[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 22, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-55
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
___________
U.S.GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-262 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OCTOBER 22, 2015
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 1
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 3
WITNESS
The Honorable James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable James B.
Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation............... 76
OVERSIGHT OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob
Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Smith, Chabot, Issa,
Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Poe, Chaffetz, Marino, Labrador,
Collins, DeSantis, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Bishop, Conyers,
Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez,
Bass, DelBene, Jeffries, Cicilline, Peters.
Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff &
General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief
Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel;
Jason Herring, FBI Detailee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations; Caroline Lynch, Chief
Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,
and Investigations; Robert Parmiter, Counsel, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Ryan
Breitenbach, Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations; Kelsey Williams, Clerk;
(Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel;
Aaron Hiller, Chief Oversight Counsel; Joe Graupensperger,
Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland
Security, and Investigations; Tiffany Joslyn, Deputy Chief
Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,
and Investigations; Eric Williams, Detailee, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; and
Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Goodlatte. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will
come to order. And without objection, the Chair is authorized
to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on the
oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I will
begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement.
Welcome, Director Comey, to your second appearance before
the House Judiciary Committee since your confirmation as the
seventh Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We are
happy to have you here with us today. I once again commend your
distinguished service to our Nation, and I'm confident you will
continue to serve honorably at the helm of the FBI.
Today, the FBI continues to face the effects of one of the
worst national security leaks in our Nation's history by Edward
Snowden 2 years ago. Over the past year, the House Judiciary
Committee spearheaded the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act, a
bipartisan law that ended a controversial national security
program and provided expanded oversight and transparency of
America's intelligence gathering. The USA FREEDOM Act ensures
that Federal law appropriately respects civil liberties while
providing the necessary tools to preserve our collection
capabilities and thereby meet our national security
responsibilities.
I want to again thank Director Comey and the men and women
of the FBI for working closely with Members of this Committee
to ensure passage and enactment of the USA FREEDOM Act.
Events over the past year in the Middle East have deeply
violated the world's moral compass with scenes of unimaginable
brutality at the hands of ISIS. In particular, the appalling
and indiscriminate targeting of anyone who fails to abide by
ISIS' stated goal to establish a global caliphate has resulted
in the shedding of innocent blood by the most revolting
methods.
As a radical Islamic terrorist organization, ISIS mandates
conformity to an ideology which permits no dissent. As
Americans with a strong history of protecting religious
liberty, we stand in total opposition to ISIS' decimation of
Christian populations in the Middle East and to its vicious
tactics.
America is not immune to ISIS' propaganda of terror.
American teenagers have been radicalized in part by ISIS'
concerted social media efforts promoting the killing of fellow
Americans, and just last week a like-minded cyber hacker was
indicted for providing ISIS with information on U.S. service
members.
Director Comey, you are at the forefront of protecting our
country from those who patiently plot to do us harm, and I am
interested today in hearing more about the FBI's efforts to
combat ISIS.
Over 3 years ago, our diplomatic mission to Benghazi,
Libya, was attacked by terrorists and four Americans, including
our Ambassador, were killed. As of today, only one subject has
been apprehended and placed on trial. I am interested in
hearing more from you about the status of the FBI's
investigation and efforts to bring to justice other terrorist
killers who murdered four of our citizens.
Separately, it was revealed this past year that former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server
to conduct her official business while serving as Secretary of
State. Two inspectors general have already reported that
classified information was contained within Secretary Clinton's
private e-mail and have referred the matter to the Justice
Department.
While the apparent lack of transparency related to the use
of a private server to conduct the Nation's diplomatic business
is troubling, it also raises significant questions concerning
the security of national secrets and the potential insight that
such a home-brew setup may afford a foreign intelligence
service into the day-to-day digital record of a top-level
government official.
On the technology front, the issue known as Going Dark has
been at the top of the FBI's concerns in recent years.
Encryption technology is exciting and can effectively secure
private communications when privacy is needed or desired. In
fact, over 15 years ago, I led congressional efforts to ensure
strong encryption technology and to ensure that the government
could not automatically demand a backdoor key to encryption
technologies.
This enabled the U.S. encryption market to thrive and
produce legitimate encryption technologies for legitimate
actors rather than see the market head completely overseas to
companies that do not have to comply with basic protections.
However, it is true that this technology can also be used by
those who wish to do us harm. Adoption of new communications
technologies by those intending to harm the American people is
outpacing law enforcement's technological capability to access
those communications in legitimate criminal and terrorist
investigations.
In light of the Administration's recent announcement that
it is not currently seeking a legislative solution to its Going
Dark challenges, I am interested to hear your perspective on
whether the Administration's newly announced approach to work
in an ad hoc fashion with communication providers is an
adequate solution.
Finally, violent crime appears to be on the rise across the
country, particularly around our major metropolitan centers. It
is disconcerting to watch the gains of the past decades unravel
in an explosion of community violence. We have also witnessed
several incidents in the past year that, unfortunately, have
led to increased community tension with law enforcement. This
tension will hopefully be resolved through improved
communication, accountability, policing practices, and various
other initiatives.
I hope to hear the FBI's perspectives on the reasons for
the increase in crime and how to ensure that law enforcement
officers and the citizens they serve can coexist in a safe and
respectful environment.
In conclusion, Mr. Director, please know that this
Committee sincerely appreciates your efforts to keep us safe
and the heroic actions consistently performed by the men and
women of the FBI to protect our country. I look forward to
hearing your answers on all of these important topics today, as
well as on our other issues of significance to the FBI and our
Nation.
At this time, I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Member
of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte.
Good morning, Director Comey. We welcome you for this
second appearance before the House Judiciary Committee since
taking office on September the 4th, 2013.
The FBI's mission is a complex undertaking to protect the
United States from terrorism, to enforce our criminal laws, and
to lead the Nation's law enforcement community. And yet, as
vast as this mission seems, I think nearly all of the
discussion we will have here today can be distilled into one
word: Trust. Trust in the executive branch to respect and
secure our privacy and our civil liberties. Trust in the FBI as
an institution. Trust in State and local agencies that police
our communities.
In many respects, Director Comey, I think we agree on this
point. For example, you have spoken powerfully about the hard
truths we must keep in mind when we discuss race and policing,
and particularly when we discuss the use of force by police
officers. I am told that you require all new agencies to study
the FBI's interaction with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and to
visit his memorial at the Tidal Basin. I'm also advised that
you keep on your desk a copy of Robert Kennedy's approval of J.
Edgar Hoover's request to place a wiretap on Dr. King.
These are powerful reminders of a troubling and not-too-
distant history. It's not difficult to draw a line from that
era to recent events in Ferguson, Baltimore, New York, and
Cleveland. And that's why your work to build trust between
police and our communities is so important.
Nowhere is that effort more apparent than in your call for
better data on the use of force by police. Although the FBI is
the national custodian of crime statistics, that data is
reported voluntarily and inconsistently. You have been honest
in your assessment that official statistics in this area are so
incomplete as to be embarrassing and ridiculous.
We need a better understanding of what drives police use of
force, and we cannot study the problem without reliable data. I
urge you to continue to press your State and local partners for
consistent and accurate reporting to the National Incident-
Based Reporting System.
Just as we must rebuild trust in certain State and local
law enforcement units, we will look to your testimony today to
reassure us about a number of programs and activities at the
FBI. Earlier this year, the public noticed a small plane flying
in a tight pattern directly over the site of unrest in west
Baltimore. Other reports from other parts of the country,
including my own district in Detroit, raise questions about the
presence of similar aircraft.
The FBI has since confirmed the existence of its aerial
surveillance program. On June 3, 15 Members of this Committee
wrote you to ask for more information about this program. Your
team provided our staff with a briefing soon thereafter. But
the public still has many questions about aerial surveillance,
and you have said that there is a great deal of misinformation
about this program. I would like you to use your testimony and
presence here today to explain from your perspective how this
program works and why we should trust the Bureau to operate it.
Similarly, I think we would benefit from a fuller
description of encryption and what you've called the Going Dark
problem. Over the past year, you have called for a
congressional mandate to give the FBI special access to
otherwise encrypted data.
I have a difficult time understanding this proposal. Every
technical expert who has spoken on this issue has concluded
that it is technically impossible to provide this access
without also compromising our security against bad actors. Even
if it were technically feasible, it would cost our technology
sector perhaps billions of dollars to implement the scheme and
perhaps billions more from loss of business overseas where the
United States Government surveillance programs have already
taken a toll on the industry.
And even if it were technically feasible and easy to
implement, a new rule for United States companies would not
succeed in keeping bad actors from using unbreakable
encryption, which is open source, free, and widely available
from companies based overseas.
As Chairman Goodlatte argued when we had this debate in
1999, only by allowing the use of strong encryption, not only
domestically but internationally as well, can we hope to make
the Internet a safe and secure environment. I agree with that
sentiment, and you have made similar public statements, and I
hope that you can help us to reconcile that view with your call
for special access.
And finally, because rigorous oversight is necessary for
public trust, I hope that you will commit today to full
compliance with the Inspector General Act. For the past 5
years, the FBI has resisted the clear mandate of that law. The
inspector general of the Department of Justice is to have
timely access to every document he requires to carry out his
duties.
Noncompliance has real consequences. This Committee waited
until February of this year to receive a report about the FBI's
use of Section 215 orders from 2007 to 2009. The public waited
until May for the unclassified version. In the middle of a
national debate on government surveillance, we waited 6 years
for critical information. This delay is unacceptable.
I understand that there are other interpretations of the
law. Congress will soon clarify the matter, likely in
overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. But in the meantime,
Director Comey, I hope that the Bureau will step away from its
litigating position and give the Office of the Inspector
General the access it requires and deserves.
Your job is a complex and demanding one, Director. We
appreciate you being here today, and I look forward to your
testimony.
And I thank the Chairman and yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
Without objection, all other Members' opening statements
will be made a part of the record.
We welcome our distinguished witness today. And if you'll
please rise, we'll begin by swearing you in.
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Director Comey. I do.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Let the record reflect that the witness has responded in
the affirmative.
On September 4, 2013, Director Comey was sworn in as the
seventh director of the FBI. He began his career as an
assistant United States attorney for both the Southern District
of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia. After the 9/
11 terrorist attacks, Director Comey returned to New York to
become the United States attorney for the Southern District of
New York. In 2003, he was appointed Deputy Attorney General
under United States Attorney General John Ashcroft. Director
Comey is a graduate of the College of William and Mary and the
University of Chicago Law School.
We welcome you again today to your second appearance before
the House Committee. Your written statement will be entered
into the record in its entirety, and we ask that you summarize
your testimony in 5 minutes. And with that, we welcome you
again to the Committee.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JAMES B. COMEY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman
Conyers. It's good to be back before you and the Members of the
Committee for my second annual oversight hearing. I expect to
be back for eight more during my 10-year term, which I look
forward to very much.
What I thought I would do is just explain to the Committee
in very short form how we at the FBI think about ourselves and
a couple of the things that are prominent in our work today. I
think the FBI can best be described in a single sentence: We
are a national security and law enforcement organization that
uses, collects, and shares intelligence in everything that we
do.
That sentence captures us in two different ways. First, the
first half of that sentence, we are a national security and law
enforcement organization. There is great strength to the
American people in having our criminal responsibilities and our
national security responsibilities in the same place.
Perhaps no better example is there of the strength that's
gained from that combination than the rule of law as the spine
of the FBI. It is a great thing, I think, for this country that
the people responsible for counterintelligence,
counterterrorism, and the criminal work all have as part of
their being the rule of law and the Bill of Rights.
The second half of that sentence, we use, collect, and
share intelligence in everything that we do, is a description
of what I think we have always been but what we have tried to
get so much better at since 9/11. That is being thoughtful
about what we know, what we need to know, and who needs to know
what we know so that we can all be more effective in protecting
this country.
I want to touch on two topics under our responsibilities.
Start with national security. The threat posed to us from
ISIL's crowdsourcing of terrorism using social media is a
significant feature of our work. It was an especially taxing
threat the FBI dealt with earlier this summer when all over the
country, in hundreds of investigations, we were trying to
evaluate where people are from consuming ISIL's poison to
acting on it.
Through the Internet, the so-called Islamic State has been
pushing a twin-pronged message to troubled souls all over the
world and all over our country. The first prong is come to the
so-called caliphate and live a life of glory; and if you can't
come, the second prong says, kill. Kill where you are. Kill
anyone. If you can kill people in uniform, military or law
enforcement, best of all.
That message has gone out since the summer of 2014
aggressively and in a very sophisticated way to thousands of
consumers on Twitter. And Twitter works to sell books or movies
or magazines. It works to crowdsource terrorism. And so in
every State we have investigations trying to understand where
people are on the path from consuming to acting.
And this is a very different paradigm than the traditional
Al Qaeda paradigm because this is not about national landmarks
and sophisticated, long-tail, carefully surveilled events. This
is about trying to motivate murder anywhere, by anyone. And,
unfortunately, it's a message that resonates with troubled
souls seeking meaning.
And so earlier this summer, especially in May, June, and
July, we were faced with the prospect of a whole lot of people
acting out on this inspiration or direction from ISIL, and
thanks to great work by the men and women of the FBI and our
partners in State, local, and Federal law enforcement, we
disrupted a whole lot of efforts to murder innocent people in
the United States.
That work, though, continues, and it is made particularly
difficult by an issue both you and Mr. Conyers touched upon.
Our mission is to find needles in a nationwide haystack, and we
have hundreds of investigations aimed at doing that in all 50
States. But increasingly what ISIL does is move the real live
ones who might be willing to kill on their behalf off of
Twitter to a mobile messaging app that is end-to-end encrypted.
And at that moment, the needle that we may have found becomes
invisible to us even with court orders, which is how the FBI
does its business.
And so that's the challenge we face called Going Dark in
real living color. We are trying to interdict, trying to stop,
trying to understand people on the cusp of acts of violence,
and increasingly a tool that the American people count on us to
use is less and less effective. I don't know exactly what to do
about that, frankly, but I think my job, given the
responsibility I have, is to tell people there's a problem and
we need to talk about it. And so I look forward to a
conversation about it with you.
Our law enforcement responsibilities is the second thing I
just want to touch very briefly. Obviously, we do public
corruption work. We protect children. We fight fraud. We do a
whole lot of work with our partners around the country to
address violent crime. Something very disturbing is happening
in this country right now in law enforcement and in violent
crime.
I imagine two lines, one being us in law enforcement and
the other being communities we serve and protect, especially
communities of color. Those two lines over the last year or so
have been arcing away from each other, and that continues. Each
incident that involves police misconduct or perceived
misconduct bends one line away. Each time an officer is killed
or attacked in the line of duty bends the other line farther
away.
And in the midst of those arcing away from each other,
maybe because they're arcing away from each other, we are
seeing a dramatic spike in violent crime, especially homicide,
in cities all across the country. In communities of color
especially, especially young men are dying at a rate that
dwarfs what we've seen in recent history. It's happening all
over the country, and it's happening all in the last 10 months.
And so a lot of us in law enforcement are talking and
trying to understand what is happening in this country, what
explains the map we see, what explains the calendar. Why is it
happening all over the country? Why is it happening this year?
I don't know the answer to that. I, as I said, like a lot
of people in law enforcement, are struggling with it. We simply
must focus on this because all lives matter. This is not a
problem America should drive around. We should stare at it. And
as we stare at it, we should all work for ways to bend those
lines back toward each other, because we need each other. We
need each other to make sure our communities are safe. We have
achieved in 2014 historically low violent crime in this
country. We cannot let that slip away from us.
I am grateful for the hard work of the men and women of the
FBI on these challenges. I am especially grateful for our
partners in law enforcement around the country who help us
address those. As you know, the FBI doesn't have a lot of fancy
stuff. We have people, and we have great people, thank
goodness, who are Americans who care deeply about protecting
all their fellow citizens. I am honored to be in this job where
I get to watch what they do and help them. And I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Comey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Director Comey.
We'll now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions
for the Director, and I'll begin my recognizing myself.
Since the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act, a law that struck
a balance between privacy and national security, is the FBI
experiencing any difficulty in complying with the new law?
Mr. Comey. We have not, Mr. Chairman. We haven't yet gotten
to the place where the alternative system for telephone
metadata has been built, but so far we haven't seen an adverse
impact.
Mr. Goodlatte. But you're getting very close to that, I
think----
Mr. Comey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. The date when the metadata
collection will be completely turned off?
Mr. Comey. Yes. The end of next month, I believe.
Mr. Goodlatte. Even with a decade's worth of information on
Iraqi refugees, didn't we still encounter cases of domestic
terrorism conducted by those admitted as refugees? With
significantly less information on potential Syrian refugees,
isn't it true that you can't ensure that the Iraqi experience
is not going to be replayed?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, you're correct that we did discover in people who had
come in as refugees from Iraq a number of people who were of
serious concern, including two that were charged when we found
their fingerprints on improvised explosive devices from Iraq.
And there's no doubt that that was the product of a less-than-
excellent vetting that had been done on Iraqi refugees.
There's good news and bad news. The good news is we have
improved dramatically our ability as an interagency, all parts
of the U.S. Government, to query and check people. The bad news
is our ability to touch data with respect to people who may
come from Syria may be limited. That is, if we don't know much
about somebody, there won't be anything in our database.
Mr. Goodlatte. In fact, much less than we had access to
when we were in Iraq----
Mr. Comey. I think that's fair.
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. And had extensive networking
and access to information about Iraqi citizens that simply does
not in any way compare to the lack of information we have today
about Syrian nationals who are seeking refugee status in the
United States.
Mr. Comey. I think that's a fair generality, that the data
we had available to us from Iraq from a decade of our folks
being there, encountering people, is richer than the data we
have from Syria.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Director of the National Security Agency
has said that former Secretary of State Clinton's private e-
mail server would be a sought-after target for a foreign
intelligence agency. Do you also believe that a foreign
intelligence agency, particularly an adversary's, could benefit
from acquiring and exploiting sensitive and classified
information of a top-level U.S. Government official?
Mr. Comey. Mr. Chairman, I'd respectfully say that's one
I'm not going to comment on. As you know, the FBI is working on
a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with
former Secretary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server. As
you also know about the FBI, we don't talk about our
investigations while we're doing them. This is one I'm
following very closely and get briefed on regularly. I'm
confident we have the people and the resources to do it in the
way I believe we do all our work, which is promptly,
professionally, and independently. But I don't want to do
anything that would compromise my ability to do it that way by
commenting beyond that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, how about answering my generic
question, not directed at the specifics of that case, but
rather the question of whether you believe that a foreign
intelligence agency, particularly an adversary's, could benefit
from acquiring and exploiting sensitive and classified
information of a top-level U.S. Government official?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you'll
understand why I don't think it's appropriate for me to answer
that. I want to preserve my ability to oversee this
investigation in a way that is both in reality independent and
fair and is perceived that way.
I believe the Bureau is three things. We are competent,
we're independent, and we're honest, and I want to make sure
the American people have confidence that that's the way we're
doing our business. And if I start answering questions like
yours, which is a reasonable question, I worry that I could
infringe upon that.
Mr. Goodlatte. You've said that encryption represents the
Going Dark problem in high definition. Earlier this month you
testified in front of the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee that the Obama administration
has decided to no longer seek a legislative remedy to address
challenges law enforcement faces with encryption and Going
Dark. What has changed? And do you agree with the concerns that
I and the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers, have expressed about
some of the proposals that had previously been made with regard
to addressing this problem?
Mr. Comey. I think what the Administration has decided, Mr.
Chairman, is that it is not going to seek a legislative remedy
now so that we can continue the conversations we're having with
the private sector, with our allies around the world, and with
State and local law enforcement, who are hugely impacted by
this, and I think that makes good sense. I don't think we are
yet to a place where we know exactly so how would we fix this
legislatively. This is a very hard problem.
I think you and Mr. Conyers have raised serious questions
and concerns. I believe this is an incredibly hard problem
because two sets of values we all care about, safety and
security on the Internet. I'm a big fan of strong encryption
for the reasons you said. It helps us fight cybersecurity. It
helps us protect all that matters most to us personally and as
a Nation and public safety that we all care about. And those
two things are colliding with each other.
There's not an easy answer, but given how important both of
those values are and what's at stake, I think we have to
wrestle with it, and we are continuing to do that. We're having
very good conversations along all the dimensions I just said,
and we'll continue it, I hope.
Mr. Goodlatte. I just came from a meeting with Bill Gates
who indicated that the progress being made in quantum computing
is dramatic and that computers of that high capability will
soon be able to crack any kind of encryption that anyone has.
That I found to be very interesting information. I have both
good and bad views of that because obviously that can be
seriously abused and invade the privacy of law-abiding
citizens, but it also will be a source of solving your problem
when you encounter encrypted materials by people who are
suspected enemies of the United States or criminals capable of
using high technology to protect themselves and evade
prosecution under the law.
Do you have any comments or knowledge about the current
state of quantum computing?
Mr. Comey. Nothing that would be useful to you. I've read
about it in the popular press. I only have 8 years left in my
term. I have a hard time imagining a police officer in New York
City in a kidnapping case having access to a quantum computer
any time in the near future when they encounter a device that's
locked. And so it may be some day that's an answer to the
challenge, to the conflict of those two sets of values. I don't
see it anywhere near in the near term.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for his questions.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome again, Director Comey.
You observed that The Washington Post and The Guardian are
becoming the lead source of information about violent
encounters between police and civilians. You called the state
of FBI statistics on these accounts embarrassing and
ridiculous. And now that you've had some time to reflect on
them, do you stand by this comment?
Mr. Comey. I do, Mr. Conyers. I think it's embarrassing for
those of us in government who care deeply about these issues,
especially the use of force by law enforcement, that we can't
have an informed discussion because we don't have data. People
have data about who went to a movie last weekend or how many
books were sold or how many cases of the flu walked into an
emergency room, and I cannot tell you how many people were shot
by police in the United States last month, last year, or
anything about the demographics, and that's a very bad place to
be.
Mr. Conyers. Why, sir, does the FBI have trouble collecting
this information?
Mr. Comey. I think the big challenge, Mr. Conyers, is that
it requires cooperation from 18,000 law enforcement
organizations all around the country, and we are a big, diverse
country of many different size organizations in the law
enforcement space, and so we have never all sat together and
said let's change the way we do this, and I'm optimistic we're
about to do that.
Mr. Conyers. You're working on the problem----
Mr. Comey. Very hard.
Mr. Conyers [continuing]. And you think that it's coming
together.
Mr. Comey. Very hard. And the good news is chiefs and
sheriffs get it and want to be in a position we as a country
can have informed conversations. And so what I have been asking
for resonates with them. I'm going to speak to them again at a
huge conference in Chicago next week. And I'm optimistic that
we can get to a much better place. It's going to take us a few
years, but I think we can get to a much better place.
Mr. Conyers. I hope so. Your written testimony takes a
rather dim view of the so-called Going Dark problem. You want
private companies to understand the public safety and national
security risks that result from malicious factors' use of their
encrypted products and services. In the past you have balanced
comments like these with an honest assessment of the benefits
of strong encryption. I want you to take some time to do that
here. Why is encryption important to the Internet economy, to
cybersecurity, and in many cases to our personal security?
Mr. Comey. Encryption is vital to our personal security
because all of our lives are now online. I like people locking
their cars when they go into a store. I like people to lock
their homes so that people can't break in and steal what
matters to them. Now what matters to us as people and as
companies and as a country are online, and so it ought to be
secured in a way so people can't steal our innovation, our
identities, information about our children. So encryption is a
very good thing, and the FBI has long said that.
The challenge we face is that we never lived in a world
with locks that couldn't be opened on a judge's order, and so
now we face that world where all of our lives will be covered
by strong encryption and so a judge's orders under the Fourth
Amendment will be unable to be complied with, and there are
significant costs to that. That's what I meant by the conflict
of the values, public safety and security on the Internet, and
that's what makes it such a really hard problem.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Over the summer we received reports that a single engine
Cessna operated by the FBI and mounted with surveillance
equipment had flown multiple times over metro Detroit,
including two lengthy flights over Dearborn where many citizens
feel reason to distrust the FBI because of their religious or
ethnic background. You've been forthcoming to my staff about
some of the details of this program. Can you give the public a
similar overview here?
Mr. Comey. Sure. I'd be happy to, Mr. Conyers.
When we investigate criminals or spies or terrorists, a key
tool is surveillance, to follow them. We follow them a lot in
cars. We follow them on foot. There are plenty of circumstances
where both of those options don't work real well, and so since
the Wright brothers, we have used airplanes to follow people in
our investigations. If a spy is going out to meet somebody and
it's an area where we can't park cars, we'll sometimes try and
get a small plane up to be able to get eyes on that meet with
their contact.
And so it's a feature--and I hope this doesn't shock the
American people, I think I should be in trouble with them if
we're not doing this--we use planes in our predicated
investigations to conduct surveillance of people who are under
investigation. We do not use planes for mass surveillance.
And so the good folks in Michigan who saw a plane in the
air, I think a lot of them had a chance to meet with my SAC out
there and have him explain, look, this is what we do in
criminal cases. It should make sense if you understand how we
use it in individual cases.
So we have a small number of airplanes--I actually wish we
had more--that we use to follow people in places where it's
hard to follow them on foot or in a car.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you for your response to my questions.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Forbes, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Director Comey, thank you, not just for being here, but for
your service. I also want to thank all of your staff. I know
the dedication they put into serving this country, and we
appreciate them being here.
If my friend Steve Chabot were here, he would also commend
you for your selection of William and Mary as an undergraduate.
And I will tell you that if we couldn't convince you to go to
the University of Virginia Law School, Chicago was probably a
good second choice.
But I have a question. As I listened to the Ranking Member
today talk about trust, and he talked about the symbols that
you have on your desk regarding police brutality and efforts by
law enforcement, but you mentioned it was important to have
reality and perception, both of those, when you're looking to
that trust.
Tell me the symbols if you would, because what he raised
was important, but tell me the symbols on your desk or in your
office that would give me comfort in knowing that there was
also a perception that you were equally looking at organized
groups that were coming into areas like Ferguson and Baltimore
to foment unrest, especially groups that were outside those
communities and especially those groups who might be impacting
violence against law enforcement. Because as you mentioned,
there are two curves, not just one curve.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
First of all, to make sure the record is clear, what I have
on my desk to me is a message of the importance of restraint
and oversight within government. And so it's just--it's a
wiretap order that relates to Martin Luther King. It's not
about police misconduct, which is something--obviously, police
misconduct is something we take very seriously.
I've devoted my whole life to law enforcement. I come from
a law enforcement family. One of the things that's prominent in
my office is a picture of my grandfather in 1929 escorting a
dangerous felon to jail. My grandfather was a detective who
rose up to lead a significant police department. And so I care
an awful lot about making sure law enforcement has the
confidence of the community, that we conduct ourselves well,
but that we protect law enforcement from attacks.
One of the things in my office that reminds me of this is
my phone. Whenever a police officer is killed in the line of
duty, I call the chief or sheriff of that slain officer to
offer the condolences of the FBI. I make far too many phone
calls.
And so we care about both, making sure law enforcement acts
well and that we investigate people who would harm law
enforcement, whether it's groups, sophisticated groups, or
individual actors. It's a feature of all the work that we do.
Mr. Forbes. And, Director, I would ask that at some point
in time you could submit for the record the data you have on
these outside groups that are coming into these communities
when we have situations like this who might be stirring up
unrest and especially activity against law enforcement; and
also any data you have regarding the impact or even the numbers
of gang members that might be currently being released by the
government who might be here illegally, because when we ask
those questions of Homeland Security, they can't give us any of
that data.
The second question I'd have for you, as you know, the OPM
breach impacted over 22 million current, former, and
prospective Federal employees and contractors. Considering
these individuals use personal e-mail accounts for their own
personal communication and store private information relating
to financial transactions, their children, and health care, do
you think the OPM breach has made these individuals more
vulnerable to social engineering tactics used by hackers? And
in what ways could encryption enhance the security of personal
information of those who have had their information compromised
during the OPM breach?
Mr. Comey. I think the OPM breach, as I've said in other
settings, is disastrous because it's a gold mine for foreign
intelligence services that would allow them to use that
material to conduct very sophisticated socially engineered
spear phishing attacks, for example, to penetrate people's
systems.
I think encryption is very important to protect people's
information. I don't think encryption will directly blunt that
particular vector because it would allow a nation state to send
me an e-mail from my sister about my nephew with an attachment,
and it's highly likely I will open that e-mail and click on
that attachment. So I actually see them as two separate
problems, both serious problems, though.
Mr. Forbes. Good. Thank you, Mr. Director.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. That Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Director Comey, for being here again.
The National Instant Background Check System was created as
a result of the Brady Act of 1993, before I was in the
Congress, and it requires that gun sales by licensed gun
dealers are subject to background checks but allows
transactions to proceed after 3 days unless the FBI stops the
transaction based on criteria such as felony record or domestic
violence, misdemeanor convictions, and the like.
Now, under the rule, even if the FBI has not completed its
check, the dealer has the discretion to complete the sale after
3 days have passed and they haven't received a red light from
the FBI.
Now, it's my understanding from news reports that the man
who shot and killed nine people at the Emanuel African
Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on
June 17 was sold the gun by a dealer who waited 5 days but did
not receive a response from the NICS examiner. Now, the shooter
had a drug possession conviction that, if it had been found by
the NICS examiner, would have prevented the gun sale. Due in
part to an error in the shooter's arrest records and also the
large caseload and time constraints placed on the NICS
examiner, the gun dealer didn't receive the red light that
would have prevented this gun sale and possibly prevented this
massacre.
So I have a couple of questions. First, what can be done to
make sure that we have a timely response and we have the data
available to prevent the sale of guns to those who are not
eligible to buy them, number one? Number two, should the law
require a green light from the FBI to prevent a firearms
transfer to those prohibited by law from buying them instead of
the red light system that we have now? And do you think that we
should examine the amount of time that we give for background
checks beyond 3 days if we don't go to an affirmative green
light system?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
With respect to the case of Dylann Roof, as you said,
dealers must wait 3 days, business days, to give the FBI an
opportunity to conduct a background check. In that circumstance
the gun dealer was notified it was in delayed pending status;
and at the end of 3 days, if it's still in delayed pending, the
gun dealer has the discretion to transfer or to wait. Some
large gun dealers wait. This gun dealer transferred, which was
consistent with the law. And there were a number of errors in
the processing of his that allowed his drug possession arrest
to be missed, and so the gun was transferred.
We have stared very, very hard at that and have tried to
figure out what we can learn from that. There were some easy
fixes to our processes, but we are looking at bigger fixes to
see whether we can surge resources, whether we can add
innovation to make our processing faster.
But the other key piece is going to be we must get better
records from our State and local partners so that when our
examiners query a database they have the disposition reported
and they don't have to go tracking it down. We're having lots
of productive conversations with State and local law
enforcement who see in the wake of the pain of that tragedy the
importance of giving us those records. So that's what we're
doing to try and improve our processing.
The policy questions are really not for the FBI. We comply
with the law as it stands today, which is we have 3 days to get
it done. We'll do our best to get it done in 3 days. If
Congress were to change that, we would comply, obviously.
Ms. Lofgren. All right. Getting back to encryption, I
understand the concerns that you've used raised here today and
in the past, but the experts really say trying to get a back
door is a mistake. I mean, all the way from the inventors of
public key encryption, people like Whit Diffie, who did a very
excellent report from MIT, if you have the back door the
hackers will get it and China will get it and we will be less
safe.
So that leads me to a question about the use of encryption
by the FBI. Are you encrypting all of your data about your FBI
agents and your personnel and your payroll and all of your
systems?
Mr. Comey. We do not encrypt all of our data. We use
encryption on a significant amount of our data. I'd have to
follow up with you to give you the particulars on maybe a
percentage breakdown. It's an important feature of our work.
Ms. Lofgren. I'd like to follow up with that because I was
stunned that the Office of Personnel did not have important
data that encrypted. The Federal Government should protect
itself by encrypting this data. We know that we're being hacked
constantly by state actors and enemies of our country, and I'm
sure that they would love to get data about the FBI as well,
and I look forward to hearing greater details on that.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman and
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've got so many questions and so little time, so I will
try to touch on each of them, and bear with me. On Stingrays
I'm going to ask you to tell us now or for the record how you
control the access to these products when they're not being
used, how you control them when they are being used, not just
at the FBI, but to the extent that you're cooperating with non-
Federal agencies around the country that have these devices.
And specifically I'm very concerned that since they're
being used at times without warrant, almost mostly, and there
are at least some allegations they've been used to track
policemen's girlfriends' or wives' activities and so on, that
they are too powerful a tool not to have a series of controls.
And I'd like to--again, some of this you can answer for the
record--I think on that I'd like to have a full understanding
of Federal policy and controls.
In the case of encryption, I'm only going to ask you, it
will be a long answer, provide for the record, any and all
studies you have to show the value of encryption and the value
of your access or ability to not go dark. And if it's
classified, I'll look at it in a classified session, but I'd
like to fully understand the value and the studies related to
that general direction of the Administration.
But I'd like to take up for today more a question on some
historic pieces. A few offices away they're dealing with
Secretary Clinton, so I won't ask about those today. I think
that's certainly an ongoing investigation as to her use of
private e-mail for transmitting what turns out to be sensitive
information.
But in the case of late 2011, well before your tenure,
Solyndra went bankrupt after accepting half a billion dollars
in taxpayers' money. At that time we began an investigation in
an adjacent Committee, the Oversight Committee, and we were
told by the DOE inspector general that he could not talk to us
because the FBI at that time had an ongoing investigation.
It's now 4 years later, and the Department, the IG did
release information, but we have not received any indication
from the FBI. So today I'd like to ask you who at the FBI made
decisions not to bring any charges against Solyndra executives
and what the basis was to find no fault in that loss of $500
million, and particularly since there was evidence provided
publicly by our Committee that there were emergency efforts to
get them additional money to try to have their bankruptcy
delayed. And that was done by Federal employees, including a
gentleman named Jonathan Silver.
You might remember that in May in 2013, the President stood
beside the Attorney General and declared that there would be
serious investigation by DOJ and FBI into the political
targeting done by the IRS. Months later the President declared
there wasn't a smidgeon of corruption related to the IRS.
Director, you know that, in fact, there was targeting. The
evidence is convincing. Where do you stand on bringing
accountability to those involved at all levels to targeting
conservatives and pro-Israel groups by the IRS, including but
not limited to Lois Lerner?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Congressman.
With respect to the first two, the Stingrays and the
encryption, we'll get you information for the record.
With respect to Solyndra, first of all, just to clarify
something, the FBI doesn't make decisions to prosecute. We
investigate, bring the evidence to prosecution.
Mr. Issa. And I appreciate that, but there is either a
decision to refer for prosecution or not. And to the extent
that there was one, I would like the evidence that it was
referred but not prosecuted. To the extent that there was a
decision not to refer one or more, that would be helpful. I
appreciate that the other part of Justice handles the other
part, and we will have the Attorney General here shortly.
Mr. Comey. Got you. We worked the Solyndra matter, we, the
FBI, very, very hard and had it reviewed by two different U.S.
attorney's offices, one in California, one in New York, who
both made the same decision, that there was insufficient
evidence to bring prosecutions. I'm probably limited in what I
could say about the details of it here because it was a grand
jury investigation, but that's the upshot of it. I had a lot of
folks worked it very, very hard. One U.S. attorney's office
looked it. I asked that it be brought to a second U.S.
attorney's office, my alma mater, the Southern District of New
York. They took a look at it and decided there was insufficient
basis to prosecute criminally. And so that's where the matter
stands.
With respect to the IRS investigation, I think as I sit
here it's still pending, and so I am not able to talk about it
in any way because it's still a pending investigation.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I just want to close with a very
short comment. It was 2010 when we became aware that the IRS
was targeting conservatives. It's now 2015, almost 2016. I
really would appreciate if the FBI would come up with a time
line that says an investigation is not ongoing and aggressively
pursued if a certain period of time passes and nothing has
happened. I would only ask that 5 years begin to become an
amount of time in which the FBI can say: We can't say with a
straight face it's ongoing if it's 5 years later and nothing
has happened.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Cohen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to welcome you. I'm a big fan of yours. But
at the same time I would like to ask you a question. I
understand you keep a copy of the FBI's request to wiretap Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., on your desk as a reminder of the
FBI's capacity to do wrong. Is that correct?
Mr. Comey. That's correct.
Mr. Cohen. I commend you for that.
That occurred during J. Edgar Hoover's tenure as Director.
As you know, J. Edgar Hoover did some awful, terrible things in
his life and as FBI Director. He started the COINTELPRO. I
might be mispronouncing that. How do you pronounce that?
Mr. Comey. I think you got it, COINTELPRO.
Mr. Cohen. COINTELPRO program, which harassed civil rights
workers, SNCC people, SCLC people, Dr. King in particular,
others, political activists and homosexuals. He was abusive. He
was the opposite of justice. His efforts to silence Dr. King
and out homosexuals working for the Federal Government were
deplorable and a stain on our Nation's history and on the FBI.
It's been reported that at one point he even had a letter
sent to Dr. King threatening to expose all kinds of private
information collected surreptitiously. The letter appeared to
suggest that Dr. King should kill himself to save himself from
embarrassment. ``King, there is only one thing left for you to
do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do
it. You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better
take it before your filthy, abnormal, fraudulent self is bared
to the nation.'' This was the head of FBI.
His treatment of homosexuals was no better. He called them
sex deviants. He ordered the FBI to undertake extraordinary
efforts to identify everyone in the Bureau who was even
suspected of being homosexual in the Federal Government.
There's a documentary been done on this, it's on Yahoo.com,
by Michael Isikoff called ``Uniquely Nasty.'' I encourage you
to watch it. I watched it and was shocked. It premiered at the
Newseum. It's sickening what the FBI did.
In 1951, Hoover issued a memo to top FBI officials saying
each supervisor will be held personally responsible to
underline in green pencil the names of individuals who are
alleged to be sex deviants. This was discovered through a FOIA
effort 2 years ago. The FBI eventually collected more than
360,000 files on gays and lesbians.
It's reported in 1952 he outed a young campaign aide, a
Vandenberg, Jr., and went on a war on him. And Senator
Vandenberg, a Republican, eventually committed suicide in the
Senate office because of what they brought out about his son
and what they were doing to destroy him.
J. Edgar Hoover was a man that doesn't reflect the good
people of the FBI or reflect what you and the FBI are trying to
do today. The FBI's own Web site declared the COINTELPRO
program, as rightly criticized by Congress and the American
people, for breaching First Amendment rights and other reasons,
yet his name continues to adorn the FBI building.
Would you agree that his name is not appropriate as a
reflection of what the fine people at the FBI today try to do
to bring about justice in our country?
Mr. Comey. I'm sorry, Hoover's name?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Comey. I am not following the question.
Mr. Cohen. I'm saying does it not reflect the qualities
that the FBI individuals and the FBI today have in pursuing
justice and being fair and not using tactics to attack
minorities in this country?
Mr. Comey. I see. Thank you. I'm sorry. The FBI today is
vastly different than it was under its first Director in some
of the ways you mentioned and in lots other ways. I keep that
under the glass of my desk, not to dump on Hoover--I never knew
the man--but to make sure people understand the danger in
becoming--in falling in love with your own view of things and
the danger in the absence of constraint and oversight.
I am somebody who believes people should be very skeptical
of government power. I'm a nice person. I suppose you should
trust me, but you should oversee me, and I should be checked,
and I should be balanced. That's the way you constrain power.
It's there to remind me.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. And I agree and I appreciate that, but
do you agree that his name is not reflective of the what the
FBI stands for and what the FBI agents of today believe in and
do?
Mr. Comey. I think that's fair if you're focusing on--I
mean, Hoover did a lot of good things for law enforcement in
the United States, did a lot of things that, through the lens
of history, we reject as improper, and so you--I'm no
historian, but I would imagine a historian would say you've got
to take the total measure of the person to figure out what's
bad and what's good. I'm just not equipped to do that.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. I would like to see his name
taken off the building, and I have bill. Representative Burton
had it with Chris Shays in the past, and I'm going to
reintroduce that bill, but I was hoping, as I mentioned to you
the last time, that when we have a new building some time in
the future, it's named for somebody like you.
Mr. Comey. Well, I appreciate that. I hope it's not.
Mr. Cohen. Or Congressman Edwards or Attorney General
Kennedy.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Comey, thanks for coming to testify, and I just
would comment that I appreciate your response. So when you use
the reference ``the lens of history,'' there is a different set
of values that applies today than applied back in those days.
But I'm looking at our values today, and I'm watching as there
is a fairly strong push here for sentencing reform in the
United States. And I've watched as the President or the
Administration, at least, has directed that thousands be
released onto the streets before they serve their terms and
that we've seen that some of them have been charged with
homicide and found guilty of homicide. I think that number is
around 121 or so, but I thought I saw the number 36,007 felons
released and then a subsequent number.
I'm actually blurred by the parade of releases that we've
seen, and now I see it appears to be a group of legislators
that believe we can save us some tax dollars by releasing more
onto the streets.
Are you aware of any studies that would help us quantify
the impact of these releases in terms of either prospective
crimes that are likely to be committed or perhaps even
quantifying it in terms of the dollar value as that's suffered
in great huge whopping chunks by crime victims?
Mr. Comey. I'm not aware of any studies on that. It's not
that I would be. That's sort of a policy question, but I'm not
aware of any.
Mr. King. They're very hard to find. I've searched a long
ways back. I'm only going from memory. It occurs to me that in
1992 there was a Justice Department study that did quantify
numerically the cost of crime, but you have any studies that
show statistically whether there would be more crime or less
crime that would take place because of the releases, the early
releases?
Mr. Comey. I'm not aware of any studies on that.
Mr. King. What would be your professional estimate? I don't
need a number. Would we have more crime or less crime?
Mr. Comey. Well, I know we face, as a country, a
significant challenge with recidivism, a high re-offend rate
among people who are released, and my whole career is dedicated
to the proposition that law enforcement contributes to a drop
in crime. It's certainly not entirely responsible for the
historic drop in crime we've seen over in my lifetime, but it's
a big part of it, and so that's the way I think about it.
Mr. King. Mandatory sentencing statistically shows to have
had a positive impact on reducing the crime in the streets of
America?
Mr. Comey. I think so. Mandatory minimums have been an
important part of my work as a prosecutor. Reasonable people
can discuss whether it should be at this level or this level,
but some mandatory sentence, some fixed prospect of punishment
is very, very valuable in incapacitating people and in
developing cooperators.
Mr. King. And some time back I sat down with a very
impressive chief of police of one of our major cities who
remarked to me about the high, the very high homicide rate in
the inner city of his city, and his response was that the
Black-on-Black homicide rate in that city was roughly 98
percent of the homicides that took place.
I don't know that we discuss these kind of statistics, and
I'd be hopeful that we could find a way to do this and
alleviate this situation that we have. I'd just say we've done
into a void on this for a politically correct reason, but are
you aware of any data that would reflect what I represented to
you?
Mr. Comey. I think there's a lot of data collected by
criminologists and others on the demographic component--excuse
me, the demographics of homicide victims and perpetrators. I
can't cite it to you off the top of my head, but I know there
is smart people that have done that work.
Mr. King. And that 98 percent number, that wouldn't be
shocking to you if that were proven out to be true by a
legitimate study?
Mr. Comey. I don't think it would shock me in particular
neighborhoods that are heavily concentrated with people of a
certain demographic background, but I don't know the number off
the top of my head.
Mr. King. Yes, thank you. Is there an investigation of
Planned Parenthood currently taking place in the FBI?
Mr. Comey. I know, Congressman, as I sit here, I'm not able
to answer that question because I don't know enough. I know
there's been letters written to the Department of Justice about
it. I'll have to get back to you on that one because I don't
know the status of matters within the FBI on that, sitting here
this morning.
Mr. King. Has anyone from the Administration, to your
knowledge, ever sought to influence you or any of your
subordinates on whether or not to investigate a crime?
Mr. Comey. Never.
Mr. King. And specifically not Planned Parenthood either
would be included in that?
Mr. Comey. That would be included.
Mr. King. I thank you. That would be consistent with your
competent, independent, and honest characteristics of the FBI.
I'd just pose this question that--let me quickly go another
way. USA FREEDOM Act, you're implementing it now, and do you
have access to more or less information than you had before the
USA FREEDOM Act was passed?
Mr. Comey. It really hasn't changed because we're still
under the old telephone metadata system. As I said to the
Chairman, I think the new one kicks in at the end of November,
so currently our world is unchanged.
Mr. King. Okay. Do you expect more or less?
Mr. Comey. I expect more, actually.
Mr. King. That would be interesting to follow up on if I
had another minute, but I will yield back and thank the
Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. The gentleman does not have another minute.
But the Chair will recognize the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Chu for 5 minutes.
Ms. Chu. Director Comey, I want to discuss with you a
series of very troubling Federal investigations against Chinese
American scientists, who are treated as spies, have their lives
turned upside down, only to have all the charges dropped.
Most recently, we have a case of Dr. Xi Xiaoxing, an
American citizen and well respected professor who was a chair
of the Physics Department at Temple University.
He led a normal and peaceful life as a scientist,
professor, and researcher with his two daughters and a wife in
a quiet Pennsylvania neighborhood. He had no criminal record,
no history of violence, just an average American in academia.
But one day, at the break of dawn, about a dozen armed FBI
agents stormed into his house with their guns drawn. He was
handcuffed in his own home, and his two young daughters and
wife in pajamas and directed outside of the house at gunpoint.
The stated charge, wire fraud. However, in the interrogation,
it was clear he was being accused of being a spy for China.
Since then, his life has been turned upside down. He lost
his title as chair of the Physics Department. His reputation
was irreparably damaged. His wife endured psychological and
emotional trauma, as does his own whole family and himself, of
course. And after all of this, the charges against Dr. Xi were
dropped.
My understanding of cases of wire fraud is that generally
people aren't even handcuffed, let alone arrested or paraded in
font of their family or neighborhood as criminals at gunpoint.
Rather, they've been given an opportunity to self-surrender,
and if someone is being investigated for wire fraud, they are
usually informed about such an investigation in a target
letter.
But we know that Professor Xi is not alone. Sherry Chen was
also recently arrested, a U.S. citizen, an employee of the
National Weather Service in Ohio. She was arrested at her place
of work, led in handcuffs past her coworkers to a Federal
courthouse 40 miles away, where she was told she faced 25 years
in prison and a million dollars in fines. Several months later,
all the charges were dropped without any explanation.
This is reminiscent, of course, of Dr. Wen Ho Lee another
U.S. citizen whose life was ruined when he was accused of being
a spy for China, only to have 58 of the 59 charges dropped.
Let's not forget that during World War II, 120,000 Japanese
Americans lost everything they had and were imprisoned in
desolate camps because they were accused of being spies for
Japan. Three-quarters of them were U.S. citizens. Seventy years
later, not a single case of espionage was proven. I'm
particularly concerned about this because there is a stereotype
that Asian Americans are perpetual foreigners, no matter how
long they've lived in this country.
So my question to you is, is this common practice to have a
dozen armed FBI agents arrest someone for wire fraud, someone
who is not a flight risk and poses no harm to law enforcement,
or is there a presumption of guilt went it comes to Chinese
Americans because they are viewed as spies for China?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Congresswoman.
At the outset, the challenge--I'm going to answer. The
challenge for me in answering is I can't talk about the facts
of something that is of an investigation, including ones that
are pending.
I guess I can say this. First of all, we operate with no
presumption that anyone is guilty or any stereotype about any
particular person. We are a fact-based organization. We are
required to gather facts and then, through a prosecutor,
present them to a judge to make a showing of probable cause
before we can get a warrant to arrest anybody.
A whole lot of people in this country are arrested on wire
fraud charges. I've been involved in many cases where people
were handcuffed and arrested because wire fraud is a very
serious felony. The particulars of the case I can't talk about
it, but I would not connect the dots in the manner that you
have, and that's probably all I can say about individual
matters.
Ms. Chu. Well, we understand that the threat of economic
espionage is real, and we do not take it lightly. However, we
want to make sure that in all cases, there is due process and
that otherwise innocent Americans do not become suspicious
simply because the person taking those actions have an ethnic
surname.
Yet in the case of Professor Xi, his investigation came out
of the blue. He had no idea he was being investigated,
primarily because he did nothing wrong, as evidenced by the
dropped charges.
Do you know how many Chinese Americans are being surveyed?
Mr. Comey. I do not.
Ms. Chu. Well, I will personally follow up with you on this
issue to figure out what is happening in cases like Professor
Xi's and how we can make sure that no other American,
regardless of their origin or background, endures this kind of
egregious humiliation and shame.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman and
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, Director Comey, thank you for being
here. I don't think I ever told you, but back in July-August
timeframe of 2007, I was talking with a powerful Democratic
Senator, and we agreed that you had a great reputation for
justice, honorable man that would potentially be a good
Attorney General. It ended up being Mukasey, but you were
discussed very favorably by both sides of the aisle, people
unlikely to be talking, but we appreciate your work.
I want to touch on something my friend Steve King brought
up. I know there's a lot of talk about how we need to have
reform and people being released from prison, but as someone
who has worked with the system, you prosecuted, I prosecuted,
I've been a judge, I've been court-appointed to defend, and
isn't it true that some people that actually plead to
nonviolent offenses do so as part of a plea agreement where the
prosecutor drops a gun charge or some charge of violence in
order to get a plea in the case and a lesser sentence, haven't
you seen that happen?
Mr. Comey. I've seen that happen.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes. And so that's why for someone like me,
who's a former judge, who saw those kind of plea agreements
take place, even though I was in the State side, it's shocking
to see people come from the outside and say this wasn't a fair
sentence without really considering what could have been
prosecuted, what could have been pursued, and what was, you
know, a transaction or an agreement between a prosecutor and
defense attorney that the judge considered all the
circumstances and came down on the side of the agreement.
Now, I want to touch on something else you had said about
with Iraq refugees, you had a database, apparently, of
fingerprints from IEDs, evidence that had been obtained from
Iraq. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Comey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Now, with regard to the masses of Syrian
refugees, I'm not aware of a lot of IEDs evidence we've gotten
from which you could get fingerprints. Is there such a
database?
Mr. Comey. I think that's right. There may be some and a
variety of other intelligence sources that may help us try and
understand who people are, but the point I was trying to make
is we had a whole lot more information about Iraq because our
soldiers had been there.
Mr. Gohmert. Right.
Mr. Comey. Run into people and collected information.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, and that goes to a concern of mine. I'm
not the biggest fan of the U.N., but they have data pulled from
their Web site this morning that says--starting off at more
than 43 million people worldwide are now forcibly displaced as
a result of a conflict and persecution, and it goes on to say
that children constitute about 41 percent of the world's
refugees, and about half of all refugees are women.
So it was very disturbing to pull this from the U.N. Web
site in September that says of the 381,412 arrivals that came
across the Mediterranean sea just this year, up to September,
that 15 percent were children, 13 percent were women, and 72
percent were men, and then when you take that along with our
DNI James Clapper saying that this provides a prime opportunity
for Islamic State groups to attack Western targets--he said,
``It's a disaster of biblical proportions''--and then you take
statements that have been made by ISIS leaders themselves that
they have been able to place more than 4,000 warriors in with
the refugees, this inordinate number of men, has that spiked
concern in the FBI, along with what you've testified before
about ISIS having people in every State?
Mr. Comey. Yes, sir. It's a risk that we are focused on and
trying to do everything we can to mitigate.
Mr. Gohmert. But without a good fingerprint database,
without good identification, I mean, how can you be sure that
anyone is who they say they are? You don't have fingerprints to
go against it. They've got documents that say they're one--I've
been there on the border when I've watched people exchange
identification information and decide to use the other ones. Is
there a good way to avoid that that the FBI is able to use?
Mr. Comey. The only thing we can query is information that
we have, and so if we have no information on someone, they've
never crossed our radar screen, never been a ripple in the
pond, there will be no record of them there, and so it will be
challenging.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. My time is expired.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Director.
I'm just going to ask you to have a conversation about one
area, and that's about guns. In my hometown, there could be 40,
50 shootings in a weekend. That's about a whole classroom of
kids any weekend. And so I know that you have a relationship
with making sure that we check who can and cannot purchase guns
here at the FBI. And it just seems that whatever we do in
Chicago, guns are just--well, first, our laws have been
weakened because there have been challenges to them, so we used
to have pretty strong--when I first got elected in 1986 to the
Chicago City Council, they give you a badge in Chicago, and you
can get a gun. I opted not to take the badge or the gun. I
figured the Chicago police could do both of those things, wear
the badge and carry the gun for me and for the rest of the
people, and I think the people of the city of Chicago were well
served by me making that decision.
But, look, so here we have like a majority in the Congress
of the United States that's really unwilling to take up the
challenge that guns and firearms are--and they're coming from
Indiana, and they're coming from Mississippi, and they're
coming from all over, and they wind up in Chicago. So I guess,
if you could just tell us, what are you ideas on how do I and
people at a local level or as a Member of Congress, how do I
help curb gun violence? What things can we do to help curb,
absent legislation?
Mr. Comey. Well, the FBI's business is not policymaking;
it's enforcement of the law. And so we spend a lot of time
trying to reduce gun violence through aggressive enforcement.
It's a crime for a felon to possess a gun in this country; for
a drug addict; for a drug dealer; for someone who is convicted
of a domestic violence misdemeanor to do it; to use it in crime
of violence. And so I've devoted a lot of my career as a
prosecutor--and the FBI does investigating--to impose cost to
change behavior so the bad guys don't have a gun on their
waistband. And that means more fistfights, maybe more
stabbings, but fewer shootings because the challenge we face in
a lot of cities is the bad guys think it's just another a piece
of clothing. So they think about as much about the gun as they
do about their socks, and that leads to a whole lot more
shooting based on people bumping into each other, frankly.
And so our mission is to try and send a strong message of
deterrence that you ought not to have that gun, you ought to
think a lot more about the gun than your socks, and that will
make that corner safer. But it requires tremendous effort by
the law enforcement community. We're doing a lot of that,
though, including in Chicago, where your characterization is
exactly right.
Mr. Gutierrez. Could you tell us, the Members, what kinds
of things are we doing in Chicago via your agency and the
Federal Government to help the people of the city?
Mr. Comey. Well, in Chicago, we have actually gone so far
as to put FBI agents with Chicago police officers in squad cars
to try and focus on some of the predators who are driving this
violence, the gang bangers who think that they operate freely.
So we do gang task forces. We do drug task forces. And as I
said, we operate even on an ad hoc basis to try and lock up
some of the repeat offenders. And the idea there is to try and
change behavior by ripping out the worst and convincing the
rest you should not have a firearm with you if you are a
prohibited person.
Mr. Gutierrez. So as I look at the challenge of gun
violence in the city of Chicago and I see that there are--I
mean, if we took a map of the city of Chicago and we put,
reluctantly, little stars where people had been murdered due to
gun violence, do you know or have you seen, is it the whole
city of Chicago? When I look at it, I'm not that worried about
my grandson walking in Portage Park to the park. I'm worried
but not that worried as I would be in other neighborhoods of
the city. So what other dimensions are there that relate to gun
violence as you've seen from a----
Mr. Comey. I know the city of Chicago pretty well, having
gone to law school and been there many, many times. And the
story of Chicago is a lot like the story of a bunch of cities
around the country. It's localized. The violence is heavily
concentrated. Chicago, primarily south, some west, obviously.
And it is groups of primarily young men who are carrying
firearms when they're prohibited by law from carrying them on
the streets, and that inevitably leads--all human encounters
ratchet up to the most serious available weapon. And so what
would have been a fistfight when you were a kid, today is a
shootout because the gun is there. And what we in law
enforcement are trying to do is change that behavior. These
kids may not be well educated, but they are very good at cost-
benefit analysis. And the idea is to force a cost-benefit
analysis. That gun should be a huge liability in the eye of
that felon, that drug dealer, that drug addict, and that's the
way we hope to change behavior.
Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Director--just 15 seconds, and I'll
finish up, Mr. Chairman.
So Mr. Director, there are a group of us in the Hispanic
Congressional Caucus and African American Members of color, we
like to have a roundtable discussion with you, a conversation
from different parts of the United States and not in such a
formal setting as this in which you might be able to share with
us how better, in communities of color in America, where the
gun violence is so rampant, you might give us some of your
thoughtful input. Would you agree to do that with us?
Mr. Comey. I'd be happy to.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you so much, Mr. Director.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Director, thank you for being here. I'm going to talk
about several subjects, see how many of them I can get in in 5
minutes.
I first want to talk about ECPA, the idea that under
current law, that if e-mail is stored in the cloud, government
doesn't need a warrant to obtain that e-mail. Is that your
understanding of the law?
Mr. Comey. I think the law is--and you probably know best
than I, but I think it's after 180 days.
Mr. Poe. Yes, after 180 days.
Mr. Comey. Right. We still operate under a warrant, the FBI
does, that's just our policy, but I think that's the law. If
it's older than 180 days, it can be gotten through other legal
processes.
Mr. Poe. And thanks for your clarification. It's after 180
days. Before 180 days or during 180 days, you got to have a
warrant, no matter who you are. FBI policy is, though, you
still get a warrant if it's over 180 days?
Mr. Comey. Correct.
Mr. Poe. But other government agencies still have the
ability to seize that e-mail without a warrant. Law
enforcement. I mean, it could be a local law enforcement, the
city police, sheriff's department, other law enforcement can
seize that e-mail in their jurisdiction because the law doesn't
require they get a warrant. I mean, is that your understanding
of the law?
Mr. Comey. They would need some kind of legal process. They
couldn't just walk in and take it, but my understanding is the
law would permit them to get it through a subpoena or some
other court order short of a warrant.
Mr. Poe. That's right. So they don't need a warrant. They
need some other court document from a magistrate, if so. And
I'm sure you're aware that myself and Ms. Zoe Lofgren filed
legislation to require any law enforcement agency, any
government agency to obtain a warrant if e-mails are over 6
months old stored in a cloud. You aware of that legislation?
Mr. Comey. I am. I'm generally aware, yes, sir.
Mr. Poe. Okay. Next subject, 702, talk about obtaining
backdoor information from different companies such as Google or
Yahoo or whoever. Does the act, the FBI request that a backdoor
device be put into like a cell phone?
Mr. Comey. I don't know what you mean by backdoor device.
Mr. Poe. Well, where the FBI could obtain the information
in the cell phone without a warrant and ask the maker of the
phone, for example, to install a device in the phone to obtain
that information.
Mr. Comey. Oh, I see. No, we would need a court order to be
able to either in a device or online to be able to take content
or implant something in a phone, not just a warrant. We need a
title III order or a FISA court order.
Mr. Poe. My question, though, is does the FBI request--and
it may be that you don't--manufacturers to put a device in the
phone itself to obtain that backdoor information, to have it
available and then a warrant obtained?
Mr. Comey. No.
Mr. Poe. You don't request that?
Mr. Comey. Nope.
Mr. Poe. Okay.
Mr. Comey. No, when we collect information, it's pursuant--
we're talking about the content of people's communication or
what they've stored on a device, we do it through a court
order. We don't do it through asking someone who made the
device to give us access to it voluntarily.
Mr. Poe. Okay. When you say court order, are you talking
about a warrant or some other type of court order?
Mr. Comey. Right. Either a search warrant from a judge to
open a locked device or an order from a Federal judge either in
a national security case or a criminal case if we're looking to
intercept communication as it's moving.
Mr. Poe. I think that, you know, the Fourth Amendment
applies to that type of procedure, and you're saying the FBI
complies with the law, the Fourth Amendment, on obtaining that
information?
Mr. Comey. Yes. The Fourth Amendment is part of this sort
of the spine of the FBI.
Mr. Poe. It's the what of the FBI?
Mr. Comey. The spine of the FBI.
Mr. Poe. I am glad to hear that. Let's talk about the
surveillance with the use of drones and fixed-wing aircraft.
Specifically, targeted surveillance with the use of a drone,
does the FBI obtain a warrant to do that, use of a drone,
fixed-wing aircraft or drone, whichever you want to call it.
Mr. Comey. Any kind of aircraft, we don't. If what we're
doing is, which is what we used them for, we have a pilot fly
around and follow somebody. Drones, we don't. We have a small
number of unmanned aircraft. We may use them for fixed
surveillance, like when that guy had the kid in the bunker in
Alabama, we used a drone to go over the top because we were
afraid he would shoot one of the pilots. We had unmanned
aircraft. We operate drones within line of sight.
Mr. Poe. Okay.
Mr. Comey. So when we're talking about surveilling someone,
we're really talking about an airplane with a human being in it
flying them around. We do not get a warrant for that. The law
doesn't require it, but that's not involved with collecting the
communications of somebody.
Mr. Poe. I understand. I'm not talking about exigent
circumstances. I'm just any circumstance, the law doesn't
require--or there is no law saying the Fourth Amendment applies
to the use of drones. The FAA makes those decisions. Does it
not?
Mr. Comey. Right. To follow somebody in a car or on foot or
in a plane, we have to have a predicated investigation, but we
don't have to go to court to get permission to follow that
person.
Mr. Poe. Do you think the FBI ought to make the rules
regarding protection of the Fourth Amendment, or should
Congress weigh in on what reasonable expectation of privacy
should be regarding that type of issue?
Mr. Comey. The FBI doesn't make any laws. Congress makes
the laws, and the courts interpret them.
Mr. Poe. I didn't say the FBI. Reclaiming my time, if the
Chair would be so patient. The FAA--F-A-A, not the F-B--I--.
Mr. Comey. I misunderstood.
Mr. Poe. Not the F, B, and I, the FAA may make the
regulations on what you can do with a drone and what you can't
do. I think that Congress ought to weigh in and determine what
the reasonable expectation of privacy ought to be with the use
of drones.
Do you have an opinion on that, being the Director of the
FBI? Do you want the FAA to continue to do it, or do you think
Congress ought to set that standard?
Mr. Comey. I don't think I have----
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired, but
we'll permit the Director to answer the question.
Mr. Comey. I don't think I have a view or a preference. I
mean, the FBI, we are maniacs about wanting to follow the law.
Mr. Poe. I understand.
Mr. Comey. So if Congress decided to change the law, we
would follow it.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Comey, in your testimony, you mentioned how ISIL
and other terrorist organizations field potential recruits in
publicly accessible social networking sites and via encrypted
private messaging platforms. Could you detail the issues that
law enforcement is facing due to the end of encryption?
Mr. Comey. Yes, sir. The ISIL challenge illustrates the
problem we call Going Dark. That ISIL increasingly uses, when
they find someone who I call a live one, that is, someone who
they might be able to motivate to engage in acts of violence in
the United States, they move them from Twitter or Twitter
direct messaging--Twitter direct messaging is available to us
with court process--to a mobile messenger app that is end-to-
end encrypted, meaning if we get a court order from a judge and
intercept the communication, we can't decipher it, we can't
read it. And so those people, their communications become
invisible to us even with a court order.
That's the challenge. We actually face that in all kinds of
criminal cases as well, but it is very well illustrated by the
ISIL challenge. That's what I mean when I talk about that.
Mr. Johnson. So, in other words, a foreign based person, a
foreign person operating from a foreign location using social
network such as Twitter can identify a potential target for
radicalization, or someone who's already radicalized but who's
reaching out to this foreign based person, and then they can
take it to another site where their communications are
encrypted, correct?
Mr. Comey. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. And because they're encrypted, then law
enforcement, whether or not it has a warrant or not, cannot
discover what they are talking about, even though they know
that this foreign-based person is a ISIL member?
Mr. Comey. That's correct, and we have to have a court
order, but the court order would be useless.
Mr. Johnson. Yeah. So now the practical impact of that is
what?
Mr. Comey. That we can't know what somebody, who's planning
on an act of violence against a police officer or military
member or a civilian is up to and when they are going to act,
and we're limited to physical surveillance, trying to watch
them and figure out what they're going to do or trying to get
other ways to get visibility into what they're up to. So it is
darkness, or they go dark to us in a way that's really
important in those matters.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. And you mentioned about traditional
crimes, domestic crimes, and how encryption hurts your ability
to get at domestic criminal activity. Can you talk about how in
a case of hot pursuit or exigent circumstances, this adversely
affects our ability to keep Americans safe from domestic crime?
Mr. Comey. There's lots of different ways in which it
impacts. In fact, I believe the going dark problem
overwhelmingly affects State and local law enforcement. People
talk about it like it's an intelligence question, but it's
actually almost entirely a law enforcement question because--I
mean, to give you an example that a lot of DAs talk about. If
they recover a cell phone, right, at a scene where someone has
been murdered or been kidnapped, they cannot open the device,
even with a court order, to figure out who was that person
communicating with before they disappeared? That's the most
basic example.
We also are increasingly encountering it where drug gangs
or carjacking gangs are communicating using apps, text apps
that are encrypted end to end and with a court order we can't
read. So it's becoming increasingly--the logic of it is, it
will affect all of our work at some point. Hundreds and
hundreds of cases will eventually be affected by it because it
is all of our lives are becoming part of the digital world. And
when the digital world is covered by strong encryption, judges
will not be able to order access in serious criminal cases or
in national security cases. That's the future we're coming
towards, and my view is maybe that's where we want to be, but
we ought to talk about it as we're going to that place.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you for your responses to my
questions.
And I'll yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the Chairman, and Director, thank you
for being here.
The FBI has had to change through the course of time since
my grandfather, who was a career FBI agent, served. I have
great admiration for the agency and what you in particular are
doing.
I want to go back to cyber, we've talked a lot about cyber.
Can you articulate the size, scope, and investment that you in
both personnel, dollars to address the cyber threat that's
going to continue in perpetuity?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Congressman.
I probably can't give you exact numbers sitting here, but
we have a cyber division headquarters that does nothing but
cyber-related work and then cyber task forces in every single
FBI field office, cyber squads, but that doesn't quite capture
it because all of the threats we're responsible for come at us
through the Internet now, whether it's kids being protected or
terrorists coming after us, and so everybody actually has to
be, in a way, a cyber analyst or a cyber agent. So I could give
you specifics on how many hundreds, thousands of people are
assigned to do cyber work, but it's actually even broader than
that.
Mr. Chaffetz. What is it that you can't do? That is, is
there another department or agency that's doing something that
the FBI couldn't do?
Mr. Comey. In the cyber realm?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yeah.
Mr. Comey. That's a good question.
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, thank you.
Mr. Comey. Yeah, I can't think of it sitting here. Our
responsibilities are obviously confined to the United States,
and so we work with our partners, NSA, in particular, in trying
to fight the cyber threat that's coming from overseas. The
bureau doesn't have the ability to reach out in that way, and
so that's something we can't----
Mr. Chaffetz. Let me ask you in the context of the United
States Secret Service. I was surprised to learn that the agents
that they have, two-thirds of their time is spent on
investigations and cyber. And it begs the question to me, why
do we have such a small group of people doing that, which the
FBI has a much bigger resource, infrastructure, and expertise
in doing? And as we look at potentially restructuring the
Secret Service and getting more focused on the protective
mission, why not combine the two? Or what is it that they do
that you don't want to do or that they do that you can't do?
I'm trying to get my arms around it.
Mr. Comey. It was such a good question, I misunderstood it.
I'm sorry. One of the things I've been trying to do is drive us
closer together with the Secret Service because they have
expertise, especially in the financial related intrusions and
credit card scams. They've spent years developing that
expertise, and so I don't want to duplicate it, so we're trying
to drive ourselves together.
I'd like us to combine our task forces. It doesn't make any
sense for them to have an Electronic Crimes Task Force and me
to have a Cyber Task Force, there ought to be one. They do
great work. I want to make sure we don't duplicate, and I want
to do joint training with them. They're doing some great
training, so are we. That's one of the things we can't do. We
can't do enough for State and local law enforcement to help
them deal with digital crimes.
Mr. Chaffetz. So in terms of the personnel that you have
associated with that, how would that work? Are there other
agencies that would also--I mean, Secret Service is but one.
Are there other agencies that should be also included in that
because we've got a homeland security organization that thinks
they should be in charge of all the cyber?
Mr. Comey. Yeah, I think with respect to the criminal work
that we do, there are people at HSI within Department of
Homeland Security who are doing cyber-related crime work, and
then there's a lot of State and local law enforcement doing it,
and they are part of our task forces.
Mr. Chaffetz. Can you shed anymore light on the FBI's next-
generation cyber initiative? Explain that to me a little bit
more.
Mr. Comey. Without eating up all your time, it's our
strategy, my strategy for where we are going to take the FBI in
the next 3 to 5 years, and so it involves deploying our people
in a different way, getting better training, better equipment,
focusing ourselves on the threats that I think the FBI, given
its footprint, is best able to address, so it's our sort of
whole of FBI approach to cyber over the next 3 to 5 years.
Mr. Chaffetz. And so when you have FBI personnel that will
focus potentially their entire career just an cyber, correct?
Mr. Comey. Correct.
Mr. Chaffetz. They won't necessarily be bouncing around to
different tasks?
Mr. Comey. Correct.
Mr. Chaffetz. All right.
I appreciate the time. I'll yield back.
Mr. Franks [presiding]. And I thank the gentleman, and
we'll now recognize Mr. Deutch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Comey, thanks so much for being with us today. I
represent south Florida, Broward County and Palm Beach County,
and we are experiencing an alpha-PVP, or flakka, epidemic.
Broward County is the epicenter of the ongoing national flakka
crisis. In Broward, the number of cases is spiraling out of
control. The Broward County Sheriff's Office has stated that in
January 2014, they analyzed a single flakka case. By September
2014, they were analyzing 80 cases. This year, the sheriff's
office has reported analyzing approximately 100 cases per
month.
Flakka cases are also flooding the county health system.
The Broward health system has reported that they're receiving,
on average, 12 cases per day. In this past year, it has
contributed to the death of 45 people in Broward County.
Flakka use has also started to spread northward into Palm
Beach County. In 2014, there were 35 submissions involving
flakka to the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office crime lab. In 2015,
there have been 42. There have been 10 arrests in Palm Beach
County, and flakka is now moving into Tennessee, Kentucky,
Ohio, and other the States.
As you're aware, people using flakka experience
hallucinations, delirium, violent outbursts, and extreme body
temperatures that often cause the users to remove their
clothes. Flakka is extremely cheap. It costs $5. And it can be
easily purchased online from China. The low cost of the drug
and the easy access are very troubling.
Flakka, as is the case with other synthetic drugs, is
extremely difficult for law enforcement to prosecute. The
primary problem is that the composition of the synthetic drug
can't be pinpointed and classified as illegal because the drugs
are constantly changing their composition. And as soon as the
synthetic drug is listed as illegal, the composition is changed
ever so slightly to evade the listing that made the drug more
readily available.
In fact, a recent news report in Miami found that flakka is
now being made into gummy bears--gummy bears. The only
difference between the real ones and flakka gummy bears is that
the ones containing flakka are individually wrapped and
stickier. Dealers are using them now to hook young people.
So if you could target the efforts that the FBI has taken
to crack down on this epidemic of synthetic drugs, flakka, in
particular, and speak to the challenge that you face in
cracking down on, again, these sorts of cases involving flakka
and other synthetic drugs.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Congressman. The synthetic, I think
the word is cannabinoids, and my friend, Chuck Rosenberg, the
leader of the DEA, is probably laughing listening to me
mispronounce it, but it is a serious problem that I hear about
all over the country.
So DEA obviously has the lead on the Federal level, but we
are participating through our drug task forces with DEA in
trying to do something about that scourge, which you're exactly
right: it's appearing in gas stations or little markets where
kids can walk up and buy these things not knowing exactly what
they're buying, and it will wreck their life.
Mr. Deutch. And the current law permits synthetic drugs to
be treated as a controlled substance if they are proven to be
chemically and/or pharmacologically similar to schedule I or
schedule II controlled substances, but as I pointed out, the
nature the drugs keep changing. They change the chemical
structure to avoid being listed as a controlled substance, so
my question to you is what steps can lawmakers take to help in
your efforts, local enforcement efforts, as well, to crack down
on this epidemic?
Mr. Comey. Yeah. I honestly don't know. I from talking to
Acting Administrator Rosenberg, that they are keenly focused on
that problem, which is every time they schedule one of these
things, it comes in from China slightly different, and so it's
not scheduled anymore. They are sort of chasing it, playing
Whack-A-Mole with a very dangerous substance. I don't know what
the answer is, frankly.
Mr. Deutch. Well, Director Comey, I would invite
representatives of your task force and the DEA to come to south
Florida. This is an issue that dominates the headlines. It's an
issue that affects young people, and as you point out, the
moment that somebody takes this, one of these synthetic drugs,
flakka, which is so readily available in Florida and elsewhere,
it changes and often ruins their lives. So I'm grateful for
your focus on it, and I hope we have the opportunity to do
something down in south Florida to really raise the issue so
that people in south Florida can know what this focus is and
how much we can do about it. Thank you very much.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman.
Will now recognize Mr. Marino for 5 minutes.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon. Good morning. It's good to see you.
Mr. Comey. Good to see you again, sir.
Mr. Marino. I, too, am a maniac for the rule of law. As
you're aware, most of my adult career was in law enforcement,
and I still consider myself a law enforcement guy. My family
has been in law enforcement for a long time as well, so I
appreciate your comments concerning oversight and the rule of
law, and that's needed very much today. I think even more so
today, but I do want to emphasize the fact that I've worked
with all agencies, State, local, and Federal, and 99.9 percent
of our agents out there are topnotch, and I trust them watching
my back at any time.
But, with that, you have very effectively answered two
questions that I had that I was going to ask you, so as a
result, I will yield back the remainder of my time, and best of
luck.
Mr. Comey. Great to see you, Mr. Marino.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize Ms. Bass for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Director, for coming and testifying today.
I'd like to talk about the recent operation cross traffic,
FBI's nationwide effort to crack down on child sex trafficking.
The FBI's October 13 release about the operation states:
``Operation Cross Country, a nationwide law enforcement action
that focused on underage victims of prostitution has concluded
with the recovery of 149 sexually exploited children and the
arrest of more than 150 pimps and other individuals.''
And, first of all, I'd like to commend the agency for
correctly referring to the children as sexually exploited
children versus prostitutes because a child who is under the
age of consent should never be considered a prostitute.
This release refers to other individuals, and I was
wondering who those other individuals were. I have a concern
that while it's extremely appropriate to focus on the pimps,
it's also, in my opinion, very much appropriate to focus on the
child molesters who some people would call Johns, but I would
like to know if that's who you were referring to, and what is
the focus on the child molesters?
Mr. Comey. Yes, Congresswoman, that is what I understand
was meant by that. There were more than 100 so-called Johns
arrested as part of Operation Cross Country along with the
pimps and the children being exploited.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. The release also says that the
children were recovered, and I wondered what does that mean. So
what has happened or will happen with the children?
Mr. Comey. As part of Operation Cross Country, the folks I
call the angels of the FBI, which are our victim specialists,
are deeply involved in the operation to make sure that those
kids get either reunited with their families, or so many of
them come from foster care.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Comey. If they get in a new placement, a healthier
placement, a lot of them need medical attention right away. And
that's what was meant by that, to get that child to a place
where they are cared for either by the biological family or a
placement in a foster family.
Ms. Bass. And in addition to medical attention, they
certainly need a tremendous amount of therapy. I think it's
important, you know, in the future, I would appreciate it if
you would lift up--where you were saying that the other
individuals were referring to the child molesters, I think it's
really important that we focus, we call it correctly and that
we focus on that.
In addition, I would also like to know if the FBI tracks
the number of children that are in foster care. We know that a
large percentage of these kids are in foster care, but there's
not a lot of documentation. Do you have documentation that
could give us some numbers?
Mr. Comey. I think we do. I think our intelligence
analysts, who support an effort like this, have done some good
work on that front. I'm a foster parent, so they know it's a
passion of mine.
Ms. Bass. Oh, I didn't know that.
Mr. Comey. And so I think we could equip you with at least
some of our thinking on it as we do this work.
Ms. Bass. Great. Well, I would like to follow up with your
office and get that data.
I'd also like to commend you for your Innocence Lost Task
Force, and I'd like to know if there's more that we can be
doing to assist your efforts in Innocence Lost. I work with
them in the Los Angeles area, and you know, you have been in
the leadership of bringing different sectors of law enforcement
together to understand this problem and address it.
Mr. Comey. Well, I appreciate your interest in it, and I
will ask my staff to think about ways in which we might get
more help. We appreciate the offer.
Ms. Bass. Okay. Thank you.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentlewoman.
We now recognize Mr. Labrador for 5 minutes.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Director, it's great to have you here. I have heard
from many of my constituents about the refugee program and its
impact on Idaho. As refugee admissions are increasing, there is
growing concern that bad actors are not being caught in the
vetting process and are gaining admission alongside bona fide
refugees living in fear.
I'm actually an advocate of refugee programs. I think it's
a good thing to have refugee programs, but there's a lot
misconceptions out there and a lot of real fear about the
people that are coming into the United States. This Congress
has an obligation to address those concerns and ensure that the
process is working correctly and protecting our national
security.
Numerous times over the past year, including yesterday,
both the FBI's Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism
Division Michael Steinbach and yourself have testified about
the flaws and limitations in the vetting of Syrian refugees.
On October 8, you testified that you were concerned about
certain gaps in the data available to the FBI, and yesterday
you testified that the FBI can only query what has been
previously collected, which is obvious.
I know that you have addressed this issue before and you've
addressed it, I think, once here today, but can you please
explain to this Committee the security gaps that exist for
purposes of conducting full and effective background checks on
foreign nationals who claim to have fled the conflict zone of
Syria and who are seeking to be resettled as refugees in the
United States?
Mr. Comey. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Labrador. We learned
some good lessons from less than excellent screening of Iraqi
refugees 8 years ago or so, and in fact, we learned that some
folks we had let in were serious actors that we had to lock up
after we figured out who they were. And so we have gotten much
better, as an intelligence community, at joining our efforts
and checking our databases in a way that gives us high
confidence. If we have a record on somebody, it will surface.
That's the good news.
The bad news is, as we talked about earlier, with Iraqi
refugees, we had an opportunity for many more encounters
between folks in Iraq and our soldiers, for example, so we had
a lot more data. We had fingerprints, iris scans, we had
forensics of different kinds. The challenge we face with Syria
is that we don't have that rich a set of data, so even though
we've gotten better at querying what we have, we certainly will
have less overall.
And so as I said to a question earlier, someone only alerts
as a result of our searches if we have some record on them.
That's the challenge we face with Syria.
Mr. Labrador. So is it accurate to state that the lack of
intelligence available on the ground in Syria is rendering our
traditional database biographic and biometric checks obsolete?
Mr. Comey. I wouldn't agree obsolete, but I would say we
have a less robust data set dramatically than we had with Iraq,
so it will be different.
Mr. Labrador. So the FBI has repeatedly contrasted the
United States' ability to collect intelligence on the ground in
Iraq with its ability to do so in Syria. What can the FBI do to
adapt to improve security checks for refugees originating from
failed states with no available intelligence?
Mr. Comey. Well, that's a hard one. What we can do, the
FBI, is just make sure that whatever is available figures into
our review, but the underlying problem is, how do you generate
intelligence in failed states? And that's one I don't have a
good answer for.
Mr. Labrador. So are you currently working with the
intelligence community to try to fix this problem?
Mr. Comey. Oh, certainly. Everyone in the intelligence
community is focused on trying to mitigate this risk by
querying well and also finding additional sources of
information so we can check against it.
Mr. Labrador. Recognizing that ISIS and Syria and that
there is a risk that bad actors may attempt to take advantage
of this Administration's commitment to bring at least 10,000
Syrian refugees into the United States over the next year, can
you estimate the manpower and resources that will need to be
diverted from other investigative programs to address this
threat?
Mr. Comey. I'm not able to do that sitting here.
Mr. Labrador. How can I ensure my constituents that the
people that may come to Idaho are safe, that they are not
terrorists, that the people in my community are going to be
safe?
Mr. Comey. Well, on behalf of the FBI, what you can assure
them is that we will work day and night to make sure that if
there's information available about somebody, we have surfaced
it, and we have evaluated it.
Mr. Labrador. And I understand that if there is
information, but the problem is that we don't have the
information on most of these people. Isn't that true?
Mr. Comey. Yeah, and so I can't sit here and offer anybody
an absolute assurance that there is no risk associated with
this.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize Ms. DelBene for 5 minutes.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Director Comey, for being here and for your
service. I know as Acting AG, you demonstrated a commitment to
the Fourth Amendment and protecting Americans' privacy, despite
enormous pressure to do otherwise, and you mentioned in your
original testimony and in other comments that the rule of law
and the Fourth Amendment is the spine of the FBI, and so I
appreciate that commitment. I'd like to ask you a few questions
about the FBI's use of aircraft.
The FBI deployed aircraft over Ferguson last year in
response to requests from local law enforcement. Is that
correct?
Mr. Comey. Yes.
Ms. DelBene. Does the FBI respond to these types of
requests frequently?
Mr. Comey. Well, thank goodness there aren't the kind of
turmoil and pain in communities frequently, but sure. If local
law enforcement asks for help in getting a look at a developing
situation, we will offer that help. We've done it in Baltimore.
We did it in Ferguson, as I recall.
Ms. DelBene. And what criteria have to be met for the FBI
to send aerial resources to assist local law enforcement, or
who makes that decision?
Mr. Comey. It's made at a fairly high level in the FBI. I
think at the special agent in charge level, at least that is
the commander of the field office, so it has to go up through a
variety of checks before it can be approved.
Ms. DelBene. And what are the criteria that you use to make
that decision?
Mr. Comey. I think it has to be part of an open
investigation of ours or part of an open assistance to law
enforcement matter. We can get you the particulars of our
policy, but as you know, the bureau has a policy for
everything, so there's a series of steps that have to be walked
through to make sure it's part of either an open case of ours
or it's a legitimate open assistance to law enforcement matter.
Ms. DelBene. Okay. Thank you. I'd appreciate that
information.
Your staff also acknowledged that the FBI ``routinely uses
aviation assets in support of predicated investigations
targeting specific individuals, and when requested and
appropriate, in support of State and local law enforcement.''
Why is it so important to stress this distinction when it
appears that it's kind of more generalized type of
surveillance?
Mr. Comey. I'm sorry, the distinction?
Ms. DelBene. The distinction that you have in the feedback
from your staff that you use aviation assets in support of
predicated investigations targeting specific individuals when
in these cases of local law enforcement, et cetera, it seems to
be more generalized type of surveillance.
Mr. Comey. Oh, I see. Well, I think we're just trying to
explain how we use it. We don't fly planes around America
looking down trying to figure out if somebody might be doing
something wrong. The overwhelming use of our aircraft is a
pilot flies as part of an investigation to help us follow a
spy, a terrorist, or a criminal, and then with local law
enforcement, if there is tremendous turbulence in a community,
it's useful to everybody, civilians and law enforcement to have
a view of what's going on: Where are the fires in this
community? Where are people gathering? Where do people need
help? And sometimes the best view of that is above rather than
trying to look from a car in the street.
Ms. DelBene. And do you feel that warrants are necessary
when you're targeting specific individuals, especially when you
have aircraft equipped with new technologies like high-
resolution cameras?
Mr. Comey. I don't think so. I mean, I meant what I said
about the Fourth Amendment. We are not collecting the content
of anybody's communication or engaged in anything besides
following somebody when we do that investigation, so as I said,
we've done it since the Wright brothers with planes, and we do
it in cars, and we do it on foot, and the law is pretty clear
that you don't need a warrant for that kind of observation.
Ms. DelBene. But now that there are technology changes--I
think even the most recent court case, you know, Florida v.
Riley, was in 1989--there has been a lot of changes in
technology, and so it's not just what you might see with the
human eye anymore. So are there other types of technologies,
and do you think warrant standards should be in place when you
have other types of technologies that might be used on this
aircraft?
Mr. Comey. I suppose if you are putting technology on an
FBI aircraft that had Fourth Amendment implications, that is
that it was reaching someone's communications or looking within
a dwelling or something like that, it would have Fourth
Amendment implications. But that's not what we use the aircraft
for.
Ms. DelBene. So what led to the decision to seek court
orders when aircraft are equipped with Stingray technology?
Mr. Comey. Right. We have one aircraft that we can put
Stingray technology on it, that is cell-site simulators, and I
suppose we can mount it on others if we had a court order to do
it. But we have decided as a matter of policy--now the whole
Department of Justice does this--that if we're going to be
operating a cell-site simulator, it has Fourth Amendment
implications, so we will get a warrant for that. So whether
that's on the ground or in an airplane, we treat it the same
way.
Ms. DelBene. You said you decided. Do you feel like that
you're required by law to do that?
Mr. Comey. I think we made that move before there was even
a divide among opinions in the court. Some courts have said you
need it for that, some not. We went nationwide with a
requirement for warrants. There has been no national decision
on that, no Supreme Court-level decision on that, but we just
think, given that some courts are requiring it, we do it across
the country.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentlewoman and now recognize Mr.
Buck for 5 minutes.
Mr. Buck. Good morning, Director Comey.
Mr. Comey. Good morning.
Mr. Buck. I wanted to ask you, do you remember Mr. Cohen's
questions about renaming the FBI headquarters building earlier?
Mr. Comey. Yes.
Mr. Buck. And I appreciate your response that we have to
look at things through the lens of history. I wanted to ask you
about a few other historical figures and see if there were any
other FBI buildings named after some of these folks.
Former Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was a
member of the KKK. He was a recruiter for the KKK, and he held
leadership positions with the KKK. The State Capitol in
Charleston, West Virginia, is named after Senator Byrd. The
United States Courthouse and Federal Building in Beckley, West
Virginia, is named after Senator Byrd. The United States
Courthouse and Federal Building in Charleston, West Virginia,
is named after Senator Byrd. And the Federal Correctional
Institution in Hazelton, West Virginia, is named after Senator
Byrd.
My question is, do you know of any FBI buildings named
after Senator Byrd?
Mr. Comey. I don't know. And I don't know whether we have
folks sitting in the courthouse. I just don't know sitting
here.
Mr. Buck. Okay. Former Democrat President Woodrow Wilson
resegregated the entire government, including the Armed Forces,
held a showing of the movie ``Birth of a Nation'' at the White
House, and went so far as to praise it in spite of calls by the
NAACP to ban it. ``Birth of a Nation'' was subsequently used as
a recruiting tool for the Ku Klux Klan. Likewise, there are a
number of buildings around this country named after President
Wilson. In fact, there is a bridge leading in and out of
Washington, D.C., named after President Wilson.
Do you know of any buildings that the FBI occupies or
predominantly owns that are named after President Wilson?
Mr. Comey. I don't.
Mr. Buck. Former President Lyndon Baines Johnson was fond
of using the ``N'' word, used it in the White House, used it
while he was Senate majority leader, and used it in many other
public settings. Many Federal buildings are named after him.
Are there any FBI buildings named after President Johnson.
Mr. Comey. I don't know.
Mr. Buck. And lastly, President Truman wrote to his soon-
to-be wife the following words: ``I think one man is just as
good as another so long as he is not a 'N' word or a
Chinaman.'' Again, many buildings named after President Truman.
I'm just wondering, any FBI buildings named after President
Truman?
Mr. Comey. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Buck. And last after last, Democrat Senator Richard
Russell was also a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and there is a
Senate building named after Senator Russell. I assume there
are, at least to your knowledge, no FBI buildings named after
Senator Russell?
Mr. Comey. I don't know. I don't think so, but I don't
know.
Mr. Buck. And my last statement I guess would be that
perhaps Congress should clean up its own act in naming
buildings before it asks the FBI to, without the lens of
history, try to rename buildings.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentleman and now recognize Mr.
Cicilline for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director Comey, for your service and for coming
before the Committee today and for sharing your valuable
insights. And thank you also to the extraordinary men and women
who serve the Bureau and help keep our country safe, and I
think our entire Nation owes them a debt of gratitude.
Many us expressed our sincere concern and condolences
following the recent mass shooting in Roseburg, Oregon, where
nine innocent men and women lost their lives. Many of us have
shared the same sentiments following tragically similar events
in Lafayette or Newtown and Blacksburg.
But as more Americans lose their lives to senseless gun
violence, this Congress has failed to act. And, Director Comey,
with this in mind, I'd like to draw on your experience to help
us find solutions to this growing epidemic and to help us find
the guts to take necessary action.
And so first I want to just draw your attention to the
shooting which occurred at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Following the
shooting, you ordered the FBI to conduct an internal review of
policies and procedures surrounding background checks for
weapons purchases. So my first question is, did that review
occur, and what were the findings of that review?
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Congressman. The review did occur. I
asked my folks to do a 30-day examination, and two things came
out of that. First, it confirmed the facts as I understood
them. There were no new facts with respect to Dylann Roof's
purchase in particular that changed. And then it highlighted
two potential areas for improvement, one internal to the FBI,
one external.
Internal, it highlighted for us that maybe we can surge
resources and technology to try and reduce the number of gun
sales that are held in the delayed pending status longer than 3
days, and so that work is underway. And then secondly, to get
better and more timely records from State and local law
enforcement about the disposition of people's arrests so that
our examiners have good records to make a judgment on. And
those conversations are ongoing.
Mr. Cicilline. So those are actually the two areas I'd like
to discuss. As you well know, the current law requires that if
a requested purchase of a firearm is made, a background check
is initiated, the FBI has 3 days to respond. If no response is
provided, then the gun dealer is able to sell the weapon. My
understanding is the FBI continues the review anyway, even in
it's beyond the 3 days. That information is then conveyed to
the gun dealer, and if that person is disqualified from buying
a gun, what does the FBI do? So you now know a sale has
occurred--or do you know a sale has occurred--and do you take
action?
Mr. Comey. Yes. If after the 3-day window the gun is
transferred and then the examiners discover disqualifying
information, my recollection is--and if I'm wrong, we'll fix
this--a notice is sent both to local law enforcement in that
jurisdiction and to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
so that they can retrieve the firearm from the prohibited
person.
Mr. Cicilline. So I would like to work with you on that
because I'm not sure that that is actually the practice. I
think that notice may go to ATF, but I don't believe it goes to
the gun dealer or to local law enforcement. And I think that's
a way that we can try to keep guns out of the hands of people
who don't have them, and I would very much like to work with
you on that.
The second issue is how do we incentivize, require,
encourage local law enforcement to actually use the NICS
system? Because that background check system is only as good as
the information that's in it. Have you done an analysis of what
States participate, where the deficiencies are, or things we
could do or that Congress can do to help ensure that more
States are providing that disqualifying information so at the
bare minimum we're keeping guns out of the hands of people who
shouldn't have them under law?
Mr. Comey. Yeah. The mass murder in Charleston was an event
that I think caused a lot of folks in local law enforcement,
State law enforcement, to focus on this question. And as I
said, there's a whole lot of conversation going on, and we are
pushing out training to State and local law enforcement to
explain to them what we need and why we need it in a timely
fashion.
I don't have as I sit here suggestions for how Congress
might help us incentivize that cooperation. I think they're
good people, and when they see the pain of a situation like
Dylann Roof's, they want to be better. But I will get back to
you if I have ideas for how Congress can help.
Mr. Cicilline. Because, as you well know, Director, we
can't require participation with the NICS system as a result of
a Supreme Court decision, but we ought to be able to do things
to create serious incentives or maybe penalties for States that
fail to furnish that information, because as a result of that
information not being in the NICS system, people are walking
into gun stores and buying guns who would be otherwise
disqualified if that information were known.
So I look forward to working with you on that. I think it
should be an urgent national priority, and I thank you for the
work that you're doing.
I yield back.
Mr. Franks. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Collins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director, for being here, and I appreciate it.
My father, as well as some of the others, my father was a
Georgia State trooper for all his life, 30-plus years. So I
appreciate your commitment to law enforcement and being a part.
I do have some quick questions that I wanted to go back on.
One has to do with an advisory that was put on October 8 for
dealing with credit cards and the chip issue here that was for
consumer fraud, stated that new credit cards equipped with the
microchip security technology were still vulnerable to identity
theft and that the use of PIN authentication in addition to a
chip would be a more secure way that consumers' transactions
would be more simple, signature verification. However, within
24 hours that advisory was taken down and a few days later
issued an advisory that no longer included the PINs.
Now, it's my understanding Canada, Australia, many other
countries have encouraged the PIN authorization because it,
frankly, has a lower fraud rate.
My question would be is, in light of that, does the FBI
consider PIN as a more secure form of authentication over
signature verification?
Mr. Comey. I think the experts at the FBI would say that
PIN-and-chip is more secure than PIN-and-signature. And the
confusion there was our folks put out that public service
announcement, and it was a miss on our part, without focusing
on the fact that most merchants in the United States don't have
the capability to accommodate the PIN-and-chip. And so the
worry was that's going to cause a whole lot of confusion when
people start saying where's the PIN-and-chip when our equipment
is set up in this country for PIN-and-signature.
Mr. Collins. Okay. Well, let's talk about that a second,
because many of the places that I go to you either swipe--
they're older cards, you just swipe, like on a gas station, or
you go into--I used to own a store. We had a swipe machine.
Many of them now have the--and many of those even with a swipe
machine have a number for debit cards which is already there
for the PIN. I know now, I've just gotten broken into using the
chip because my new cards have chips, so I slide them in. I'm
still learning how to do this. But the keypad is right there
above it.
I'm not sure I follow your answer there that the technology
is not available. If the keypad is right there to input a
number, why is the technology not available?
Mr. Comey. I don't know. And I'm not the world's smartest
person on this, but what I've been told by my folks is it is
available in some places, but it's not widely available in the
United States. And if I'm wrong about that, we'll correct that.
Mr. Collins. I'm just going on my own personal. And, look,
my, Doug Collins, me going into the store and putting my card
in. I've rarely found one that is just pure swipe with no
keypad, I think. And I was just concerned, and if that's not
right and if you want to go back and look into that.
I think the concern came among many that maybe there is
also an issue because as a business owner myself, I paid
different fees depending on how I did it, like if a consumer
used a credit card versus a debit card. And I'm just wondering,
could that have been an issue, because using the PIN typically
is a different fee? Was that possibly taken into account as the
reason for the removal of this and changed to say, well, it's
not as worrisome as we first thought?
Mr. Comey. No. I think that could be the reason that, if
I'm right, that the equipment is not widely available in the
United States, that people don't have an economic incentive to
change. But that was not a factor in why we withdrew the public
service announcement. My understanding is we withdrew it
because our worry was we're going to confuse a whole lot of
people who are going to roll into places saying where is the
chip-and-PIN and it isn't widely available. That's, as I
understand it, that was the concern.
Mr. Collins. Well, it is. And it's like everything, there
was a lot of times before debit card. I think the concern here
is, as we deal in information security and everything else, is
you're always trying to move toward the more secure atmosphere.
That's my only concern. And by moving back on that, it seemed
like, at least in my opinion, that we're saying, okay, there is
a better way, but we're not going to encourage that, we're just
going to let the, you know, let the status quo sort of stand.
So it was just a question.
I do have a question. We hit ECPA earlier and the e-mail
privacy, which I have a great interest in. One was said is
basically the 180-day distinction in current law is something
that we have talked about. You said that you use a warrant in
all cases. It doesn't matter. Would you say that 30, you know,
30--and there's been statements 30 prosecutors, former judges,
all say that requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant from
a court does not prevent law enforcement from doing its job.
Would you agree with that, especially in light of this issue?
Mr. Comey. I think by and large that's true. I think it
poses unique challenges for our colleagues at the SEC, for
example, investigating corporate fraud, but I think by and
large for law enforcement judges are available, and if we have
the evidence, we can make the showing. So I think at a general
level, sure.
Mr. Collins. But in a general level, and also from your
high standards as the FBI, I've always considered high
standards, even the SEC, some of these agencies, that a
warrant, whether they use it or not, they like it or not, I
think from a law enforcement standpoint, from a concern
standpoint, from a warrant standpoint, this is something that
they could use that they could go through normal means in the
investigation. I think that's the concern that many of us have.
There is time for other questions, the hacking issues with
OPM and China. Just a quick question, from the FBI's
perspective, have we actually traced that and say, yes, for a
fact, that we confirm that Chinese hackers stole this data from
the OPM?
Mr. Comey. I have with high confidence an understanding of
who did it. I'm not in a position to say it in an open forum.
Mr. Collins. Okay. And maybe we can get back on a different
forum and discuss that, because like I said, that is a concern.
We can't reward bad behavior, and I'm concerned that's what
we're doing.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the gentlemen and now recognize Mr.
Jeffries for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Director Comey, for your presence here today
and of course your great service to this country.
I think you testified earlier today in your belief as to
the efficacy of mandatory minimums. Is that correct?
Mr. Comey. Yes. I think I said they were a useful tool in
my career as a prosecutor, especially in eliciting cooperation.
Mr. Jeffries. And can you just elaborate as to whether you
still believe that mandatory minimums in light of the explosion
of the United States prison population, particularly relative
to every other developed country in the world, is still a
relevant law enforcement tool?
Mr. Comey. I think it is. Again, I'm not in a position by
expertise, and I shouldn't in my job offer a view on whether it
ought to be 10 years or 5 years, but I think the certainty of
punishment is a useful tool in fighting crime. And in the
absence of mandatory guidelines, that often comes in the form
of a mandatory minimum. But that's about as far as I have the
expertise and the position to go.
Mr. Jeffries. And is your view anchored in the fact that
many prosecutors have articulated the position that in the
absence of mandatory minimums they don't have the same club by
which to solicit cooperation and perhaps obtain plea bargains?
Would that be part of your view here?
Mr. Comey. Yes. In my experience and comparing my
experience with the State system, which did, again, in my
experience as a prosecutor, did not have the tools to elicit
cooperation that we did. But, again, that's not a view on
whether it ought to be this or it ought to be that. I don't
have the expertise, or I'm not in a position to offer a view on
that. But some certainty of punishment absent cooperation is
very, very valuable in eliciting cooperation.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, there have been studies that have shown
that in crimes that actually don't have mandatory minimums, the
conviction rates at the Federal level are actually higher than
the conviction rates of those where mandatory minimums do
exist. And so I think that's part of the reason why an
ideologically diverse group of individuals on both the left and
the right, including the Heritage Foundation, which I believe
said there's no evidence that mandatory minimums reduce crime,
have questioned their continued need, at least in its current
form.
Now, can you comment on sort of the explosion of the United
States prison population. When the war on drugs began in the
early 1970's, we had less than 350,000 people who were
incarcerated in America. Currently that number is in excess of
2.3 million.
As you know, we've got 5 percent of the world's population;
25 percent of the incarcerated individuals in the world are
here in the United States of America. Many of us believe it
creates a competitive disadvantage for us going forward in
addition to the damage that it does to the social fabric of
many communities.
Could you comment as to the mass incarceration phenomenon
that exists in America and what, if anything, you think should
be done about it from a public safety standpoint?
Mr. Comey. Sure. I struggle with the word mass
incarceration because it conveys a sense that people were
locked up en masse when every case in some respects is a
tragedy, in my view, but every one was individual, everyone had
a lawyer, everyone had a judge, everyone had to be proven
guilty.
There is no doubt a whole lot of people are locked up, and
that is a big problem for our country in one respect. But
here's the fact: In 2014, America was far safer than it was
when I was born in 1960. And I think a big part of that change,
as a result of which a whole lot of people are alive today who
wouldn't be, is due to law enforcement.
And so I'm of a view that, yes, we can reform our criminal
justice system. It can be better in a lot of ways. But we ought
to reform it with an eye toward where we used to be and how we
got from there to here, because I would not want to give back
to our children and our grandchildren the America that we lived
in, in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. That's the reason I want
us to be thoughtful about it.
But I believe we can be better in a whole lot of ways that
we probably don't have time to talk about.
Mr. Jeffries. I certainly think it's important for us to be
thoughtful. I grew up in New York City in the 1980's in the
midst of the crack cocaine epidemic, 2,000-plus homicides in
the city of New York alone. We're down under 350. And obviously
no one wants to return to that.
A Pew study, though, however, I believe concluded that in
all 17 States that have cut their incarceration rates, they've
experienced a decline in crime over the past decade. And so it
seems to me that there's room empirically, based on the data,
for a real discussion as to how to get the balance correct. I
gather you share that view.
And I just appreciate your willingness to continue in a
dialogue for us to get the benefit of your views as we move
forward toward criminal justice reform.
Mr. Comey. Thank you. Happy to. Thank you.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize----
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, can I be recognized for a point of
personal privilege?
Mr. Franks. The gentleman is recognized, without objection.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm a student of history, and when I make a mistake I want
to correct it. And I was wrong in saying that Senator
Vandenberg's son had committed suicide. It was a Senator Hayes,
and his son was arrested in Lafayette Park for being gay. But
that was McCarthy who was after him. So it was right church,
wrong pew, but I wanted to correct the record.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize Mr. DeSantis for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Good afternoon, Director Comey.
I've noticed--I'm a former prosecutor--companies have begun
notifying customers when law enforcement requests data through
a subpoena or warrant unless there is a court ordered
nondisclosure requirement. And I think particularly for, like,
child pornography investigations this may be an issue. Do you
think that that that's something that could hamper
investigations?
Mr. Comey. I do. It's something I've been hearing more and
more about over my 2 years in this job from prosecutors who are
worried about it.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. I think we're going to address that, so
I'm glad to hear you say that.
The President has a plan to bring over a lot of people from
the civil war in Syria, tens of thousands, perhaps as many as
100,000. Can we vet them? And if not, isn't it just a fact that
some of those people will be contributing to some of the
homegrown terrorism that we have in this country?
Mr. Comey. Thank you for that question. It's a very
important issue that we have talked about a little bit here
today. We can vet them. We have gotten better at vetting and
learned lessons from the vetting of Iraqi refugees. The
challenge we face is we can only vet against data that's been
collected with respect to a person, and so the information we
had for Iraq was much richer than we'll have for Syria.
Mr. DeSantis. You can't call up the Damascus police
department and get files, correct?
Mr. Comey. You got it.
Mr. DeSantis. So there's a problem here potentially, and I
know it's going to fall on you then to have to defend the
American people once some of these individuals come into the
country, and it's just something that I'm concerned with.
There has been talk about reforming sentencing. Is it your
view--people will say that drug offenses are nonviolent
offenses, but particularly when they get into the Federal
system, where these are really significant trafficking offenses
typically, is it accurate to say that they're nonviolent or is
the drug trade inherently violent, in your judgment?
Mr. Comey. Well, I guess each case is different. But in my
experience anyone who is part of a trafficking organization is
part of an organization that has violence all through it, and
that whether you're a mill worker or runner or lookout or
enforcer, you're part of something that's suffocating a
community. And so I have a hard time characterizing drug
organizations in any respect as nonviolent.
Mr. DeSantis. And in terms of the drop in crime that you
alluded to, is part of that simply because there have been
stiffer sentences and so habitual criminals are incapacitated
and they're off the streets, and therefore our communities are
safer?
Mr. Comey. I believe that was a big part, and I think most
experts believe it was a big part of the historic reduction
we've seen in crime over my career.
Mr. DeSantis. With respect to individual offenses, I know
there's been discussion about mishandling of classified
information, 18 U.S.C. 1924. Just one, does the FBI keep
records of all the investigations related to each offense of
the criminal code?
Mr. Comey. I don't know that it's searchable by each
offense implicated by an investigation. If a case was charged,
then the charged offenses would be reflected in Sentinel--
that's our recordkeeping--but I don't think every possible
charge.
Mr. DeSantis. So in other words, we know every mishandling
of classified information offense, we can look that up, that
actually gets brought by the U.S. attorney, but we don't know
whether the U.S. attorney declined X number of cases pertaining
to that?
Mr. Comey. I think that's correct, but I also don't know
with what clarity our records would reflect, if there were a
number of potential violations in a case, whether it would be
clear from our case files that it was that.
Mr. DeSantis. Understood. In terms of handling classified
information, there has been just stuff in the press about,
well, something needs to be marked classified. And is your
understanding of the U.S. Code that if I were to send
classified information over an unsecure system, the fact that
it was not marked classified, does that mean that I have not
committed the offense?
Mr. Comey. That one, as I did with Chairman Goodlatte, I
think I'd prefer not to answer. I'm trying to make sure that,
given that we have a matter under investigation now that
relates in part to that topic, that I preserve our ability to
be seen and to be in reality honest, independent, and
competent. And if I start commenting on things that might touch
it, I worry that I could jeopardize that.
Mr. DeSantis. And I think that's an admirable posture, and
I think it's one you've shown throughout your career. How does
when the President of the United States renders a judgment
about a specific case saying that there's no, for example,
national security damage if certain information has been
disclosed, how does that help the investigation, or does it
hurt the investigation?
Mr. Comey. The FBI is the three things I said earlier,
honest, competent, and independent. We follow the facts, only
the facts. All we care about are the facts.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, I have no doubt that that will be how
you conduct yourself. I just hope that as you guys do your
work, as it moves on to other aspects of our system, that it's
based on the merits of the case in every instance and it's not
based on political edicts from on high.
So thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
I yield back.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman and now recognize Ms.
Sheila Jackson Lee for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
And to Director, thank you so very much. You appeared
yesterday in front of the Homeland Security Committee and added
a great deal of insight. And so I'd like to not pursue a line
of questioning but hope to have an opportunity to meet with you
on something we began discussing yesterday, which is
cybersecurity and the whole role that it plays as really, I'd
almost call it another figure, if you will, another entity in
this scheme of terrorism.
I am the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and with my
Ranking Member and Chairman, we are looking to be responsible
in addressing, which I believe, issues in the criminal justice
system and somewhat overlapping the question of terrorism in
this Committee, and certainly in Homeland Security.
Let me just quickly start with a question that I think I
introduced in the record yesterday, the No Fly for Foreign
Fighters. And we heard testimony that indicated the numbers
might be going down, and then I had a number in my notes that
there was 250, approximately, Americans who had left to the
foreign fight and may be coming back.
The thing that I would say to you is that we must always be
prepared. 9/11, the scenario of 9/11 was one that we had never
imagined before. We had never imagined an airplane being used
as a torpedo. We imagined hijacking. We lived through that. We
never imagined. So most time imagination comes with Disney
World, but I know that this is a very serious posture.
And so we want to just, hopefully, any extra tool that we
can give you with respect to refining and defining the lists
that you have to make sure that we have every potential--not
every potential--but every foreign fighter. Would that be
helpful to you?
Mr. Comey. Yes, we want to make sure the list is
comprehensive. If we could get every foreign fighter on there,
that would be great.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So if we have this legislation, which is
to add extra tools to you to ensure that that list is a vetted
and a well-updated list, would that be helpful?
Mr. Comey. I don't know the legislation, but the goal I
share is to have a complete, updated, carefully vetted list.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate that very much.
Let me move now to guns. I don't want to put words in your
mouth, but I imagine--and let me say that I served as a
municipal court judge. I would see officers all the time,
particularly see them undercover, and with a little smile on my
face I'd have to say, ``Who are you?'' Because, obviously,
dealing with some of the matters in local government, they were
in some tough places and had to look that way as well.
And I recognize the dangers that our officers face. We had
a horrific tragedy in our community in Houston, but we just
recently lost an officer again in New York, and we lose
officers, as we do with others who are impacted by guns, the
11-year-old who is a child who shot an 8-year-old over a dog,
and another youngster, 3 years old, that had a gun, I believe,
over this weekend and found it. We never can again imagine the
ability of our children.
I ask you the question, why law enforcement is not our
biggest champion, not on gun control? I call it gun safety
regulation, not on diminishing the Second Amendment, but I call
it responsibly handling weapons. Who would want to lose a 4-
year-old in a drive-by shooting in New Mexico because someone
had a gun?
And so can you answer? We've introduced legislation, and
you might want to comment on this in particular, that gives you
an extended period of time on this gun check situation, which
was one of the horrible situations in the South Carolina nine
where you were doing your work or the system was doing its
work, but since you weren't heard from, they just allowed this
gentleman to get a gun and kill nine people.
But can you answer? We have a number of legislative
initiatives, Members of Congress don't want anything to do with
taking away your gun, controlling, they want to regulate the
safety infrastructure. I've introduced legislation to keep guns
away from children.
Mr. Director, in your dealing with law enforcement, the
impact that guns have on this, more guns in the United States
than people, the impact on the work that you all do, would you
answer that for me, please?
And my last thing before you go. There have been a number
of church fires. We keep ignoring it. There's a series that
just happened. We had another series before. Would you comment
on the FBI's work that they're doing?
And if the Chairman would just indulge me, I'd just throw
another question there, and I appreciate it. If you take this
name down, Robbie Tolan, T-o-l-a-n, who was killed on his front
porch--it wasn't a porch, it was a cement driveway of his home.
Excuse me. Let me stand corrected. Let me apologize to his
mother. He was wounded and still lives with a bullet in his
liver.
And the disappointing aspect is that it was an officer who
mistook him as an African American male in a stolen car. He was
in his mother's car going home to his house in Houston, Texas,
in a small city called Bellaire.
And my question is for you to look into what further FBI
investigation can go into this case, and I would greatly
appreciate it.
If, Mr. Chairman, you would allow him to answer that. I
thank you for your indulgence.
Mr. Franks. The gentlemen is welcome to answer the
question.
Mr. Comey. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. I will certainly
look into it, the last matter.
With respect to church fires, we have not ignored them. Our
agents are investigating a number of church fire incidents
around the country. We have not found patterns and connections
that connect to our civil rights enforcement work, but we are
continuing to work on it.
With respect to guns, the people in the FBI care deeply
about trying to stop gun violence. What the Bureau does not do
is get involved in the public policy legal questions because
our job is to enforce the law. We leave it to the Department of
Justice to make recommendations as to what the law should be. I
think that's a place it makes sense for us to be, but we are
passionate about trying to enforce the law against bad guys
with guns of all kinds, especially in our cities where gun
violence, especially gang-related gun violence, is increasingly
a plague this year.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, proliferation of guns endangers law
enforcement across the Nation, does it not?
Mr. Franks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, he was just shaking his head saying
yes.
Mr. Comey. Guns in the hands of criminals endanger all of
us, including law enforcement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franks. I think all of us would agree with that.
Director Comey, I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes
for questions. And I want to thank you for being here. Many
people here in the Committee have recognized your unbiased
attitude toward enforcing the law as it's written, and I think
that speak very highly of you, and I've been very impressed
with the cogency and just the clarity of your testimony this
morning. I believe that a commitment to independent enforcement
of the law is a genuine and sincere conviction on your part.
Director Comey, the Department of Justice has investigated
past allegations of possible violations--and I know you've
touched on this subject before, so forgive me for sort of
rehashing it--possible violations of the Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act. Indeed, in a letter dated August 4, 2015, responding
to this Committee's request for an investigation of possible
violations of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by Planned
Parenthood, the Department of Justice stated that, ``Since the
inception of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, the Department has
investigated allegations of health facilities that are related
to possible violations of that law.''
Is there any current investigation by the FBI related to
Planned Parenthood and the footage that's been released by the
Center for Medical Progress at this time that you know of?
Mr. Comey. As I said in response to your earlier question,
I will get back to you and let you know. As I sit here now, I
don't have a strong enough grasp of where that stands. I do
know letters were sent to the Department of Justice, but I've
got to figure out exactly where we are, and I can get back to
you.
Mr. Franks. Okay. But as far as you know, even apart from
the Planned Parenthood videos, do you know if any partial birth
abortion ban investigations or enforcement actions have been
taken by the FBI?
Mr. Comey. I don't. I know we have jurisdiction to
investigate such things. I believe we have, but I don't know
enough to answer that well right here.
Mr. Franks. Well, I would appreciate that last part being
included in any response you have. Obviously, there's some of
us, you know, that think that the rule of law applies to these
little ones that have so little ability to protect themselves
as well.
Let me shift gears on you. I know there's been several
questions asked today about gun violence, and I assure you I
agree with your last answer completely that we want to do
everything that we can to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals and that it's vital for the sake and safety of the
public that we do that.
There are those of us that would ask law enforcement do we
think that it would be wise to take guns out of the hands of
law enforcement, and almost no one would suggest that, because
we believe--I do--that guns in the hands of properly trained
FBI agents is a protection to the public.
And from my perspective, that would suggest that it's not
the guns, it's whose hands they're in, because it's hard to
make a case that if they're on the one hand a protective
measure in the hands of police officers, that they're something
that can protect and deter and prevent or interdict violence,
that they're a good thing and that all of us from almost every
spectrum of political consideration would suggest that, then
the obvious, reasoned response becomes that it is, indeed, not
the guns but whose hands they're in.
So my question to you is, how do we separate the argument
so that we are doing everything that we can to prevent those
who have lost their Second Amendment rights, who have
demonstrated violence toward society or some issue with a
mental illness, how do we deal with that while still leaving
intact the right to own and bear arms under the Second
Amendment by those who follow the law and, indeed, oftentimes
protect themselves and sometimes even protect officers of the
law?
Mr. Comey. I think, Congressman, that's a question for
others, including Congress. The FBI's role is such that I think
it's very important that that not be a conversation debate that
we participate in because we don't make policy for the American
people. The American people tell us what they think the law
should be, how to solve these hard problems, and then we will
enforce the law. I think that's critical to us remaining those
three things I said, honest, competent, and independent. And so
honestly it's just not a question I think the FBI should
participate in professionally.
Mr. Franks. Well, that's a very reasonable answer. I hope
that we can do that. I think it will make your job easier, and
it will augment the great work you do for the country.
And with that, I am going to end my question time. Do we
have any other--yes, we do. I think that Mr. Bishop is not
here. Oh, I'm sorry.
The gentleman, Mr. Bishop, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Flying under the radar there.
Mr. Bishop. I did. I flew under the radar.
Director, I was here earlier. I apologize for stepping out.
I want to begin by thanking you for what you and your entire
team does, because what you do on a daily basis is something
that most of us don't even know about, we can't comprehend. And
you keep us safe, and we're grateful for what you do. And on
behalf of my family, my constituents, my State, my Nation, I'm
very grateful to you and your entire department. So I wanted to
tell you that.
And I admire your testimony today, and thank you for your
candor. You've been here forever taking a lot of questions.
I thought maybe I'd asked you about Syrian refugees and
what we're seeing. My State of Michigan is a huge hub for those
of Middle Eastern descent. There is some concern about the
onslaught of refugees into our country. And I apologize if
you've answered this question, but I'd like to ask you, what do
we know, how do we vet these refugees coming into our country?
Is there a way to do it that we can rely upon?
My office does a lot of immigration work. We work with
those who are attempting to immigrate legally every day, and we
help them any way we can to try and get through, jump through
the hoops. It's very strange that we now have groups that are
coming in in the way they are that really skip all those steps
in between.
So I'm just wondering if you could share with me what your
experience is and what you know about the process.
Mr. Comey. It's a process I describe as good news and bad
news. The good news is we have gotten as a country, and the
intelligence community in particular, much better at organizing
ourselves so that we get a complete picture of what we know
about somebody. We learned some lessons from Iraqi refugees 8
years ago or so. And so we have gotten better at querying our
holdings. And so if there is a ripple this person has created
in our pond, I'm confident that we will see it and be able to
evaluate it.
The bad news is we will have less data with respect to
folks coming out of Syria than we did with respect to Iraq,
because we don't have the U.S. Army presence and all of that
that would give us biometrics to query. So the risk is that
someone who is a blank slate to us will be vetted by us in a
process that's efficient and complete but will show no sign of
anything because they've never crossed our radar screen. That's
why I describe it as a process that's gotten a lot better but
that we can't tell you is risk free.
Mr. Bishop. And as time goes on, the process that you are
going through will be more apparent to the American people. I
say that because there are a lot of folks in my State who are
very concerned. And, you know, that level of unknown, of not
understanding exactly the process, has caused a little panic
across the district. And the more that we can hear, the more we
understand what the process is.
We remember the Iraqi refugees in the State of Michigan,
especially in my area, in southeast Michigan. So I appreciate
your ongoing communication on how that's going.
I want to switch gears with you real quick. I've had the
pleasure of visiting and working with a number of youth-serving
organizations in my district, and I know at least one of those
organizations is here today represented. It's important work
that they do in the community. And I've spoken to some of them
about the importance of keeping their kids safe, and one of the
ways to do that is getting background checks. It ensures so
many different ways of fostering a safe environment. And it's
really an issue I feel very deeply about. I have kids of my
own.
Can you talk a little bit about the value of including
national FBI fingerprint background checks as a part of the
comprehensive screening of staff and volunteers? There are so
many that are right there with our children, and we know that
the FBI background checks is the gold standard of the process.
Can you share a little bit about how we can promote that and
encourage that?
Mr. Comey. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. And I think, if I
remember correctly, we have actually been doing a pilot program
on that topic at our criminal justice information systems
operation, which I do believe is the gold standard. You're
right. So anybody who wants to ensure that people in contact
with children or in any other sensitive position have been
checked out, the best way to do it is working with us so we can
query our holdings.
And as an exciting new feature that's coming on now as part
of our Next Generation Identification, we're building in
something called Rap Back, which means if you query somebody as
a daycare provider, if they are ever again arrested, you will
get notified, because that's been a hole in the system. People
are clean when they first go in. Then they get in trouble 5
years down the road. You never tell the daycare about this. So
Rap Back will make a big difference and make the gold standard
platinum in a way. So I very much agree with your sentiment on
that topic.
Mr. Bishop. Did you say Rap Back?
Mr. Comey. Rap Back, R-a-p B-a-c-k. So if someone develops
a rap sheet, we get back.
Mr. Bishop. Got you. All right. That's the connotation.
Okay.
Sir, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate all
your testimony today.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman, and I apologize for
missing him the first time.
And I now recognize Mr. Ratcliffe for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Comey, thanks for being here. It's good to see you
a second day in a row.
Mr. Comey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I want to ask you a couple cybersecurity
issues. Before I do that, I did want to follow up from a
question I asked you at the Homeland Security Committee
yesterday. We had a brief exchange about the President's
decision to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year.
And as we talked about, that's a 500 or 600 percent increase
over prior years.
And I had indicated to you that, humanitarian concerns
aside, I was troubled with respect to the national security
aspects of it, as you're hearing from many of my colleagues
here, particularly because ISIS has said that it would use or
would try to use the refugee process to get into the United
States. And further to that point, as you've testified, our own
databases don't have information on some of these individuals,
so there are gaps of intelligence there.
So we had a discussion about that figure of 10,000
yesterday. I guess if you had been the sole decider on that
issue, what figure would you have recommended to the President?
Mr. Comey. I don't know. And I'm pleased to say it's not my
job to recommend that to the President. I just don't know.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I understand that. I know the FBI is
not a policymaking body with respect to that issue. But as you
recall, we had a discussion. I asked Secretary Johnson the same
thing, and he assured me that there was an interagency process.
But I guess what I'm trying to get at was, is this a figure
that the Administration presented to you and said, you know,
meet the security obligations that come with this, or was this
part of a process where there was actually input from folks
like you that should be providing input on what that number
would be?
Mr. Comey. I think there was plenty of input from the FBI
and other parts of the intelligence community on sort of how we
thought about the good news and the bad news. I don't know and
don't recall and don't know if I could say even if I did recall
how a number came up. It wouldn't have come from the FBI. But I
just don't know.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, you understand the concern that
we would hope that these decisions were driven by intelligence
rather than political reasons or pressure from our European
allies or other folks around the world. And so that's why I
asked the question.
But turning to cybersecurity, and I Chair the Subcommittee
on Cyber at Homeland, and in your written testimony you said--I
want to make sure I get this right--``An element of virtually
every national security threat and crime problem the FBI faces
is cyber-based or facilitated.'' And I want that to sink in for
everyone because it's such an important point for us to
consider in our oversight of the FBI. I think it really speaks
to the gravity of the issue here that you're seeing a cyber
element to almost every national security threat and crime
problem.
So aside from the encryption issue, which I've had the
opportunity to hear you talk about in the past, what are the
major challenges that you face in detecting and prosecuting
cybercrime right now at the FBI?
Mr. Comey. Thank you for that question and thank you for
your interest in that issue and your leadership there.
Two big issues are getting the right folks and the right
equipment, in reverse order. The bad guys have very
sophisticated equipment, and so if we're going to be good at
responding to all the threats we're responsible for, we got to
make sure we have world class systems.
And then we got to have great people to operate them, and
that's a challenge when we're facing a cybersecurity industry
that will pay young folks a lot of dough to go work in the
private sector. We compete on mission. I tell these people
you're not going to make much of a living, you're going to make
a great life. I hope that convinces their families as well, but
those are the two big focuses for us.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Terrific. Thank you, Director.
So the issue of insider threats has been described by at
least some as the greatest threat to businesses that operate in
cyberspace. And of course we all saw the scale of that threat
with respect to Edward Snowden. I know that the Department of
Justice has asked Congress for clarity on the law in this area
for assistance in prosecuting insiders who access sensitive
data that they're not authorized to, and I want to give you an
opportunity to elaborate on that from your perspective.
Mr. Comey. It's an important part of the threat. That's
absolutely true. I don't know what the Department's questions
and concerns are about their legislative authorities on that
front, so I don't think I can offer anything useful there.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, good.
My time has expired, but like everyone else, I want to
express my thanks. Of course I had the opportunity to work for
you, both when you were the Acting Attorney General and as the
Deputy Attorney General, and because of that I have great
confidence in you. And I am grateful for your continued service
and am comforted by the fact that you're in the Director's
chair and that you're the person making such important
decisions about our Nation's security. So thank you.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Comey. Thank you.
Mr. Franks. Well, I would take a moment to echo those
comments. With 7-year-old children, we're grateful that people
like you are on the job.
This would conclude today's hearing. Thanks to our
distinguished witness for attending. Thank the audience here.
Grateful to all of you for being here.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witness or
additional materials for the record.
And with that, thank you again, Director Comey.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable James B. Comey,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The Committee did not receive a response to these questions
at the time this hearing record was finalized and submitted for
printing on March 21, 2016.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]