
with themselves? I mean, if you were in that business, how do
they honestly live with themselves? How do they go out to their
neighborhoods and their Little League games and if they have
children, how do they say what do you do for a living? I run
backpage.com which procures--I mean, how do they live with
themselves?
And now we see backpage.com being used in places like
Winchester, Virginia in my district which is a city in the
western part of my area and a beautiful, idyllic Shenandoah
Valley. There have been two instances in recent weeks where
arrests have been made in relation to ads on backpage.com.
During the Super Bowl, the FBI conducted an operation
targeting child sex trafficking which resulted in the rescue of
16 children and the arrest of 45 pimps and their associates.
According to the New York Star Ledger, some of the arrests
were made by the FBI agents posing as johns and responding to
ads on sites like backpage.com.
At the recent MBA all-star weekend in New Orleans, 30
people were arrested in connection with sex trafficking.
According to law enforcement officials, women were brought in
from across the county, California, Florida, Illinois,
Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas to engage in sex-related
crimes during the weekend.
On this topic, I especially want to thank Cindy McCain who
will be testifying today for helping to raise the awareness of
the problem of sex trafficking at the Super Bowl and other
large sporting events. You may have seen her recent op-ed in
the Washington Post on the subject.
And what happens outside this body that I work in is
downstream from outside. If this institution does not hear from
outside, this institution generally does not do anything. So I
appreciate Ms. McCain doing this. And she did the op piece
which sort of forced this institution and to motivate because
if this institution, Rs and Ds, are hearing from people outside
this institution, then hopefully the Administration will be
driven to do something about it. The subcommittee has
jurisdiction over funding for the Department of Justice.
I personally want to thank the FBI agents. I want to thank
Director Comey and former Director Mueller. Both of them have
really been on board to deal with this.
Bob Mueller, frankly, the new building that they built for
the FBI, I think it ought to be called the Bob Mueller
building. He and now Director Comey have really--they are into
this. And since the rank and file see that their director is
into it, they are into it.
I want to thank them and also a lot of the U.S. Attorneys
and, again, to pay particular tribute to Neil MacBride. Every
U.S. Attorney should try to be a Neil MacBride because if every
U.S. Attorney did what Neil did--at the same time, I am
concerned about actions the Department of Justice has not, N-O-
T, have not, underlined not, N-O-T, taken.
The subcommittee directed the department to report on the
effectiveness of existing laws and authorities to go after Web
sites such as backpage.com, not just traffickers that advertise
on them. The report was due on April 25, 2013. The Dogwood was
out when this was due. That was ten months ago. To date, the
subcommittee has yet to hear.
The subcommittee directed the department to report on the
effectiveness of existing laws and authorities to go after Web
sites such as backpage.com, not just the traffickers that
advertise on them. That report was due April 25, 2013. Again,
ten months ago. To date, the subcommittee has yet to see it.
I have personally written the Attorney General over and
over over the last two years urging the department to prosecute
backpage.com. I think they are afraid of backpage.com. I mean,
they won't even say the word. They won't even articulate the
word.
And we are going to submit for the record, so anybody that
wants to see it, just call my office. We will give you all the
letters that were sent to the Attorney General. In these
letters, I repeatedly wrote that if the department was of the
view that current law would not support such action, then
provide a legal analysis and possible legislative language for
how this could be remedied.
Many of my letters went unanswered. And the responses I did
receive failed to address my primary concern with respect to
backpage.com. I have even urged without effect Attorney General
Holder to publicly call out backpage.com and similar sites to
at least add an element of shame in the public square. Just
cannot get them to do it.
There is much more that can be done to tackle this problem.
And I am confident today's witnesses will shine even more light
on the matter.
And so first we will hear from Stephanie Vu, a human
trafficking survivor and advocate. Stephanie frequently works
in conjunction with two nonprofit organizations, Shared Hope,
which has done an incredible job, and Youth For Tomorrow. If
you recall, Youth For Tomorrow, the home was started by a
former coach for the Washington Redskins, Joe Gibbs, which is a
northern Virginia charity out in the Manassas area.
These two nonprofits are involved in stopping human
trafficking and also aiding survivors. You just cannot stop
something. You have to have a place that the survivors can go
to to aid them.
After her, we will hear from Detective Bill Woolf of the
Fairfax County Police Department who is on the front line of
dealing with that problem. He and his colleagues in northern
Virginia are making a difference and he had a major article in
the Washingtonian Magazine. I would urge people to read it if
they have not read it. And we will put that Washingtonian piece
in the record at this time.
After hearing from them, we will begin our second panel
where we will hear from Cindy McCain who is a national leader
in anti-trafficking efforts and is co-chairman of the Arizona
Governor's Task Force on Human Trafficking.
We will also hear from John Ryan who is the president and
CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
If any Member who has not been to NCMEC, I would urge you
to go over there and see it. What they do is incredible and it
is just across the river. You can be there in 10 or 15 minutes,
but I think you ought to take the time, maybe bring your staff
to go over and see it.
Before we hear their testimony, we are going to recognize
Mr. Fattah for any comments that he would make, then any other
Members, and I will introduce one other Member who we will
allow to sit here with the panel.
But, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just associate myself with the remarks of the
chairman. And I did visit the Center for Exploited and Missing
Children over in Virginia and I do agree with you that other
Members should visit.
The problem that we are going to deal with today is
worldwide, however it is also right here in America in both the
Philadelphia area and in every other area of the country.
So I want to welcome our witnesses and thank each and every
one of them for their appearance here today and look forward to
their testimony.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Any other Members? Mr. Aderholt, I introduced you as the
new. I said great things come out of Alabama. And so any other
Member want to make a comment or anything?
[No response.]
Mr. Wolf. Well, if I may, following the rules of the
committee, Congresswoman Kristi Noem has arrived. She has
represented South Dakota in the House since 2011 and has been
passionate about the issue involved in human trafficking.
Committee rules and longstanding practice stipulate that
non-committee Members do not participate in committee hearings,
but I wanted to invite her because of the work she has done.
And I saw a report she had done, a conference on Monday to hear
the testimony of her witnesses and as a matter of courtesy
offer her the opportunity to say a few words.
So with that, I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Noem be
permitted to make a brief statement to the subcommittee if she
wishes and that her remarks be entered into the record and she
have the ability to sit up here. Any objection?
Mr. Fattah. We concur on the minority.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Hearing none, we welcome Congresswoman Noem.
And then with that, I think William is still in traffic.
So, Stephanie, we will start with you. Bill Woolf is in
traffic, so he came, I think, all the way from Manassas today.
So why don't you begin. We want to, Stephanie, thank you
for taking the time to come and be willing to come forward. And
I think we are all very grateful that you are willing to speak
out, but we turn the floor over to you.
Ms. Vu. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the committee----
Mr. Wolf. Your mike.
Ms. Vu. Oh, pull it up? How is that? Is that good? Okay.
Well, Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the committee,
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I am a survivor of domestic minor sex trafficking. As a
survivor, I provide advice to two anti-trafficking
organizations that were critical to my escape from
exploitation.
Shared Hope International works to restore victims of sex
trafficking and prevent the horror of what I endured.
Youth For Tomorrow has developed specialized trauma center
services and shelter for victims of domestic minor sex
trafficking like I was.
At the age of 12, I was chosen. I was invited to a party by
a handsome older boy who took a lot of interest in me. Although
flattered, I never thought I would see him again. Strangely, I
did see him again and again at the grocery store, Starbucks,
everywhere I went. In my 12-year-old mind, I was convinced that
this was fate and I soon began intentionally meeting him every
chance I had.
My mother, a military wife, worked day and night to support
our family while my father was deployed. My job was to watch my
younger siblings, but I had little supervision. It left me free
to see this charming older boy. I was searching for something
and he looked like the answer, filling my loneliness and my
young heart's desire for love and romance. But I soon learned
he was a wolf in sheep's clothing who intended to turn me into
a product to be devoured.
For a while, I thought my dreams had come true. He said he
loved me and he wanted to marry me. He bought nice things for
me and took me out to clubs and places I could never go without
him. However, in just a few months, he demanded a return and I
was sent to perform in a strip club.
I resisted, but he said he was in a financial jam and
needed my help and so it began. I started skipping school and
dancing in strip clubs. It was degrading, but he pressured me
and convinced me I was doing it for us.
At the age of 13, I was too naive to see what was really
happening. Soon this boyfriend demanded something more than
dancing. I was told I had to sell myself for sex and I will
never forget that night as long as I live. I refused, but he
threw me out of the house on a bitter cold night, telling me to
make money or freeze.
My clothes were skimpy. I shivered as I paced the streets.
The buyers were flagging me down and after a few hours of
misery, I could not feel my hands or feet. So in desperation, I
finally climbed into a car.
That moment changed my life forever. There were three men
that night and at the end of it, I could not stop vomiting.
After they were finished with me, I could not stop vomiting. So
began endless nights of selling my body. I descended into
depression. I drank and took drugs to dull the pain.
I made the money my trafficker demanded and learned to live
with his constant abuse and the abuse of buyers. At just 15
years old, I wanted to die. The lifestyle I was living proved
my worthlessness.
Finally, one night, the police picked me up and recognized
me as a reported missing child and took me home. But fearing
what he would do to me if I did not return, I ran back to my
trafficker.
Later I was arrested again. This time, I was sent to
juvenile detention where my probation officer seemed to suspect
my victimization, but I strongly denied it and again I was sent
home on probation.
A few days later, my trafficker exacted the revenge I
feared. I was brutally raped in front of my own house. I had to
be hospitalized and while I was there, my probation officer
reached out to Linda Smith of Shared Hope hoping she could find
some place where I would be safe and where they had the skills
to address my many needs.
Finally, she located Youth For Tomorrow in Virginia 3,000
miles away. I had to go that far for my frightened mother and
siblings because there was no place closer to home that could
give me the help I needed to heal.
The day I was released from the hospital, Linda arranged
for me to move into a beautiful hotel room until I could be
safely relocated. The memory of that view from the room, the
view of freedom still brings tears to my eyes.
Sadly, my story of seduction and exploitation is not
unique. Many girls go through what I did and much more. I saw
victims younger than I was. One of the girls was ten years old
and I knew girls much older who had been exploited since they
were my age.
Unfortunately for others, my story of restoration is
unique. Shelters and services for the protection and
restoration of child sex trafficking victims are scarce. Being
sent home on probation did not address the trauma bonds and
fear that caused me to return to my trafficker.
My journey has made me strong, strong enough to be a voice
for others. My faith in God and his remarkable way of making
beauty from ashes has emboldened me to speak to you on their
behalf. The funding of organizations like the ones I have
mentioned is vital. Without them, I would not be sitting here.
Congress has the power to make development of shelter
services a priority. The journey from victim to survivor and
advocate, the journey I was able to take depends on it.
For my part, I have shared my story in a critical awareness
video produced by Shared Hope International called Chosen. It
is my hope that it will keep many from the ordeal I endured by
alerting them to the techniques used by traffickers and the
devastating result of believing their lies.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Stephanie. Thank you for your
testimony.
Next is Detective William Woolf from the Fairfax County
Police Department who--you live in Manassas. I guess you had a
little trouble coming in today.
Mr. Woolf. Yes, sir. It was a little bit of traffic this
morning. Sorry.
Mr. Wolf. But thank you very much.
And he has done an outstanding job out there in Fairfax
County.
We will just turn it over to you, Detective Woolf.
Mr. Woolf. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to speak before this committee this morning about
the issues of human trafficking, specifically what we are
seeing in the northern Virginia region.
Recently some of the strides that we have made is we were
recently awarded a grant from the Department of Justice to
start a human trafficking task force in northern Virginia. And
that is an enhanced collaborative task force in conjunction
with Fairfax County Police Department, Polaris Project, as well
as the U.S. Attorney's Office for the eastern district of
Virginia.
That was a direct result of the rise in issues that we saw
in northern Virginia. We have had several notable cases in the
northern Virginia area to include the underground gangster
CRIPS case, which is a group of CRIPS gang members were
exploiting young girls for over six years in the region.
These girls were going to school every day in the same
communities where they lived and in the same communities where
they were being exploited as well.
We know that that particular group exploited hundreds of
girls over the six years that they were active. We have had
cases like the black Italian family where Mr. Vargas and Dumas
recruited underage girls from various states and trafficked
them into Virginia for the purposes of commercial sex.
At the time that we interdicted that enterprise, they had
six juveniles that were actively working for them in northern
Virginia.
As a result of that and many other cases, we were able to--
Fairfax County Police Department established their first human
trafficking unit which falls under the Northern Virginia Human
Trafficking Task Force.
That unit started in October 2013 and since that time, we
have received over 70 tips and leads regarding human
trafficking specific to the northern Virginia region. Fifty-two
percent of those leads involved juvenile sex trafficking cases.
So we are seeing a predominance of cases with underage girls
that are being lured and induced into this lifestyle and being
exploited by their traffickers.
Part of the reason that we have seen such a rise in the
number of cases, particularly in northern Virginia, is due to
our enhanced ability to identify the victims, working with
partners like Shared Hope International, the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children.
We have received the training, law enforcement has received
the training to be better equipped at identifying victims of
trafficking that for so long were misidentified as troubled
youth or other various traditional ideologies that we have had.
Through the collaboration that we have had with the
schools, community members, court services units, we have been
able to educate them as well on how to identify and address
trafficking scenarios.
And so because of that, a lot more of the victims in
northern Virginia are being identified as such, as victims, and
we are in the process of enhancing our ability to provide them
with the services that they need.
It is important to note that as you all have heard this
morning the amount of trauma that goes into the victimization
piece of this particular crime is that which is beyond most
other crimes that we see here in the United States.
They are life altering for the victims. I have seen it
firsthand in the young girls that I have had the opportunity to
work with. And because of that, we have shifted our approach
and we have taken on a very victim centered approach.
Our number one priority is recovering and rescuing these
young people from these terrible situations. The problem with
that is it is extremely resource intensive both for law
enforcement as well as the other individuals in the community,
those that are taking on the treating those that are
trafficking victims.
But we also see an increase not just in our ability to
identify the victims, but we are also seeing an increase in the
activity itself. And the reason that that is is mostly because
of the internet, the ability for these traffickers to not only
operate or conduct their criminal operations behind closed
doors through the mask of the internet, but also their ability
to recruit these individuals as well.
They commonly exploit social media sites such as Facebook,
Twitter, and things of that nature to be able to target their
recruitment efforts, making them a lot more effective and
efficient. They are going on and finding young people that may
have a particular vulnerability in their life at that time that
the traffickers can exploit and draw them into a life of sexual
servitude.
We see other internet-based companies like backpage.com
that is openly and in some sense is legally advertising
commercial sex. It gives these traffickers the opportunity to
advertise to the general public these sexual services and to
advertise essentially our children online.
And because of this increase in activity, we call for a
much more comprehensive and robust approach to addressing these
particular issues.
The Northern Virginia Human Trafficking Task Force has
taken on a model very similar to, as the chairman well knows,
the Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force which has been
extremely successful in addressing the gang issues in northern
Virginia.
And that model, the way that we approach those issues in
northern Virginia seems to have a lot of merit in addressing
the issues of human trafficking as well in the region. And so
that approach is essentially a three-pronged approached.
And the first thing that we are doing to address the issue
and the first need that we have is education and awareness. We
found that through educating the general public, most
individuals here in the United States are unaware that
trafficking is even going on. They are aware that their
children are potentially at risk to be victims of trafficking.
And so by raising awareness within the community, we feel
that we will be a lot more effective at combating the issue.
One thing that we feel is essential is an anti-trafficking
campaign, something that should be on a national level because
this particular crime is something that affects all
communities.
It is a crime that does not discriminate on race,
ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic class. It is something that
has the potential of touching each and every community and each
and every state here in the United States. And so the need for
a national anti-trafficking campaign that is focused on our
young people, that draws the attention at educating parents and
teenagers alike is critical to being able to ultimately prevent
this heinous crime.
We would ultimately, like I said, like to prevent the crime
than have to intervene through law enforcement action later on
once the victimization has already been done.
The next phase to that is prevention. So we raise awareness
in the community and then we institute programs within the
community to prevent this type of victimization.
Fairfax County Public Schools have developed a curriculum
for all students that attend the public schools that begins in
the sixth grade and extends all the way through the twelfth
grade. And this curriculum is based on not just awareness of
trafficking within the community but also gives our students,
our teen population the skills and abilities to be able to
recognize and get out of those bad situations that may
eventually lead to trafficking.
This type of curriculum is essential for our teens again
across the country right now. It is education and awareness and
a skill set that many of our teens lack today. That leaves them
vulnerable to being drawn into this particular type of
scenario.
The necessity for after school programs and other types of
programs that will help to support our children, we know that
the majority of homes in the United States right now both
parents are working. They are career parents, and so we need
programs focused on better supporting our teenage population
during those after school hours when they might otherwise be
left to their own devices.
And then also programs for at risk youth. There are some
pretty innovative programs in Northern Virginia that we are
enhancing based on our knowledge of trafficking. Arlington
County's Girls Outreach program, which specifically targets at
risk youth, particularly girls, and provides them with an after
school program that mentors them, gives them counseling, and
helps them learn how to make good choices and decisions in
their lives. This particular program has been extremely
successful in teaching our children and our youth how to avoid
trafficking scenarios.
And then finally the third prong is the intervention piece.
If it gets to the piece where unfortunately a young boy or girl
is drawn into this trafficking scenario, then law enforcement
has to intervene and recover and assist in restoration of that
particular victim. And as you all heard this morning, the need
for residential treatment facilities is essential across the
country right now. Some people are having to come 3,000 miles
just to find a treatment center here in Virginia that can
provide adequate treatment for the victim as well as providing
for a safe location as well. And this is a challenge for law
enforcement and social services alike. That once we recover
that juvenile victim, where do we place them? What is an
appropriate placement for them? So the need for these types of
facilities and the specialized training is absolutely
essential.
The Northern Virginia Human Trafficking Task Force has
responded in collaboration with Prince William County Court
Services and a private counseling company in Northern Virginia
called the Multicultural Clinical Center in developing a
training that is unique for residential facilities to provide
long term therapeutic support for victims of trafficking. There
are very, very few facilities that have specialized training,
specifically if we talk about gang controlled sex trafficking,
that understand the dynamics at work with the level of sexual
assault that occurs in these types of scenarios. So that is a
program that we have taken on and responded to the need in
Northern Virginia. But really it is a need that exists across
the United States right now.
Obviously enhancing laws and sentencing guidelines is a
huge deterrent for this type of criminal behavior. One of the
frustrations that we see in law enforcement and for prosecutors
alike is the judges are consistent going below the federal
sentencing guidelines. They are oftentimes just imposing the
mandatory minimums as provided by the statute when the
guidelines suggest much higher penalties for this type of
criminal conduct.
The need for increased task forces as well, and those task
forces being able to operate more effectively, again drawing
your attention to the successes of the Northern Virginia
Regional Gang Task Force and the abilities that it had in
combating and suppressing gang activity. Being able to model
the human trafficking task forces off of the successes that
they have had we feel is essential to combating this particular
issue.
Overall these are some of the major things that we are
seeing with regards to trafficking in Northern Virginia. And it
is also as we speak and coordinate with law enforcement across
the country they are seeing the exact same scenarios.
And also the last piece that I just wanted to address very
briefly is the need for federal legislation addressing the
demand side. There are individuals out there that are
purchasing sex from our children and these individuals need to
be punished, or we at least need to tools to be able to address
that as well. Particularly when their actions are affecting
interstate commerce. There are currently no federal statutes
that are applicable to addressing the demand side of the issue.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you. I had promised Ms. Noem I was
going to let her say something. I am not going to ask questions
until the end so first I will go, Congresswoman, you wanted to
make a statement?
Ms. Noem. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the members of the committee for the honor of sitting at the
dais today and being able to make a statement on this issue.
While I am not a member of this committee I am certainly
passionate about the issue. You know, I am a mother of three. I
have got two daughters that I know that for most of their lives
while they were young girls and teenagers I never would have
dreamed that when I sent them out the door to go to school, or
to the mall, or to a store that they were in jeopardy of being
trafficked. I, like most moms in this country I think, and I
know certainly in my State of South Dakota, when we think about
human trafficking we think about the knowledge that we have
experienced through the media or potentially through movies
that we have seen and thought about it internationally and not
so much at home in our day to day lives.
It is not until the last few years where the more that I
learn about this issue the more it keeps me up at night. And I
have begun to learn and to realize over the last several years
the issues that we have in my own State of South Dakota. How
prevalent it is during hunting season, that we have a
motorcycle bike rally in Sturgis, South Dakota that happens
every year where it is a big operation. That we have issues on
our reservations that have been going on for decades. But that
also we have it going on at our schools. That we have kids that
are being approached and brought in much like Stephanie's story
that she told. It could start through Facebook or Twitter,
where they start becoming attached to a stranger who says kind
and nice things to them and draws them into this industry where
they soon find that they are being used and utilized in ways
that they never dreamed possible. So for me it breaks my heart,
and I think we need to do all that we can to do, to stop this
deplorable industry and those involved in it.
I had on Monday an event called the Justice Against Slavery
Summit. It was probably the most comprehensive summit that we
have had in South Dakota that brought together law enforcement
officials, it brought together school counselors,
administrators, outside organizations, faith-based
organizations, legislators, to talk about what we can do in our
state and across the country to help stop human trafficking and
sex trafficking that was going on. Some of the greatest needs
that have been talked about here today already have not only
been the tools that we need at the federal level with
legislation to make sure we can prosecute those who not only
perpetuate the industry by being the pimps that recruit and
bring our young women and men into the industry, but also those
johns who go out there and create the market. And we need all
the tools we can possibly get to stop them and to prosecute
them to the highest extent possible. But also I have been
working with my state legislators to make sure that our state
laws are as high as possible. And we need to work to make sure
the awareness is out there.
I guess two of the things that we identified were very key
on Monday, and that we are going to continue to work together
as a comprehensive group, is to make sure that the awareness
level is high. And this hearing today will help with that. I
think it has helped a lot already just in my conversations and
the conversations that will happen after this hearing is long
over on the information that we have been able to gather and
how we can use that to go out and tell the story to the rest of
America so all moms and dads and teachers and counselors and
people that see individuals on the street can be aware and know
what to look for to help prevent the trafficking before it ever
starts.
And then after that the biggest gap that I see is once we
do have victims out there is that we have a lack of ability to
restore them because of a lack of shelters, of centers that can
bring them the help and hope that they need into the future. So
we need to do all that we can to make sure we are cooperating
together with nonprofit organizations, faith-based
organizations, but also in our role as federal legislators and
state legislators to work to make sure that we have facilities
there so that when someone calls and they need help, when they
can get out of this industry, that we know where we can send
them so that they can get the help that they need to be whole
and to be healed and to go forward as well.
So you know, President Kennedy often said the only thing
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. And doing nothing is not acceptable in this industry.
Each of you has been an advocate in this area, and I want to
thank you for bringing attention to it. And I certainly want to
be your partner in this war that we find ourselves engaged in.
I look forward to all of the testimony that we hear today, and
to working with you and all of the organizations to stop human
trafficking, to stop sex trafficking, and certainly to make
sure that this evil can be stopped. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. I want to thank the chairman for calling the
hearing. I just have one question for the detective. What is
the role that drugs play in the sex trafficking?
Mr. Woolf. So very commonly we see the use of illegal
narcotics as a way to maintain control over the girls. One of
the trends that we are seeing is a moving away from some of the
more traditional drugs associated with prostitution, such as
heroin and cocaine, and a move towards some of the more
designer drugs like Molly and Ecstasy. The main reason is for
the traffickers because it does not have the negative physical
effects. In other words, the users do not appear as strung out,
if you will, by using those drugs. And so again unfortunately
the truth of the matter is, to the traffickers these girls are
simply a product and so they want their product to look good,
to look presentable so that they can make more money. So they
use some of these other narcotics as a means of control.
Mr. Harris. And these other drugs I take it also have
addictive properties?
Mr. Woolf. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Harris. So that addiction is part of the problem as
well?
Mr. Woolf. Absolutely. Typically we see that a lot of times
these more intense drugs are introduced to the victims by the
traffickers. Prior to their involvement in sex trafficking they
had not had any exposure to those drugs.
Mr. Harris. To those drugs. What about drugs in general?
Mr. Woolf. Typically marijuana. They do have access to
that, but again some of the more harder drugs they have not had
exposure to.
Mr. Harris. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me also thank
you for convening this hearing, and to our witnesses, and
Stephanie, thank you for your words and sharing.
Just a couple of things. I think that we historically
center on prevention and then we look at institutions that look
at intervention and try to do some correction. We know that all
of those areas are really low on resources to be able to do
full, full work. And there are some bills being brought through
the process in Congress. But one of the things I have noticed
is that besides schools and other institutions where we
interact with youngsters, the word awareness was brought up.
And it seems to me that there has to be a greater sense of
awareness and vigilance of I think just about everybody in our
society because this is so prevalent.
And some of the things that raised my eyebrows when I
started to look into this a little bit more deeply is there is
a group called the Airline Ambassadors who take it upon
themselves, because they see themselves interacting with a lot
of folks. Not necessarily engaged in negative behavior, but
they tend to be interacting or a part of that flow of folks. So
when people are more aware of telltale signs they become more
aware. So it seems to me there should be some training in the
other industry, just beside the law enforcement, social
services, schools. Awareness among, and I guess in the Airline
Ambassadors their point is the other industries need to take
some sort of oath or awareness that they are not going to put
up with this kind of nonsense. And when they see these kinds of
things, that there should be some reporting. And to make that
reporting not a negative thing but a positive thing, and that
so there are no repercussions.
I was a classroom teacher, and then I was a principal and
we were required to report what we thought might be abuse. But
a lot of my teachers were reluctant because they did not want
to get involved because it is a very sensitive situation. So I
took it upon myself for them to report to me, and then I would
take it over. But through that process we learn a lot and we
save a lot of grief, and prevent a lot of grief. But we also
address a lot of issues in families. So it seems like we need
to expand our conversation beyond the typical institutions into
the private industry and engage them.
And one of the things that I have read is some of the
lessons learned when folks are more in tune with what is going
on in social events, such as Super Bowl. Super Bowl brings in
all kinds of folks globally. And that seems to be an event that
allows a lot of these kinds of activities to continue or to be
pursued without a lot of, without a lot of oversight and
sensitivity. So I would be interested in some of your comments.
One, on whether you have, we have invited you to take part in
writing some of these policies or looking at it so that we can
look at gaps that you would see because you are involved in it.
Two, Stephanie, you should be looking at it, too, as a person
who is out there now looking at how you work with the community
and young people, to look for gaps in our policy making. And
the second, a comment on extending the network into the private
industries, such as airlines and Super Bowl hosts, and
communities like that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Woolf. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Some of the things that we
are doing in Northern Virginia right now is we are working with
Fairfax Connector, which is the public transportation system,
as well as Metro in the Northern Virginia region to train,
again speaking of kind of that larger industry of professionals
that may come in contact with potential victims or traffickers
and helping them to identify. So we are in the process of
developing some protocol for bus drivers and other individuals
to not just identify but also a reporting mechanism to report
suspicious activity as well. And so I definitely feel that
based on my experiences and my knowledge that expanding into
the private sector, working with transportation services as
well as hotels and other industries that we know that victims
are coming in contact with the workers there, and educating
them on the realities of trafficking, and as well as how to
respond to those particular scenarios.
We have, during the course of investigations we have spoken
to staff at hotels and we have, in law enforcement, have
learned quite a bit because the staff has been able to educate
us on some of the red flags that they look for and that they
are aware of when there is a potential trafficking or at
minimum, you know, commercial sex going on in that particular
location. And it is all about kind of enhancing the
collaboration between law enforcement and the private industry
when it comes to these types of cases that will ultimately
enhance our ability to prevent and interdict in these types of
situations.
Raising awareness, like you said, sir, is extremely
important. One of the other efforts that we have is we have
launched a public awareness campaign in Northern Virginia. It
is called the Just Ask Campaign. And the idea behind that is
that we need to be out there asking questions. The cornerstone
of that campaign is a Website, which is justaskva.org. That is
aimed at the teen population. There is a section that is geared
strictly for teens, a section that is geared towards parents,
and a section that is geared towards community members. It
provides them with awareness training as well as identifying
red flags and reporting mechanisms and how to respond to those
situations as well. So I think that you raise a very valid
point in that those are essential steps as we move forward in
this process.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Either can answer the question. Stephanie, what
message would you have for anyone who is currently in the grip
of human trafficking now?
Ms. Vu. Well basically my message would be like, you know,
look for help. And if there is no help available just do not
give up hope because help is coming. I mean, people now are
getting more aware and things like that. I mean, when I was in
trafficking I did not have hope because there was not much
there. But now there is, so that is basically what I would say.
Mr. Wolf. I take it you had to come 3,000 miles, I do not
want to know where you came from, we will not say. But was
there nothing near you? Or how did Linda Smith find you? Or did
you find Linda?
Ms. Vu. My probation officer reached out to Shared Hope
with Linda Smith. There was no centers or anything like that
near my home that was available.
Mr. Wolf. Would it make sense for all of the churches in a
community, for instance in Loudoun County and Prince William
County and Fairfax County, to come together with the Joe Gibbs
Home or something? Because I think you separate this, it is
stopping it from taking place, education, then when you find
someone in, where do they go? So should all the churches,
should this be something that the churches come together, that
there are a series of homes? Not only in Northern Virginia.
This is not just a Northern Virginia hearing, it is for the
country.
Mr. Woolf. I think that tapping into our faith-based
communities as a way to kind of provide resources and housing
and treatment for trafficking victims would be a very good
idea. A lot of them are very motivated. As you are well aware,
in Northern Virginia there is the Northern Virginia Human
Trafficking Initiative, which is a consortium of Christian
churches in the area that are providing victim services. The
key is being able to provide the appropriate training for these
facilities. Trafficking is a very unique set of complex trauma
issues that need to be addressed. And so we need to ensure that
we are not just placing victims in a location where they may
not receive proper treatment because that may actually do more
harm than it does good in certain circumstances.
Places like Youth for Tomorrow have an excellent model, an
excellent treatment model. They very much understand the issues
regarding trafficking. Of course the problem with those
particular facilities is as soon as a bed opens up, I fill it
with another victim.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Woolf. So the space is just not available right now
throughout the country to place some of these girls. The other
thing, just for the committee to be aware of, one of the issues
that we consider when addressing the issue of placement is
safety. So is it safe to put a Northern Virginia girl in a
treatment center that is in Northern Virginia? Or do we need to
move them to another location for their safety? But then
finding an appropriate location that is trained and has the
adequate abilities to address those issues is very difficult.
Mr. Wolf. Is there a coalition of treatment centers that
you can go online to find in Delaware, in California, in
wherever, here is the place to go? Is there a list, if you
will?
Mr. Woolf. There is no formal list.
Mr. Wolf. Should there not be? Should this not, I mean,
maybe Polaris working with others could put together a place
that if this is impacting on your community, here is where you
go for training, and here is where you go for rescue. Should
there not be? Has anyone looked at putting together a
nationwide----
Mr. Woolf. So the National Human Trafficking Resource
Center, which is commonly referred to as the Human Trafficking
Hotline, does have a comprehensive list of places throughout
the United States. I think the issue is that that list is very
short, particularly when it comes to juveniles or adults and
sex trafficking when we talk about long term treatment. And
that is the biggest deficiency. There are quite a few quick
fixes to situations to respond to a situation of crisis, or
short term treatment or placement. But when it comes to more
long term care, which I am by no means a counselor or a
therapist, but in working with these programs it is my
understanding and experience that the program should be six
months at minimum. Most programs should be closer to a year, if
not longer, to adequately address those particular issues.
Mr. Wolf. Do the hotels know? When I looked at the case
that Neil brought, I looked at some of those hotels. I drive by
some of those hotels. I mean, if anyone wants to see the hotel,
frankly I do not think anybody ought to go to those hotels,
just look at the indictments and see. Did those hotel owners,
did the people know? I have even approached and said, well, why
do you not put a conference on it. They have not responded. Do
you think a hotel knows that this is going on in their hotel?
Mr. Woolf. I believe some of the workers are aware,
particularly the cleaning services that are going into the
rooms and seeing what is there. I think that we have the
ability to educate the hotels and the staff there as far as
what some of the warning signs are.
Mr. Wolf. Well what we will do, we will write the Hotel
Association for Northern Virginia and challenge them to call
you to put a conference on for all the hotel owners. But you
think some of the people in the hotels know what is going on?
Mr. Woolf. I think they know that there is commercial sex
going on. I do not think they particularly understand that it
is sex trafficking.
Mr. Wolf. What do you tell, what is the message both of you
would have for a parent? Congresswoman Noem talked about, I
have 16 grandkids. I have eight granddaughters. What is the
message out there to a parent? I mean, the media is listening.
What should a parent be looking for? What should a parent know?
Ms. Vu. Basically the fact that if their child is not being
very social with them or their friends anymore. A change in
their clothing, the way they walk, the way they talk. Staying
the night at friends' houses more often than they usually do.
Not coming home when they said they are going to. I cannot
really think of anything else. But skipping school is one of
them, yeah.
Mr. Wolf. I think what we tell parents is be engaged in
your child's life. I think there is a fine line between giving
a teenager freedom and respecting their right to privacy, and
protecting them from potential predators that are out there on
the street. One thing that we have asked parents through the
Police Department in Fairfax County is to do something we call
friend checking. So go onto your child's social media site,
their Facebook site, their Twitter, and ask them how do you
know this individual? Why are you friends with them? If you
have a 16-year-old daughter and she is friends with a 30-year-
old male, there should be some questions being asked as to why
they are friends on that social media site. So really it is all
about parents and caretakers and other individuals in that
child's life being engaged and being aware of their activities.
What do you think the trends are with regard to human
trafficking both in Northern Virginia and around the country?
At this moment, the trend. Is it going up? Going down?
Mr. Woolf. That is a hard question to ask because
statistics are scarce. We are just getting to the point where
we are able to accurately collect statistics. I think that on a
measurable level we are going to see the numbers rise over the
next several years as we become better at being able to track
and identify instances of tracking throughout the U.S. Whether
or not trafficking itself is on the rise, I do not know for
sure. I would feel comfortable saying that it is an issue that
needs to be addressed. I do not think that it is declining.
Mr. Wolf. Tell us about the gang involvement, MS-13,
violent gangs like that.
Mr. Woolf. So what we are seeing across the country right
now is trending towards most criminal street gangs getting into
the business of sex trafficking. The FBI reports that over 35
states say that their gangs are involved in trafficking at this
point. The reality is is the gangs are realizing that it is low
risk, high yield for them. They need to fund their gang
operations whether it is purchasing weapons, whether it is
funding operations abroad, or whatever need the gang has, they
are gaining their financial resources through illegal means.
And sex trafficking is a lot less risky than narcotics
trafficking with a similar yield as far as profit.
Mr. Wolf. Why is it not a federal crime, I mean, to move
people. The Mann Act, we were talking earlier, why is it not a
crime? The group that came to Northern Virginia, moved them
across, they went from South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia,
Northern Virginia. Why was that not a violation? And we will
look at it and see. We will put something in. I will talk to
Bob Goodlatte. You know, frankly if this Congress does not kind
of deal with this issue aggressively now and it gets out of
there, so we will drop something in. And I want you to know
what the criminal penalty should be. And I am going to ask
Cindy McCain the same thing. What is the best state law? What
is the penalty?
I sent, the video that you referenced, I sent that to every
Supreme Court Justice. And what we will do is we will send that
to every Court of Appeals Justice. Because, and we will say we
had some witnesses here talking and they said the judges are
sort of wimping out. And maybe the judges do not quite
understand. So we will try to send that video. And we have had
a good response from the Supreme Court Justices. I have been
very impressed. So what we will do is we will send that to each
Court of Appeals to make sure. But what should the penalty be?
And why was that not a criminal act to take somebody across the
line to Virginia from North Carolina or South Carolina?
Mr. Woolf. So it is a criminal act to transport somebody
across state lines for the purposes of commercial sex or really
any illegal sexual conduct. The issue, particularly with the
Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. 24, 21, and 22 is that if the victim is 18
years of age or older, there are no mandatory minimums. So the
average sentence that we would get for that type of prosecution
would be zero to maybe five years for that type of conduct.
Mr. Wolf. Really? What did Neil MacBride get in that case?
What was the penalty?
Mr. Woolf. There were juveniles involved in that case. The
particular case that you are referencing was unique in that the
statute that we used in prosecuting the two main players was 18
U.S.C. 2252A(g), which is a child exploitation enterprise. It
is the first time to our knowledge that that Code section has
ever been used to prosecute a case of that nature. That has a
20-year mandatory minimum.
Mr. Wolf. Now that is really because of Neil, is it not? I
mean, he got the, he kind of felt it and did it. Are other U.S.
attorneys not using that around the country?
Mr. Woolf. I feel very fortunate for being able to
prosecute the majority of my cases through the Eastern District
of Virginia. Mr. MacBride was extremely supportive of our
investigations and went after them very aggressively. I'm not
sure what a lot of the other districts are seeing right now.
But I do know that I think that the Eastern District of
Virginia is one of the top districts in the United States for
prosecuting sex trafficking right now.
Mr. Wolf. All right. The next last two questions we go to
Mr. Fattah. In your written testimony you mention that
traffickers are--your service uses a Greyhound bus to move
victims from one location to another, in part because they
recognize proper identification is not required to purchase or
obtain a bus ticket. Therefore they can transport minors and
evade law enforcement.
Are there monosteps that could be taken by bus companies
and the like to make it more difficult for the services to be
misused, and to your knowledge, have any of these companies
been officially approached by law enforcement with this
request?
Mr. Woolf. So it would seem that it would be a logical step
for any transportation service, particularly one that is
transporting persons through interstate commerce from state-to-
state could require some form of identification to be able to
purchase that ticket. If not, a parent or guardian to purchase
the ticket for them.
What we commonly see is, I could go today over to Union
Station and purchase a bus ticket in the name of Frank Wolf and
get on a bus and go wherever I wanted to go, and provide
absolutely no sort of identification.
Additionally, traffickers are able to recruit juveniles
from out of state. So, for example, we are currently working a
case where the trafficker will send a bus ticket to Florida in
the name of the juvenile--her proper name--but she requires no
identification to purchase that ticket. All she has to do when
she goes to the ticket counter is provide a password that the
trafficker has set up. So they are even able to purchase these
tickets on-line and not even be present where the victim is and
then bring the victim to them.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. The last question, we go to Mr. Fattah.
Tell us something about backpage.com and some of these. Can you
actually solve this if you don't deal with backpage.com and
groups like that?
Mr. Woolf. The truth is, is that these traffickers are very
savvy, very much like when craigslist was able to shut down
their escort. The traffickers just moved to another site. So
really it's about addressing the issue of them actually
advertising on-line, and not so much backpage in and of itself.
There are other sites that exist throughout the United
States, particularly on the West Coast. There is redbook.com,
which is another on-line site. There is adultfriendfinder.com,
and several other internet sites that are being used by the
traffickers. Backpage gets the most attention because it is
probably the most commonly used site for advertising commercial
sex.
Mr. Wolf. How would you deal with that? If you were the
Attorney General of the United States, how would you deal with
backpage and some of the others?
Mr. Woolf. I think that by enhancing the penalties for
using things like backpage.com and on-line resources, you know,
enhancing the penalties for the traffickers--when they use
things like that would discourage them from actually using it.
And by doing so, it's going to really cut into their ability to
make a profit.
When there is very minimal ramifications for a trafficker
to hide behind a computer screen right now, it makes our job
more difficult because the paper trail in investigating those
types of cases is immense and it really bogs down the speed of
our investigations. So just making the penalties equal to the
criminal conduct itself.
Mr. Wolf. I am going to go to Mr. Fattah. One last
question. What percentage of the cases of individuals, God
bless them, who are involved in this activity are we actually
dealing with now? Are we dealing with 87 percent, 37 percent,
five percent? Of the realm of the world here in the United
States, what percentage are we really--and Stephanie, you have
any--are we really kind of dealing with that we're helping and
impacting and shutting down and--nationwide. Not just----
Mr. Woolf. I think that is a--it is a hard question because
we don't have hard statistics.
Mr. Wolf. What do you think?
Mr. Woolf. The generally accepted number is less than one
percent of victims are being identified.
Mr. Wolf. There is less, and so 99 percent are not?
Mr. Woolf. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am probably not
going to get into a lot of questions, because I know we want to
hear from Mrs. McCain and from John. I want to thank you for
the work that you are doing. The Chairman knows I was in Tel
Aviv a few months ago, and I was there on some other business,
but a friend of mine, Sammy Segall, and his wife were doing a
major project to help young women who had been trafficked
sexually there.
And it is a worldwide problem that the United States has--
we have to focus on this. And the only question I would ask of
Stephanie is, do you have a number for the interventions that
did not initially work and then you got some help and your
people got relocated. Is there anything in these earlier
interventions that we can learn from? Find something that
probation officers or others--police officers on the street,
could do a better job at that might have gotten you help
sooner?
Ms. Vu. Well, the thing that kept making me return to my
trafficker was fear of what he might do. So as long as there's
that fear installed in the girls who are being trafficked, they
are going to keep returning, or the use of drugs and their
addiction to it. So, really, there is not much you can do about
that, unless you relocate them into a center further away from
their trafficker where they are being trafficked, where they
can be--their needs can be addressed.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much. Again, I am going to yield
to questions so that we can hear from our other witnesses. So,
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I want to thank both of you for your testimony.
We appreciate it very, very much. Thank you, Stephanie. Thanks.
Thanks, Bob.
Our next two witnesses, they will appear together, will be
first, Cindy McCain, who is the Co-Chairman of the Arizona
Governor's Task Force on Human Trafficking and has done a lot
of work in this area. The other is John Ryan, CEO of the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
I welcome you both. Ms. McCain, you can go first, and then
we will go to the next one.
Ms. McCain. Thank you. I have submitted a formal statement
to all of you that includes much more of the data and the
research we have found, but I did want to give you a few brief
statements about why and what we are doing in Arizona, and how
this applies to the rest of the Nation.
Mr. Wolf. Now, your full statement will appear on the
record.
Ms. McCain. Yes. First of all, I would like to thank you,
Congressman Wolf, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of you for doing
this, for paying attention to this issue, for being a part of a
solution to a problem that is infesting our youth.
Let's be clear that this is not a humanitarian issue. I
come to you as a humanitarian. It is a human rights issue. It
is a basic human rights issue that these children are being
denied.
I am encouraged by the increased attention to human
trafficking solutions that I am seeing in Arizona and across
the Nation and, of course, internationally where I work. I am
encouraged, but there is a great deal more to do. There is a
great deal more awareness to be had and a great deal more of us
need to fight this to the bitter end.
I have been a lifelong humanitarian and I was introduced to
human trafficking strictly by chance. I saw it. I was in
Calcutta. I happened to be in a small shop. Bottom line was I
realized that there were children being kept below the
floorboards of this shop. I could see them. I could hear them.
It clicked with me, but not really. But the bad news is I got
up and walked out, and I never did anything.
The estimates on numbers of trafficked persons are
horrifying, but just as horrifying as each survivor's story as
you heard earlier. And the realization that there were many
likely people along their path that could have done something
and didn't, just like me. It is all of our responsibilities as
citizens to pay attention and act when things are clearly
wrong.
We heard from the FBI. According to the FBI 2011 report,
there are 293,000 U.S. children at risk right now. The average
age for a girl or little boy to be trafficked is 13. Ambassador
Luis CdeBaca, Ambassador--at-Large for the State Department's
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons recently
estimated it's 27 million men, women, and children being
victimized worldwide. NCMEC also estimates that a pimp can make
between $150,000 and $200,000 per child per year. The average
pimp has four to six little girls. It is low risk and a very
high reward business. Drugs or weapons are sold once. Human
beings can be sold over and over and over again.
Through my role as Co-Chair of the Arizona Task Force on
Human Trafficking, and with the partnership between the McCain
Institute for International Leadership and Polaris Project, we
have sought to strengthen anti-trafficking legislation in
Arizona and the greater mountain states. I am witnessing
firsthand just how important it is that we work with local
state and national stakeholders to effectively combat human
trafficking, awareness being number one.
I have also been involved with working with Clear Channel
and the Polaris Project to advertise the National Human
Trafficking Hotline in Arizona. Clear Channel very generously
donated 50 digital billboards for the entire year of 2014. In
any given month it's going to reach 27,000,000 viewers or
blasts or whatever they call it. Twenty seven million people
are going to see that. The National Hotline number and other
methods of help are being shown on these billboards. Our hope
is that someone who needs help will be able to get help through
this public awareness campaign.
The Task Force heard recommendations from many who have
given--who have been involved in the fight against human
trafficking for years. We have presented 27 specific
recommendations to our governor, and I am pleased to say that
the legislation is pending right now in the Arizona State
Legislature. It toughens the sentencing structure for
traffickers, adds sex and labor trafficking to the list of acts
that constitute racketeering, increases penalties if the victim
is taken from foster care or a shelter situation, and requires
an escort service to include their license number in any ad as
well as to keep on file the proof of age of anyone that is
depicted in our ad.
In addition, our recommendations regarding specific human
trafficking training for first responders, and changes to
administrative practice to increase protection for these
vulnerable victims are being implemented in my home state right
now.
Training and awareness. Training and awareness. We keep
hearing that over and over today. We right now are training
other businesses in a city and state such as Uber, cab
companies, bars, hotels, motels, airline industry, mall
security, and hospital ER personnel. Some of these people don't
even believe human trafficking exists. I met recently with a
very large and serious newspaper--the editorial board--and they
literally said to me, ``We don't believe this exists.'' We have
a problem in this country.
Let me be clear. Our recommendations are not just for the
Super Bowl that are being held in Arizona in 2015, but they are
long-reaching. Together we Arizonans intend to make our stay,
as I like to say, a flyover state. Our message to traffickers--
if you traffic in Arizona, you will go to jail for a very long
time.
In a recent study by the McCain Institute, which will be
released in early March, we endeavored to explore the impact of
a large sporting event such as the Super Bowl, using scientific
research which has been lacking in a lot of the examples that
we use. This is in conjunction with Arizona State University.
Our preliminary findings are disturbing. They are terrifying.
Researching prostitution ads placed on backpage.com, we
found sex trafficking to be very organized and very traceable.
It shows a clear spider web effect that criss--crosses our
country and spreads offshore. Nearly 75 percent of the phone
numbers used in flagged minor sex ads were linked to another
girl or woman, indicating some sort of networking and
organization. Make no mistake. This is organized crime at its
best.
The movement of girls for the Super Bowl was obvious, as
our research found that 20 percent of the ads had been placed
in other cities, prior to or after the Super Bowl. One ad
linked ads prior to the Super Bowl from Boston to Worcester to
northern New Jersey, south New Jersey; Richmond, Virginia,
Manhattan. But on Super Bowl Sunday, the ads were all listed in
Boston for some reason.
Another ad was linked to prior ads in North Bay,
California--San Jose, San Francisco area. And then north New
Jersey during the Super Bowl weekend, and back to Oakland and
San Francisco the following week.
What we learned from this study so far includes the
networks and circuits that facilitate the victimization of
minors in sex trafficking are more pervasive than previously
known. These networks keep these victims on the move, perhaps
to avoid law enforcement detection, but more importantly to
find new customers. It is unlikely that they are avoiding law
enforcement as there simply is not enough law enforcement, and
law enforcement eyes on this issue.
We need to create a national training for law enforcement
specific to the complexities of sex trafficking, support the
hiring and specialization of new law enforcement units around
the country, and create a national tool that assists law
enforcement in tracking the traffickers, and allows the
intelligence from these communities to transfer to one another
and not be lost as it leaves one state--as a trafficker leaves
one state and heads to another area.
Networks also include gangs, as was mentioned earlier,
which have become increasingly a strong part of sex trafficking
of minors in this country, as well as the small organized sex
trafficking groups. This research shows that sex trafficking as
a part of a network is found in three-quarters of the ads on
backpage.com.
I am grateful for the interest and work of the Federal
Government, and what you have done on this issue so far.
Together we need to increase and broaden the training for our
first responders, toughen the penalties for traffickers, fund
awareness campaigns, and erase the word ``prostitution'' as it
deals with children who are victims of sex trafficking. They
are not prostitutes. They are victims. Lastly, we'd like to
treat customers for what they are--child abusers.
Thank you for inviting me today, and thank you for all the
work that you are and will be doing on this issue. We look to
you for great help on this. It is a critical time in our
country and we have an opportunity to take hold of this issue
and really make a difference.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you. I am going to go to Mr. Ryan,
but I just had a lot of thoughts when you were speaking. One,
and I will go to Mr. Harris and others before we ask the
questions, if we can get the Arizona law we will send a copy of
that--and I assume you all have vetted that law.
Ms. McCain. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Wolf. And we will send it to every governor, including
my own. Secondly, we will look at it and we will introduce it
at the Federal level to make it the Federal law and maybe a
change. You know, this place works different, and see if we can
kind of institutionalize that up here pretty, pretty early. So
if you can get us the law----
Ms. McCain. I will have it to you.
Mr. Wolf. That we can go to the governors and then--so we
can then put it in at the Federal level to see, and then also
this Committee, working with the following, we fund the
National Gang Intelligence Center. It is in Northern Virginia.
We may change that and give them the responsibility for
tracking national gangs, based on what Detective Woolf said, to
track gangs and also this issue, too, to sort of do the
combination. So we can get that from you and we can do it.
Ms. McCain. Absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. And Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members
of this Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today, along with my partners who have testified
today. This is a battle in which we have joined together. This
is a true partnership. This is not the first time that we have
met before you in this room. As we leave here today we will
continue our efforts in a joint manner.
With your permission I will abbreviate my testimony because
I think this Subcommittee in particular has been engaged in
this problem for some time, has an awareness of the nature of
the problem, and by some of the questions that have already
been asked, I think it would be very helpful to continue with
the Q and A process.
But let me talk to you about what the role of the National
Center has been and what we are seeing in this area. As you
know, we received a grant from the Department of Justice, the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and in
April of this year we are about to celebrate our 30th
anniversary of operation. We were founded in 1984.
In those 30 years we have answered 4 million calls. We have
distributed over 8 million posters. We have helped resolve over
193,000 cases of missing children. That is a resolution rate of
almost 98 percent. When we were founded in 1984, the rate was
less than 63 percent. So as a result of the creation of this
Center and the support of Congress, and our partners, I can
report to you today we are making a difference, but we need to
do more.
We know what happens in your district, Mr. Chairman. We
have worked with Detective Woolf. We have worked with you and
your office, and your community as you have addressed this
problem. You found firsthand that in one of the most affluent
counties in this country there was a systemic problem of child
sex trafficking, which was based in one of the highest rated
school systems in the country. So the message we learned, and I
hope the rest of the country has learned, if it can happen
outside our doors here, it can and is happening everywhere.
We don't have an exact count of the number of victims of
this pernicious activity. But I can tell you what we have
observed firsthand at the National Center. As the clearing
house for the reports from both the public, law enforcement, as
well as what we refer to as ``electronic service provider
community'' who own and operate the platforms, whereupon a lot
of this activity is now occurring. The reports are escalating.
The number of arrests is rising, and most importantly, the
number of minors, of children like Stephanie, are being
rescued.
So to those who challenge us in this battle, that we cannot
put an exact figure on this, I tell you that if I go to your
community, I can assure you that there are at that very time a
high number of children being trafficked while we are engaged
in that discussion.
Under a grant from the Justice Department we recently
established a training curriculum which has been recommended by
prior witnesses here. We call it the Child Sex Trafficking
Awareness and Response Program. We just launched our first in-
person training conference in Los Angeles. We launched it there
for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we did not have
the Federal funding in our budget, but we still have the
critical need and the demand.
We had private businessman from the Los Angeles area step
up, who I can now say is on our Board because he has such a
passion for these issues. He paid out of his own pocket for
that training conference, and has told us that he will continue
to do that as long as there is an engaged audience. We trained
over 50 investigators, prosecutors, members from the medical
profession, NGOs. We know, as has been pointed out earlier,
this is a battle that cannot be solved by law enforcement; it
cannot be solved by the NGOs. We have to engage all the
stakeholders, and we are doing that in our strategy at the
National Center.
We have also developed what we call a Critical and Runaway
Unit which handles these cases of missing children who become
victims of sex trafficking. We have identified, Mr. Chairman,
that in 2013, one out of seven reported endangered runaways
were also the victims of sexual exploitation. One out of seven.
That is real. That is alarming.
We also found that out of that community that 67 percent of
those victims are runaways from foster care. The challenge is
enhanced because most states do not have a reporting
requirement when a child goes missing from foster care. There
is no current Federal law that requires reporting to law
enforcement, let alone the National Center.
So what happens? We heard from Stephanie. She is an example
of that problem. These children, for various reasons, are not
getting the care and the security that they are owed and
promised in many of these homes, so they are lured away by what
they hope to be a more promising future and they then become a
victim of a pimp and a predator. Many of them will return at
some point to these homes, and the homes are not aware of what
has happened. So their problem is not being addressed, let
alone reported.
I can report to you that we have instituted a program with
two states--Illinois and Florida. They are reporting to law
enforcement. They are reporting to the National Center. As a
result of that, our analysts are able to support the efforts of
the first responders, identify who these children are, where
they are likely to be, who they may be associated with, because
we have the benefit of all the data from all these reports that
I referred to earlier.
We have the support of the technology community--the
Googles, the Facebooks, the Microsofts. They give us the
analytical tools to make sense out of this mass of publicly
available data that law enforcement doesn't either have the
training or the opportunity to utilize. But we do, and we share
that with law enforcement. Let me give you some other examples.
In Operation Cross Country, which as you know is the FBI's
nationwide endeavor with state and local law enforcement
agencies, this past August 230 agencies were involved. What
many people don't realize, over that three-day period, the
National Center is staffing up the Command Center here in
Alexandria--their headquarters, which I know you have visited,
sir, and they are providing information to the boots on the
ground who these children may be, based on our analysis of all
the reports we receive.
You referenced, sir, that 105 minors were saved in August.
We helped identify 20 of those, based on reports that we had
and we could share with law enforcement. That is critical.
One case stood out. We were able not only to identify one
of these victims for law enforcement, but we knew that child
had a critical medical issue, that if left unattended she would
be seriously impaired or in jeopardy. Not only could law
enforcement identify her, treat her as a victim, but they were
able when she went into a seizure, get her the immediate
medical care that she required.
So there are partnerships that work. We need to build on
those partnerships. And we point to this Committee, frankly,
sir, as being our champion in these efforts. Let me talk about
some of the other results of our work with the ICACs, the state
and local task forces, along with the FBI.
Since these initiatives targeting minors who are being
commercially sex trafficked were launched they have recovered
over 3100 victims, convicted over 1400 pimps, 11 of them have
received life sentences. So that suggests to us the nature of
their long criminal history. This is not an isolated crime,
they are in the industry, an organized industry and they are
violent.
Our role again is to provide that analytical support to
these agencies. We have found a 32 percent increase in the
number of children recovered, a 43 percent increase in the
number of pimps arrested. So to those who want to challenge the
statistics, those statistics are real. We stand behind those.
We have learned also from the reports we are getting that
in the foster children environment that when a child is not
reported missing when they turn 18 they literally are off the
radar. Nobody was looking for them when they were a minor, and
no one is looking for them or aware of what is happening to
them once they reach the age of 18.
So what is happening to these young girls? Well when they
are being trafficked as minors and not getting the help that
they need, when they become adults they don't automatically
walk away from that, you know, that trade. The same symptoms,
the same threats of violence intimidation are continuing, and
what is the life they have ahead of them if they don't get that
intervention?
So we are working here with your colleagues, sir, to make
sure that there is federal legislation mandating the report
when these children go missing to law enforcement and then to
the national center. We can and will make a difference.
Let me close by giving you one real case. We were receiving
reports of a missing Florida girl. By the time she was 15 we
knew that we had over 13 reports--separate reports of her going
missing. We didn't know who she was, law enforcement didn't
know who she was. But while we are scouring these websites that
you have identified, particularly Backpage, we are developing
databases, in this case information that could help lead to the
identification of these minors.
We have a database of tattoos, unique marks. And what we
found when a young girl was actually arrested the police wisely
took pictures of the tattoo she had. They sent those into our
analyst. We were then able to review our database and make a
match. It matched a 15-year-old girl, who we still didn't know
who she was, but we knew she was still being trafficked.
We also had a phone number that was a common link through
these reports on Backpage. So we alerted law enforcement to not
only look for this girl but you may want to use this phone
number in your investigation.
They posed as a John, they called that number. Lo and
behold they were offered a visit at a hotel and they were able
to rescue this now 15-year-old girl who when she was saved
reported that she had been trafficked since she was 13 across
the country a minimum of 5 times a day.
Where would she be without the law enforcement
intervention? Where would she be without the national center
and all our partners here today?
So we make a commitment to this committee and you, sir, who
have been truly our champion. I wish you were not retiring.
We will keep up this fight, we will work with you, we will
challenge those who need to do more. Resources are part of it,
but it is not an excuse to do more. We will do more with less,
the battle will continue, but we do seek your help so we can
work and do this more nationally and in a more comprehensive
way.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you, Mr. Ryan.
I am going to go to Mr. Harris, but Mr. Fattah and I we
have always--I mean we don't really have differences on very
much at all, but on these issues we have been together, and I
want to thank you and Ernie Allen and all your staff and any
member that has not gone over there. You ought to just go over
or send your staff over to see it. It is pretty incredible what
they are actually doing.
But I want to thank you and all of your people, and the
commitment that I think Mr. Fattah and I, we will be there even
on these days that they were due, and this was one thing that
we were not going to have any negative impact on you. So you
have our word here.
Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. And I want to thank you
Mr. Chairman again for bringing this to the attention of the
committee and to help bring it to the attention of the country,
and maybe that newspaper editorial board.
I am going to follow up with what I asked the detective
before. How prevalent is the involvement of drugs in the human
trafficking of underage individuals?
Mr. Ryan. Well the feedback we get primarily from law
enforcement echos what Detective Woolf has testified to. It is
(a) a tool that is used by the predators to maintain a control
over these minors, because once they have that chemical
dependency that predator becomes their supplier, so it is a
very difficult cycle to break. And some of them frankly enter
into that, you know, behavior because they have a challenge to
begin with. So it just complicates things.
So it is a prevalent part of that cycle of behavior.
Mr. Harris. Ms. McCain.
Ms. McCain. I completely agree, but I would also like to
add something. The drug element in this, these are the same
guys that are trafficking these kids they are trafficking
drugs, they are trafficking guns, they are trafficking poached
animals out of Africa. These networks are all one on the same
in what they do.
So all too often, you know, the drug guys have become very
good at hiding what they are doing and it is very difficult for
us to be able sometimes to find them or find what they are
doing. Follow the girls you are going to find the drugs too,
and the guns and the poached animals.
Mr. Harris. And I take it that legalizing some of these
drugs is not going to solve this problem at all?
Mr. Ryan. I would not--well, I am not an expert in that
field but I would not recommend that.
Ms. McCain. No.
Mr. Harris. Do you think that using enhanced penalties
since it is so prevalent, the coexistence, and clearly
trafficking is involved when these, you call them pimps,
whatever you want to call them, traffic to the underage that
federal penalty enhancements under drug laws could be used as a
tool for law enforcement? Just like, you know, if you use a gun
in the commission of a crime there is an enhanced penalty that
is very useful to law enforcement. How about drug trafficking
as a----
Ms. McCain. Yes. Yes. I think any penalty that is not only
on the books now but that can be defined specifically as human
trafficking along with the drug element is--we need this, this
is exactly what we need to be able to stop this.
Mr. Harris. Thank you.
Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that that be part of,
you know, anything coming out of the commitment is use our
controlled substances act in conjunction with our trafficking
laws to enhance penalties since these so frequently coexist.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
Mrs. McCain, you said in your opening statement trafficking
for sex and labor, so this--and sometimes when we are dealing
with minors they are being forced into child labor situations
also, and so I just want you to elaborate a little bit on that.
Ms. McCain. Uh-huh.
Mr. Fattah. For the record.
Ms. McCain. The trafficking aspect with regards to Arizona
is exactly the same, I mean we are going to get these guys.
They will be handled as victims perhaps differently and that is
something for the victim services and for the folks that do
that on a daily basis to determine.
But let me say in victim services, which is something we
have talked about in here, it is not only just funding for
victim services, which is the no-brainer in this whole thing,
but it is also about the ability for these traffickers--I have
a woman at home that runs an organization called Street Light,
she said, I have got them in there, I can keep them safe within
the building, but the traffickers are outside peeking in the
windows, what do I do?
These are, you know, consequences of what occurs, and as
was mentioned, she was afraid of the traffickers.
So that is a whole element in this that has to be a
specific part and how we deal with the victims.
Mr. Fattah. Now you also said that the customer should be
treated as what they are, child abusers, right?
Ms. McCain. Absolutely.
Mr. Fattah. So--we have focused a lot on what to do about
the trafficker.
Ms. McCain. Uh-huh.
Mr. Fattah. What about the person who is calling this
number, right?
Ms. McCain. Yeah.
Mr. Fattah. Who is visiting the hotel.
Ms. McCain. Yeah.
Mr. Fattah. Do you have some sense, given all of the
complexities here about how, if anything, our country might
think about in trying to deal with the demand side on this
question.
Ms. McCain. Well in Arizona--I have lived out there my
entire life--10, 20 years ago we used to publish the pictures
of the Johns or child abusers, as I like to call them.
Mr. Fattah. See I don't think they are known as Johns. I
mean----
Ms. McCain. I don't like the word John.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Some guy who wants to have----
Ms. McCain. Yeah.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Sex with a child----
Ms. McCain. A child, yeah.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. I agree with you is a child
abuser, right? So I am trying to figure out what we----
Ms. McCain. Well we used to publish their picture in the
paper, and that is one tiny portion of this, but until we get
serious about number one prosecuting these guys and shaming
them, because it is what it is, it is child abuse. If we were
to have a child abuser of another kind, someone that beat a
child we would go after him with all force. But yet somebody
who services a child sexually we seem to kind of shove it under
the rug.
I was told by one person, well, why should we prosecute
these guys, you know, or publish their picture, they are going
go home and someone is going to abuse them. Well why not? Why
not I say? You know, well their wives will get after them. Good
thing, let them get after them. These are bad guys.
Mr. Fattah. John, now the numbers you went through are
substantial. If you could talk about this in a daily matter,
the fact that I don't think the country has a good
understanding of the number of young people who go missing each
day in our country.
Mr. Ryan. Sure. There are approximately 1500 children that
go missing every day, and those include runaways, those who are
missing with unexplained absences, includes those who are
abducted, but the one thing I commend the center for doing
before I came on board was to treat every child runaway as an
endangered runaway because they don't know the risk, they don't
know----
Mr. Fattah. You don't know what you don't know, right?
Mr. Ryan. Exactly. And we see that in the child sex
trafficking, you know, landscape. They think they may be going
to a better place or for the right reasons and then these
predators, as has been pointed out, are extremely astute at
identifying vulnerable victims for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Fattah. We have gotten a lot better at this reporting
with the Amber alerts and everything.
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. Where is this loophole for kids in foster care?
And why is it that states or how is it that someone doesn't
have the responsibility to report a child missing?
Mr. Ryan. Unfortunately there is a lack of regulations or
laws that mandate the reporting, so it is really based on a
voluntary system, and some would argue that there is a
financial interest at stake if a facility were to report a
problem of recurring children under their care going missing
let alone being abused.
Mr. Fattah. So if I can go through the numbers of the
children who go missing, a majority, you said equal to some 60
some percent of those found in these circumstances are from
foster care.
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. Is that accurate?
Mr. Ryan. Yes. That is based on the reports that we
receive.
Mr. Fattah. So this loophole here or this missing link in
the reporting chain its very important that we close it.
Mr. Ryan. It is alarming. I think that until reporting is
made mandatory we will not not only know how many children are
missing, but more importantly no one is looking for them, they
are not going to have an opportunity for the intervention that
they need, and the life cycle that they are in----
Mr. Fattah. Right.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. It is not going to change.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. That is a good point, Mr. Fattah. Thank you very
much.
I appreciate, I have a couple questions and then a comment,
but I think it has been a good hearing and we have had a lot of
ideas.
What are the rates of arrest for those who are doing this?
Does 50 percent of them get arrested, or 33 percent, 1 percent?
What do you think the rate of arrest is?
Mr. Ryan. You know we could only speculate. I think the
detective mentioned maybe one percent. I certainly would not
dispute that.
We know that it is the most under reported crime to begin
with, so even if we had, you know, the arrest reports as a
criteria, that would only be a snapshot.
So, you know, we can only base it on the reports that we
are getting of suspected trafficking, and they have increased
exponentially ever since we established this child sex
trafficking unit approximately three years ago, and we know law
enforcement is seeing the same.
Mr. Wolf. Ms. McCain, the task force that you are a co-
chairman of, was it appointed by the governor, was it a state
legislature? How many states have a task force like this? Do
you have any idea?
Ms. McCain. I am not sure. I don't know.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well if you can give us the--kind of--is it
a bipartisan? Maybe Mr. Fattah and I could send a letter to
every governor saying that the State of Arizona has put this
together and this is a model; would you consider doing that so
we can--so every state is kind of uniformly kind of doing it?
Secondly, if we can get the Arizona State law from you, and
maybe we can ask NCMEC to look at----
Mr. Ryan. Absolutely.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. To see, you know, there may be
something else that you think and I think Mr. Fattah's thing on
the foster child issue is something that others may not so we
can kind of make the very best law and we will drop the bill in
and ask people to co-sponsor it and do that.
And then we will also, assuming the committee members
agree, try to change to language for the national gang
intelligent center. To have gang intelligence and a category
with regard to this issue so they are tracking not only MS13 or
Bloods or the Crips, but also any activity like this.
And then if you could tell us about the penalties of I
guess your--what the penalties are that you think that we
should change at the federal level.
And then also too I think that Congress has to deal with
the Backpage.com and the other one of two that he mentioned. I
think if we fail to deal with that then I think we will be
pontificating that we care deeply about an issue but we are
given the presentation of what solved the issue when we are
saying we are not going to go there because, you know, we are
going to take on the high tech community.
I mean frankly I think people ought to go to Arizona and
just pick at the home or wherever the guy or Texas or wherever
it is, whoever is running them everywhere and if they go I will
go to one of them, but just go outside and say, you know, with
the idea the operator on the premises maybe they don't know and
so now they know and maybe they will be able to get them to
stop it.
One last question if you both have any thoughts on it,
which takes a little bit differently, but we have focused on
sexual trafficking, but it is larger than that. Often times we
have seen people forced into domestic servitude or sweatshops.
Earlier this year in northern Virginia, unfortunately in my
congressional district, we saw two workers who were freed from
a possible domestic servitude situation, meaning they were held
frankly by the Saudis, the diplomatic resident of the Saudis.
And so we hear stories of people that work at the World Bank,
people who work for this embassy or that embassy. How prevalent
do you think it is that different embassies, because we know
the Saudis were involved, we know there was a big local news
story covering it, what are your thoughts about that issue
whereby an embassy or a World Bank brings someone over, takes
their passports away, they don't speak the language? It is a
form of labor trafficking, if you will, you know, you are in a
strange country, you are working 12, 15 hours a day.
Do you both have any comments about that?
Ms. McCain. Number one, the woman that was just outed in
New York City, the Indian diplomatic, and then she fled the
country, that is unacceptable. I mean clearly there were laws
being broken, there was human laws being broken within her
house or whatever it was and she just skipped.
I mean, you know, I don't know how you handle that from a
government standpoint or whether you can handle it.
But on the southern border where we are in Arizona it is
the same thing but a little different. They bring them in, they
take their passports, even if they have passports, smuggle them
over the border, and sometimes leave them to die in the desert
because they can't get them any farther or the coyotes come in
to move them.
The whole issue of labor trafficking not only has to be
dealt with, but it has to be considered--the labor trafficking
that took place in the home and the labor trafficking that is
taking place on the Arizona border is the same thing but it is
different.
So there are different kinds of things that we need to
address with regards to labor trafficking around the country.
The diplomatic thing is much different from Arizona and
from what happens in California with some of the Koreans and
Vietnamese that are smuggled in.
So I think that is a bigger issue that needs to be dealt
with, and I do believe it needs to be dealt with on the federal
level.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Well what we see is there is a correlation for
those, and again, we are talking about minors at the National
Center, those who are reported as being victims of sexual
exploitation. There is also frequently a component that they
are also subjected to, you know, slave labor.
So unfortunately it is part and parcel, many times even
when we are dealing with minors.
So there is no tracking per se of, you know, that, but that
would be something frankly that might be worthy of a more
empirical study, because we do see some parallel activity
there.
Mr. Wolf. So you would not include in a bill dealing with--
maybe we could write the Justice Department and ask them to do
an in-depth analysis to come back in six months or something.
Mr. Ryan. I think that would be a wise suggestion or
recommendation.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. And I think what we will do, assuming Mr.
Fattah agrees too.
Mr. Fattah. I am a yes.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, Mr. Fattah is a yes. We are both from the
City of Philadelphia and so maybe that is why we agree so well.
Maybe what we can also do is years ago we put language in
asking the State Department, and Secretary Powell did it, to
have a major conference internationally on this issue. Maybe we
should put language in directing the Attorney General or the
administration, whoever they think is appropriate, to put on a
major conference. Would that make sense? To bring in every
state, I mean sort of one big, would that make sense?
Mr. Ryan. I think it is a great suggestion. We deal with
this from different platforms sometimes, so I don't think any
one of us has the full scope of the problem, or more
importantly what the trends and patterns are and how we can
come up with a comprehensive strategy, so I think that would be
an important step to get us there.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. McCain. I completely agree. And if nothing more in that
conference to address the inability for our first responders
particularly to communicate with each other across state lines.
It was brought to my attention that what they really needed
was this guy in South Dakota in the squad car can pull up this
house or whatever it is to see if there is anything noted about
it or see if there is somebody, you know, from another state.
They have no way to talk to each other, and that is a large
part as we talk about the law enforcement aspect of this that
would be very helpful.
Mr. Fattah. Yeah, I think more and more we have got to
rattle the troops.
Mr. Wolf. Well maybe what we will be is we will write a
letter to the Attorney General asking him to do it this year,
and if he does it then we would just put a line in and set
aside the money to do that. Maybe we would ask him to work with
NCMEC.
Mr. Ryan. That would be wonderful. You know, we would be
happy to, you know, be the convener and make sure there are all
the stakeholders.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, that may be a good idea.
Any other members have any questions?
Mr. Harris. Dr. Harris is a yes too.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I want to thank both of you and also
Stephanie and Detective Woolf, I guess she has left, for your
testimony, we thank you both.
And with that the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 26, 2014.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION'S BUDGET REQUEST AND POST 9/11 REFORM
EFFORTS
WITNESSES
JAMES B. COMEY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
TIMOTHY J. ROEMER, EXPERT WITNESS ON FBI REFORM EFFORTS
BRUCE R. HOFFMAN, EXPERT WITNESS ON FBI REFORM EFFORTS
EDWIN MEESE III, EXPERT WITNESS ON FBI REFORM EFFORTS
Mr. Wolf. The hearing will come to order.
I am pleased to welcome FBI Director James Comey in his
first appearance before the committee, and let me also please
thank the men and women of the FBI for the great job that they
have done. They really do an incredible job, and on behalf of
the American people and the Congress I just want to thank them.
Also if you would give my best to former Director Mueller.
I met with him when he first came in and watched and he did an
incredible job, so if you would just pass on my regards to him
I would appreciate it.
Let me add that immediately following the Director's
testimony the committee will hear from the three commissioners
leading the congressionally directed review of the FBI's
implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
Director Comey, the seventh director, is a good man, a good
choice to lead the bureau following a very distinguished
government and private career.
As Assistant U.S. Attorney he led prosecutions of the
Gambino crime family and the terrorists responsible for the
1996 Kohbar Towers bombing.
Following the 9/11 attacks he became the U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of New York. He then served as Deputy
U.S. Attorney General during the challenging early years of the
war on terrorism, gaining experience that was critically
relevant in his job. He indicated that he will do what is right
no matter what people tell him to do.
In the private sector, Director Comey served as senior vice
president and general counsel of Lockheed Martin, general
counsel of Bridgewater Associates, and on the faculty of
Columbia Law School where he was a fellow in the National
Security of Law.
Director Comey, today we want to hear about your 2015
budget request, and in particular how it will support the
rebuilding or retooling the FBI is undergoing as it recovers
from sequestration and a long hiring freeze.
You have inherited a very proud and very extended
organization. With its national security mission and charged to
defend the Nation from terrorist attacks, the FBI needs a
sophisticated and global presence.
We want to hear about how the FBI is leading efforts to
protect against international terrorism, whether from overseas
or from efforts operated on our shores, and to pursue domestic
terrorists, including those who have become radicalized or
inciting criminal or terrorist activities.
The FBI must operate in the aftermath of the Snowden leaks,
which I think will require new approaches and new resources,
different operational models, and in general may demand
creativity and new resources to a more constrained approach to
some of your traditional security missions.
In addition to dealing with the security missions, you are
facing an ever growing work load associated with investigating
major fraud cases, growing intellectual property crime, and
continuing priorities that have led the violent gangs, which
seem to be increasing, and major crime organizations.
And the growing problem of cyber threats, either from a
criminal or a national security perspective, requires the FBI
to exercise leadership in a field that demands a sophisticated
and proficient workforce.
I am looking forward to hearing how the FBI is juggling all
these critical efforts while keeping as streamlined as
management efficiency will permit to be ready for the next
generation of challenges to national and homeland security, and
to sustain its role as the premier federal investigative
agency.
After you have given your statement we will open the
hearing up for members' questions, but first we would like to
recognize Mr. Fattah for any comments he may wish to make.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
director.
Welcome to the committee and congratulations for an
extraordinary career to date, and we wish you well.
You know, we are at a point in which you have made public
comments about the sequestration process that Congress went
through, we have come somewhat to a better result from that
process, and I know Attorney General Holder thanked Chairman
Wolf and myself in an agency-wide video, but more important
than the pat on the back I think the issue really is we want to
make sure that we are funding the needed priorities.
You say that the FBI is now a threat-driven intelligence
focused agency and the country faces a great deal of threats,
and--you stand in the breach, so we want to make sure that you
have the resources that you need.
We know the hiring freeze has been lifted, but we are
interested today in the appropriations request, and there is a
mention in the request about some unspecified reductions, well
over 160 million. I will be interested in how you arrive at
that amount.
As the chairman mentioned, we are in sync on the way we
view these threats, obviously terrorism is important, we are
very interested in human trafficking and sex issues, sex
trafficking issues and intellectual property, which really
steals American jobs in many respects when people steal our
intellectual property.
So there are a lot of issues and we want to make sure that
the one issue that you are not focused on is money. Now our job
is to appropriate the money, so we need to hear from you today
about what it is that you feel that you need so that we can
find a way to provide it.
So thank you and welcome to the committee.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 191 of Title
II of the United States Code and clause 2(m)(2) of House Rule
11 today's witnesses as we have for every government witness
will be sworn in before testifying.
Please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Wolf. Let the record reflect that the witness answered
in the affirmative.
And, Director Comey, you may proceed. You can summarize
your remarks or you can proceed as you see is appropriate.
Mr. Comey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fattah, and
members of the committee. It is an honor to be here for my
first time representing the great people of the FBI. I have an
amazing job because I represent an amazing workforce.
I have spent the last seven months traveling around the
country and the world to meet my folks and to hear their
concerns and to learn about their work, and I have learned that
they are indeed a remarkable group of people.
When I started, as Mr. Fattah alluded to, I discovered a
workforce that was extremely stressed by the impact of the
sequestration reductions on them. When a colleague left, the
position wasn't filled, they were facing the rationing of gas
money and had to decide who to go interview, who to surveil,
and to triage things they shouldn't have been triaging. Thanks
to you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fattah, members of this committee,
the FBI is now in a very different place today.
We are in the process of turning back on our training
facility at Quantico, and my goal is to hire about 1,000 people
between now and October 1st. This would be hundreds of special
agents and intelligence analysts to begin to fill the gaps that
were created by the impact of sequestration, and we are again
funding those critical operations.
We are investing in training, we are investing in
technology, and people are no longer having to make choices
about how far they can drive to conduct an essential interview
or surveillance, and I thank you so much for that on behalf of
the men and women of the FBI.
We are hiring those people because we need them. What is on
our plate is enormous and challenging, most importantly
counter-terrorism. It remains our number one priority.
In eight years out of government, I discovered as I came
back that the threat from terrorism had metastasized in ways
that I had not understood until I took this job.
What I mean by metastasis is, we have had great success
against Core Al Qaeda, sort of the primary tumor in this
challenge, and reduced it, thanks in large part to the work of
the men and women in uniform and in our intelligence services,
but at the same time the poorly governed or lightly governed
spaces around the world have allowed a growth of a
metastasizing tumor in places like the Arabian Peninsula and
around North Africa and other places around the Mediterranean.
So, we face a threat that is weaker in the core, but disparate
and virulent in a lot of different places.
We also face a new threat that was not on the front of my
screen when I was Deputy Attorney General eight years ago, and
that is the people we call home-grown violent extremists. I
don't like the term lone wolf because it conveys a dignity that
these characters don't deserve, but these are the people who,
thanks to the ready availability of information on the
internet, can be inspired, even if not directed by Al Qaeda,
and can be in their basement convincing themselves they need to
engage in some Jihad and kill Americans. They emerge from that
basement with very little time for us to find them and to stop
them.
So counterterrorism in those many different ways remains
our number one priority for reasons that make good sense to me.
Second, counterintelligence remains the top priority of the
FBI because the enemies of this country are every bit as
aggressive at trying to steal our secrets as they were when I
last left government and have many more ways to do it, again,
thanks to the proliferation of the internet and the
vulnerabilities we face in cyberspace.
And I mention cyber. It touches everything that I do,
everything the FBI is responsible for, for reasons that make
sense to me.
We as a country and as individuals have connected our
entire lives to the internet. It is where our secrets are, it
is where our infrastructure is, it is where our children play,
it is where our money is, it is where our health care is, so
that is where bad people come for our children, for our money,
for our private information, for our state secrets, for our key
infrastructure. It cuts across everything I am responsible for.
And so, one piece of the FBI's mission is to make sure that
our workforce is trained, deployed, and equipped to respond to
that threat which touches our counterterrorism, our
counterintelligence, and all of our criminal responsibilities.
With respect to criminal responsibilities, there is no
doubt there is terrific news over the last decade and that is
that crime is dropping in the United States. But there remains
far too much abuse of children, human trafficking, gangs
dominating neighborhoods, far too much in the way of fraudsters
and tricksters stealing money of all sorts, far too much public
corruption remains throughout our country, and so those things
are still on the FBI's plate and we are still waking up every
morning worrying about them and trying to make a difference in
those areas.
And a couple other things I would mention before closing.
We still have, I think, an important responsibility to our
brothers and sisters in law enforcement around the country and
around the world in our allied nations to offer them training,
which we do now thanks to the funding that you have given us,
and to offer them our world-class laboratory and our technical
support to help them get the job done.
I mentioned our partners around the world a couple
different times, the other thing I am struck by coming back to
government is the internationalization of the challenges we
face. There is almost nothing the FBI does that doesn't have
some international component to it. Whether it is someone
trying to traffic human beings, to exploit children, to steal
secrets, to attack our nation, it all requires an effective
response outside the United States, which is why I am so proud
of the offices that my predecessors, the great Bob Mueller and
my friend Louis Freeh built over the last 20 years in over 60
different countries. That is something I am looking to increase
to make sure is effective and is meeting the challenges we face
at home, where they start in many instances, which is overseas.
So we have a full plate. I am extraordinarily grateful and
I am here to thank you on behalf of the people of the FBI for
the support you have given us.
My goal is to obtain the resources for 2015 that allow us
to continue that progress, to refill the thousands of positions
that were empty, and to give my folks the ability to accomplish
the job that they are out there every day accomplishing.
So thank you very much, I look forward to our conversation.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Director.
STAFFING LEVELS
How many spots were not filled? I mean you say you are
going to bring 1,000 on by October 1, so what did the country
lose during this period of time?
Mr. Comey. I think we lost over 2,000 positions, I think
2300, I may have the number off a little bit, but not much. So
we were over 2,000 positions down, close to two and a half
thousand.
Mr. Wolf. So even if you add this 1,000 you are still going
to be down.
Mr. Comey. Yeah, we are still going to be down at least
another 1,000 and more, which is why I said I hope for the next
year to be able to continue the momentum to hire talent.
Mr. Chairman, as you know better than anyone, the FBI is
people. My talent is the essence and the magic of the FBI, and
so getting great people in to fill those slots is what I hope
to do this year and next.
Mr. Wolf. And is the interest still high? I mean years ago
everyone was applying. Is it still high, is there a lot of
interest, quality of applicants very high?
Mr. Comey. Very, very high. Great young people of all
sorts, don't even have to be young, great people of all sorts
want to be part of the mission that this great group is
dedicated to achieving.
Mr. Wolf. I had wanted to be an FBI agent but when I went
down--I lived next to an FBI agent, a guy named Bob Franks, he
was their congressional relations guy in Parkfairfax, he said,
you can't put a bumper sticker on the back of your car though.
And I had a Goldwater bumper sticker on the back of my car, so
I took a different approach.
CYBER THREATS
In your February speech at the cyber conference you
underscored the seriousness of the cyber threats from state-
sponsored hackers and hackers for hire, organized cyber
syndicates and terrorists.
I know that Director of National Intelligence Clapper--and
I think Director Mueller said the same thing too--has placed
them above the global threats of terrorism, espionage, and even
weapons of mass destruction.
What resources does the FBI devote to this threat? What
rough percentage of your eight billion budget and 35,000
employees are applied in this effort?
Mr. Comey. Mr. Chairman, as you said, this is something my
predecessor Bob Mueller predicted would come to dominate my
term of ten years the way counterterrorism had his, and I can
see already after just half a year or so that that is going to
be true.
Because it touches everything I am responsible for. You
could fairly say everybody in the FBI has to be educated in
cyber, be effective at responding to cyber. I have a cyber
division which is made up of hundreds of people that focuses on
this every day, I have cyber squads in all of our field
offices, cyber task forces all over our field offices, so I can
get you the exact number, but there are hundreds and hundreds
of people who are designated as cyber folks, intelligence
analysts, and agents. But I don't want to miss the fact that
everybody needs to be aware, because this evil layer cake from
organized state actors and terrorists at the top all the way
down to the individual fraudsters touches everybody I am
responsible for. So cyber is everything.
Mr. Wolf. What is the solution then? Is there something the
Committee could do, is there a new structure that we need? I
know the funding. Is there anything unique that people know
that we have to do but there is no legislation up there? Is
there anything special or any ideas that you have that we could
do better with regard to cyber from the Committee point of
view?
Mr. Comey. Yes, Mr. Chairman, two things.
One you have already done, which is to support us so I
could hire that talent, those people who are digitally literate
that can help me address these attacks.
But the second thing is we need clear rules, lanes in the
road to explain to the private sector how to cooperate with the
government, because that is the key to this.
The internet is almost entirely in private hands, so
without the ability to cooperate effectively with private
companies and private individuals I am left almost like
paroling a street with 40-foot high solid walls on either side.
I can say that the street looks safe, but if I can't speak to
the folks in the neighborhoods, I can't help them make the
neighborhoods safer.
So we have to find a way to more effectively and
efficiently have private companies and people to be able to
tell us what is happening on their systems and for us to be
able to tell them what we see, and do it at machine speed, in a
way that addresses the concerns of the private sector.
I was the general counsel of two different companies, as
you said, Mr. Chairman, and private companies want to
understand if we cooperate with the government, do we have
liability issues, are there privacy issues? What are the rules
that govern that sharing?
So we could really use some guidance from Congress for the
private sector in how to work better with us.
Mr. Wolf. Industry leaders such as CEO of Visa have
advocated adoption of an embedded microchip standard for U.S.
credit cards, pin and chip, to replace the current easily
compromised magnetic--and we all know about the Target case.
They expect this technology would provide a deterrent and
result in a more consistent and real-time reporting of the tax
crime to law enforcement.
What is the FBI doing to address the current security gaps
that make credit card crime so easy to commit yet so difficult
to prosecute or to prevent?
Mr. Comey. I don't know enough, Mr. Chairman, about that
particular technology to comment. From your brief description
it sounds like a smart thing to do.
We work very closely, as do our partners at the Secret
Service with private enterprise and especially the credit card
companies to try and come up with better ways, especially to
share information when we see attacks coming from the outside
and so they can tell us about the bad things they are seeing in
a way that allows us to respond.
Mr. Wolf. Well do we need a cyber summit? Like do you have
universities, do you have contracts with--I won't mention the
university--different universities that are looking at the
most--is DARPA working with you?
Sometimes you can get so involved in doing the day-to-day
task and it is so overwhelming that it is hard to kind of step
aside and see is there some research being done, do we need to
bring all of the top minds together on cyber and do we need to
have DARPA do something and do we need to have MIT, X, Y, or
some of the labs?
Are you working with any of them to see if there is
something new and different that we can be doing?
Mr. Comey. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of good things
going on by a lot of different people on the cyber threat that
show how we might evolve the technology to deal with it. A lot
of people smarter than me are working on it and are talking to
my smart folks.
Really on the law enforcement side and the intelligence
side the most important thing we have done in the last couple
years was to set up the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task
Force, the NCIJTF, to bring together everybody who cares about
these issues on the government side to make sure we are all
coordinating with each other well, because in the absence of
that, we end up with what looks like a four-year-old soccer
game, everybody chasing the ball in a clump.
I have a bunch of children, as I know you do, sir, and have
watched that soccer game. Very inefficient. We have evolved to
a place now where we are spreading out on the field and passing
to each other and deciding who can take the best shot. That is
a great thing.
The missing piece is an ability to cooperate effectively
and at machine speed, that is very, very quickly, with the
private sector who sees things we don't see, who are worried
about things they may not be able to tell us about because of
their concerns about who should they share with and what are
their liability exposures. That is why I think it is so
important to give them that clear description of what are the
rules of the road for cooperating with the government.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I understand, but do we need to bring in,
you know, a Rand and an MIT and DARPA to see? Sometimes you can
get so bogged down doing what you are doing that there may be
something out there.
Do you have the ability to go to MIT or DARPA or Rand to
say here is what we are thinking? I mean is there some formal
structure that brings in the best minds on a constant basis,
not on investigating cases, but on like a resource? Like DARPA
for the DoD, do you have something like that in this area?
Mr. Comey. You know, I guess I can't say specifically as I
sit here. It is always a good idea to have smart people poking
at you and looking at you from a different vantage point.
I know my folks who focus on cyber intelligence communicate
a lot with great minds in the private sector, but I will have
to get back to you and explain who we are working with
particularly. But more is always good because people see things
that we may not be able to see.
Mr. Wolf. Well maybe if you can--maybe the Committee could
do something to put together. I know Director Mueller brought
in people from outside. Bring in some of the best minds. And
again, when I mentioned a company, Mandiant, you know, where
they go out to China and different groups like that; maybe you
could invite a select handful of them to see what you are
seeing. The problem is you are enforcing, prosecuting, tracking
down, while they are in the process--let us if we can----
Mr. Comey. Okay.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Maybe get your cyber people to come
up to the Committee and we can----
Mr. Comey. I will.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. We can sit down.
I am going to go to Mr. Fattah, but let me just cover one
or two more questions.
GANG THREAT
In fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations we sustained FBI
funding, which presumably includes Safe Streets task forces. It
also maintained funding for the National Gang Intelligence
Center, notwithstanding the President's proposal to terminate
it. When I saw that they wanted to terminate it I could not
understand.
I am pleased the fiscal year 2015 requests funds for that
task force; it is important in tracking and developing
intelligence about gangs and their operations.
What is the latest FBI assessment of a gang threat in the
U.S. and what FBI resources to address gangs and the criminal
activities are included in fiscal year 2015?
You know, you could be in a neighborhood and if there are
gangs that control that neighborhood, that can be as bad for
the people that live there as if it is an organized crime
operation or if it is a terrorist, Al Qaeda, from outside.
So can you sort of lay out the gang effort in the country
and what you see taking place? Mexican gangs and things like
that.
Mr. Comey. Yes. You mentioned the National Gang
Intelligence Center, a very important resource for us and for
our partners in state and local law enforcement, because the
intelligence effort focuses on gangs and collects information
from all police departments around the country, and aggregates
it so it can then be shared. They run a database that is
available to law enforcement, which is an encyclopedia of
something that seems so ordinary as gang symbols and signs, so
that if a police officer in Upstate New York encounters
something he can query the database and see that this is
actually a gang signal from the southwest and there has been
some sort of migration. Very important work.
I hear about violent street gangs everywhere I have
traveled. I have now been to almost 30 of our field offices,
and the local sheriffs and chiefs tell me crime is down across
the country, but there remain these pockets that are dominated
by these criminal groups. And it is a problem that most people
can just drive around, but the people who live in that
neighborhood can't drive around if they are dominated by these
characters.
And so we have a safe streets task force and a gang task
force in all of our field offices. I think we have something
like 100 different task forces that are focused on just that,
addressing these gangs that are dominating particular
neighborhoods.
And as you said, Mr. Chairman, we also focus on the
international gangs, especially those that are straddling the
Mexican-American border. So there are a lot of resources that
we devote to it, hundreds and hundreds of agents already.
I would have to get you the particular number that is in
the proposed budget for 2015, but this is something that we are
going to continue to try and make a contribution on.
Mr. Wolf. Well your material indicates that gangs, ``are
becoming more violent and establishing strong alliance with
drug trafficking organizations.''
When the DEA was here last year they said all of the
marijuana and cocaine is all being operated throughout the
country, even around here, everywhere, northern Virginia, by
gangs coming out of Mexico. We also have the human trafficking
which I want to ask you a little bit about.
Do we need the same effort that the bureau did before? I
mean you prosecuted the Gambino family. Do we need the same
effort as when the bureau under Louis Freeh and others went
after organized crime? Do we need a major effort? I mean not,
``yeah, we have a task force here, we have this here, okay the
Congress puts language in so we set this up''; do we need a
major, major effort?
I mean I come from an inner city neighborhood, I mean a mom
or dad that has kids that are in that, I mean that is like Al
Qaeda to them and the fact that they are afraid to send their
kids to school, they are afraid of MS-13, they are afraid of
the Bloods, they are afraid of the Crips.
Of course with your background you have a unique
perspective. Do we need a major effort almost like we do on the
war on terror? This is terror for the person that lives in the
inner city. This is terror. Do we need one person working under
you to really deal with the gang issue? Coordinate, bring
everything together, just for the two, three, four years until
you basically--I mean what the bureau under Louis Freeh and
others did on organized crime, which really broke its back in
some respects. Do we need the same type of effort for gangs?
Mr. Comey. That is a great question.
There is an enormous amount going on right now. I think if
you, as I know you do, talk to chiefs and sheriffs they will
tell you they see it exactly that way and are devoting those
kinds of resources to it. But whether we need or we could give
it more prominence as the FBI is a really good question. Maybe
is my answer.
Mr. Wolf. Would you look at it and get back to us?
Mr. Comey. Yeah.
Mr. Wolf. Because we had a major problem of MS-13 in
northern Virginia. You had the hacking off of hands, you had
machetes, you had the killing of Brenda Paz down in the
Shenandoah Valley where nothing of violence takes place, now
you are finding MS-13 gangs in the Shenandoah Valley.
And so I believe, you know--and when we talk to our local
law enforcement there is a gang task force that your people run
based out in Prince William County at your place, we have FBI,
DEA, ATF, Marshals Service that have basically broken the back
in northern Virginia. I mean we had gangs in McLean, had gangs
in Arlington.
And so I think personally it would be helpful to have
basically someone, particularly again with your background, I
mean you are unique, you know, you are the Esther for such a
time like this on the gang issue so that we have one person
focused solely on the gangs.
So if you would look at it and maybe get back to us. We
don't want to go off on a tangent that you don't really think
is that great, but with that I will just save the rest, I will
go to Mr. Fattah?
Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Because the ranking
member from the full committee is here I am going to Nita Lowey
at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, and welcome, and thank you
Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, we are trying to expedite the
process so there are about three hearings at the same time.
Thank you for your consideration.
As we all know and the chairman stressed, the FBI is in the
midst of a sea change.
For much of the 20th Century the FBI was the world's best
law enforcement agency, now as cyber attacks, which we have
been discussing, become more frequent the global war on
terrorism continues, the FBI is leading the charge on cyber
security and counter-terrorism, and I certainly wish you the
best of luck.
And as the chairman and ranking member have made clear, we
really want to work with you, because we know the challenge, we
want to make sure that you have the tools, the resources, and
the staffing to insure that the job is done.
CYBER
Following up on the cyber issue. Cyber criminals, including
hackers for profit, seem to be finding vulnerabilities in cyber
security faster than we can protect against it.
I can remember a very in-depth briefing I had in New York
City with Ray Kelly's team, and it seems to me at every
briefing an event happened and they were figuring out how to do
it, and then the cyber criminals were way ahead and they were
trying to catch up. They seem to be finding vulnerabilities in
cyber security faster than we can protect against it.
So in terms of personnel how has the FBI prioritized the
hiring of individuals with cyber security backgrounds and how
does the FBI compete for the best and the brightest in the
field with the financial benefits of the private sector?
Mr. Comey. That is a great question. Thank you for that. A
great question.
One I worry about an awful lot, as did Bob Mueller.
Director Mueller started something called the Next Generation
Cyber Initiative at the FBI, a key part of which is to hire
somewhere close to 100 computer scientists who are Ph.D. level
types, the big brains in the cyber world and also to hire and
train the bright people who are digitally literate.
You press on an interesting challenge. I came from the
private sector, I know the amount of money that the private
sector offers to these bright young people to help them with
their cyber protection, so I see two answers to that.
One is I offer a mission and, frankly, moral content to the
work that the private sector can't offer. So my pitch to these
bright young men and woman is, come in here and make a
difference, and maybe you won't make much of a living, but you
will make a remarkable life for yourselves and the people you
protect. So that is my pitch to the young people of America,
and it resonates.
As the chairman said, I have got thousands of people who
want to come work for the FBI because they care about public
service the way all of us do, but the second piece is this.
We are smarter in aggregate than the bad guys, it is just
getting the aggregate right.
So there are brilliant people in the private sector, I
worked with them at the companies I worked at. Being able to
latch their brains up to ours is the key to addressing this
problem.
So I have come to the information sharing. They are
worrying about zero day exploits, I am worrying about zero day
exploits. They are worrying about sophisticated malware as am
I. We have got to be able to share information at machine speed
so I can harness the great brains in the private sector and
connect them into that aggregate that makes us smarter.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I appreciate that answer.
FEDERAL SALARIES
And one other comment, if you would like to respond, is the
salaries of federal employees has not kept up with inflation in
recent years.
Do you worry that recurring pay freezes will make it more
difficult for the FBI to recruit in the future? Do you have any
message you want to deliver to us with regard to the pay
freezes?
Mr. Comey. Oh, I worry very much about that, and I hear
about that from my folks all over the country. They will say,
Mr. Director, we get it, you are right, we didn't join the FBI
for the money, but we have spouses and partners and families,
all of whom are asking us what are we doing in a job where our
pay is flat for years. We can speak to them about the moral
content of the work a lot but it doesn't quite deliver the
bacon. So, my people aren't in it for the money, but they need
the money to live, and so they do care about the modest pay
increases that they otherwise would have gotten.
Mrs. Lowey. And one other question.
TERRORIST RECRUITMENT
As you have noted the internet can serve as a recruitment
tool for terrorists. This past December as we remember, Terry
Loewen, a 58-year-old avionics technician from Wichita was
arrested as he took steps to detonate explosives at the Wichita
Mid-Continental Airport. Luckily the FBI was on the case with
the help of undercover agents, were able to arrest Mr. Loewen
before he could harm the public.
How does a middle-aged westerner with no history of ties to
terrorism end up trying to detonate bombs and kill Americans?
And what trends are you seeing in cases of homegrown terrorism?
What tools can Congress give you to monitor and prevent these
kinds of evil plans from becoming reality?
Mr. Comey. Yeah, great question. And this touches on the
homegrown violent extremist threat that I talked about earlier
and that is part of the growing and changing threat that I see
as I start this job.
I guess I don't want to talk about Loewen's case in
particular because he is still being prosecuted, but I will
talk generally.
There are troubled people looking for some source of
meaning in their lives all over the world and we have them here
in the United States. What is happening is these folks are
finding the literature that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
or Al Qaeda core puts out and are convincing themselves that
this is the source of meaning in their life, that if I go on a
Jihad and I kill people I will be somebody. And so they are not
directed, they are inspired, and so how do we deal with that?
In a lot of different ways, but most of it is devoting the
people, which I am trying to do, to watching those spaces. We
catch a lot of them when we see in an online forum someone
asking, hey, how do you figure out how to blow up a car? When
we see that we jump on that and try to respond.
But the other way is by connecting to state and local law
enforcement. And one of the things I have done is I have
traveled around the country, I am speaking to cops and sheriffs
and saying, you are likely to know more than a federal agent
about that troubled person and hear about them before I will,
that is why we have to stay closely connected.
And also asking neighborhoods and friends, if you see
something or hear something that seems weird, just tell
somebody. It may be nothing, but if we check it out we may stop
the next person who wants to blow up a car bomb at an airport.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much, we appreciate your service
and I look forward to continuing to work with you as partners.
Thank you.
Mr. Comey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. I think Mrs. Lowey used to represent Yonkers, so
where you come from.
I want to second what Mrs. Lowey said, and I think you
should speak out about it too, we cannot continue to freeze the
pay of these people. I mean we can't bring the Bureau up and we
can't ask Dr. Collins to find a cure for prostate cancer,
breast cancer, pancreatic cancer and say we are going to freeze
your salary though. When a wealthy guy down in Boca Raton is
using his cost of living adjustment from his social security to
buy fishing tackle or for his boat dock, I mean we really
cannot--and I will just say that the whole Congress, both
sides, you can't do this anymore. I mean I have a large number
of agents who live far out. I mean these guys are getting up at
4:30, 5 o'clock in the morning and coming in, and you have
agents up in New York City that are living in the Pocono
Mountains in Pennsylvania, and so we can't freeze it.
And so I think it is important for you, because you are not
a political person in the sense of to say, you know, we just
can't freeze this anymore, we cannot freeze three years
straight, we can't do it. Pretty soon you are going to drive
people out because they have to go simply to take care of their
families.
So the Congress ought not be freezing the federal salaries
for three years straight, but I think for the head of the FBI
to say we cannot afford to do that, would really be very, very
helpful to say to both sides of the aisle no more pay freezes
because you are going to drive these people out.
Literally--you want to help Al Qaeda, drive the best people
out of the bureau? You want to stop cancer cures then drive the
best people out of NIH?
But you speak and that I think would send a message.
Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much and thanks for appearing
before the committee today.
NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
First I just want to thank the FBI for doing the job. I
know I asked Mr. Mueller about this last year, with the NICS
background check system. I have to tell you it is one of the
smoothest functioning parts of the federal government.
And just as a question, what was the number of background
checks conducted last year? I mean I know it was increased over
the year before. Do you have any idea, have we got the figures?
Mr. Comey. I don't, but I can get it very quickly.
Mr. Harris. Okay. And my understanding is it has come back
down a little bit now, the number of checks.
Mr. Comey. Yeah.
Mr. Harris. Okay. But again, I just want to congratulate
you, because you know, in Maryland we had a horrendous problem
with our state police who ran our state background checks who
had a six-month backlog.
Mr. Comey. Yeah.
Mr. Harris. Six months and you guys can do it in frequently
one minute.
Mr. Comey. Yeah.
Mr. Harris. The background checks.
Mr. Comey. And the governor called me about the problem
Maryland was having and I think we were able to help them.
Mr. Harris. Well if you helped them it wasn't much help,
because they are just clearing backlogs now from October.
But I just want to congratulate, it is one of the smoothest
things the federal government does.
IG REPORT--OCDETF FUSION CENTER
Now the other thing I just want to spend some time on is
the IG report about the organized crime drug enforcement task
force, this fusion center that was released this month. Are you
aware of the report?
Mr. Comey. Generally.
Mr. Harris. Have you seen it, sir? Generally, okay.
One of the most disturbing things, because I think you know
the inspectors general have to be--their job is incredibly
important and can never be interfered with by the agency they
are investigating, and one of the most troubling parts of the
report was their description of two FBI detailees to the
function center who spoke with--who the IG interviewed and then
claimed retaliatory measures taken against them for speaking
candidly to the IGs, which the IG said had basis. So it wasn't
just they were claiming retaliation, there was basis for those
claims of retaliation.
And I have got to ask, since one of the deputy directors at
the time of the investigation was an FBI detailee, the director
was not, it was a DEA director, FBI detailee deputy director
along with someone from ICES, deputy directors, obviously the
FBI had someone high up in the oversight and management of this
fusion center.
Have you determined whether that person was involved in the
decision to retaliate against two people who frankly and
honestly discussed problems with an inspector general?
I mean this is very worrisome to me. A claim of retaliation
that the inspector general found had basis should worry every
member of Congress that depends upon the inspector generals to
go into the departments and get an objective view.
So I just want to know, did your detailee, who was deputy
director at the time, know about the retaliation or participate
in the retaliation in any way? Because that is the only person
you are responsible for, your detailees, you know, however many
you have over in the fusion center.
Mr. Comey. Right. Thank you, Dr. Harris.
The answer is I don't know, but I will find out. I don't
think I read the report itself, I read a summary of it. I
remember the bit about two of our folks saying they were
retaliated against, which is very worrisome, but I don't know
the rest of the story and I should, and so I----
Mr. Harris. I would ask you to get back to me as soon as
possible specifically with the question of whether one of the
people in your organization, the deputy director--I mean I am
going to assume the deputy director should know what goes on at
least at the equivalent level to the director.
This is not a big operation as you know, it is only a few
hundred people, it is not a huge operation, and I just find it
hard to believe that retaliatory efforts could be taken against
an individual without a deputy director knowing. I mean I just
find it hard to believe.
So I am going ask you two things. One is, was that person
involved? And two, what disciplinary action are you going to
take against that person?
Mr. Comey. Uh-huh.
Mr. Harris. The third thing is I am just going to ask you
to comment, because their report was a little bit scathing, the
IG report, because again, this fusion center is set up exactly
along the lines that you suggested, you know, we have to share
information, we have to share intelligence among agencies, it
is important, and to deal with international drug syndicates,
which particularly this is, you know, the organized crime
enforcement.
Are you worried that in fact this is the way the federal
government is conducting business within a center that is
supposed to have cooperation among various agencies? I mean it
sounds like this was cats and dogs fights going on. I mean you
know the FBI sending people in, they claim, well we are not
getting as much product as we are putting into it so we are not
going to, you know, we want everything detailed. Our people in
the allegation in the IG report is that it is not an
allegation, it is true, the FBI was shut out of the data access
for six weeks while this fight continued.
Did this really go on? I mean do you know this? Were you
detailees shut out from access to data for six weeks, because
they were claiming that they weren't getting enough back and
this was, you know, not a personal retaliation, but a
retaliation at the agency? Is that true?
Mr. Comey. I don't know enough to say whether that is true
or not, but there are two parts of it that are worrisome. One
is the most worrisome to me.
When an IG finds problems in an operation it is concerning
to me, but that is what an IG is supposed to do and that makes
us better.
The retaliation bit concerns me a great deal for the
reasons you said.
The IGs make us better, and if people can't talk to them in
a way that helps them do their job, that is a disaster.
But I don't know sitting here, and I will get back to you
on that.
Mr. Harris. So I am also going to ask you if your deputy
director assigned there what knowledge that deputy director had
agent the shutting off for six weeks----
Mr. Comey. Uh-huh.
Mr. Harris [continuing]. Of access of FBI detailees to this
fusion center, to the database of this fusion center. I mean
that is extremely worrisome to me.
I mean we send a lot of money into agencies and it sounds
like, you know, we put this group together on paper that sounds
great and then they just fight like cats and dogs, and you
know, to counter purposes.
I mean for six weeks FBI agents did not have access to
data, shut off. So I hope you could shed a little more light.
But again, I am just going to thank you for the agency and
the work it does, and you know, the men and women who put their
lives on the line to do things that to be honest with you a lot
of us are very happy someone else is willing to do.
Mr. Comey. Yeah.
Mr. Harris. So thank you very much.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Harris. I yield back.
Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Harris.
That fusion center I have been to. I didn't know this, the
IG report just came out this morning, we will give you a copy.
But I agree with Dr. Harris, everything he said I completely,
absolutely agree. And so let me know when they come back.
And Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Director, I am going to take a winding road here, but
Ron Noble was the head of Interpol, with a great law
enforcement career, is from the United States, a friend, is
doing a great job.
You mentioned in your opening statement how almost
everything you do now has an international connection.
I was in Brussels a few years back meeting with all of the
law enforcement, your counterparts in the European Union and
they have a range for circumstances where no matter which
country one is arrested in you don't have to go through an
extradition process. It is just a seamless system they set up
between now some 28 nations. We don't have that same
cooperation state to state in the United States.
So I was wondering as you see these international parallels
are there ways in which we can improve our systems here?
The real question underneath all of this is as the chairman
mentioned Target, Target is one of my favorite operations, they
have done a billion dollars in library refurbishments, and Mr.
Chairman a number of them--well they have done them in every
state--but a number of them in Philadelphia that I have
witnessed are doing great work in our schools and they were the
victims of a criminal attack around the holidays. This outfit
that seemed to have been involved was from Ukraine. We were not
getting the cooperation we need from the government of Ukraine.
I know that Senator Warner from Virginia came out a couple
days ago and said, well, if we are going to do an aid package,
this loan guarantee deal, that we should get some assurances
from the new government that we would get assistance on cyber
criminal activities out of Ukraine.
CYBER ISSUES--INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
So, I am interested in your cyber issue and how it relates
internationally and whether there are ways in which, as the
Congress is considering other items like a package or loan
guarantee in this instance for Ukraine, whether or not there
are ways that we can improve upon your leverage in the level of
cooperation you get from other nations in the cyber activities.
Mr. Comey. It is a great question, Mr. Fattah.
There is no doubt that we see a lot of the hacker activity,
people building the botnets and engaged in these huge financial
skimming and theft activities, are based in Russia and the
former Soviet bloc countries, some of which we have great
cooperation with, some of them less so.
I can't think off the top of my head of ways in which
Congress might assist me in obtaining leverage, but I will
think about that and get back to you, because I am always
interested in creative ways to do that.
One of the ways we have tried to do it is embed our folks
in those countries. You know, we have one in Kiev, and the
purpose of those offices is to build relationships with the
local law enforcement, maybe get them to come to the United
States.
We run something called the National Academy at Quantico
where we train people on how to do great law enforcement, send
them back, and by doing those investments in people, build the
relationships where we will get cooperation.
But I will give thought to whether there are other ways in
which we might improve it.
Mr. Fattah. And my next question and my last one for this
series is related to--and Dr. Harris raised this about the IG,
and I--you know, I support the IG's work, but I have some
concerns at times when we create circumstances in which we get
less support from the public for public governmental activities
because we point out problems, right?
So in today's news, you know, we have got three Secret
Service agents who had an incident overseas with drinking and
much of the country's attention will be focused on that rather
than the Secret Service agents who are risking their lives
today.
Mr. Comey. Yeah.
Mr. Fattah. In fact the President is prepared to do
anything that is necessary. They won't get much attention.
I know there have been issues inside the bureau over the
years. I am not asking you to go through that at this point,
but I am interested in as you formulate your budget and your
appropriations request if there are areas that you need
additional help to make sure that the bureau itself is policing
itself versus the IG. We want to make sure that you have those
resources.
Mr. Comey. And I appreciate that, Mr. Fattah.
There is no doubt that our problems get bigger headlines
than our successes; that comes with the territory. I always say
to people, look, I run an organization of human beings, human
beings, as am I, are flawed.
Mr. Fattah. Right.
Mr. Comey. And there are going to be problems.
I agree with you the key is that we root them out----
Mr. Fattah. Right.
Mr. Comey [continuing]. And try and put in place remedies
so we don't just repeat the same problem over and over again. I
think I should be doing that internally, but I like the IG as
an external set of eyes on me. I have told them that you are a
pain in the rear but you are my pain in the rear, and I like
that very much.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Director.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. All right, thank you.
IG REPORT FUSION CENTER
I want to just follow up with what Mr. Fattah said, the
conclusion, and I appreciate Dr. Harris, the IG report said the
fusion center management took actions--and I am quoting from
the IG--during this review that ``created difficulties for the
OIG in obtaining information directly from employees and
insuring that interview responses were candid and complete.''
If they are not candid and complete why even have it?
``We had issues in obtaining documents directly from OFC
personnel.
``Furthermore, and of great concern to us, two FBI
employees detailed to the OFC reported to us that they were
subjected to retaliation by the OFC Director after they met
with OIG inspectors during this review to describe their
concerns about the OFC's operations.
``The OIG recently completed its review of these
retaliation allegations and concluded that there were
reasonable grounds to believe that Personnel actions were taken
against these employees in reprisal for their protected
disclosures.''
So I mean to whom much is given much is required, and of
course with the repetition of the Bureau if that is the case
then I think what Dr. Harris said, by disciplining here you
keep it from actually happening again later on.
Did Mr. Carter leave?
Okay, next Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Director Comey for your
service to the country and all of the men and women that work
with you. We are immensely proud of you and it is a privilege
for us on the subcommittee; you have got a whole group of fans
here that love you and care about you and want to support you
and help you in any way that we can.
And I want to reiterate, as I know the chairman and other
members have said, the questions or concerns that we have
whether it be about the fusion center, the concerns about
retaliation against the inspector general, the work that the
chairman has initiated with the review of the 9/11
recommendations to make sure the FBI is implementing those, all
of these are not intended as criticisms or nobody is picking on
you.
It is almost as though I feel about the FBI as I do about
Texas, it is genetic to defend and love Texas without question,
but you always do your best to improve her, and always are
looking, and if there is a problem we always--as Texans as all
of us do whether it be Virginia, any of us, California,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, who Dr. Harris just left, we all love
our--we just love you dearly and I just want you to know--we
are all devoted to you, and all of these questions or concerns
that we raise are not intended as criticisms or intended in any
way to be hostile.
It is as truly as though, I certainly feel--actual I got on
appropriations so I could be on the subcommittee. It was the
only reason I accepted the assignment to be on appropriations
so that I could be here to help support the law enforcement
community, to help the sciences, and everyone on this committee
knows how passionate I am about the sciences and NASA and the
FBI.
So the questions we raise, the work that you do we want to
help you pursue that, and I do want to encourage you and all of
the folks that work with you to do everything you can to work
with Chairman Wolf's commission to review the 9/11----
Mr. Comey. Uh-huh.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Recommendations to see how you
all are implementing those and to be as forthright as you can
and do your best to encourage your folks internally to overcome
the instinctive reaction they have; don't criticize the bureau,
don't be negative. It really is a lot like don't mess with
Texas, don't mess with the FBI.
We do it out of love and support, and so I hope that you
will not ever, none of you would ever take any of this the
wrong way, but there are thing that worry us.
Judge John Carter who had to leave who represents central
Texas is, deeply concerned about what happened at Fort Hood,
and Judge Carter, who is chairing a FEMA subcommittee hearing
on Homeland Security at 10 o'clock, asked if I could ask about
Nidal Hasan who was brought initially to the FBI's attention in
2008, but for whatever reason I would like to ask what in your
opinion what happened? Communication breakdowns or what, the
FBI failed to pursue a number of leads about this guy's views.
FORT HOOD
And what in the after math of the shooting has the FBI done
to be sure that something like this doesn't happen again and
someone like this isn't neglected and allowed to fall through
the cracks?
Mr. Comey. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
And I like the criticism. I have been dating and married to
my wife since I was 19 and in all that time she has been trying
to improve me.
Mr. Culberson. That is a great analogy.
Mr. Comey. And I don't doubt that she loves me dearly, but
I am a work in process. And all human organizations are a work
in progress as are all humans.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Mr. Comey. And so I appreciate it.
I told Chairman Wolf, I love the idea of the commission to
look at us, especially as the new director.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah, terrific.
Mr. Comey. It is a great opportunity for me to get a fresh
set of eyes from some gifted people on the work that we do.
Mr. Culberson. Well what a privilege to work with Ed Meese,
all these great----
Mr. Comey. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Americans, and I hope you will
truly swing the door open wide for these three gentlemen and
make sure that top to bottom the FBI is making themselves
available. Anything and everything these gentlemen need----
Mr. Comey. Yeah.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. So we don't ever get a report
like that one about the inspector general.
Mr. Comey. Well, I will do everything in my power to do
that. I have told them that, as I have told my folks behind
their backs. This means a lot to me. I want this, I want a
fresh aggressive inspection, I want candid views, because that
is how we get better and especially at the beginning of a ten-
year term, that is a gift for me. So I will do everything in my
power to make that happen.
Mr. Culberson. Marvelous. And Nidal Hasan is a good
example.
Mr. Comey. Right. With respect to Fort Hood I am no expert,
I have read Judge Webster's report, and I have asked--it may
have already been scheduled for a meeting with Judge Webster so
he can take me through it, of the lessons learned, so that I
can better understand what did we miss.
Because I understand from the report there were failures of
communication, people in one office didn't understand the
priority of a lead from another office on the west coast and so
things were dropped.
I want to understand that better so I can understand what
are the lessons we have learned and what have we fixed as a
result. I don't know enough sitting here yet to be able to
answer your question well, but I will.
Mr. Culberson. Is there jurisdictional problems because it
is an army base and army personnel, does the FBI have full
jurisdiction to go in and investigate, interrogate, talk to
anybody you need to on an army base?
Mr. Comey. I think so, and there shouldn't be a problem
there.
I think one of the things that came out of that case was
better information sharing, better coordination with our
brothers and sisters on base.
But again, through I have read the report, I need to sit
with Judge Webster and learn better about it so I can answer it
better.
Mr. Culberson. I wouldn't imagine there would be a
jurisdiction problem. I know there is with the state
authorities that there have been examples of assaults before
where this local DA has wanted to go in and prosecute somebody
in the army of course because it is state district attorney and
law enforcement. They just don't have the jurisdiction inside
the base. But you guys have full access, full jurisdiction to
go in and pursue anybody you want on any U.S. military or
government installation, correct?
Mr. Comey. That is my understanding. And we have Army CID
people who sit on our joint terrorism task forces. We have air
force OSI people to make sure that there aren't gaps or cracks
into which information can fall.
Mr. Culberson. The 18 recommendations that the Webster
commission made, can you talk about what progress the FBI has
made in implementing those 18 recommendations from the Webster
commission?
For example, policy guidance, technology information,
review protocol, training?
Mr. Comey. I can't except at the highest level at this
point. My understanding is that we took them seriously, agreed
with them. I think our Inspector General is tracking us on
this, but I think we have adopted or are in the process of
adopting all of them. I will be able to give you a better
answer probably in just a couple of short weeks.
Mr. Culberson. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I will go to Mr. Honda.
I think Judge Carter is right though, it basically was
political correctness. Hasan lived in my district for a while,
lived in Arlington.
Mr. Comey. Uh-huh.
Mr. Wolf. If you go look at the reports coming out of
Walter Reed the doctors there all knew. I spoke to doctors down
at Fort Hood. He had been gone and meeting with people coming
back from Afghanistan saying certain things.
No one wanted to say because it was political correctness,
and so I think Judge Carter is right on target there, and I
just think it is important that there not be political
correctness in the FBI in the judiciary. So I think that was
the problem. And he was in touch with Al-Awlaki, they were at
the same mosque which used to be in my district, but I just
think it was a question of political correctness and nobody
wanted to say anything so therefore they didn't say anything,
and yet the families of those who were killed have come by my
office, one wife moved to Manassas, and the pain and suffering
and the agony that they have experienced and never been
adequately compensated, but I think it was a question of
political correctness.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you
having this hearing. And to Director Comey, thank you very much
for being here, and members of the commission.
COMBINED DNA INDEX SYSTEM
Today in your testimony you discussed violent crimes like
sexual assault and the connection to the FBI laboratory
services. I would like to look at particularly on the Combined
DNA Index System, or CODIS, which you know blends forensic
science and computer technology into a highly effective tool
for linking crimes. This issue if of particular concern to me
because I understand that there is as many as 500,000 rape kits
sitting on the shelves in evidence rooms and property rooms of
law enforcement. And this backlog is across the country and
that have not been processed as of yet. And these victims are
all waiting for their justice.
In my congressional district in Alameda County District
Attorney Nancy O'Malley, who is here with us today, has taken
the lead in the effort to eliminate this backlog, this backlog
of forensic sexual assault examination kits within the county.
And the DA is working with other colleagues statewide and
nationally to create protocols and policies to eliminate this
backlog of all the rape kits that are sitting out there.
The federal government does provide grants to local law
enforcement I understand to expand the capacity through the
Debbie Smith Grant Program. But we could be doing more. You
know, there is a sense that we could do much more. I wrote a
letter to you along with my colleagues Swalwell and
Congresswoman Barbara Lee earlier this year and we suggested to
address that backlog by utilizing the private sector
laboratories in DNA testing and by employing new technology
that allows testing samples from arrestees at the time of the
booking.
The first question I would like to ask you, there is two
questions that I have, first is I would like to ask you about
the use of the private sector laboratories for testing. And
does the FBI have the authority to initiate a review of
existing policies, standards, and protocols related to the
requirements for 100 percent technical review of outsourced DNA
testing for profiles to be included in the National DNA Index,
the NDIS. So if so, what has been done so far? And if not, what
kinds of obstacles seem to be remaining?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Honda. As fate would have it
District O'Malley and I met a few weeks ago in San Francisco
and she raised this question with me, which I had not focused
on to that point, and immediately started focusing on it.
Because she more eloquently than I can make the case that this
is about saving people from indescribable pain and bringing to
justice people who would visit that pain on innocent victims.
So we share the sense of mission.
I am no expert. Which is why when I returned from San
Francisco I asked my experts to engage on it immediately,
because I said I met this passionate prosecutor in San
Francisco and you have got to figure out what is going on here
and see if there is a way to help. My understanding is that the
people who know better than I have serious concerns about
allowing private sector labs to upload directly to CODIS
because of the potential impacts on that vital national
resource. But there are ways to improve our ability to leverage
the private sector with state labs to get that information to
CODIS. I understand that the head of my lab is meeting with the
District Attorney. I do not know when but very soon I hope, to
discuss whether we can figure out creative ways to address that
problem without having private sector labs connect directly to
the CODIS database.
I realize I am out of my expertise here. So I share the
passion. I share the sense of concern that we not do anything
to jeopardize that national resource which is the CODIS
database. But there has got to be a way to abide both concerns
and achieve the goal.
Mr. Honda. Well we have met with her, too. And we share the
same concerns that you have. And I suspect that the DA has an
idea about putting together a pilot program. So I guess the
question really is with your interest and the kinds of things
that need to be done, would your office be allowing the Alameda
County to serve as a pilot project where the FBI could help
eliminate some of the steps that, I guess the steps of
technical review so that we can come out with some sort of a
process and a solution to this backlog?
Mr. Comey. Well the concept attracts me. I do not know the
details well enough to say yea or nay sitting here, which is
why I am glad she is meeting with the head of our lab. Because
my view is there has got to be a way to accommodate both of
those interests. But I do not know the details well enough to
commit sitting here.
Mr. Honda. Do you think that there will be a timeline that
you could be looking at that you could get back to us and so we
could be tracking this? Because 500,000 evidence DNA kits
sitting in an evidence room is a bit much.
Mr. Comey. Oh, I agree. I agree totally. If I can just find
out when the meeting is I will get back to you with an update
within two weeks of that meeting. It is Friday. Okay. So in the
next, what is today? So within two weeks from Friday I should
be able to give your staff an update on where we stand.
Mr. Honda. It sounds like before Easter, right?
Mr. Comey. Yes. I see the head of the lab or his boss every
single morning and I have asked about this a number of times.
They know of my interest. So it should be pretty easy for me to
find out what is going on.
Mr. Honda. Okay. I appreciate that position, too. And I
just want to say thank you for your efforts. And another one is
the rapid DNA technology. And I understand that there are
delays in the rapid DNA technology adoption which could result
in a proliferation of independent or local DNA databases which
would not prove as effective or as secure as CODIS, or the
FBI's database. So it is my understanding that the current turn
around time for police agencies to receive the DNA hit matching
results for arrestees and convicted offenders stands about 90
days, or even more, due to the DNA processing backlog. So it
makes the backlog even more important to address. So the FBI
now green light a rapid DNA pilot study? And it sounds like you
may need a couple of weeks to look at this, also. But do the
rapid DNA pilot studies, accessing CODIS, and from the non-
public laboratory settings. So it is like the police booking
stations and other similar stations. And is the FBI supportive
of both the DNA profile hit matching and DNA profile uploading
from the rapid DNA instruments in police booking stations? And
I guess the border checkpoint type settings that are outside of
the normal process?
Mr. Comey. I know enough to tell you I find the idea of
rapid DNA very exciting, that this could be in police stations
and people could be processed and the results obtained very,
very quickly. So exciting that I went to the lab and they
showed me two machines that we are piloting right now to test
to see how well they work, is it repeatable, is it reasonably
error proof? Because those are all the dangers of having these
machines proliferating around the country. I do not know
exactly the timeline on those evaluations. But I know it is
something we feel a sense of urgency on, and that is why the
lab is piloting these machines right now.
Mr. Honda. Okay. I would be very interested in keeping up
on that information. Because I think trying to bring some
justice to those who are victims in our, in sexual assault, and
it is going to be based on DNA outcomes, seems to me to be very
important in getting rid of the backlog. So we will be working
with you closely on this. And I appreciate your sense of
cooperation on this matter.
Mr. Comey. Great.
Mr. Honda. And I think all of the DAs across this country
are probably watching this, too.
Mr. Comey. Good.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know it may be a
bit early to begin the tributes. But I just want to tell you
what a great pleasure it has been to serve with you as
chairman. And I cannot imagine this committee or this Congress
without Chairman Wolf. You have been an extraordinary chair and
a champion of human rights from the first day you came to
Congress. And it has been a great privilege to serve with you.
Mr. Director, thank you for sharing that anecdote about
your wife trying to prove you. I will have you know I have been
married for almost 20 years and in that time we have never had
a single fight--that I have won. But to give credit where
credit is due, that is a Ralph Hall joke which I have
appropriated because it was so good.
MALAYSIA
I wanted to ask you quite a few things. But let me start
with Malaysia. I do not know if you are able to give us an
update at all. I know we are helping them look at the hard
drive. Do you have a sense of when that analysis will be
concluded or how that analysis is proceeding?
There also have been some claims that we were not getting
adequate cooperation or we were not adequately invited into the
investigation. I have heard to the contrary, that actually they
invited us in from the beginning and that the Malaysian
authorities were quite upset when there was speculation that
they had not been welcoming of our assistance. And I wonder if
you could comment on that as well?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Our Legat from the very
beginning was closely in contact with the Malaysian law
enforcement authorities with whom we have established a great
relationship and we offered any assistance that we might be
able to provide. And they took us up on our technical
abilities, which involves the exploitation of certain computer
forensic materials that they have given to us. That work is
ongoing. I get briefed on it every morning. I have teams
working literally around the clock to try and exploit that. I
do not want to say more about that in an open setting but I
expect it to be done fairly shortly, within a day or two, to
finish that work.
Mr. Schiff. And have we been keeping the Malaysian
authorities abreast of what we have been learning as we go
forward?
Mr. Comey. Yes. Our Legat, and we actually have additional
resources there, speak to their counterparts every single day,
update them, and get new information from them if they have it.
Mr. Schiff. So have you been then pleased with the level of
cooperation? Or do you feel that there is other assistance we
could be providing that they have not been open to?
Mr. Comey. No, I am pleased with the level of cooperation.
We have a good relationship with them, again, law enforcement
to law enforcement, and we have been taking advantage of that.
STOLEN PASSPORTS
Mr. Schiff. One of the issues that has come up, even though
it looks like it is unrelated to the disappearance of the
plane, is that fact that two of the passengers were flying with
stolen passports. This seems to me a fairly gaping hole in the
international air travel system, security system, that so many
thousands of people evidently fly throughout the course of any
given year with stolen identification. How confident are you,
and I know we do a lot better job interfacing with the Interpol
database, how confident are you that people that are flying
within the United States, or to or from the Unites States, are
who they purport to be on those flights? And apart from the
risk of Americans traveling on these foreign carriers, are
there risks, other risks to other aircraft coming into our air
space due to this gap in airline security?
Mr. Comey. Mr. Fattah mentioned Ron Noble and I know Ron
spoke out about this particular hole in folks around the world
not querying the lost or stolen passport database that Interpol
maintains. That is something that is routinely queried on all
flights in the United States, into, and out of the United
States. So I am confident that that information is being
checked on anybody who wants to come into the U.S. or leave the
U.S. So I do not see that as a vulnerability for us in the
United States. I see it as a vulnerability, obviously, around
the world if folks are not checking that database. So my
concerns about airline safety with regard to flights in and out
of the United States do not focus on identity.
Mr. Schiff. When you say routinely does that mean that the
database is checked for all domestic flights, or flights
originating to or from the United States?
Mr. Comey. My understanding is that it is checked in every
circumstance involving a flight into or out of the United
States. I do not know the answer, or I could find it out
quickly, with respect to purely domestic flights in the U.S.
But I think if someone uses a passport for ID, that is checked.
I guess I should get you that answer. I know on the
international flights, that is the case. But I cannot sit here
and say it is on the domestics just yet.
Mr. Schiff. Is it worth considering in the same way that
the State Department issues a travel advisory when conditions
in a country are hazardous, should we consider issuing travel
advisories about flying on certain airlines that do not
maintain good security practices? That do not check the
Interpol database as a way of using the pressure of public
knowledge on those airlines to invest in the computer systems
necessary to check with Interpol?
Mr. Comey. That is a great question. It is certainly worth
considering. I have not thought about it longer than just these
few moments, to think about what the knock on effects might be.
But it is certainly something that my friend John Pistole at
TSA I am sure is thinking about.
Mr. Schiff. I mean I would imagine a downside is you are
also telling your adversaries what airlines do not use proper
security. But my guess is they probably know better than the
general public, those that wish to exploit it. And it may help
travelers decide where they want to fly, and help use economic
pressure to get some of the international partners to use
better practices. Well, I would love to follow up with you on
that and with TSA as well.
Turning if I could to the Boston bombing, lessons learned.
The error in the TECS system in the spelling, has that error
been corrected in the sense that if a name is misspelled do we
have a better capacity now to catch that misspelling so that if
there are warnings to detain someone flying in or out of the
country that we have confidence that those will be acted upon?
Mr. Comey. The answer is I think so. I think TSA, I am
trying to remember what I have been told about that. I think so
is the answer, but I would have to get back to you on the
particulars of it. Because I know obviously that was called out
as a problem but I cannot, sitting here, remember exactly what
I have been told about how it was fixed.
BOSTON BOMBING--LESSONS LEARNED
Mr. Schiff. Are there any changes in the FBI practice or
protocol that have been brought about as a result of Boston?
Anything that you felt should have been, well, was not
necessary a causal factor in the sense that if it had been done
differently this could have been stopped, but nonetheless have
there been changes in FBI practices brought about as a result
of Boston?
Mr. Comey. Yes. And I view, as I know Bob Mueller did,
every incident is an opportunity to look for things to improve
even if it would not have changed the result. So I can think of
a couple with respect to Boston that we have put into place. We
have made clear to our Joint Terrorism Task Forces that there
is no prior approval requirement if an officer who is on the
task force wants to share information with appropriately
cleared folks in his department. There was some concern that
that may have been misunderstood as it required prior approval.
And the second thing is we have spoken to chiefs and sheriffs
and what we are doing is developing a protocol in each of our
Joint Terrorism Task Forces. So we review on a regular basis
with executive participation from the local chiefs and the
sheriffs, the cases we are closing. Because in case they have
an interest or a question about why we are closing a particular
thing, that is a protocol. The timing may be different in each
jurisdiction. In New York it may be a weekly meeting, in
smaller jurisdictions it may be a monthly meeting. But we want
to make sure that the participants in the Joint Terrorism Task
Force have a chance to look at the work we have done and ask
questions before we close a case. So those are two process
improvements that came out of the Boston case.
SYRIA
Mr. Schiff. If I can turn to an international challenge,
that is Americans coming back from Syria that may have been
radicalized. Do you have the resources that you need to in some
cases conduct surveillance or do whatever necessary, follow up
investigation when we have people returning from Syria? Those
are very manpower intensive requirements. And is that
adequately covered in the President's budget? How will you
handle those new demands in light of the fact that so many
other areas of your workload like cyber are already
dramatically increasing?
Mr. Comey. The answer is yes. With the funding that you all
have given us, and that I hope I will receive for 2015, and
filling all those vacant positions, we will have the resources
to address that threat. One of the things you have funded for
us is our mobile surveillance team effort, which I now have
mobile surveillance teams all over the country. And as we
speak, we are using those resources to address just that
problem. So the answer is, yes, if I maintain the current
course and speed and continue to hire back all those vacancies.
Mr. Schiff. Finally, I know there is a bump in the
President's budget to accelerate our handling of the MLATs and
I just want to acknowledge that I think that would be money
very well invested given the delays that accompany our seeking
information from our allied governments and the frustrations
they have and the degree to which that is driving an effort to
localize data centers and otherwise, use otherwise
protectionist policies. So hopefully we can help with the MLAT
request.
And finally I want to second what Mr. Honda said, of a
great interest in DNA and trying to accelerate the opportunity,
use rapid DNA, as well as follow up on the work that one of the
DOJ task forces have done on our request on familial DNA which
has proved very powerful in places like California in unsolved
cases.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wolf. I am going to go ahead to Mr. Serrano next, but
just to follow up on the thing that Mr. Schiff raised if I can.
Because we hear reports that there may be as many as 7,500
foreign fighters in Syria of whom at least 50 are Americans. We
have also heard the National Intelligence Director Clapper
point to this as a real threat. Last month the British arrested
Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo detainee and one of four
arrested on terrorism offenses related to the War in Syria.
According to news reports British authorities are increasingly
concerned about the threat posed by Britons returning who have
been radicalized by their engagement in fighting. They arrested
24 related to Syria in 2013, and 14 in January alone of this
year.
We want to be sure that we are not at risk of having those
with training contacts with terrorists coming back into the
U.S. and threatening our communities. I introduced before the
recess H.R. 4223 on March 12th, the International Conflicts of
Concern Act, which would authorize the President to restrict
travel and material support to countries like Syria where
foreign terrorist organizations are active in fighting and may
be working with government or anti-government forces. This
would require licenses in order to travel or provide material
support to such countries and establish criminal penalties if
such restrictions were not followed. I introduced the bill in
response to concerns noted by the intelligence and law
enforcement communities with regard to radicalization of those
who traveled to fight in such countries. How large of a problem
for security does the FBI believe such foreign fighters
represent? And have you had a chance to look at the legislation
that we put in dealing with this issue? But I appreciate Mr.
Schiff raising this. And I think it is important. And we did
speak to some people in different agencies about this. But do
you want to comment?
Mr. Comey. I agree with Mr. Schiff and you, Mr. Chairman. A
serious challenge for us. It is one of the things I meant by
the metastasizing threat. We are very worried about people who
travel there, travel out to the EU, and then can come to the
U.S. without a visa, or our citizens who travel back and forth
directly. I hear about it from all of my colleagues in the EU
in law enforcement and intelligence. So it is an enormous
challenge. And I like very much the idea behind the
legislation.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Mr. Serrano?
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I am late,
but as you know this time of the year we have quite a few
meetings going on. Thank you, Mr. Director, and congratulations
on your appointment, I think. We will find out as time goes on.
Mr. Comey. Right, what could go wrong?
Mr. Serrano. Yes, nothing. You have a very friendly
committee. I remember the days when this committee took good,
good, good care of the FBI when everything else was not
happening right after 9/11.
FBI TRADITIONAL MISSION
Let me ask you a couple of questions. First of all, the
Department of Justice IG report that found that the FBI ranked
mortgage fraud as its lowest priority even after the fiscal
crisis, and even after significant funds were given to the
agency to investigate this type of crime. Your fiscal year 2015
budget does not include additional funding for work in this
area. What are you doing to ensure that the FBI is still
engaging in its traditional missions in things like mortgage
fraud and civil rights?
Mr. Comey. What I am doing is asking about it constantly
because white collar enforcement in general is something I am
passionate about. And so what I know from asking about it is we
have about 200 agents who do nothing but that work focused on
mortgage fraud. Obviously the number of cases is coming down
the farther we get from 2008. But it remains something that I
have got lots of folks working on out in the field. And civil
rights separately remains something that is uniquely the
province of the FBI. As a national independent force it is
something we have to do and will remain a priority of ours.
Mr. Serrano. Well, we hope so. Because this was a little
troubling, that the issue of mortgage fraud and therefore other
issues could fall down as we continue to pay attention. And to
me that was the one thing that I told Chairman Wolf and
Chairman Rogers after 9/11, which was that we need to pay
attention to terrorism. Absolutely. Absolutely. That is number
one priority. But in the process we cannot throw away those
other issues that the FBI has been working on, and been so good
and effective at resolving if you will.
Mr. Comey. I agree very much. When I was U.S. Attorney in
New York a huge part of my docket was white collar crime,
frauds of all sorts. And those are crimes that you can actually
clearly deter. You can be effective with enforcement there. And
so it is something I believe we should continue to do.
NYC POLICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Serrano. Right. Which brings me to my next question,
which is without telling us anything that you are not allowed
to tell us, nor that we want to hear in public, what is the
continuing relationship with the New York City Police
Department? Since I think it is pretty clear to everyone on the
committee, notwithstanding how some people in Congress feel
about New York, that New York continues to be the number one
target because it makes the largest statement for terrorists.
What is the ongoing relationship? And do you have one now that
you are a new director, and we have a new police commissioner?
Mr. Comey. Yes. No one picks on New York in my presence,
because they know I am from there. The relationship is
excellent. Although sometimes it is like two brothers, right?
We love each other but sometimes we wrestle on the floor. But
we get up. No one wants to stab anybody. We get up and we love
each other again. Particularly on counterterrorism it is highly
effective. Really, really good. We do great stuff together. I
had a great relationship with Ray Kelly, as Bob Mueller did.
And I think it will continue with Bill Bratton. I note that his
Chief of Intelligence John Miller is an alum of the FBI. So I
think we know each other. I think the brotherhood/sisterhood is
going to get even tighter given some of those connections. So
despite what people may have heard about us bumping with the
NYPD, I do not see it. I see us doing lots of good stuff
together.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. And like I
said, that is, we have different issues, as you know, in New
York City with the Police Department, stop and frisk and other
issues. But when it comes to fighting terrorism and being able
to single out a car that had a car bomb or something like that,
that has been very effective. And people are still suffering
the effects of 9/11 and we are hoping that that continues to be
something that you work on.
PUERTO RICO
Let me ask you a question. As some of you, as everyone on
this committee knows, and you should know also, I was born in
Puerto Rico so I take great interest in what happens between
the FBI and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. And sitting in
that chair some years ago I asked a question which could have
been considered by some sort of a throwaway question. I asked
Director Freeh about the history of the relations between
Puerto Rico and the FBI. And he opened up and he said there is
a part of that history that is nothing we should be proud of.
And he quickly agreed to begin to release files, over a million
files of that relationship that went after basically a group of
people that wanted independent for Puerto Rico. But as it
turned out later they went after a lot of folks and hurt a lot
of people in the process. And those files have been coming to
the Senate in Puerto Rico and to, they have got a Web site at
Hunter College and so on. I would hope that that relationship
continues with your office and your leadership. That we
continue to open up those files and find out what went wrong so
that that kind of behavior does not take place again.
And for members of the committee that may not remember, it
was a time when there was a very serious persecution. He
admitted to it, so did Mueller after that. It was the counter--
--
Mr. Comey. Yes, COINTELPRO.
Mr. Serrano. Yes, COINTELPRO, program. And I hope that we
continue. There has been sort of a lapse now. We continue to
get those files available. I understand how the files have to
show up. Some of them have things blacked out, and that is
probably because some of those folks that were giving
information are still alive. I understand how that works. But
that has been a very important point.
So in speaking to that, when you respond to that, also
respond to the fact that in the last appropriations bill when
we gave the FBI, or GSA, $85 million to build a new facility in
Puerto Rico.
Mr. Comey. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Serrano. And the other $10 million would come directly
from GSA. So how would that help things? And then going back to
will you continue to release the files?
Mr. Comey. Okay, thank you. I will start with the file
question first. Although I do not know the particulars on the
file issue, I will get smarter on that after I leave here, the
principle is one I support very much. The sense of openness and
recognition of past mistakes and wrongs. In fact my concern for
that was embedded in something I announced to the entire FBI
workforce when I started. You may know Louis Freeh required all
new agents to go to the Holocaust Museum to remind them of the
dangers of abusive power in a gut-wrenching way. I have added
to that. I am going to require all new agents to visit the
Martin Luther King Memorial as a reminder closer to the
Bureau's own history of the dangers of getting away from
oversight and accountability. And I see the King abuses as of a
piece with the COINTELPRO issues that you are talking about.
And so that, I will continue that commitment to recognizing we
are a great institution but we are a human institution. And so
we cannot forget our history. And if we do, we risk repeating
our history. So that is something I feel very strongly about.
With respect to Puerto Rico, it is a major focus, as you
know. Crime and public corruption, violent crime, drug
trafficking in Puerto Rico, are some of the FBI's priorities. I
got briefed on it my first week, I think, as I stood in the
command center and watched our hostage rescue team execute
arrest warrants against a dangerous violent gang in San Juan.
And so it is a priority of the FBI's.
We have over 300 agents, as you know, assigned in Puerto
Rico. I am informed that GSA has the site for the new building
and it is on track to be built. I asked my staff if it will be
done in a couple, three years? They said, have you ever built a
new building before? And so it is coming. Not fast enough for
my troops who are not in adequate facilities there, but it is
coming.
So that focus on Puerto Rico remains a big part of our
work, as I said, especially on the public corruption and the
violent crime front.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GANG INTELLIGENCE CENTER
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. On human trafficking, we
have a National Gang Intelligence Center. Do you think given
the connection between gangs and human trafficking it would
make sense that the Center also gather and develop intelligence
related to gang trafficking activity? Do you think that is a
good idea, to have the Gang Intelligence Center also track the
gang trafficking of young girls and sexual trafficking?
Mr. Comey. I do. That makes good sense to me. Because so
often we see, as you said, the organized criminal groups who
might have trafficked drugs or guns also trafficking people
now. And it would be great to get smart people thinking in a
holistic way about that problem of human trafficking.
UNDERGROUND COMMERCIAL SEX INDUSTRY
Mr. Wolf. The Urban Institute recently published an
analysis of the underground commercial sex industry and
identified some important recommendations even if they seem
obvious, such as better training on evidence, interviewing,
better information sharing between jurisdictions to coordinate
efforts. In addition they recommended attacking this ``black
market where it lives on line,'' which might involved
strengthening laws. What is your experience and recommendation
for dealing with forums such as Backpage.com? If we cannot shut
down Backpage.com then we really cannot deal with the problem.
And in Northern Virginia, where I know you know well, we had a
group called Polaris look at places in Northern Virginia where
there was trafficking, sexual trafficking. And they came back
with 81 locations, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William.
But Backpage we are now finding in the Shenandoah Valley,
Backpage. So what are your thoughts about how do we deal with
the online, Backpage problem?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as I said earlier
that our entire lives have now been connected to the internet,
the lives of those who would exploit children and engage in
human trafficking are also connected in the same way to the
Internet. So we see people finding pimps and pimps finding
customers through these online forums. I have not thought
through in a good way whether there are First Amendment issues
associated with shutting down particular forums. But I know
when we do Operation Cross Country to try and stop trafficking
and when we do some of these operations like we did just around
the Super Bowl, we did it in the tri-state area in New York,
these online forums, like the one you mentioned, are the places
where we see people going to find these, both for pimps to find
people and for customers to find people. So it is a big
problem. As I said, I have not thought through whether there
are legal wrinkles to shutting down particular outfits but it
is a big concern.
Mr. Wolf. Well, it is really a big one. We have had young
high school students in the Fairfax County system involved. And
the Committee has put language in in a bipartisan way that
every FBI agent, every field office is involved and we
appreciate it, and every U.S. Attorney. Neil McBride, who I am
sorry left, did an incredible job. In fact, Neil probably set
the tone or the style for every U.S. Attorney. But we have got
to deal with this issue.
And there are going to be two things. One, you have to go
after the pimps. Now we understand the IRS does not want to do
that. I think you need a major effort here to break the back.
If you go after the pimps insofar as tracking their income, hit
them, and hit them, and hit them, and hit them, and hit them,
and hit them. Because you are dealing with, some people, I
said, 13-and 14-year old girls. You are dealing with from all
levels and all families. And some locations even punish the
young girls, if you will. We need places they can go for
rehabilitation. The Joe Gibbs House is doing some things. But I
would like your best people to look how do we break the back of
this insofar as go after the pimps? Have the IRS put together a
team, see, working with others.
Now we years ago when we had a different committee with a
different jurisdiction, we had a national conference,
international conference, Secretary Powell spoke, bringing all
of the people together around the world on international sexual
trafficking. I had a group from my church come in and say, you
know, Mr. Wolf, we would like you to deal with this issue of
Albania. Do you know what is going on, Mr. Wolf, in Albania? Do
you know what is going on in Thailand? But what about Tyson's
Corner? What about Annandale? What about Yonkers? And so maybe
we need a national conference whereby the FBI, to bring all the
law enforcement together, maybe do it, you know, with Skype, in
different ways, to really kind of see if we can break the back.
Because this thing is growing. So if you would look at the
possibility of a national conference, and also how do we deal
with the pimps to directly go after the pimps? You do not have
to comment, but if you would look at that and get back, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Comey. I will.
9/11 COMMISSION
Mr. Wolf. The 9/11 Commission, the external review of FBI
implementation. And you have got a good group there, I mean,
with Ed Meese, and Congressman Roemer, and Bruce Hoffman. One,
Attorney General when he was in the White House with I think
the finest President in modern times, President Reagan.
Congressman Roemer was on the 9/11 Commission. Professor
Hoffman teaches this at Georgetown. Fresh eyes on the target.
What would you like them to look at? And apparently you have
met with them. What would you like them to do? I think this is
a great opportunity, as you said, for you. But what would you
like them to look at? Or are you in communication making sure
that they know?
Mr. Comey. Oh, yes. As you said, it is definitely an all-
star team. I told General Meese, who I cannot stop calling
General Meese because he was the Attorney General when I was
first appointed. His name is on my appointment certificate. I
think I make both of us feel old when I do that. But it is an
all-star team.
Anything they want to offer a view on is going to be of
interest to me. I am particularly interested in how do they
assess our effort to transform the organization into an
intelligence driven organization? It is something that I
believe is a generational change that requires a cultural
change. A generation is 20 years, so I think I have got to
continue to push on it for my ten-year term. But I would love
their advice on how that is going. What could make it better?
What is not working well? Because that is fundamental to the
future of this organization. And there are a number of other
things I know they are looking at that I will be interested in.
But that one in particular, as a new director, really interests
me.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will make this
brief because I know we have a number of other things that we
have to get to. But I was out at the Joint Terrorism Center and
I saw a great operation. I was out there for actually the
launch of it. And your team is doing a great job working with
other people. I also visited the Center for Missing and
Exploited Children in which this coordination really is
critical on all fronts. Which plays out in local jurisdictions.
We had a challenge a few years ago with a significant uptick in
shootings and murders in the Philadelphia area. In working with
the chairman we got some additional focus through task forces
there working with our local police. And now we are at a 50-
year low. So there is a connection to coordinated activities
and working together in ways that really do make a difference.
I want to thank you for that.
As you go forward, is there information that you can
provide to the committee. You do not have to provide it in this
setting. That you know, as we consider the appropriations
process, and also, the spend plan and other things that come
up. We want to be available to you as you go forward. And I
want to thank you in particular in your work.
And you mentioned white collar, the Toyota settlement is of
interest to me. Today I am asking is this a big settlement?
Mr. Comey. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Fattah. I am sending a letter to the Attorney General
and to Toyota, to ask that some of those dollars go into
medical research and into youth mentoring, and not just into a
hole somewhere. Because I think that the work that you are
doing is great but that we also need to be focused on trying to
make sure a lot of our young people do not end up on these side
roads and trying to divert them a lot earlier on.
So I thank the chairman for the hearing. And I know we are
going to hear from General Meese and our great colleague Tim
Roemer. So I look forward to that.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
reiterate my colleagues' concern about and support for your
work to help local jurisdictions clean up the DNA rape kit
backlog; it is extraordinarily important. And also to follow up
on my good friend Mr. Fattah's question about encouraging
cooperation with Ukraine, he is exactly right. The best place
to do that is through the money. And to the extent they are not
cooperating I really hope you will ask your folks to contact
Chairman Wolf, Mr. Fattah and let them know to what extent
Ukraine is refusing to cooperate. Because that would be I think
a great point of leverage that Congress could use to help you
and ensure that those folks are cooperating.
CYBER SECURITY
And the area of cybersecurity is something near and dear to
my heart. And Congressman Wolf, my dearest good friend in
Congress, took me out to see your Cyber Center out near Dulles
Airport.
Mr. Comey. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. And I cannot thank you enough for the work
you are doing. It is extraordinarily impressive. And I know
that we will do everything we can to help you in that effort. I
know there has been a tremendous problem that is out there, the
public is aware of it, that the Chinese penetrating and
stealing intellectual property on a scale that I do not think
the world has ever seen before. I used to think the sack of
Constantinople, or perhaps Alexander the Great's sack of
Persepolis was maybe the greatest looting and pillaging ever
done. It looks like the Chinese have virtually stolen every,
almost all the intellectual property out there. That, as far as
you know that is a pretty fair assessment? They have stolen it
all, other than maybe Colonel Sanders' recipe, which is in
writing, and the Coca-Cola recipe which is not on a computer.
Mr. Comey. I hope neither of them are connected to the
internet.
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Comey. It remains an enormous challenge.
Mr. Culberson. Particularly the Chinese.
Mr. Comey. Yes, the Chinese in particular. We devote
tremendous resources to try and address that problem, which
cuts across all industries in the United States, all
businesses.
Mr. Culberson. Looking at the scale of cybertheft, the
attacks, Chinese government, Chinese affiliated companies that
are affiliated with the People's Liberation Army, they are the
worst in the world?
Mr. Comey. It remains, as I said, an enormous challenge for
us. That particular set of intrusions coming from China is a
huge focus of the FBI.
Mr. Culberson. Would you rank them as the worst in the
world?
Mr. Comey. I would rank them as the most aggressive and
prolific practicers of that particular----
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. World. Have you been able, how
are you able to, and I understand there is a, you all have done
a marvelous job in helping private companies discover when they
have been penetrated and thefts have occurred. How do you
pursue that? Does a company have to initiate a contact with
you? If you spot something that has happened, can you, do you,
and I hope you do, initiate contact with them? Houston, Texas
is to the oil and gas industry what Silicon Valley is to the
computer industry. And the oil and gas companies that I
represent, are good folks and they have got tremendously
valuable intellectual property that they have spent millions of
dollars to be sure they are finding the right places to drill.
When you spot an intrusion, something happens to a private
company, do you all initiate a contact with them and let them
know? Hey, you have had a break in.
Mr. Comey. Yes. It runs both ways. If we see something
coming, we are working to make sure we get it to the company,
get it fast, and give them information that they can do
something with. A lot of them have expressed frustration to us,
it is not good enough to tell me someone is about to break into
your building. Well, where? And how might we protect it? So we
are getting better there. And we are trying to get companies to
be better at telling us when they see something. Because as we
talked about earlier, they have a lot of smart people and good
equipment. So they may see something that we do not. We have
got to share together to create that aggregate brain we talked
about. But yes, it goes in both directions.
And we are creating a national malware database which----
Mr. Culberson. Malware?
Mr. Comey. Malware.
Mr. Culberson. Malware.
Mr. Comey. A malicious software database, which we hope to
be like our fingerprint database. A national resource so that
if a company encounters something that looks bad they can send
us that code, we will run it against the database, and tell
them, yes, we have seen this in this place or that. Here is how
you might address that. And if we can create a big enough
database and share information quick enough we can do better
against this problem.
Mr. Culberson. Did the legislation, and my colleagues
perhaps can help me with this as well, that Mike Rogers,
Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, members, was it last
year? I think he had a piece of legislation that was designed
to do that so the federal government would be able to
essentially create a database of malware. Like whenever you log
on with your computer, I use Norton on my miserable Windows
system. And I love Macintosh. And I use another one for my
Windows system. But whenever I turn the computer on the first
thing I do is update the operating system and the virus
programs. And if I remember correctly Chairman Rogers'
legislation was designed to do essentially what you just said
for the FBI so that businesses would be able to log on to this
central database of the federal government and essentially
update the federal government's awareness of malware attacks on
them, and then the company could download protection against
malware. Does that ring a bell? Did that legislation ever pass,
Adam, do you know? It passed the House. I do not----
Mr. Schiff. I think you are referring to, there is some
broad cyber legislation that would expand a pilot that allows
private companies to share data about how they have been
attacked with the federal government, and the federal
government to share data----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. What they need to look for so that
one company can benefit and the government can benefit from
looking for the signatures----
Mr. Culberson. Exactly. Just like we do when we update our
own personal computers.
Mr. Schiff. It has not passed yet. There are some----
Mr. Culberson. It has not passed the Senate. It passed the
House, though, did it not? Remember, we did that last year, I
think.
Mr. Schiff. You know, I think that may be right. The Senate
was----
Mr. Culberson. As usual.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. I think the big sticking point was
how to deal with critical infrastructure.
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Schiff. And there are a few remaining issues about
minimization of personal data that may be entwined with the
malware. So that is still something that needs to be worked
out.
PRIVACY
Mr. Culberson. Bingo. Which is what I wanted to follow up
on. And the chairman is very generous for the time. But one
thing that I know my colleagues, our constituents, are deeply
concerned about is privacy. And you know, a law abiding
American has an absolute right to privacy. I know it is
something Texans are particularly passionate about, is privacy,
leave us alone, let Texans run Texas. How do you do that? I
mean, how is it in this era of the internet and picking up a
cell phone and using it, how is the, just in your opinion, sir,
how should the FBI approach this problem in order to protect
the privacy rights of law abiding Americans who are not the
problem yet still be able to identify folks who are using, for
example, like Hasan did. He was using that Web site and talking
to this psycho overseas. Talk to us a little bit about what the
FBI is doing and what this subcommittee can do to help you do
your job to identify the bad guys yet protect the absolute
privacy rights of law abiding Americans when they are using
their cell phones.
By the way, just a quick side story, it is astonishing to
me that the cell phones have become so ubiquitous that the
other night I happened to see my wife taped Bette Midler, who
was on one of the late night shows, and Bette Midler said she
remembered years ago she used to resent all the autograph
seekers. She was coming in to see Jay Leno that night and she
said for the first time in my life I walked past a long line of
people that were waiting to get into the Jay Leno show and most
of them never looked at me because they were all doing this
with their phone. And they did not want autographs. The ones
that did spot her wanted selfies. Everybody is using these. How
do we protect our privacy as law abiding Americans yet still
allow you to spot when you have got a psycho like Hasan
communicating with these nuts overseas? Or these people in
Syria that are Americans coming back? It is a tough challenge,
but how do you do it?
Mr. Comey. It is a very tough challenge. And it is a great
and hard issue. Those devices are ubiquitous.
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Comey. Except not in my office because they can be used
by other nation states to try to listen to my conversations.
So----
Mr. Culberson. You do not even use one?
Mr. Comey. Well I do not use one in connection with
anything related to my office, which makes life harder.
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Comey. Because my kids cannot text me during the day. I
think the answer is just to talk about it. I mean, I think all,
not just Texans, but all Americans should be suspicious of
government power.
Mr. Culberson. Yes----
Mr. Comey. This country was founded by people who were
suspicious of government power. I hate to break it to my
British friends but we built this country into three branches
because we worry about humans and power. So I think it is great
to ask questions. And we, as government leaders, should explain
how we are using our authorities.
I do not like the framework of trade-offs of liberty versus
security. I think we are best----
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Comey [continuing]. When we do both, right? A dangerous
neighborhood with a bad park where parents cannot go and kids
cannot go play in the park, when the police department puts
officers on that park, liberty and security are enhanced at the
same time.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Mr. Comey. Right? Because people can play in that
neighborhood because they are watched. So the internet is a
very dangerous playground right now. But we can enhance both
liberty and security. We have just to talk about it. I mean, we
in law enforcement have to have a presence. We have to be able
to see the bad guys. But we also have to make sure we are
explaining to people what we are doing with the innocent
information we see and how we are protecting their right to be
private.
Now how they protect their privacy dealing with all the
social media and everything, where they put everything out
there, is really not my focus on privacy. But I can explain how
the government uses our authorities, how we are overseeing the
role that all the checks and balances that our founders built
into the government play. And that is my duty and I should be
talking about that. I think if folks understand us, the angel
is in those details. Not a devil, the angel is in those details
because I think we are doing it right.
Mr. Culberson. It is marvelous to hear you say it. You
would agree, then, with Benjamin Franklin who said those who
would trade a little liberty for a little safety are going to
wind up with neither?
Mr. Comey. Yes. I do not like the trade-off framework.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Marvelous to hear you say so. It is a
great challenge and one that I think all of us are committed to
protect our constituents' privacy. One way I have often thought
about it, Director, is that if you think about it Patrick Henry
and the founders never surrendered their right of self-defense.
To any level of government. And that is really kind of the
fundamental premise of our entire system of government. And I
am delighted to hear you say it. But that is really, I think as
law enforcement officers that all of us need to remember as
elected officials, that we are servants and we are here to
ensure to the best of our ability to preserve and protect that
individual privacy and those individual freedoms that were
passed on to us by our ancestors and I am delighted to hear you
say that. And it is something I want to work with you, I know
the subcommittee does, in finding ways to spot the bad guys but
protect the absolute right of privacy of individual Americans.
DRONES
And if the chairman will permit me, if I could ask quickly
about drones? When you are using drones for example, flying
over the United States, and I know you do, you have to. How do
you protect the privacy of a law abiding American in the
privacy of their home?
Mr. Comey. Well, the answer there is we apply the same
standards we apply when we are flying helicopters or planes
conducting surveillance, right? We abide by the Supreme Court's
teaching of where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy,
where the Fourth Amendment line is. We are very, very careful
about that. And as you said, the FBI has a very small number of
drones and they are sort of model aircraft size things that we
use only in the most dangerous circumstances where I cannot
send a pilot up because the bad guy might shoot at them, to be
able to see where a kid is being held captive, or whether there
is a situation where we are going to go in and try and rescue
somebody.
But yes, we apply the same standards. There are rules, and
they are extensive. The one thing we have in the FBI is rules
that govern our conduct, extensive, about when we can fly one
of these little things, what the rules are, all of those kinds
of things. It is boring, but as I said, the angel is in those
details. Because we are constrained, as we should be.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir. Thank you for the extra
time, too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I have some, I am going to end but I am going to
go to Mr. Schiff to see if he has anything else? Or Mr. Fattah?
Go ahead, if you do. And then, this is important. I mean, the
Bureau does not come up very much. I think that Congress at
times did not. So anything you have, just go ahead. And then I
will go through some things that will say yes or noes, and I
want to raise some things. But go ahead.
TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be brief.
Just two other areas I wanted to ask you about, Director. The
first is whether you think there are any changes to law
necessary in the context of arrests made in a terrorism
investigation? Did the situation involving the arrest of one of
the Tsarnaev brothers reveal any changes that ought to be made?
Some years ago I worked on legislation that might give
investigators a longer period of time prior to presentation
before the magistrate in terrorism investigations, a
codification of the public safety exception and its breadth in
terrorism investigations as well as perhaps a change in the
time required before presentment. Is that something that we
ought to consider that has come to your attention either
through the Tsarnaev case or the case of Aliby? If you could
share your thoughts on that?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. When I was at Columbia
briefly on the faculty and trying to think deep thoughts, this
was one of the things that I read a lot about. My folks and I
believe we have the flexibility under the Quarles public safety
exception to conduct interviews and interrogations in terrorism
cases. Obviously, more clarity and more flexibility there would
be better. But we do run into the speedy presentment problem
that you have identified. That even if we have the flexibility
under Quarles to conduct investigations to try and address
public safety, we may run up against a hard deadline because
the person has to be presented under the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure.
So I know that is something the Department of Justice is
thinking about. I know that it is something you have thought
about. And so I do think it is worthy of discussion.
Mr. Schiff. Well I would be happy to continue working with
any of your folks on it. What I tried to do earlier I thought
might thread the difficult political needle here, between those
who do not want the criminal justice system used at all in
terrorism cases and those that do not want any lengthier delay
before presentment. And I did manage to thread the needle and
then I managed to get no support from either side. I found a
perfect sweet spot of no support. But anyway, I think that the
presentment clause bears reexamination in light of some of the
changes threats that we face and perhaps the greater need to be
able to interview suspects in terrorism investigations to
protect not only people here at home but our troops overseas as
well.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The final thing I just wanted to bring to your attention,
this was a priority of your predecessor and I hope it will
remain one under your leadership as well, I represent a great
many constituents that are working in the film, music, and
television business who struggle with the massive theft of
their intellectual property online. And I want to tell you that
the enforcement work done by FBI and DOJ has really helped.
Mr. Comey. Good.
Mr. Schiff. And let me give you one example. A recent peer
reviewed academic study published by two economists looked at
the period fall and the seizure or Megaupload in 2012 and the
indictment of its founder and several employees on charges of
criminal copyright infringement. Prior to the indictment this
had been the 13th most popular site on the internet.
Researchers studied movie sales in 12 countries before and
after the indictment and found that the sales of movies through
legitimate sources increased ten percent following that
closure. That is huge for one case. As the authors write,
``Even though shutting down Megaupload did not stop all piracy,
it was successful in making piracy sufficiently less reliable,
less easy to use, and less convenient than it was before with
some consumers willing to switch from piracy to legal channels
as a result.''
That indictment was the direct work of agents that the
Bureau has dedicated to IP crimes with the support of the
committee and your cooperation with the IPR Center at ICE. I
hope we can continue building these type of cases. They are
complex and require a lot of resources. But as shown by this
study and others, they have a real payoff which means a lot to
my constituents who work in the copyright and content
industries. And I hope you can work to make sure that the
agents that are dedicated to IP enforcement with the support of
the subcommittee in fact continue to focus and work on IP
related cases and not other matters.
Mr. Comey. Yes. And I can commit to that. I agree with Bob
Mueller, that this work is very, very important. The engine of
America is our creativity and you can make a difference in
protecting the roots of that creativity through locking some of
these people up. So that work is going to continue.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would just yield for one
second? My colleague admitted that he had some difficulty
getting either side to agree. When we are talking about United
States citizens no matter what the circumstances, there are
certain rights that apply to how they can be questioned and
under what circumstances. So the public safety exception is
true throughout. But there is a differential in an American
citizen rights. Different from people who are not American
citizens, that is a different circumstance. But all of us have
a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the rules
therein.
I know that you didn't mean that, I think infer, that we
should loosen any of that in any way, so I just want to make
clear for the record on that point.
Mr. Culberson. Well, an American citizen captured on the
battlefield by an American is a completely different point.
Mr. Fattah. Absolutely, absolutely. I'm saying he mentioned
the Boston bombing suspects. So I just want the record to be
clear, at least for my own statement on this matter. I want to
get all the bad guys, but as the director said a moment before,
we need to not give up any of our liberties in the process of
doing that.
Mr. Schiff. Can I just state real quickly, and I thank my
colleague for his comments. The presented issue is an issue
both for American citizens and foreigners that may be brought
into U.S. custody on criminal charges, so it extends--it is a
challenge to both.
Mr. Fattah. There is a difference for the shoe bomber
suspect who is not an American citizen and for someone who is.
Mr. Schiff. On a constitutional question, there is the
statutory requirement of presentment within a certain number of
hours, and then the Supreme Court has held there is a
constitutional dimension that there be, you know, some alacrity
to present before a magistrate, but I don't think that the
statutory six hours or whatever it may be is the constitutional
standard. So I would never suggest that we should do anything
contrary to the Constitution, but it is ambiguous what the
Constitution requires in terms of how fast we have to present
something to the magistrate.
I favor us moving more to use of the criminal justice
system which has proven its capacity to prosecute people on
terrors and crimes. And to the degree that this presents an
obstacle to doing that, I think within our constitutional
limits we ought to examine how we can make this feasible.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Culberson. I agree with Mr. Fattah's statement.
Mr. Wolf. I have a series that will go fast. Some of them I
just want to get on the record. We will submit others for you
to answer, but I feel that just not to cover some of these
would just be a neglect.
AL-AWLAKI--INSPIRE MAGAZINE
So one, on the internet, Al-Awlaki, Inspire, the magazine,
I think I heard you say four of the five came out from Al-
Awlaki. Al-Awlaki inspired Hassan, thirteen people killed. Al-
Awlaki, I think inspired Chesser, a kid from Oakton. Oakton,
Virginia? Have you ever been to Oakton?
Mr. Comey. I have.
Mr. Wolf. After the Oakton, he was inspired, I think maybe
by--I think somehow the Bureau has to address this thing.
Some tell me, ``we don't want to shut down Inspire because,
you know, we want to get this information, we want to track, we
want to follow, we want to watch.''
Well, maybe, not certainly, but maybe had it been shut
down, the people from the Boston Marathon wouldn't have been
killed. Those people who lost legs would not have lost legs.
And so it is a balancing there and I think sometimes you got to
shut the system down when it is an Al-Awlaki when it is coming
out from the outside.
He is still radicalizing people from the grave, and we have
the ability to shut those things down, and so it is a tradeoff.
What do you say to a mom? Well, you know, we didn't shut it
down because we wanted to get the information to track X and Y,
but yet, but had we shut it down, your son, your daughter--so
it is a tough issue.
But I think Inspire, from my own, speaking for myself,
where they are radicalizing people like that coming from
outside, the system ought to be shut down because I don't know
how you can look at the Boston Marathon victims, and so----
You don't have to comment really, but I think we got to
start making decisions and not always say, well, you know, we
got an FBI agent that is working a case and he is following
this thing and if we shut it down, we are not going to know,
but if he could have shut it down, some of these down coming
from Yemen or coming from places, we may have saved some lives.
You and I talked about the IG investigation of CAIR, but
can you confirm that the policy prohibiting non-investigating
cooperation with CAIR remains in place?
Mr. Comey. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. And the secure work environment, we will just
submit that for the record. The new headquarters, I understand
the initial solicitation process is in, that GSA has received
37 proposals and established a board to review the offers and
come up with a shorter list. Who is on the board? Do we know
who is on the board?
Mr. Comey. I don't know. I think it is five people, three
from GSA, two from FBI.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I think their names ought to be made public
because I think this ought to be honest--I mean, so when
history looks back at it, wherever it goes, people say, hey,
clearly, these were five people, nobody had any influence on
them, this was not a political.
So I think if you can just submit for the record the five
names so they will go down in history, that we can watch and
see because I don't--you know, where it ought to go, obviously
I favor Virginia for a lot of different reasons, but I think it
has to be done in a way that there is so much integrity to it,
so if we can get the five names that we can put in the record,
would be helpful.
A central records complex, I understand your staff is
meeting with GSA and the CRC and that the prospectus from the
site is up for approval by the authorizers. Could you update us
on the plans of the central records center out in the
Winchester area?
Mr. Comey. It is probably not beyond saying it is on track.
Thanks to this committee and Congress, it has been funded. It
is vital.
Another thing that seems kind of boring to people when you
talk about records, vital to our work. But I can't say more
beyond that except I know it is on track.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Comey. I am sure we can get you the details.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, if you would. The Quantico, do you have any
comments you want to make about the Quantico facility there? Is
there anything--it is old.
Mr. Comey. No, we need a new one. It is one of the world's
most important institutions and it is 42 years old. It is the
1970s at its best, but we need a new college there. We are
refurbishing it.
Mr. Wolf. What can the Committee do?
Mr. Comey. Well, I have told my folks, we need at some
point to go back to Congress, and I know times are tight, but
this is the kind of restructure we have to invest in. As I
said, this is a national university, international. So we will
be coming back to you to talk about that. We are refurbishing a
little bit, but it is rearranging deck chairs on an old ship.
We need at some point to build a new ship there.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. If you can get something to us, I mean we
are going to be marking up here really soon. There may be some
language that we could carry that would push this thing, you
know, forward.
The espionage by China, I think, you know, I think Mr.
Culberson and others covered it, and I think it is important
that people realize, like I am seeing all these trips that
people are taking to China. I am seeing some of the business
community just like China. Every time you hear about this
thing, though, you got to understand some things, and this
committee has pretty tough language on China. If you are
Catholic, there are 25 Catholic bishops that are on house
arrest, being tracked and in prison. The Cardinal Kung
Foundation, that number was up at Christmas, took holy
communion from Bishop Su. He has never been seen again. This is
from the Chinese government.
The former president of China that everyone went ga-ga
about, he is the guy that put together the policy of the
crackdown in Tibet. I snuck into Tibet a number of years ago.
One-hundred-nineteen Tibetan monks and nuns last year set
themselves aflame because of this guy's policy, this guy that
business communities went over there and just went ga-ga-ga to
be with the guy.
The Chinese people are wonderful people. More Chinese come
through my office, I think, than maybe any other office up here
on Capitol Hill. The Chinese people, they want freedom, and so
don't forget the Uyghurs, the Uyghurs are having a heck of a
time in China. Rebiya Kadeer, who lives out in Northern
Virginia, I mean, the Chinese Public Security Police went out
to Northern Virginia--your people, to their credit, tracked it
down--followed her and were photographing her in Fairfax
County; the Chinese government.
Well, they stripped my computer. They took everything off
of my computers, the Chinese government.
You know, until there is some sort of retaliation whereby
they say, guys, from hereon in, you do this, this is what is
going to happen.
But there are evangelical pastors in jail. They plundered
Tibet. And I understand, and I am not going to ask you comment,
but their spying efforts make the KGB look like it was an
elementary class. I mean, they are doing things.
So when people think in terms of China, Catholic priests in
jail, Catholic bishops in jail, Protestant pastors in jail,
they are executing people and I can show you the film, and
shooting them and taking their corneas out and kidneys out and
selling them for $50,000, $60,000. So you have to have a clear
thought when you are thinking in terms of China, but we won't
get----
The Boston Marathon: for the record, what lessons have we
learned from those experiences that have changed the way the
FBI--and I appreciate Mr. Schiff bringing it up and his
partners--might prevent or respond to such an attack, if you
can do that for the record.
Also, the terrorist explosive device analytical center is
being established in Redstone. Their budget calls for a $15
million increase, which will, if it is appropriate, become part
of the base. Are you on schedule for that facility?
Mr. Comey. Yes. To be open next year. And the request is
the operation and maintenance of the facility because it will
be up and running. A very, very important thing.
Mr. Wolf. The lab, I think Mr. Schiff's taken the lead on
the DNA samples issue discussed by Mr. Honda, so we will just
submit that question. It is a little bit different for the
record. We will submit the unmanned aircraft question, the
drones, one on the terrorist screening center, the OIG report,
and then the one on mutual legal assistance treaty.
And then the last one on Benghazi, it has now been a year
and a half since the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate and
the CIA Annex in Benghazi. To date, not a single terrorist has
been apprehended or killed by the U.S.
In limited cases when foreign countries detain suspects,
the FBI was, I think, denied, according--you were not there--to
the people like Harzi and into Tunisia or Jamal and Egypt. Why
has it been so difficult for the U.S. to bring any of the
scores of terrorists involved to justice?
Mr. Comey. I think the answer is mostly because Libya is a
very difficult environment in which, both, to investigate and
to apprehend people responsible. We have devoted, as you know,
Mr. Chairman, a tremendous amount of work to this. We are still
devoting a tremendous amount of work to this. We have made
great progress, but laying hands on people outside the United
States, especially in a challenging environment like that, is
very difficult.
Mr. Wolf. The FBI did a great job. Remember Khanzi? Khanzi
killed people in my district and from the CIA. Your people went
out, eventually tracked them down. I think maybe Joyce was
involved in it.
Mr. Comey. Eventually is the key.
EGYPT
Mr. Wolf. To pick up a couple and bring them back and do--
and it has been, what, eighteen months now? What was the time?
I think eighteen months.
When I went to Egypt, I gave a letter to the Egyptian
government. There is a guy named Mohammed Jamal, J-A-M-A-L. Is
he still in Egyptian custody and has the FBI had access to him?
We have been told he has information with regard to the
attacks.
Mr. Comey. My understanding is he is still in custody in
Egypt and as of now I don't think we have gotten access to him.
We have requested it, and in general, we have good cooperation
from the Egyptians, but I think that is where that stands right
now.
Mr. Wolf. Well, could I ask you to please--I mean, we are
going to be voting on a billion-dollar-plus aid to the Egyptian
government. Now, I am not surprised that Morsi didn't give us
access to him, but the current government?
You have a legal attache there. I actually met with him and
it has been months since I was there. Could you tell us, could
you have the State Department or your legal attache ask the
current government and say the question came from the Committee
that it is going to be, I think Mr. Schiff is on the Foreign
Operations, and I am as well. I am going to be voting on
whether we should give aid to Egypt. I want the FBI to get in
there and talk to this guy, Jamal. You ought to be able to talk
to him. I understand he had information.
Now, are you aware of the problem that the Bureau had on
Harzi? The Tunisians picked him up. You had a team go out there
for 25 days. They sat. Tunisia wouldn't allow us to--and they
are a millennium challenge country. We give them millions
because they are so wonderful, they won't let the FBI talk to
him. Finally, I think through some efforts of different people,
they said, the FBI team came back three hours later and they
had let that guy loose. I saw him on television celebrating.
We should insist, and I would have a hard time frankly
voting for aid to Egypt, but can you ask the State Department,
Secretary Kerry--because we want to get to the bottom of what
took place and if this guy Jamal has information and if they
want aid from us, you know--if he could just talk to him. Could
you make that request that you can talk to him?
Mr. Comey. I will.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. And then, I think the secure work
environment, we will do that, too, and I think that is all.
Mr. Schiff or Mr. Culberson--you can go ahead.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Chairman, to follow up on that because I
hope that the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Ukrainians are paying
attention to this hearing. I want to reiterate complete support
for what the Chairman just mentioned and Mr. Schiff on the
Foreign Operations Committee.
When that aid package is put together, you all remember
when Chairman Wolf and the subcommittee very successfully
persuaded NASA to finally build a heavy lift rocket with a
manned capsule. They were ignoring the statutory language. The
authorization bill said that NASA had to build a heavy lift
rocket to go beyond low earth orbit. I really think we should
pursue, and I would certainly support your efforts with
Chairman Granger to make the second part of, set aside some--
because I think you did that, Mr. Chairman, to the NASA. You
said you don't get the second half of your money for commercial
until you comply with the statute.
I think you ought to think about putting contingencies on
the aid to Ukraine and the aid to Egypt until they give you
access.
Mr. Fattah. Will the gentlemen yield for a second?
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. Fattah. I don't want to delay the record. I agree with
you, not so much on this particular part of it. Egypt just
decided the other day, the new regime, to sentence to death 528
people who supported the previous president that got ran out.
I mean, so the whole situation there is----
Mr. Culberson. Exactly.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Is evolving in the wrong
direction.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Fattah. Right? Let alone whether or not we can get some
basic level of cooperation on the Benghazi incident. But I
think the director's point in response to the chairman is our
country is eventually going to get these people, just like we
got Bin Laden.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Fattah. There are thousands of people killed. It took a
period of time for justice to finally work.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Fattah. If we are a great nation, we want to be patient
and we are not going after innocent people. We are trying to
get the people who did this.
Mr. Culberson. Exactly.
Mr. Fattah. But in terms of Egypt, there's plenty of
reasons, especially at this day and age, to take 500 people and
sentence them to death because they were on the wrong side of a
political question about who should be president. This is not
something that we should be supporting.
Mr. Culberson. They got bigger problems than just
cooperating----
That is true and Mr. Fattah is exactly right. You quite
correctly, Mr. Fattah, put your finger on it earlier with
Ukraine. It is about the money. And if you could please tell
the chairman, Mr. Fattah and the subcommittee, for example, in
Tunisia who is not cooperating with you? What countries are
denying you access to these critical witnesses and individuals
that have been involved in whether it be Benghazi or elsewhere?
What is Ukraine blocking? How is Ukraine being uncooperative?
Because Mr. Fattah is exactly right. Mr. Wolf is exactly right,
and I hope Mr. Schiff will work with Chairman Granger to find
ways to make some of that foreign aid contingent on their
ability, on their cooperation. Will the FBI?
The human rights violations are appalling. You are exactly
right, Mr. Fattah. And if I could also follow up so you get, if
you could, that information to the subcommittee as quickly as
possible, who is not cooperating if you could.
Mr. Comey. I will. I need to think about both what I know
and what I can say and what form I can say it.
Mr. Culberson. I mean, do so privately, but I mean
communicate that to Mr. Fattah and the Chairman because you are
exactly right. I am always astonished. Mike Rogers, who I think
the world of, from Michigan, told me that the first day--he is
an FBI agent, and you can confirm this story, it is one of my
favorites--that the first day at the FBI Academy, the first
words out of the first professor's mouth to the students, just
remember if the Defendant says it is not about the money, it is
about the money because it is always about the money because it
is only about the money. And as long as you remember it is
about the money, you will be a good FBI agent. Now get to
class. Is my memory correct?
Mr. Comey. I can't confirm because we haven't trained
anybody because of sequstration we are about to start. I will
find out June 3rd what the first words are.
Mr. Culberson. Mike said that is what they did.
Mr. Comey. That is exactly right.
Mr. Culberson. Well, let me tell you, we really want to
help you guys. We want to make sure we are getting access to
these individuals that Chairman Wolf mentioned. And I also
would like to, if I could, ask is there anything that Chairman
Wolf said in his characterization of the horrors that has been
the Chinese, Communist Chinese government, not the people, have
been inflicting on the human rights violations? Anything that
he said about their human rights violations, their address of
intentions against the United States in cyber warfare that you
have any disagreement with?
This characterization is accurate, isn't it?
Mr. Comey. Well, he said a lot of things, most of which I
am not expert enough to be able to confirm, although I have
read the same things. What I know about is cyber and especially
with regard to cyber, I stand by what I said earlier. There is
significant glare and a significant challenge for us.
Mr. Culberson. And to the extent that you consider cyber
attacks as a modern form of warfare, I mean it seems to me the
Chinese, Communist Chinese government is in a way at war with
the United States, the level of attacks, the level of theft,
the level of aggressive intent, essentially attacking us in the
cyber environment.
Mr. Comey. Well, I leave the characterization to others.
The facts are what we talked about earlier. They are very
aggressive and a significant presence in cyber attacks of all
kinds.
Mr. Culberson. Two other quick things, Mr. Chairman. You
have been very gracious with the time and I really appreciate
it. These terrible websites like Chairman Wolf mentioned, the
Jihadee websites to incite people, these horrible human-
trafficking websites, don't we have the ability to essentially
infect those sites. I mean, if you can't shut them down, why
not just infect them with malware so that anybody that touches
them, their computer is fried?
Mr. Comey. Something I really wouldn't want to talk about
in an open forum.
Mr. Culberson. I am just throwing it out there.
Mr. Comey. Yeah.
Mr. Culberson. And it would serve them right. I mean, you
literally ought to toast up anybody's computer that would even
touch one of those websites.
And then finally, and I hope you have the ability and
please don't comment one way or the other.
Mr. Comey. I am not.
Mr. Culberson. They deserve whatever they get and their
computers ought to burn as they should.
Finally, Rick Crawford, a congressman from Arkansas,
wonderful good man who served in Iraq and the United States
Army as a demolitions expert, talked to us on the floor last
year about the work he did disarming bombs. He told us that he
was aware that there were other bombs in Boston, other backpack
bombs that did not go off because everybody flipped on their
cell phones and started making phone calls and the effect of
all those cell phones going off had the effect of jamming the
other backpacks. Is that correct?
Mr. Comey. No. You might imagine the resources we have
devoted to that investigation and there is no evidence of that.
Mr. Culberson. No evidence of other bombs?
Mr. Comey. No.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. He also mentioned to us that the FBI
has a number of jammers that could jam or remotely detonate
bombs that were intended to be detonated with cell phones and
that local law enforcement is having difficulty in getting
access to those. It may not be something you are familiar with,
but I want to bring it to your attention and I would ask if you
could, please, follow up with Mr. Crawford and the subcommittee
to do whatever you can to help the local law enforcement where
it is needed. Like in Boston, for example, that they have
jammers available, that the FBI, if we are aware of a threat,
they knew it was coming and the local law enforcement or the
FBI could simply have had jammers out there that might have
prevented those two backpacks from going off. It is worth
pursuing. And I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Director, thank you very much for your
testimony, and I want to again thank the men and women of the
FBI and thank you for your service and also, if you would, give
my best to Director Mueller, but with that, the hearing is
adjourned.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
We are going to bring the second panel in now.
I would like to welcome the distinguished bipartisan panel
that is conducting a review of the FBI's progress in addressing
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They are former
Attorney General Edwin Meese, III, who was the Chief of Staff
in the Reagan Administration and also the Attorney General;
also former Congressman and Ambassador and 9/11 Commissioner,
Congressman Roemer; and also Professor Bruce Hoffman, Director
of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and
a widely recognized expert on terrorism.
The legislation to create this commission was first
proposed in 2011 at the time of the ten-year anniversary of the
9/11 attacks and was signed into law last year as part of the
fiscal year 2013. It will conduct an independent external
review of the FBI's implementation of the recommendation from
the 9/11 Commission, as well as consider how the Bureau is
addressing the evolving threat of terrorism today.
I believe this review is necessary and timely, especially
as we mark a decade since the release of the 9/11 Commission
recommendations this year. It is important that we continue to
keep our eye on the evolving terrorist threat, especially given
trends in domestic radicalization in the growth of Al Qaeda's
affiliates in the Middle East and in North Africa.
I believe this commission will also be a great asset as
Director Comey acknowledged, as he starts his term as the FBI
Director. The men and women of the FBI have done an outstanding
job preventing terrorist attacks over the last 13 years and the
Committee and the American people are grateful to them, and I
believe this review will ensure we are able to focus resources
to continue this important work.
I recognize that the panel is just beginning its efforts,
so I expect this session to be one of laying out a roadmap
rather than a presentation of findings. We look forward to
hearing your plans.
After you have given your statement, we will take members
first before, so I would like to recognize Mr. Fattah for any
comments.
Mr. Fattah. I want to thank the chairman for holding this
hearing because I think it is appropriate for us to take a
minute and pause to hear from you about where we are in this
process. Oftentimes we are just focused on the numbers, but I
think the commission did an extraordinary public service that
the least we can do is to follow up and to make sure that the
recommendations are appropriately being acted on. So welcome,
and we look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. You may proceed as you see
appropriate.
Mr. Meese. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, we have a joint statement, the formal
statement which has been provided, I believe, to the committee.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meese. Thank you. Secondly, we each have a brief
summary of that statement which if agreeable with the
committee, we will give and then be open to your questions.
Mr. Wolf. That is fine.
Mr. Meese. Well, we appreciate this opportunity to appear
here with my fellow commissioners, Ambassador Tim Roemer and
Professor Bruce Hoffman, to inform you of our progress and our
plans to carry out the Commission's work as you have given it
to us and to speak about, specifically, the response to the 9/
11 Commission, what they have done, and then other things
related to that.
I think we, as you have mentioned earlier, have a very high
regard for the FBI. In my own case I have worked with them on a
number of things over a period of fifty years. But like any law
enforcement or intelligence agency, the FBI, while it labors
every day to counter or mitigate a complicated array of
threats, this is a dangerous world.
At the same time, as Director Comey mentioned this morning,
it is in fact a work in progress and a great deal is happening
in terms of the transformation from an investigative into an
intelligence led agency and that is one of the principle areas
in which we also will be conducting our work.
As you know, this subcommittee was instrumental in
establishing this commission on the review of the FBI in
relation to counter terrorism with four specific missions as
stated. The objectives are, first, an assessment of the
progress made and the challenges that Mr. Fattah mentioned, in
implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that
are related to the FBI; secondly, an analysis of the FBI's
response to the trends of domestic terror attacks since the
11th of September, 2001; third, an assessment of any evidence
now known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11
Commission related to any factors that contributed in any
manner to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
And finally, any additional recommendations with regard to
the FBI intelligence sharing and counter-terrorism policy that
have come to light, either since that time or may come to light
in the course of our investigations.
The congressional guidance constitutes, we believe, a broad
mandate to provide a balanced assessment of the FBI's progress
in its transformation in implementing the 9/11 Commission
recommendations. But unlike the 9/11 Commission's mandate which
was much broader, ours is not a charge to investigate
catastrophic terrorist attacks or major intelligence failures.
Our work will involve an intensive examination of the Bureau's
structure, organization, programs and policies related to
counter-terrorism, intelligence and cyber security since 9/11.
We will render findings that commend what is working and
point out where improvement is indicated. We will make every
effort to recommend practical steps to improve performance. We
are in the process of building a competent staff that while
relatively few in number, will be particularly rich in counter-
terrorism and intelligence experience, including people who
have worked with the 9/11 Commission. And we are developing a
baseline of findings and recommendations from a number of
multiple investigation studies, assessments and reports on the
FBI's progress as some of them having been referred to earlier
this morning, like the Webster Commission and other groups like
that, so we don't want to reinvent the wheel. We want to build
on what has already been done.
We will assess the performance of the new programs since 9/
11 including those related to home grown violent terrorism,
online radicalization, and the need to counter violent
extremism.
We will also be going to FBI training facilities to visit
selective joint terrorism task forces around the country of
various sizes because there is considerable difference in terms
of the programs and the availability of resources at the large,
middle and small counter-terrorism locations.
We specifically will be working through an intensive study
on several terrorism cases, again some of which were referred
to earlier in your questions today, as giving us an opportunity
to look at where the FBI was, what happened in those cases,
what was successful, what was not successful and where
improvement is needed.
We would also take a particular look at how closely and
effectively the FBI is collaborating with other intelligence
agencies and with strategic partners at the state and local
levels and abroad. We will study the procedures in place to
facilitate information sharing, both within the United States
and with international resources, and we feel this topic of
information sharing will be a consistent theme as we process
these case studies that I mentioned.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that is my summary. I will turn to
my colleagues. Ambassador Roemer.
Mr. Roemer. I think Bruce is going to go.
Mr. Meese. Oh, okay. Good.
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member
Fattah, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Schiff, for the opportunity to
appear before you this morning with my fellow commissioners,
Ambassador Tim Roemer and former Attorney General, Ed Meese.
It is a pleasure to serve with them and an honor to work
with the FBI on the important tasks that this subcommittee has
laid out for our commission.
As you know, I have dedicated my academic career, which now
spans nearly forty years, to the study of terrorism and more
recently to the dynamics of radicalization, foreign and
domestic, that can lead to violent extremism. This is a high
priority national security issue that I know is of interest to
you as it is to the FBI. The FBI indeed is working hard today
on programs related to home grown violent extremism, online
radicalization and countering violent extremism.
Let me share with you briefly some observations from my own
academic study of radicalization. The variety of terrorists who
have surfaced over the years evidences that there is no one
path to radicalization. The reason why someone picks up a gun
or blows themselves up are ineluctably personal, born variously
of grievance and frustration, religious piety for the desire
for systemic socio-economic change, irridentist conviction or
commitment to revolution.
And yet, though there is no universal terrorist
personality, nor has a single broadly applicable profile ever
been produced, there are things that we do know. Terrorists are
generally motivated by a profound sense of, albeit misguided
altruism, deep feelings of self defense, and if they are
religiously observant or devout an abiding even unswerving
commitment to their faith and the conviction that their
violence is not only theologically justified but divinely
commanded.
Theological arguments in this context are invoked both by
the organizations responsible for the attacks and by the
communities from which these terrorists are recruited. In the
case of Muslims follow the Koran promotes both suicide and the
infliction of wanton violence, pronouncements have been made by
radical Muslim clerics and in some instances have been
promulgated as fatwas, religious edicts.
Affirming the legitimacy of violence and defense of
defenseless peoples and to resist the invasion of Muslim lands,
radical Islamist terrorist movements have thus created a
recruitment and support mechanism of compelling theological
incentives that sustain their violence campaigns and seeks
vengeance, despite America's withdraw from Iraq and impending
departure from Afghanistan.
Individuals will always be attracted to violence in
different ways. Just look at the people who have gravitated
towards terrorism in the United States in recent years. We have
seen terrorists from South Asia and North as well as East
African decent, as well as those hailing from the Middle East
and the Carribean.
We have seen lifelong devout Muslims as well as recent
converts, including one Philadelphia suburban housewife who
touted her petite stature and blonde hair and blue eyes as
being so atypical of the stereotypical terrorist so as to defy
any efforts of profiling.
Radicalized over the internet, she sought to use her self-
described ability to avoid detection to assassinate a Swedish
artist who drew an offensive cartoon of the prophet Mohammed.
These radicalized persons come from every walk of life, from
marginalized people working in menial jobs, some with long
criminal records or histories of juvenile delinquency, from
persons from solidly middle and upper middle class backgrounds
with university and perhaps even graduate degrees and prior
passions for cars, sports, rock music and other completely
secular and material interests.
Relationships formed at work, at school, on sports teams
and other recreational and religious activities as well as over
the internet can prey upon the already susceptible. In some
instances, first generation sons and daughters of immigrants
embrace an interpretation of their religion and heritage that
is more political, more extreme and more austere and,
therefore, demands greater personal sacrifices than that
practiced by their parents.
Indeed, the common element in the radicalization process
reflects these individuals' deep commitment to their faith,
often newly rediscovered, their admiration of terrorist
movements or leading terrorist figures who they see as having
struck a cathartic blow for their creed's enemies wherever they
are and whomever they might be, hatred of their adopted homes,
especially if in the United States and the West, and a
profoundly shared sense of alienation from their host
countries.
At the start of the war on terrorism a dozen years ago, the
enemy was clear and plainly in sight. It was a large terrorist
organization situated mostly in one geographic location and it
was led by an identifiable leader. Today, when the borders
between domestic and international terrorism have blurred, when
our adversaries are not only identifiable organizations but
enigmatic individuals, a complete rethinking of our counter-
terrorism policies and architecture is needed.
We built an effective defense against the previous threat.
Our challenge today is to develop new defenses against this new
more amorphous, diffuse and individualized threat, while at the
same time to continue to destroy and offend Al Qaeda, its
affiliates and associates and most especially the etiology that
sustains them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I
will be happy to take any questions or comments you might have
on radicalization or on subjects related to terrorism and the
commission's mandate following Ambassador Roemer's
presentation.
Mr. Roemer. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
begin by saluting and thanking my colleagues here. You can see
why it is an honor to meet with and work with General Meese and
Dr. Hoffman. I am learning from them every day and we have got
great chemistry and I think, hopefully, through the course of
this commission, we will produce a product you are proud of.
I am delighted to be back up in Congress, Mr. Chairman,
seeing Ranking Member Fattah, and Mr. Culberson and Mr. Schiff,
all friends of mine from before. It is great to see you doing
your oversight work up here and hopefully we will be the
recipient of friendly questions today, and we look forward to
issuing a report when we are finished with this.
I would want to start, Mr. Chairman, by calling Mr. Schiff
and saluting you. I know that you have made a decision to
retire from politics, something I voluntarily did a few years
ago. You have made a significant difference, not just in
Fairfax County and the United States, but around the globe, in
carving out hard work and effective efforts on trafficking
issues, religious freedom and human rights and I think your
constituents in the country are proud of those efforts, so we
all thank you for that hard work.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that my formal statement be
entered into the record and I would just make some informal
statements and comments, first of all, about my colleague's
comments and then maybe a comment or two about Mr. Comey's very
good presentation and then talk for a minute or two about what
makes a commission successful.
As you have seen from the front page of the New York Times
this morning our intelligence community is talking about their
concern about the extremists carving out new territory and
Syria and potentially learning skills and trade craft and
training there and coming back to the United States. This is
oxygen for Al Qaeda. Safe havens and possession of and access
to territory and safe havens make them more effective and
dangerous and deadly in the future and as Mr. Comey said, I
think this is an area where this commission can work with him
as the new director of the FBI, and look at what this threat
might be for the world and for the United States and make
recommendations accordingly.
Second, in our testimony, Mr. Chairman, as you read through
it carefully, we talk about three revolutions that have taken
place over a series of the last several decades, one of them a
technological revolution. Cell phones, Mr. Culberson, are
opening up liberty and freedom and economic opportunity and
elevating many people out of, you know, out of poverty and
developing countries. We also see what they are doing to
potentially radicalize on the internet through chat rooms and
Inspire magazines, what they can do to shorten the fuse of
radicalization for would-be terrorists.
That is a challenge for the FBI. Is the FBI hiring the
right people? Are they fast and innovative enough to keep pace
and counter this threat around the world, are they going to be
able to compete with this flat dynamic and decentralized
network of Al Qaeda? That is something that I think our
commission will be looking at and making recommendations on.
Mr. Chairman, you have, in your career you have probably
created many commissions. I have served on four commissions
since I have left Congress. I highly recommend them for you
that do leave Congress at some point. I have served on the 9/11
Commission. I have served on a commission on radicalization. I
have served on a commission on the national parks and now the
FBI. These commissions are created for many, many different
reasons.
As Mr. Fattah knows, there are commissions created for
civil rights, higher education, assassinations, tragedies like
the 9/11 attacks, some created by the executive branch, some by
Congress, some much more effective than others in terms of
their outcome and in getting the recommendations through
Congress.
A few things that probably made the 9/11 Commission
particularly effective, one was the unity of purpose and unity
of effort that we worked on together. We saw 2,977 human beings
killed in a matter of hours and that motivation, that attack by
Al Qaeda, that devastation and death really motivated the ten
members of the Commission every day to work toward bipartisan
solutions.
Secondly, the American people were intimately involved in
the public hearings in tasking us and encouraging us to get to
the bottom of things, to try to find out factually what went
wrong, not to point fingers or blame games and politics, but to
try to come up with sophisticated recommendations to reorganize
our government and reform things so that we wouldn't make the
same mistakes again, but we would better share intelligence
across agencies, that we would fund new technology efforts like
cyber security.
Thirdly, I can't give enough credit to the 9/11 families
who participated in the birth of the 9/11 Commission and how it
got through Congress. It was a bill that John McCain and I
worked on in the Senate and the House. We never would have
gotten it through Congress if it hadn't been for the tenacity
and the loyalty and the hard work and the love of those 9/11
families for their lost one's children, family members. They
worked tirelessly to try to make sure that something was done
constructively about their losses.
Another reason that the 9/11 Commission and other
commissions succeed is about the clarity of the mission, the
statutory mandate, so to speak. I think this committee, this
staff has given us a very clear mandate. It is broad. It is
aggressive, but I think it is clear to us what we need to do
over the next several months and hopefully with your help and
the FBI's cooperation, we are going to be able to get to the
bottom of the facts and give you and the American people a good
report.
Another important issue is leadership, leadership both on
the Commission. We had leadership from Tom Cain, a Republican,
and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, where they wouldn't do a press
conference apart from one another. There was no Democrat or
Republican pride in authorship. They appeared together every
time they did any kind of press so that they would be on
message together, and that was a message to the five Democrats
and five Republicans that politics should be put aside and
facts and recommendations and success should be our ultimate
mission and goal.
Another area of huge cooperation for getting to your end
mission is the cooperation of the agencies involved. The 9/11
Commission ultimately we had pretty good cooperation across the
agencies to get access to documents and to get their support
for briefings and follow up, and that helped us within
timelines to succeed at the end of the day.
And finally, we had a talented staff, an expert in a host
of different areas that helped us on the 9/11 Commission. John
Gannon we have hired as our executive director who has thirty
years of experience in the intel community. We are in the
process of trying to hire more staff and that will be a key
issue, I think, in terms of our long-term success.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I remember the lesson of my
fifth grade Catholic school teacher. She taught us that we have
two ears and one mouth. We should use the two ears more than we
use the one mouth, just numerically there is a lot more for us
to learn in class than to speak in class. And as Ed and Bruce
and I came up here, we want to get your collective wisdom as to
what your concerns are about the FBI, where you would like us
to go within the mandate specifically, and we are honored and
privileged to work with you in this effort to make America
safer.
So with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman, and look forward to your questions.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the
testimony. And I supported the 9/11 Commission. There were a
number of people from my district who died in the attack on the
Pentagon, and I think the fact that the three of you are,
again, bipartisan, is really important. And so, one, the
subcommittee will do whatever you ask us to, and I was
appreciative of Director Comey, both yesterday in a
conversation I had with him and again today on the record. I
think he is really open and enthusiastic about doing this and I
think that is very important.
I don't have a lot of questions because I know you are in a
early stage. Can you just tell us, I mean, where is the staff
or how far along are you in getting kind of set up?
Mr. Meese. Of course, the most important part initially was
getting John Gannon to be our executive director and that has
been a major step. He is working very hard with the FBI. There
are a number of bureaucratic and you might say procedural steps
in hiring federal employees. And so we have had some, let us
say, inhibition perhaps in getting these staff members rapidly
on board and that is one thing we are working on very quickly
here to get that accomplished.
We trust that is being remedied over at the present time,
but that is the only, how would I say, inhibition that we have
had so far. But other than that, we have had some excellent
briefings already from FBI staff. We have talked to people on
the outside and so, I think we are moving along, provided we
can get over that particular hurdle.
Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, if I could just support my
colleague and his answer. I think any time you work with a big
government organization, that cooperation is a work in
progress. We hope to accelerate it. We hope to gain more
flexibility in terms of our hiring procedures. We hope
government across the board can be more flexible in this in the
future, especially in the intel community when you're fighting
a foe like Al Qaeda that can be flat and dynamic and
entrepreneurial. We need to be quick in terms of how we are
proactive in those efforts, so we are hopeful.
Mr. Wolf. The 9/11 Commission distinguished the
recommendation between those that could be implemented to
administrative action and those requiring statutory steps to
implement. Will you be looking at both sets of efforts?
Mr. Meese. Yes, we certainly will and Professor Hoffman
here is an expert and already has studied this as a part of his
work at Georgetown and so we have a pretty good fix on what has
happened already in some of the work and we will be looking at
both the administrative and the things that might require
legislation.
Mr. Wolf. Roughly, do you have any idea of how many
recommendations were made? And it could be the fault of the
Congress, too, but how many recommendations were made by 9/11
in a percentage basis that were implemented, and how many
recommendations were made that were never implemented?
Mr. Meese. Ambassador Roemer probably is the best source as
to how many were made.
Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, we take great pride in working
with Congress and the White House on precisely the answer to
your question. I believe about 41 recommendations were made by
the 9/11 Commission. About 39 of those recommendations were
enacted into law. As John Adams said, ``It's not just acting on
legislation, it's executing and implementing them once they are
passed.'' So there have been varying degrees of success on that
implementation and execution, both by Congress and by the
agencies.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn't
bring it up in my old body of Congress, so one of the remaining
recommendations has to do with Congress. It was the
reorganization of the jurisdiction for Homeland Security, which
is varied and spread out to about 100 different committees and
subcommittees, and we recommend that be narrowed. That still
has not been acted on and we hope that at some point that can
be.
Mr. Meese. Bruce, you might want to add from your
standpoint of studying these things for ten years.
Mr. Hoffman. Nothing from----
Mr. Wolf. Now, budget and travel. $1.5 million was
appropriated by in the FBI's salaries and expenses for `13 and
`14 to cover the costs. Could you provide the Committee with
some estimates of your various costs to include staffing,
travel, and facility costs associated--I mean, is this enough,
because I want to--if we are going to be marking up relatively
soon, we want to know if there's additional things that now
that you are working on it that maybe we didn't think of that
we should be doing.
So, you do not have to have an answer here but if there is
more, tell us within the next couple of weeks so we can make
sure that we address them.
Mr. Meese. We will do that.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The thing that
interests me is the big decision. The big decision after 9/11
was there was this tension about whether--I kind of think about
it like what we are doing with NASA. We have got this
commercialization because you have got some people who want to
defend all of NASA and you have got others like myself who
believe in the commercial competition of having different
companies involved in space exploration.
In the decision about whether or not we were going to
have--given 9/11 the old FBI. You know, chasing the bank
robber, or whether the FBI was going to have to transform
itself into being the premier agency focused on preventing
terrorist attacks, which was not about catching bad guys after
they did things, but really about preventing these types of
very severe attacks on Americans, which would change the entire
mind set of how the FBI had been constructed as an institution.
As you heard from the Director, we still have some of this
tension between very important issues. Human trafficking, white
collar crime, and so forth and so on. But at the front of the
reader board for the agency in terms of what it is supposed to
be doing is terrorism, right? And so you have got this--this
big decision is still kind of, in my mind, still kind of
hanging out there about whether or not you can serve as many
masters or have as many priorities and be effective.
So, on the airplane side we said, we're going to create a
whole new agency--the TSA. Their only job is to make sure
people don't get on planes and have an ability to take them
over. No matter whatever the inconvenience to people--they have
got to take their shoes off, their belts. They cannot take a
bottle of water, they got--whatever the process is, that is
that.
But in this bigger space, the question of whether or not
the first decision about whether or not the agency itself--the
institution of the FBI--needed to be full-throttle with one
priority, or whether this multi-focus but terrorism at the
front will work for the country is something I would love to
hear you comment on.
Mr. Meese. Well, I think maybe each of us might give our
own views in what I would call summary fashion because, again,
we are starting off. Bruce, why don't you start?
Mr. Hoffman. Well, the most important criteria I think is,
has the FBI kept a safe United States in the dozen plus years
since 9/11--certainly against a major terrorist attack, and I
think the proof is in the pudding. I do not think in the, you
know, the dark days following the September 11, 2001 attacks
that anyone would imagine that we would go this long without a
major terrorist attack.
Mr. Fattah. Well, you can take that logic and say that
prior to 9/11, it had done the same, right?
Mr. Hoffman. Well----
Mr. Fattah. My real question is just about whether or not--
and I understand there is no way to know which is the right way
to go, but just this question about the agency itself that you
are going to be looking at and whether or not multiple
priorities that span a range of items, or just this principle
issue whether that first decision was something that you should
look at again.
Mr. Hoffman. Well, no, I understand and you raise very good
points. I mean, my response was only to say that I think that
the FBI has changed enormously but it has adopted a much more
intelligence-driven approach, and that I think the problem is
that the types of threats that we face are constantly changing
and evolving.
So an FBI that is very good at preventing a very big
terrorist attack from a 9/11 stature, or for the terrorist
organization, we can see how the threat now is devolved to a
lone individual like Nidal Hasan--successful incident that
unfortunately was not prevented, or the Boston Marathon
bombing. You have got, you know, two idiot teenagers to put a--
frankly--who were on their radar, at least the older brother
was on their radar but then for some reason fell from their
radar.
And I think that is, you know, one of the things we want to
look at is both study the successes and the lessons learned
from the successes, but study the work in progress or some of
the problems that have occurred and identify them and help the
FBI to remedy them.
I think that I was involved in this debate, as well, a
decade ago, is whether we needed an American MI5 security
service. I think we went in the right direction by preserving
the FBI's structure and by taking at his word and I think
Director Mueller did do a lot to transform the agency. I think
it is an incomplete transformation as it has to be, because as
I said a moment ago, the threat is constantly changing and
evolving. And I think one of the challenges is to make sure, as
I think we heard from Director Comey that the FBI is well
positioned to respond to those trends, to take advantage of new
technologies and new approaches to stay ahead of the bad guys.
But I think one of the FBI's strengths has always been its
investigative powers. There are now, I think their intelligence
capabilities are being built up. Hopefully that, eventually,
will be at the same level.
Mr. Roemer. This is the great big question that you ask,
and we had weeks, if not months of debate on this on the 9/11
Commission. We had three choices--do you recommend that the FBI
can fiddle around the edges and fix itself from the errors or
mistakes or challenges pre-9/11 and post-9/11? That was once
choice. Secondly, would we go outside the box and recommend the
creation of an MI5 which would remove that capacity directly
out of the FBI and put it someplace else? Thirdly, would we
make a recommendation that was somewhere in the middle and
recommend it to the FBI that they create a National Security
Bureau, with a path for analysts and Intel-driven expectations
within the Bureau.
We decided to go on the third option, and Mr. Fattah, to
your very good question, it is a work in progress. It is--the
FBI has cultural barriers, bureaucratic barriers, rural
barriers that sometimes make this a difficult transition for
them.
At the same time I think all of us have to get to the
second part of your question, and that is, as they are making
this transformation to an Intel-driven National Security Agency
to protect the United States and its people against terrorism,
they have to be able to do other things. They must be able to
go after the counter-intelligence, cyber threats. They must be
able to go after people who violate civil rights and civil
liberties. That history for the United States of America is
very important. And that mission is key. White collar crime--
they have to be able to help protect our cities.
And so some of this is mutually beneficial, and some of it
is going to be a big challenge for the FBI to get to.
Mr. Meese. I think--I agree it is an excellent question and
one which we are considering as a Commission. The decision has
been made, and quite frankly, I personally agree with it. I
agreed to it at the time. But how that is implemented is going
to be one of our major concerns and major areas of inquiry.
Let me say, though, I think we recognize in terms of this
that the FBI has the resources, they have the field operation
structure, they have the long history of excellent
investigation, the kinds of resources you really need for
something like this. Also, they have an ongoing relationship
with State and local law enforcement, which is a valuable asset
for them that no other agency could really approach.
And this is already--these joint terrorists, the task
forces have shown that this provides the best way to bring
together through the FBI the information that is so valuable
from a lot of sources within the United States. But they also
have the connections overseas. The LGATS are better than any
other agency in the government working with the police forces
of the various states--nations around the country.
There is another thing about the FBI and that is they have
long existed and carried on their activities, particularly in
the last couple of decades with an appreciation and an
allegiance to the Constitutional rights of people. And this
also, as you pursue these kinds of investigations, is an
important aspect.
And so, it is basically their ability to transform the
organization into an intelligence lead investigative agency,
which we will be looking at very closely.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. And I think a lot of credit goes to
Director Mueller, too. Go ahead.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely. Director Mueller was terrific in
this, and I just want to thank each one of you for serving in
this vitally important Commission. Thank you, Chairman Wolf,
for putting this in the bill, and General Meese, what a
privilege to have you with us and your time as Attorney General
in the decades you have seen the FBI evolve.
I wanted to ask you to take a minute and each one of you
talk a little bit about that critical, critical, critical
change in the fundamental culture of the FBI from a law
enforcement agency protecting the Constitutional rights of
those people that they are investigating, to an intelligence
aspect, a change in culture that you just mentioned, General
Meese. I just wanted to explore that a little more.
Talk to us to about how from what you have seen so far in
your initial inquiries, has the FBI has been able to adapt--
integrate that intelligence capturing capability with their
traditional mission of strictly as a law enforcement entity
looking to preserve evidence that would succeed in a
prosecution in court. They are different missions, and how do
you see them overlapping so far?
Mr. Meese. Well, I think each of us will present our own
views on it. In my own case I think they have done a very
good--they have made a very good start, let's say, in a
transformation of, as you point out, a very different culture
from getting evidence that will be acceptable in court to
having investigations and having an investigative sense of
going beyond what the evidence in court is, and to what the
significance is of what they are learning, and to have the
imagination and the broader picture which is necessary for
intelligence work, and I think they have made a start of this.
One evidence of that is the fact that they have already
started, and I say that advisedly in raising the importance of
analysts who are not FBI agents. And there is still a long ways
to go, I think, in changing the culture where agents did the
hard work and support people did a lesser magnitude of work. We
realize that intelligence analysts, in many ways, are as
important as agents in getting the big picture of intelligence.
But the fact is that structurally they are changing the
role of intelligence analysts. They are certainly changing the
number. There is a much higher percentage of the force than
ever before. So I think that that is something in which
certainly Director Comey is very interested in following
personally, and the way in which he has interacted with the
structural changes, organizational changes in the FBI, the
creation of the National Security Bureau at the highest level,
the attention given to the Counter-Terrorism Division, to the
Directorate of Intelligence, I think these are all signs that
there is a commitment at the level of the Director and below
that.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meese. But any change in culture always is going to
take time.
Mr. Culberson. Always difficult----
Mr. Hoffman. Well, you know, we are still at very early
days. We have only started briefing in the past few weeks from
the FBI. But I have to say personally I have been extremely
impressed by the intelligence analysts who have participated in
those briefings, who really I think are outstanding
individuals, some of the best in the entire intelligence
community. Now, whether there are issues such as you have
described, sir, about a culturalization and integration that we
are not going to find in our investigations, I cannot say. But
thus far, some of the people there have been extraordinarily
impressive.
To go to your question, too, about sort of the FBI is a,
you know, an intelligence versus a security service, you know,
one of the problems in the United Kingdom with MI5 is that not
all the surveillance they do is necessarily admissible in
court. This is very different for the FBI. I mean, their
investigations are done so rigorously it leads to prosecution,
which is a big advantage.
Mr. Culberson. Right. That is what I was driving at,
exactly what I was driving at.
Mr. Hoffman. The other thing, I think, in the United
Kingdom is, first there is only 52, I think, or 50 plus
constabularies, whereas there is 18,000 jurisdictions here. So
it is a little apples and oranges.
But I think the real key is many of those constabularies
have Special Branch, which is to say like an Intelligence
Division. That's why the challenges in the United States and
the NYPD, of course, as we heard earlier in Director Comey's
discussion, has an excellent Intelligence Unit. Los Angeles,
for instance, certainly has an excellent Intelligence Unit, but
not every police department in this country has an Intelligence
Unit, and that is often who MI5 works very closely with, the
Special Branch.
So you can see why the transition to have gone purely to an
Intelligence Agency probably would not have even really suited
the United States, even if it was desirable. And in that
respect I think where we are really looking very hard is at the
integration of the intelligence analysts--the people who are
not special agents--what their place in the FBI is. And
Director Comey has certainly made a very firm commitment to
ensuring that they have an active role.
Mr. Culberson. It is a brand new mission.
Mr. Hoffman. This is what we are looking at.
Mr. Roemer. I would say, Congressman, to your point a few
follow-ups. One, now that the FBI has been asked to create this
National Security Bureau and we have already been briefed. We
probably had a half-dozen to a dozen different briefings by
very, very talented and exceptional people. Are they the
exception to the rule, or is this National Security Bureau
being pushed down from Mr. Mueller and Mr. Comey, and there are
career paths for people, successful career paths on the
analytical side. That will be something that we are going to be
looking at very carefully.
Secondly, one of the metrics that we will probably being,
you know, analyzing and evaluating is we often hear from the
FBI Special Agents. They will look at clues and they will look
at cases and try to determine is there a prosecution in this
case, can we put somebody in jail as a result of this case. The
analysts are asking an entirely different question. The
analysts should be asking questions, is this to Mr. Chairman's
point? Is this person in the process of radicalizing? Are they
radicalizing others? Are they trying to radicalize through the
Internet and how do we follow them? What intelligence do we
gather for a broader strategic strategy to understand what is
going on and gather against even more people to understand the
threat abroad or in the United States? So, I think that is
going to be very important.
Thirdly, you mentioned a couple of cases this morning, and
I think Ed and Bruce and I will be looking at these cases. The
Zazi case in New York on the subway bombing, the Fort Hood case
with Hasan. How did the JTTFs that generally work well together
and share information--did they work well in all these cases?
Preliminarily what we see that they may have worked well
together in the Zazi case but not worked as closely together
and shared information in the Fort Hood case. Why is that? How
do we try to ensure better consistent efforts between the
JTTFs?
So, these are some of the things that we will be looking at
and we will probably be looking at these on some key case-by-
case methodologies.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will follow-up if
I could afterwards, when you finish particularly with General
Meese to talk about the privacy rights of individual Americans,
and after you finish with yours, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I just have a few last--are you going to
meet with Director Mueller and Associate Director Joyce?
Mr. Meese. We will, yes.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I think that is a good idea. One of the key
elements to look at the threat of domestic radicalization,
according to a Congressional Research Service, there have been
74 homegrown jihadist plots since 9/11, and 53 have occurred in
the last five years alone, including at Fort Hood, Times
Square, and the Boston Marathon.
How will the Commission be studying this threat and do you
have any initial thoughts or comments on this trend? That's the
first question, and then, well, why don't you just end and I'll
come to it in a second. Do you have any thoughts?
Mr. Roemer. Bruce, do you want to go first on that?
Mr. Hoffman. Sure.
Mr. Roemer. Your testimony for the thought.
Mr. Hoffman. Well, and this goes back to my point about how
the threats are rapidly evolving and changing. You know, I
think, you know, common sense dictates that that may just be
the tip of the iceberg, given what's going on in Syria and your
excellent work, I think, in focusing attention on Americans
going to Syria. I mean, this has become, I think, an enormous
issue. It is firstly a much bigger rowling cry than even
Afghanistan was in the 1980s. It is not geographically as
distant as Afghanistan is. It is much easier to get to Syria.
You actually can fly into NATO allies and just cross Europe to
get there.
Syria is in the heart of the Middle East and of the Arab
world. It is viewed by Al-Qaeda but other groups as sacred
Islamic territory. And what I think is so consequential is it
is in Syria we are seeing this transition from top-down driven
propaganda, websites, inspire magazines, being now matched by
social media. Twitter accounts, Facebook, What's Up, I mean,
some things that I have never heard of but that my kids use, is
very common. And this is being used to radicalize and recruit,
and I think it has an enormously worrisome potential because
now you have got, much like Amoro Alacki. He was so effective
because he could communicate with people in their own
vernacular.
He was born in the United States, then came back to the
United States. Went to University, lived here, could
communicate very effectively in English, using all the slang
and argo. And that's what we are seeing from, at least thus
far, British jihadis, who have gone off to Syria, who are
using--I mean, I follow them on Twitter. So, the FBI is
probably following me as well, but on Twitter you see on a
daily basis guys with literally thousands of followers. There
is one jihadi who has 24,000 followers but it is typical to
have anywhere between one and 4,000 followers. They are posting
photographs of morning physical training. They post photographs
of one another eating together, of praying together, and they
are directing messages to others in the Western world, saying,
``Come on. You know, it is easy. Here is how we got here. This
what you can find. Here is what our lives are like. You can see
they are good. We are making the sacrifice. You are staying
behind and not participating.''
And on an individual level we are going to see, I think, an
explosion in this radicalization and recruitment, and that is
exactly one of the things we are looking at and working with
the FBI, is that we have had briefings from the FBI, for
instance, on Internet radicalizations and engaging them in
discussions. Well, what about the next thing over the horizon,
which is the social media, which they are gearing up to respond
to and we hope to be to assist in that.
Mr. Roemer. This is an excellent question, as well. You
know, Bruce, I think, covered in his testimony how interesting
people like Alacki are. Here is somebody that was somehow
meeting with some of the terrorists back in 9/11. We are not
still sure exactly what role he played and whether he was a co-
conspirator or whether he was just meeting on the margins with
Hazni and Nedhar. He then ends up getting involved in jihadi
practices and going to teach that over in the United Kingdom.
He comes back to that--I believe he goes back over to Yemen
then and starts radicalizing people on the Internet and in chat
rooms. Four out of five successful post-9/11 attacks taken on
by lone wolves are inspired by Alacki. He dies by a drone
attack and then still inspires attacks from the grave.
The interesting question is not only understanding how he
is able to radicalize people, but what is the FBI doing to
understand that threat. Who are they hiring? Are they getting
access to the best and the brightest to bring in people who can
anticipate where Al-Qaeda and terrorist groups go with these
kinds of technologies in the future?
As Mr. Comey said in his testimony a couple of hours ago,
you know, are they able to have the resources from Congress to
train people and educate people to this threat? Are they
bringing in people from MIT? I think, Mr. Chairman, you talked
about DARPA and MIT and getting the best minds together in the
United States to understand where these people are coming from.
I remember on the 9/11 Commission Tom Clancy had written a
novel before 9/11 about an airplane that was going to crash
into the United States Capitol. We need to make sure that our
folks at the CIA and the FBI are road teaming and are thinking
ten years ahead of the terrorists, are hiring the people that
help us think ahead of them, and have organizations that are
not bureaucratic and hierarchical but flat and entrepreneurial
and dynamic that can stay ahead of this.
Mr. Meese. My colleagues have said it very well. I just add
one thing. That is the fact that we have had 53 cases or
threats in the last five years indicates that the threat of
terrorism continues. There was a feeling, particularly when Bin
Laden was killed, that somehow terrorism was no longer as great
a threat. And as we have seen, it does continue to be a very
serious threat to us and the onset of homegrown radicalization,
if anything, has continued to grow in this country.
So, I think the main lesson we have to learn from that as a
Nation is that you cannot allow your guard to be let down, and
that you have to be very cognizant of what a real threat this
is and continues to be.
One of the things that has happened, of course, on an
international basis is the fact that Al-Qaeda, for example,
which was pretty centralized at one time, and as we know if you
have a centralized enemy it is a lot easier to fight than a
decentralized enemy. And today we have a decentralized enemy
internationally, as well as a decentralized terrorist threat
within our own country. So, if anything, the type of work the
FBI is doing is more important today, perhaps, or certainly as
important as it was before 9/11.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I am going to end and go to Mr. Culberson,
but I have a whole series of questions but I think you really
kind of covered--I was going to ask you about the Internet, the
radicalization. I am really glad that you are looking at this
and that you are there. You just triggered Al Shabab. All the
Bureau tells us--and there have been other American citizens
that have been killed in Somalia. They were all Somalians who
returned to Somalia, but when I asked some of the people, the
Bureau, on those who have gone to Syria--and there may be an
exception--almost none of them are Syrians who are going to
Syria.
They are all from other places, and I think the FBI is so
busy doing these things, I think to have the three of you kind
of reflecting on these and thinking, if there are any we mark
up relatively soon, but if on the interim just pick up the
phone and say, we think, preliminary at this time if you were
to do this, let us know, just the same way we were with
Director Comey. If he had something obviously we are not going
to break the budget if there is anybody here from a long day,
we are not going to be looking at--but if there is something we
can shift around or do because the guy at OMB is looking at it
from a green eye shade you are thinking if we can say we will
take some of here and put it there and do it.
So if you have any ideas between now and next month, call
us on the phone and tell us. I am going to just end by I am
very, very grateful that the three of you were willing to do
this bipartisan, I mean, frankly, I do not think you could have
three better people, you know, to kind of look at this from an
experienced point of view. So--and it is kind of interesting. I
probably shouldn't say this but the media did not even pick you
guys up for the longest period of time. It was like, you know,
and fresh eyes on the target to always come and take with fresh
eyes.
And lastly, I do not know if there is anybody here from the
FBI, but I appreciate the fact that Director Comey has been
very open, as Bob Mueller has always been really open to say,
``Hey, we want this done.'' And so I want to thank the Director
for sort of having this open attitude and thank the three of
you for your service.
And with that, I will just for the day and you can go, Mr.
Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. If I could, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I want to thank you all for the extraordinary service
that you already rendered to the country and that you are
willing to do through this Commission, and with your
permission, Mr. Chairman, because we have got just a little bit
of time and I do not want to go too long, but if I could.
I hope that you will keep in the forefront of your mind as
you go forward--and, Mr. Chairman, I hope this is agreeable
with you--remember Ben Franklin's admonition that those who
would trade a little freedom for a little safety, you are going
to wind up with neither. And it is a real source of concern for
me, as I know it is for you, Mr. Chairman, and all of us as
Americans that the importance of identifying who our enemy is,
we have got to be very careful. We are protecting the privacy
of individual Americans that has really never been surrendered
from the beginning of a Nation. And, General Meese, when you
said we are facing a decentralized enemy in the an era of the
Internet.
I am delighted to hear the FBI Director does not even use
one. That gives you an idea how dangerous these things are. But
as you go forward and you look at this, I hope you will keep
that in the forefront of your mind in efforts of the FBI to
gather intelligence on who the enemy is, but at the same time,
talk to us if you could a little bit during this time that we
have got together here today.
Help guide us as policymakers and keep it in the forefront
of your mind, is how do we in this new--whole new era of
incredible access to information and invasion--and we know, Mr.
Chairman, that the FBI has told us that the Chinese are able to
actually turn on cameras remotely and watch and hear everything
that you are doing.
How do we protect the individual privacy rights of
Americans, who are law-abiding Americans and, for example, Dr.
Hoffman, you say you follow this guy, some nutcase on Twitter
to see what he is up to. I mean, does the FBI then have the
right to come in and invade your privacy--does any government
entity have the right to come in and--as they did with Frank.
They broke into your computer. They literally--the Communist
Chinese government broke into this good man's computer--your
official computer, right? Sucked it dry, because he was helping
Chinese dissidents, I believe, wasn't it, Mr. Chairman? And
stripped it and then I think actually put a virus or something
on there, did they?
Does the government have that right, Dr. Hoffman? I mean,
how do you--once you--yeah, you have got a professional
interest. I am not too worried about you from committing any
kind of terrorist acts against the United States, but what does
that do to you and your privacy rights?
Mr. Hoffman. Well, I think as long as no laws are being
broken, which they haven't been. But, you know, this goes back
to----
Mr. Culberson. But you have knocked on the guy's door,
basically. You basically knocked on this guy's door and
accessed him and already opened----
Mr. Hoffman. But, of course, it is going to already be
opened because I am listed as his follower. You know, so there
is no secret.
Mr. Culberson. Does the FBI then have the right to go in
and search your computers and see what you are doing?
Mr. Hoffman. I do not think they have the right to go in
and search my computer but I certainly hope they are monitoring
the fact that I am monitoring them and at least trying to
figure out am I someone who should be of interest to them or
not.
Mr. Culberson. Exactly. Exactly.
Mr. Hoffman. And I think that we, you know, count on--and
this is why I think having an agency that is not strictly an
intelligence agency that is very conscious of privacy rights
and of Constitutional rights is extremely important.
Mr. Culberson. I would suggest that it is not just that the
agency is conscious of it, but that I hope you will also think
as a part of your recommendations in your work is what can we
do as policymakers to ensure that Americans are keenly aware of
when they--for example, if you communicate by an email with
somebody like this that I think of it in terms of consent.
Because whenever you download a new program or access any kind
of an update, you know, you get that consent thing, ``I hereby
agree to all the terms and conditions.'' I think that one way
to deal with it might be just to make sure that in the event
that you are communicating with, accessing, I mean, one of
these vile websites that Frank was talking about earlier,
frankly, I think the FBI ought to just infect guy's computer
and fry it up. But at a minimum we ought to be able to--I just
want you to know that you are accessing a website, you are
talking to somebody that is being monitored by the Federal
government, and this--is there a way, perhaps there?
Mr. Hoffman. Well, I think we are truly partially giving
the devolution of the threat and its individualization is, I
think, the U.S. government and its agencies are constantly
finding and striving to strike a balance between the two. But
the Hasan case that we talked about earlier is precisely right
on point because the FBI was very reluctant to intervene very
aggressively because they thought that initially he was only
soliciting Anwar Al-Awlaki's views on theological arguments.
Mr. Culberson. And there was also political correctness on
the part of the Army, as the Chairman said.
Mr. Hoffman. But I think this is why these things--my
personal view and that is all it is is that I think we have to
look to those who protect and defend us that hopefully they are
watching and monitoring these things and then making a
determination.
If there is both a genuine and a legal threat, then that
triggers additional investigation.
Mr. Culberson. There is a general discussion because it is
difficult. This is brand new. This is the 21st century,
something we have never seen before. And in my mind, correct me
if I am wrong, but isn't it correct that there are certain
individual liberties and rights that were never surrendered to
any level of government? And I always think of the example I
gave earlier, for example, Patrick Henry and the founders never
surrendered--is it accurate to say, General Meese, I mean, from
my reading of the Constitution, of the Revolutionary War era,
the whole intent of the Constitution to preserve our liberty,
provide for the common defense and the general welfare is to
fundamentally the Federal government was created to protect our
liberty. And correct me if I am wrong, my reading is Patrick
Henry and the founders never surrendered, for example, the
right of self defense. That is accurate, isn't it? Any level of
government.
Mr. Meese. Well, that is true and that is reflected in our
laws. As a matter of fact, the Constitution itself was designed
to be a protection against the invasion of people's liberties
and that was one of the major concerns of the founders.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Meese. And in 1787 when they conceived, and the anti-
federalists were concerned about the fact that this might be
giving up our liberties to the central government. That is why
they were concerned about the central government.
Mr. Culberson. George Mason refused to sign the
Constitution, I believe, for that reason.
Mr. Meese. Right. But I would say if you look at what the
government is doing today in terms of intrusion in people's
lives, it is not coming from the law enforcement communities.
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. As a part of your thought process, I
hope as you go forward you will think about this and recommend
to us what we can do to help ensure that we are protecting
those fundamental liberties and right to privacy that all
Americans have.
Mr. Meese. I think that will be a concern that all of us on
this Commission certainly have.
Mr. Roemer. Congressman, if I could. You have been eloquent
in your quotations. One of my favorite quotations is from
Abraham Lincoln, and paraphrasing him, he talked about ``We
will never be destroyed from an enemy on the outside. The only
way we will destroy America would be by removing freedoms and
liberties from ourselves.'' And we must protect those
Constitutional rights and freedoms.
And I think that is something that Bruce and Ed and I will
ask in our briefings, and we do ask. How does the FBI continue
to stay, you know, on the right side of the First Amendment in
the Constitution, but also be aggressive in going after
terrorists? We have mentioned the Zazi case to you several
times. There is an Intelligence Bureau up in New York City with
the NYPD that has negotiated, according to the book, enemies
within. Some different rules where they can, you know, be a
little bit more aggressive in going after suspects and looking
into cases. The FBI assures us that they stay within the
Constitution and within the First Amendment when they are doing
these investigations.
Mr. Culberson. We will confirm that.
Mr. Roemer. And we will keep asking those questions. I
would say though, Congressman, you know, we talked about this
on the 9/11 Commission, Congress has the opportunity and your
oversight now to look at the NSA issue and the mega data
collection issues, the drone policy, and eavesdropping, and
other things. It is much better for Congress to debate these
issues with clarity, with due diligence, hopefully in a
bipartisan way and get it right, rather than waiting for the
next terrorist attack, and that we stampede toward ill thought
through laws that may not balance our Constitution.
Mr. Culberson. That is why I am asking these broad, open-
ended questions and appreciate it, because you are perfectly
positioned to help guide us in that effort as we go forward
because it is so vital, and I think also to remember, as you
said, General Meese, that we are facing a decentralized enemy.
Our greatest strength as a Nation is that not only is our
individual right to privacy decentralized, but frankly, we just
trust the good judgment of individual Americans who never gave
up the right of self defense, who never surrendered the right
of freedom of thought or religion. There are so many of these
fundamental freedoms.
Frankly, my memory is that most of these terrorist attacks,
for example, the one in Kentucky. So many of the FBI has
certainly spotted people on the Internet, but it has been local
police officers and individual Americans who have stopped a lot
of this--passengers on United Flight 93, but for their
individual initiative and courage, the Capitol building would
not be here.
Mr. Roemer. I agree.
Mr. Culberson. It would be smoking ruins.
Mr. Roemer. We have got a lot to be grateful for.
Mr. Culberson. Remember, as you put it together, talk to
us, guide us, advise us on what we can do as policymakers to
make sure that we are doing all that we can, not only to help
the FBI to do their job, but also to protect and reinforce and
reaffirm our faith, and the individual good judgment of average
Americans to do the right thing for the right reasons in
protecting themselves and their families and their communities
and their states.
Because that is our greatest strength. That is the one that
the enemy will never crack that. As long as we have faith and
the good judgment of individual Americans to protect themselves
and their freedoms, they will never conquer us.
Mr. Meese. That will certainly be an important
consideration that we will give to our work and also to the
fact that the most important thing, really, is making sure that
the public gets the truth about what is going on, and this with
the transparency and that sort of thing.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Mr. Meese. And I have been very much impressed with
Director Comey. But we will certainly be very cognizant of that
as a major part.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
allowing me to be so broad about that. I was thinking a
terrorist is a lot less likely to attack Texas than he is
perhaps other places because he won't last long.
Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, if I may just thank you and your
Committee for creating this Commission. I have four children.
One of them is 13, Grace, and she goes to school in your
district. She was born right before 9/11 and you all
passionately talked about 9/11. You talk about it like it
happened yesterday. But we have a lot of constituents
throughout the country that do not remember it quite so well.
We heard a comment from a Congressman the other day that said,
``9/11 is a little bit like Gettysburg.'' It happened a long
time ago and some people tragically are forgetting about it. I
think this Committee's hard work to put this Commission to work
to try to make sure that the American people do not forget,
never forget about the 2,977 people who died on 9/11 that it
never happen again, that our agencies keep changing, keep
reforming and transforming. We are very grateful to you for
putting us to work and we are going to need your help in the
months ahead to do it the right way.
Mr. Meese. I would like to join in thanking the Committee
and also particularly thanking the Chairman. His tremendous
leadership in the Congress and the causes that you have taken
under your wing and brought to the attention of the public,
brought to the attention of this body, the Congress, and all
that you have done for human rights, for civil rights, and for
the betterment of the country as a whole.
I think this being kind of a champion of this whole issue
of taking a look at the FBI and making sure that they are doing
their best to take care of the country is an example of your
interests and where you put your personal energies and your
personal position on the line to make sure that things are
being done properly. And so I just want to join in thanking you
for your service and appreciate very much being one of your
constituents particularly, I am very grateful to you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you all. I thank the Commission. Let us
know if there is anything we have to do, and with that the
hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 2, 2014.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION AND STATE OF RESEARCH ON DRUG ABUSE IN
AMERICA
WITNESSES
MICHELE M. LEONHART, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
NORA D. VOLKOW, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
Mr. Wolf. We are pleased to welcome the DEA Administrator
this morning to testify. Following the Administrator's
testimony we will hear from Dr. Volkow, Director of the
National Institute of Drug Abuse about the current trends and
research on drug abuse in the United States.
Administrator Leonhart, it has been a challenging year for
the DEA. Let me just personally thank you, and I want to thank
all of your employees. You have done an outstanding job in a
very difficult, difficult environment. You have had to cope
with the uncertain funding and hiring freezes, reductions in
efforts by key partners, and the prospect of managing your
force while there are significant and ambiguous changes in
policy with regard to enforcement of the federal laws for
marijuana trafficking and possession.
At the same time, illicit narcotic production and
trafficking continues to grow, spread, and evolve despite
generations of spending billions of dollars to counter these
narcotics. A new report by the Rand Corporation published this
February for ONDCP estimated the number of users, expenditures,
and consumption of the four major illicit drugs from 2000 to
2010 and found that users spend on the order of $100 billion
annually on cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamines.
This does not begin to count the human and economic toll on our
communities of drug trafficking and abuse with the rise of
prescription and designer drugs. Where progress is made in
reducing abuse in one instance, new drugs arise or in the case
of heroin seem to have a resurgence.
Sometimes we have good news in this struggle. For instance,
last month the arrest of El Chapo Guzman, possibly the world's
most infamous and powerful drug lord. We congratulate you on
this arrest. You have had success in getting Viktor Bout from
the other end of the country and the world and I hope you did
not do it too well with the understanding that he played an
essential role. At the same time we hope this will result in a
meaningful disruption of the Mexican cartel and their
operations, at least for a time.
Then there is the troubling news that heroin use is growing
and it is growing particularly in the Shenandoah Valley and I
am going to ask you some questions about that. And reaching
some new markets, some of them users initially hooked on
prescription drugs. Meth use appears to be growing and
increasingly used worldwide as a poor man's cocaine. And there
is reason to fear that legitimate interests in finding balanced
sentencing for drug use may tilt too far in relaxing criminal
sanctions. We will have to see. This could create a public
health and safety issue for children and communities, and
damage our international interests as well.
The fiscal year 2015 request is $2.018 billion in
discretionary budget authority, a flat budget that is
effectively a decrease under which DEA will absorb $75 million
in inflationary costs. To do this DEA may need to cut in half
its planned hiring despite the need to fill vacancies due to
sequestration and a long DOJ hiring freeze. We hope to learn
more today about the tangible impact of this level of hiring on
DEA's ability to sustain its efforts let alone adapt to new
demand.
I will have questions regarding the trends in drug
trafficking and prospects near Afghanistan, particularly in the
north and what is taking place now, and how DEA will deal with
different imported substitute marijuana. We also want to learn
about the state of your efforts to counter prescription drug
abuse that is funded by user fees and the possible impact of
sequestration on efforts.
Finally to help us assess the science behind the headlines
we will hear from NIDA Director Dr. Nora Volkow. It is
essential that the committee be aware of the current knowledge
regarding the health and social impacts of controlled substance
and trends in their use and abuse and the real costs and
benefits associated with the recent changes in counter drug
policy and enforcement.
Before that I would like to recognize Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you and welcome again before the
committee. And I would look forward to your testimony. I want
to thank you again for your extraordinary career. And you have
had a remarkable career and you are doing a tremendous job.
There is a great deal of concern at the moment in the country
around a particular issue, which is this opiate use and
overdose deaths related to heroin. I know that Attorney General
Holder has talked about this recently. I would be very
interested in what you could share. And I know many of the
local police departments up in Philadelphia and others are
trying to make sure that their first responders are prepared
with a response that is available that can intervene and save
people's lives. And I know that there is remarkable focus when,
you know, a very famous actor ended up in an overdose. But this
is an everyday occurrence throughout the country. And so I
would be interested in talking about this matter in particular
in light of the issue and your expertise. So thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Mr. Rogers, Chairman of the full
committee.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the recognition.
Welcome to the subcommittee. Chairman, thank you for yielding a
few minutes here.
Administrator Leonhart and Dr. Volkow, thank you both for
taking the time to be here with us to talk about your
respective leadership roles in our country's fight against the
terrible scourge of drug use. While your backgrounds are
certainly very different, your jobs are equally important in
employment a multifaceted anti-drug strategy at the national
level that incorporates law enforcement, treatment, education,
and research.
DEA of course has the critical task of implementing the
country's federal response to illicit drug use. Your budget
request for fiscal year 2015 is $2.018 billion. While the
request is essentially flat from last year, I am concerned that
you have proposed to absorb some $75 million in mandatory pay
and retirement increases and foreign operations expenses with
unspecific amorphous ``administrative reductions.'' I certainly
understand that we have to make all difficult decisions in this
tough budgetary environment but the reality is that you have
sent your budget to us with a $75 million hole that the
committee will have to fill. This is gravely important as we
strive to provide the men and women on the front lines with the
tools, training, equipment, and support necessary to carry out
vital anti-drug missions domestically and abroad.
This is particularly important as we continue to fight
against the abuse of prescription medications. Chairman Wolf
and I have discussed with you and your agency on many occasions
the truly devastating impact of prescription abuse in small
town America. Where I live it is hard to find anyone who has
not been left in the wake of this scourge. When OxyContin first
came to the market in the late nineties, our towns were
completely overrun by pills that had been marketed to doctors
as completely safe and resistant to abuse. Pills that were
supposed to treat pain were creating pain in the form of
addiction and abuse and tragically the untimely overdose deaths
of too many mothers and fathers I have met in emergency rooms
distraught at the death of a young son or daughter.
Unfortunately what once was sequestered in small towns of
Appalachian Kentucky and West Virginia has now been
characterized by the CDC as a national epidemic. Whether it is
rural Vermont, the beaches of South Florida, or the glamorous
streets of Hollywood, this crisis knows no socioeconomic,
gender, or racial bounds. It is indiscriminate in its path of
destruction and it will require a coordinated multipronged
approach to finally put a dent in the problem. DEA has been a
valued partner and leader in this endeavor, rooting out
unscrupulous and bad acting doctors and drug dealers while
sponsoring national take back days that provide a safe,
convenient, and responsible means of disposing of unused
prescription drugs. However, challenges persist and I look
forward to hearing from both of you today about DEA's efforts
to combat the illicit diversion of prescription medications and
whether you feel these efforts are making a measurable impact
in reducing abuse.
In particular, despite some meaningful reforms on the
regulatory front, including the up-scheduling of Hydrocodone
combination products for which the DEA has staunchly advocated
for a long time, the FDA has recently taken a major step
backwards in my view by approving a pure Hydrocodone painkiller
without any protections against abuse. The FDA's justifications
for defying the recommendation of its own advisory panel
against approving Zohydro are incredibly weak in my estimation
and I would like to hear how you anticipate Zohydro's entrance
into the market and how that might impact the law enforcement
community. My region in Southern and Eastern Kentucky is
bracing for a wave of abuse and addiction and I can only pray
that the fears of so many in my community do not come to
fruition once this drug becomes a household name. I have a stay
up at night fear, awake at night fear, that Zohydro will be the
new OxyContin scourge that killed so many American kids.
The approval of Zohydro is particularly egregious because
with certain regulatory changes at the federal level and a
number of statutory changes at the state level, some regions
have experienced some much needed relief from the challenges
associated with prescription drug use. In Kentucky for example
we saw overdose deaths plateau in 2012 for the first time in a
decade. The FDA risks reversing this hard fought progress by
allowing this new crushable pill, injectable pill into our
streets and causing deaths.
It is important to note, however, that though we have made
some meaningful progress in beating back on prescription drug
abuse and misuse, we have seen deaths related to heroin now
increase by 450 percent in Kentucky. And I know that you have
been seeing similar trends on the national scale and this
uptick in heroin abuse is incredibly alarming. It raises
important questions about the availability of treatment for
those that are struggling with addiction and also about the
strain on our law enforcement officers who must now grapple
with a different type of challenge. Operation UNITE in my
congressional district has always approached this problem from
the perspective of investigations, treatment, and education, a
multipronged attack. And so I look forward to hearing from you
about how DEA is addressing these important concerns at the
federal level.
On that note I would like to thank DEA for its strong
representation at the National Prescription Drug Abuse Summit
which will take place in Atlanta in a few short weeks. As Dr.
Volkow can surely attest, that conference will bring together
our country's best, brightest, and most passionate policy
makers, scientists, law enforcement officials, and advocates.
And I am grateful that the DEA and NIDA have lent their voices
and expertise to the cause and I look forward to seeing both of
you there in Atlanta very soon. There will be around 1,000 to
1,500 people across the country that are zeroed in on this
problem that will be joining their voices and souls together to
try to beat back the scourge.
Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did
not register my strong concern that the administration has
completely abdicated one of its chief responsibilities under
the Controlled Substances Act. Earlier this month your deputy
administrator noted that there is no sound scientific,
economic, or social reason to change our nation's marijuana
policies. He further stated that the administration should send
a clear message to the American people and ensure our public
safety by not abandoning the science I am sure Dr. Volkow can
discuss ad nauseam. And yet we have seen the exact opposite:
the Department of Justice turning a blind eye to state laws
legalizing a Schedule I drug and instructing federal
prosecutors to deemphasize marijuana prosecutions. That is just
not acceptable. I am pleased that we will have the opportunity
this morning to hear from leaders in both the scientific and
law enforcement communities about that wrong-headed approach to
drug enforcement.
Thank you for being here. Thanks for your hard work. I
yield.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share the chairman's
views and I know we are going to talk a lot about that today.
But what the administration is doing on that issue is just
absolutely crazy. If you could stand, we are going to swear you
in as we swear in all the witnesses from the federal
government.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect that
the witness answered in the affirmative. We thank you and we
have your full statement in the record. You can summarize as
you see fit.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Wolf, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Fattah, and members of
the subcommittee. Because this may be the last time that I see
you, Chairman Wolf, before you retire at the end of the year, I
wanted to start by saying thank you. Thanking you for your
years of dedicated service to our country and I wish you the
best in the future. I would also like to say as a 33-year civil
servant of this federal government, thank you for what you have
done for all federal workers, not only the men and women of the
DEA.
Through your leadership this subcommittee has provided DEA
the resources we need to successfully combat the world's
largest drug traffickers. And we are celebrating the recent
arrest of Joaquin El Chapo Guzman by the Mexican authorities.
As the head of the Sinaloa Cartel, Guzman contributed to the
death and the destruction of millions of lives all around the
world and the arrest of the world's most wanted international
drug trafficker is a major step forward in our shared fight
against drug trafficking and violence.
In the past year ten more of the most wanted drug
traffickers, known as CPOTs by the Department of Justice,
otherwise known as kingpins, have been arrested and six were
extradited to the United States. And among them were Daniel El
Loco Barrera, who for over 20 years led an organization that
distributed hundreds of tons of cocaine around the world
leaving a trail of violence in his wake. Barrera is considered
one of the last true drug kingpins in Colombia in the Andean
Region.
Since we started tracking CPOTs in 2003, a total of 179
CPOTs have been identified, and of those through our efforts 75
percent of them have been indicted; 55 percent of them have
been arrested around the world; and 31 percent have actually
been extradited to the United States. That is a record that we
are very proud of. We are proud not only of DEA's enforcement
successes but together with the nation's drug education,
treatment, and prevention folks, we are making a difference.
The overall rate of drug abuse in America has declined by
35 percent since its peak in 1979. Drug abuse by high school
seniors is also down by nearly 35 percent since 1979. And since
2006 the number of current users of any form of illicit drug
other than marijuana dropped eight percent. Regular cocaine use
has dropped 32 percent between 2006 and 2012. And at the same
time methamphetamine use is down by 40 percent.
But we still have areas of concern. Prescription drug abuse
remains the nation's fastest growing drug problem. An estimated
6.8 million Americans regularly use prescription drugs for non-
medical reasons. And we are hearing reports that many
prescription drug users are turning to heroin. A recent survey
found that 80 percent of the recent heroin initiates abused
prescription pain relievers before they started using heroin.
Increases in heroin purity and availability, the low street
cost of heroin, and the lack of public awareness of the risks
of heroin and prescription drug abuse are also important
contributing factors. And from 2007 through 2012 the number of
regular heroin users in this country more than doubled. Not
surprisingly overdose deaths have also increased.
Marijuana use also remains a very serious problem in this
country. Marijuana related emergency visits increased by 48
percent between 2007 and 2011. And although methamphetamine use
is actually down, a third of local enforcement agencies report
that that is the greatest drug threat in their communities.
Drug abuse is devastating on a personal level and drug
trafficking poses a serious threat to society because of the
violence and the hazards that come with it and the terrorist
organizations that are often funded by it.
So now is not the time to sound the retreat. Rather we
should be redoubling our efforts. And DEA will continue
attacking these threats using tools and techniques that have
worked so well for us in the past: close relationships with
federal, state, and local, and international partners;
information sharing and case coordination; and going after the
money. Since we started tracking this in 2005, DEA has denied
drug trafficking organizations a total of $26.8 billion in
revenue. Just like efforts to eliminate cancer or poverty, the
fight against drug abuse is a generations long struggle and it
will not be won overnight. But if we remember how things were
when we started this fight, if we look at the tremendous
successes we are having today, there is reason for optimism. By
taking harmful drugs off the street, by dismantling those major
drug organizations, seizing their profits, we are making our
nation a safer place to live and do business. And the support
of this subcommittee is vital.
I look forward to working with all of you and to take any
questions you have. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me.
Administrator Leonhart, last year when you came before the
subcommittee you and the chairman discussed at length DEA's
efforts to mitigate diversion of Hydrocodone products in the
U.S. At the time you reiterated your support for up-scheduling
the Hydrocodone combination products from Schedule III to
Schedule II, a very vital change for the better. While the U.S.
makes up only 4.6 percent of the world's population, we consume
99 percent of the Hydrocodone. ER visits involving Hydrocodone
rose from 38,000 in 2004 to more than 115,000 in 2010. Clearly
our country has an insatiable appetite for this drug. And while
it serves a legitimate medical purpose it also presents an
incredible public health and safety challenge.
FDA has finally made this regulatory change, Schedule II,
after ten years of prodding from DEA. But the very next day,
after we cheered that result, FDA took this big step backwards
in my opinion and approved Zohydro. It is a crushable, pure
Hydrocodone product that packs an incredible punch, I am told
ten times better than OxyContin. Its own advisory panel voted
11 to 2 not to allow the drug on the market, especially since
the company that makes it is on the verge of making a crushable
pill that would be available I think in six months or so.
In Kentucky we saw users switch from OxyContin when they
made it drug use deterrent; they switched from OxyContin to
Opana in droves. The street price for these abuse resistant
pills dropped dramatically and quickly from about $2.50 a
milligram to $.75. And we saw users switch from Opana to Heroin
when Opana was reformulated to make it abuse resistant. Given
this I want to ask you, do you have any concerns that Zohydro
will be abused or divert illicit abuse much the same as
OxyContin and Opana was?
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you for that question, Chairman. We
have grave concerns. Obviously this country is experiencing a
major prescription drug problem and putting one drug on the
market that now is ten times more potent than the other
Hydrocodone combination products frightens us all. We were
surprised that after all we know about the situation, the
growing epidemic, the problems that we had with OxyContin years
back, that this would happen. But it has been approved and I
learned earlier this week that some of the pharmacies in the
Midwest have started to receive the product.
So with that being said, we, DEA, are not sitting still. We
have been educating our agents out in the field and our
diversion investigators. We have educated our tactical
diversion squads and have been around the country talking about
this with our police chiefs and sheriff partners to prepare for
this. It is unfortunate that this has happened. And I see, it
is very interesting, the Governor of Massachusetts just the
other day announced that he is going to make attempts to ban it
in his state and especially when we know that all these efforts
to come up with crushable pills are just around the corner.
Mr. Rogers. Well you know, the FDA had been very good about
saying that they would not approve any opioid unless it was not
crushable, abuse resistant. And then for whatever inexplicable
reason the next day they said, oh wait a minute, on Zohydro,
almost ten times more powerful than OxyContin, we think we can
keep it out of the hands of people who want to abuse it. They
said the same thing about OxyContin not a very long time ago.
So it is inexplicable but it is not over. So we have filed a
bill in Congress to undo that decision.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. And I would invite cosponsors on that bill
because you will be saving lives. DEA seized 45,000 Hydrocodone
combo pills in 2010. Put this Zohydro approval in perspective
for us. What impact will this have on DEA's tactical diversion
squads?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, unlike Hydrocodone, because it is pure
Hydrocodone and not a combination product, at least it will be
scheduled in Schedule II. So the problems that we had over the
past many years with Hydrocodone being in Schedule III with the
combination products, we at least will have a little bit of
control over that. For instance, there will be no refills. And
we really think that the impact, the biggest impact will be
that doctors, doctors when Hydrocodone becomes Schedule II we
think that with Zohydro and Hydrocodone doctors will see that
it has gone to that Schedule II from Schedule III and are
becoming more educated about the problems of these opiates and
will not prescribe. Will look for other methods, Schedule IIIs
or other available medications.
I think with Zohydro it is going to be about educating
people. You asked what will we do with our diversion squads?
Our diversion squads are prepared to go out and have actually
started educating people. We have been holding what we call
PDACs, Pharmacist Diversion Awareness Conferences, one every
six weeks or so on weekends, where on a Saturday we have all
these pharmacists come in, on Sunday another group of
pharmacists come in, and we talk to them about trends and their
responsibilities. And Zohydro over the last couple of PDACs has
been part of the presentation that our folks have given to
them.
So a lot is being aware of it, educating the public. But it
is also what you are doing, looking at legislation. It is what
the states are doing, looking at ways that they have to push
back on this, that in the end I think is going to be the
answer. So we continue our efforts. We continue our efforts
looking at, once this does hit the streets, who is selling it?
Because there is going to be a market. There is going to be the
black market out there peddling these on the streets. We will
see doctor shoppers. People addicted to opiates, when they know
that there is a new potent medication out there, will be
seeking this from doctors. So it is a combination of education
and our enforcement efforts that are going to push back on
that. But the best thing, what you have just told me about
looking at legislation, would be a way to help.
MARIJUANA
Mr. Rogers. Here we go again. I mean, this is echoes of
OxyContin at best. Let me quickly ask you, Mr. Chairman I will
be brief, about marijuana. The administration looks like it is
abdicating its responsibility to enforce the Controlled
Substances Act by refusing to challenge state laws that
legalize a Schedule I drug. Justice indicated in an August 29
memo that it would allow legalization of marijuana to proceed
in Washington and Colorado. And we know according to NIDA that
more than half of new illicit drug users begin with marijuana.
That is an accepted fact. And as the agency now charged with
the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, how can you
reconcile DOJ's decision with your clear statutory requirement
to keep Schedule I drugs off the streets?
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you for that question. Obviously that
is a serious issue for not only my agency but our state and
local partners. A lot of confusion in that 296 days while they
were reviewing it and deciding how to proceed. But the
Department of Justice made a decision. It is a legal decision.
It does not change what the Drug Enforcement Administration
does. We go after drug traffickers. We go after those, we have
never gone after the users. We go after the organizations and
the individuals who are breaking federal law and are
distributing marijuana in large quantities.
Our state and local partners, however, are the ones that
will still have a responsibility, even though in those two
states they have legalized small amounts for recreational use
by adults. It will be very tough, but they will still be
enforcing state law as to distribution. We have looked at this,
as you can imagine. It has been a number one issue for us since
those initiatives passed. But it really does not change for us
any of our enforcement strategies. If you look at the eight
factors in the Department of Justice memo of August 29th, our
cases fall within those eight factors. Such as it talks about
organizations trafficking, it talks about marijuana going from
Colorado or Washington to other states, it talks about money
being funneled to criminal organizations, it talks about
marijuana being on public lands, and on and on and on, and
keeping it away from children. So our enforcement strategy does
not change, it stays the same.
It is still against federal law. Because it is Schedule I
it has been found, it is in that schedule because it has got a
high potential for abuse. There is no currently accepted
medical use for that in treatment and it lacks safety for use
under medical supervision. So for the Drug Enforcement
Administration we will continue to target organizations,
criminal groups that are violating federal law. The memo of
August 29th was a memo to the United States Attorneys and
talked about allocation of resources, because we have to
prioritize what we do. It put the U.S. Attorneys on notice, not
just in those two states but any of the states that have even
passed medical marijuana, that there are implications that
impact federal interests in those eight areas. And so we can
still utilize our resources to go after any of the traffickers,
any of the organizations that fit those eight priorities.
We continue with our partnership with our state and local
partners in those states. And actually there has been cries for
help from states surrounding those states to assist our state
and local partners for concerns about marijuana going from
those states to other states that do not have those laws.
Mr. Rogers. You know for the chief law enforcement of the
nation, the Attorney General, to tell the world, and especially
his law enforcement colleagues, not to enforce a law on the
federal books is a little bit more than selective prosecution.
It is selective non-prosecution. It is turning a blind eye to
the law. And I find that very disturbing that the chief law
enforcement officer has that attitude. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I agree. Thank you. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. I would like to thank the full committee
chairman for his follow up and follow through on this Oxycodone
situation because it is not just Kentucky, it is all over the
country. And I really think that lives have been saved and I
thank the DEA for your work.
But I want to go locally. So in Philadelphia and in a
number of other areas you have been participating in strike
force activities that have been very successful. So in
Southwest Philadelphia for instance where we had a very
challenging situation with violent drug gangs, DEA has been
very active over a number of years. In fact the chairman was
helpful in this effort. And we now have a 50-year low in
homicides in Philadelphia, a 50-year slide. She said it was a
46-years, politicians tend to embellish, so a 46-year low. But
it is obviously because of the hard work you have been doing in
Philadelphia and throughout the country. So if you could talk a
little bit, not so much about the kingpins but the work you
have been doing to crack down on these, in some of our toughest
neighborhoods in our big cities, that would be helpful.
DRUG TRAFFICKING
Ms. Leonhart. Sure. Thank you for the opportunity to
address that. And actually it does link up with the kingpins.
Our work, especially with our state and local partners in our
over 200 offices around the country and about 200 task forces
have been able to identify the most violent traffickers in a
community like Philadelphia and really work up the intelligence
together by the use of our informants, by interviewing
informants of the police departments and other agencies to
really be able to paint the picture, be able to identify who is
responsible, who is bringing the drugs in, who is trafficking
it, and link those traffickers to the sources of supply. And
that is very important because that does go to the kingpins.
The majority of the cocaine on the streets of Philadelphia
years back we would have said were Colombian traffickers
distributing to some of the street gangs and individuals
traffickers. Well that has changed and now a lot of the drugs
on the streets of Philadelphia are actually brought into this
country by Mexican cartels or Mexican organizations working for
the cartels or being supplied by the cartels. So with
Philadelphia as the example, gathering all of that intelligence
about who is moving the drugs into your community and working
with our state and local partners and other federal agencies,
FBI, ATF, IRS, we can identify the local cell. We can identify
the regional cell. And then we can identify that international
cell that is supplying them and come up with a strategy to hit
them at all the different levels. And that has been successful
in certain what we call hot spots, like Philadelphia. We have
done the same thing in Oakland, California. We have done it in
Chicago. And it is really combining our resources and what we
know and coming up with a strategic way to hit those
traffickers at all the different levels.
Mr. Fattah. Well my question is, since my constituents have
benefitted from this, do you need more resources to, is it no?
Or are you sufficiently resourced for these activities?
Ms. Leonhart. Well of course, we could always do more with
more money. But this budget does allow us to continue those
very important domestic operations. It allows us to continue
our task forces. It allows us to continue with the centers that
we have set up that have this intelligence that is fused and
provided to the investigators and the officers. The budget will
allow us to continue very, very strong domestic enforcement
while at the same time working on those sources of supply that
are targeting your communities for these drugs.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Mr. Fattah. Now one last question. The committee has some
interest in human and sex trafficking. And there seems to be
some crossover into the work that you are engaged in because
many of the people who are victimized in this process seem to
be, drugs are used to either entice them or keep them in a
situation where they are being able to be used and abused in
this fashion. And again, this is an issue throughout the
country. But can you tell me where there have been efforts,
joint efforts with the DEA, that have not just focused on the
drugs but have also been successful in getting at some of the
issues around human trafficking?
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you for the question. Some other
federal agencies have a responsibility, like ICE, and to some
extent even the FBI. Years back when we signed an agreement
with ICE one of the things we put in the agreement was, that we
have not seen before, we have not done before, not only will
ICE share all their deconfliction, as we call it, tell us about
who they are going after and the information regarding any drug
trafficking aspects. But we also agreed that we would share
with them any information we had on human smuggling or any of
the authorities that they have, the crimes that they
investigate. So there has been better sharing not only with our
federal partners but also our task force officers a lot of
times the tip comes in and the tip is about sex trafficking or
human trafficking. And we are called in to assist because
there's drugs involved. And we all know, especially on sex
trafficking, that part of the lure for these young women is the
drugs. Part of the pimps and the people that are trafficking
them, often keep them involved in this crime with the drugs,
get them addicted, we see that quite often. So there is this
great sharing of intelligence now on the local level and actual
sharing of informants if need be. And we can look at this for
our partners to use their authorities to go after the human and
sex trafficking but us coming in and actually working on the
drugs and gives additional authority and additional charges
that can put these folks away.
WITNESS INTIMIDATION
Mr. Fattah. I said that was my last question, but you bring
on a new question. So I got the CI part of this. But one of the
problems in cities, and I cannot speak about rural Kentucky,
but in places like Philadelphia and Baltimore and a number of
our cities, one of the biggest challenges has been witness
intimidation. So DEA was brought in to crack down on major,
very violent drug gangs in Philadelphia and part of the
challenge was witnesses who were just intimidated and with very
good reason because a number of witnesses had been murdered. So
the potential of witnesses offering the ability to provider
services for them if they come forward is a big issue in
getting at some of these issues. And would you please speak
about some of the challenges and what if anything the committee
might consider in that regard?
Ms. Leonhart. Sure. Obviously in our cases when there has
been, or the potential at least, for witness intimidation, we
work very closely with the United States Marshals Service and
do what we can as an agency to protect and ensure their
security. But also, the federal agencies now have victim
witness coordinators in our offices. So in Philadelphia for
instance there is a DEA employee, there is an employee at the
U.S. Attorney's Office, and there is an employee at the FBI,
all with the responsibility to coordinate if there are victims
or a potential witness that comes forward and has been
threatened, or the potential for threats. There are services
that we can provide. Starting when I was a DEA agent 33 years
ago, there was no such thing, and there was intimidation going
on. It has come a long way. And it is an important aspect of
what each of our field divisions do, and working with the U.S.
Attorney's victim witness coordinator to make sure that there
are services available to help. It is not only the witness. It
is the witness, the witness' family, that sometimes needs to be
protected. And we also have new investigative techniques and
ways of doing cases where we do not need to rely so much on
that actual witness that have been very helpful and successful
over the years in ensuring that there was safety for those
witnesses.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
MARIJUANA
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. Following up on what
Chairman Rogers covered, since you testified last year Colorado
has decriminalized recreational marijuana use. Washington State
has adopted a similar approach. And the Department of Justice
has promulgated new enforcement guidance. The Attorney General
has said that the finance and banking industries should just
accept marijuana business. And President Obama has compared
marijuana use with tobacco and suggested that Colorado and
Washington are experiments that should be allowed to play out.
It is no wonder then that the polls show public acceptance
of marijuana legalization is rising and that legalizing is more
widely viewed as inevitable. And the drumbeat continues with
many pundits arguing that marijuana is safer or no more harmful
than alcohol or tobacco and has legitimate and well established
health benefits for which access should be simplified.
DEA just published a 31-page document, ``The Dangers and
Consequences of Marijuana Abuse.'' It includes great detail and
documentation from multiple authoritative sources of the
dangers of marijuana and a lack of evidence of its benefits,
particularly for smoked marijuana. Is this public campaign
having any effect or is it swimming against the tide?
Ms. Leonhart. Chairman, we have never had a time in the
last 30 years where the messages have been so strong, in fact
the message is going to our children, the mixed message, that
marijuana is not harmful. We know, our kids are getting
bombarded with this message and those messages are what have
caused our kids to believe that there is no risk involved. And
we know that when the kids feel there is no risk involved, or
that marijuana is safe to use, that triggers more use. And so
it is of great concern to us, the messages that we hear on
television, on the radio in songs, and now my fear, that kids
are hearing from their own parents. So it is important to have
the facts about marijuana put out there in way so that kids,
teens, young adults can look at it, parents can look at it, and
see that what they have been sold that this is no big deal, is
not true.
You know, I look at things like teens entering treatment.
If you look at the numbers more kids, more teens enter drug
treatment for marijuana addiction than they do for alcohol and
all other drugs combined. That is a sign, that is a sign that
this is a harmful drug. And we have Dr. Volkow here who will
speak to the science of marijuana later. This is a very
addictive and dangerous substance. It is a substance that
especially with early use, if you start smoking marijuana
early, by age 13, one in six then become addicted to the
substance, one in nine for everybody else. It has got
properties in it that have more chemicals and tar than
cigarettes. Yet we find more kids are, more teens are smoking
pot now than are smoking cigarettes. And I would say that is
because of the messages that have been sent.
Mr. Wolf. More smoking pot than are smoking cigarettes?
Ms. Leonhart. More teens today smoke pot than smoke
cigarettes.
Mr. Wolf. Wow.
Mr. Rogers. Where is Henry Waxman when we need him?
Mr. Wolf. I think the Attorney General, and I will cover
this when he comes up Friday, I think he is going to live to
regret this. This will be a legacy for Eric Holder that as he
looks back on it and sees the devastation that this will have
on our country, he will live to regret it. He will wish he
could get these years back. Have you seen any demoralization on
the part of your agents?
Ms. Leonhart. Our agents are fighting back against those
messages.
Mr. Wolf. But discouragement. Discouragement?
Ms. Leonhart. Actually, it makes us fight harder.
Mr. Wolf. Have U.S. policy changes affected international
interdiction efforts or cooperation with foreign partners?
Ms. Leonhart. From the day the initiatives were passed, our
partners have taken this very seriously. The United States has
been a leader in international drug enforcement, and now they
question us why this is happening. I remind them that it is
still against federal law. It is not the U.S., it is not the
country that took these steps, it is two states that took these
steps. But they question us quite often, they remind us of our
treaty responsibilities, are quite concerned about the message
this sends to the world, and they are looking to see what
happens. And they are, on the drug front, not happy with the
United States and often we hear the word hypocrite.
Mr. Wolf. Hypocrite. I have got some quick marijuana
questions. Is it true that according to a 2011 Drug Abuse
Warning Network report there was a 48 percent increase in
marijuana related emergency visits between 2007 and 2011?
Ms. Leonhart. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. And nothing would have changed to change that?
Ms. Leonhart. No, we anticipate the numbers to go up as we
see these states moving towards legalization.
Mr. Wolf. Is it also accurate that marijuana was second
only to cocaine as the most frequently cited drug necessitating
an emergency room visit?
Ms. Leonhart. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. Could you inform the committee that according to
a report published in the proceedings of the National Academy
of Science, teens who use marijuana showed an average decline
of IQ of eight points, is that factual? Is that accurate?
Ms. Leonhart. That is accurate. And I reported on that last
year. It is a pretty new study. And that again goes towards if
you start smoking marijuana early, around age 13, that by the
time you are in your thirties you can experience an eight-point
drop in IQ.
Mr. Wolf. Eight points?
Ms. Leonhart. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has found that marijuana significantly impairs
one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. According to a
study reported in the British medical journal, drivers ``who
consume cannabis within three hours of driving are nearly twice
as likely to cause a vehicle collision as non-impaired
drivers.'' Another study by Columbia University found that
drivers who get behind the wheel after using marijuana have
more than twice the risk of getting in an accident. What is the
impact of the legalization out in Colorado and Washington State
but with regard to accidents in Colorado and surrounding areas?
Is there any impact on adjoining states as well as Colorado?
Ms. Leonhart. Well I can tell you from our law enforcement
partners that the drugged driving concerns are coming too, it
is happening. In Colorado and Washington our state and local
partners see more, and the statistics are showing it, drugged
driving related to marijuana than they have in the past. Their
concerns are drugged driving and they are showing that those
statistics are going up. Children entering the emergency rooms,
this never used to happen, kids----
Mr. Wolf. What is your definition of children? Can you tell
age?
Ms. Leonhart. Kids. Young kids.
Mr. Wolf. Kids?
Ms. Leonhart. Three, four, five, six-years old kids going
to the emergency room for poisoning because of the products
that are being distributed in these states and are showing up
in homes. Cookies, brownies, cakes, lollipops. And especially
in Colorado, look at the emergency room visits just over the
past two years for kids and this is definitely related to the
edibles that are now on the market in that state. Twenty-eight
percent, another figure, not just for Colorado but to be
concerned about. As we have seen marijuana use rise, we already
know from a National Highway Transportation study that in
fatalities, when they go and they check when there has been
someone killed in a car crash, that now in 28 percent of the
deaths from car crashes they find marijuana in a person's
system. So this connection to drugged driving is very
concerning to all of us. As are the emergency room admissions
that have been going up. And especially now, I think it was
before Colorado had medical marijuana laws, there were no
emergency room visits for kids for poisoning due to marijuana.
And now those numbers are on the rise.
So there are a number of public safety issues that are
concerning to law enforcement. But there are also concerns for
the messages that we talked about. There are concerns for teens
now dropping out of school. So we are very careful, our law
enforcement partners are looking at those statistics because
they are already showing some changes. And these are all those
things that need to be flagged and tracked and will help for
other states that are thinking about going in that direction.
See what has already started in those two states. Those stores
in Colorado, for recreational use, have only been open since
the first of January.
Mr. Wolf. I saw Governor Hickenlooper who commented, he was
here in town at the Governor's Conference, and he urged, and I
not want to say exactly, but he urged the governors of other
states not to go this direction. I think he opposed----
Ms. Leonhart. He did. He did oppose it.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. But I think he said basically do not do
anything until you see what the impact is in our states. Are
there any states ready to have referendums on this this Fall?
Ms. Leonhart. There are a few. There are about 12 states
targeted to have these initiatives over the next couple of
years. But Alaska, I believe, has one they believe will be on
the ballot this summer. And that is the first one I am aware
of.
Mr. Wolf. Was all this information available to the people
of Colorado when the vote took place? Was there information, or
was it available? Or was there a major program to explain?
Ms. Leonhart. What was explained to the voters was how much
money that they would be raising. What was explained to the
voters was that this was good for law enforcement because then
police could go after real crimes. And what was told to the
voters, was this would collapse the Mexican cartels.
Mr. Wolf. What does it do to the Mexican cartels?
Ms. Leonhart. Absolutely nothing. To say that legalizing
marijuana is going to have any impact on crime groups, or the
Mexican cartels, they do not understand how these organizations
operate. We already know from our investigations that key
traffickers in Mexico and key traffickers working in the United
States are setting up shop in those two states anticipating a
black market. Whatever the price will be set in Washington and
Colorado, criminal organizations are ready to come in and sell
cheaper. So they know that there is a place for them in that
black market.
They also sell and peddle and distribute whatever the
market calls for. So over the past few years we have seen the
increases from the Mexican cartels sending loads of heroin into
the United States, and loads of methamphetamine into the United
States. So you would almost have to legalize all those drugs to
have any impact whatsoever on the Mexican cartels and the major
drug trafficking organizations in our country.
Mr. Wolf. I am going to go to Mr. Honda. One question. You
follow this, I guess, closely. Is there any, and I do not know
Colorado law. And I think the members have to know, this issue
is coming up on the floor. There is going to be a vote. I can
almost predict who will offer the amendment and everything
else. You know, this is an issue that we are going to address.
This is not just in Colorado or Washington State. It is coming
to the Congress that we work in. Is there any effort in
Colorado now to say, hey, maybe we made a mistake? Is there any
effort, or what are the editorials saying? I mean, are they
seeing what you are saying? Or is it just like if I am in
Colorado Springs now I am not quite focusing and it has not
percolated up yet?
Ms. Leonhart. I think things have changed over the past six
to nine months where people are now starting to question if
that was the right way to go because of the things that they
are seeing in their community. There was just an article last
week and it was on pets.
Mr. Wolf. Pets?
Ms. Leonhart. It was about the anticipated or unexpected
consequences of this. And how veterinarians now are seeing dogs
come in, there are pets coming in, and being treated because
they have been exposed to marijuana. Again, it goes back to the
edibles. It goes back to products that are in the household
that are now made with and from marijuana. And it is impacting
pets. We made a list of the outcomes we thought that might
happen in these two states. We never thought about putting pets
down. But there was an article in USA Today just last week and
several other articles, especially in Colorado, about those
increases. Where veterinarians are now taking in pets who have
ingested and been poisoned by marijuana.
MARITIME DRUG SMUGGLING
Mr. Wolf. Wow. The last question to finish up for my effort
on this issue, but last month the Washington Post reported, it
was in the bottom of the story, that Marine General John Kelly,
the head of SOUTHCOM, told the Senate Armed Services Committee
that, ``because of asset shortfalls we are unable to get 74
percent of suspected maritime drug smuggling coming into the
U.S.'' He added, ``I simply sit and watch it go by.'' General
Kelly also said that the U.S. only intercepts approximately 20
percent of narcotics and transit coming into the country. Do
you agree with General Kelly? And what is the impact of that?
And then I will go directly to Mr. Honda.
Ms. Leonhart. I read that article and I have had
conversations with General Kelly. And actually the whole
interdiction community, federal agencies that have a
responsibility for interdiction especially in the transit zone,
very concerned about it. We are hearing that the Coast Guard
may be taking about an eight percent cut. General Kelly
basically said he has no assets. We have seen over the last two
years actionable intelligence that we have been able to work up
with our international partners and tried to have actioned
through JIATF South down in Key West. And there are no assets.
We know exactly where a go fast boat is, or we know exactly
where a ship is that has multi-hundred kilos of cocaine, but
there is no asset to send to interdict it.
So what is happening is, and our saying is it is better to
seize a bowling ball than it is to chase the BBs. What we see
is that is our first line of defense. Those cocaine loads,
those drug loads, that will end up on our shores. And in fact
we are seeing a change in Puerto Rico, where cocaine is
skyrocketing there. And some of the reason is there just are no
assets to be able to go and action those known movements. So we
are very concerned.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very
interesting discussion. And thank you, Administrator, for being
here. Let me just before I go to my question, when you say
there are not any assets, that is really a nice way to say
there is not enough money to have the equipment and the other
special gear, is that correct?
Ms. Leonhart. I did not hear the first part of your
question. You have not?
Mr. Honda. Your words like assets is a nice way of saying
you do not have the equipment or the wherewithal to interdict
the way you should be? Yes or no, I mean----
Ms. Leonhart. Actually we finally have the ability to have
the intelligence because of a number of----
Mr. Honda. No, that is not the question. I know the
intelligence is there, that is why you say you go from a
bowling ball to----
Ms. Leonhart. Right.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. Scattering the BBs. And that is
another way of, you know, bringing stuff in so that, you know,
no one is going to come in with a bowling ball if they know
they are going to get caught. So they are going to spread out
and have a different strategy. So you need more equipment, you
need more assets, you need more funds that has not been
forthwith. So if you had everything that you needed, I would
imagine it would make, you know, off the record, not off the
record but just after you leave you can give us some
information if you had sufficient, what would it be, sufficient
funds?
You know, I am a schoolteacher. I can teach better if I had
more assets, and if the school environment is different--so,
you know, I am a little concerned about that, too. You know, we
want to give you the backup, rather than requiring you to do
something that is going to be impossible.
I mean prohibition was--you know what prohibition did. And
I thought that we learned how to deal with that drug and we
also passed laws that disallowed certain kinds of dope behavior
with their pets and with their children. I think what you are
coming up with is good information because it is telling us
what is not--what people have to be worried about if they pass
certain laws. You know, I am not saying that we should or
should not, I am just saying that the information I am hearing
is very troubling.
As a schoolteacher, I have trouble without hearing more
about edibles with youngsters and, you know, what do we do with
the parents or the adults around that surrounded area. Having
said that, you mentioned in your testimony how Mexican
transnational criminal organizations pose the greatest criminal
drug threat to our country--and it's a big concern for me
because California still remains the key entry point, at least
for the trafficking.
My first question is--let me ask a question and then I will
let you answer it: In your report you said there are ways that
the drugs are coming in as if there are certain key traditional
ways of bringing in drugs, the methamphetamines. The second
question is, you know, California, we have domestic production
of methamphetamines. We are probably one of the larger
producers of that drug and a couple of years ago I think we
captured about, what, 650 pounds in Gilroy, in part of my
district, and another 750 pounds----
Ms. Leonhart. Seven hundred, yes.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. After that. So that is a lot of
drugs. So what kinds of assets or backup or resources do you
need to help work with our different states to address that?
The first one is the one I am most interested in, too, because
I understand that there is a certain set portals--that come
from Mexico, and in Mexico do they produce it? Or does it come
into ports from other countries? So, if you could answer those
questions one at a time.
Ms. Leonhart. Sure. Actually, you are right. I was the
Special Agent in Charge in San Francisco. I had your area and
also in Los Angeles and I worked in San Diego. I covered all of
California during my career, and methamphetamine was seen out
west before it was seen anyplace else in the country. It was a
great problem. There were huge superlabs, specially in the
central valley of California that we successfully, with our
task forces and working with our state and local partners, were
able to push back on.
But the situation has changed with us being successful with
enforcement, with several laws that were passed, the Combat
Meth Act, and some state legislation, and controlling
pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. Those labs were pushed out of,
for the most part, California, out of our country. There are
still some labs, but for the most part, the big labs ended up
in Mexico. So right now, availability is sky-high with
methamphetamine because the Mexican traffickers have taken over
the production and have these big megalabs in Mexico.
And you asked about the transportation, how did they get it
in? The chemicals to make it are imported, are smuggled into
Mexico. Mexican cartels and trafficking organizations--not just
one or two--many of them are involved in producing meth. They
produce it and then it is brought up into the United States. It
is often brought up with cocaine loads, marijuana loads, and
heroin loads. It is transported up into the U.S. via passenger
vehicle, trunk of a car, tractor trailer, you name it; that is
how it gets up. And even more recently, we have even seen on
the west coast, some maritime up into the United States.
Mr. Honda. So--forgive me for interrupting--but when I was
on the border, I talked to some of the officers there and they
said that there are trains that bring in cars that are wrapped
so that they are protected from dust and everything, but prior
to wrapping, they fill some of these cars and then put the cars
on the trains with these drugs.
Ms. Leonhart. That is another method. That is correct; that
is a problem.
Mr. Honda. So it is not so much the porous borders, as much
as the way people become more innovative or we just don't look
at certain things. We assume that something is well--is checked
before it enters our country, and, in fact, it isn't. That
seems to be a great source of loads of stuff coming in at once.
Ms. Leonhart. They are very innovative.
Mr. Honda. So the precursors to methamphetamines is coming
from other countries, what are some of the major countries?
Ms. Leonhart. Currently the method that they are using in
Mexico is phenylacetic acid and most of that will come in from
China, some from India, smuggled into Central America or
smuggled directly into Mexico. They use that, rather than the
method that we all pushed back on, the pseudoephedrine and
ephedrine method.
Mr. Honda. So, in terms of assets, rather than trying to
catch it on the border, so you think we should try another
tactic and give you some assets that would catch it en route to
Mexico?
Ms. Leonhart. Actually, this budget, supporting this budget
allows us to continue a very good presence in foreign
countries, our foreign offices. It allows us to have offices in
Mexico and have agents stationed in Mexico who are now working
with our Mexican counterparts. And we have prioritized because
we have helped with training, identification of those labs in
Mexico. And more recently, the federal police in Mexico have
been doing a very good job of seizing those laboratories.
Mr. Honda. I get that part. I am still focused on----
Ms. Leonhart. Assets.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. The assets because you said assets
and I think if we want to prevent these from coming in, I think
we should be prepared to be where it is most effective, along
with the work that you did with the Human Resources, the folks
like yourselves. I would like to know though what that would
be, not off the top of your head, but we you go back to your
offices and do some calculations.
Mr. Wolf. Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and as administrator, it
is good to see you again.
Ms. Leonhart. Good to see you.
Mr. Harris. And it is good seeing you in Maryland, and, of
course, bringing to this part of America exhibit to Maryland
where--or I agree with the ranking member, you know, cities
like Baltimore, Philadelphia, have tremendous problems with
drugs and hopefully that will go part of the way for solving
some of those problems.
MARIJUANA
Anyway, let me ask you a question because it is quite
appropriate that we are discussing this today because this week
the Maryland Legislature is going to vote on the legalization
of marijuana and despite the evidence, the increasing evidence
of the adverse effects of marijuana, you know, it may never
come to--in some states, it may just be a vote in the
legislature.
The foot in the door, first, was always medical marijuana.
I was in the legislature when that bill was proposed many, many
times. The end point is always legalization. Can you talk a
little bit about medical marijuana because the position people
always ask about is are there--can you just clarify as to what
the FDA's position is on medical marijuana?
Ms. Leonhart. The FDA has not declared there to be any
medicinal value in smoked marijuana.
Mr. Harris. So they don't regulate it in any way, do they?
Ms. Leonhart. No.
Mr. Harris. Because it is actually a completely illegal
drug under the CSA?
Ms. Leonhart. A dangerous illegal drug.
Mr. Harris. A dangerous illegal drug.
And this is fascinating to me, Mr. Chairman, because, you
know, the FDA is just about to regulate flavored cigars, and
yet they are not going to regulate brownies with marijuana. I
mean just think about that for a minute. The Federal Government
under this Administration is going to say: We are actually
going to talk about regulating flavored cigars, but, you know,
those marijuana brownies in Colorado, they can stay on the
shelves. It is just fascinating to me. Let me just ask, just to
clarify, the enforcement of the CSA--and as I remind the
committee, I mean I hold a license that doesn't allow me to
administer a Class I drug--I mean I can't prescribe marijuana
because it is a--because of the DEA classification. The
enforcement of the DEA is left to federal prosecutors and the
DEA--I am sorry--of the CSA, it is left to the federal
prosecutors and the DEA, that is basically it. We don't count
on the states to enforce the CSA, do we?
Ms. Leonhart. State and local task officers are on our task
forces and duly sworn and they have the authority to enforce
federal law with us, so it is us with our partners.
Mr. Harris. And so, therefore, in states like Colorado
where you have no state partner, what happens?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, we actually do have state partners in
Colorado.
Mr. Harris. But they are not enforcing the CSA because the
CSA says possession of marijuana--of a Class I drug is illegal.
Ms. Leonhart. A federal agent is the only one who can
enforce federal law.
Mr. Harris. And just to clarify, you are not enforcing the
federal law in Colorado?
Ms. Leonhart. We actually are enforcing the federal law in
Colorado.
Mr. Harris. Parts of it, right? I mean you are not
enforcing--in other words, you are not enforcing the absolute
possession of marijuana as a violation of the federal law?
Ms. Leonhart. Because of limited resources, we have never
gone after the marijuana user. We don't even have the resources
to go after the low-level trafficker. We go after big
organizations, the people who are most responsible for the
trafficking, not the individual user.
Mr. Harris. Sure, but the CSA, I mean, was meant to provide
protection to all Americans against a--not just--for instance,
in the August 29th memo, you know--said, okay, we are going to
enforce the law and try to keep it away from minors, which, you
know, I specifically asked the Attorney General last year at
the hearing--and the Chairman may remember--about the
enforcement should Colorado pass this law and the Attorney
General--Oh, no, we are going to make sure it doesn't get in
the hands of children.
Madam Administrator, the evidence is quite clear that in
places that have decriminalization or legalization, the use
among children goes up; is that right?
Ms. Leonhart. I would agree with you.
Mr. Harris. Yeah, I mean the evidence is clear. So what
strategy do you, exactly, have in Colorado to keep true on the
Attorney General's promise that we are going to stop this
getting in the hands of children? Because I can't imagine--I
mean I can't imagine where, aside from the other things, the
gangs and cartel activity, where on a daily basis the DEA is
actually going to prevent this from getting in the hands of
children because you don't have a state partner that is going
to enforce the full extent of the law. So how are we going to
do that? How are we going to keep this from getting in the
hands of children, so that as that New Zealand study showed,
that they don't lose eight IQ points between the age of 13 and
38 with chronic marijuana use?
Ms. Leonhart. As I understand it, when the Justice
Department made their decision not to take action, along with
that decision was the responsibility by those states, so that
Colorado and Washington would implement very strong regulatory
systems to control it. It is a good question for the Attorney
General later this week, but it is my belief that the intention
was that the states would regulate and control it and have very
strong regulatory systems, and that is why the door was left
open.
The Department of Justice said: For now, we will not take
action. We are expecting those states to regulate, set up very
strong--not only set them up, but fund them--set them up, fund
them, strong regulatory systems to keep it out of the hands of
kids, to keep it away from those eight federal priorities, and
they reserve the right to take action if that does not happen.
Mr. Harris. And you mean takes action--who has the right to
take action?
Ms. Leonhart. The Department of Justice would reconsider
and has left the door open for taking action, should those
states not do their duty, to set up these regulatory systems
and prevent what we are all concerned about.
Mr. Harris. And, again, I just find it hard to believe that
there is any reason to believe that we will be any more
successful in those states than the other states that have
decriminalization or that we will prevent--you know, in
Maryland, as well as other states, incredibly rigorous
mechanisms to keep alcohol out of the hands of children--go on
to the college campus or high school, you know, a late-night
party and see how well those work.
And coupled with, you know, the statistic from the Pew
study that, you know, more than 60 percent of Americans
consider alcohol more dangerous than marijuana is just--again,
it is astounding to me because I think the medical figures are
going to show that when you look at ER visits, you look at
traffic accidents, you look at the effect on mental
development, I think that marijuana is going to be found at
least as, if not more, dangerous than alcohol. So, in the end,
what can the committee do to help the DEA in their efforts to
make sure that those states don't allow these drugs to fall
into the hands of children?
Ms. Leonhart. You can support the budget which would allow
us to continue to have very vigorous enforcement in all 50
states, going after those organizations most responsible. It
would help support our state and local partners, as well, to
continue our enforcement efforts, which, in Colorado we had
one, we actually showed a Colombia organization investing in
the marijuana business. We recently took down a case in
California out of Fresno and Bakersfield where a major meth
trafficker had opened up a dispensary and was using the
dispensary to launder his funds.
So supporting the budget gives us enough to continue hiring
again and getting our agents out into the field divisions. It
keeps our task forces and that will definitely help us continue
to do our part because we are enforcing federal law.
Mr. Harris. One final question is--I know this has appeared
on the Internet--reports of people mail ordering from Colorado
because, you know, you can kind of get what you--you get a
known quantity. Who enforces the provisions that the mails
can't be used for cross-state transport of troubled substances?
Ms. Leonhart. United States Postal Service has parcel
squads and they often find packages that have marijuana. A lot
of times, they will turn it over to a state or local office to
have it prosecuted under state law. But we also have
interdiction squads that do the very same thing.
Mr. Harris. And have you noted--is this true, these
Internet reports true, that the trafficking of drugs across the
borders from Colorado have increased?
Ms. Leonhart. Actually, it is not just Colorado, they have
increased around the country, especially from states that have
passed medical marijuana laws.
Mr. Harris. Sure, as I imagined. Thank you very much.
Thanks on behalf of the committee.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Dr. Harris.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman before I ask my question, I want
to take a privilege of seniority here just to say that I am
going to miss you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. And I am going to miss the kind of guy that
you are.
I started with Chairman Rogers and I have had the privilege
of being the ranking member on this committee with both of you
and I remember the days when the minute the President submitted
his budget, we would sit down, you would have ten things that
were nonnegotiable, I would have ten things that were
nonnegotiable, our staffs would sit down to work and--from the
newer members, we got 390, 395 votes on the board for a bill.
Those days will never come back; I wish they would. And I think
so much of it was based on our ability to prove that you could
be miles apart in disagreement but not be disagreeable and I am
going to miss you a lot, and you were not on the list of people
that I was hoping would leave. [Laughter]
I assure you of that, and I mean that sincerely.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. And the reason I am doing it now is because,
you know, before you know it, summer will be here and we will
take our recess and it is an election year and time runs
quickly around this place at times and I just want to tell you
that to me you will always be--you have been a friend and
living proof that this country is, indeed, a democracy, because
we can disagree without being disagreeable.
CARIBBEAN DRUG TRAFFICKING
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Let me bring you to a warmer place, to Puerto
Rico, which you mentioned and decided to enter my question
before. One of the issues that we dealt with or had dealt with
is the fact that if we put more resources on the southern
border, then there was a question of the third or fourth border
which is the territories and a lot of people, when they speak
of the territories--if I could change something in this
Congress, in this country, starting with the President is that
we no longer say: The 50 states and the territories. You know,
that would be part of the language: The 50 states and the
territories. The--gets in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, it
is the United States and yet it is seen by many as, well, it is
there, it is not here yet. No, it is not. If it is in Puerto
Rico, it is in New York. It is in Florida. Then it gets into
the Virgin Islands and then it is in Puerto Rico and then in
New York and maybe it gets into Samoa or the Mariana Islands.
It travels with people. And so we put in language last year
allowing for a new initiative and the President was very
supportive and we were very supportive of, to allow for a
Caribbean initiative.
Number one, what can you tell me about that initiative and
has your agency been involved in setting it up?
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you, sir.
We have been very involved because, as I testified a couple
of times with this subcommittee, we have been concerned about
our efforts on the southwest border being effective and we
would see this pushback to the Caribbean. And when I last came
before you, I actually said we had seen a shift and it was up
to eight percent of the flow going through the Caribbean route.
I can tell you that today we are worried because now we see
about sixteen percent. Last year it was about twelve and now we
are seeing about sixteen percent of the flow going through the
Caribbean.
So there couldn't be a better time for the Government to
come together to put together this Caribbean border strategy.
And we are working with all of our counterparts being
coordinated by ONDCP, taking a page from what we did on the
southern border and the northern border to come up with what we
feel would be very helpful to combat this emerging and growing
problem with Puerto Rico.
We agree, DEA does agree completely with you about once it
is in Puerto Rico it is in the United States and that has been
our fear, that the shift would start sending boats, planes,
whatever, right into Puerto Rico and that is actually what is
happening. And it is primarily coke loads, but in Puerto Rico
we also have a heroin problem.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Which brings me to my next question: Those who study
military history--and I am not one of them--but I have heard
that it is harder to control an island than it is to simply
cross a border from another country. Is it the same thing with
the drug trade, is it more difficult on an island or does
today's technology and today's airplanes and so on, make it
just as easy to cross the border from Mexico into Texas or
vise-versa than it is to go into an island?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, you bring up a great point. I think the
problem with Puerto Rico is geographics, that the source
countries are so close and that things can be flown and things
can go in by boat. As part of this strategy, we have looked at
where Puerto Rico might be a little vulnerable and identified
that airports would be a place where we should do more work. So
we have kind of formed an informal group and started an
informal task force to go after while it is coming in on
commercial planes. So we have to look at every smuggling method
because that is how they are getting the product into Puerto
Rico. Once into Puerto Rico there are huge addiction problems,
so a lot of it is being used right on the island, but it is
also being transported up to Miami and the southeast and going
into Philadelphia and New York and we see that as a huge
problem.
Mr. Serrano. Well, you have our support--and I know I speak
for--because your agency has more knowledge of this issue than
other agencies. They have developed this Caribbean initiative
which is a huge success for us and we will accept that and get
that out of the White House itself that they take into
consideration your experience and if they don't, let us know.
You know, we will see to it that they do, that they do listen.
HONDURAN INVESTIGATION
Let me bring you, very briefly, to another area. The
situation that happened in Honduras where some--there was a
raid or some involvement and some folks were killed who were
supposedly or allegedly had nothing to do with the drug trade.
Local authorities have claimed that they were not able to look
at information that you had or that your agency had or other
agencies and so it has created a little tension. I represent a
large Honduran community that have asked that question. What
can you tell me about that whole situation?
Ms. Leonhart. I can tell you that the Honduran Government
approached our agency several years back and asked for help
because, as you talk about Puerto Rico being bombarded--
Honduras is, Central America is where all of the cocaine that
is transitting Mexico is landing and they don't have the
resources; they don't have the training; they don't have the
helicopters; they don't have anything to combat the steady
flow, especially air traffic into Honduras.
So the Government has asked us for help, so we have been
helping by training their law enforcement teams side by side
and we were training with them for quite some time. Training is
one thing, but the best way to train is to go operational. So a
plan that was developed at the request of the Honduran
Government, blessed by the U.S. Embassy--in fact, they signed
off on the operational plan--was to go and take action. Instead
of watching these planes come in and unload the cocaine,
actually take action. We ran a very special operation; it was
run by the Honduran authorities, the police that we had been
working with. We ran it during a period of time, to go after
those plane loads that were coming in. The incident that you
are talking about was May two years ago and there was a
shooting. In the middle of the night, 2:00 or 3:00 in the
morning, a load came in. The load got on a boat. As the
Hondurans, with DEA present, came in to take off that load, it
was put on a boat and floated down the river in the middle of
the night. The Honduran police, along with at least one DEA
agent, went to go rescue that cocaine boat and in the middle of
the night in the darkness while they were doing that, a boat
came from the middle of nowhere and rammed their boat and there
was a shootout and unfortunately people lost their lives.
Now, there is a question about were these innocent people
or were these actually traffickers? The investigation was then
done by the Honduras Government. All of the allegations that
were being made by some townspeople that this was this innocent
boat, those were somewhat refuted by an investigation and a
second investigation was done. But the bottom line is there
were--it doesn't matter if someone was innocent or not, there
were lives that were lost and it was a very dangerous situation
and I thank goodness that there were no Honduran police hurt
because they could have been.
It has been fully investigated. It was investigated by the
Hondurans. Our standard shooting investigation and the one that
was done following that all concluded it was a tragic accident
and we have looked at how to make sure that the operations that
the Hondurans are running are done with more safety in mind and
more planning involved. And we, for the most part, have done
what we can to alleviate that from happening----
Mr. Serrano. The investigation was complete, though?
Ms. Leonhart. Yes.
Mr. Serrano. And the Hondurans are satisfied and the
Government and the police, that everything----
Ms. Leonhart. Yes. After----
Mr. Serrano. My next question would be: Has there been any
reaction from the public, any--or any allegations?
Ms. Leonhart. We have not heard anything for months after
some executives from DEA went down and met with the Ambassador
and actually briefed our shooting investigation and then there
was a Honduran investigation as well that reported the facts.
So we have not heard anything for many, many months.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Well, please let us know if you do hear
anything new on that, and back, again, if you run into any
troubles with the White House on making sure that the Caribbean
initiative takes off properly, let us know. I know that Mr.
Wolf would love to call the White House one more time before it
is over.
Ms. Leonhart. Well, we are optimistic.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you again for your service.
MARIJUANA
The DEA has to be one of the most difficult jobs that
anybody in the Federal Government has to deal with just because
of the circumstances and because of what they deal with. But
also I think added to that are some mixed messages that come
out from whether it is society or from the Administration.
The fact that you have marijuana that is according to
federal law as illegal, and yet you have at least the DEA
looking the other way by different aspects of the Federal
Government, for example, the Department of Justice. And, I
think if the states were to pass legislation to allow for
decriminalization, I would be all up in arms and I think that
federal law would be enforced--hope that that would be
enforced. But in this case, there is this kind of ``look the
other way'' attitude, and yet your folks still are required to
do a very tough job. So, again, I just don't see how anybody
could have a more difficult job, with the exception of our
military, than what DEA agents have. So let me just throw a
couple of things out there.
One of them is: Have you all--I mean there seems to be a
lot of concern. We have heard from other folks in the
administration that are very concerned about the potential
effects of marijuana, of the increased use of marijuana, and
yet there is this kind of attitude of allowing it to happen.
Has the DEA officially asked the White House, the Department of
Justice to enforce federal law when it comes to marijuana? If
so, what response have you gotten? If not, why not, number one.
If you just kind of handle that briefly, I will then kind
of go abroad and ask you a couple of questions about the
situation abroad.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you for your question.
First, DEA continues to enforce federal law. I am a special
agent. The Deputy Administrator is a special agent. We took an
oath to uphold the laws of our country and every DEA agent
continues to enforce federal law. Number two, though, our
concerns were well known and as an agency, our position was
heard. We continue to be concerned about marijuana, but, again,
the Department made a legal decision, not a law enforcement
decision, but, yes, our concerns were heard.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, again, that is why I mentioned that.
I think you all have--and you really do, because you are in
charge and you do so--I mean you do--great risk in that case.
Again, we ask you--the U.S. asks you to enforce laws and you do
so at great risk, you do it here, and you do it right, and for
that, I am so exceedingly grateful, but, again, I think it is
mixed messages that are coming from other parts of the
Administration are at least--for all of us.
INTERNATIONAL PRESENCE
Let me take it abroad. For example, in Bolivia where the
leader there, the person who runs the Government, Mr. Morales,
claims that his country is better off without the DEA and the
DEA was thrown out of the country and he claims that they are
doing better. I just want you to, if you can, just comment on
that. I have--how do I put it mildly--the source has to be
greatly questioned.
And also, for example, with Ecuador, again, a U.S.
Ambassador was kicked out for a period of time and military
personnel was kicked out of the air base, Manta air base. And
those are two countries that are problematic countries and I
think you have two leaders--there have been many, many even
press reports about how they are closely associated in many
ways, directly, with the drug trafficking trade.
And then also Venezuela where you have relatives of Mr.
Chavez who were supposedly in the drug trade--directly involved
in the drug trade. If you want to just comment as to,
particularly, Ecuador and Bolivia, the situation there, how you
see it and what can and what should the U.S. do to--try to
influence and be involved and in essence thrown out of those
countries and how do you see the situation, is it going to get
worse? Just kind of your impressions there, just kind of
general.
Ms. Leonhart. Interesting questions.
You know, Bolivia is the very first country that the DEA
has ever been thrown out of.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Officially thrown out.
Ms. Leonhart. You know, the President of Bolivia, he has
got his reason for saying what he says about they are better
off without DEA, but I think the countries surrounding Bolivia
would question that because they are the ones that are
suffering from the additional trafficking that is happening out
of Bolivia.
As far as Ecuador, we have very good working relationships
with our partners in Ecuador. For instance, one of the very
first semisubmersible submarines we actually seized with the
Ecuadorians sharing intelligence and were able to find it in
the jungle. Those kinds of collaborations continue to happen in
Ecuador and we have done very good cases together. We have made
great seizures together and we continue working day-to-day with
our partners in Ecuador.
Venezuela, we are still in Venezuela. We have agents who
are working there. They have very good working relationships.
It has actually improved and we are able to do cases. The
Venezuelans have made some very significant arrests based upon
our information and our investigations, and so that is, I will
say, a work in progress, but it continues.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Chairman, if I may, just another issue
which is the Caribbean, frankly, leaders--that want to re-
evaluate whether they should legalize marijuana, the actual
production of marijuana in the Caribbean. They are saying
that--among the things that they have said multiple times is
the fact that the United States is not really taking it
seriously, and that it would be good for their economy and they
have actually said that publicly.
So I am wondering what effect that would have in our
ability to combat trafficking, drug trafficking, particularly
with marijuana, if, in fact, the Caribbean nations decide to
decriminalize production or legalize production of marijuana.
Again, it is a very dangerous trend that we are seeing. We here
in the United States, we kind of look the other way, but the
effects of that, of these mixed messages are felt around the
world. And, they are felt around the world because their
attitudes are changing or will change, and if that is the case
then I think that you are looking at a different country here.
And, the most dramatic example of that is when the Caribbean
leaders are saying, maybe we should just legalize--they talk
about at this stage, legalize, the production of marijuana.
What effect would that have on our--you know, it is not like
you have a ton of money left over to do what you are doing,
right, and you are always going to be on tight budgets. What
effect would that have on our ability to stop it?
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you.
I think some of these countries have serious drug issues
and not a lot of resources to attack the issue and to have
something like this happen, that would just be another problem
for them. I feel first for my law enforcement partners in the
Caribbean.
I was recently at a meeting and the chair of their chief
law enforcement association spoke out regarding Colorado and
Washington and he completely opposes any of those countries
moving in that direction. So I think law enforcement in the
Caribbean clearly sees the public safety problem that that
would cause. But I do worry because I do think there are a
number of countries, especially in our western hemisphere, that
were surprised by what happened in Colorado and Washington and
are now considering with their leaders what steps they should
take. Now we only have one country in the world that has
technically legalized marijuana and that is Uruguay and that
just happened. And I think a number of these countries are
going to wait and see what happens with Uruguay as they
implement their new law.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you and, again, thanks for
addressing it.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Chairman, I think Florida has a ballot initiative to do
medical marijuana as well and it is--to call it medical
marijuana, regardless of what one's opinion is of the issue is,
is kind of a little bit of a misnomer. It is basically an open-
ended--so I think this is a growing trend.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, again, I think a big part of that is
that we are getting mixed messages from the Federal Governments
as to whether it is okay. It is just food for thought. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
I have--I will go to you Mr. Fattah and then I am going to
try to finish up out of courtesy, since we have a----
Mr. Fattah. Okay. I need to apologize. I got a press
conference at twelve noon--Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Fattah. I have to depart, but it is not out of love and
affection for you and the work of our committee. But let me
just try to deal with a couple of things. One is that you said
that the medical marijuana when it is smoked--so the National
Cancer Institute and some others have said that you can use
marijuana for pain killing, but it is not for smoking; is that
accurate?
Ms. Leonhart. No, that is not accurate.
In fact, the American Medical Association and almost every
other medical association don't recognize----
Mr. Fattah. So it can't be used----
Ms. Leonhart [continuing]. Marijuana as a medicine and are
actually against legalization.
Mr. Fattah. At a conference in Florida it was alleged
that--they said that the national institute of cancer had
made--but we can get back to that, because I don't want to get
hung up on this.
There are a number of drugs, alcohol, nicotine, that are
legal and there are a number that are illegal, right? And the
country has made some decisions around alcohol and nicotine
which devastate a lot of people's health and lives and it is
just kind of like a decision that was made in Pennsylvania
where you can now ride a motorcycle without a helmet--now, my
wife won't let me ride my bike without a helmet. It is not a
great idea. You know, I have a teenager and I wouldn't want my
teenager to be intoxicated with alcohol or smoking cigarettes
nor smoking marijuana or any of these other kinds of
circumstances.
But there are decisions that are going to be made in this
society and the country is moving on this question of marijuana
and it has something to do with where civil society is on this,
but there is no one who is suggesting that meth, which you
talked about, or marijuana or these other drugs, you know, have
gotten in a serious conversation about legalizing them. So you
are going to have work to do and we want to make sure that you
have the appropriations that you need to do it.
It wasn't mentioned here about a former leader of Venezuela
and whether or not there was some involvement in drug
trafficking. I just want to make sure because we don't want an
international incident. That is not the position of the DEA; is
that right?
Ms. Leonhart. I guess I don't understand what your question
is about Venezuela.
Mr. Fattah. The gentleman from Florida said that he was
asking about whether or not in Venezuela there was a problem
with the former leader or his family selling drugs and that is
not our position, right?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, I didn't take it that that was a
question from him, but----
Mr. Fattah. Now I am asking it as my question.
Ms. Leonhart. I am not aware of any--no.
Mr. Fattah. We have had access to Venezuela for the DEA to
do a tour, right?
Ms. Leonhart. On and off.
Mr. Fattah. We were thrown out of Bolivia.
Ms. Leonhart. On and off, but we are currently in Venezuela
working.
Mr. Fattah. And our circumstances there have improved,
their cooperation with you?
Ms. Leonhart. That's correct.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that the
record was clear. So I want to thank you for your testimony. We
are going to work together with the Chairman and make sure you
have the resources that you need and I particularly want to
thank you--as the Chairman might recall, because years ago he
worked with me and we asked for some additional resources
because of the circumstances and the DEA just did a terrific
job. We had a 46-year low in homicides and it is to the credit
of these--of the FBI and the DEA and the additional resources
working with the federal police departments, so thank you very
much.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. I hate to be so parochial, but all--is local.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
PERSONNEL ACTION
I am going to try to go through these fairly fast because
we have another witness and we are going to have a vote about
1:30, so we will go up to the vote. But last year you were
dealing with a situation where several DEA agents were found to
have engaged in inappropriate activity. This took place in
April, 2012?
Ms. Leonhart. Two years ago, April, yes.
Mr. Wolf. Are they still on the payroll?
Ms. Leonhart. They are not on the payroll, but because it
is in litigation, I am not able to talk much more about it.
Mr. Wolf. So they are not being paid by the taxpayer?
Ms. Leonhart. They are not being paid by the taxpayer.
Mr. Wolf. And they are not coming in every day?
Ms. Leonhart. They are not employees of DEA.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Because they were involved in covering up
the sale--I mean when people see this and then they see the
Secret Service the other day drunk in the hallway over--I mean
it just--so I am glad they are gone. There is nothing that I am
missing, am I?
Ms. Leonhart. No, I just--it is in litigation, so I can't
discuss----
Mr. Wolf. What are they litigating for then? What is the
litigation? I mean you don't have to take a position, but what
are they asking--who is litigating against whom?
Ms. Leonhart. Appeals.
Mr. Wolf. Appeals. Boy, I tell you then we gotta change--we
just have to change the process then because for two years--I
mean maybe the answer is that they ought to be prosecuted.
Maybe they ought to be--this should be referred to the U.S.
Attorney.
FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST
But we can't have that. You agree--I know you do--if you
don't, tell me, but I know you do. But April, 2012. The flat
fiscal year 2015 budget assume that you will absorb $75 million
dollars. You are now backfilling required pay and overhead
costs. Will the proposal to absorb $75 million dollars prevent
you from restoring the necessary hiring and operational
funding?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, in 2014 with the hiring freeze being
lifted and the 2014 budget, we started hiring again, so we are
on track. We are going to have three agent academies this year.
Mr. Wolf. What would you have if the $75 million dollars
were restored?
Ms. Leonhart. Well----
Mr. Wolf. If you didn't have to absorb the $75 million
dollars?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, the $75 million dollars covers----
Mr. Wolf. Well, if you had a real growth or not, because in
essence, your budget is being cut. So if you had real growth
and not being cut?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, to bring all of the positions on that
we lost since January 2011, we would need about $173 million
dollars.
Mr. Wolf. So what would it be if you did not have to absorb
the $75 million dollars in additional costs, would that----
Ms. Leonhart. The 75 million would allow us to do more
hiring, but we would still need about a hundred million to get
us back to where we were.
Mr. Wolf. A hundred thousand or a hundred million?
Ms. Leonhart. One hundred seventy million to restore
completely to where we were in January 2011. The cut at $75
million dollars causes us in 2015 to be able to only hire one
for every two that we lose.
Mr. Wolf. So we are really falling behind?
Ms. Leonhart. Because as we started to hire, we are still
continuing to lose.
Mr. Wolf. And in order to catch up, whereby you are not
losing, what would you need?
Ms. Leonhart. About a hundred----
Mr. Wolf. I mean I don't know that we could help. We would
like to.
Ms. Leonhart. About $175 million dollars.
Mr. Wolf. Got that? Yes? [Laughter]
AFGHANISTAN
The staff does a great job and as they are balancing who do
we take it from? Overseas, we have heard about a great deal
about your potential consequences for opium and heroin
production and trafficking in light of our drawdown in
Afghanistan. What is the current status and is it realistic to
think that DEA and its partners could keep up with a meaningful
reinforcement regime if the military leaves?
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you for bringing up Afghanistan. Of
course we play a very important role in Afghanistan. We have
been able to stand up vetted units that, at some point, will be
able to do drug enforcement on their own. They are not
completely there yet, but because Afghanistan produces ninety
percent of the world's opium, that will always be a country
that DEA will need to have some presence in.
Mr. Wolf. What if the U.S. forces withdraw?
Ms. Leonhart. We have a number of different scenarios. If
they withdraw completely, we obviously would have to look at
whether we could continue with a complement of 13 agents there,
if we could continue safely. Right now we have a contingency
that if there are U.S. forces left there and we can continue to
do our operations, we would plan to do that.
If there is no way to stay in that country safely and
conduct operations, do our mission, that is something that we
would have to look at and there is a possibility that we
wouldn't be there.
Mr. Wolf. And that would have a significant impact on the
opium around the world and here in the U.S.?
Ms. Leonhart. That would have an impact not necessarily on
the U.S.
Mr. Wolf. Europe more?
Ms. Leonhart. Europe, Russia, Asia. You know, that opium is
made into heroin and transported into those countries. But it
is important to have a DEA presence in Afghanistan looking at
those kingpins and the organizations most responsible for that
because at one point in this country, remember, the prime
source for heroin that hit our streets in the 1970s and the
1980s was Afghanistan--southwest Asia.
Mr. Wolf. How many of your people have died in Afghanistan?
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you for bringing that up. We lost three
agents in October of 2009. We had another agent that has
survived; he was shot in the head. He is now blind, but he
survived.
Mr. Wolf. I think that is something this Congress fails to
understand sometimes and we always go through these pay freezes
and everything else, and yet, you know, when you look at the
number--and your people are side by side with the military.
When they go out there in a package, they are out there with
the military many times--most times.
Ms. Leonhart. That is our SWAT team.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, and so they are side by side. Okay. Last
year you testified about the long reach of the Mexican cartels.
I think you covered that. You think the Guzman arrest will--do
you think they will extradite him to the U.S.? Are you going to
officially ask that he be extradited to the U.S.?
Ms. Leonhart. That is being discussed by the State
Department and the Mexican officials, but I would point out
that he escaped from prison, so he was in prison on Mexican
charges to begin with and we will see what the Mexicans plan on
doing.
INTERNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING
Mr. Wolf. Okay. As your submission notes, DEA reporting
corroborates the finding of the 9/11 Commission report that
drug trafficking revenue has always been a major revenue source
for the Taliban which continues to benefit from opium
production in Afghanistan. Your summary indicates the links
between trafficking revenues and Hezbollic groups in West
Africa, al Qaeda affiliates in West and East Africa and the
Colombian FARC. How much of the global trade in illicit drugs
which has been estimated in the range of $400 billion dollars
is associated with supporting terrorist activities, or at least
moving through similar channels?
Ms. Leonhart. Hard to put a full number on it, but let me
go back to the Taliban. It is estimated that they make about
$100 million dollars per year with their drug trafficking
activities.
Let's talk about the FARC. The FARC really has controlled
for a long period of time coke production, coke loads going to
West Africa and then back up to Europe, so they get incredible
revenue from drug trafficking.
And we are very concerned about the Lebanese trafficking,
where we see Hezbollah involvement.
Mr. Wolf. Now what are they moving, Hezbollah--which has
impacted--which was involved in the blowing up of the Marine
barracks where we lost after large number of Marines back in
the early 1980s, which has been rocketing Israel, which has
been doing--which was involved in the attack against the
embassy in which the CIA agent Buckley was killed. So this is a
bad group, so what are they moving and what are they gaining by
this?
Ms. Leonhart. We see their affiliation with major
trafficking organizations.
Mr. Wolf. Major trafficking organizations where?
Ms. Leonhart. Colombia, West Africa, other organizations.
Mr. Wolf. Is Hezbollah down in South America and Latin
America?
Ms. Leonhart. We see Lebanese and Iranian trafficking in
the Venezuela area, which is of a concern.
Mr. Wolf. And what are they moving?
Ms. Leonhart. Those are cocaine loads moving out of
Venezuela to West Africa and then up to Europe.
We also did a case, the Lebanese Canadian Bank case that
showed this connection, this trade-based money laundering
scheme to launder, at least drug proceeds and who knows what
else, utilizing cars being moved from the United States sitting
in parks in West Africa as a way to get money back to Lebanon.
So our drug trafficking investigations, and some are on-going
so I can't say much, identify all these links to terrorist
groups and we have been very concerned about groups in Africa.
Mr. Wolf. Where in Africa?
Ms. Leonhart. West Africa. We also see problems along the
Sahel, connections to Boko Haram.
Mr. Wolf. Boko Haram which are killing Christians that
are--we just had some people in Nigeria in my office. Boko
Haram is involved?
Ms. Leonhart. Connections with drug trafficking
organizations. So there is this marriage between drug
trafficking organizations around the world and these terrorist
groups, and we have several investigations that are giving us
very good intelligence about what the situation is.
Mr. Wolf. Is there any connection at all as we go back to
the issue of the legalization of marijuana in the west, as to
the impact that that has on the things that we just dealt with?
Ms. Leonhart. Connection between----
Mr. Wolf. Well, connection that we--here we are saying okay
for marijuana here in Colorado, here, but in essence, it is
connected to this other taking place--are there any
connections?
Ms. Leonhart. We see drug sales, not necessarily----
Mr. Wolf. Is Hezbollah connected with the Mexican cartels?
Ms. Leonhart. We don't see direct connections, but we see
drug organizations and terrorists share some of the same
facilitators, so your money brokers and your money launderers;
we see some connections there.
We are very concerned because all of a sudden with our
program that we have in Afghanistan, we are seeing calls from
Mexico. We have Mexican traffickers that have shown up in
Nigeria and set up meth labs.
MARIJUANA
Mr. Wolf. Right. Could you argue--and I am not saying this,
I want you to tell me whether it is accurate or not--somebody
purchasing marijuana in here in the United States, what is that
impact--we know it is destroying the inner cities and we know
it is hitting the suburbs and we know it is the impact on
family, but what is that impact abroad? What is that person who
is purchasing, what impact does that have in Colombia, in
Mexico, in wherever? Is there any kind of--or is it just it
stops at the border and it is not a big deal outside? What are
the impacts?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, a lot of the marijuana that is being
consumed is now grown domestically, but there is still a lot of
marijuana that is being trafficked across the southwest border
that belongs to the Mexican cartels. So where people thought
that this was going to destroy the cartels, actually, cartels
are involved in some of that commercial growing. They are
involved in every aspect of marijuana production and
distribution, so they are buying marijuana and they are sending
money back to the cartels. Even if they think they are buying
marijuana out of dispensaries, those dispensaries are supplied
often by Mexican traffickers.
Mr. Wolf. So, some of the legal dispensaries in Colorado
and places are purchasing the supply chain--maybe they don't
know it--but it inevitably leads to the cartels?
Ms. Leonhart. I go back to a case where we show Colombian
investment in Colorado in the marijuana industry. I go back to
California where the dispensaries, the majority of which are
operating illegally, the product is coming from growers that
were controlled by Mexican organizations.
Mr. Wolf. And--and I know the answer--and why is that a
problem? Why should somebody be concerned that they are giving
money to the cartels down in Mexico?
Ms. Leonhart. That money goes back to the cartels to
continue to produce their next load to come up to the U.S., to
corrupt officials, to continue their violent activities, and
especially that is our neighbor, so the money going back to the
Mexican cartels is hurting the western hemisphere, North
America.
Mr. Wolf. And the last question is: What did they learn in
the Netherlands, because I understand--I have talked to some
people over there that there is a re-trenchment, they are
beginning to say--what did they learn in the Netherlands or
what has the Netherlands--what are they beginning to do based
on what has happened there with regard to their relatively open
drug policy?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, a lot of people say that we should
learn from the Netherlands. Yeah, we should have learned from
the Netherlands. The Netherlands never legalized marijuana. The
Netherlands set up; it is okay to set up stores or these coffee
houses in this particular area. When they did that, they saw--
and we have heard from our law enforcement partners--that they
have all sorts of problems with it, but there were all of these
tourists that started to come in and they saw a rise in crime--
those unintended consequences. So it made those officials think
that they needed to make some changes and they have made a
recent change where you are not going to be able to get into
these shops or buy in these shops if you are a foreigner
because of problems that they have seen.
So the Netherlands is--we should have learned from that and
never gone forward with what we see in this country. Because
once you--you can't put it back in the bottle and they have had
to take steps to try to control that and one recently was to
stop the tourism.
Mr. Wolf. Is there marijuana tourism now in Colorado? Are
people selling tours to go out from wherever to go to Colorado
and spend a week or is that a----
Ms. Leonhart. Reports of travel agencies having--
advertising junkets to Colorado. I know over the holidays, all
I saw were these reports in anticipation of the stores opening
on January 1st. Flights to Colorado at cheap rates. People who
started tour groups that would bring people out to show them
the growing areas and bring them into the dispensaries or the
stores. There is tourism associated with it and Kansas is a
state that we are trying----
Mr. Wolf. What is happening in Kansas?
Ms. Leonhart. We are trying to help out because you talk
about the consequences of, you know, having something happen in
Colorado and what happens to the states next to it or around
it.
Mr. Wolf. What are they, are people from Kansas coming in?
Ms. Leonhart. The Kansas State Highway Patrol is seeing
this surge since all of this has happened in Colorado--is
seeing this surge in loads of marijuana coming through Kansas
and money going back to Colorado. So we are working with the
Kansas State Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials
because they have raised that they are being impacted by that.
Law enforcement is aware that there are people that are
coming back from Colorado with having purchased marijuana and
so they are bracing for having to respond to that tourism or
people coming back to their state to then distribute it.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony. I think
we will get--I asked Jeff to get copies of that, your 30-page
pamphlet. We will send one to every member of the House and the
Senate and we will send it to the governors and then maybe we
can have you prepare a short letter just with effects and then
maybe we will go out to some media out on the Internet and just
let them access this report. I think until the civic leaders
speak out and until the church--I have not seen one prominent
religious faith leader--and I could be wrong because,
obviously, I don't know who would really speak out. You know, I
have 16 grandkids. I see things and so I think the political
leadership of the country may not be up to it. The political
leadership of the country may be failing and so it may take the
faith leaders; it may take the civic leaders; it may take the
educational leaders.
I am very concerned about how we are falling behind China
and Singapore in education, so if we are willing to take eight
points away from the IQ--so I really think the educational
leaders, the civic leaders are really going to have to speak
out. I don't think the political leadership will, I don't know
Governor Hickel, but I want to congratulate him for speaking
out. But I think it is really going to take people outside of
the political--particularly when the President of the United
States says what he says and the Attorney General. I have not
asked you any questions--certainly you work in the
Administration and so I am not trying to create a story or a
rift or anything, but I do appreciate your testimony and I want
to thank you again and thank all the men and women who work at
the DEA for the great work that they have done over the years.
The last question: How many people have died, DEA agents
have died on the drug issue since the beginning of the DEA,
which the DEA was established when?
Ms. Leonhart. 1973.
Mr. Wolf. And how many have died since 1973?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, since 1973, 64 men and women of the DEA
and State and local task forces have given their lives in the
line of duty, this includes 39 DEA Special Agents. We lost
another one this year. Terry Watson was killed in Bogota.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. The next witness, second witness today, I want to
welcome, Dr. Nora Volkow. And I appreciate her sitting here for
the whole time. This is such an important issue, we are going
to kind of learn and we will be educated.
While NIDA does not fall under the jurisdiction of the
subcommittee, it is critical to informing our national policy
for addressing both the demand and supply side of the drug
addiction and we understand and share an interest in the
functioning of the brain and Mr. Fattah, who has really been
the leader up here in the Congress on the whole issue of brain,
any thoughts you have with regard to that? Your own research on
the brain, your observations that it's all about dopamine
convey some of your approaches to the effects of drugs--
measures.
I am grateful for you appearing today. We have a policy of
swearing everybody in, so if you could rise, I would appreciate
it. Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 191 of Title 2
of the United States Code and Clause 2M2 of the House Rule 11,
today's witness will be sworn in.
[Witness sworn.]
Dr. Volkow. I do.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Let me--the record show that the witness
said, ``I do.'' And thank you very much for the testimony.
I have heard only so many positive things about you. It is
kind of exciting to have you come before the committee to
testify, but every time your name comes up, people are very,
very complimentary, but with that, just take your time and tell
us what you want us to know.
Dr. Volkow. Well, good afternoon, and I want to thank you
very much Mr. Chairman for having given me the opportunity to
speak with you and actually it is the first time that I meet
you, but I have read about you and I have also been very
impressed and want to thank you, not just for your efforts with
respect to drug use, but for your efforts with respect to the
rights of humans and I think that drugs basically destroy them.
It is at the essence of one of the reasons why we can't--this
is an urgent issue for our country.
I represent the National Institutes on Drug Abuse which is
part of the National Institute of Health. Our mission is to
actually scientific, to use research in order to generate
knowledge to address problems that are of urgency. I cannot
think of anyone that is most than that of substance abuse
disorders.
As the signs have shown us, the traditional view of
addiction is a bad choice which casts generally a lingering
stigma that equates addiction with moral failure has been
changed by the new findings that identify that repeated drug
use changes neural circuits that are necessary for us to exert
free will and self-control. And this explains why individuals
who are addicted to drugs are unable to stop taking them even
with the threats of incarceration and many times when the drugs
are no longer pleasurable.
The drugs have affected the basic sequence that allows them
to exert control. While it is true that the initial choices
that we all make of trying one drug or the other are
voluntarily and for many, many, reasons, curiosity to have a
good time, to self-medicate, some of us are more vulnerable
than others in falling into compulsive patterns of intake and
ultimately in addiction.
When the changes in the brain occur, these are long-lasting
and these long-lasting changes have led to the
conceptualization of addiction as a chronic disease of the
brain and explain the recurring and relapsing nature of the
disorder. Just like other chronic diseases like cancer,
hypertension, we have treatments. We cannot currently cure
them. With respect to the patterns of drug use in a given
country, we now know they are determined, of course, by the
characteristics of the drug, but apart from the characteristics
of the drug, there are two factors that are very important:
availability and norms, social norms; such as is the perception
that the drugs are risky or not; the status of the drug as
legal or illegal and that is currently dramatically shifting
for two drugs in our country, and that, in turn, is observed in
an increase in the consumption, marijuana and prescription
medications.
So, I will deal with marijuana first. We all know it is the
most commonly used illicit drug in our country, and in many
countries in the world. In the United States, about 12 percent
of people aged 12 and over reported past year use of marijuana.
Marijuana acts on the--targets of the endocannabinoid
system and the endocannabinoid system, which is actually
regulating many of the functions of our brain and multiple
organs in our body is crucial for our health. In the brain, for
example, it is involved--it plays an extremely important role
in orchestrating the development of the brain as it transitions
from childhood into adolescence and into adulthood.
And that has raised a lot of concerns among the scientists
and technicians that the regular use of marijuana during this
period of time may be particularly problematic, because it may
interfere with the ultimate architecture of the brain and might
at least explain why we are observing the decreases in
cognitive ability associated with repeated use of marijuana.
Now, marijuana also--the endocannabinoid systems in our
brain actually which are basically suppressed or are taken out
by marijuana are also involving our motor coordination in our
perception of time, and this is why it explains why people that
are intoxicated with marijuana are a much greater risk of
having accidents.
At the same time, the endocannabinoid, if it were not
sufficient, are crucial for our ability to memorize. So they
regulate the hippocampus in our brain which also explain why
when someone is intoxicated, they will interfere with the
capacity of learning. Endocannabinoids are not just in the
brain. As I said, they regulate multiple organs and
physiological processes such as inflammation, such as neuronal
excitability, metabolism, and this is why this has generated an
interest for the potential of the so-called medical--so-called
medical marijuana for the treatment of diseases like multiple
sclerosis, pain, nausea.
As well as the pharmaceutical industry for the development
of active cannabinoids that can be targeted for these diseases.
So the cannabinoid system is one of the most interesting ones,
vis-a-vis, the development of new medications for a wide
variety of disease conditions.
Now, the other very worrisome trend in our country is that
of the abuse of prescription medications, and particular
concern has been in a lot of attention to pain medications that
contain opioids. Why? Because they are highly, highly addictive
and also they are very dangerous in that the relative
difference on the dose that is required for feeling high versus
that will produce death from respiratory depression is very
narrow, and that explains why individuals that are addicted to
opioids. So even if they are not addicted to opioids, they are
at great risk of dying, more than with other drugs from
overdoses.
We have seen a quadrupling as we have heard of the number
of people dying from overdoses in our country over a period of
15 years. And, of course, there has been a lot of interest to
understand what is driving these increases in deaths from
overdoses. Well, more people are taking them. And why are more
people taking them? There is a massive increase in
prescriptions for opioid medications.
So, in 2013, there were at least 207 million prescriptions
in this country for opioid analgesics. Now this is, of course,
parallel with a significant increase in emergency room
admissions associated with improper utilization of these
opioids. Some of the cases of opioids overdoses are actually
observed in patients that are not necessarily abusing the
drugs, but have been given very high doses and are vulnerable
and actually are dying as a result of it.
The other aspect what I discussed earlier that is a
relatively recent trend is the abuse of the prescription opioid
is engendering a transition from those that actually find it
difficult or very expensive to buy them into the use of heroin.
And the use of heroin, which had been very stable in our
country and predominately observed in older--more than 34 years
old--is now shifting to a younger age. We're seeing increases
in intravenous heroin abuse among 20-year-olds, and that, in
turn, is associated not just with that from overdoses but also
with an increase in the infectious diseases that are
transmitted by contaminated material like hepatitis C or HIV.
Opioid medications, just like heroin, act on our endogenous
opioid system. Just like we have a endocannabinoid system, we
have an endogenous opioid system. This opioid system is crucial
for our ability to regulate pain, and for the perception of
pleasure, and this explains why people can take an opioid
analgesic, can be very beneficial in controlling pain, and at
the same time it can be very rewarding and highly, highly
addictive.
The opioid, the endogenous opioids also regulate many of
the normal functions that we are not aware of, like our
breathing. And this explains why one of the most frequent--the
most frequent cause of death from opioid overdoses is
respiratory depressions.
Opioid medications--and I speak as a physician, when used
as prescribed are extremely effective for the management of
severe acute pain, and might be beneficial in the management of
certain cases of chronic pain. However, if they can have larger
doses combined with other drugs, or through injection, they can
be as addictive and as dangerous as heroin.
So what is it that as an agency we are doing in science to
help prevent some of these issues that relate to the
prescription opioids? Number one, we are funding research to
develop new medications to treat pain that do not rely on
opioid targets. Number two, we are developing delivery systems
for the opioid analgesics and lower drug combinations that
minimize their addiction potential.
We are also developing--all of this through research--more
user-friendly delivery systems for Naloxone, which is an
anecdote against opioid overdoses. Four, we are also developing
research of new medications for the treatment of opioid
addiction.
In parallel, neither actively collaborates with other
federal agencies to provide up-to-date data on drug abuse
trends in our country. Implement evidence-based practices for
the prevention and treatment of opioid addiction, and deploy
education and outreach programs to healthcare providers and the
public about the safe use of opioid medications and the risks.
The landscape of drug use in our country is changing
dramatically. As a result of recent moves towards legalization
of marijuana and of the growing trend of prescription drug
abuse. NIDA is committed to continue to promote research that
can help develop the knowledge necessary for preventing and
treating the adverse consequences of this and other abused
drugs.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. The Rand
Corporation report discussed earlier shows spending on illicit
drugs has been about $100 billion per year. It also suggests
that while cocaine use may have fallen, marijuana use has grown
substantially, and makes suggestions to improve data collection
and assessment.
Were you surprised by any of the Rand findings?
Dr. Volkow. No, I was not surprised. Actually, I was
expecting it. The number of $100 billion did resonate in my
brain and I said, ``Oh, my God. That's three times greater than
the funding for the whole NIH research on life sciences.'' That
is what my brain did to me.
But the fact that we are seeing increases in marijuana did
not surprise me. We know from history. We do not like to
remember history, but what determines the illegal status of the
drugs is what determines basically the rate of people using
them. The number of cases that suffer from--that die or as a
consequence of drugs, or have morbidity, medical illnesses--the
greatest numbers are for the legal drugs, not the illegal ones.
And it is not because the legal ones, alcohol and nicotine are
more dangerous. No, they are not. They are much less dangerous.
It is because of the legal nature allows it to be a norm that
makes people think they are safer, much more likely to try
them, much more widely available and readily available, and
that in turn is going to increase the number of people that
consume them. I advise statistical imperative they are going to
end up with many more casualties.
So I am not surprised at all that the numbers are going up
on marijuana. We have been seeing it.
And also there are tricky things that do not go even
further in telling the nature of the problem. One of the things
that we never discuss for is marijuana. How frequently do you
use? What particularly concern in adolescent use of marijuana,
regular use. Do you know how many kids in our school system use
marijuana regularly? That is basically daily, 6.5 percent.
Now that is likely to be an underestimation because all of
the research shows that if you are a regular marijuana user,
you are much more likely to drop out of school. So you think
about 6.5 percent of kids in our school system that are
actually under the effects of a drug that is going to interfere
with their ability to learn and memorize. You can try to
understand why this is not something that predicts very good
outcomes and could explain why those individuals that smoked
during that period of time end up with lower IQs.
The other aspect that we are not taking into account, in
any of these numbers and of the past studies is that the
content of 99 Delta tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient
for which people smoke marijuana to get high, that one, has
been going up and up and up. So, in 2000 it was something like
five or six percent. Now, in 2013, it is something like 12, 13
percent. So it has basically doubled. What does that mean? You
have a much more potent drug in your brain now than ten years
ago.
So the research that we have actually most of it pertains
to the use of marijuana that was much less potent than what we
currently have. And this in turn is likely to explain the
significant increases that we are seeing in emergency room
admissions. In states where the total amount of consumption of
marijuana has not really increased very much, the potency has
and therefore the consequences has increased.
Similarly, there are increases in admissions to treatment
programs for marijuana addiction has gone up, which is likely
in part also likely reflected by the fact that if you are
smoking a more potent drug, you are likely to transition into
addiction faster than if the marijuana you are smoking has a
very low content of 9-THC.
Mr. Wolf. Is it a gateway to other drugs?
Dr. Volkow. Extremely important question, and I can answer
it both what the logical data has shown us is that basically a
very significant number of individuals that are addicted to
illicit drugs started by smoking marijuana. So in that respect,
and even when they control, there are being stories that
control for genetics, because the recent component that initial
genetically determine that makes us more or less vulnerable to
addiction.
So in a study that control they were twins, genetic twins,
both of them smoking marijuana. But they scored them at the
time of which they started. One before age 17 and the other
after age 17. And that study showed a significant very dramatic
increase in the risk of addiction to a wide variety of drugs in
those that started before age 17. So yes, the logical data
provides evidence that is consistent with a concept of
marijuana as a gateway drug.
Animal experiments, on the other hand, where you actually
expose animals to 9-THC very early on and then determine the
function of their brains, the reward system and their responses
to drug, have also shown that exposure to marijuana very early
during development significantly disrupts their response of the
reward centers of the brain to various types of drugs, again,
providing evidence that marijuana may be priming our brain
neuro circuitry to the responses to drugs.
Having said that, I also must say that nicotine also seems
to have a parallel trajectory, and many individuals that end up
smoking marijuana have been smoking cigarettes, nicotine,
before. So, yeah. And the same thing has been said for alcohol,
so when one speaks about gateway drugs it is not just
marijuana. We have the legal ones and obviously one of the
aspects in these, that in social and of the logical data we
cannot control this, are they the entry drugs--the alcohol and
the nicotine--which proceed marijuana there because they are
legal and so much more available, or are they really because of
their pharmacological characteristics?
And based on the pharmacological data, of course, we cannot
really disentangle all of these factors.
Mr. Wolf. Now are you seeing much information in Colorado
as of yet, based on the legalization?
Dr. Volkow. When the legalization of Colorado and
Washington came through, we actually identified scientists that
we were funding to actually give them supplement grants in
order for them to be able to track down consequences that could
develop information and data rapidly. School dropouts, car
accidents, admissions into emergency rooms, criminal activity,
entering into the criminal justice system. We don't have the
results yet, so there is nothing that has been published out of
it.
But we have funding in that research as with the idea--my
view is we have an urgency. I mean, this is an abrupt change in
a social norm. We should be able to get information as fast as
possible that can be used so that other states that are
contemplating doing similar moves or other country, have data
to work with.
Mr. Wolf. When do you think that data will be available?
Dr. Volkow. My prediction is based on--I mean, we have
these big brains in order to predict the future, right, to try
to predict the future. And we use the past information. We know
that whenever we legalize a drug the consumption has gone up.
So my prediction is that we are going to see an increase in
the prevalence of marijuana used, and we are going to see an
increase in the number of kids that are going to be dropping
out. I predict that perhaps that educational activity will go
down. This is in young people, unless they are very, very good
at controlling access to marijuana among adolescents. If they
do, then, of course, this will not be pertinent.
I also predict that we are going to start to see an
increase in the number of car accidents. We are going to start
to see a decrease in productivity as more people go to work
intoxicated with marijuana.
Marijuana is a hard drug because, you know, people like
that whole comparison, I think, which should not be called
paradise. It is worse than alcohol, marijuana. They are
different drugs, and it is not about which is worse than
others. My perspective is can we as a country afford a third
legal drug? Just look at the consequences of nicotine and
alcohol. Can we afford a third drug that is legal?
Now, nicotine, for example, and people say--many people die
from tobacco. It is the number one preventable death cause.
Now, but nicotine does not interfere with the function of your
brain. So if you are an adolescent and you are smoking, you are
not going to be dumbed down by smoking nicotine. You are going
to be dumbed down by smoking marijuana.
If you are drinking alcohol, it is not going to sharpen
your brain when you are intoxicated. But the effects of alcohol
are short lasting. Alcohol, you get--if someone actually gets
drunk, it takes 45 minutes, then 30 minutes later, one hour
later and they start to come down. Marijuana stays in your body
very long, so the effects are much longer lasting.
Marijuana stays in your body very long, so the effects are
much longer lasting. So if you want to compare, which I am not
someone that I like to compare, because I am also going to get
you one of the logical. The floss in the logical people say,
look how many people are dying from alcohol and nicotine and
they are all concerned about marijuana. And I said, ``Guys, not
even when they put the notion about how much more addictive is
nicotine to marijuana.'' Those numbers are based on
distinctions between--you are comparing legal to an illegal
drug of marijuana. Wait until this marijuana has the same
status, and then you can start to compare in terms of the
number of people that are doing to be dying.
If you want to compare, which to me is not a good argument.
The argument is compare the consequences of a legal versus an
illegal status of a drug, independent of the fact that illicit
substances are much more dangerous than the licit ones.
Certainly something like methamphetamine or cocaine and they
produce less deaths than alcohol and nicotine, and it is a
legal status.
Mr. Wolf. So what, well, you are fascinating. I wish we
could kind of adjourn the Congress and let you kind of come up
to the speaker's rostrum and sort of talk to everybody here
with mandatory attendance.
What do you then see--and I don't want to get into, and we
are not trying to take you into places that create a problem
for you, you know, your job, but what--a state or a country
that legalizes this at this time and moves ahead, because
legalization versus nicotine that is, now this becomes, as you
were saying, what do you see in 20 years? What type of nation,
state, locality--because it depends. There are going to be some
states that will never do it, other states that will. Maybe
this Congress could sometime legalize it for the whole--I mean,
who--what do you see of a nation, a state, a locality whereby
marijuana is legalized? What are the impacts on fatalities, on
education, I mean, what do you see out there? That is a tough
question to ask you, but if you extrapolate this and see, what
will the future be? I mean, are there--is the Netherlands a
good example? I mean, what do you see out there?
Dr. Volkow. Well, I think that the Netherlands is a place--
I mean, your question was very, very relevant. I mean, we need
to learn from past mistakes so that we do not repeat them, and
that is what we want to learn from history. But we do not like
to learn from history. You know, we forget cocaine was legal in
the United States at the beginning of the last century, and the
physicians were endorsing it as this fantastic treatment. And
it was not until we started to see all of the casualties, then
in 1914 they make it illegal.
So is it possible that as we get widespread use of
marijuana we start to see adverse consequences that actually
could revert those strands of legalization? That is one
possibility.
Mr. Wolf. Well, you just--I do not want to break in but you
just triggered a thought that I thought of and I was not going
to ask it, but opium was legal in Europe in--one of my heroes.
I am a great advocate and admirer of William Wilberforce, who
was a member of the British Parliament who abolished the slave
trade. He changed the whole complexion of the world. Lincoln--
he impacted Lincoln. Lincoln read John Quincy Adams, who spoke
out against slavery--read William Wilberforce. Wilberforce had
a physical problem and reports are that he used, I believe,
opium. So opium in England at that time was legal.
Would you see the potential that we go to marijuana, then
we go to opium, then we go to, I mean, could you think it could
go that way?
Dr. Volkow. I doubt that it would go into the way of
something like the legalization of opioids. Opioids, their
death rate is extremely high because of the risk of overdoses.
And it is almost like infections. When you have an infection
that is very virulent it kills itself, because it cannot have
had time to get--to infect someone else.
So the drugs are very, very dangerous. They can die in and
of itself, can make people afraid of them. With marijuana we
have created a shift in the perception that it is a very safe
drug. Some people have smoked when they were younger and they
did not have any adverse consequences without realizing that
they were smoking something that was two percent, as opposed to
13 or 14 percent that we currently have.
Mr. Wolf. You know, I am going to interrupt you here. I
want to do something. I hope it is not controversial. I really
do. And I do not want to get you in trouble. I really do not.
Honestly, I do not. And I do not know if you are a Republican
or Democrat and I do not want to get in that. I am going to
write a letter to the President of the United States and I am
going to ask him to take an hour and sit down with you. And we
can get the staff to do that. We are going to write a letter,
and you did not coax me, I just--but what you are saying, I
think, in fairness to the President, I think he has taken some
criticism. He is a great father. I think when you think of
President Obama, he is a model father and I think he has a very
good family. I am going to ask that he take the time to sit
down with you and let you tell him what you know.
Have you had the opportunity to sit with the President?
Dr. Volkow. No, I have not.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, good. Would you be willing to do it?
Dr. Volkow. Of course, absolutely.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, good. Good. And okay, let the record show
we are going to ask officially. If there is anybody from the
media, we will get you a letter out saying today I was very
impressed with the testimony of the Director of NIDA. She said
X and Y and therefore, Mr. President, I am going to ask you to
take the time, because this is a critical issue. We are at a
juncture in the Nation that it is going to go one way or the
other, and so we are going to officially ask that the President
meet with you.
I cut you off.
Dr. Volkow. No, no, no. And I just think just a thought
became to me, because you said something that also resonates
tremendously in my brain, and you were sort of saying do we
want--and I think of other countries--do we want to think
ourselves at the disadvantage of eight lower IQ points as a
country, and I always said we cannot, I mean, we cannot afford
to have our young people stoned, because that is exactly what
marijuana does, whether we want it or not. And I am not even
addressing the consequences in hours.
So I think that coming back to your specific question, what
can I foresee 20 years from now? Again, if the consequences we
can start to observe very negative consequences such as
increases in school dropouts, which are already quite high in
the United States. We do not want them lower, or our
educational achievements going down. I think that will wake up
the country. That is one of the signals that will wake up the
country.
When I came to this job 11 years ago I was looking at these
very significant increases in opioid addiction among teenagers,
as my God, this is completely new. And I was sort of thinking
the entire system was not paying attention, and it was not
until people started to realize that significant increases in
overdoses from--death from overdoses of opioids that they
started to pay attention.
So unfortunately sometimes you need to get these numbers
that shake everybody up, and I said, perhaps we should also
think about what we are doing. And so, it is possible that as
these numbers emerge, that we will take account.
I also think that we are going to, as I mentioned it
before, we are going to see a number of--it is already being
reported, fatal car accidents as a----
Mr. Wolf. Fatal deaths.
Dr. Volkow. Fatal deaths from car accidents associated with
marijuana. Marijuana interferes with your capacity to perceive
time. So if I see a car over there moving, you brain
automatically, you do not, not even conscious know how long it
is going to take. And that allows you to cross or not or
accelerate or not. That is disrupted by marijuana, which again
explains why you are at much greater risk of getting into an
accident.
And productivity, that is the other one. In the clinical
world when you are a medical student they teach you one of the
consequences of marijuana is that it produces an unmotivational
syndrome. What is a motivational? It lacks the energy, the
motivation to finish and do things. This could explain why
people that smoke marijuana during adolescence are much less
likely to achieve educational achievement. They are much less
successful in their work. They are much less satisfied with
their life.
And so, here it is not even about IQs. It is about
something that is actually harder to quantify. The motivation
and the sustainability to do the effort in order to achieve,
which is crucial for a wide variety of the activities in our
society. That is one of the aspects that is disrupted by
marijuana, as well as other drugs.
But if we legalize a drug, nicotine does not do that. And
alcohol, because of its short relative effect, does not have
this longer lingering affect. So in that respect, marijuana is
very unique in the way that it influences the function of the
brain.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, I think you have--I have some other
questions. I think we are just going to submit them for the
record. Let me just ask her one question. Ask discussed
earlier, there is an increasing awareness that heroin is seeing
a resurgence in the U.S. In your February on-line report, you
say research said abusing prescription drugs may in fact open
the door to heroin. Could you describe those findings in a
reason such shifting is taking place?
Dr. Volkow. Well, what happens is that many of the
adolescents that are starting to abuse and you saw these opioid
medications, from eighth grade they are starting, tenth grade
they are still greater. So opioid medications are actually
quite addictive, but they are expensive. And so when they
become--the more addictive they become, the more compulsive,
the higher the quantities. Then they sometimes do not have the
money to buy an Oxycontin tablet, they go ahead and start using
heroin. So that is one of, that is a mechanism that is being
reported for the transition from opioid prescriptions into
heroin abuse, because it is more widely available, because it
is less expensive, and so they shift once they become
addictive.
And, again, this is a new trend. We have been very
successful on sustaining very, very low levels of injection of
heroin among young people, in general in our country and now
that is being reverted. It is going up.
Mr. Wolf. And will legalization of marijuana have an impact
on that?
Dr. Volkow. Well, it is interesting because we will know
how the realization of marijuana is going to influence a
pattern of other drugs and there are people--and again, I like
to hear different opinions because there multiple brains and
smart brains around that says, well, what about if you have an
increase in using marijuana but you have a decrease in the use
of intoxicating doses of alcohol? Could that have a beneficial
effect? And he says, well, we really do not know if that is
possible or not, but what we are seeing though is an increase
in the use of alcohol with marijuana. And we are also seeing an
increase in the use of marijuana with other drugs. So the
combination is becoming very prevalent, and the has been most
notoriously reported for the case of alcohol.
The other thing that we are seeing in--and again, among
psychiatric patients. Psychiatric patients are at greater risk
of abuse of a wide variety of substances as a means to try to
also medication themselves and in the psychiatric community
there is starting with this recognition that they are seeing
more of the mentally ill patients are using marijuana, which
actually exasperates and deteriorates their decease. So we are
starting to see these as a consequence.
And I, believe it or not, and I always have to say that
things that I get exposed to, I get emails from all over the
country from people. I get emails from parents asking me about
their kids, whose physician has prescribed marijuana for
because of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and they
are concerned about it. So it has opened up a floor of things
that we have never seen before.
So we know what the adverse effects of marijuana are on
people. What we don't know, for example, if you already have a
vulnerability, and if we are starting to do medical, that so-
called medical marijuana of someone that is sick, how is that
interaction of the deceased with a growing cell going to affect
the physiology of the individual?
So there are many, many unknown questions that we do not
have, and we are going to start to see some of the responses.
For example, one of the things that has attracted the medical
community with--they don't know about it is people taking
marijuana develop the syndrome of vomiting that they cannot
control. It is called hyperemesis, and it is contradictory
because you use marijuana as an anti-nausea and as an anti-
vomiting. But if you reach high doses, they are starting to see
in the emergency room these patients that are coming with these
vomiting episodes that nobody had paid attention.
The same thing with myocardial infarcts. It is rare to
associate marijuana with cardiac problems or with stroke, but
as more and more people are taking marijuana, a higher, higher
content, in the emergency rooms they are starting to appear,
and the director of these reports associated medical cardiac or
cerebral vascular consequences of the use of marijuana that we
did not know, even were appearing. We did not think that
marijuana was problematic with the cardiovascular or the
cerebral vascular system, just like we did not know that
cocaine was harmful at the beginning of the last century. It
was the widespread use that made the medical community aware of
all of the consequences that ensued.
Mr. Wolf. Now, Dr. Collins has done an amazing job when he
mapped the human gene system and I know people carry different
genes. Some people carry the BRCA gene, this gene, that gene.
Were you saying earlier that there is a gene that many people
could carry? Is that what you were saying earlier?
Dr. Volkow. What I saying is that our genes actually do
play a role in our vulnerability to become addicted to drugs,
and so we all know people, for example, that actually take a
drug here and there and never become addicted, or drink here
and there, never become addicted. And then are others that
start drinking and become addicted very rapidly. And that
difference is under, when you control for circumstances are
determined by your genes.
And similarly, for example, in Europe for many, many years
there has been research linking the use of marijuana with
schizophrenia. So there is a higher rate of schizophrenia among
those that smoke marijuana than those that do not. And now what
research is finding is that it increases your risk for
schizophrenia only if you have a specific gene variant. So it
is a combination of a gene variant with exposure of the drug
that then can increase your risk for schizophrenia.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, thank you. If you would do one thing
for me. We will put your testimony in the Congressional Record
and if you could summarize it that I could send out to every
member of the House, and then I would also send a copy to all
of the governors.
Were you called to testify in Colorado? Were you called as
an expert witness by the Colorado----
Dr. Volkow. No.
Mr. Wolf. No? I wonder why that they didn't--I mean, if I
am going to do something, I want to get the best views on both
sides.
Well, we will send your statement and if you could condense
it and put it in laymen's terms, then maybe we will send it out
to some newspapers, particularly the states that are in the
process of doing this. I will send you a copy of--Jeff is going
to give you a copy of the letter we send to the President
asking him to meet with you, but I appreciate your testimony.
It is very, very powerful.
You are a medical doctor, correct?
Dr. Volkow. Yes, a psychiatrist.
Mr. Wolf. You are a psychiatrist? Good. Well, I want to
thank you. You said a lot of troubling things. As I had said,
you know, my wife and I have 16 grandkids, and I see things
just changing to the degree--25 years ago, I got elected in
1980, President Reagan--I grabbed Reagan's coattails. He was
running by and I grabbed him. I had lost in '76 and in '78 lost
and won in '80. I think only two states had gambling. No
Congressman would have been seen with the gambling interest.
Now they all flood out to Vegas and do their--and so I am
seeing, man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the
rest. And I think a guy named Simon and guy named Garfunkel
sang that song up in Central Park, but I think this bodes
really very, very troubling.
But I appreciate your testimony. We will get it out, and
with that, the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Friday, April 4, 2014.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER
Mr. Wolf. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.
Attorney General Holder, thank you for appearing before the
committee this morning. Before we begin, I want to mention that
our thoughts today are with the families and the victims and
the survivors of Wednesday's shooting at Ft. Hood. At this
hearing last year as you may recall, we spent a great deal of
time discussing the victims of the terrorist attack that
occurred there 5 years ago. Today our thoughts are certainly
with the victims and their families in this latest attack as
well as with the earlier victims for whom this must be a
painful reminder of the 2009 attack.
The Justice Department budget request for fiscal year 2015
is relatively flat at $27.7 billion, a net increase of 1
percent. While the budget would continue efforts funded by the
Congress in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus to restart hiring for
vacant positions, your budget also contains some gimmicks like
$900 million of unspecified offsets, mostly from the
Department's law enforcement agencies. Today we will discuss
the potential impact of these proposed cuts to the Federal law
enforcement today.
I want to recognize a few items up front while I appreciate
the steps you have taken, particularly with regard to improving
Federal prisons. As you know, the fiscal year 2014 bill created
the Chuck Colson Task Force on Federal prisons to provide an
outside assessment and recommendations on how we can learn from
the States on practices for reforming the Federal prison system
to reduce recidivism and improve public safety, and I know that
is important to you.
I appreciate that the Department has moved quickly on the
grant solicitation, and I believe an award will be made soon so
the group can get started. This may be our best opportunity,
and if this opportunity is missed, it will be terrible, but our
best opportunity to improve the prison systems nationwide,
Federal as well as State. Additionally I've written you about
the urgent need to rebuild Federal Prison Industries so we can
put more inmates to work and get them valuable job training.
The Bureau of Prisons has made some positive steps using
repatriation authority this committee has provided to get more
inmates working. I hope you will continue to support these
efforts, even getting all of the Federal agencies to contract
with the Bureau of Prisons.
However, I want to address a number of critical issues
under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department where,
frankly, I think I have been disappointed in your leadership.
In certain cases, I believe you have bent the law to allow for
the expansion of Internet gambling and facilitating marijuana
suppliers to access the banking system. I am concerned about
the far-reaching consequences of the Office of Legal Counsel's
2011 abrupt decision to reverse years of precedent regarding
the Wire Act, which kicked open the door for widespread
Internet gambling.
Although the decision was signed off in September of 2011,
it was inexplicably withheld from the public for months until
Friday before Christmas in an apparent effort to bury the
reversal of policy in a slow news cycle. Anything that comes
out on a Friday before Christmas you got to wonder if there is
something not right. To date, no one knows what prompted this
change, who requested it, and why it was kept hidden for months
and released just before Christmas Eve. What we do know is this
decision will open the floodgates to Internet gambling which
will have devastating sequences if it is not reversed. The
societal costs of widespread gambling are well-documented, and
the easy accessibility of gambling on computers, phones and
tablets 24 hours a day has the potential to create more
gambling addicts, particularly among the young, than this
country has ever seen. A college student will now be able to go
bankrupt in their dorm room gambling on their computer before
their 8:00 class.
In addition to gambling, I am also deeply concerned about
your selective enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act
with regard to marijuana in States like Colorado and
Washington. Your relaxation of enforcement as well as your
efforts to create a legal path for banking for marijuana
distributors will accelerate the normalization of a drug of
abuse, a horrible outcome for our youth and our society. Just
last week, we heard the director of the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, NIDA, who testified about the many negative
consequences of relaxing restrictions on marijuana abuse. This
is the result of detailed research. And she was so impressive,
would you agree to meet with her, Mr. Attorney General, would
you agree just to take some time to sit down with her?
Attorney General Holder. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. Great. Thank you very much. I believe the failure
to enforce the Federal law and help marijuana providers access
to banking systems will result in more drug addiction, as well
as more car accidents and other drug-related fatalities. I know
you don't mean for these negative consequences to happen, and I
suspect you're under a lot of pressure by some to facilitate
the further legalization of marijuana, but the fact is that
NIDA and others have testified there is a direct correlation
between marijuana use and these health and public safety
aspects.
In contrast to the flexible approach you have taken on
marijuana and Internet gambling, in other areas like sex
trafficking, you've taken the opposite approach and chosen to
have followed an extremely rigid interpretation of the law
which prevents significant action from being taken to stop
Internet facilitation of trafficking of young girls and women
on Web sites like Backpage.com.
Last month this subcommittee held a hearing with a number
of expert witnesses, including a trafficking survivor, and a
Fairfax County police officer who's working on this. This has
really hit Northern Virginia and is hitting many areas, perhaps
most areas of the country. The National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, which I know you have great respect for,
and Cindy McCain, who helped elevate the issue in the media,
all of our witnesses highlighted just how important it is for
the government to confront the Internet facilitation of sex
trafficking if we are truly committed to ending this modern day
slavery.
Just 2 weeks ago, we received your report on the issue
which I have urged you to provide for years that ultimately
directed in the 2013 omnibus. To the Department's credit, the
report provided some good information about what statutory and
regulatory changes need to be made to go after Web sites that
facilitate sex trafficking. However, I remain disappointed in
how long it has taken to elevate this issue and give it the
attention you deserve and it deserves.
You have an unique ability to really, Mr. Attorney General,
to really make an impact for the people that are trapped in
this; and I think it is one that you can feel good about by
moving on it. Just think of how many young girls and women,
each someone's daughter, mother or sister, who have been
victims of trafficking over the last 5 years while the
Department has hesitated to take bolder action. Today I hope we
can discuss what steps the Department and the Congress need to
take now to ensure that more years don't pass before action is
taken.
Another concern I have is this administration's choice to
narrowly interpret its authority under the authorization for
use of military force so as not to allow military assets to be
used to track down and kill the terrorists responsible for the
deadly Benghazi terrorist attacks. In most of the cases, the
administration takes a broad interpretation of the AUMF to go
after terrorists in the Middle East and North Africa, and yet
for some reason, when it comes to the Benghazi suspects, you
have read the law in the way that prevents the military action
against the Al Qaeda affiliate terrorists responsible for
killing our ambassador and three others.
The refusal to use the AUMF is particularly inexplicable
considering that the former acting director of the CIA, Michael
Morell, testified on Wednesday that ``the CIA analysts said
from the get-go that Al Qaeda was involved in this attack.''
Given that the administration has known from the beginning of
the Al Qaeda connection and the AUMF allows the military to go
after terrorists connected to Al Qaeda, how can the Department
defend the reading of the law in the way that it prevents using
all resources including military assets to track down, detain
or kill these terrorists? Can you really argue that the AUMF
allows you to make a drone strike on Awlaki, who is an American
citizen, but not on a terrorist connected to Al Qaeda that
killed our ambassador?
I would also note that to date, not a single terrorist
responsible for this deadly attack has been captured or killed.
On the very limited occasions where suspects have been
detained, your Department has failed to exert pressure on the
governments of Tunisia and Egypt to allow the FBI to have
access to the terrorists. These are just a few notable
exceptions, examples, of the Department's selective enforcement
of interpretation of the law. As the Nation's top law
enforcement officer, you have the responsibility to enforce the
law, whether it's politically expedient or popular.
Unfortunately, I believe the record falls short.
Last week we received your report required in the fiscal
year 2013 appropriation on implementation of new requirements
to be applied to IT infrastructure procurement, particularly
for hardware and systems coming from China. Although the
administration was not initially supportive of this effort to
restrict purchases of questionable IT hardware, I do appreciate
that the Justice Department appears to be taking the new
requirements seriously. In fact, your recent report indicated
that the new process put in place caught, quote, ``seven IT
procurements from six vendors that were associated with
questionable foreign ownership, control or influence, criminal
activities, financial counterintelligence, or
counterterrorism,'' end of quote.
I believe this report demonstrates that the policy that
this committee directed was both necessary and constructive and
will help bolster the Department's cyber security, and I
appreciate the Department moving so quickly on that.
In addition to the subjects I have mentioned, I expect to
have some questions regarding prisons, cyber and the growing
cyber threat both home and abroad and the Department's growing
involving enforcement workload for our priorities.
Finally, I want to address the Department's failure to
comply with the reporting requirements directed in the fiscal
year 2013 Omnibus Act which was signed into law more than a
year ago. The fiscal year 2013 bill required the Department to
provide 66 reports. To date, over a year later, the committee
has only received a little more than half of these mandatory
reports. There are still 25 outstanding reports and briefings
from fiscal year 2013 bill, and that doesn't include any of the
additional reports directed in the fiscal year 2014 bill which
was subsequently signed into law earlier this year.
There are already 18 reports in the 2014 bill that are
overdue to the committee. With a workforce of more than 100,000
employees, I know the Department certainly has the capacity to
provide the directed reports. What is lacking is the will to be
responsive to the Congress on the part of the Department's
leadership, and that's what I find disappointing.
Today I'm announcing a new policy that these overdue
reports will no longer be tolerated by the Committee when the
fiscal year 2015 bill is marked up this spring. I intend to
withhold $1 million for every overdue report from fiscal year
2013 and 2014. These funds will be provided instead to agencies
in the bill that comply with the reporting requirements. With
the current backlog of 43 reports, this could be a significant
reduction in funds for the Department, but the Department has
now been given fair warning that these overdue reports will now
be taken into account when the Subcommittee determines the
budget.
For the record I find it extremely unfortunate that we have
to take this action, but I know of no other way to encourage
the Department to follow through on its required obligation to
the Committee.
At this point, I will yield to Mr. Fattah for any comments,
and then to Mr. Rogers, the full committee chairman, and Mrs.
Lowey, the ranking member, and then to Judge Carter for his
comments. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Attorney General
Holder welcome again to the committee. I sent the President and
yourself a letter referencing the Toyota settlement which was
acknowledged, announced a couple weeks ago for $1.2 billion
suggesting that the settlement could actually usher in a major
opportunity for us to do something that this administration has
pointed to and everyone on this committee has supported, which
is that we need to do something to literally arrest the
increase in our prison population. We need to do something
about turning more young people into positive paths in our
society. And that we are funding, you mentioned with the
chairman's help each year, we're getting closer to 100 million
a year, but that we could take a settlement like that and
similar to what you did in the BP matter and do something
constructive, which is to support some of the Nation's most
significant youth mentoring organizations to expand their
capacity. The White House has indicated that there are millions
of young people who are not connected to any of these programs,
like the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Big Brothers and Big
Sisters. We could go through the laundry list of great
organizations. But the point was that, you know, we can't just
complain about the increase in the prison population. Now it's
rising to almost $7 billion in this year's budget request,
which is double what it was, you know, just probably a decade
or so ago. We have to do something about getting young people
before they get themselves into circumstances that are
problematic, getting them headed in the right direction.
So I will be very interested to hear your view on this.
Now, I actually have some bipartisan legislation that I've
introduced that would talk about constructively using
settlements like this for medical research and justice
reinvestment activities and so on, but I think that the Toyota
settlement is an opportunity where as some of my Republican
friends say, you don't need a law for everything. Some things
can just, you know, you can take executive action to do.
So I mentioned this to you. I'll be interested in your
response this morning. I want to thank you. I know you did a
department-wide video in which you thanked Chairman Wolf and
myself and our counterparts in the Senate for helping in the
2014 bill to be able to lift the hiring freeze to 115,000 or so
employees in the Department. It's not every day that members
get thanked for the work they do, and I know it wasn't done for
that purpose, but I want to acknowledge it.
You've had a tremendous year, and I know sometimes it's
hard to follow some of the criticism because most of the time
what I'm hearing from Members, they're criticizing the
interpretations of the law that has allowed our government to
go after terrorists in the most aggressive way ever. And
countries far and wide using all manners of weapons at our
disposal, so sometimes when I hear Senator Rand Paul speak,
he's criticizing you, and the chairman today said, well, you're
not doing enough. So it's hard to find, I guess, the right
medium. But this administration has tracked down and delivered
justice to terrorists, and I think that's been acknowledged.
And you just had a major success in the criminal courts in New
York City just in the last 10 days. I want to congratulate you
on that. But most Americans are not affected day to day by
terrorist attacks. They're affected by everyday challenges in
their communities, and I just want to say that for the 11,000
such fugitives that you've arrested this year for a whole host
of the activities that you've done in terms of some 3,400 drug
operations, criminal organizations that you've rounded up, that
the Department has done for Americans who are facing these
kinds of day-to-day challenges, that you've been ever present,
and I want to thank you for the work you've done.
So we're going to have a hearing today. We're going to talk
through your budget. What we are going to hear in this budget,
you know, is that we are going to have to spend billions of
dollars for national security purposes, and I think there's
about 4 billion in your budget request for core national
security operations. You have some 25,000 Federal agents that
range from the FBI to ATF, DEA. The big number in there is this
prison number that is ever growing, and you taking action
inside the Department, the committee and the chairman and I
have worked together on this, but he deserves the lion's share
of the credit, have put in this last year's spending bill this
prison reform effort; and I think that the time has come for
our country to think anew about, not just in the Federal
system, but in the State system too. You refer in your written
testimony that there's a vicious cycle that takes place in many
communities in which you have intergenerational poverty. And we
are kind of perpetuating this cycle.
We got to figure out how to intervene and interrupt it, and
I'm arguing, and I've done this in private. Me and you have
boarded all of the top youth mentoring agencies. You took the
courtesy a year ago to meet with them. We can do so much more
to get young people headed in the right direction before they
ever get themselves in any kinds of untoward circumstances, and
I think that's an investment we should make, and I think that
you have it within your power to take action that could launch
the most aggressive effort ever in our Nation to do so. So
thank you, and we look forward to your testimony today. I thank
the chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. Mr. Rogers, the chairman
of the full committee.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, General, welcome
to the committee. Your request to the Department is 27.7
billion. That's a slight 1 percent increase over fiscal 2014
enacted. Understanding the difficult budgetary constraints
under which you are operating, particularly the rapidly
escalating costs within our Federal prison system, we look
forward to hearing from you about the impacts of that flat-
funding level to the operational capabilities of our men and
women on the front lines in those prisons, where these
dedicated Federal law enforcement and intelligence officers are
concerned.
As members of this committee, we have a special
responsibility, we think, to ensure we are prioritizing the
mission and tying funding to results. Candidly, I'm concerned
about a number of proposals and misplaced priorities which
undermine the integrity of the request.
First and probably most importantly, your budget proposes
to absorb some $937 million in mandatory pay and retirement
increases, foreign operations expenses, and GSA rent with
unspecific amorphous ``administrative reductions.'' I believe
that our colleagues on the Senate side referred to this tactic
as ``smoke and mirrors.'' We won't stoop to that here. We'll
just call it a budget gimmick. The reality is that you sent
your budget over with a $1 billion-size hole that we're going
to have to find a way to fill. That's not a very responsible
approach to budgeting, particularly given the Department's
critical responsibility to support its personnel with the
tools, training and equipment necessary to carry out the
security, intelligence and anti-drug missions that keep the
citizens of the country safe.
Second, I regret that you will not find much support here
for the dozen new grant programs proposed in the budget or for
any of the programs patently rejected by Congress in this
year's omnibus bill. We absolutely need to support our State
and local partners, but I fear your request is not placing a
sufficient priority on the law enforcement or national security
missions that are the keystones of your agency. Beyond my
specific concerns about the budget proposal, I would be remiss
if I did not register my concern that the administration has
completely abdicated one of its chief responsibilities under
the Controlled Substances Act. As the chief law enforcement
officer of the country, Mr. Attorney General, it's incredibly
disheartening to learn that you are not, in fact, enforcing the
law. I suspect the committee will discuss at length your
decision to allow distributors in Washington State and Colorado
to dispense marijuana and your instruction to U.S. attorneys to
deemphasize marijuana prosecutions.
I am sure that you understand that more than contributing
to a terrible public health and law enforcement crisis, you're
undermining the rule of law in the country when you pick and
choose which laws you choose to enforce or not enforce. I hope
and pray that this does not leave a dark cloud on your legacy
in this role, particularly given our many constructive
conversations about drug abuse in the country. In fact, this
runs completely counter to the Department's incredibly positive
strides in recent years to beat back on the scores of
prescription drug abuse that's crippling so many communities in
our country. And I appreciate that you've lent your voice to
this cause, engaging the law enforcement and public health
communities, particularly as we have seen a transition from
opioid pain killers to heroin in urban and rural areas alike.
This is an alarming trend. We look forward to hearing from you
about how DOJ is using the tools at its disposal to root out
bad actors, whether they're street-level dealers or the variety
that wears a white coat and a stethoscope.
So thank for your time, Mr. Attorney General. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Lowey, ranking
member of the full committee.
Mrs. Lowey. Welcome, and before I begin I want to take a
moment to send my condolences to the people at Ft. Hood, to my
friend, Mr. Carter, who honorably represents, our service
members and their families stationed at the base. All our
thoughts are with you.
To the matter at hand, I thank you, Chairman Wolf, Ranking
Member Fattah, for holding this hearing. Thank you, Attorney
General Holder, for coming before the committee this morning.
You come before us today with a budget request of $27.4
billion for fiscal year 2015, a 1 percent increase over 2014.
Increases to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would
continue investments to investigate and arrest criminals and
crack down on these who illegally use and traffic firearms.
This is so critical. The security of our nation depends on
adequate funding to these agencies. And while the Department
combats terrorism and drug and weapons traffickers, you must
also address what you describe as a vicious cycle of poverty,
criminality and incarceration in which young people who have
fallen off the right path have entered the juvenile and
criminal justice systems. I agree with you that we must do a
better job of focusing on rehabilitation so that those who have
committed crimes can receive the punishment but also treatment
and resources to have productive and law abiding lives.
I thank you for raising the serious need for reform of our
criminal justice system and note the budget requests 173
million to support alternatives to detention, the non-violent,
low-level offenses and invest in reentry programs. It also
provides 100 million for the DNA initiative and 35 million for
the new community teams to reduce the sexual assault kit
backlog program.
Mr. Chairman, I just have to bring attention, I think, as
the only woman on this panel. It is shocking to me, I cannot
understand it. I'd like a detailed response. How there could be
400,000 rapes, evidence for which are sitting in a box on a
shelf; 400,000 rapes in this country. Now, many of these, same
guy could have been out there dozens of times, but you don't
have enough money or time. This evidence, this DNA evidence, is
sitting on a shelf? I frankly would like to follow-up on that
and get a response. It's just astonishing to me. That this is
not some Third World country. 400,000 rapes have taken place,
and the evidence is on a box on a shelf.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not mention the work of
the Department to get guns out of the hands of the most
dangerous among us. In the year since the horrors in Newtown,
at least 194 children have been shot to death in America. And
as we saw tragically at Fort Hood this week, these acts of
violence continue. There is no reason for these deaths. There's
no defense for them. I stand with you ready to do whatever is
possible to end these tragedies and make our communities safer.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey. I now want to recognize
Congressman Judge Carter who represents the area of Fort Hood.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
I am joined today by my colleague, Roger Williams. He also
represents Fort Hood, and I'm very appreciative that the chair
has allowed him to sit in on this hearing.
The incredible Fort Hood family, and I say that because
they are quite incredible, have endured not one, but two
horrific, unimaginable shootings. The loss of life no matter
what the number may be, is more than we can bear and quite
frankly, more than this or any other community deserves to
bear. We cannot let the worst of humanity wield a gun in a mad
rage against their fellow soldiers and defeat the best of
humanity that is always on display at Fort Hood in central
Texas.
Sadly, we are dealing with another tragic shooting at Fort
Hood, almost in the very same place where 13 Americans lost
their lives in November of 2009. The death of three soldiers
this week, which left 16 others wounded is a stark reminder of
the threat our military members are dealing with on a daily
basis. But even more than that, each of these shootings strike
at the soul of the American military. One of the things we
sometimes forget is that the reason a soldier risked his life
for his country is he is fighting for the soldier on either
side of him. They call each other battle buddies. When they go
to war, they go to war relying upon the fact that the man who
wears their uniform is there to protect them, and they are
there to protect him. And the strike both by Hasan and by this
soldier strike at the very core of what soldiers rely upon.
Young Americans go to war, 18, 19, 20-year old Americans,
relying on the fact that if an American uniform is with them,
that person is protecting them. And when someone in your own
uniform strikes you or strikes your fellow soldiers, it strikes
at the very heart of what they call the warrior ethos, that
they go to battle because they are Americans with Americans,
and they are fighting for their battle buddies. So these are
much more important than a lot of us realize as it affects the
very ability for Americans to fight wars.
I thank the chairman for letting me make a statement here.
I'm asking, and have been asking my fellow Texans as well as
all Americans to please keep Fort Hood families in their
prayers. You know, soldiers go to war together. Families stay
home alone. They may really be stronger than the soldier they
send to war. The coming days will be marked by mourning and a
resolve to carry on. The community of Fort Hood has proven
their resilience, and they will carry on to defend this great
Nation, and we should never forget what they give for us. Mr.
Chairman, I thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Judge Carter. I see our colleague Mr.
Williams has arrived. Since 2013 he has represented the 25th
district of Texas which includes part of Fort Hood and has been
passionate about supporting our troops. Committee rules and
longstanding practice stipulate that non-committee members
cannot participate in committee hearings, but we wanted to
invite him to hear the testimony of the Attorney General and as
a matter of courtesy, offer him an opportunity to say a few
words. So with that I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Williams
be permitted to make a brief statement to the Subcommittee if
he wishes and that his remarks be entered into the record.
Without objection. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, and thank you, Chairman Rogers,
Ranking Member Lowey, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah,
members of the subcommittee.
I appreciate you recognizing me and allowing me to give a
short statement about an issue in my congressional district
that is very near to my heart. As some of you may know,
Chairman Carter, as you've heard earlier and I both represent
Fort Hood, the Army's premier installation to train and deploy
heavy forces and home for III Corps. Once again, we have seen a
tragedy at Fort Hood, the great place as we called it back in
Texas, and once again, we are witnessing the strength and
resilience of a community of brave men and women who not only
serve our country overseas in enemy territory, but right here
at home around military posts around our great Nation.
The attack yesterday at Fort Hood left three of our service
members dead and 16 wounded. With the scars of the 2009 attack
barely healed, we are once again dealing with the horrors of an
unspeakable tragedy. Our prayers are with the fallen troops,
those who were injured, and those who are still in recovery and
the families of all those involved. Our thoughts are with the
entire Fort Hood community and the great leadership team under
General Milley as they stand together and push through this
tough time. We also pray for the excellent medical team
assisting the injured. The attack yesterday and the 2009 attack
were not just attacks on our base, they were attacks on our
troops, on the values and ideas our soldiers have sworn to
defend.
In 2009, we lost 14 innocent Americans; 12 military service
members, one civilian, and one unborn child. Dozens were
injured, and hundreds of lives were greatly altered forever.
The Pentagon, with the advice and counsel of the Department of
Justice, labeled the 2009 attack as workplace violence like a
disgruntled employee taking out his anger on fellow co-workers,
but the evidence and the trial proved otherwise. Hasan, in his
own words, admitted that his intent was to harm and killed U.S.
soldiers after he switched sides in what he called a U.S. war
on Islam. He renounced his U.S. citizenship and his military
oath. He told potential jurors that he supports the Taliban and
Sharia law. Hasan was waving a red flag to show that his attack
was a terrorist attack. It was premeditated. It was a planned
attack presumably years in the making.
This administration's workplace violence designation
clearly favors political correctness over truth and justice.
Nobody in America thinks this was workplace violence. They know
it was a terrorist attack. By labeling an attack workplace
violence, the victims of this attack have been denied the
benefits, the treatments and awards their deployed counterparts
received when wounded or killed overseas. We should correct
this injustice by awarding the military victims the Purple
Heart Medal and the civilian victims the Secretary of Defense
Medal for the Defense of Freedom. Both awards would provide
combat-related special compensation and the benefits that have
been withheld from them. It is my hope that the Department of
Justice will thoroughly investigate yesterday's attack on Fort
Hood. We will never forget the victims of these horrific
attacks, their families and the legacy of service and sacrifice
they have left behind.
So may God bless all the Fort Hood community during this
time of mourning, and may those victims and families receives
the justice they have earned and deserve. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Williams. I appreciate it.
Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 191 of Title 2 of
the United States Code in Clause 2(M)2 of the House Rule of
Evidence, today's witness will be sworn in before testifying.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Wolf. Let the record reflect that the witness answered
in the affirmative.
Mr. Attorney General, the Committee looks forward to
hearing from you. I ask you to summarize your remarks, but you
can proceed as you see appropriate. Thank you.
Attorney General Holder. Good morning, Chairman Wolf,
Ranking Member Fattah, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey,
Mr. Carter, Mr. Williams, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2015
budget for the United States Department of Justice and provide
an overview of the Department's recent achievements and ongoing
priorities.
Despite significant challenges, the past year has been
characterized by remarkable progress, from expanding civil
rights for all Americans to holding private corporations
accountable for wrongdoing. In the financial sector, concerns
have been raised recently about a practice called high
frequency trading. This practice, which consists of financial
brokers and trading firms using advanced computer algorithms
and ultra high speed data networks to execute trades, has
rightly received scrutiny from regulators. I can confirm that
we at the United States Department of Justice are investigating
this practice to determine whether it violates insider trading
laws.
The Department is committed to ensuring the integrity of
our financial markets, and we are determined to follow this
investigation wherever the facts and the law may lead. Across
the board, many of the Department's ongoing activities and
recent accomplishments are notable, but none have been more
important than our work to protect the American people from
terrorism and other threats to our national security.
I know we're all mindful as we come together this morning
of Wednesday's mass shooting at Fort Hood. As I indicated
yesterday, I have directed that the full resources of the
Department of Justice, as well as the FBI, be made available to
help conduct a very thorough Federal investigation. As we keep
striving to achieve justice on behalf of our men and women in
uniform by working to determine what happened this week and
bring help and healing to those who need it, my colleagues and
I will continue to do everything in our power to prevent these
horrific and far too common tragedies from happening again.
We will also remain steadfast in our commitment to ensure
America's national security and to hold accountable those who
seek to harm our Nation and its people. Last week, as was
mentioned, the Department achieved a major milestone in this
regard when we secured the conviction of Sulaiman Abu Ghayth,
the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, and a senior member of Al
Qaeda on terrorism-related charges. We never doubted the
ability of our Article III court system to administer justice
swiftly in this case as it has in hundreds of other cases
involving terrorism defendants, and its outcome vindicates the
government's approach to securing convictions of the senior Al
Qaeda leaders. It is my hope that this case will help lay that
political debate--it's a political debate--to rest.
The President's budget request would strengthen our
national security work by investing a total of $4 billion in
the Department's cutting-edge counterterrorism and national
security programs, including $15 million in new funding to
maintain and operate the FBI's new Terrorist Explosive Device
Analytical Center facility in Alabama. It would also provide
$173 million to support our efforts to strengthen the Federal
criminal justice system through the groundbreaking Smart on
Crime Initiative that I launched last August to make our
criminal justice system more effective, more efficient, and
more fair. This, in turn, would enable us to further invest in
the outstanding work that's performed every day by dedicated
attorneys and support staff in each of the Department's
litigating division and United States attorneys offices.
Thanks to their efforts during the fiscal year ending in
2013, the Department collected a total of more than $8 billion
in civil and criminal fines and penalties. This represents more
than double the approximately $3 billion in direct
appropriations that paid for our 94 U.S. Attorney's offices and
main litigating divisions. During fiscal year 2012 and fiscal
year 2013, the Department collected a combined total of more
than $21 billion, a record amount for a 2-year span.
And particularly in recent months, we have obtained a
series of historic resolutions and taken other significant
actions to ensure that we're serving as sound stewards of
taxpayer dollars and protecting American consumers from fraud
and other financial crimes.
Last November, the Justice Department secured a $13 billion
settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Company, the largest
settlement with a single entity in American history to resolve
Federal and State civil claims related to the company's
mortgage securitization process. As a part of our ongoing
efforts to hold accountable those whose conduct sowed the seeds
of the mortgage crisis, the Department also filed a lawsuit
against the rating firm S&P.
Last month we reached, as has been indicated, a $1.2
billion agreement with Toyota, the largest criminal penalty
ever imposed on an automotive company. And just yesterday we
announced a record $5.15 billion settlement with Kerr-McGee
Corporation and certain affiliates and their parent, Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation, including $4.4 billion for environmental
cleanup and claims. This represents the largest recovery for
cleanup of environmental contamination in the history of the
Department of Justice. It holds the company and its
subsidiaries accountable for decades of significant
environmental damage and fraudulent attempts to evade
responsibility for its actions, and it marks another critical
step in our effort to protect the American people from all
forms of fraud to combat corporate misconduct and to safeguard
the environment.
Now, as we move forward, I'm eager to work with this
subcommittee and with the entire Congress to secure the timely
passage of the President's budget, which provides a total of
$27.4 billion in discretionary resources for the Department of
Justice, including $25.3 billion for vital federal programs,
and $2.1 billion for discretionary State, local and tribal
assistance programs. This support will be essential to ensuring
that we can continue to protect the American people and
strengthen our criminal justice system.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, fiscal year 2014 marks a
critical year in the implementation of the Prison Rape
Elimination Act, or PREA, as States will soon be required to
comply with national standards for curbing sexual assault in
prisons. The Department is committed to helping State and local
governments overcome any challenges that they may encounter as
they work towards implementing the national PREA standards, and
with funding this committee has provided, has established a
PREA resource center in order to assist with implementation,
and we are confident that these standards which were the
results of extensive public comment are attainable. The problem
of sexual assault in prisons is too great to settle for
anything less than an aggressive approach to implementing these
key reforms.
I want to thank you all for the opportunity to discuss this
work with you today, and I especially want to thank Chairman
Wolf for his exemplary leadership and for his support of the
Department's work, and particularly our efforts to combat the
heinous crime of human trafficking over the course of a long
and distinguished career in the House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I have come to greatly value your advocacy on
behalf of the Justice Department's essential mission and your
high regard for the tireless career employees who make our work
possible every day. Your expertise and your steadfast support
of our public safety efforts, sometimes all by yourself or with
Mr. Fattah, you were our saviors in 2013. You have been
invaluable to the Department over the years, and upon your
retirement from the House of Representatives at the end of this
year, you will be greatly missed.
So I want to thank you once again for your service and for
your leadership. I would be happy to answer any questions that
any members of the committee might have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Because of the number of
members, I'm just going to limit my questions to one or two,
and then we'll get at the end those others. So I'm going to go
quickly.
PRISON REFORM
One, on the issue of prison reform, the committee, with Mr.
Fattah, we had the prison reform commission named after Chuck
Colson. Can you tell us the status of that? Because the quicker
that thing moves, I think we have an opportunity to bring all
sides together and really do something really bold and because
of your support, I think there's an opportunity. So can you
give us the update on where that is and how quickly we think we
can get that thing moving?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think that the effort that
is contained in what I call the Colson Initiative, is one that
makes a great deal of sense. It's one that we certainly
support. It's an important part of our efforts to improve the
Federal corrections system. There is a task force that will be
a nine-person, bipartisan blue ribbon panel that's made up of
individuals with expertise in justice reinvestment and
correction reform. So we'll focus on developing really
practical, data-driven ways in which we can increase public
safety. We anticipate that this is something that we will be
able to put in place, I think, relatively soon.
It is something, as I said, that enjoys my support and the
support of people in the Department, and to the extent that we
can work with you to make sure that we keep the work of that
task force on course and responding and operating in a timely
way, that is something that I look forward to. This is
something that is consistent with what we're trying to do in
our Smart on Crime Initiative, and I think it can have a
profound impact on how we do our Federal corrections work.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. On the human trafficking, I have a lot
of questions. Could you describe the Department's work on human
trafficking and the kinds of cases you are seeing, and could
you talk a little bit about how we can eliminate, you know, the
whole issue of Backpage.com has come up at every hearing that
we have had, and all of the groups that are working on this
issue all believe that if we can't deal with the issue of
Backpage.com and groups like that, we won't be able to deal
with the issue. Can you tell us a little about where the
Department is and particularly with regard to Backpage.com?
Attorney General Holder. Sure. The fiscal year 2014 request
includes $44.9 million for the Department's efforts to combat
human trafficking. This is, for me, a top priority, for this
department--a top priority. This is something that we take very
personally. The Civil Rights Division, our Criminal Division,
and our U.S. Attorneys' Offices brought 161 forced labor and
sex trafficking prosecutions in fiscal year 2013. That's a 25
percent increase over the last fiscal year, and it's the
highest number of human trafficking cases on record.
I share the concern that you have about Backpage and about
other similar publications. There are First Amendment
considerations that have to be taken into account if there is
to be a legislative attempt to deal with this problem, but I am
willing to work with the committee, with members like yourself,
to try to come up with a way in which we can address this
situation legislatively, and deal with the First Amendment
issues that have been raised. It will require some careful
legislating, but it's not beyond our capacity to do that. And I
think that when one looks at what appears on those pages and
others like it, a legislative response, an enforcement
response, is totally appropriate.
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS
Mr. Wolf. Okay. The last question is, and then I'm going to
go to Mr. Rogers. Last year the Department was directed to
follow the lead of the FBI to keep distance between government
officials and individuals or organizations associated with the
support of terrorist activities, such as the Unindicted Co-
Conspirator Council on American-Islamic Relations. Director
Comey testified last week that this policy was enforced
throughout the FBI. Could you confirm to the committee that
such a policy has been implemented throughout the Department of
Justice?
Attorney General Holder. There is not, I don't think, a
formal policy with regard to our interaction with CAIR in
particular. We meet with a number of groups in our attempt to
deal with the problem of home grown violence radicalization. We
don't have a formal relationship with CAIR. I cannot say
categorically that we don't have meetings among our various
U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country where members of
that organization might be present, but we don't have any
formal relationship with CAIR.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
YOUTH MENTORING
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, and let me
congratulate you again on the settlements that you mentioned. I
want to talk to you about the Toyota settlement. Toyota is a
big supporter of youth mentoring. The administration is a big
supporter of youth mentoring. I've sent you a letter on this
matter, and I would like to have you comment on it.
Attorney General Holder. Yes. Certainly you have been a
leader in supporting these vital programs. We have had, as you
indicated, meetings to talk about this whole question of youth
mentoring. I share your concerns about how we can keep our
young people both safe and productive and have them interact
with very positive role models. Too many of our young people do
not have positive adult mentors and role models in their lives.
I know that I have staff that is reviewing your legislative
proposal, and I've committed to getting back to you with what
our views are on your legislation. I think that we want to look
at these fines and settlements that we are bringing in and see
how we can make best use of them. I think your legislative
proposal is a very interesting one, so give us a bit of time to
look at it.
Mr. Fattah. I appreciate that, but as my Republican
colleagues always say, you don't need a law for everything.
Right. So I do have a legislative proposal. It's bipartisan. We
have got every important organization in the country supporting
it, and I hope one day that we can pass it in the Congress. But
in the meantime, when the Department is coming to terms, like
for instance, in the Toyota matter, there could be, as you did
in the BP settlement, the fine could be put in place and it
could be directed. And it would not, as I would understand it,
require the Congress to act. That is, if you take the
administration which said at the White House Summit on
Mentoring that you wanted to expand mentoring programs, that
there are 6 or more million young people who could use positive
intervention and are not connected to any of these programs.
So you have some programs who are expanding. First, TGA is
a good example, TGA. They've raised over $100 million. They are
doubling their involvement from 5,600 schools to well over
11,000 schools this year. Boys and Girls Club have doubled the
number of clubs around the country. But still we need to do a
lot more. So what I'm suggesting is rather than--you know, the
President said that this was going to be a year of action. Here
is an opportunity in which you don't need to get 218 votes in
the House or 50 plus 1 in the Senate, that the DOJ itself could
act to, in concert with fulfilling your responsibilities, but
also in concert with your other stated goals, which is to
eliminate this vicious cycle, to stop growing our prison
population.
You know, the problem with locking up criminals is you have
to have victims. You know, so if we could intervene earlier, it
would make a lot of sense.
So I appreciate the fact that the legislative proposal is
going to be reviewed. And I know my colleagues here, and I hope
one day that we will get a fair hearing, and I think we will,
on that bill. But I am suggesting that we should act sooner
than that.
Attorney General Holder. Yes. What I would say is that we
will look and see what degree of discretion we have. But I
would note that when it came to the distribution of BP money
that was directed at the cleanup, that was pursuant to a
legislative enactment that Senator Landrieu was especially
instrumental in getting passed.
Mr. Fattah. And I will leave it there, you know, because we
do have other Members.
But there are numerous circumstances where settlements take
place. So if you take the Toyota settlement, those dollars are
not being directed in any particular direction. There is no
restitution or purpose to them; they are just going to go in a
hole and they are going to--you know, so they weren't
appropriated dollars, they are not taxpayers' dollars, they
weren't expected. They come out of the hard work of your
department and a sense among the leadership of Toyota to settle
the matter, right.
So what I am saying is here is an opportunity for us to
impact the lives of millions of young people, and it can be
done in a way in which we don't have to go through the normal
process in which the White House tries to get an initiative
passed through the Congress.
So thank you, and I hope you would fully examine it.
Attorney General Holder. Sure, we will examine it. And I
look forward to working with you. There is no question that the
desire that you have is one that I share, that we share. And we
will try to work together on what the mechanism might be.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, I want to talk to you about
prescription drug abuse, both of our favorite subject, it
seems.
FDA DRUG SCHEDULING DECISION
We have had some real changes in that war, if you will, in
the last few days, when the FDA, after 10 years of pushing by
DEA and Attorney General and me and others, finally upscheduled
Vicodin and Lortab, hydrocodone opioid medicines, from Schedule
III to Schedule II, which is significant because a Schedule II
drug requires a written prescription, can't be called in, there
is no automatic refill, harsher penalties for trafficking, and
so forth.
So it was a big-time victory for the fight against
prescription drug abuse, which the Centers for Disease Control
calls a national epidemic and which you recently said is an
urgent public health crisis, with which I agree with you.
But the day after FDA upscheduled these hydrocodone drugs,
like OxyContin, the next day, inexplicably, the FDA Director
allowed the sale of Zohydro, a new, extremely potent, 10 times
OxyContin's strength, is to be released with no abuse-deterrent
characteristics.
You know, when we had a problem with OxyContin, finally
Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer, agreed to make it under a new
formulation that is sort of like a gel or a gummy substance,
can't be shot up or crushed or misused, like it had been,
killing thousands.
People then switched illicit use to Opana until it was
reformulated. And now they are switching to heroin because it
is cheaper and all of that and you can't get a high, you can't
use Opana and OxyContin like you used to for a high by crushing
the 12-hour release into a single explosive use.
But Zohydro--hydrocodone, opioid, 10 times more powerful
than OxyContin--will be available in its regular form, which
can be crushed and shot up and kill.
The FDA's advisory committee on this question, should we or
not, voted 11 to 2, no. They said, we are worried about the
impact of this drug on people who don't know its power or its
addictability and, consequently, they die from an overdose.
Can you help me out? Am I missing something? Why did the
FDA do this? And what can we do about it? And what do you
think?
Attorney General Holder. Let me first say that, as I have
indicated previously and have talked about more recently, the
concern I have and that I share with you about opioids and
where they are ultimately leading our country, their abuse, in
and of themselves, has had a devastating impact on our country.
And the chain that we see developing between the use of
opioids, misuse of opioids, and the now-growing heroin problem
is one that I think we cannot ignore.
I am only familiar with the decision of the FDA on the
basis of what I read in the newspapers, and I need to
understand it a little more. I am a little baffled, given the
progress, as you have indicated, with regard to the
reformulations of other substances that had been abused and
were changed, such that crushing them caused them to no longer
be used in the way that they had been when people were becoming
addicted.
It is something I have to examine a little more and get a
little more understanding of what the decision was. But if it
is inconsistent with the efforts that we have painstakingly put
in place, that is something that would give me great concern.
As I said, I need more information to understand what
happened, but I have to say that I do at least share your
concerns about that decision.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I appreciate that.
The pattern that we have seen so far in opioid abuse, first
OxyContin, which exploded in my district, I think probably
ground zero for the country, 10, 12 years ago, finally we were
able to bring it under control, OxyContin, by the reformulation
of the medicine. And then, as I have said before, Opana took
over, and then it was reformulated.
And now Zohydro, which FDA says, oh, well, we will put
labeling on the bottles to where it won't be abused, we will
have instructions to doctors and so on, and it will be very
restricted in who can use it and so forth. That was said about
OxyContin 12 years ago. And then I started going to emergency
rooms and seeing kids die.
And I fear that this Zohydro in straight pill form--you can
crush it and shoot it up, chew it, whatever--will be abused
just like OxyContin was, and we are going to see more young
people die.
And so I urge you to put this on your front burner. I know
it is already. You have been very helpful. In fact, you and I
have talked many times about the efforts that you and others
made in south Florida, in Broward County, Florida, in shutting
down the pill mills, which was furnishing 90 percent of the
Nation's illicit OxyContin. And you stepped in and did a whale
of a job, along with the U.S. Attorney and the State Attorney
General down there and the Governor, in putting an end to it.
But this one could be another OxyContin, except this one is
10 times more powerful.
Attorney General Holder. Yes, again, Mr. Chairman, I guess
I want to get some better understanding of what was behind the
decision, but I think the concerns that you have raised are
legitimate ones, and especially given the progress that we have
made. I would not want to see us take a step backwards.
And so we will be checking with the FDA to see if we can
better understand what the basis for that decision was or if
there is some understanding or misunderstanding that I have
about why they did what they did.
Mr. Rogers. I hope you can do more than just check with
them. Could you tell us that you will get back to us with a
report on where we stand with it and what we can do about it?
Attorney General Holder. I will interact with the FDA and
will then report on that interaction back to you, Chairman Wolf
and the ranking members.
[The information follows:]
Report to Congress on Zohydro
Since this issue concerns national drug policy, and not just FDA,
the Department of Justice contacted the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP) with regard to the approving of the drug Zohydro. ONDCP
has indicated that it will monitor Zohydro prescribing and any
diversion activity.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I am going to go to Mrs. Lowey, but I agree with
the chairman. And, boy, you moved quickly. About 2 years ago,
you were down in south Florida and you did a great job, you
really did. And if you could do the same thing here, you get an
A-plus, and that would be very good.
Mrs. Lowey.
Attorney General Holder. We had a significant hearing with
Mr. Rogers----
Mr. Wolf. Yes, you did.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. That spurred that
action.
Mr. Fattah. That is an understatement.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, Mr. Attorney General, I would like to
give you an A-plus, too.
Mr. Rogers. Will the gentlelady yield briefly?
Mrs. Lowey. Of course.
Mr. Rogers. You know, at that hearing, we were hollering
about Broward County, Florida, being the place where most of
the pills were coming from, OxyContin, and we asked the
Attorney General in a modest way to investigate and see if he
could put a stop to it. And we kept referring to Broward
County, and I said finally, ``Do you want me to spell `Broward
County' ? ''
Well, I got a note from the Attorney General maybe 6 or 8
months later after they had gone in there and really cleaned up
the mess, and he was describing what they had done down there,
and he put a handwritten P.S. Note at the end saying, ``P.S. I
learned how to spell `Broward County,' Florida.''
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
RAPE KIT BACKLOG
Mr. Attorney General, I want to give you an A-plus, too,
following up on the issue I referenced before. As I mentioned,
there are an estimated 400,000 rape kits sitting in police
department evidence rooms which have gone untested. With the
cost starting at $500 and many substantially higher, many
communities are months, if not years, and in some cases,
decades, behind on testing the rape kits. In the meantime,
violent criminals are free. Victims remain fearful that their
assailant might never be found. This is truly outrageous.
I think you probably are aware that New York City
eliminated its backlog in 2003. They had 17,000 untested kits.
The arrest rate for the rapists went from 40 percent to 70
percent.
Now, the budget request includes funding both for the DNA
initiative as well as a new grant program designed to help
communities identify the obstacles they face in handling
evidence of rapes and testing rape kits.
Can you tell us, how will the newly proposed grant program
address these needs? What makes it different from the DNA
initiative which is already up and running?
Attorney General Holder. Well, first, let me say that the
whole question of dealing with sexual assaults is one that is a
priority for this department and for this administration. We
are dealing with the issue in a variety of contexts; on
campuses, for instance--we have a task force that is dealing
with the issue there.
And this question of reducing the backlog on rape kits is
something that is extremely critical. This is, in some ways,
the best evidence that we have. This is state-of-the-art
evidence that exists. It is DNA evidence.
And so the budget request that we have made is in an
attempt to really speed up the process by which we look at this
backlog that exists in a variety of jurisdictions and give
assistance to those jurisdictions so that they can do the
necessary analysis, make the necessary hits that I inevitably
flow from them, and be more successful in the prosecution.
The statistics that you mentioned are not surprising. If
you have better evidence, if you have DNA evidence, which is
the gold standard when it comes to evidence, I expect that you
would see conviction rates start to rise. So this is money that
we want to have as part of the DOJ budget. It is money that we
want to push out.
We also know that rapists tend to commit rapes more than
once. And so we are looking at the possibility of solving more
than one case. We have within our hands the ability to have a
real impact on the crime rate with regard to rape. It is not
only a question of solving crimes that have already occurred;
we can also prevent further crimes from occurring.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN PURCHASES
One other question. I am a strong supporter of universal
background checks. And in addition to making the background
check system a requirement for purchases, the system itself has
to work and it has to rely on the best information available.
Secretary Hagel recently announced that the deadly Navy
Yard shooting could have been averted if information about the
gunman had been made available. The report stated that
superiors decide not to inform the government of the gunman's,
quote, ``emotional, mental, or personality condition,'' even
after they received concerns that he could harm others.
Secretary Hagel's review found that the gunman would have
lost access to his position and the secure area. But it still
leaves the problem that he walked into a store after these
demons were known, purchased a deadly firearm, now 12 people
are dead.
And while it is too early to draw any conclusions, the
commander of Fort Hood has said that the shooter had behavioral
and mental health issues and was receiving treatment, though he
was recently able to purchase a firearm.
Could you share with us, what tools or authority does the
NICS system need in order for it to represent in realtime the
most accurate information and mental health histories for those
seeking to purchase a firearm?
Attorney General Holder. Let me start by saying that, more
generally, I think that, as a Nation, we should support the
commonsense proposals that the administration made after the
Sandy Hook tragedy and come up with ways in which we might
support these commonsense gun safety measures.
When it comes to dealing with the whole question of mental
health issues and the acquisition of firearms, we have recently
proposed a regulation that seeks to clarify who, due to mental
health reasons, is prohibited from receiving, possessing,
shipping, or transporting firearms.
The revised definition that we have proposed clarifies that
the statutory term ``adjudicated as a mental defective and
committed to a mental institution'' would include a broader
range of people so that people who suffer from mental health
issues--and there are at least preliminary indications that
might be the case with regard to the most recent shooter at
Fort Hood--don't have the ability, or the capacity to acquire
these weapons. And so that regulation that we have proposed, we
think, will go a long way to dealing with that issue.
But I also think that it is something that we as a society
have to ask ourselves, again, the more general questions and
then the more specific one with regard to how do we deal with
the whole question of mental health and the Second Amendment
rights that we all enjoy as United States citizens.
Mrs. Lowey. Yeah, and just following up, what are the next
steps that Congress should take to open up the NICS system so
that those who pose a risk to others are more quickly entered
into the system?
Attorney General Holder. The way in which I think we can do
this--we have $182 million in our budget in our ``Now is the
Time'' initiative to ensure that those who are not eligible to
purchase or possess guns are prevented from doing so.
Our budget proposal includes $35 million to sustain
critical investments in 2014, $13 million for the FBI's
national criminal background check system, NICS, and $22
million for ATF's firearms program. The passage of our budget
will give us great capacity for the NICS system to take in more
information, to process it faster, and to make those kinds of
on-the-spot determinations of who should and who should not be
allowed to obtain a weapon.
The passage of our budget will bolster our ability, enhance
our ability, and make the NICS system much more robust.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER TREATMENT
I am going to go to Dr. Harris, but I just want to note
that the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction
Act was a bipartisan approach to better addressing mental
illness in the criminal justice system. It has been around for
10 years. It gets little support, quite frankly, from the
administration.
And, unfortunately, the administration's budget proposes
that funding for the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime
Reduction Act be eliminated and instead combined into a drug
and mental health courts program, which would effectively
exclude 60 percent of the key elements of the program.
So I think the administration has taken a wrong position,
really, to propose the consolidation, and I would ask you to
kind of think about that as we work through this budget.
Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today.
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT ENFORCEMENT
Let me follow up a little bit on what the chairmen of the
subcommittee and committee both mentioned, basically controlled
substance abuse, and particularly about the enforcement of the
Controlled Substances Act.
Obviously, a decision was made in the Department of Justice
not to enforce the Controlled Substances Act broadly in States
that have legalized recreational marijuana. So I am just going
to ask, where was the medical expertise that you used in making
that decision?
I mean, I assume you didn't spread that decision to other
Schedule I drugs--you know, Quaalude, mescaline, ecstasy,
heroin. So was there a medical decision-making process in
selecting that drug for selective enforcement, that Schedule I
drug?
Attorney General Holder. Well, what I would say is, first,
that we still enforce the Controlled Substances Act. What we
made was a law enforcement decision.
Mr. Harris. Right. That is right. So making that law
enforcement decision to pick out one Schedule I drug as opposed
to the other ones, was there medical input into that? It is
just a simple question. Did you have medical input within the
Department?
Attorney General Holder. What we made was a law enforcement
decision as to how we were going to use the limited resources
that we have----
Mr. Harris. Well, then--thank you. I am going to urge that
you take up the chairman of the subcommittee's offer to sit
down and meet.
You know, Dr. Volkow, testifying in front of this
subcommittee, you know, the Director of the National Institute
on Drug Abuse, calls marijuana part of a complex and evolving
public health threat.
I don't know, Mr. Secretary, if you are aware, but if you
talk about teenagers, 15.6 percent, 1 in 6 teenagers has used
marijuana in the last month. Only 9.6 have used tobacco. If you
look at 12th-graders, 6.5 percent use marijuana every day. Only
2.2 percent use alcohol every day. Wow, that is a public health
threat. And, you know, the importance of signals can't be
underestimated.
So I am going to ask you, do you agree with the President
that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think the President's
remarks in that regard are taken a little out of context. You
have to read the entirety of what----
Mr. Harris. Sure. Let me read the rest of it. He said,
``Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol in terms of its
input on the individual consumer.''
Do you agree with that?
Attorney General Holder. Well, as I said, you have to keep
reading what the President said, and he----
Mr. Harris. That is what he said, Mr. Secretary. I am
quoting what he said.
Mr. Fattah. Excuse me. Can we let the witness answer the
question, Dr. Harris?
Mr. Harris. If you want to yield me some of your time, I
would be more than----
Mr. Fattah. I will gladly yield you time for any of your
questions. Just allow him to answer.
Mr. Harris. Then I will take you up on that offer later to
yield me the time to finish my questions. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, go ahead, because I thought I read it in the
context in which he said it.
Attorney General Holder. There were further remarks, which
I don't have in front of me, that were a part of that same
interaction, I guess he had with a TV reporter--I am not sure
exactly who it----
Mr. Harris. New Yorker.
Attorney General Holder. He talked about how the use of
marijuana was not a good thing. It was something that he was
not advocating. So, in that regard, you know, I think the
President had it right.
We look at the limited Federal enforcement resources that
we have; we try to make determinations about how we can most
effectively deal with them. We set out a series of eight
factors that indicated how we would look at our marijuana
enforcement efforts around the country, and we focus on things
like preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors. That
is one of the eight factors that we take into----
Mr. Harris. Thank you. And, you know, the Administrator of
the DEA testified that there were those eight factors.
I will just ask you again: Do you agree with the
President--or do you agree with the Director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse that marijuana is, quote, ``part of a
complex and evolving public health threat''? Do you just agree
with that statement? It is not a complicated question. Do you
agree that it is part of a complex and evolving public health
threat?
Attorney General Holder. I think what we have done and are
doing--the way in which we are looking at those laws in
Washington and in Colorado, and the enforcement priorities that
we have set out--makes a great deal of sense and is a good use
of the enforcement resources that we have. And I think it is
consistent with the general approach that we have taken with
regard to our narcotics enforcement efforts.
Mr. Harris. Okay. So I take it you won't answer the
question. I can't blame you, because, you know, it would be all
over the press tomorrow, you know, what the Attorney General's
opinion is on the danger of marijuana.
GUN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY
Let me just talk very briefly about two other issues, very
briefly. The $182 million in the initiative to reduce gun
violence. In your testimony, you say there are grants to,
quote, ``encourage development of innovative gun safety
technology.''
Is that part of that pot of $182 million?
Attorney General Holder. I believe it is.
Mr. Harris. Okay.
It also says, other parts of your testimony, the budget
requests $147 million to help State and local governments
continue to implement the administration's proposals for
increasing firearm safety.
That is separate, I take it.
Attorney General Holder. I am not sure exactly how it is
constructed, but----
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Harris. If you could get back to me about that.
So those grants to encourage the development of innovative
gun safety technology, where do they come from, where do they
go to?
Attorney General Holder. Where do the grants----
Mr. Harris. Where do they come from? Which part of the
Department of Justice? And where do they go to? Is it a
competitive proposal process? Is it, you know, worked out with
the NIH, with CDC? Is it mechanical issue studies? I don't
understand what the money is spent for.
Attorney General Holder. I think that is one of the things
that we learned when we were trying to get passed those
commonsense reforms last year. Vice President Biden and I had a
meeting with a group of technology people and talked about how
guns can be made more safe, either through fingerprint
identification, or the gun talks to a bracelet or something
that you might wear, or how guns could be used only by the
person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.
It is those kinds of things that I think we want to try to
explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability
to enjoy their Second Amendment rights while, at the same time,
decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of
things that we see on a daily basis, you know, where people,
kids especially, are struck down by----
Mr. Harris. Sure. No one wants that to occur. And, you
know, we looked at that in the State of Maryland well over 10
years ago.
And I just would like--and I will submit a question for the
record--to actually separate out how much you intend to spend
on those grants for gun safety technology.
LOUISIANA SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAM
Mr. Harris. Just finally, one very brief question. You ask
for an increase in the Federal civil rights enforcement
division. I am going to assume, and maybe I am incorrect, is
that the division that actually was in court against the
voucher program in Louisiana, school voucher program? Was that
out of the Civil Rights Division?
Attorney General Holder. You buy into a premise that is not
correct. That was not the division that was doing anything of
that nature in Louisiana. We were seeking to get from the State
of Louisiana information about their voucher program. We never,
ever took the position that we were against vouchers----
Mr. Harris. Is it that the division that went into court in
Louisiana to ask for that information? These are not
complicated questions, Mr. Secretary.
Attorney General Holder. No, and they are answers that I
would----
Mr. Harris. I meant Mr. Attorney General.
Attorney General Holder. What I was saying is that we never
sought to do anything with the voucher program as much as to
get information----
Mr. Harris. Okay. Is----
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. And which a Federal
judge ultimately agreed with us, and we had worked out
something with the State.
It is a talking point that Governor Jindal and others, I
guess you, think makes good political fodder, but it is totally
inconsistent with the facts----
Mr. Harris. Mr. Attorney General----
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Inconsistent with the
facts.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Attorney General, I am going to take issue
with that.
Attorney General Holder. Well, as I have----
Mr. Harris. I actually care about the education of
children, as Governor Jindal does. And to suggest that we use
talking points any more than you use talking points is
personally something I think should be above the level, to just
have suggested that I am actually using a talking point.
Mr. Attorney General, you used Federal money to go into a
State court to try to hinder, hamper, disable a school voucher
program, the majority of which goes to minority students. So I
am going to just take issue with your characterization of a
talking point, because we should use children, especially
minority children--you can shake your head all you want. Maybe
you disagree that we shouldn't use minority children as wedges.
I just can't tell you how frustrated I am that you think
that minority children in Louisiana getting an education in a
charter school are talking points.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Attorney General Holder. First off, it was in a Federal
court, not a State court. The judge, the Federal judge, agreed
with us that we were entitled to the information that we
sought.
And we were clear in the interaction that we had with the
State that we took no position with regard to the voucher
program; we only sought information about how the program was
being run and how it affected a longstanding statewide anti-
discrimination settlement that had been in place for years.
Simply that. Simply that.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here. Many of us
greatly appreciate your willingness to come and your testimony
and regret when Members don't give you a chance to answer the
questions that they purportedly want to hear the answers to.
I wanted to follow up on my colleague Ms. Lowey's comments
on the DNA rape-kit backlogs. And thank you; the Justice
Department, along with this committee, was very helpful in Los
Angeles when we had a rape-kit backlog problem at LAPD and the
L.A. Sheriff's office, with more than, I think, 10,000 rape
kits. And, with your help, we were able to clear that backlog.
More than that, I know when you took office there was a
tremendous backlog in offender DNA. And through introduction of
new technologies and investment of resources, you have been
able to essentially eliminate the offender DNA backlog. And
that is critical also in rape cases. If you go ahead and you
test the rape kits, they are only going to be as effective as
the offenders that match them in the database. So eliminating
that Federal backlog was very important, and we greatly value
your efforts to eliminate the backlog in the States, as well.
METADATA REFORM
I wanted to ask you about the metadata reform. And I know
you have been spearheading the effort to find a new model for
how we could get the information we need to protect the country
but make sure we maintain our privacy protections. And I think
the plan the President announced a week or so is exactly the
right direction to go in.
The one difference, I think, substantial difference,
between what the President has proposed and now a bipartisan
proposal of the Intelligence Committee is that the
administration's proposal would have the court review a request
to query the telephone companies on a suspect number before the
search is done, in the absence of an emergency or exigent
circumstances. I think that is the right approach.
There is a bill from the committee now that would allow the
government to go to the providers before getting court
approval. But, as I understand it, the administration has
already put into practice the prior court approval, and we have
had now the benefit of some weeks of experience with that.
And I wanted to ask you, have you noticed any problems with
that? Have there been any difficulties? And if not, does it
make any sense to move backward to a model where you can search
without getting prior court approval?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think that the new
processes that we are using have proved to be effective. We go
to the court first with the ``reasonable, articulable
suspicion'' standard, and get the information that we need. We
only use two hops now, instead of three. I have not heard any
negative reports.
Though I have to say that I agree with the legislative
proposal that you have made. It is consistent with what the
President talked about, about our need to have that emergency
capability, for the ability as we have now in a variety of
other FISA circumstances, to get information on an emergency
basis with, perhaps, some subsequent court approval and review,
just to ensure that we can have all the tools that we need to
keep the American people safe and to deal with those emergency
situations where they might arise.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Chairman, do I have time for another question?
Mr. Wolf. I have never used the gavel, but we are trying to
make it through----
Mr. Schiff. Oh, then, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Wolf. And I just wanted to--there is going to be a
vote. I am going to stay. I am going to miss the vote.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
But I want to defend Dr. Harris. I think the charter
schools' tuition, the voucher is really important. I have been
in some of the schools in the District of Columbia; it is
making a difference. In my old neighborhood in Philadelphia,
where Mr. Fattah knows well--I mean, that is an opportunity for
kids in the inner city to get an education. I was the first in
my family to go to college, and education gave me--so I think
Dr. Harris is passionate about that.
And so, in defending Dr. Harris, I think that is what he
was concerned about. We don't have to go into it, but----
Attorney General Holder. Let me just make clear----
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. My only point was
that what happened in the court case in Louisiana was not about
charter schools, not our view of charter schools.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Attorney General Holder. We can certainly debate about
charter schools, support them, whatever. That is not of any
consequence to me or to the Department of Justice. We were
seeking information about charter schools that dealt with a
court order, a longstanding discrimination court order.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I just wanted to defend Dr.----
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman? I just think there probably would
not be a need for your action if there could be just a normal
question and an answer. And I think the fact that the rush,
kind of, increased the heat unnecessarily, because I think that
the answer would have been sufficient to Dr. Harris' question.
And I appreciate Dr. Harris, and I have told him privately
he has been one of the most committed members of the
subcommittee. He has----
Mr. Wolf. I agree.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Been at every hearing. But when we
ask the witness a question, the witness has to have a chance to
answer the question. And then we can have, you know----
Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree with that. But I know he has been
one of the better Members we have had, and I know he is
passionate on the issue. And I think we all, frankly, we want a
Congress full of people who care, not just people who want to
get here to do nothing, and he cares. And so I wanted to defend
Dr. Harris, that I disagree.
Attorney General Holder. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. With that, I am going to stay. There is a vote
on, but it is the previous question, and out of respect for the
Attorney General. But Dr. Carter and then--Judge Carter--we
will kind of go and--but I am going to stay, so we can
continue. That way, you won't have to----
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to ask you
if we were going to take a break for the vote or not.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I can catch you as you come back. You won't
miss your time. So you can do what you think is appropriate.
Mr. Carter. Well, I have pretty extensive questions here,
and I would hate to miss the vote.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Carter. So I would like to step out and vote and come
back.
Mr. Wolf. Sure. Absolutely.
If anyone on your side would like to--Mr. Schiff, do you
want to ask your question now? You can do it, because I think
there are still 6 minutes left.
Mr. Fattah. There is time for your final question.
Mr. Schiff. I would defer to Mr. Honda.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the
candid discussion we had here just a while ago.
And welcome, Mr. Attorney General. Appreciate your work
also.
IMMIGRATION COURT BACKLOG
The question I have was around immigration. And, in your
testimony, you referenced your work on addressing the
immigration backlog. And you are applying some money toward it
because the cases that we have right now pending adjudication
grew by about 40, 42 percent between 2009 and 2012, but the
number of immigration judges grew only by 11 percent. So I
understand that you want to use some of the money to upgrade
and increase the number of immigration judges. And I understand
that, even if we upgrade them today, there are so many who are
in line to retire.
So my question is, you know, how many judges are we looking
at? How will it reduce the backlog? And is there a plan to, you
know, backfill the ones that are in line for retirement?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. EOIR certainly needs more
immigration judges to deal with the pending caseload. If you
look at the number of pending cases, it has continued to
increase to 358,000. That is an increase of 56 percent since
2009. Our highest-priority cases deals with people who are
detained who have criminal convictions.
Now, our proposal, the President's budget request, would
allow us to add 35 new immigration judge teams. That is $17
million in order to do that. Those immigration teams would be
able to adjudicate between 20,000 and 39,000 more cases
annually.
And so we are looking at an increase of 35. And that would
be the number that we would want to maintain, which would also
mean that, to the extent that people are retiring or leaving
the bench, we would want to replace those, as well, so that we
have a net increase of 35 and try to get at that backlog.
So the increase in the cases and the subsequent backlogs,
is that as a result of us paying more attention to the lower
part of the Morton memorandum, where we say we want to go after
folks who are, you know, not law-abiding and leave alone the
rest of the folks, you know, on that Morton memo?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I am not sure that I can say
what exactly has generated the backlog other than to say that
it is there. It is extremely real. 358,000 is an unacceptably
high number. It leads----
Mr. Honda. Sure.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. To resolutions that
occur way too far from the time that we would like to have them
occur. Asylum cases take significantly longer to resolve than
cases in which removal is not requested, and so those are very
time-consuming kinds of matters. But it is clear that we simply
need more bodies.
And when I say immigration judges, we are actually talking
about immigration teams--the judges and all the people who
support them.
Mr. Honda. So when we talk about immigration judges and
cases, we are talking about not only criminal but we are also
talking about asylum issues and deportation?
Attorney General Holder. Right, we are looking at the full
panoply of the things that immigration judges have to deal
with.
Mr. Honda. Because many deportation cases that I have heard
about do not go through a court process. It sounds like and it
feels like that they are denied that process, in terms of being
adjudicated before you decide whether you are going to deport
them or not, whether they fit some of the Executive orders that
we say we can keep some folks here or not or----
Attorney General Holder. Yes.
Mr. Honda [continuing]. Whether some of the folks are
youngsters and their parents are being deported and whether we
want to put them through the adjudication process to see
whether they should stay or not.
Is that all part of the caseload, or is that separate?
Attorney General Holder. The caseload is varied. As I said,
there are asylum cases. There are cases involving detained
aliens who have criminal convictions. There are unaccompanied
minors that you have to deal with. We have a program that we
are trying to put in place so that they get adequate
representation.
There are a whole variety of cases that immigration judges
have to deal with. And the issue, at base, is simply we need
more immigration judges, and that is why that request is in the
budget.
Mr. Honda. Okay.
In that process, do we provide any kind of training or
assistance to those who are not citizens, in terms of having
them understand the process of our judicial system so that they
are properly handled? And do we have language considerations
when they are being worked with or they are going through this
process so that they understand their rights and the things
that are going on?
Attorney General Holder. I know that we have tried to make
efforts to deal with the language issues that exist for people
who find themselves in our immigration system. It is something
that we have tried to focus attention to and resources on. You
cannot have a meaningful process unless somebody understands
what it is they are in the middle of.
And so we have tried to increase our language capability.
And that is also something that is costly, because we are
dealing with, predominantly maybe one or two languages, but the
reality is----
Mr. Honda. Sure.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. We deal with a
variety of language capabilities that we have to have.
Mr. Honda. Well, my sense about your stance on due process
is that you want to do the best that you can, and that is
costly. And I am not sure that you get all the resources you
need. Perhaps we can talk more about that later.
RAPE KIT BACKLOGS
On the rape kits, I understand there is about 400,000 to
500,000 kits sitting in the evidence room waiting to be
processed. We have some funding that has been set aside so that
we can ask the FBI to be able to consider training local law
enforcement agencies so that they can proceed and move on the
backlog. And I understand that there is a constriction there,
where the FBI requires all these tests to be certified, I think
it is called, through CODIS.
Attorney General Holder. Yes.
Mr. Honda. Isn't there a way that we can fund a process
where local law enforcement can be trained and then the kits
can be uploaded to CODIS and then be certified there so that we
can, one, adjust the backlog, two, be more efficient, so that
arrestees and victims can have their day in court?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, we want to make sure that the
tests are done in an appropriate way so that we can feel
certain and secure that the information that is ultimately put
into the national system is, in fact, good, that we can run
hits or see if we have hits against the information that is
contained in the national system.
The FBI certainly helps with training. The FBI has
virtually eliminated, if not totally eliminated--the backlog
that we had on the Federal side. There still is a backlog when
it comes to our State and local partners that we have to try to
address.
And we want to do it in such a way that we get good,
scientifically reliable tests that are done so that once they
become a part of the larger database we feel confident that the
tests that are run against it will stand up, for instance, in
court and so that people are identified appropriately, cases
can be won, convictions can be sustained on appeal.
Mr. Honda. Because it seems to me that, without that
evidence through the FBI, you can't do your job or the DA
cannot do the job to prosecute. And then so it seems like at
least we should have some sort of pilot program in this country
where we can promote some way to make it more efficient and
spread that responsibility out. It doesn't seem to me that the
application of the rape kit is going to be that complicated. In
certifying it, there may be some training, but it doesn't seem
to me that would be that complicated either.
And so I would like to see if we can't work together on a
pilot program that we put into the process and see whether we
can address this very important aspect of the backlog. It is
about speedy trials and making sure that the evidence doesn't
get stale on the way. So, hopefully, we can work together and
move this forward. And I believe that the chairman is also very
interested in this kind of efficiency.
Attorney General Holder. We look forward to working with
you in the creation of such an effort, because I think there
have to be ways in which we can be efficient, be creative, and
at the same time be rigorous in making sure that the tests that
are done are scientifically secure and will be evidentially
sound. And there have to be ways in which we can do that.
And so, as we look at this backlog, we will try to make
available the resources of the Federal Government to assist our
State and local partners. And maybe through some pilot program,
as you have suggested, we can do that.
Mr. Honda. Yeah.
Mr. Chairman, the last comment would be, if we are
successful in this and we move forward, I suspect that you are
going to need more help in terms of prosecution. Because the
other half is--once it is determined, then the other half is
going to be expensive, too. So I am just saying that we may
have to think about how we cover that cost.
Attorney General Holder. Well, you raise a good point, sir.
And that is one thing that we always try to think about as we
make our budget proposals. We have to look at this
comprehensively.
Because the possibility exists that we could create
substantial numbers of new cases if we were to be successful in
reducing the backlog, which is a good thing. But we want to
have the capacity to process these cases, to try these cases,
which, at this point, are going to be mainly at the State and
local level. And so that means that we want to probably have
the ability, through our grant-making perhaps, to support those
efforts.
But we have to view this comprehensively. We can't simply
fix one part of the system, because it will have an impact on
other parts of the system.
Mr. Honda. Yeah.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. You could take some of the settlement money that
was discussed and use it. And I think Mr. Honda has a good
point.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RESORT CITIES
General, I represent most of Nevada that does not include
Las Vegas. And I want to sensitize you to a thing that has been
going on in the Department of Justice since the Bush
administration, and that is what I call discrimination against
resort cities.
There is presently----
Attorney General Holder. I am sorry, I didn't hear you.
Mr. Amodei. Discrimination against resort cities.
Attorney General Holder. Okay.
Mr. Amodei. There is presently in DOJ administrative
guidance, not a regulation, not a statute, stay away from
places like--and it names a few places in my state and other
states--for conferences, trainings, meetings, stuff like that.
Now, I understand with other agencies the sensitivity over
the last few years when people go to places and pay for dance
lessons and exorbitant food costs and all that other sort of
stuff, which is a bad thing. But I also know that, for
instance--and I am sure this plays out in other areas--that one
of the primary factors in deciding where to have a training or
a conference or a meeting should be value to the taxpayer.
You have testified here today talking about scarce Federal
resources. And I want to sensitize you to some instances--
because there are a couple of organizations that are actually
in Reno: National Judicial College, DOJ is involved with
funding for training for judges in various areas; National
Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges. Both happen to be
located in Reno, Nevada; have been for a long time. Don't know
why they picked there, but it was a long time ago, before you
or I were hanging out here on a regular basis. That have
experienced, since the Bush administration, guidance in DOJ
admin policies that says you must avoid these locations. And,
as recently as 2 weeks ago, I got a call from somebody who is
in the resort industry who said, we can't hold our meeting or
our conference or our training in your facility because it
happens to have a casino attached.
And so my sensitivity lesson here, if I could, is I sit
here and look at this stuff, and it is like, listen, I expect
that when we talk about, especially in an appropriations
context, scarce Federal resources, Department of Justice doing
more with less, all that, that one of the primary drivers would
be: How much does it cost to go there?
Because, in many cases where these things have been
canceled--and a lot of them have been DOJ cancellations, small.
This is not the American Legion convention; it is 70, 100
folks. They have been canceled within a couple weeks, so you
have the airline costs. They have been moved to a venue where
rooms are triple the cost. And, also, I am not a convention
person, but, you know, the price of a gallon of coffee and all
that stuff? Where it is like, under the guise of avoiding an
appearance of, ``We did it in a casino, oh, my God,'' that the
cost went up triple. To what?
Now, when you tell me you have great managers and employees
at DOJ, you know what? I believe you. I think they are capable
of not using taxpayer money to gamble. I think they can figure
out that they don't need to be paying for dance lessons or
whatever the heck. They ought to be capable of being able to
make a decision based on what is the best value for the
taxpayer.
Because I don't see DOJ guidance that says--and I don't
expect to see it, and I hope I wouldn't see it--that says, hey,
by the way, we are not doing any more meetings, conferences, or
trainings in States that have legalized marijuana. What does
that have to do with value to the taxpayer? Or States where,
you know, some Members have talked about, you know,
unacceptable civil rights backlog or whatever, where it is
like, we are not coming to your town because we don't like
the--whatever.
Hopefully, we can get to a point where it is like, those
decisions are made on the best value to the taxpayer. And if it
happens to be a place in Nevada or Oklahoma or wherever, that
if somebody says, how come you are there, you can say, it is
because guess what? Rooms are 80 bucks a night, they got the
best deal, it was the best price, and, by the way, we are not
using taxpayer money to go--you know, I mean, anywhere you go
has a bar in it. I mean, are we going to be talking about we
can't go to your venue because there is--you kind of get the
gist.
So, in sensitizing that to you, I would like to be able to
provide you the guidance that has been in DOJ since before you
arrived and have a point of contact to work to say, listen, I
don't want to make your management decisions for you, but when
I see a discrimination that has been pretty ongoing in the 30
months I have been here, numerous cancellations--and not just
DOJ, but you guys are the ones who have it in writing--that I
would like the opportunity to work you.
It is not a regulation or a statute, I don't think we need
a law, but to sensitize somebody in DOJ to, listen, if you can
defend it on the best value to the taxpayer and you are not
giving out rolls of nickels for the slot machine, then let them
compete with everybody else.
Just off the top of your head, would that be something that
we could work on?
Attorney General Holder. Sure.
You might have seen cancellations of DOJ conferences, as
they probably happened around the country, because of
sequestration over the last year or so. But we don't forbid the
use of any location. We do counsel components to pick cost-
effective locations.
But we have held DOJ events in Nevada. You are right about
the Judicial College and the judges training facility that
exists in Reno. So we don't have any, at least as I understand
it, any prohibitions that exist with regard to Nevada.
And so, to the extent that you have those concerns, I will
be more than glad to talk to you about those.
Mr. Amodei. We will provide you with the guidance that we
have with whoever the appropriate point of contact is, just to
say, listen, not asking for any favors----
Attorney General Holder. Sure.
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Just want to compete straight-up
on a cost-benefit-value basis.
Attorney General Holder. That is fine.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
There are a number of issues I will just submit for the
record on the marijuana issue.
MARIJUANA BUSINESSES
Mr. Wolf. But in February, the Treasury and Justice
Department issued guidelines for financial institutions to
allow them to provide services to marijuana businesses. At this
point, many in the banking industry seem unwilling to accept
such business. And given they would be providing services to
those previously classified as felons and would have to be sure
customers were within the law, it is easy to understand their
reluctance to stick their necks out.
I do appreciate you agreeing to meet with the head of NIDA.
We will be in touch with her, her office. Could you give me a
call after you sit down with her?
Attorney General Holder. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. It was one of the most impressive testimonies on
this issue. And it deals with particularly young people. It
deals with the impact on--well, you are going to meet with her,
and we can----
Attorney General Holder. Sure. I will give you a call
afterwards.
Mr. Wolf. Great. Thanks so much.
PERSONAL USE OF DOJ AIRCRAFT
Aircraft, personal aircraft. Last year, we discussed a GAO
report on personal use of Justice Department aircraft. One
aspect of this issue is that some of the flights have not been
documented or reported, since the General Services
Administration, GSA, the agency responsible for documenting
such use of government assets, was excluding non-mission
flights by senior officials on security grounds.
A recent report released by GAO recommended that GSA change
this procedure and identify when any such grounds are listed as
justification for such use. GSA has agreed to the
recommendation.
While changes in reporting have yet to be implemented, are
you ensuring that all such flights by DOJ will be reported to
the GSA?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. My staff keeps telling me to
take it easy, you know, but this is one that gets me,--so
sorry, guys.
Mr. Wolf. That is okay. You can--I mean, we want to hear
from you. I mean, show some emotion. That is okay. Go ahead.
Attorney General Holder. All right.
My air travel is really well-documented. Former Director
Mueller, same thing. I answered five different FOIAs in the
past 2 years. Everything that I have has been released to GAO
and to Senator Grassley as well.
There is this notion that we have taken, I think it was
described as hundreds of personal trips. That was wrong. GAO
counted flights, not round trips. And we looked at it and
figured out, from the time period that they were looking, we
took not hundreds, but 27 personal, 4 combined, official and
nonpersonal trips.
And none of the trips that I took or that the Director took
ever had an impact on the mission capability of those
airplanes.
So we didn't have a reporting requirement that existed
before. If they want to change those rules, we would be more
than glad to make sure that we share that information with the
appropriate organization. But this is something that is really
wide open. As I said, we have responded to FOIAs and Senator
Grassley. This is information that we would be more than glad
to get out there just so that people understand that we are
making appropriate use of DOJ aircraft.
A lot of the stuff was described as mission and non-
mission. And the way in which that was defined was not
necessarily correct, because a non-mission trip--for instance,
the trip that I took to New Town to visit the school after the
shooting was described as a non-mission trip. Now, I don't see
how anything could be more mission-centered than having the
Attorney General of the United States----
Mr. Wolf. No, I agree.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Deal with the first
responders at New Town.
So I got it off my chest.
Mr. Wolf. You got it off your chest? You feel better now?
Attorney General Holder. I feel better.
Mr. Wolf. Good. I am glad. And it will make your weekend
better.
Attorney General Holder. It will, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And so you will be ensuring that all flights will
be reported to the GSA?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. We will do that. Yes.
CYBER ATTACKS
Mr. Wolf. On February 24th, you asked Congress to create a
strong national standard for quickly alerting consumers whose
information may be compromised by cyber attacks, such as the
recent attacks on Target and Neiman Marcus. What specific
recommendations do the administration and the Department of
Justice propose?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think, first, with regard
to reporting of breaches, that we should have a uniform
standard so that businesses understand when they have an
obligation to report to the appropriate authorities when there
have been data breaches and so that the public is aware of
these breaches.
And, also, it would mean that I think businesses would
understand what category of things they need to report and what
category of things they need not be concerned with, some
greater degree of uniformity so that the American people could
understand both the nature and the extent of the problem and
whether or not they are personally affected by a breach.
And so we think a national standard, working with Congress,
would be something that would be appropriate.
Mr. Wolf. Is there any legislation coming up?
Attorney General Holder. I think we are going to try to
work on a proposal, and we would like to work with Congress in
dealing with that. It is something I talked about in a speech I
recently gave, or maybe it was one of the tapes that I did, my
weekly tapes. But we are prepared to come forward with a
proposal----
Mr. Wolf. Have you been out to the FBI center where they
list all the companies and individuals and everything who have
been hit by the Chinese? Have you seen that?
Attorney General Holder. I have seen those reports.
Mr. Wolf. But have you been out to the center?
Attorney General Holder. Have I?
Yes.
Mr. Wolf. You might want to go again it is pretty
impressive. But this is, as former FBI Director Mueller and
Director Comey have said, this is the Chinese, Russians,
organized crime. And you might want to go out again and take a
look at it, because it is so comprehensive that I think it is--
if the American people could see that list, they would be
shocked.
IT PROCUREMENTS
Last week, you sent the Committee the report required by
Section 516 of the fiscal year 2013 omnibus on implementation
of new procurement practices for technology hardware and
software to be used in agency IT systems. It appears this
implementation has been adopted and procurement offices are up
to speed in helping ensure U.S. Government systems are not
vulnerable to sabotage or cyber espionage.
Your report indicated that seven IT procurements were
canceled as a result of the risk assessments of the Committee.
Could you characterize the nature of the threat we are facing
and the impact these standards are having?
Attorney General Holder. Well, I think that the standards
that were put in place have been useful to us, and we have
tried to follow them. As you indicated, there were steps that
we took to cancel, things that had previously been contracted
for. This concern that we have about cyber intrusions and cyber
threats is something that has to be a primary concern for any
Attorney General, I think for any agency head. We factor those
kinds of concerns into our procurement of technology. We work
closely with the FBI, and I think our standards are pretty
high.
We have sent out procurement guidance to the field, so we
can comply with the provision in the omnibus, and we want to
work with you and the committee going forward so that we can
figure out how we can best protect against these risks.
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
Mr. Wolf. Do you think it would be helpful to have, going
back to the previous question, it would be helpful for
targeting even markets, would it be helpful for the government
to notify the Congress, notify one committee, as to what
agencies have been subject to cyber attacks so that there is
one place where we can see the intensity of what the Chinese
and et cetera are doing?
Attorney General Holder. I think that, as I've said, with
the private sector there needs to be a reporting requirement. I
would put in that same concern or that same scheme, government
agencies as well so that to the extent that there are breaches,
those are shared, and we can work out where those would go.
But, yes, a place, a repository where consumers, Members of
Congress, have the ability to see exactly what the targets are,
what kind of information might have been compromised. I think
we will do a much better job of understanding what the nature
of the threat is and taking countermeasures if we have a place,
a repository, for all this information.
Mr. Wolf. Right. Maybe the committee can carry the language
to direct that every time an agency is hit, they report it to
the FBI. I think the Bureau is probably more involved than
anybody else. That way I think the privacy, if necessary, can
be taken care of, but it would at least give every other agency
some understanding, so if we can maybe carry that.
PRISON IN THOMPSON, ILLINOIS
On prisons, as you know in fiscal year 2012, the committee
rejected a proposal to reprogram $165 million to acquire the
prison in Thomson, Illinois. The Department proceeded with the
acquisition despite that it's an extraordinary breach of
longstanding traditions of comity and respect between the
branches, although I understand politics. As I pointed out last
year, the 165 million that could have been used instead for
departmental operations in the wake of the sequester. Your
request for BOP proposed a non-specified $158 million offset.
Given the tight funding, the need to move ahead on other two
sites in Mississippi and West Virginia and the need to maintain
staffing and to maintain services, how do you fit Thomson in
with this? And what activities will you see being cut to pay
for the $158 million?
Attorney General Holder. Well, in terms of Thomson, we
acquired it at the end of fiscal year 2012 due to the shortage
we have of high-security beds. We are presently, at 52 percent
above our rated capacity. I think the way we described Thomson
is we have gotten twice the prison at half the price, and we
have an appropriation of $44 million to begin the activation of
Thomson. That's reflected in the spend plan. The $44 million is
retained in our fiscal year 2015 for activation costs, and I
think what we're looking at is a slow ramp-up of Thomson. We
hope to hire a warden in May. That is the plan. Followed by the
hiring of a unit manager, food service and medical staff,
ultimately hiring up to 290 staff and to begin bringing in the
first camp inmates in the July-August time frame. We think that
that was a very good expenditure, a good acquisition, where we
got a facility that's going to help us with those high security
needs that we have and do it in a cost-effective way.
Mr. Wolf. Were you a Boy Scout?
Attorney General Holder. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Do you take your Boy Scout pledge that you will
make sure that how this thing plays out, there are going to be
differences that there will never be anybody from Guantanamo
Bay there?
Attorney General Holder. I promise. Three fingers. That's
Boy Scouts.
Mr. Wolf. We're going to go to Dr. Carter--we're going to
go to Mr. Fattah, and then we're going to go to Mr. Carter.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me congratulate
the administration on the 49th consecutive month of job growth,
averaging around 200,000 a month and close to 9 million new
jobs over this stretch of time. One of the questions before
your Department is how to protect American jobs in terms of
intellectual property. You've been doing a great deal of work
in this regard, but obviously there's more work to do. When we
have--in the world economic forum, they said that the U.S.
economy is an innovation--is an innovation-based economy, that
the essence of how we have created the wealthiest country in
the world is through innovation and new ideas. And so
protecting the intellectual property of American inventors and
companies is critically important. The chairman has been
focused a little, you know, aggressively on this question of
cyber security, not in the sense of the NSA, but in the sense
of entities going into American companies, particularly law
firms now that work in patent-related areas and so on trying to
steal secrets to give our economic competitors an advantage,
not through their hard work, but through utilizing the smarts
of our own engineers and scientists.
So if you could talk about this work in terms of
intellectual property vis--vis the appropriations request, that
would be appreciated.
Attorney General Holder. Sure. This is something that is,
again, a priority for us. Our budget request provides for a
total of $42.1 million for intellectual property enforcement
spread among our Criminal Division, the FBI, our Office of
Justice Programs and U.S. Attorneys' Offices. This represents a
7.7 percent increase over fiscal year 2013 levels. We really
increased our enforcement efforts, not only to safeguard the
economic growth and well-being of our country, but also to
protect public health and safety, which is also something I
think people have to understand, that this intellectual
property theft and the distribution of substandard parts or
medicines has the ability to have a negative impact on public
health and safety. We have an intellectual property task force
in the Department that's chaired by the Deputy Attorney General
where we try to come up with a coordinated high-level approach
to figure out how we investigate and prosecute these IP crimes.
We also work with the White House Office of Intellectual
Property Enforcement coordinator, and there is a government-
wide strategy that was published in February of 2013. We have
made the investigation and prosecution of trade secrets really
a top priority. So we want to work with Congress to ensure that
our criminal IP laws keep pace with the new technological and
emerging trends that we see. These are laws that have to be
looked at, periodically given the rapid pace of change that we
have, given the new threats that we are confronting. And we
would hope to be able to not only have not only our budget
requests met, but also look forward to working with Members of
Congress to make sure that our laws are kept up to date as
well.
SUPPLYING NAMES TO NICS
Mr. Fattah. After Sandy Hook, there was a push for more
states to supply data that they had not yet supplied in terms
of people who are already prohibited from purchasing firearms,
that is, people who meet one of the circumstances that would
prevent them. I know in my own State that hundreds of thousands
of names that had not been supplied were then supplied after
Sandy Hook. Can you tell us the status of where the national--
in terms of State compliance with the submission of names?
Attorney General Holder. That's something, just to be
accurate, I may want to respond to you in writing after I've
had a chance to look at what we think the compliance rates are.
I think that one of the things that was certainly of concern
after Sandy Hook was where we stood with regard to the number
of, the amount of information that we were getting from the
states. And so I think just, as I said, to be accurate, I'd
want to make sure that I have an ability to look at and just
make sure that we're giving you accurate information. We have
certainly done what we could with regard to the grants that we
have made available to enable States to have the financial
capacity to make this information available to the NICS system,
but I'd want to, as I said, have an ability to look at where we
actually stand in that regard.
[The information follows:]
National and State Compliance on Purchasing Firearms
During a background check, the Criminal Justice Information
Services Division's National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NCIS) searches three databases maintained by the FBI: the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC); the Interstate Identification Index
(III); and the NICS Index,a database created for the NICS that
maintains disqualifying records which are not available through the
NCIC or the III. Prior to the passage of the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), state and local agencies voluntarily
contributed records to the NICS. The NIAA, through a series of
financial incentives, encourages the states to improve the quality and
quantity of information made available to the NICS. The NIAA does not
mandate the states to provide the Brady Handgun Violence Preventioin
Act of 1993 prohibiting information to the NICS; however, the NIAA
imposes penalties on those states that do not progress toward the
NIAA's record-completeness goals, which are monitored and assessed by
the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. As of April
30, 2014, a total of 11,551,350 records were maintained in the NICS
Index. Of these, a total of 4,509,996 records had been submitted by the
states. From December 31, 2012 to April 30, 2014, the States and
Territories submissions increased 61.22%.
Mr. Fattah. Well, I went out to the Joint Terrorism Centers
in Virginia, and it is amazing to see many of your agencies
already there working together in terms of the effort, the
national security effort. One of the things that we know that
have been a challenge around whether someone on some of their
lists could be prevented from the purchase of firearms given
our laws. And I know there even was in one of the Al Qaeda
training videos the notion that, you know, one could just walk
into a gun store and make a purchase here in America.
So reconciling the rights of Americans to purchase firearms
and your responsibilities to protect Americans from harm, I
know you face a lot of challenges. Is there any progress on
this particular question of whether or not someone whose name
may appear on, for instance, the no-fly list or some other
subset of lists, could be, in any way, lawfully precluded?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, that's something that we are
still in the process of working through. There are
investigative reasons, or at least investigative arguments,
made as to why you don't want to have those lists necessarily
merged. There are different views within the various agencies,
so that's something that we are still trying to work our way
through. With regard to that first question, I can at least
share some information with regard to the numbers that we have.
The reference contained in the NICS index system has more than
doubled from about 5.2 million records as of early 2008 to
about 11.4 million records as of the end of March of 2014. The
number of records provided by Federal agencies has increased
over 70 percent, from about 4.1 million to nearly 7 million
records, and the States have posted an increase of 302 percent
in the number of records submitted, from just over 1.1 in 2008
to 4.4 in 2014.
State agencies submission of records of persons prohibited
from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons has
increased by 678 percent from about 410,000 records in 2008 to
nearly 3.2 million records as of March 31, 2014. So substantial
progress has been made with regard to the acquisition of that
information that is now a part of the NICS system.
Mr. Fattah. Well, thank you. I think it obviously doesn't
even need to be stated. It is unfortunate that we need to have
a Sandy Hook circumstance for States to supply this
information. My own State had not supplied this information,
but then, after the incident, did. But these are people under
our laws that should be prohibited from the purchase or
ownership of firearms, but they can't be unless their names are
in the database, so I'm very pleased that the State of
Pennsylvania, and obviously based on those numbers, a lot of
other States, have complied. This shows the public that even
though there's still a lot of work to be done, some progress is
being made in this front.
YOUTH MENTORING
I was looking over the actual budget request in the
President's budget submission, and you have about 2.1 billion
for support for State and local and tribal governments, which
is obviously critically important, because a lot of the actual
work done on these issues are done at the State and local
level, and I did want to mention that I see that there's a
proposed $58 million in the budget, which would be a reduction
of 30 million in the youth mentoring line.
Now, the subcommittee obviously will disagree with the
administration. And this is an area, that I think it's the only
area that's seen an increase in each of the last 4 years. This
is something we are very focused on. But we are going to work
through your appropriations request, and we want to support the
great work that's being done by the Department. I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. Judge Carter.
FORT HOOD SHOOTINGS
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Attorney General
Holder, welcome. Before I start, General, you and I are both
lawyers. You're the top lawyer in America. You're the number
one lawyer in the Federal system, and I was just a poor little
small town district judge. But we both have been involved in
seeking evidence from witnesses, and I'm sure you already
realize there's a whole lot of difference between the way we
seek evidence here and the way we would have an opportunity to
seek evidence in the courtroom. Here, after answer one
question, the witness can go into a soliloquy, and there will
never be another question asked.
So I'm going to ask you a long question with a series of
questions contained therein, which would probably be
objectionable in a court of law, but unfortunately that's the
way it works here.
I've got questions about Fort Hood. If you were listening
or watching, you saw that the reporters were continually asking
when will the FBI be here. We had a report from Dallas that FBI
agents were on the way. I'm sure there were FBI agents on the
way from Austin. So the FBI was coming. In the most recent
shooting, who, in your opinion, will take the lead in the
investigation of the 2014 shooting? The FBI or the CID? When
will that decision be made as to which one will do that, and
who makes that call? You? The President? How is that decision
made in 2009? Who makes that call? Were DOJ and its resources
pulled from the first Fort Hood shooting based upon a political
decision to classify that shooting as workforce violence? Who
made the call to treat the 2009 shooting as a workplace
violence as opposed to an act of terror?
I'm sure you are very familiar, with the definition of
terrorism under 18 U.S.C. 2331, 2332 A and B. Did the DOJ
discuss with the DOD the classification of the event in 2009 as
to whether or not it was going to be an act of terrorism? It
seems implausible that two of our top agencies would not have a
conversation about that. I know that ultimately you made a
statement that this was a DOD classification. I'm asking you,
though, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United
States, would you classify the 2009 Fort Hood shooting as a
terrorist act or terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C.? Had the
2009 shooting occurred at DOJ headquarters, and therefore fully
under your jurisdiction, would you have categorized that as a
workplace violence event? And finally how have the
jurisdictional lines between the FBI, CID, and other law
enforcement agencies been defined when criminal acts were
taking place on a military post? And in light of the recent
base shootings, should we clarify investigating these
responsibilities? Lots of questions. Sorry.
Attorney General Holder. All right. The White House
confirmed on Wednesday night that the Department of Defense was
in the lead with regard to the investigation. That doesn't
mean, however, that the FBI will not try to assist in any way
that we can with regard to our forensic capabilities and
agents. We will assist in that regard. With regard to that
workplace violence designation, that was based on a DOD
assessment. I understand your concerns, but I would refer you
to the Department of Defense for questions.
I think interestingly, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member
Fattah appropriately raised these questions back with DOD in a
May 2013 letter which acknowledged, and I quote, that ``The
Department of Defense and Army have designated the attack by
Major Nidal Hasan as `workplace violence.' '' It was something
that that determination was made by DOD as opposed to DOJ.
Mr. Carter. Would you mind answering my question that I
asked you? Had it happened at your headquarters, how would you
have classified it?
Attorney General Holder. Well, again, you have to look at
the totality of the circumstances, and understand----
Mr. Carter. Well, for the sake of the question, assume the
exact scenario that happened at Fort Hood in 2009. You have a
person of Islamic decent screaming Allah Akbar. He was a member
of your staff, and he starts shooting, and he wounds some 30
people and he kills 13 or 14 of them. Would you still take the
position that it was a workforce violence act and, therefore,
not under our terrorism statutes?
Attorney General Holder. Well, again, it would depend.
These are fact-specific things. And so, it would depend on what
the person's motivation was, was the person a follower of
Awlaki as Hasan was? Was the motive for the shooting an attempt
to follow the teachings of Awlaki, as opposed to some kind of
workplace problems you had with your colleagues? I can see how
that would be classified as a terrorist incident if it had
happened at the Justice Department.
Again, it depends on the facts of the situation. I don't
know all the factors that went into the DOD designation. That
was not one that we made. It was one that they made. I'm not
familiar with all that they did.
Mr. Carter. I agree with you that facts are important.
That's what I'm finding out about. I just happen to have a copy
of the code here. You don't have to be involved with the
Islamic situation at all to commit terrorism in the United
States, do you?
Attorney General Holder. No.
Mr. Carter. It's a defined statutory thing. It's pretty
simple. Involves acts dangerous to human life that violate
Federal or State law, appear intended to, one, intimidate or
coerce a civilian population; two, influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion; or, three, to affect
the conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination or
kidnapping. It doesn't say anything about relationships--now
international terrorism does have a definition of somebody
outside the country being involved, but I just first asked you,
would you consider it a terrorist act if it happened in your
office?
Attorney General Holder. Again, I don't know--I'm not as
familiar with what happened at Fort Hood the first time as the
people at DOD were, and I'm a little hesitant to in essence
second guess the assessment that they made.
Mr. Carter. I'm not asking you to second guess their
assessment. I didn't read all of the U.S. Code. But if somebody
started shooting people in your office, multiple people
screaming out some kind of political comment--I don't care what
it is--would you have automatically said, well, this
unfortunately is a civil workforce violence problem we have got
here?
Attorney General Holder. I wouldn't say that at all. It
certainly could be a terrorist act. It would depend again on
the facts. Those are the kinds of determinations that we would
have to make.
Mr. Carter. The term workforce violence has consequences at
the DOD. And that's the real issue I have been concerned about
since day one. A simple declaration by the administration or
the Army, public or private, that says it is a workforce
violent act takes two dozen people, and puts them in a category
where they don't get certain benefits from the Federal
Government as a result of them serving their country and being
shot and killed or injured.
That's why I'm asking you this question, because I think we
ought to at least acknowledge that there's a clear definition
under Federal law, and by the way, Texas has one under State
law that says, I think clearly that the act was terrorism.
Whether international or not is up for dispute, but the act was
terrorism. And so that's why I ask you for your help. I
understand you don't want to answer the question, and that's
fine, but I ask you for your help. I think I've probably used
my time.
Mr. Fattah. If the judge would just yield for a moment.
Mr. Carter. I don't have any time to yield.
Mr. Fattah. I'll join with you in your legislative effort
in this regard, and I agree that clearly this was a terrorist
act. I think the point is that it was determined, the first
determination was made by the Department of Defense. As the
Congress, we can change that and we should, because as was the
case when people lost their lives on 9/11 or at the Pentagon,
you know, this was an act by the statement of the perpetrator
himself.
Mr. Carter. That's right.
Mr. Fattah. So there's no ambiguity.
Mr. Carter. And I agree with Mr. Fattah. We're looking for
reinforcement from the top lawyer of the United States. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Judge Carter. And following up on what
Judge Carter said, I agree with him, and you were here last
year. In fact, as I remember, you stayed around and you spoke
to some of the individuals. Boy, they've really gone through a
tough time. I just saw an article today, and I listened to it
going home last night. Kimberly Munley was shot three times
taking down Nidal Hasan, and she got laid off. Yet she never
stopped fighting for the victims of the military betrayed in
that shooting. And I think what Judge Carter is saying,
probably you have a better relationship with the President than
most of the cabinet members.
Well, you do, you know, you're not denying it. Why don't
you take this back there. It was not workplace violence. The
people have been hurt. They still contact my office, some of
them. One of the women has moved to the northern Virginia area.
Also, our government is partially responsible, and I think what
Judge Carter is saying, the Bureau missed some of it. There was
communications from Awlaki to the major. I spoke to a
psychiatrist down in Fort Hood who said that Awlaki was telling
returnees from Afghanistan that they should basically say that
they were war criminals.
So the government missed it, and so if I would ask you on
behalf of Judge Carter, if you would take it back, I think we
can't change what took place in 2009. I mean, we wish we could.
It's kind of like when you see something you say, oh, if only.
But I think you could go a long way to healing this, and so
by--and we did do a letter, and we're not banking, we're not
going to dock you a million dollars for this letter, but we
sent a letter on March 15, 2013 signed by Mr. McCaul, Mr.
Carter and myself, with a lot of questions on this, and we
never got an answer.
I would ask you on behalf of Judge Carter, but more so, and
I think Judge Carter would agree, on behalf of those who were
wounded and the loved ones who lost, would you go back and
speak with the President to ask and also Secretary Hagel, who
lives out in my congressional district, that they would look to
redo this in such a way now because the case is over, whereby
these individuals who were wounded and the family members could
be treated in a much more appropriate way? Could you take that
up with the President?
Attorney General Holder. Again, let me----
Mr. Wolf. It's a general question, sir. I'm not asking you
specific or what we're going to call it. We have to close this
chapter. We have to do it for the people, and it says in the
Bible do unto others; Jesus said do unto others as you have
them do unto you. If you and I were in that circumstance, we
would feel the sense of injustice, and I think what Judge
Carter is trying to do is to represent them, and I think you
would have the ability. I'm not asking you to define it, what
it would be called, but to see what could be done to heal this
wound. If you could just say I'll look at it. I'll talk to the
President and get back, but it would go, it would enhance your
credibility as you leave this department. It would be the right
thing to do. And now that there has been a conviction, all the
arguments that have been answered before, so if you would do
that, I would appreciate it.
Attorney General Holder. What I'll do, again this was a DOD
assessment, and so I think it's more appropriate for me to talk
to Secretary Hagel. I'll do that.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Would you tell him his Member of Congress
asked you to do it, too.
Attorney General Holder. I'll indicate to him exactly why.
Mr. Wolf. I think he infers he votes for me, too, so if you
would do that, I would appreciate it. I'll go to Mr. Serrano.
And, Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much on behalf of the
families.
HIGH FREQUENCY TRADING
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Attorney General. In another capacity, Mr. Attorney General, I
serve as the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee
with oversight over the Securities and Exchange Commission. And
at a hearing earlier this week SEC Chair Mary Jo White
confirmed that the SEC is investigating high frequency trading
as well as the New York Attorney General is also looking at
this. Can you describe the potential concerns with the high
frequency trading in terms of violations of the law?
Attorney General Holder. As I indicated in my opening
statement, I have confirmed that the Department of Justice is
looking at this matter, this subject area, as well. The concern
is that people are getting an inappropriate advantage,
information advantage, competitive advantage, over others
because of the way in which the system works; and apparently as
I understand it, even milliseconds can matter. So we're looking
at this to try to determine if any Federal laws have been
broken, any Federal criminal laws have been broken. This is
also obviously something that U.S. Attorney, head of the SEC,
Mary Jo White, would be looking at as well. So we'll be
working.
Mr. Serrano. You will be working together on it?
Attorney General Holder. There are barriers that we can't
cross, but we will make sure that these parallel investigations
are done in such a way that we don't have negative impacts on
either.
Mr. Serrano. Now, this new crime, if you will, if it is a
crime at the end of the day, is all a direct result of the new
technologies available for people to do this in a second.
Right?
Attorney General Holder. Again, I am really getting up to
speed on this.
Mr. Serrano. We all are.
Attorney General Holder. It is all about technology and how
things get routed, and if you learn something 5, 6, 7, 8, 10
milliseconds before, you can do things that others who don't
have that capacity can't. So again, we have to determine
whether or not it's a violation of Federal criminal law, and at
least this Attorney General has to better understand the facts
of these kinds of things.
INNOVATION IDEAS AT EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
Mr. Serrano. Right. Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, I'm
interested in discussing the innovation ideas initiative within
the Executive Office for Immigration Review that this Committee
funded last year, and for which you are now requesting
additional dollars. I think this is an important idea. It is
extremely troubling to think that we are forcing people to go
through removal proceedings with little to no understanding of
the system. How is the Department using the money appropriated
last year, and what sort of impact do you expect it to have?
And one of the reasons that a question like this becomes I
think a little more important than a year or so ago was that
there was a sense, and certainly the President wants it to
happen, that we would have immigration reform in place by now,
and now we're not sure that's going to happen. So then these
other associated issues, if you will, side issues, become just
as important as an immigration reform or almost as important.
And so I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
Attorney General Holder. There are a variety of things that
we are trying to implement. We are, for instance, dealing with
the whole problem of unaccompanied minors and how they are
dealt with in the system. We have a program that we have put in
place that we are trying to staff up in such a way so that
young people can navigate the system in a way that they have
not had the ability to do in the past.
There is a juvenile docket that we have established
throughout the country that hopefully will facilitate
consistency and do the kinds of things that have to be done in
the system in a more child-friendly way. So that's at least one
of the ways in which we are dealing with this issue, this whole
question of unaccompanied minors. But I think more generally,
we are looking at the system and trying to come up with ways in
which we deal with people who have mental health issues and a
whole variety of things so that we have a system that is
consistent with our notions of due process, so that people feel
that they are being treated fairly, and so that we get
appropriate results. If we follow the due process way in which
we try to conduct our judicial proceedings, you get better
results. You get more just results. And so these are the kinds
of things that we are trying to make a part of that effort.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. And I know that there are limitations as
to counsel for people in a deportation situation, but without
asking you to go around the law or inside and outside the law,
is there more we could be doing to provide some sort of legal
counsel, and I'm searching for a better word, so that these
cases are better handled? Because as you know, and as you just
mentioned, the issue is not just for deportation itself. It's
the separation of families, and that has become now a major
issue in the country, where most of the people agree that the
separation or breakup of families is not what they intended to
talk about when they talked about fixing our broken system.
Attorney General Holder. Yes. What we want to try to do is
come up with a way in which we have a system that is efficient
and that resolves the backlog that I was talking about before
as best we can, but at the same time, have a system that is
perceived as and actually is fair. And, the involvement of
lawyers is something that always helps in that regard. The
ability to speak to somebody who is conversant with the law, is
familiar with the way in which the system operates so that you
understand what your options are, all of that breeds respect
for the system, which is important, but also has a very
substantive impact as well. It gives us the ability to come up
with determinations that will stand not only the test of time,
but make sure that in terms of further proceedings, those are
minimized, which ultimately leads to greater efficiencies and
smaller costs than are expended.
Mr. Serrano. Do I have time for one more question, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
PUERTO RICO PLEBISCITE
Mr. Serrano. Last year the administration was good enough
to present for the first time ever language referring to a
referendum in Puerto Rico on its political status, and Chairman
Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah were excellent in making sure
that that language stayed in because as you can imagine some
folks wanted that language to disappear. Now it's become law
and everybody is aware of it. What is the next step in terms of
what has to happen? Is it something that you prod them along,
the Commonwealth to accomplish or something they have to do on
their own at the local legislature without your prodding? I
must say that I was very much taken, surprised, pleasantly
surprised by the fact that the language clearly states that you
will have final say as to what the ballot looks like and what
information is on the ballot and that it meets constitutional
requirements and public laws in this country. And I don't know
if you're aware of this, you must be aware of it, it's the
first time the Federal government has played this role. Puerto
Ricans have spoken on this issue before, but they've done it
amongst themselves. This time the Federal Government is saying
here's an opportunity. Say something. So what's the next step
now?
Attorney General Holder. You are correct the appropriation
for fiscal year 2014 included. It was a one-time $2.5 million
for the carveout under the Byrne Grant program for objective,
non-partisan voter education about a plebiscite that would
resolve the political status in Puerto Rico. Now, the funds are
to be provided to the State Elections Commission of Puerto Rico
which has the responsibility of drafting the voter education
materials in the plebiscite ballot.
The Department's role is limited to reviewing those
documents and then making the determination about whether they
are compatible with the Constitution, the laws and policies of
the United States. But it is the Department's role, the
Department's obligation, to make such a determination.
Mr. Serrano. Right. And I must say, in closing, that to me
there were two points in that language that were crucial, and
as you know because you have become some sort of an expert on
it, whenever the issue of Puerto Rico comes up, there are 4
million people, and there are about 5 million analysts on the
island who analyze what it was the Federal Government said. And
it's going on right now, and I assure you, once news gets out
that I asked you this question, there will be another 6 million
analysts throughout the States and the Commonwealth analyzing
what you said and what I asked and what I said. But there were
two key words to me. One was to resolve, and I hope that that
continues to be the thought because resolve means exactly that,
resolve. It can't mean, in my opinion, more of the same.
And, lastly, that it meets within constitutional
requirements, and in my opinion, without getting deeper into
the subject, there was one possible presentation of an option
that wouldn't meet the constitutional requirements. All the
others do. So I'm looking forward to what they come up with and
what your response is, and I must say that you deal with a lot
of issues every day, but with this being a territory sitting
around for 116 years, this may not be one of the biggest issues
on your plate. In fact, I know it isn't. But I can assure you
that to us, to the New York community and Chicago and all of
Latin America, this is something we watch very closely.
Attorney General Holder. No. This is obviously a very
serious matter, and Puerto Rico is a subject or a place that
generates, justifiably generates, a lot of involvement by the
Justice Department, not only with regard to this. I was in
Puerto Rico a few months ago, working with the Governor on some
issues. Our U.S. Attorney down there is doing a good job in
trying to help the local authorities there with the violence
problem that exists on the island. It's a subject matter that
justifiably takes up a fair amount of not only my attention,
but people in the Justice Department as well. So you need not
apologize for that or think that this is something that's
inappropriate. This is something that I think appropriately is
of concern to us in the Department.
Mr. Serrano. Well, I would hope that we would continue to
work on it because my personal political-having been born in
Puerto Rico and raised in the Puerto Rican capital of the
world, in New York City, in the Bronx, statement is that 116
years is a long time. It's good for Puerto Rico, but it's also
good for our democracy to be able to resolve this issue once
and for all, so I thank you for your involvement.
Attorney General Holder. For the record, I was born in
Hunts Point.
Mr. Serrano. In the 15th congressional district,
represented by me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. By the
way, a lot of the issues I was going to bring up to you, Mr.
Attorney General, were already brought up; so I will just go
back to another one that we have already spoken a little bit
about, which is the issue of marijuana and the enforcement of
marijuana. Obviously as we have already talked about, marijuana
is illegal according to Federal law. It's classified as a
Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Controlled Substance
Act; and this label implies that the drug has a high potential
for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in treatment.
Now, I'm not an expert on that, but that's what current
Federal law is. So, again, according to Federal law, it is not
a minor, benign substance. It is the same, according to Federal
law, as other Schedule 1 controlled substances. Now, Attorney
General, you've talked about why the Department of Justice is
dealing with it the way you're dealing with it. I don't want to
relitigate that, but I know that you're aware, and it's a sad
reality that a lot of folks in the country believe that this
administration selectively enforces the law. I don't want to
relitigate that either, but there's a perception out there, and
that's something that we have to deal with.
So here's the question. Again, you've talked about how it
is because of law enforcement that that Schedule 1 substance is
being treated different than other Schedule 1 substances. So to
my point, would it not make sense that your Department or
somebody in the administration would bring to Congress a
proposal to, as opposed to just kind of selectively, and I'm
not trying to say this in a negative sense, I'm just saying
your Department is dealing with that one differently than other
Schedule 1 drugs as far as the enforcement. You've explained
why. But would it not make sense to then change, or at least
change, that you would at least recommend changes to Federal
law as to the illegality of marijuana or at least changes to
the Schedule 1 drugs so that the American people would be
certain that you are actually enforcing the law, which
obviously you say that you are, as opposed to selectively
enforcing the law for whatever good reasons it may be.
So wouldn't it make sense to come to Congress with some
recommendations, with some changes, just if nothing else, to
give certainty and consistency, and the American people would
understand that the law is applied with certainty and
consistency?
Attorney General Holder. I don't want to be argumentative,
but I would just take issue, and I'll leave it at that, with
the notion that we are selectively enforcing the law. I'll
leave that there. But with regard to the whole question of the
scheduling of marijuana, I would be more than glad to work with
Congress if there is a desire to look at and re-examine how the
drug is scheduled.
As I said, there is a great deal of expertise that exists
in Congress. That is something ultimately Congress would have
to change, and I think the administration, would be glad to
work with Congress if such a proposal were made.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. But, Mr. Holder, the question is,
obviously Congress can do what it may, but Congress is not the
one who has decided to allow or to not go after folks in a
couple of States who now are, in essence, selling marijuana.
That's not Congress's decision. That has been a unilateral
decision by your Department. So that's, again, my question. If
that's the decision of your Department, which is what things
like that are seen, rightfully or wrongfully, because this is
not the moment to obviously litigate that, as selective
enforcement, Congress hasn't made that decision. As far as
Congress is concerned, marijuana is illegal in Federal law.
That has not changed, and your role is supposed to be, among
the roles, is to enforce that Federal law. And not only is it
illegal but, again, it is a Schedule 1 controlled substance.
You have made, I guess, it's a prosecutorial discretion to
allow to not go after certain individuals, certain entities in
Colorado and Washington for that violation of Federal law.
So, again, it's not Congress because we haven't changed
anything. What has changed is the policy of this administration
versus previous administrations as to how to enforce that
Federal law. So based on the changes that you have all made,
shouldn't that come to Congress and say, look, we believe that
the law is wrong. This is how we are enforcing it now and we
believe this is why, and we think that the law should reflect
the enforcements.
Attorney General Holder. Well, I'd say that, at the end of
the day, if you look at the kind of marijuana cases that we
will bring, or that we are bringing, and what was brought by
the Justice Department previously, I'm not sure that you're
going to see a huge difference. Priorities that we talk about,
preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing
cartels from being involved, preventing violence, and the use
of firearms; a lot of the marijuana enforcement happens at the
State and local level with regard to possessory offenses. The
kinds of cases that have been brought previously by the Justice
Department and that we would bring now, again, looking at these
eight enforcement priorities, I'm not sure that you're going to
see a substantial difference. And to the extent that the
scheduling issue is one that the Congress wants to engage in, I
think the administration would be prepared to do that. But as I
said, the responsibility for this resides in Congress.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I have time
for one last question?
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
IMPACT OF MARIJUANA LAWS ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, again, this may not be specifically
to your environment, but let me just throw it out there
anyways. Again, we know that some States legalized marijuana
and other States have legalized medical marijuana, and the
State of Florida has a ballot initiative coming up on the same
issue, and who knows what will happen there. Is there a process
or will there be a process involved in the part that you deal
with to analyze what, if any, effect these changes in the
different States are going to have on, again the part that you
deal with. You don't deal with the health issues I understand,
but you do deal with potential issues of crime, of organized
crime or whatever it may be. Is there going to be an organized,
established, bureau, a process, a commission, and if not, is
that something that you all should be looking at to make sure
that whatever impact, and we don't know what they're going to
be, if any, whatever impact there may be, that, you know, we
don't all of a sudden 10 years down the road we don't then say,
oh, we didn't realize this was happening and it's too bad, but
now it's too late. Is that something that formally is taking
place within your agencies?
Attorney General Holder. That's actually a very good
question, and what I've told the Governors of both Washington
and Colorado is that we retain the ability to file Federal
lawsuits if we feel that the regulatory schemes that they have
put in place are contrary to or are not operating consistent
with what they say in terms of not having an impact on public
safety, and if there are public health concerns that are
generated by these new regulations. What I've told them is that
we will not hesitate to come in and file lawsuits, and we will,
within the Department, come up with ways in which we can
objectively monitor these situations so that we can make the
determinations about whether or not further Federal action
would be appropriate beyond the promulgation of the eight
enforcement priorities that we have and the letters that the
Deputy Attorney General sent to the field.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Lastly, for example those, which I'm glad
to hear, is that process going to be something that you will be
willing or be able to share with Congress so that we can also
see the information that you're getting? I'm sure Congress will
look at it other ways too. I think it would be helpful that we
all try to be on the same page, so we at least have the same
information. In many cases, I think that would be helpful.
Attorney General Holder. My guess would be that the way
this would happen is that we will get research proposals from a
variety of places. Our Office of Justice Programs would make
determinations as to which ones to fund. Research is done. The
reports are prepared, and then they are publicly available.
Obviously we would share them with Congress. And on the basis
of those determinations, the basis of that research, make
determinations about what further action, if any, by the
Justice Department is warranted.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. I'm going to go to Mr. Culberson. But following
up, I think we have reached the threshold. I think the
administration, quite frankly, is failing. I just saw the
article the other day. ``First reported death linked to
marijuana in Colorado since legalization.'' In the first
reported death linked to marijuana in Colorado since it was
legalized, the Denver medical examiner's office Wednesday said
an exchange student fell to his death after eating a pot
cookie. Levi Thamba, an exchange student from the Republic of
Congo, died while visiting Denver after falling from the
balcony of a hotel in March, according to The Denver Post. The
autopsy report and Denver's Fox Channel 13 reveal ruled the
death an accident saying his death was due ``to multiple
injuries due to a fall from balcony after consuming marijuana
cookie and marijuana intoxication.''
According to the report 7.2 nanograms of active THC per
millimeter, per millimeter of blood in his system, the legal
limit to drive. We're seeing reports. I think we're going to
see reports, you know, and you're a moral leader here, too, and
the President is. I know the President must wish he could take
those statements back that he made. But as we see accidents, as
we see car accidents, imagine a mom and dad out with their
three kids and all of a sudden automobile accident takes place
and the guy is high on marijuana.
I think you're all failing the Nation, and I think Mr.
Diaz-Balart is right. You ought to quickly call a time out on
this and bring together some of the very best minds on the
health issues, on law enforcement is telling me on a local
level they're having a very difficult time monitoring is a
person high on this. With alcohol, the content is a certain
time. I took working with, frankly breaking with my leadership
at that time, I pushed .08. If my memory serves me we carried
.08 in this bill. And the alcohol people, I don't take alcohol
money. They were angry. The restaurant people were angry. But
we saved a lot of lives. I can remember former Congressman Mike
Barnes on the 21-year drinking age. I think the door is wide
open now, and so unless you all do something fairly dramatic,
that's why I did a letter to the President yesterday asking him
to meet with the head of NIDA on research, not on what are your
personal opinions and how do you really feel, on research and
hopefully the President is a good father.
I mean, I disagree with the President on a lot of issues,
but nobody could say he's not a good father. But both of you
have a unique responsibility at this time, and I do predict
that if the President, you do not do something, the door will
be wide open, and 10 years from now, 20 years from now when
you're sitting on your rocking chair, you're going to say, I
regret when I see what is taking place to this country on
safety, I regret that when I had the opportunity--there is
nothing more ex than an ex-attorney general. When you're gone
you will not be able to do anything. I urge you to follow
through with what Mr. Diaz-Balart said. But I think after you
sit down with NIDA, you're going to have a better opportunity.
You can provide that moral leadership to kind of deal with it.
And I remember when Governor Hickenlooper was here for the
Governor's Conference,--you probably met with him 2, 3, 4 weeks
ago--he urged the other Governors to move carefully here. Be
very slow, he said, because this thing could have ramifications
for the Nation. We all love this country, whether Republicans
or Democrats. If you want to say something, and then I'm going
to go to Mr. Culberson.
Attorney General Holder. First, I hope that 10 years from
now I won't be in a rocking chair.
Mr. Wolf. It's okay to sit in a rocking chair. You may want
to sit there and just get up and do something. But the point is
when you leave here, when you leave here--President Kennedy was
in his 40s sat in a rocking chair. I love a rocking chair. But
the point is, you've been given a great, great opportunity to
serve the country you will never again have. If you're a lawyer
at Covington & Burling billing $800 an hour, you're not going
to have the impact that you can have now, and now you can have
it, and I urge you to please do it on behalf of the children of
America.
Attorney General Holder. More seriously, as I was
discussing with Congressman Diaz-Balart, the enforcement
priorities, if you look at the sixth enforcement priority that
would, in fact, warrant Federal intervention, Federal
investigative and prosecutive activity, it is--let me just read
it to you, preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of
other adverse public health consequences associated with
marijuana use.
So that we are saying, in essence, that with regard to
drugged driving but beyond that, picking up on the incident
that you talked about and that he spoke about more generally,
if there are adverse public health consequences that we deem
associated with marijuana use, this is an enforcement priority
for this administration, for this Justice Department, and that
would warrant our intervention.
Mr. Wolf. Well, we have already seen it. The pain and
suffering and the agony of this family back in the Republic of
Congo, they will never again have their son with them, and I
think the threshold has been met. Mr. Culberson.
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Attorney General, for being with us today. I wanted to ask if I
could to talk about initially prosecutorial discretion and the
responsibilities of the President and you as the chief law
enforcement officer of the United States, there aren't many
responsibilities set out in the Constitution for the President.
He's, of course, the chief executive officer. He's got
responsibilities as commander in chief, make treaties, nominate
ambassadors, other public ministers an consuls, judges, other
offices appointed, created by the Congress, fill vacancies, and
give Congress information on the State of the union.
And then the one I really wanted to zero in on, as chief
executive officer is to take care that the laws of the United
States are faithfully executed. Could you talk to us about,
case law and precedent. What is the scope of your prosecutorial
discretion when it comes to criminal cases in particular?
What's the scope of prosecutorial discretion.
Attorney General Holder. Interesting question. It's a hard
thing to define, maybe to quantify, but understanding that when
the Federal Government moves to investigate somebody, prosecute
somebody----
Mr. Culberson. In a criminal case?
Attorney General Holder. Right. Or even bringing a civil
case, that has broad ramifications obviously for the
individual. It sends a message out to the broader community
about what the priorities are that we have, and so discretion,
from my perspective, is the wise use of the power that we have
to do and react in a way that's consistent with our values.
It's perceived as being fair and brings respect for the system
and actually is fair and does do things in a way that's
consistent with our Constitution, and----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. The precepts that led
to the formation of this country.
Mr. Culberson. But each one, as you said to Judge Carter
earlier, is highly fact-specific. It depends on the case, the
individual case.
Attorney General Holder. Well, it depends on the individual
case but, with an umbrella of understanding about how
prosecutors should generally conduct themselves.
Mr. Culberson. As a general rule, particularly in criminal
cases, you want to look at those individually. Talk to us about
the authority of the administration, the Department of Justice,
the President, to just with a broad brush, sweep aside an
entire category of cases on policy grounds, just not going to
pursue them under prosecutorial discretion. When and where does
that happen and what is legal justification, for example, for
refusing to prosecute a whole range of cases as has been
mentioned with the Controlled Substances Act, or whether it
also be with individuals that have crossed into the United
States unlawfully in violation of criminal statutes?
Attorney General Holder. Again, it's a question of how, as
I said with regard to the marijuana matter, we still enforce
the Controlled Substances Act and enforce it when it comes to
the marijuana issue. The question is, what are our priorities
going to be? How are we going to use the limited resources that
we have? What are we going to focus on in that enforcement
effort, and those eight priorities I think define, I think
pretty well, what is a reasonable use of or prosecutorial
discretion?
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. And in some cases, for example,
looking at the border of the United States, entering the United
States illegally, entering the United States unlawfully,
carries criminal penalties. In the Laredo sector, in the Rio
Grande Valley sector, I understand from talking to Members of
Congress in that area, and I'm sorry my good friend Henry
Cuellar is not here, but Henry tells me that there is a limit
set in place that you're not going to prosecute folks that
bring in less than 100 pounds of marijuana. In the Tucson
sector, I know from my own experience going there several years
ago, nobody was going to be prosecuted if they brought in less
than 500 pounds, so every load--the smugglers figured out
immediately--every load came in just below it.
Are there any other examples, to your knowledge, any legal
precedent, any other examples you can point to us in other
administrations where there have been policy decisions made to
just not prosecute a whole category of folks, for example,
whether it be smuggling or in the case of individuals who are
under a certain age who cross the border without permission as
has been done with the administration's policy not to prosecute
kids under a certain age, regardless of the merits of the
policy, as the chief legal advisor of the President, what's the
legal authority for that? To set aside and just not prosecute a
whole category of folks? When has that been done in the past,
and what's the legal authority?
Attorney General Holder. I don't have any specifics in
mind, but I can tell you----
Mr. Culberson. No specific legal authority in mind?
Attorney General Holder. No, no, I was going to talk about
something else.
Mr. Culberson. Oh, I'm sorry. I want to just talk about
those two cases in particular. And set aside the policy matter
because it's absolutely legitimate debate about whether or not
you're going to prosecute. Obviously you want police officers
to use their good heart and their good sense when they're
making a stop, for example, nobody wants to throw little kids
in jail. Set that aside. Could you talk to us just in general
about any legal authority, previous cases, previous
administrations that have made a policy decision not to
prosecute a particular category of individuals?
Attorney General Holder. I think what you just said is a
good example. You want police officers to act in a sensible
way. I'm not sure exactly----
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Good common sense and good heart.
Attorney General Holder. You want your prosecutors to do
the same thing, and the notion that somehow or other this
administration has turned a blind eye to border enforcement is
certainly belied by the statistics, and frankly the criticism
that I think the President has unfairly received over the
recent past about the border efforts that we have been engaged
in. And you talk about those limits. If, in fact, there are
limits, and I don't know whether they exist or not, but of 200
pounds per person carrying in and everybody comes in at 199; a
good U.S. Attorney, assistant U.S. attorney is going to say,
well, guess what, we're going to start prosecuting 199 pound
cases.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir. I'm not talking about individual
cases. I mean, just the policy. I'm not aware of, and I've
searched. I have been searching, for examples, of where, and I
understand in individual cases, prosecutorial discretion, you
want police officers and law enforcement officers to use their
good hearts and their good judgment and their common sense.
Every case is different. Obviously that's within the bounds of
prosecutorial discretion on an individual basis.
My question is, can you point to us any other
administration, legal precedent, case law, where an
administration has just decided as a matter of policy to set
aside a whole category of cases that would, are eligible for
prosecution but in a broad sweep? This whole category, we're
just not going to look at those or prosecute them. When has
that been done before?
Attorney General Holder. I can't give you specific
instances, but give me a little time. I'm sure I can come up
with examples. Administrations make these determinations all
the time. When I decide that we're going to prosecute Category
A, we're going to prioritize those, and I have, I don't know,
8,000, 10,000 prosecutors, that necessarily means I'm probably
going to have less capacity to do other kinds of cases.
Mr. Culberson. Certainly.
Attorney General Holder. And Attorneys General, former
Justice Department folks who head up Criminal Divisions, other
enforcement divisions, have made those determinations all the
time.
Mr. Culberson. For broad categories of individuals that fit
a broad definition of characteristics, because I'm talking
about broad policy matters. I understand individual, but what
I'm trying to drive at, it sounds like--you said you can't
think of specifics. It sounds like the administration may be
blazing a new trail here.
Attorney General Holder. No, not at all.
Mr. Culberson. Has it been done before?
Attorney General Holder. What I'm saying is that what the
administration is doing in its exercise of its prosecutorial
discretion is totally consistent with the way in which former,
other Attorneys General, other Justice Departments have
conducted themselves.
I've been in the Department of Justice since 1976. I've
been through Priority A, Priority B. We're doing this. We're
not doing that. I've been through these kinds of appropriate
determinations by the political leadership of the Department,
looking at the situations that they confront, the needs of the
Nation at that time to make appropriate determinations as to
how the limited resources of the Department would be employed.
Mr. Culberson. In individual cases?
Attorney General Holder. No.
Mr. Carter. Will the gentlemen yield?
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Because it's an interesting question.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. I want to have a dispute with you just a little
bit. You just described what we call selective prosecution, and
district attorneys everywhere in the world decide which cases
they're going to ask to go before court as a priority. And to
call that prosecutorial discretion, I think I disagree with
that definition. When judges and prosecutors get accused of
refusal to prosecute certain categories of crime, they get
accused of abuse of discretion, judges get brought before
certain internal governing bodies on the issue of abuse of
discretion, and prosecutors do, too.
So there is quite a difference between the individual
category of prosecutorial discretion. Let me look at my case
against that person. Is this case a case that I should be
bringing to court or before a grand jury, that's prosecutorial
discretion.
Mr. Culberson. Exactly.
Mr. Carter. But to say as a broad category, I'm not going
to prosecute any drug cases in my county, which there have been
judges and prosecutors that have done, and they have been
sanctioned and sometimes removed from office for using that
very, very situation. And that is a difference----
Mr. Fattah. If the judge would yield for a second.
Mr. Carter. And that's really what I'm driving at.
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield for a second.
Mr. Culberson. Certainly.
Mr. Fattah. I think that a little bit, the truth of the
matter is that the Federal Government doesn't go around
prosecuting people for, you know, what might be called and I'm
sure not in any place you've ever been, but places I've been, a
nickel bag of marijuana. U.S. attorneys, FBI agents are not
coming on the street corner locking up some kid for a small
bag. It's for--possession of marijuana has not been something
that we focused on, and the truth of the matter is that there
are a whole host of crimes, broad categories of which, right,
that the Federal Government doesn't take--we kind of leave that
to State and local governments to do.
So when President Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million people,
right, that was a use of the discretion by the administration.
There are times, because I think if I asked the Attorney
General, how much would we have to appropriate to enforce every
law in every State on every person, it would not be a sum that
we could afford. So by virtue of that, there is some decision-
making process that has to take place.
Mr. Culberson. If my friend from Philadelphia.
Mr. Fattah. I'll be glad to yield.
Mr. Culberson. This is a debate really, that's what I'm
driving at. Forget the specifics of the law. I'm just talking
about in general. As Judge Carter just mentioned, really hit
it. I'm not talking about a specific law to set aside the--I'm
talking about the drug laws in general or immigration. I
understand it is a fact-specific situation, but if you could
answer really looking at Judge Carter's question, when you've
got a prosecutor that just decides to set aside or judge, a
whole category of individuals, right Judge?
Mr. Carter. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. That has led to, I know in State, and you've
seen it. How many years were you a judge in Williamson County?
Mr. Carter. Twenty years.
Mr. Culberson. Twenty years a judge in Williamson County.
You're aware of instances where if a prosecutor just said as a
general rule we're not going to prosecute this entire category
of people, and the law is real clear----
Mr. Carter. Sanctions are taken.
Mr. Fattah. Before you yield, let me just say this.
Mr. Culberson. Certainly.
Mr. Fattah. I come from a place called----
Mr. Culberson. Let's talk about specific----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Philadelphia. The Philadelphia
district attorney 3 years ago announced he wasn't prosecuting
possession of marijuana, period. And he has brought no cases
there on that issue for these period of years. Right?
Mr. Culberson. And no one has sought sanctions against him?
Mr. Fattah. No one. In fact----
Mr. Culberson. It depends on the state.
Mr. Fattah. It depends on--the prosecutors have that
discretion. He is an elected official, elected by the people of
the city of Philadelphia. And we might not notice this, but the
country's changing its view on marijuana, the same way that
happened with alcohol. We had a prohibition, we had a major law
enforcement effort. It obviously didn't work to stop people
from drinking alcohol, and so the country made a different
decision. No, it is not great for people to do it, it is
definitely not good for them to drive on the highways while
they do it.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Fattah. It can impair their situation with their
family.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Fattah. But we are going to let Americans make that
decision----
Mr. Culberson. But in the----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. But if they sell it to a minor, we
will prosecute it.
Mr. Schiff. Will my friend yield to my friend that just
yielded?
Mr. Fattah. Right? But we made some decisions.
Mr. Schiff. Can I just make one quick point?
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Schiff. And I thank you. You have been so kind to yield
to all of us.
Mr. Culberson. Of course. It is a helpful debate.
Mr. Fattah. He is a very kind person.
Mr. Schiff. He is a very kind person. And I just want to
give an example. In the Federal system, when I started in the
U.S. Attorney's Office back in the late 1980s, there was than a
Justice Department policy at least as far as L.A. was
concerned, we wouldn't prosecute cocaine cases of less than 1
kilo. We just didn't have the resources.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. You left it with the State.
Mr. Schiff. And then few years later--yeah, we left it to
the State. A few years later, we wouldn't prosecute cocaine
cases unless they were over 5 kilos, and I think it may have
gone up to 25 kilos.
Mr. Culberson. Because they were left to the State to
prosecute.
Mr. Schiff. Well, because the State has dual jurisdiction--
--
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. But it was a question of the
Federal Government prioritizing its resources and deciding----
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. Where it best used its
prosecutorial discretion, but those were whole categories of
cases.
Mr. Culberson. Exactly. Prosecuted by the State.
Mr. Schiff. Well----
Mr. Culberson. That was the--the Federal attorney said, I
only got so many resources. These are typically State cases.
And what I am driving at, of course, in the instance Mr. Fattah
mentioned were the 3 million folks that were granted amnesty
under President Reagan, that was a congressional decision,
statute, following the statute that Congress has enacted. And
the----
Mr. Fattah. You know, what? If we ever get a vote in the
House, we are going to do it, too.
Mr. Culberson. But, again, that was Congress enacted a
statute. And my friend, Mr. Schiff, who truly is, we are
friends, and I--what you are referring to is the Federal
prosecutors left those cases to the State.
Mr. Carter. And that is why I wanted to ask. When you
refuse to prosecute 5 pounds or 10 pounds of coke, then the
Federal case always takes priority over the State case. I am
fairly certain it is illegal to have 5 pounds or 10 pounds of
coke in the State of California. Did those cases then get
turned over to the State courts to be prosecuted?
Mr. Schiff. Yes. The State district attorneys usually
picked those up, but of course the State district attorneys
have their own limitations on resources and they set their own
priorities that we will go after certain cases and we will not
be able to prosecute others because we simply don't have the
resources to do everything. So this is a State practice as well
as a Federal practice.
Mr. Culberson. Absolutely. And one that I don't disagree
with, because you have got to leave some to the State
authorities and others when Congress has changed the law or the
people have changed the law in election or, for example, in
Philadelphia, if the prosecutor in Philadelphia--you know, I am
a big Tenth Amendment guy. Frankly, I think almost all these
criminal cases ought to be handled by State authorities, so
that I understand.
The distinction, what I am driving at, Mr. Attorney
General, is as Judge Carter has pointed out and my colleagues
have pointed out, I think you can distinguish what they are
talking about. And what other administrations, what is the
precedent for just--for other administrations, what is the
legal precedent for just not even prosecuting whole categories
of cases? When has that been done? You have been in the
Department of Justice since 1976.
Attorney General Holder. Well, you----
Mr. Culberson. Could you cite us some specific examples?
You said you couldn't really think of any. I am trying to
establish, are you blazing a new trail here or what?
Attorney General Holder. No, we are not blazing a new
trail. We have heard Congressman Schiff talk about how
priorities are set with regard to amounts that will determine--
--
Mr. Culberson. But the State picks those up.
Attorney General Holder. Yes. And that would be true of the
marijuana cases as well, in the sense that if we make a
determination that for whatever reason, we are not doing these
cases unless these eight enforcement priorities are met, that
doesn't mean that those cases will not be prosecuted. The State
has the capacity to bring those cases.
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Attorney General Holder. We talk about selective
enforcement. That is----
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield for one minute, I
will give you an example. There was a date in our history of
the Nation in which the President of the United States pardoned
all draft dodgers, hundreds of thousands of people who had
avoided--violated the law by avoiding the draft.
Mr. Culberson. But he has got that authority under the
Constitution.
Mr. Fattah. Not by congressional action, but by decision.
Mr. Culberson. But he has got that authority under the
constitution.
Mr. Fattah. But here is the deal, right?
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Mr. Fattah. There was an election. This administration was
elected. This attorney general was appointed and confirmed by
the Senate and is acting and serving at the pleasure of the
President. And the President said, Smoking marijuana's not a
good thing. He is not advising that people do it. What he is
saying, however, is that the country is moving. So, yesterday,
the Pew poll came out, said that, forget marijuana, 67 percent
of the American public thinks that rather than criminalize drug
use, cocaine and heroin, we should go to treatment. Now, I am
not advocating that, but we live in a democracy in which the
public gets a vote----
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. On these issues.
Mr. Culberson. And we as their Representatives enact laws
to reflect the opinions of our constituents. And the power of
pardon is vested in the President by the Constitution. Chairman
Wolf is----
Mr. Fattah. I don't want you to think, though, that no
President has ever taken an action like not prosecute a large
group of people.
Mr. Culberson. What category?
Attorney General Holder. Well, Congressman, let me----
Mr. Culberson. That is what I am driving at.
Attorney General Holder. Let me ask you a question. Would
you have the Federal Government, the Justice Department,
prosecute every conceivable case we have the ability to
prosecute?
Mr. Culberson. Well, no. You can't, but that is an
individual----
Attorney General Holder. Exactly. We can't.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Case-by-case decision. That is
what I am driving at. That is what Judge Carter is driving at.
Mr. Carter. Can I?
Mr. Culberson. Please.
Mr. Carter. Would you yield?
Mr. Culberson. Yes.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Holder, did you ever plead anybody out?
Attorney General Holder. Did I ever do what?
Mr. Carter. Does the Justice Department ever, ever plead
anybody out?
Attorney General Holder. We do that.
Mr. Carter. About 90 percent of your cases, right?
Attorney General Holder. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. Ninety-seven percent of the cases.
Mr. Carter. So you couldn't plead out a 5-pound deal? I
mean, you decide you are too busy to prosecute a 5-pound deal;
5 pounds is a hell of a lot of cocaine, okay, when you measure
it by the gram. My God.
Attorney General Holder. Well, we are talking about cocaine
now. I----
Mr. Carter. Well, no. That one was pointed as an example: 5
pounds of cocaine was the cutoff. We are not prosecuting
anything that is not 5 pounds or more. Now it is 10 pounds.
Mr. Fattah. It was 5 kilos. I am sorry.
Mr. Carter. I am sorry. Kilos.
Mr. Fattah. Wrong side of the weight.
Mr. Carter. That is even worse. That is even worse. That is
10.2--that is 11 pounds.
Mr. Culberson. He has prosecuted one or two.
Mr. Carter. But the facts are, you plead out those cases.
To say you don't have the people to do it--you plead out 90
percent of your cases.
Attorney General Holder. Well, no, no, that is not----
Mr. Carter. But that is not really the example----
Mr. Schiff. If the gentleman would yield----
Mr. Carter [continuing]. We are talking about here. Let's
switch examples.
Mr. Schiff. It is still required--even in plea bargain
cases, you have still got to investigate the case. You don't
get a plea just because you ask for one. You have got to have
your trial lined up, the defense----
Mr. Carter. You don't get any plea if you have got a policy
of not prosecuting 5 kilos. They are not going to plead to
anything.
Mr. Schiff. Well, if you take all the 5 kilos cases, that
may mean you can't do all the 10 kilo cases. I mean----
Mr. Carter. But you plead them out.
Mr. Culberson. Well, it is handed over to the State, if
they are prosecuted.
Mr. Carter. Let's get away from them the stuff that is
clearly illegal.
BORDER ENFORCEMENT
And the big debate, where the State has no jurisdiction, is
immigration. You have refused to prosecute immigration cases.
Stated as a public policy that you would not go forward on
anything but major criminal violations. Not violations of the
immigration code but violations of the criminal code. Now, that
is the policy that you have established.
And right now, 60,000 unaccompanied minors are coming
across in the Rio Grande Valley this year. All of which, if
they were American citizens, would go before our Child
Protective Services and probably be taken away from their
parents rather than turned over to a criminal organization. And
nobody crosses the Texas border from Mexico without the
assistance of the cartel. Nobody.
Now, how in the world haven't you created a very dangerous
situation by saying, ``I am not going to prosecute anybody that
is living and working here. They are safe.'' Has that not
encouraged people to make this kind of decision for their
children? This is atrocious.
Attorney General Holder. Well, Judge, I will match the
enforcement record of this administration against the
enforcement record on the border of any other administration,
any other one.
Mr. Carter. You are talking about deportations?
Attorney General Holder. Any other administration, any
other one.
Mr. Carter. And I will agree with your figures when you
eliminate the pass-backs.
Attorney General Holder. Let's look----
Mr. Carter. Okay?
Attorney General Holder. Let's look at the record.
Mr. Culberson. The turn-backs.
Mr. Carter. The turn-backs.
Mr. Culberson. The Border Patrol----
Mr. Carter. We turn back Mexican--Mexican nationals every
day.
Attorney General Holder. Let's look at the record and let's
see what this administration has done, what this President has
done, what our border enforcement efforts have been like, and
they are the equal of and better than what any other
administration has done, and which I suspect you probably were
not as critical of.
Mr. Culberson. I have to tell you----
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. This--Chairman Wolf is--this is
one of the reasons I love this subcommittee so much, is how
generous and gracious you are, Chairman Wolf, with our time and
the thoughtfulness of the discussion, and it is a heartfelt,
earnest discussion.
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION
And set aside the individual, whatever the specific law
that you are dealing with, there is--in your mind, you are not
aware of any other previous instance in which an entire
category of individuals the Department of Justice has refused
to prosecute?
Attorney General Holder. But you see, the premise of your
question is that is what we are doing now, and I am not saying
that we are.
Mr. Culberson. It is being done with--he is chairman of
Homeland Security, and I am with him, and I guarantee it is
being--forgive me for interrupting. I apologize. But it is
being done with immigration.
Attorney General Holder. We are, again, using our resources
in appropriate ways. We are not saying the categories of
people, categories of kinds of cases are not going to be
prosecuted. Individualized determinations are always made.
There are exceptions to rules that we come up with. We have
these eight categories here. You know, Al Capone. Right? The
classic case. Couldn't get him on any of the stuff that he
really did, so they brought a tax case.
Mr. Culberson. That is an individual case. I am talking
about categories.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being so generous.
Attorney General Holder. Individualized determinations----
Mr. Culberson. Chairman Carter is wrestling with this right
now. We have got vast numbers of abandoned kids being handed
over to the cartels coming across the border. It is just
heartbreaking. And it is a terrible message to send not to
prosecute a whole category of people, because you have got
these poor kids just literally being abandoned, Judge.
You just--it is a heartbreaking situation.
Attorney General Holder. For the record, and just so that
my position is clear, I categorically disagree with your saying
that we are not prosecuting vast categories of cases in a way
that is inconsistent with the way things have been done by
prior Justice Departments. We just disagree about that.
Mr. Culberson. I suspect Judge Carter will have a follow
up.
Mr. Carter. If the gentleman would yield. And I thank very
much the chairman for being patient.
I can tell you that in my subcommittee on Homeland
Security, we have sat and heard the conversation from all the
Departments that it is the policy of the government to only go
after criminal aliens.
Mr. Culberson. Department of Justice policy.
Mr. Carter. That is the Department of Justice policy to
only go after criminal aliens. It has been given to us as a
reason for resources, a reason for moving the resources around
the border, yada, yada, yada. It just goes on and on and on. We
have heard it since the Democrats were in charge. This is when
we decided that the people we would go after were criminal
aliens, and all other people that cross the border, we were not
going to pursue anything in court. Now----
Mr. Fattah. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Carter [continuing]. I don't know where--I don't know
why for 8 years, 6 years, people have been telling us the
story, but that is what they tell us.
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield. Judge Carter is
in majority in the House. So let's try to put this in some
perspective. The Senate in a strong bipartisan vote has passed
an immigration reform bill that has an enormous amount of
resources to be provided for border security, tens of billions
of dollars sitting there. The President of the United States
says he supports this or would support a House alternative.
The House majority has yet to bring a bill to the floor on
immigration reform that would include border security. They
have refused to bring a bill to the floor just on border
security.
Mr. Carter. And I thank the gentleman for reminding me of
that.
Mr. Fattah. Excuse me. I just want to make sure. So when
you hear the passion emanating from the other team about how
concerned they are about these issues related to the border,
the first question is, when are they going to bring within
their own authority a piece of legislation to the floor of the
House so that the House could act on this critical issue? If
tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors are coming across the
border, right, if all this is going on, if the administration
is somehow dearth in its responsibility, then the Congress
should act. So the only instrument of the United States
Government that has not acted on this matter is the House,
which is in the control of the majority. So you have to
question this passion relative to the inaction.
Mr. Culberson. That is not the law yet, and that is all I
was driving at. And Chairman Wolf----
Mr. Carter. That is a great way to avoid the question, and
I thank you for the----
Mr. Fattah. I am just trying to help your understanding of
the law----
Mr. Culberson. That is not the law yet.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. As we go forward.
Mr. Culberson. Chairman Wolf, thank you for your generosity
with the time.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. We are going to go to some questions.
We are going to Mr. Fattah and back. We are going to have votes
soon.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, should the rest of us get a law
degree just for sitting in on this debate?
Mr. Wolf. You can audit the course for credit.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Attorney General Holder. You could audit the course.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPPORTUNITY COSTS
Mr. Attorney General, we all have to make choices. And to
be fair, I think the greatest thing about the life that God
allows us to lead is we get a chance to make choices, you know.
So when you choose to focus on one area, there is--in the
economics, there is something called the opportunity costs. If
you choose to focus on one area, you can't focus on something
else. Right? So these are choices that have to get made. And we
have said as a Nation that the core responsibilities of the
United States Government is to protect the American people from
another terrorist attack. You have some core national security
responsibility. We turned the whole FBI, like an aircraft
carrier, we turned it around to focus not on finding people
after a crime has been committed, but on preventing, you know,
another attack. Right? So there is a difference in some of the
priorities of the Department of Justice today than the
Department of Justice pre-9/11. Right? Both under your
leadership and under past attorneys general, you have had to
focus on this threat from Al Qaeda and others who seek to do
the American public harm. Right?
So there is a difference on what we might do about a whole
range of these other items that more traditionally might have
gotten more attention, because you have got to focus some of
your attention on people who are not trying to, you know, kind
of violate some criminal law here in our country but really
trying to kill us. So there is a difference in your
responsibilities. And so I want you to talk a little bit about
the work on this national security front, right, because I
think that there was a hearing a long time ago where we had
former Speaker Gingrich, and he was saying, Well, you know, we
have got to do this, we have got to do that. I asked the
question about, you know, there was a time under a former
American President who would criticize China for arresting
people without due process, without charges, with secret
evidence that was never made public and so on, and Bush,
Senior, the President, complained about this process in China.
And I asked former Speaker Gingrich, I said, Well, what does
this mean in the war on terrorism now? You know, how are we
going to reconcile being a nation of laws and, you know,
protecting ourselves. Right? And he admitted in this, hearing
that, that we are in a different place. And this has been seen
as part of the rub, part of the controversy that you have had
to confront in terms of reconciling our laws and our
constitution with the fact that we are in a situation in which
the Geneva Conventions and other normal constraints don't
exist, at least for those who are our adversaries. So if you
would talk a little bit about how you have tried to reconcile
these issues in your role, that would be helpful.
NATIONAL SECURITY
Attorney General Holder. What I have often said is that
there is not a tension between our keeping the American people
safe and our national security responsibilities and an
adherence to our values. We can do both. In fact, if we are
doing it in the way in which we should, we should be doing
both, keeping the American people safe, but doing so in a way
that is consistent with our values.
We have in our budget request for what in essence is a new
Justice Department, new in the sense that it is different, as
you say, from the Justice Department that existed before 9/11.
You are absolutely correct that the FBI is a fundamentally
different agency than it once was. The Justice Department is
fundamentally different. We have a National Security Division
that never existed before. When I was the Deputy Attorney
General in a pre-9/11 Justice Department, I didn't start my day
by going to 8:30 briefings where I would get the raw threat
stream for the previous 24 hours, as I do now, along with the
Deputy Attorney General. We are much more a national security
agency than we once were. I sit on the National Security
Council. I spend huge amounts of time in the Situation Room
trying to determine what the national security response of the
United States is going to be in a whole variety of contexts.
So this Department needs the budgetary request that we have
put forward to support this relatively new mission. We are
talking about something that is over a decade old at this
point, but we are constantly trying to refine our national
security efforts so that we can be more effective, more
efficient but, at the same time, adhere to those values.
Mr. Fattah. I told you I visited the Joint Terrorism Center
when it opened in Virginia. The chairman lets me go to Virginia
every once in a while. And I was there to--and you have this
whole range of entities, many from DOJ, working together trying
to, you know, find a needle in the haystack, if you would. Post
9/11, there was always concern about, you know, not connecting
the dots. Right? So what is your sense now in terms of DOJ as
it interacts with the other intelligence apparatuses? Do you
think that there is appropriate interaction, or are there still
challenges?
Attorney General Holder. No. I think we are in a much
better place than we were. I think we are even in a better
place now. As this administration, there were certain concerns
that were raised after the Abdulmutallab incident in Detroit,
where I don't think we saw the kinds of communication between
the national security agencies that we needed to have, and this
was of great concern to the President. So I think we are doing
better in that regard. I think we can always do better to make
sure that institutional barriers, turf consciousness is not
something that gets in the way of information sharing and
policy development, but I can tell you that when it comes to a
whole range of national security issues, I look at the people
who I normally meet with--and these are members of the
intelligence community, the Defense Department, the Justice
Department, representatives from the White House, the national
security staff--these are the kinds of things that we take a
whole-of-government approach to. It doesn't mean we are
perfect, but I think we are also sensitive to the fact that we
need to try to become as perfect, as we can. So we are always
trying to fine tune the efforts that we are engaged in.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION ACT
Mr. Wolf. PREA, Prison Rape Elimination Act, the budget
request proposed cutting PREA grants by 16 percent. What is
your rationale for that?
Attorney General Holder. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I----
Mr. Wolf. PREA. Your budget is cutting PREA grants, Prison
Rape Elimination Act, by 16 percent. What is your rationale for
that cut?
Attorney General Holder. Dealing with this whole problem of
sexual violence is something that is obviously extremely
important to us. We are making changes here.
Mr. Wolf. But it is a cut.
Attorney General Holder. We are phasing out, for instance,
the Prison Rape Review Panel.
Mr. Wolf. But these are grants.
Attorney General Holder. Yes. There are ways in which we
have to make determinations about how we are going to use the
money that we have. We have a budget that is good, not as great
as we would want it to be, and so we have had to make some
tough determinations about how we spend the money that we have.
And to the extent that there were cuts there, we think that
they were ones that were difficult to make but, nevertheless,
will leave us with the ability to enforce PREA in the way that
it was intended.
Mr. Wolf. I doubt that you really support cutting the
grants by 16 percent.
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES
UNICOR is beginning to use the authority the committee
provided to allow them to repatriate jobs back to the U.S.,
increase range of products, as you know, so that--understanding
so men and women who are in prison have the dignity to work, to
learn, so they can be rehabilitated to come out, including new
offers like LED lighting, battery chargers and baseball caps.
Are you aggressively working with the other Departments to
ask them, when they can, to use UNICOR?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. We are working----
Mr. Wolf. I mean, have you done--excuse me. Have you done a
letter to all the other Cabinet officials? Like the Park
Service, you go into a national park, you buy a baseball cap;
it is made in China. You buy a T-shirt; it is made in China.
There is only one or two American baseball manufacturers in the
United States. Are you working with them? Using UNICOR, you
could. So could you--have you been in touch with the other
agencies?
Attorney General Holder. I think that is actually a good
idea, the notion of a letter that would go to the other agency
heads to try to encourage them to make greater use of Federal
Prison Industries products. We have certainly reached out to
presently about 200 companies regarding potential
opportunities. We have 34 currently approved repatriation
projects, 450 inmates employed, which is double the number from
6 months ago. And it is still, from my perspective, not enough.
This is an area where I think that we can have a dramatic
impact on the lives of people who are presently incarcerated,
increase their chances for being successful outside of the
prison context, reduce recidivism. If we spend the money
upfront and dedicate the resources upfront, we can knock down
the crime rate on the other side and also decrease the amount
of money that we spend in the system for people who come back
into it.
Mr. Wolf. If you could do a letter, then, to all the
agencies--
Attorney General Holder. We can do that.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Park Service, Department of
Interior, all of them.
Attorney General Holder. I think that is----
DOMESTIC RADICALIZATION
Mr. Wolf. The committee has appropriated $12 million over
the past 3 years for research on domestic radicalization. How
is this research being used to inform the Department's response
to the domestic radicalization phenomenon and to refine its
counterterrorism mission, because you have had 50-some
Americans leave the United States and go to Syria?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. We have had Americans leave
and go to Syria, leave and go to Somalia. And we are also
concerned about people who don't leave and who get radicalized
in a variety of ways. This is something that is a priority for
the President. It is one that he asks the national security
team about and expects reports on, at least on a monthly basis.
And so we use that money to try to understand how do people get
radicalized, what drives otherwise seemingly normal people to
take these radical courses and then to come up with ways in
which we interact with groups of people, individuals, various
communities and so that there is a counternarrative to people
who would go on the Internet and be convinced that there are
certain ways of life that they should follow. Our U.S.
attorneys have been very involved in this action. It is one of
the charges that I have given to them, to get out into the
communities and to interact with communities that are at risk
so that we reduce the possibility of these potential domestic
violence adherents.
Mr. Wolf. It was amazing to hear Michael Morell, former
deputy and acting head of the CIA, yesterday say, or 2 days
ago, that he removed the word ``Islamic'' because he didn't
want to offend anybody when they were doing the briefing on the
attack on Benghazi. I mean, that is political correctness gone
awry. When the CIA is worried and removes the word ``Islamic''
on a report where we lose four American citizens, I think this
administration is adrift and if it has reached the CIA.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Your request on human trafficking to strike language
carried the past several years requiring each U.S. attorney to
lead or participate in human trafficking task force, why would
you ask that? I mean, Neil MacBride, Neil has done probably
better than any other U.S. attorney. Now you want to take that
language away. Why would you want to do that?
Attorney General Holder. I am not sure I am familiar with
that.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah. Is he going to give you the brief? Yeah, it
says to strike.
Attorney General Holder. This whole question of human----
Mr. Wolf. You don't want us to strike it, then, I assume,
because you would----
Attorney General Holder. I am just not familiar with what
you are discussing.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Good. So you are opposed. Okay. Good. That
is what we wanted to hear you say.
The FBI director, when we had Director Comey up the other
day, agreed that the FBI's National Gang Intelligence Center
would be a logical place to assemble and analyze intelligence
on human trafficking, because many times gangs are involved,
MS-13. Would you agree that that would make sense?
Attorney General Holder. I think that would be a good
place, but as long as we don't think that human trafficking is
only done by gangs.
Mr. Wolf. Oh, no. No, no. But it would be--because in
Northern Virginia, part of it was gangs. We see around it--
but--so that would be--okay. Good.
Backpage.com, I am not going to--we are running out of
time, and--but I really--until the law and regulation can be
alined with our duty to protect our children, I would hope that
you would maybe send a team up to sit down with us, and there
is language moving through the House, to perfect it in such a
way, sir, that it is not a paper--passes something, people feel
good and doesn't have any impact. So if you could have your
team contact the staff, and we can sit down with people who are
working on it to make sure whatever is brought up is
constitutional and does really deal with the issue.
Attorney General Holder. Yes. As I indicated in my remarks,
and I think as we have said to you in a letter, we would like
to interact with you in terms of legislation that will be
effective and that will pass First Amendment constitutional
muster.
Mr. Wolf. If you could have somebody come up next week,
that would be helpful----
Attorney General Holder. That is fine.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Because this thing is going to move.
Almost a year ago, on human trafficking, in McLean,
Virginia, in my district, there was a case of a Saudi diplomat
who allegedly kept a domestic worker in slavery. Recently in
New York, we saw the case of an Indian diplomat who was charged
with visa fraud who was underpaying a housekeeper.
What challenges are you facing confronting human
trafficking in the diplomatic community?
Attorney General Holder. It is an issue that has become
apparent in at least a couple of cases. There are others that
we are looking at and trying to deal with. It is something that
there is an increased awareness of by various U.S. Attorneys,
not only in New York and in Washington, but in other parts of
the country as well.
Mr. Wolf. Was that Saudi diplomat prosecuted?
Attorney General Holder. I don't recall.
Mr. Wolf. Could you check and let us----
Attorney General Holder. Yes, we can do that.
[The information follows:]
Was a Saudi Diplomat Prosecuted?
We investigate allegation of abuse and exploitation of domestic
workers, including the employees of diplomats, to the extent authorized
by law. We cannot comment on the statuts of any pending investigations.
There has been no prosecution to date of the McLean, VA Saudi diplomat
matter you reference.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Let us know?
HONOR VIOLENCE
Honor violence. I am concerned that the Department is not
taking seriously the problem of honor violence in the United
States. We saw the case in Arizona, a 19-year-old Arizonan,
after she was seen talking to a boy, her father put a knife to
her throat and threatened to kill her, while her mother and
sister tied her to a bed and taped her mouth shut and beat her.
And in Arizona, another person was killed by her father for
refusing to participate in a forced marriage.
In the fiscal year 2014 omnibus, the committee included
$250,000 for the Bureau of Justice Statistics to collect
statistics on honor violence and to examine whether data
series, such as the Uniform Crime Reporting series, the
National Crime Victimization Survey, should include data on
honor violence. Can you provide us with an update on these
efforts?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. The BJS, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, has been charged with examining whether Uniform
Crime Reports, the National Crime Victimization Survey, and
other relevant data series should collect report data on honor
violence. And BJS has obtained initial information from the
Office on Violence Against Women and NIJ's project assessing
some parts of the issue. This includes a review of the current
literature from OVW and a project funded by NIJ that addresses
forced marriages.
This is a topic that really tugs at me. I am the father of
two daughters, and the notion that these kinds of activities
would occur in our country is simply something that is
unacceptable, and so we are working to deal with this issue in
the ways that I have described.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I appreciate that. If you could, again,
have your people keep up with the subcommittee to let us know
as we mark up the bill to see if there is something else that
we should be doing.
THE WIRE ACT
I am going to ask you one last issue that hasn't been
covered very much. For 50 years, the Wire Act served as a
barrier to gambling operations via communications services.
Then, in 2011, the Office of Legal Counsel ruled the Wire Act
applied only to sports betting. Could you describe why and how
the legal ruling was made with no consultation with Congress?
Attorney General Holder. The Deputy Attorney General sent a
letter that the Wire Act only covered sports betting. The
Office of Legal Counsel looked at this matter and issued an
opinion in September of 2011. I will be honest with you. I
don't remember what the circumstances were that precipitated
the examination by OLC.
Mr. Wolf. Can you find out and tell us?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. I have something that I
vaguely remember, but I don't want to say something that is not
consistent----
[The information follows:]
What Circumstances Precipitated an OLC Opinion on the Wire Act.
As the opinion stated, Illinois and New York proposed to use the
Internet and out-of-state transaction processors to sell lottery
tickets to in-state adults. In view of these proposals, the Criminal
Division asked the Office of Legal Counsel to resolve whether the Wire
Act and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act prohibit a state
lottery from using the Internet to sell tickets to in-state adults
where the transmission using the Internet crosses state lines, and
whether these statutes prohibit a state lottery from transmitting
lottery data associated with in-state ticket sales to an out-of-state
transaction processor either during or after the purchasing process.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. With what the facts
were, but I do remember that that was an issue that was of
note. There was a precipitating event that made OLC examine
that question and issue that opinion in September 2011 that
then precipitated the letter that the Deputy Attorney General
sent out, and we can find out exactly what that event was and
share that with you.
Mr. Wolf. If you could. To release something on a Friday
before Christmas, you just know there is something wrong. And I
was the author of the National Commission on Gambling a number
of years ago, and there is a difference on the impact,
particularly for young, what they call destination gambling and
convenience gambling. Destination gambling, you are going to go
out far away, you take so much, and that is it. Convenience
gambling around the corner is--the ultimate convenience
gambling is to go be able to go online in your bathroom in your
dorm at Penn State, and so, you know, I would like to find out.
And also, Mr. Chaffetz and Senator Graham have introduced
H.R. 4301 to restore the Wire Act. Will you provide the
technical and policy expertise to help craft a strong and clear
statute that restores the sensible prohibition on online
gambling?
Attorney General Holder. We will look at the statute. I
don't know what the administration's policy or policy
determination would be with regard to that question, but we
will certainly look at the statute and provide the technical
assistance that might be required.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you. I am going to kind of--if
anybody on either side wants one last--yeah.
Mr. Schiff, yeah.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM
Mr. Attorney General, you have been very outspoken about
your concerns about the broader issues in the criminal justice
system and, in particular, inequities which fall
disproportionately on many minority communities. And the
committee is well aware we have the dubious distinction of some
of the highest incarceration rates of anywhere in the world.
I appreciate that this budget reflects a balanced and
evidence-based take on criminal justice and on reforming the
system to be smarter, fairer and cheaper. It reminds me of
something Churchill once said: ``Now that we are broke, we have
to be smart.'' And we feel that quite overwhelmingly in
California with our prison budgets bankrupting the State.
When we step back and look at the justice system in the
U.S. And our rate of incarceration, racial disparities, the
degree to which our prisons are housing thousands of Americans
with substance abuse issues and mental illnesses, there just
has to be a better way, and I think the efforts you have made
to change that way are going to be among the proudest
achievements of your tenure as Attorney General.
I want to just compliment you on the funding for the Honest
Opportunity Probation Enforcement courts as well as the justice
reinvestment programs. Seventeen States have implemented
justice reinvestment in some form. Regrettably, my own State of
California, which has among the worst problems, has not. And I
look forward to working with you on it. And I wonder if there
were any thoughts you wanted to share on the overall direction
of the criminal justice system.
Attorney General Holder. I look forward to working with you
and other members of the Committee in that regard. I think what
we have tried to do in the Smart on Crime initiative is to look
at the world as it exists and look at the criminal justice
system as it exists, and also examine what some States have
done. Very interesting experiments have been done in States, in
red States, Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, where by emphasizing
prevention, emphasizing rehabilitation, emphasizing reentry
programs, States are spending less on prisons. They are having
a positive impact on their crime rates. So that it is something
that I think people don't necessarily equate, but it is
possible. You can spend less and keep people even safer if you
are smart in the way in which you structure your criminal
justice efforts, and that is what we are trying to do in the
Federal system with the program I announced, last August. We
have money in our budget request to support these efforts. I am
actually optimistic that there is also legislation that is
pending that has been set up by Senator Durbin and Senator Lee
that we are supportive of and hopefully will be passed by the
Senate and hopefully passed by the House so that we can
institutionalize some of the changes that I have made with
regard to how Justice Department prosecutors are supposed to be
conducting themselves. But we can't----
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield for just one
question. I mean, not question; comment on this. This is a very
important effort that the committee has supported on justice
reinvestment. And, you know, we just had a veteran in an
overheated cell in a prison somewhere in America. I can name
the place, but I am not trying to denigrate the location. I
want to denigrate the circumstances that he would die in a cell
in 100-degree plus heat. We want to have more veterans courts,
more drug courts. We want to be more focused on this. And I say
``focused,'' because my legislation that I talked to you about
earlier would in part fund more justice reinvestment programs
using some of these settlements, so I want to make that point.
Attorney General Holder. All right.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will
try to make this a little short, anyway.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr. Attorney General, I am going back to a subject matter
we were just discussing, but only briefly. My colleague has
raised the issue of immigration reform. My friend to my left
here, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and I worked on what started out as the
Gang of 20 and reduced itself down to the Gang of 7 over a 5-
year period of time that met every week and worked on drafting
a bill on immigration reform. So I think I have fairly
reasonable credentials to say that I have worked hard to try to
come up with a solution on immigration reform. There are laws
on the books today that would fix immigration reform, but they
are not being enforced. So how can I feel confident after 5
years of work and then the battering we are going to take when
we ultimately do an immigration reform, that, not maybe you as
Attorney General, or the next Attorney General, or the
President who has said, ``I will enforce the laws I want to
enforce and I won't enforce the laws that I won't,'' how can I
be sure that all that work won't be for nil? That is the real
issue. And that is the question that is asked by people all
over this country that are just simple folks who say, Look,
don't tell me they are enforcing the law. Don't tell me that.
Don't tell me 60,000 kids come across the border, and they are
enforcing the law. I mean, why aren't they doing something
about the parents that pay these coyotes to bring innocent
children across the border?
I had a girl walk up to me at South By Southwest in Austin.
She was a dreamer, and she said, Can I tell you my story?
Yes.
I was picked up when I was 13 years old in Guatemala. The
cartel made me work my way across Mexico.
I didn't ask her how she was working, how she worked her
way across Mexico in a criminal gang.
And ultimately, they had me working in a motel room which I
thought was in Mexico, but they left me alone for a minute, and
I went out the window and discovered, praise God, I was in
Brownsville, Texas. I am now a college student. You need to
hear my story.
That is the exact child--a 13-year-old girl is still a
child, that is the exact child we ought to be talking about
here.
I am for immigration reform, and folks in my district know
it. And I deal with that issue, but I am not for writing a
bunch of laws that an individual can choose not to enforce or a
group of individuals can choose not to enforce. I come from a
world where the law is the law. If you need more prosecutors, I
am willing to give them to you so you can enforce the law. If
you need staff, I am willing to give them to you, because I
believe the law should be enforced. And if that is what you
need, please tell us.
Do we need to write into the law that those things you are
just not capable of doing because you are overwhelmed by the
caseload that you have? Then maybe it will automatically revert
to the State and you will waive any priority that the Federal
Government has so the State can go forward and prosecute the
case. Maybe that is the solution. Maybe we ought to write that
into our immigration laws and our drug laws. But at some point
in time, not enforcing the law becomes a crisis in a place
where we say the rule of law is the glue that holds our society
together.
So if you would like to comment on that, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Culberson. And that is what I was driving at, too.
Mr. Wolf. We are running out of time.
Mr. Carter. That is it.
Attorney General Holder. Okay. All right. Again, I would
take issue with the notion that we are not enforcing the law,
but I would say that the Administration remains firmly
committed to commonsense immigration reform and doing so in
this year. Our immigration system is, no question, broken.
There is a bill that was passed in the Senate that talks about
an earned path to citizenship, further strengthens border
security, holds employers accountable, brings our immigration
system into the 21st century. I think that is the path that we
could follow.
This is something that the Department will certainly work
with Congress on. The Administration really has called for and
has been supportive of immigration reform. And as I said, the
bill that had passed the Senate, is an appropriate way to
proceed.
Mr. Carter. And I disagree on the Senate bill, as does most
of the Republican Members of Congress and quite a few
Republican Members of the Senate. There will be alternative
bills drafted, and ultimately, we will let this process do it
the way it is supposed to do under regular orders, and come up
with a solution for this. But if the argument is that I have
got to take the Senate bill, then it is a bad bill, and I am
not going to vote for it.
Attorney General Holder. Well, there are----
Mr. Fattah. Judge, let me--if the gentleman would yield.
What the President said is he could support the Senate bill,
but he would be willing to look at whatever the House would act
on. So the issue for the House, as you say, most Members don't
support the Senate bill, is just that we should actually have a
debate then a vote on the floor.
Mr. Carter. And you know what?
Mr. Fattah. It is the people's house.
Mr. Carter. I just said I support that.
Mr. Fattah. Right.
Mr. Carter. Right.
Mr. Fattah. Because if you come out with what you have,
that might pass, and then there would be a conference on it----
Mr. Carter. And hang on.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. And then we would be in regular
order, we would get an actual bill.
Mr. Carter. The year goes all the way until January--until
December next year.
Mr. Fattah. I am going to stick with you.
Mr. Carter. You may see something yet.
Mr. Fattah. I am going to walk this path with you.
Mr. Wolf. I think, and I wasn't going to get involved, but
I think the problem with our side and many people in America is
there is a lack of trust in the administration.
Mr. Fattah. I know some people don't think he was born in
America, but we still have to----
Mr. Wolf. I am not----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. Run the most important country in
the world whether we agree with who got elected President.
Mr. Wolf. No, no. But I think, though, I----
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Wolf. When I see enforcement issues, there is, and I
think, you know, we have reached----
Mr. Culberson. Yeah. We need to wrap up. And it really goes
to the heart of what is in the constitutional duties of the
President, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
That is what we are driving at.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chair?
ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIONS
Attorney General Holder. All I am saying is that this
Administration has acted in a way that is consistent with the
provision that you just read. I am proud of what this
Administration has done generally. I am proud of what this
Justice Department has done specifically. We have acted
consistent with our obligations. We have been fair. We have
done things appropriately. Where we have made mistakes, we have
admitted them, and we have tried to correct them. The notion
that we have somehow been derelict in our duties for, I don't
know, political, policy reasons is just inconsistent with the
facts.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Mr. Honda, before----
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, interesting discussion, but I think sometimes
if we don't take it into context of history, then it becomes a
circle of discussions and arguments.
MINOR SEX TRAFFICKING
On the issue of minor sex trafficking, the subject of human
trafficking and how we can safeguard the most vulnerable
members of our society, our youngsters, we know that one of the
best opportunities for identifying and intervening in cases of
domestic minor sex trafficking is when these victims, these
youngsters appear in juvenile court. And I was just wondering
whether the county, State and tribal judges would need training
on how to identify these victims appropriately and place them
in situations where they can be safe, rescued and helped.
And I was just wondering whether just any kind of training
from your division and what the Department is doing to ensure
that the county, State and tribal courts are well trained and
well resourced to recognize these child victims of sex
trafficking so that these youngsters can gain access to the
appropriate services and intervention in the pendency of courts
as opposed to being treated as criminals in delinquency courts.
I was just wondering what kind of training--are you doing that?
Are you monitoring it, and how much funding do you plan to
focus on this?
Attorney General Holder. The determinations that are made
are largely made by State courts, local courts, and so the
Justice Department role in that is really supportive, not
necessarily of primary concern. We have done an awful lot with
regard to tribal lands, where we have spent huge amounts of
time as well as dedicated specific resources to dealing with
the issues that are unique to native lands, to Indian country.
We also try to encourage training of judges and of prosecutors
who are involved in these matters.
These are issues, again, that are largely the
responsibility of our State and local counterparts, and the
role that we have to play is to support them, help train them,
as you indicate. And there are requests in our budget for the
training of judges and also making funds available to States
that make requests of us in a whole variety of contexts, so
that I think our budget would--our grants budget in particular
would put us in a good position, if enacted, to be of
assistance in the way that you have described.
Mr. Wolf. If I can just--and Mr. Honda is right, though.
And I am going to give you this video before you leave. There
needs to be, and I think we need a conference this year to
bring everyone together, because there is apprehension, but it
is what do you do when you find a young person in need of care,
and you just cannot allow that person back out, and so he is
exactly right. We have the ``Joe Gibbs Home, Youth for
Tomorrow,'' here. But I think he is exactly right. There are
three legs to these stools, and if you don't deal with the
rehabilitation and what do you do afterwards, it really doesn't
help that much.
In closing, we are going to follow up with your staff. I am
sure Mike has been writing down every promise you made, and if
you will do the same thing to us. And I appreciate your
testimony.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 10, 2014.
BUREAU OF PRISONS
WITNESS
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Opening Remarks
Mr. Wolf. Director Samuels, thank you for appearing. The
hearing will come to order today to testify fiscal year 2015
Federal Bureau of Prisons budget request.
The Bureau of Prisons accounts for a third of the Justice
Department budget and has held onto a staffing better than its
sister agencies in the department over the past several years
where attrition and sequestration have taken a toll, so it
deserves a careful look as we consider how to fund the
department in 2015, but the size has not protected the Bureau
from pressures on staff and facilities.
The Federal prison population has grown tremendously. Over
800 percent from 1980 until 2011 while the number of facilities
tripled in that time. This growth after four decades of
relatively stable population has not been accompanied by an
increase in staff and space. The Bureau now has to manage a
vast national infrastructure and logistical network. It is
overcrowded and faces daunting security tasks of rising food
and medical costs.
Last year was a tough year. BOP survived in part because
the Justice Department, with approval from this committee that
pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed, transferred hundreds
of millions of dollars to BOP to prevent furloughs and sustain
operations. The system was at risk and we had to pay the bill,
and that was at the expense of other Justice Department efforts
and programs.
Enactment of a full fiscal year 2014 spending bill provided
some relief, but the disruption was a strong illustration of
sequestration consequences. For fiscal year 2015 you requested
6.96 billion in new budget authority, 0.5 percent above fiscal
year 2014, but this is actually a cut for the 193 million and
base increases are offset by 158 million in unspecified
administrative reductions.
This budgetary slight of hand is difficult to understand in
this instance since BOP has significant and growing base
operating costs. We would probe further into the impact of
these budget assumptions.
A development that may benefit BOP and reduce cost stems
from a bipartisan movement to reform our Nation's complex
correctional systems with renewed focus on reentry, integration
into society, and a reduction of recidivism. BOP's new reentry
services division was created to rationalize sentencing and
explore justice reinvestment initiatives.
We want to hear today how such approach can mitigate or
offset the inflow of new prisoners and reduce overcrowding and
safety challenges.
BOP staff has had to cope with chronic overcrowding made
more serious by the violent profile of medium and high security
inmates, many of whom are in gangs. Last year we shared your
grief for the two BOP officers who were killed while on duty.
The dedicated men and women of BOP know the risk they face and
I think there is risk of growing much more today than it is
ever, ever has been, and I think that will continue to be the
case. But our job is to keep them as safe as possible, so we
want to hear progress in that area.
Your budget proposed no significant new construction but
assumes annualization of the cost of existing sites. We want to
learn the status of the current projects.
Finally I am pleased to note the progress by the Federal
Prison Industry and UNICOR and its commercial representative in
promoting FPI services and manufacturing capability not only to
other federal agencies but to other government and private
customers. They are taking steps to repatriate manufacturing
jobs that were going overseas.
The FPI has an important mission to train and help prepare
inmates for a successful transition into society, and a growing
FPI business is a good way to achieve the outcome for more
federal prisoners and also helps with regard to the deficit.
Before you testify let me recognize my colleague, Mr.
Fattah for his comments.
Mr. Fattah. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first state that as best as we know at the moment
this is the last hearing of the CJS subcommittee prior to our
mark up and could be the last subcommittee hearing in all
likelihood for our chairman, and I want to just say that after
some 34 years of service in the House and as the leader of this
committee he has done an extraordinary job and has accommodated
the witnesses and the committees workload in a way in which we
can do our oversight and understand how we can proceed. He has
always been extraordinary cognizant of making sure that the
minority has ample input in the committee's work. So I want to
thank him.
I want to welcome you again before the committee. It is
true as the chairman said that for some 40 years this
population was very stable and under 30,000--well under 30,000
and now 216,000 inmates. You know, you have a number of
factors, you know, obviously that has led to this explosive
growth, but it is a challenge and it is eating away at the
budget of DOJ, you know, in terms of the other work that has to
be done in terms of national security and the like.
So, you know, you have, you know, done some work in looking
at, you know, the dual responsibilities of the Bureau of
Prisons, which is both imprisonment and reentry and you have to
have a dual competence. There are some 45,000 inmates from the
federal prison system that will each year reenter our
communities throughout this country, and the questions is are
those communities safer upon their time with you or are they--
those communities more endangered based on these inmates' time
with you? And it has to do with whether or not we are smart
about this.
So as we take away services inside the prison, whether
education or job training or conflict or anger management or
drug treatment, then that just means that these 45,000 a year
inmates who are going to be--who have reentered our communities
are less able to cope in a civilized society and they may
revisit one of your facilities, but only after victimizing
other people on their way.
So it costs our society and we are very interested in the
work that you are doing, look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah, and I appreciate you
comments. We've had a good working relationship over the years
and so I am very, very grateful.
SWEARING-IN
Pursuant to the authority granted in Section 191 of Title
II of the United States Code in clause 2(m)(2) of House Rule 11
today's witnesses will be sworn in before testifying. Please
rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Wolf. Let the record reflect the witness answered in
the affirmative. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogers, the full committee chairman, is coming and I
know he has a lot of interest, so at that time we can pause and
let him make a statement, but why don't you proceed as
appropriate.
Opening Statement
Mr. Samuels. Good morning Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member
Fattah, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the President's 2015 budget request for the
Bureau of Prisons.
Through the support of this committee and the American
people the Bureau continues to be a leader in corrections.
Investments in our workforce and operations have been critical
to maintaining safe and secure prisons.
Our staff are dedicated public servants who work diligently
24 hours a day, 365 days a year, weekends, and holidays to
provide care and programs to give inmates the best chance for a
successful return to their communities.
Our mission is to protect society by confining offenders in
a controlled environment of prisons and community-based
facilities that are safe, humane, cost efficient, and
appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-
improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-
abiding citizens.
I firmly stand behind our mission and so do the other
39,000 dedicated men and women who successfully carry out our
mission each and every day.
As you know, the Bureau suffered tragic losses in 2013 with
the murders of Officer Eric Williams and Lieutenant Osvaldo
Albarati. These losses underscore the many challenges the staff
face daily.
We are grateful for additional authorities this
subcommittee provided to expand Federal Prison Industries,
programming such as repatriation, and we are enthusiastically
pursuing many different products and working with many
potential partners.
Currently there are more than 450 inmates involved in
repatriation projects. In the last six months, the number of
inmates participating in these projects has more than doubled.
FPI's board of directors has approved 34 categories of
repatriation projects.
Chairman Wolf, the President's budget request for 2015 is
$6.8 billion for the BOP's salaries and expenses account and
$90 million for the buildings and facilities account. These
funding levels will allow the Bureau to fulfill its mission.
The requested resources will allow us to continue the
activation of recently constructed and acquired facilities,
preserve funding provided in the 2014 budget to continue the
reentry programs, and maintain staffing at the 2014 level.
The Bureau is the Nation's largest corrections system with
responsibility for over 216,000 inmates. We confine almost
174,000 inmates in 119 federal prisons that have a total rated
capacity of nearly 132,000 beds. The remaining 42,000 inmates
are in privately operated prisons and in residential reentry
centers, local jails, or on home confinement.
Systemwide the Bureau is operating at 32 percent over its
rated capacity. Crowding is of special concern at our higher
security facilities with 53 percent crowding at our high
security institutions and 43 percent at our medium security
prisons.
The safety of staff, inmates, and the public are our
highest priorities. We have undertaken several recent changes
to our operations to enhance safety and security.
In May 2012, the Bureau began an evaluation to access the
effectiveness of pepper spray for use in emergency situations
at several high security prisons. Last year we decided to
expand the evaluation to all high security prisons, detention
centers, and jails, and the preliminary findings are very
positive. At high security institutions we added a correctional
officer to each housing unit during evenings and weekend
shifts.
In August 2013, the PREA audit process was implemented. To
date 15 federal prisons have been audited and there are no
major compliance issues.
I want to thank the subcommittee for approving the creation
of the Reentry Services Division within the Bureau. This was a
critical step taken by the department and the agency to enhance
our focus on the reentry portion of our mission. The Reentry
Services Division is solely responsible for the oversight and
coordination of the many reentry programs, services, and
functions that we perform on behalf of all inmates, but
particularly the more than 45,000 that will return to U.S.
communities each year.
I am certain this new structure will allow us to have an
even greater impact on our inmate population and to work more
effectively with our partners in the community.
Finally, in April 2013, we expanded the medical criteria
for inmates seeking reduction in sentence based on
extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Last summer the
Attorney General announced additional revisions to the criteria
to include other categories of inmates such as elderly inmates
and certain inmates who are the only possible caregiver for
dependents.
Again, I want to thank you, Chairman Wolf, for your
leadership and many years of support to the Bureau of Prisons.
I also want to thank you, Chairman Rogers and Mr. Fattah, and
the entire subcommittee for your support of the Bureau of
Prisons.
I would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee
may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Samuels.
Let me recognize the chairman, Mr. Rogers, for a statement,
and Mr. Chairman, if you have any questions why don't you just
proceed.
Statement of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
courtesy here.
Mr. Director, welcome to the subcommittee. This
subcommittee over Chairman Wolf's tenure and then before that
my own tenure here.
BOP I think has faired very well. We have tried to take
care of your crying needs, understand your problems, and try to
help. And I have told numerous people in and out of the
government that in my opinion BOP is the best run federal
agency that I have run across, and I have run across I guess
most of them. So congratulations to you and your staff, you do
a good job under very difficult circumstances.
And I first want to recognize the fine service of the men
and women you are here representing. In my congressional
district where the Bureau has a very significant footprint.
I have had the pleasure of speaking with hundreds of these
dedicated public servants over the years who work day and
night, 365 days a year at USP McCreary, USP Big Sandy, FCI
Manchester, and FCI Ashland. Their jobs are difficult but they
are important. And as you know they tragically lost two of
their friends and colleagues in 2013.
We owe it to all of these men and women to insure that when
they leave their homes and their families every morning they
are leaving for a workplace that is safe and secure. I tip my
hat to them for their hard work.
Your budget request for 2015 totals 6.8 billion for
salaries and expenses, 90 million for buildings and facilities
account that essentially is flat funding, but I am concerned
that across the Department of Justice agencies have included
unspecified quote administrative reductions in their budget
justifications. BOP unfortunately is no exception and this is a
$158 million hole that the committee will have to fill. Because
of the unique nature of BOP's mission these dollars are
especially important.
As the inmate population continues to rise, 216,000 I am
told now, our prisons get more and more crowded every day. At
the end of fiscal 2013 a quarter of our medium security inmates
and 85 percent of our low security inmates were triple bunked.
Considering that eight out of every ten medium security inmates
has a history of violence this creates some very serious
questions about the safety of BOP staff and other inmates.
So, Mr. Director, putting aside the politically charged
rhetoric about federal sentencing guidelines the facility at
Thompson and the like, I need to see more leadership from DOJ
and the Bureau on that issue.
Despite the fact that contemporary prison design affords
greater efficiency and staffing and permits staff to safely
oversee more inmates your long-term budget projects no increase
in facilities. In the next five years we expect prison
population to increase by another eight percent to over
234,000. So I am looking forward to hearing from you on your
strategy for meeting that need. It is real and it is here and
now because of the lag time that it takes to appropriate, plan,
and build and so on. We have got to get with it pretty quick.
I am also hoping that you can discuss BOP's priorities with
respect to prison reentry. As the co-chairman of the
congressional caucus on prescription drug abuse I have long
advocated for a multi-pronged approach to combating this unique
public health and law enforcement challenge.
Opioid independent individuals leaving jails and prisons
have over 129 times greater risk for a fatal overdose whether
they are struggling with addiction to prescription painkillers
or to heroin. Certainly mechanisms like drug courts and prison
reentry programs are important in helping these individuals
begin the recovery process such that the justice system can
provide both incentives and sanctions as well as the
supervision and monitoring that is often needed.
With over 40 deaths a day attributable to these drugs every
effort must be made to reverse the current trends, and I look
forward to hearing from you on that issue especially.
Mr. Chairman, regrettably I have another commitment that
precludes me from staying for the entirety of today's hearing
unfortunately, but I do thank you for your time, Mr. Director,
and Mr. Chairman thank you so much for working me in here.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that, I
appreciate it.
PEPPER SPRAY
I have a series of questions and you just triggered one
thing. On the pepper spray. Did the pepper spray come from the
meeting that we asked you to set up or did it come--how did
that come about? I want to be able to tell Congressman Morgan
Griffith who was interested. Were you guys going to do it any
way or did it come because of us? I don't know the answer and I
want you to just tell so I can tell Morgan.
Mr. Samuels. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Congressman Griffith.
Mr. Samuels. We immediately evaluated the various concerns
regarding the assault issues within the Bureau relative to
staff and inmates, and shortly after I was appointed I decided
to move forward with a pilot, and the pilot was implemented in
August of 2012. We started out with providing the staff the
opportunity to use the pepper spray in our high security
institutions, which we identified seven, and as the pilot
progressed and we were able to review data regarding how it was
being deployed and the efficiency. I went a little further and
expanded it to all high security facilities to include our
detention facilities and jails, and that is currently how we
are operating right now. Until we can complete the entire
review process as well as look at the rules language ultimately
being adopted and approved that will determine if we go
further.
Mr. Wolf. But did our meeting have any bearing? That is
what I was trying to find out. I am going to talk to
Congressman Griffith and say, was that just an interesting side
bar that even if it hadn't happened you were going to do it or
did it have an impact? I want to be----
Mr. Samuels. Mr. Chairman, the concerns of Congress
obviously were part of the review, and so it did have some
impact on us moving forward.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I just want to be able to tell him that.
BUDGET REQUEST
Your request included funding to sustain operating costs,
increases in pay, and benefit adjustments but no programmatic
funding, at the same time as with the reference of the 158
million will the current request that you have, including
training and development for normal attrition, how will you
deal with a 158 million hole?
Mr. Samuels. What we are planning to do once we receive the
funding through appropriations is work with the Department to
identify the programs and administrative areas where we would
need to make some adjustments.
FAITH BASED PRISONS
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I have been reading some studies lately on
the faith-based aspect. There is some faith-based prisons down
in Texas and some other places. Have you ever been through any
of the faith-based prisons?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. What is your feeling about faith-based?
Because it seems to me that when an individual joins a group,
joins a Bible study if participating you get a change in
character. What are your reactions? I know the federal
government runs away from anything dealing with faith, but what
are your personal reactions with regard to faith-based
programs?
Mr. Samuels. Mr. Chairman, I'm very supportive of faith-
based programs, and I also want to thank you because I know
over the years you have been very, very supportive and you have
helped the Bureau move further in that direction in offering
the faith-based programs, which includes, the life connections
program. I know you are very familiar with these programs, and
I would confirm that inmates who participate in these programs
are more likely to not recidivate and they are the best inmates
as far as managing them in our institutions. We do everything
possible to try to encourage more inmates to participate in our
faith-based programs.
Mr. Wolf. Roughly how many of your population are
participating?
Mr. Samuels. I have that information and I can provide it
before the end of the testimony, but I know that there are
several----
[The information follows:]
Inmates Participating in Faith Based Programs
As of April 2014, there were 407 Life Connection and 990 threshold
participants, for a total of 1,397 inmates participating in national
faith based programs.
CHUCK COLSON TASK FORCE
Mr. Wolf. Just get it to the staff so I can see it.
The fiscal year 2014 appropriation provided one million to
initiate the Colson Task Force named after former inmate Chuck
Colson who has since passed away. It is tasked with finding
ways to provide safety conditions in prisons, relieve
overcrowding, and take a comprehensive fresh look at sentencing
and incarceration.
Among other things the task force should address how we
prepare inmates for reentry and reintegration into society. To
do this more successful will require money but also fresh
ideas.
A couple points. How will BOP engage with a task force,
with a dedicated liaison and providing ongoing support? What
areas would you suggest receive priority attention? And then
lastly, and Mr. Fattah has been very, very supportive, we
haven't had any differences, I think this is like a football
thing where the hole opens up and there is an opportunity and a
running back runs through but then it shuts. This door will
shut and so I think there seems to be kind of a bipartisan
consensus, there seems to be a consensus out in the country
both republicans and democrats on the issue of reforming
prisons. Sometimes you know at the beach when the wave comes in
you miss the wave sometimes another wave doesn't come for a
long time. There is a wave.
What are your thoughts with regard to the Colson Task
Force, your ideas, and how do we take advantage of this wave to
bring about the reform that we think we need?
Mr. Samuels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost I
want to thank you because I know it was based on your
leadership and other members of Congress to recommend for the
adoption of the Chuck Colson task force on federal corrections.
Mr. Wolf. It was Mr. Fattah. I mean it was totally
bipartisan.
Mr. Samuels. I welcome it, and I do believe when the task
force is ultimately identified and moves forward we will be
able to benefit from the findings and recommendations they will
make in regards to reducing crowding costs and recidivism in
the federal prison system. So I believe that this is all going
to be very beneficial not just to the Bureau of Prisons but to
my state colleagues and local officials as well.
Mr. Wolf. Are you going to have a liaison, someone on your
staff that liaisons with them? Because you all have a lot of
resources.
Mr. Samuels. Yes, we have a lot of resources, and what we
are planning to do, under the direction of the Office of
Justice programs who submitted the solicitation for the
applications for this process, is to continue to work with OJP
and ultimately the task force to ensure that we are working
closely and providing all of the data that they will need when
they are looking internally at our operating procedures and
policies to ensure that those best practices can be identified
and applicable to the federal system. We are doing everything
possible to work towards that goal.
I am very, very hopeful with this initiative and looking
forward to the findings as well as reviewing the final report,
which I know they will be responsible for providing to the
Attorney General and to Congress.
Mr. Wolf. Do you know where they are in that? How soon that
will be set up? Do you know the status of that?
Mr. Samuels. I know the process is moving forward. They are
in the process of reviewing and identifying who the entity will
be as far as the contract being awarded.
Mr. Wolf. I hope they don't take too long, because if you
miss this opportunity, and I think your problems are going to
get more difficult as we go, the very failure of both Congress
and the Administration to deal with a deficit you are going to
find the entitlements eating up and all the domestic
discretionary, you are domestic discretionary, are going to be
taken down, down, down. So I really expect the next couple of
years are going to be more difficult. There is not a lot of
additional resources that are going to be coming.
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES
One subject, then I am going to go to Mr. Fattah, is
federal prison industries. As in recent years FPI in fiscal
year 2013 again experienced declining sales although factory
earnings rose in part through inventory and capacity
management. How much of the decline is the consequences of
FPI's loss of its mandatory source status for DoD and other
agencies, and how are BOP and FPI working to expand businesses
with non-DoD agencies, including components of the Justice
Department?
Now the other day when the Attorney General was here I
asked him would he send a letter to every cabinet agency asking
that they look at whatever park service, t-shirt, baseball
caps, Bureau of Land Management, every agency, Department of
Defense to see what contracts they have out and as they expire,
as they end to then go to you, because in the baseball cap
category, and the baseball cap category is not the solution to
the problem so I want to make that clear, but it does help, I
think there is only one or two domestic baseball cap
manufacturers left, most are being made in China now and
Honduras and places like that, so--and the park service tells
me whether they have signed agreements, but as they come up
they can renegotiate.
Would you ask him or let the committee know, and we are
going to do the same thing with them, how important it is that
he get on that, sign those letters quickly, and if you know any
target rich opportunities for him to sort of aggressively move?
So I would like to see if we can by mid-summer have major,
we check when all the contracts are coming to an end, when is
the Park Service contract coming to an end? Look to see what
products are being used by the federal government and not in
competition with the private sector. We want to make that
clear, we don't want to create a problem for the FPI, but in
competition with what's being done abroad.
And so if you can talk to him and tell him that you and I
chatted here at the hearing to make sure one, the letters go
out quickly and that the letters be detailed in the sense that
they look at their contracts as they come to an end that they
can then say, okay, we are going to begin to work all the X,
Y's, and Z's whatever it is the different agencies want to use
you for.
But can you sort of tell us how BOP and FPI are working to
expand business with non-DOD agencies?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir. And again I want to thank you
Chairman and Ranking Member Fattah for your support relative to
FPI and our initiatives.
What we have done is reach out to well over 200 companies
to have discussions regarding what we can do with our focus
being on repatriating network to come back into the country.
And as you have indicated we are not looking for any work that
takes any jobs away from American citizens but putting a focus
on what niche we could have to provide these work opportunities
to give skills for inmates. And as you know, FPI is our largest
recidivism reduction program with no cost to the taxpayer and
is self-sufficient.
We have created a business group within FPI and they have
visited trade shows and we are seeing a benefit and it is
starting to pay off. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we
have been able to double the number of inmates participating in
our repatriation efforts by more than 100 percent.
We are also looking at the possibility of having the
facility that we just recently activated at FCI Aliceville,
which is a female institution, work with more than 200 inmates
completely on work that we are repatriating back from China.
So we see the opportunities as an area where we will
continue to grow and we will do our best to capitalize on the
authorities that have been given to us to grow the work for
repatriation efforts.
Now I would also mention, Mr. Chairman, that due to the
difficulty and the challenges that we have had over the years
even with the repatriation efforts, when we have been able
successfully to convince the companies to bring work back and
provide these opportunities for inmates who ultimately will be
released back into our communities we are still seeing some
challenges regarding that approach.
Mr. Wolf. What are the challenges?
Mr. Samuels. Well the concern is even when the work is
being brought back, despite the fact that the work was moved
overseas, American citizens could still do the work. We are
devoting a significant amount of time and resources trying to
convince many of these companies to give us the opportunity,
and while we have been successful there has still been some
criticism regarding the work being brought back.
Mr. Wolf. You know, I won't mention the company but there
is a very prominent company that is selling plastic flowers
that are made by slave labor in China. Slave labor, gulags.
And, you know, I think, you know, if we can have an American,
one help to balance the trade and all this, but if we can have
an American man or woman who is eventually going to come out of
society I think companies who participate you can even bring in
a private company, X, Y, Z company into the plant, let them
kind of run the operation, if you will, it helps them, it also
helps the guy who drives the truck in with a clothe or with a
wire. So I mean, so I mean it really is a broadening thing.
Have you talked to Wal-Mart?
Mr. Samuels. We have had discussions with making an effort
to try to have conversations with Wal-Mart; however, their
current practice is that they do not utilize inmate labor.
Mr. Wolf. Is there a reason why they don't? I mean they are
a good company.
Mr. Samuels. It is corporate policy, and so this is another
area where we will try to work with them.
Mr. Wolf. Well let us know if we can help with regard to
that.
Also if you would call the Secretary of Commerce, we had
the Secretary of Commerce up, Secretary Pritzker yesterday and
she is putting on with the cooperation of the committee a
repatriation conference whereby American companies are urging,
and I think you should have a participant, not necessarily on
the program, but there and also to see the companies that she
is inviting back, because we are all part of the same
government, if you will. So this is a repatriation conference
of American companies urging them to return home and so they
may very well return home and they can have a cooperative
arrangement with FPIs.
None of these jobs will take a job away from an American
citizen. All these jobs will give an American citizen, i.e.,
people who are in prison, a job, and also help as they get at a
job--as they get out of prisons to transfer into those jobs.
So----
Mr. Samuels. And, Mr. Chairman, I would also add that for
the companies we have been able to partner with, they have been
very, very pleased with the service we provide and the work
labor, and I know they are also very appreciative of the fact
that they are assisting with our reentry efforts. We do
everything that we can to ensure that money spent on raw
materials is buying from local businesses. We are returning all
of the money back into the communities, which we know also
helps society and the economy as well.
So our goal is always just to ensure that we are providing
the opportunities for the inmates, but being good stewards to
ensure that we are not taking advantage.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Mr. Samuels. We do what we can for inmates ultimately being
released and also in providing all of the funds appropriately
back into the community.
Mr. Wolf. And as I go to Mr. Fattah, also the inmate gets
training so that when he or she leaves they have a place to go.
You can't put a person in prison for 15 years and give them no
work. If they had that training and skill it is less likely
that they will return to prison, that saves the taxpayer money,
it also may--keep a crime from being committed. They also have
the opportunity to put some of the money that they earn into
where they send to their families also for restitution.
So I mean what I would like you to do is put together the
most powerful two or three page thing and what I am going to do
is drop something in the Congressional Record explaining that
maybe you all can then take and go out to American companies--
and I am a conservative republican, my dad was a Philadelphia
policeman, I mean I am tough on crime--but on the other hand I
think this is a very positive thing. So if you can give that to
me we will put it in the Record and then you all can take it as
an opportunity to go out, and then if you will call Secretary
Pritzker to have a person to participate to see if that
repatriation conference can help you. I think this is a unique
opportunity.
We invented the color television set, black and white color
television set. There are no televisions made in the United
States. I remember when I had Lorton Reformatory, we were
trying to bring Emerson in and then all of a sudden the thing
kind of fell. So we don't make any television sets.
If we could repatriate back some things like this, not just
baseball caps, but things like the television sets and radios,
and I think it could be a rejuvenating--it is not going to
solve the problems but it is going to help.
And lastly I think we owe it to the individuals the dignity
to give them work. You know, work is important.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
Let me ask you a question, let me start with solitary
confinement. To what degree is this utilized, how prevalent,
and what are the concerns and what are you looking at in terms
of the continued use of it inside the federal prison system?
Mr. Samuels. Thank you. When I entered the position of
director in December of 2011, we had well over 13,000 inmates
in some form of restrictive housing. We have since looked at
ourselves very, very closely to ensure that inmates removed
from the general population and placed in restrictive housing
have appropriate reasons for the placement. First and foremost
to ensure the safety of staff, inmates, and the public. And as
a result of our internal assessment, we have since reduced the
number specifically for our special housing unit to a little
less than 9,000 inmates.
The majority of our inmates are placed in restrictive
housing for administrative segregation purposes which could be
for a number of factors; classification reasons, their safety,
or an investigation. I have stressed to staff repeatedly, as
well as my predecessors, that we should again only use the form
of restrictive housing for the appropriate reasons and we
should be just as concerned to get the inmates out of
restrictive housing just as much as we are to put them in,
providing there is no ongoing threat to society.
Mr. Fattah. Well just so that the record is clear, why is
that a concern? Why isn't solitary confinement a great idea for
the inmate?
Mr. Samuels. If inmates are placed there for long periods
of time, there is a concern relative to their mental health. We
have to ensure as an agency that we are providing adequate
resources for these individuals to have access to our mental
health care providers, and that is part of our policy.
Mr. Fattah. So it is clear, right, the mental health
experts you know with a certainty long-term solitary
confinement is not going to benefit the inmate's mental health,
right? We do know this from experience.
Mr. Samuels. I would say based on the literature and the
subject matter experts----
Mr. Fattah. Right.
Mr. Samuels [continuing]. We have to ensure that there is
some form of access. But congressman, I would also offer if we
have individuals within our population who pose a significant
threat to the safety of inmates and staff we have to ensure----
Mr. Fattah. So there would be no circumstances in our
system then where someone who doesn't pose a safety threat to
our staff or other inmates would be put in solitary confinement
then.
Mr. Samuels. You are correct.
PEPPER SPRAY
Mr. Fattah. Okay. Now I am in favor of the use of pepper
spray, and for one reason is that, you know, one of the big
challenges inside of prisons is mental health and therefore
injuries to one's head is not a great way to help improve the
mental health of inmates, right? So utilizing non-physical
force I think is very useful, and also we lost Eric Williams in
Pennsylvania and we know that there is a, you know, real life
concern for prison guards in your staff in these--in these
facilities.
INMATE STATISTICS
So you have 119 facilities and 216,000 inmates, what can
you tell us about this population? What's their educational
attainment level? What's their, you know, what do you know
about--what could you tell the committee about these 216,000
people? A significant part of them are non-American citizens,
some number of them, right?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. What percentage is that?
Mr. Samuels. It is approximately 54,000 plus inmates that
are non-U.S. citizens.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. So the American citizens, anything that
tell the committee about who these individuals are generally
speaking?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. Let us start with the educational attainment
level.
Mr. Samuels. Many of the inmates who come into the federal
prison system are lacking in areas of education. Our
educational programs are offering these individuals the adult
continuing education courses as well as English as a second
language and doing everything we can to ensure that they are
working towards obtaining a GED.
Mr. Fattah. So the majority of these inmates have access to
educational programs?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. And is this online, is this in the facility
with actual instructors, how is this?
Mr. Samuels. Actual instructors inside our facilities, our
teachers.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. So when you say education, you mean GED
programs.
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. So the majority of these inmates don't have a
high school diploma?
Mr. Samuels. Correct.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. And could you characterize to any degree
their reading levels?
Mr. Samuels. I would have to provide the specifics to the
various levels.
[The information follows:]
Reading Level
The average reading level for U.S. citizen inmates without a GED is
6th grade.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. Well, I really would like to get the
specifics. Mr. Chairman, if you would be so kind I would like
to put some language in that would require us to have this
information so that we could act intelligently ourselves about
what it is that we are doing, right?
Mr. Samuels. We can provide that information.
Mr. Fattah. We can know more about who--because 45,000 are
being released each year, right? So in my community, in the
chairman's neighborhood, all across the country almost 50,000
inmates are coming out each year, another 50,000 are going in,
a little more than 50,000 are going in because the numbers are
going up, right? So the question of whether or not they are in
a better position to navigate their way through society is a
very important question not just for the returning inmate but
for the--everybody that we represent, right?
So while we have them and we have their attention and they
are a--you know, it would seem to me that if there is any
possibility of improving their life chances as the chairman as
said whether for job skills, vocational training, that is in
the country's interest to do everything possible so that when
they walk out of the door they are in a better position to not
have to victimize me or you or our families or our communities,
and if they can make a decent living and be able to read and
write and everything else somehow got missed along the way,
right?
So now the other thing is that in the statistics it seems
as though somewhere the children of these inmates the stats
suggest are the most likely future inmates in your system. That
is to say that the children are people who are in prison have a
very difficult time and many of them end up in prison. And so I
would be interested in this data if you could tell us about the
family composition and whether there are children and what our
program is to allow inmates to continue to have contact with
their children and if anything we can learn from the federal
system.
Now the state systems have a, you know, two million
inmates, it is a big challenge, but it seems to me that if
there is a way to solve any of these problems it is through you
being the--you know, I have never heard the chairman commend an
agency the way that your agency was commended, so people know
that you are doing a good job, but the question is you are
doing a good job in a very tough environment with a very tough
problem and you are still not going in the right direction. We
are adding inmates, and you know, we haven't been able to
concur the recidivism issue, and the mental health issues
inside the prisons seem to be extraordinary, and many of your
policies may actually add to the problem whether than subtract
from it.
So I am interested in trying to find a way where we can
make even more headway here.
Mr. Samuels. Congressman, I can give you the percentage. It
is 23 percent that are non-U.S. citizens.
Mr. Fattah. Twenty-three percent are non-U.S., okay.
Mr. Samuels. In regards to children of incarcerated
inmates, this is something that I strongly believe, as an
agency, we have a duty and obligation to work with inmates to
ensure that there is a relationship with their child because
that also helps with our re-entry efforts to have that
relationship intact. We have very good parenting programs
throughout the Bureau of Prisons, in all of our institutions.
In December of last year, for the first time ever, we had a
universal children's day devoted towards the effort of having
the inmate and child spend time together and facilitate it by
our staff. We had over 4,000 inmates participate and
approximately 8,000 children, not including the caregivers who
were also there to participate. This is a commitment that I
have given for the agency to ensure that it is not just
something that is done day. To highlight this very important
area, we will continue to do agency-wide, throughout the year,
as we continue to move forward.
And as I mentioned, we have always had parenting programs,
but we are just trying to ensure that the effort is there and
that we are doing everything possible to assist these children,
as well as the parents, so that we don't have this cycle of
children not having the support and/or being mentored by their
parents who are incarcerated.
Mr. Fattah. Two more questions and maybe they can--you
know, you can supply it--we are going to put it in the language
with the chairman's permission.
I am interested in what percentage of these 216,000 people
are first-time offenders and non-violent offenders in both
categories and where they double index, that is they are both
their in and non-violent.
And the last thing, since this is an appropriations,
hearing, if you could give the committee, now or in the future,
your sense of what the average cost is to house an inmate?
Mr. Samuels. The average cost, agency-wide, is
approximately $29,000 a year.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. And what is the average cost of a new
cell construction?
Mr. Samuels. The average cost for a new cell construction,
depending on the security level--if we were to look at a high-
security facility, we are talking in excess of $400 million.
Mr. Fattah. Not per cell?
Mr. Samuels. Not per cell, the total construction.
Mr. Fattah. I am talking about per cell construction. So,
you are saying $400 million for a facility, right?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Fattah. But do you have a per-cell average for new
construction?
Mr. Samuels. Not per cell.
Mr. Fattah. Okay.
Mr. Samuels. We can give you a formula for that.
Mr. Fattah. Right. If we are going to have a growth in
population, we are going to have to add facilities, I am just
trying to understand what the cost is to house--I got the--
because you are saying that $29,000 is the annual cost----
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. And that doesn't include the
infrastructure, so I am trying to figure out in terms of
building a facility or adding a bed--or may be it is a per bed
number for construction?
Mr. Samuels. We will get it for you.
[The information follows:]
New Cell Construction Costs
The cost of constructing a prison varies by the security level and
the region of the country in which it is built. On average,
constructing a medium security prison costs approximately $330 million,
with a life span of 50 years. A newly constructed prison can house up
to 1,900 inmates, resulting in a per bed cost of nearly $174,000.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES
Mr. Wolf. I am going to go to Mr. Culberson.
But as you are gathering data, too, we can all think back
to the Unicor thing. Try to get some of the products like
television sets, radios, different electronics kind of higher-
level, if you will, that are all made outside of the United
States. For instance, there are no televisions made in the U.S.
If we can see, we can kind of get a list that goes up to
the next level that takes it from baseball caps and T-shirts to
that--if you can kind of get somebody to do that and report
back to the committee.
Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Samuels, we have had a very successful prison
industry program in Texas, Mr. Chairman. It is worked very,
very well. I served for a number of years in the corrections
committee in the Texas House and they made all the furniture
for the Texas State Government.
Are our inmates in the Federal prison system still making
furniture for the Federal Government?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. If the gentleman would yield.
In defense of them, we, in the Congress, have hurt them. We
literally have made it very tough. We don't want them to
compete with the private sector, but so much has been done and
the number of prison industries who are working--what was the
high level?
Mr. Samuels. Twenty-four thousand.
Mr. Wolf. And what is it now?
Mr. Samuels. Thirteen thousand.
Mr. Wolf. And it is not their fault; it is the fault of----
Mr. Culberson. Congress changed the law and restricted
their ability to compete with the private sector. It is
something I strongly support the chairman in and I would be
happy to help you and make sure that we get that changed
because it doesn't make sense----
Mr. Samuels. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. Especially when you are
importing products, as the chairman quite correctly points out,
slave labor camps in China; it is appalling.
PRIVATE PRISONS
I want to ask about your use of private facilities. We have
also had great success in Texas using private contractors to
build and operate private facilities that--whether they are at
the local level or the state level operate at a significant
savings to taxpayers and provide, frankly, better facilities,
better food, better healthcare, and the private sector will do
everything from transportation to food to healthcare and they
will also assume any liability problems.
To what extent is the Federal prison system using private
contractors to build and operate facilities?
Mr. Samuels. Thank you, Congressman.
We have approximately 29,100 inmates in 14 private prisons
and they serve a role for the Bureau of Prisons by housing our
low-security criminal aliens.
Mr. Culberson. Do you have the ability to expand that
number, is there any kind of limit or restriction, other than,
of course, the financial restrictions? What restrictions are
there on your ability to expand that 29,100 bed utilization?
Mr. Samuels. Well, to move forward with expanding, we have
to look at competing resource interests, operationally, within
the Bureau, if we were to use funding to move forward with
adding additional beds. At this point, right now with our
population, the 14 facilities are currently serving our needs.
Mr. Culberson. However, your population growth from fiscal
year 2006 through 2011, exceeded a seven percent increase in
your rated capacity. My staff tells me that in 2011 crowding
was 55 percent over your rated capacity in the maximum security
facilities. You have obviously got a crowding problem. What can
this committee do to help you expand your utilization of
private facilities?
Mr. Samuels. Well, very good question, and first and
foremost, for us to expand, it would require additional funding
to operate those contracts. As you have mentioned, at our high-
security facilities, we are currently at 53 percent over rated
capacity and 43 percent over rated capacity for our mediums.
In our low-security facilities, which is the targeted
population that we use to place under contract with the
privates, we are in a triple bunking situation. When we look at
the rated capacity for the Federal system, we have identified
for our minimum security, low-security facilities, we are
comfortable with double bunking those facilities, but we are in
a situation where we are triple bunking. So the crowding
concerns are significant and we do our best to manage with, as
I mentioned, 14 private facilities to include our overall
management for the low-security inmates that we have placed
within our institutions.
Also we have approximately 5,200 low-security criminal
aliens in BOP low-security facilities.
Mr. Culberson. We also use them for the low-to-medium
security in Texas, as well, so I agree with you in that, sir,
and I hope that the subcommittee can do whatever we can, Mr.
Chairman, to help them expand the use of private facilities.
Thank you, and I will yield back.
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, a lot of the things I was thinking about have
already been asked. When I was listening to Mr. Culberson, I
also recalled back to my State legislative years, and in some
cases, the work system--I am sure it is called pride--was
working really, really well. I am going back now a number of
years, and my memory may fail me, but I also recall that there
were some cases where there was no improvements over those that
were involved in the work system and those were not, as far as
recidivism rates.
Do we have those studies that show and is there a
noticeable difference?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, Congressman.
I will use Federal Prison Industries as an example.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right.
Mr. Samuels. Those inmates who participate, compared to
those who don't, are 16 percent less likely to recidivate. That
is a significant public safety issue and that is why it is so
important that we continue to do everything we can to keep our
Federal Prison Industries program active.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And that 16 percent--and we are talking
about apples to apples, the same kind of inmates and the same
kind of--any idea of how much we are saving by not having those
folks come back? I mean what does that 16 percent mean in
actually just dollars; it is got to be significant as well.
Mr. Samuels. For every inmate, based on our overall
average, you are looking at $29,000 per inmate with the average
cost to incarcerate an inmate within our system.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. But I wonder what the--you know, that 16
percent, I mean I don't know how many inmates that would be. I
wonder if--I mean if that would be--because that has got to be
substantial. There has to be a pretty substantial savings
because of that 16 percent, I would imagine. I don't know how
many folks are involved, but it would seem to me that it would
be a pretty substantial savings, right?
Mr. Fattah. If the gentleman would yield for a second.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Sure.
Mr. Fattah. There are numbers--the committee has been
funding a number of these efforts that are called justice
reinvestment strategies, right? And the basic idea is that you
are saving money on the back end----
Mr. Samuels. Right.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. By intervening in a more
constructive way. And there are a host of them, including some
600 second-chance or re-entry related programs, and we would be
glad to get you some more information about this.
Mr. Samuels. And Federal Prison Industries' overall impact
on recidivism is 24 percent.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I am glad to hear that, and obviously,
as we know with every program and any program, there are some
that work better than others, but those that do work, I mean
when you are talking about cost per inmate, that is real money.
I mean you are talking about real money here.
I would love, if that is readily available, I would love to
see some of those numbers, and remember that you have to give
it to us in a way that we can digest, all right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The information follows:]
FPI Recidivism Rate
Based on BOP research, the FPI program reduces recidivism by 24
percent. For each inmate that does not return to federal prison, BOP
avoids approximately $11,000 per year in cost. Though an exact cost
avoidance figure for the FPI program isn't available, the Washington
State Institute for Public Policy analyzed similar programs at the
state level and found benefits of $4.74 per dollar spent on adult
correctional industries programs.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Schiff.
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, I just
wanted to follow-up on some comments that Mr. Fattah made
earlier on the issue of solitary confinement. This is an issue
that I raised my concern about in the past when you came before
our committee. Certainly correctional officers have very
dangerous jobs and their safety has to be paramount.
But there is a large body of evidence suggesting that
solitary confinement is profoundly and irreparably damaging to
mental health. I want to call your attention to a news story in
the Chicago Sun Times over the weekend that reported that our
former colleague, Jessie Jackson, Jr., who was sentenced to 2.5
years in a minimum-security facility in North Carolina was
placed in solitary for four days in retaliation for informing
other inmates about their rights. This is disturbing to me on
multiple levels. First, I can't imagine a situation in which it
would be appropriate to place an inmate in solitary
confinement, let alone for multiple days, because of what he
said to other inmates. Second, is public knowledge that Mr.
Jackson has struggled with mental illness, and the damaging
effects of solitary are magnified for people with mental
illness.
And if this happens to high-profile prisoners, I have to
imagine that it happens to a lot of prisoners that are less the
subject of public attention. So I wonder if you could share
with me what kind of criteria are being used for solitary; how
much progress we are making on the issue that goes beyond
solitary, but in dealing with the mental health problems of
those who are confined.
Mr. Samuels. Thank you, Congressman.
As I mentioned earlier, we have made significant strides in
reducing our restrictive housing population--and not being able
to get into the specifics regarding the example that you have
given-- any time there is the possibility of a threat against
an individual, whether high-profile or not, we have a duty and
obligation to assess the threat and ensure that the individual
is protected, and the only way of ensuring or to be able to
carry that out, is to have the individual removed from general
population. We will do everything possible to ensure when we
are assessing the concerns and the possible threat, the
individual is not in that status for a significant period of
time and do everything to move them out.
This policy is agency-wide, and with the system having more
than 170,000 inmates we manage, an additional 40-plus thousand
in our contractual prisons, that we have to monitor as well. So
we are very, very large, and when you look at the number of
individuals who are placed in restrictive housing for
discipline purposes, that number is less than 2,000.
Generally, the discipline for placement in disciplinary
segregation is for a specific period of time, which once they
serve it, and it is to correct the behavior, to ensure that we
are managing safe, secure prisons, to hold individuals
accountable--no different than when laws are broken and
individuals are sent to prison, we have an order within the
prison environment to ensure the protection of staff, inmates,
as well as the public.
For individuals who are placed in the administrative
segregation portion of restrictive housing, as I have stated,
we will do everything and we will continue to do all we can to
ensure that we are closely monitoring these cases to get these
individuals back out. I will agree that it is easier for us to
manage inmates when they are in general population, and that is
the preferred status for all inmates in our system, but we have
to ensure that we are protecting staff and inmates and
appropriately using restrictive housing.
Mr. Schiff. Do I understand, though, that there are then a
couple of criteria for solitary confinement; one is that they
pose--an inmate poses danger to staff or to other inmates or
themselves, and the second broad category is for discipline,
that is unrelated to a safety concern; is that correct?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Schiff. So in that second category, has the BOP done
any research to figure out whether, in fact, putting people in
solitary as a method of discipline, ensuring discipline
actually works? I mean have we done any research to find out if
people who are put in solitary tend to do less--become less of
a disciplinary problem or they are put in solitary and they
tend to become more of a disciplinary problem or, in fact, it
has no impact at all; have we done that research?
Mr. Samuels. We are currently being evaluated, via
independent assessment by CNA Analysis Solutions and towards
the end of the year they will be providing their findings and
recommendations regarding best practices based on our operating
procedures for restrictive housing. This is another assessment
that I am looking forward to reviewing based on their
recommendations, to identify if there are any significant
concerns within the Federal system that we need to consider.
This would be comparable to them looking at the corrections
profession--not just within the Bureau, but what some of the
other practices are doing out there.
Mr. Schiff. Do we know whether that analysis will include a
study of whether it, in fact, achieves its desired end?
Mr. Samuels. I don't believe that the study would be able
to make that assessment because that would be something
relative to research that would require a targeted time frame
for researchers to look at. We are welcome to that type of
research and to have that done, but it would be something that
would take a couple of years to assess that.
Mr. Schiff. I would encourage us to do it. I think it would
be valuable for the federal system, as well as for the states
to know if, in fact, this only makes the problem worse, in
terms of discipline; otherwise, we are playing blind and maybe
doing things that are counterproductive.
DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Let me turn to one other question. You know, I see there is
an increase, proposed increase for RDAP. Are we at the point
yet where any inmate who has a substance abuse problem who
wants treatment can get that treatment in BOP?
Mr. Samuels. Yes. In fiscal year 2013, we added an
additional 18 residential drug abuse programs and currently we
have 87 programs at 77 locations. All inmates who have met our
eligibility criteria were given the opportunity to participate.
Mr. Schiff. But is that criteria defined in such a way that
there still inmates who have a need for it, want it, and can't
get it either because they have language barriers or for other
reasons don't meet the criteria?
Mr. Samuels. No, we are providing it for all inmates. As
part of the expansion, we have added two Spanish residential
drug abuse programs, one male and one female, to ensure that we
are addressing that specific issue.
Mr. Schiff. Well, if I recall correctly, part of the
criteria, doesn't it depend on how far they are away from
release?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Schiff. And does that mean, as a practical matter, that
if you are too close to release or too far away from release,
you may not get the treatment that you need?
Mr. Samuels. No, every inmate will be given an ample
opportunity to participate. We do, as you mentioned, focus on
those inmates who are closer to release to ensure that they are
given the opportunity to participate. We have a waiting list
for inmates who have a release date that is further out.
Mr. Schiff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
OFFICER SAFETY
Mr. Wolf. Across to safety, how many attacks occurred--
occur each year and how many officers are hospitalized or
injured each year on an average?
Mr. Samuels. I would have to provide you the specifics for
that.
[The information follows:]
Attacks Each Year/Injured
In FY 2013, 1,557 assaults took place on staff, resulting in 42
injuries.
Mr. Wolf. A couple of years, do you have any anecdotal that
you can think of now?
Mr. Samuels. To give you accurate information, we can
provide that for the record.
Mr. Wolf. How many officers have been killed in the last
five years?
Mr. Samuels. In the last five years we have had two.
Mr. Wolf. Two.
We have a pepper spray question, which I think you already
may have covered. Well, let me kind of--mace could protect
officers working alone in facilities that are overcrowded. This
was a circumstance that faced Officer Eric Williams when he was
murdered in 2013, as well as a Correctional Officer Jose
Rivera, who died in Atwater Penitentiary in California.
How many attacks occur when an officer is isolated by
himself?
Mr. Samuels. If you look at the specifics for housing
units, we typically have one officer working with approximately
130 inmates, but that was up until recently towards the end of
last year. As I mentioned in our high-security facilities,
using existing resources, we have added an additional officer
for the evening and weekend coverage to offset the balance.
But even with that, sir, we are still looking at 130
inmates who outnumber two staff.
Mr. Wolf. So wouldn't it make sense or would it make sense
for every officer to be able to carry the mace? Is that a
discouraging factor?
PEPPER SPRAY
Mr. Samuels. What we have done and we continue to do with
the pilot is we have looked at historically the trends on where
assaults typically occur and we have identified our housing
units, recreation area, special housing units. These are areas
where we have given authorization under the pilot for our staff
to carry pepper spray to include the compound areas where we
have staff who work the posts.
We are being very, very careful with our assessment because
we want to ensure if this is being utilized as a tool which
benefits staff and inmates, we don't want to move too fast and
let inmates have access, unnecessarily with having the pepper
spray which could also jeopardize our staff.
With the pilot, we haven't seen that to be a concern and/or
issue, but we have to evaluate and continue to make the
assessments as we move along.
ATTACK ON GUARDS
Mr. Wolf. Of the attacks on guards, how many--what
percentage are in the maximum, minimum--where do they all come
from?
Mr. Samuels. The majority of the attacks are occurring in
our high-security facilities and these are the inmates within
our population who are more prone to violence.
GUANTANAMO BAY INMATES
Mr. Wolf. Now, if you were to bring back--which I am
opposed, I am opposed to closing down Guantanamo and bringing
them back--but if you were to quickly close down Guantanamo Bay
and bring those prisoners into the Bureau of Prisons, what
would that do to the Bureau of Prisons at this time?
Mr. Samuels. If that were a scenario that would happen, we
would be able to integrate those inmates in our institutions.
Mr. Wolf. Would that put a great burden on the Bureau of
Prisons?
Mr. Samuels. No. Right now we have inmates who are
comparable to these individuals, as far as disruptive behavior
or any other attributes, that we would need to monitor in our
high-security facilities and we would be able to do it
relatively easily with no significant concerns.
Mr. Wolf. Have you been involved with Guantanamo--if I
recall, I think when I was down there, they had told me they
had checked everything out with you all; is that accurate, in
how to operate the prison, different procedures?
Mr. Samuels. They reached out to the Bureau and we have had
discussions on a number of different occasions.
Mr. Wolf. Have you had people go down there and people look
at the system and look at--have you had anyone from the Bureau
of Prisons visit Guantanamo?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, you have.
And make recommendations?
Mr. Samuels. We have provided insight in operating
procedures for the Bureau.
ATTACK ON GUARDS
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Back to the original--of the attacks,
breaking that in category percentage, most are from the high-
security?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. As you get down, is it almost non-existant in the
low-security?
Mr. Samuels. We have assaults that occur in our low-
security facilities.
Mr. Wolf. Against guards or against other----
Mr. Samuels. Correctional staff and inmates.
Mr. Wolf. Now, let's just talk about staff.
A hundred percent of the attacks, what percentage come in
high-security, medium-security, and low?
Mr. Samuels. We can provide you the information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Attacks From Various Security Levels
In FY 2013, 1,557 assaults took place on staff, of which 51 percent
occurred in High Security facilities, 18 percent in Medium Security
facilities, 18 percent in Low Security facilities, 12 percent in
Administrative facilities, and 1 percent in Minimum Security
Facilities.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, good.
INMATE TO STAFF RATIO
Last week, the Inspector General testified that inmate and
staff ratios are higher in federal facilities which average ten
inmates per officer than in states where the average is 6.1; do
you agree with those observations?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. And so how are the attacks in state and local
prisons compare with attacks in federal prisons, in comparable
populations, not numbers, so much, but in the type of crimes.
Mr. Samuels. If you were to look at the larger-state
correctional systems----
Mr. Wolf. What one is that, is that California?
Mr. Samuels. It would be California, Texas.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Samuels. In the Bureau of Prisons, all of our staff who
work in the field are considered correctional workers. An
example I would give, in many state systems, if a teacher is
responsible for teaching in a classroom, more often you would
have a correctional officer assigned to the area with the
teacher.
In the Bureau, the teacher is responsible for being the
educator, as well as the correctional worker, serving in the
role as the correctional officer would be. We are not able to
provide the additional security that we would need for the
large number of inmates that we have in our system. The overall
inmate-to-staff ratio for the Bureau is a little under 5:1.
When you look at the larger state systems, the ratio is
3:1, so we are significantly outnumbered and have been for
many, many years. As our population continues to grow, we have
not been able to keep pace with our staffing levels to be
comparable.
Mr. Wolf. How does your staffing level, per inmate and per
guard, compare to, say, California, Texas, and New York?
Mr. Samuels. As I mentioned, we are right at 5:1 when you
look at our overall staffing, and I believe with California, if
you were to look at theirs, it would be slightly closer to 3:1.
POPULATION PROJECTION
Mr. Wolf. In the long-term, crowding can be reduced by
reducing the intake of prisoners, which is uncontrolled, having
more space, which takes a long time and money. Moving people
out to prison and sentencing; however, your most optimistic
projection shows that the slight in overcrowding will be
reversed and climb to 41 percent by 2019.
Your request indicates this estimate is based on
projections from the Courts, the U.S. Marshal, and other DOJ
information. It also seems you add another 7,000 new spaces
between now and the end of fiscal year 2016, but no new
capacity thereafter.
Is this your most optimistic projection based on full
funding of your request?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, it is.
Mr. Samuels. I would offer, sir, we are very, very hopeful
that the Attorney General's initiative for Smart on Crime will
help reduce our population. We are also hoping that the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, looking at the possibility of offering
an approach to have sentencing reform will be considered, to
include the Congressional Initiatives. It will help us in the
out years with our growing population.
As was mentioned earlier by Congressman Fattah, when you
look at the growth over the years, in 1940, we had
approximately 26,000 inmates, and from 1940 to 1980, you are
looking at 40 years when the population was pretty flat and
steady.
Mr. Wolf. Why?
Mr. Samuels. Well, when you look at the law enforcement
initiatives from 1980 to include the legislation with the
Citizenship Reform Act and other legislative measures, the
growth, and you mentioned earlier, we grew over 800 percent
with our population, and our staffing has not kept pace.
GANGS
When you have more inmates than what the facility was
designed to house, you have the propensity for violence to
increase, and the growth alone I am not going to say is the
contributing factor to violence, but we have a significant gang
issue within the Bureau of Prisons. More than nine percent of
our population is comprised of gang members, well over 20,000
gang members and we are doing our best to try and mitigate the
gang problem by having a strategic approach in how we manage
these individuals.
Many of these gangs are very, very violent, as you are
aware, and we have many of these gang members within our
facilities to include the gang leaders.
Mr. Wolf. That is what I was going to ask you about--I am
going to go to Mr. Fattah--but let me just ask you on the gang
issue: You say nine percent?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And is it--what was it, say, ten years ago? Is it
growing, stable, declining?
Mr. Samuels. It has grown, obviously, due to the increase
of our population.
Mr. Wolf. Percentage-wise?
Mr. Samuels. I would have to give you the percentage for
the record.
[The information follows:]
Gang Percent
Currently, 20,024 inmates (9 percent) are affiliated with a
Security Threat Group (gangs). Ten years ago, 17,990 inmates (10
percent) were affiliated with gangs.
Mr. Wolf. Violence-wise?
Mr. Samuels. Violence-wise.
Mr. Wolf. In the 1930s and the 1940s and the 1950s in the
Bureau of Prisons, was it as--I know individuals--but did you
have the violent gangs then? Was it different types of gangs?
What has changed that put more of a stress on----
Mr. Samuels. One of the things I will mention, as far as a
change, we are seeing more younger aggressive individuals come
into the prison system involved in the gangs and it is an area
of concern. We are dealing with large numbers of these
individuals who are also serving very, very long sentences.
We have done our best to counter and have measures in place
to deal with the population by utilizing cognitive behavioral
therapy, which we have established programs to target these
specific individuals to ensure that they are participating. We
also know that as an inmate, using this as an example, as they
continue to move towards completing their sentence over a
period of time, as they become older, and some might say wiser,
they are less likely to be involved in disruptive behavior
within the facility.
INMATE AGE
Mr. Wolf. So my last question, and then Mr. Fattah: On the
age, the average age now is what compared to what it was in
1950? Because the violence--the studies show that the younger
are more, so does it show the age is dropping fairly
dramatically or is it going from 46 to 45 or----
Mr. Samuels. Well, the average age for our population now
is 40.
Mr. Wolf. Forty, okay.
And what was it 20, 30, 40 years ago?
Mr. Samuels. I would need to provide that for the record,
which we can.
[The information follows:]
Age of Inmates
The average age of BOP's population is currently 40 years old.
Twenty years ago (1994), the average age was 37 years old.
Mr. Wolf. But is there a dramatic drop? I mean you said
they are getting younger, but are they getting very much so
or----
Mr. Samuels. Just significant numbers coming in, but we
will provide the specifics regarding the age and the time
frame.
CHANGES TO THE PRISON SYSTEM
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. You know, I agree with the chairman. Let me
just say--because we need to conclude--at least in terms of
being able to go vote--is that we need a prison system that can
house people who need to be--society needs to be protected
from, right? We don't need a prison system in which people who
don't need to be in prison are in prison, right? And their
circumstances and their life choices altered in a way in which
they can lead less productive lives, right?
So, you know, we have to figure out how to make the changes
that need to be made. It is not really your burden. It is just
that we are the lawmakers, we are the policymakers in this, but
we need more information, right? So the Attorney General's
efforts on Smart on Crime; the chairman's leadership that led
to this prison reform task force, the Colson Task Force; the
work of people who have very different political viewpoints
that range from Rand Paul to Dick Durbin and others who have
some legislation over in the Senate on this issue, right, we
can work together.
And I think the chairman's point is that there is a window
here in which something important could be done on behalf of
the country because when we have dangerous people on the street
harming people and a threat to society, we need to have prisons
available for them, but we can't--you know, we can't be in a
situation where we are taking a bad-check writer and putting
him in jail and we don't have room for murderers, rapists,
kidnappers. I mean it just doesn't make sense at the end of the
day and we got to figure this out, and there is nobody else to
figure it out, we have to do it on our watch, so thank you very
much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
I just have two or three more last questions. The age
issue, I want to get before I leave, because as it gets
younger, you are saying it gets more violent, but as it gets
older, less violence, but as it gets older, more medical costs,
so it sort a----
GANGS AND TERRORISTS
Mr. Samuels. You are correct.
Mr. Wolf. Our concern with prison gangs is the potential to
contribute to indoctrination or radicalization of inmates,
including making them susceptible to potential exploitation by
terrorists or other violent groups.
Can you describe how BOP works with the interagency
community to monitor and report on developments related to gang
organizations and potential connections with terrorism to
include working with joint terrorist task force and other
national safety, security, or intelligence agencies?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, we are very active with our law
enforcement partners relative to gang-related specific issues
to include international and domestic terrorism, and we have
staff within the Bureau of Prisons who are assigned to the
various JTTFs throughout the country, and we monitor very, very
closely all of the issues regarding the concerns within the
prison system to ensure not only that we are doing everything
we can to detect and disrupt any inappropriate activity within
the Bureau, but we are also working closely and sharing
information with the law enforcement community for any
potential threat that can carry over into the communities. It
has been working very, very well, and I know, of course, it's
with your leadership and involvement and oversight, as well.
A couple of years ago, I sat in on one of the briefings
provided to you with the law enforcement community on the
various initiatives that we were working with. We are ensuring
that we are providing the intelligence and ensuring that if
there are any requests submitted to the Bureau, we are working
closely to immediately provide that information to ensure that
any potential threats are eradicated.
RADICALIZATION OF INMATES
Mr. Wolf. Now, before your time, years ago we looked at
some of that literature was being sent in on radicalization. It
was very dangerous. Can you pretty assure us that you have
stopped the radicalization literature that was coming in by
certain elements?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, I can give assurances to the
subcommittee. It is a very, very extremely high priority for
the Bureau. We review all material communications to do
everything possible to prevent any form of radicalization
internally within the Bureau, and to also prevent any dangerous
material and/or issues from being communicated or used.
CELL PHONES
Mr. Wolf. And efforts to block cell phones in prison, can
you tell us a little bit about that?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, sir. We are exploring technology. The
most recent technology that is being used, some state systems
have it in place, is managed access. We are undergoing the
review process of having two pilots within the bureau utilizing
the technology.
One of the areas we still have to work out is the legal
requirements regarding the contracting issues and access for
delivery of the services. We want to make sure, since the use
of managed access is very expensive, that before we move
further with obligating any taxpayer dollars towards this
science we are very, very comfortable with what it can offer.
AGING INMATE POPULATION
Mr. Wolf. I am going to ask this last question and then go
to Mr. Culberson and Mr. Fattah.
But I think we covered it briefly, but I think we need it
for the record because it deals with a lot of the issues. We
are dealing with the cost, but also on how you treat elderly
versus the other.
And the inspector general testified last week that BOP's
inmate population is aging which seems to run a little counter
with what you had earlier said, a 31 percent increase since
2010 the population of inmates over the age of 65 and a
corresponding decrease in the population under 30. That is why
I was a little confused what you were saying. This has real
cost implications.
How has this demographic change affected the medical cost
for the Bureau of Prisons?
And then, secondly, your budget indicates that medical
costs have grown 71 percent since 2005 from $350 million to
$600 million.
Last week, the inspector general testified the cost was
higher than $977 million. So 2005, $350 million; 2011, $977
million.
So what is your estimate for the total cost of providing
for inmate health? How has it risen and what will your estimate
be for 2015?
Mr. Samuels. I want to clarify, my comments regarding the
younger offenders coming into the system is something that has
happened. But then at the same time, because of the number of
the individuals who are serving long sentences and will
continue to do so under the current structure, we will always
be faced with the aging and growing population.
Obviously, as you mentioned, a great concern for the Bureau
of Prisons because the medical costs are significant. We are
currently spending in excess, for overall healthcare for our
population, a billion dollars.
Mr. Wolf. A billion?
Mr. Samuels. A billion. And I would offer again, if you
were to look at the size of our population, you can compare us
to the larger correctional state systems. A billion dollars, I
know, is a lot of money, but with the efficiencies we have in
place, such as consolidating contracts, we are still managing
the overall cost for medical care appropriately. But if our
population continues to grow, the costs will continue to go up.
Mr. Wolf. So a billion for healthcare. What is your total
budget?
Mr. Samuels. Well, for the fiscal year 2015 request, we are
looking at $6.8 billion.
Mr. Wolf. So, boy. Mr. Culberson and we will end with you.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The healthcare costs don't include optional or cosmetic
type surgery, do they? I mean, you really focus on the
essentials?
Mr. Samuels. These are the essentials. Under our policy, we
do not offer routine cosmetic surgery.
Mr. Wolf. Nor should you.
Mr. Culberson. Nor should you. You bet. We actually ran
into that, Mr. Chairman. The Texas Corrections Committee found
a guy that wanted the State to pay for a sex change operation.
That does not happen in the federal prison system with
federal tax dollars, does it?
Mr. Samuels. Currently we have not done it. It would be
something where, if it were to occur relative to a legal issue,
if we are engaged in that type of discussion, if we are told
that we would have to do it.
Mr. Culberson. It is not currently prohibited by federal
law or federal, for example, restrictions on appropriations?
It lit up the Texas legislature, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Fattah, as you can imagine.
Mr. Samuels. Yes. I would want to provide for the record a
legal----
Mr. Culberson. I really wasn't even going to bring it up
till you mentioned this, but----
Mr. Wolf. Maybe we should carry some language for
prohibiting this particularly because, you know, we want to
support the system and do everything we can for rehabilitation
and correction. And so if you start entering things like this--
--
Mr. Fattah. I think what he said is that they don't do it.
Mr. Wolf. No. I know and I----
Mr. Fattah. But if he was ordered by a court of law in our
country----
Mr. Wolf. But I want to make sure that----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. He would have to.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. You don't do it on your own because
then I think you are going to find--I think we are at a unique
time. I mean, Mr. Fattah and I work closely together and I know
you look outside. Some of the groups that come by, they are
conservative and they are liberal.
And we don't want to hurt that consensus that appears to be
whereby we can do some fairly significant things in prisons.
There seems to be a coming together.
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. So if we interject something like that, you could
just take that away. And so, you know, I just don't think you
should ever do that. I can't stop what a court tells you. I
mean, we are not--but on your own, do not ever do that.
Mr. Samuels. Yes. And with all due respect, as Congressman
Fattah mentioned, I do want to make an agency confirmation as
far as a statement because it would require, if we were looking
at any potential issue like that, a legal review. And I just
offer that to the subcommittee.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. And I wasn't even going to bring it up
until you started about the healthcare because I can tell you
the entire Texas legislature, it lit us up. It caused a bad
problem.
There is a way, as Chairman Wolf said, of agreement. And
Mr. Fattah has been wonderful. This subcommittee works together
beautifully. And I think you should, as the chairman suggested,
take advantage of that wave of support and unanimity on so many
issues when it comes to rehabilitation and preventing
radicalization in the prison system which is what I really
wanted to ask about just to follow-up on some of the chairman's
questions, in particular the process for vetting chaplains.
VETTING CHAPLAINS
Have you changed the process for vetting chaplains? How are
you vetting them particularly in light of the findings by the
Homeland Security Committee?
Mr. Samuels. Yes. Our procedures stand where we vet
chaplains coming into any employment situation with the Federal
Government to ensure that there are no concerns and, if so, we
deal with those.
Mr. Culberson. No concerns such as?
Mr. Samuels. Any issues that would pose concerns with their
employment, within the agency.
Mr. Culberson. Such as?
Mr. Samuels. I mean, we----
Mr. Culberson. What would cause a concern?
Mr. Samuels. If someone was seeking employment within the
bureau and their agenda is not in line with our policies and
procedures and ultimately, what we would be responsible for
carrying out under the law.
If there were any issues raised that would cause concern
relative to safety and security within our facilities, then we
would have great concern with that and we would not be moving
forward with an offer of employment.
Mr. Culberson. And I may need your help with this, Mr.
Chairman, because you are a lot more knowledgeable about this
than I am.
COMMUNICATION WITH RADICAL SECTS
What about communication and affiliation with some of these
radical sects in the Islamic world?
Mr. Samuels. And this would be----
Mr. Culberson. How do you flesh that out?
Mr. Samuels. And that would be part of, again, working with
our partners and if something is brought to our attention that
raises that level of concern, it would be something that we
would really have to look at very, very closely.
RADICAL SAUDI FUNDED MOSQUE
Mr. Culberson. I always remember Chairman Wolf had a--what
was it? It was a--Mr. Chairman, the school of Virginia was a
Saudi funded mosque? What was it that you had in northern
Virginia that was a----
Mr. Wolf. It still operates. The Saudi Academy.
Mr. Culberson. Saudi Academy.
Mr. Wolf. And the head of the Saudi Academy is the Saudi
ambassador. And they found anti-Semitic and anti-Christian
material in the textbooks.
And also, I want to supply this for the record, so we have
it exactly right, the valedictorian one of the years, I think
has been sentenced. He is in your prison system now.
Do you recall that case? Does anybody recall that?
Mr. Samuels. I do not recall the specifics of the case.
Mr. Wolf. Well, we will give you all the details because it
was, and I want to clarify it, I think for an attempt, planning
an attempt on the assassination of the President and it was a
graduate of. And so we will, for the record, we will submit
something in so you have it.
With that----
Mr. Culberson. That is a real concern. I certainly
understand your perspective should be to make sure that you are
not allowing chaplains in that could potentially violate prison
policy, et cetera.
But this is a little amorphous. We want to make sure that
you are keeping chaplains out that have any involvement with,
connection to some of these really violent, dangerous, anti-
Semitic sects in the Islamic world.
Mr. Samuels. Yes. And I would offer, Congressman----
Mr. Culberson. Or, frankly, anybody.
Mr. Samuels. Yes. We have----
Mr. Culberson. Don't want to single them out.
BOP CHAPLAINS
Mr. Samuels [continuing]. Very, very good, dedicated
chaplains working with the Bureau of Prisons who provide
services for a number of religious faiths. If at any time we
are informed or if there is any intelligence, and no different
for any employee working within the bureau, if there is a
concern we will immediately deal with that issue and take care
of it as well as with the vetting process for anyone seeking
employment within the bureau.
Mr. Culberson. If someone is employed, allowed access to
the prison system, you have got the ability to check into their
communications or their affiliations, et cetera. They are to a
certain extent coming in to work in a prison system. You waive
a certain amount of your privacy rights it would seem to me.
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. And you do so voluntarily. You know that you
are going into a very dangerous, controlled environment and you
would, particularly as an employee or a chaplain, subject
yourself to heightened scrutiny.
Mr. Samuels. Yes, all staff.
Mr. Culberson. So what do you do to protect against
potentially radical chaplains influencing inmates? I mean, what
are you doing to make sure that you keep tabs on these guys so
they are not, for example, affiliating themselves with or
communicating with some of these radical nut jobs out there?
Mr. Samuels. Well, any program services delivered within
our institution, as you mentioned, there is no privacy in
regards to carrying out your work and interactions with----
Mr. Culberson. And people understand that----
Mr. Samuels [continuing]. The inmate population.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. When they come in.
Mr. Samuels. Staff also have to understand that. Many of
the services provided for the inmate population are monitored
and recorded. We do not have any large scale concerns
throughout the agency where something is occurring.
If we are informed through intelligence gathering that
there is a specific issue relative to any specific staff
member, we will appropriately address those concerns and
investigate properly.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. And I won't drag it out, but I just
want to close with saying, you know, we are not talking about
just communication with inmates. I am talking about these guys
communicating outside of the prison system with some of these
radical elements is just a real concern.
Mr. Samuels. Yes. I stated earlier, we work very, very
closely with the law enforcement community. If it is brought to
our attention, whether it is a chaplain or any employee within
in the bureau, and there is a concern that something is
inappropriate, we will ensure that those issues are properly
investigated and handled.
Mr. Culberson. Has NSA ever brought anybody to your
attention? Have you ever had one of the intelligence agencies
of the United States point out you have got a guy coming into
the prison system as a chaplain or whatever and this guy has
been communicating with someone who is a real problem? Has that
ever happened?
Mr. Samuels. Congressman, I would state for the record, we
work with the entire law enforcement community. And when we are
engaged with any specifics for a specific agency, we address
the concerns.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah, do you have anything?
Closing Statement
Mr. Fattah. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that we have had a good hearing. And it is your
last hearing potentially in this capacity and it has been a joy
working with you through this process. You are the only
committee chairman in the history of the House that does not
use a clock of any sort at any time through these proceedings
and allow every Member of the committee to ask whatever
questions they want.
And I actually think that you should be publicly commended
for that because oftentimes Members particularly in junior
positions in the committee have not had the same opportunity to
ask questions.
So thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Fattah, for your
comments.
Mr. Culberson. I want to second that truly, Mr. Chairman. I
mean, really. You really let everybody have a chance to talk. I
mean, you have done a great service to the country and the
people of Virginia.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Samuels, I want to thank you. If you take it back,
thank all of your staff, all the guards and the people that
don't get the opportunity to come to Washington. We are very,
very grateful for what they do.
And with that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
Mr. Samuels. Thank you, sir.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Comey, J. B...................................................... 37
Hoffman, B. R.................................................... 37
Holder, Attorney General Eric.................................... 185
Leonhart, M. M................................................... 113
McCain, Cindy.................................................... 1
Meese, Edwin, III................................................ 37
Roemer, T. J..................................................... 37
Ryan, J. D....................................................... 1
Samuels, C. E., Jr............................................... 317
Volkow, N. D..................................................... 113
Vu, Stephanie.................................................... 1
Woolf, William................................................... 1
[all]