[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE BUREAU OF
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 4, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-792 WASHINGTON : 2018
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan,
Wisconsin Ranking Member
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERROLD NADLER, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE KING, Iowa STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas Georgia
JIM JORDAN, Ohio THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TED LIEU, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
KEN BUCK, Colorado PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman
JIM SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama TED LIEU, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
C O N T E N T S
----------
APRIL 4, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations;
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations; Committee on the Judiciary ................. 3
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 5
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 6
WITNESSES
Chuck Rosenberg, Active Administrator, Drug Enforcement Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Thomas Brandon, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives
Oral Statement............................................... 10
OVERSIGHT OF THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE BUREAU OF
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
Investigations
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gowdy, Goodlatte, Chabot, Gohmert,
Poe, Chaffetz, Ratcliffe, Johnson of Louisiana, Jackson Lee,
Conyers, Deutch, Richmond, Jeffries, and Lieu.
Staff Present: Anthony Angeli, Counsel; Jason Cervenak,
Counsel; Scott Johnson, Clerk; Joe Graupensperger, Minority
Chief Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Regina Milledge-Brown, Minority Crime Detailee; and
Karis Johnson, Minority Legislative Counsel.
Mr. Gowdy. Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland
Security, and Investigations will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the subcommittee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing. Ms. Jackson Lee is
on her way. Mr. Conyers is with us. We have a nice group on our
side, and I know Chairman Goodlatte, this means a lot to him,
as well. So, we will work the openings in as people come, and I
will recognize myself for my opening.
I want to thank you again for being here today. This is our
second hearing in a series to examine the Justice Department
and its component agencies to identify areas where we can make
our justice system both fully respected and fully worthy of
respect. So, I want to thank both of you, not just for being
here today, but also for your long, distinguished careers in
public service, which we will go into in more detail when you
are introduced.
As we all know, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives play a
critical role in protecting the safety and security of our
communities.
If you will allow me just a brief moment of personal
indulgence, as former prosecutors like to do from time to time,
we like to reminisce on the last good job we had, which was
being a prosecutor. And I can tell you, too, that what you
remember are the victims and their courage and heroism. And you
remember the men and women of law enforcement and their
integrity.
You forget about the bad rulings. You forget about the jury
verdicts that did not go your way. You even, after time, forget
about the defense attorneys. But you do not ever forget the
women and men that you work with in law enforcement, and
especially the victims.
So, Mr. Rosenberg, when I see DEA, of course, I think of
the Nation's premiere narcotics investigation entity. But I
really think about the DEA agents whose names may never be
known and never be called in a public hearing, but do the work.
I will not call the name of the folks in South Carolina
because I am going to leave one of them out, but I would be
very grateful if you could let the women and men who are still
in DEA from yesterday, and those that are there now, know how
grateful each of us across both sides of the aisle are for
their work.
And Mr. Brandon, same to you. You and I know some ATF
agents. We both know some of the same ones, and they remain
some of the fondest memories that I have from that time period
in my life. If you would let the folks in South Carolina know
how grateful we are for their continued service, and those who
once served in South Carolina but have spread out across the
country, I would be grateful to you for that.
We have a lot of challenges. In my home State of South
Carolina, at least 95 people died from heroin in 2015, which is
almost twice as many as the previous year, and more than 500
died from abuse of prescription opioids over that same time
period. Roughly half of these deaths attributed to drug
overdose in South Carolina involved a synthetic opioid, which
is almost 100 times more potent than morphine. And not only are
we seeing an increase in deaths due to drug abuse, but we have
also seen a spike in violent crime nationwide.
To be fair, violent crime has been going down for a long
time. And once it goes down so long, it only has one place to
go. But I do think that we ought to be mindful of the fact that
there has been, at least in certain categories, as they keep
statistics, something of a spike.
In 2016, violent crime increased in many of our Nation's
largest cities, which is the second year that metro areas saw
an increase in homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault. No
agency is perfect. Congress certainly is not perfect, which may
represent an understatement of biblical proportions. But it is
our duty as an oversight body, as flawed as we are, to ensure
that law enforcement agencies learn from mistakes, use taxpayer
dollars responsibly and efficiently, and remain committed to
their core missions of protecting the American people.
We have a justice system that is looked to by everyone for
fairness, efficiency, thoroughness, professionalism, public
safety is, at least in my judgment, the preeminent function of
government. And as much as it is a subset of national security,
and at the State and local level, public safety may be tied
with education as the preeminent function of government. So, it
is not only incredibly important. It is incredibly important
how people perceive the system. It could be fair, but not
perceived that way, and we still have a problem.
So, I know that both of you feel that way, or you would not
have devoted your lives to the pursuit of justice.
Over the course of the next several months, I want to work
with both of you, not just in public hearings, but also
privately, to make sure that Congress is doing everything it
can do to enable you to fulfill your missions and, also, to
reflect on your missions to make sure that we are pursuing the
toughest, where necessary, and the smartest, at all times,
policies we can, whether it is drug overdoses, narcotics
trafficking, violent crimes, firearms trafficking, any other
issue that impacts public safety and the well-being of our
fellow citizens.
I know that both of you, each of you, and each member of
this committee wants not just the best, but the most respected
justice system we can possibly have. And part of that is having
frank conversations about sentencing laws and declination
levels; and non-24es, mental health; how it impacts your
ability to do your job; how we, as a society, are treating
mental health-related issues.
You know, I was eating dinner with Tim Scott last night,
who is the senator from South Carolina, and the person I
respect most in politics. We have to have a justice system that
people respect. And we have to be willing to ask tough
questions. And we have to be willing to acknowledge that
everyone does not perceive the justice system in precisely the
same way. But it is the most unifying and equalizing force that
we have in our culture. The fact that it is represented by a
blindfolded woman tells us what we need to know.
So, you have the highest of all callings. And I will say
this in conclusion: next month, Congress recognizes National
Police Week. It is in May. This is April; I am not going to
wait until May. I want to say, as a husband and a father and a
citizen, how much I appreciate the line of work that you all
have chosen to go into, and make sure that the women and men
that work in your agencies know how grateful we are. It will
not stop us from doing oversight, but it will make us cognizant
of the challenges that some people have volunteered for to keep
other people safe.
And with that, I would recognize the ranking member from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to
my colleagues and members. And good morning to the witnesses.
Forgive me for my slight delay. I was just in a meeting dealing
with the famine in Africa, sub-Saharan Africa.
I think you may have heard of that disaster's occurrence,
and I thank the chairman for his indulgence as we were trying
to deliberate on various disasters outcome to those individuals
that are starving. But I join my chairman in acknowledging both
Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Brandon, and appreciate, very much, the
service that the ATF and the DEA gives.
One of my greatest pleasures, serving for a good number of
years on the Judiciary Committee, was the many men and women in
law enforcement, on the Federal level, that I have had to
encounter, sometimes in tragic circumstances.
I go back on this committee, Mr. Conyers, which I cannot
compete with him and his tenure. But we go back to the Waco
incident. We go back to the issues with DEA, with just enormous
drug trafficking cartels, when cities seemed to be collapsing.
And it was the collaboration with local authorities that our
Federal officers provided, such a great, if I might say,
friendship, but also being part of solving problems.
With respect to the DEA, I think our massive, omnibus
opioid bill, hopefully, will, at least on the treatment side,
on the intervention side, really be a big boost to your work
because we always hear our neighbors, such as Mexico,
suggesting that we are the problem.
I do not yield to that, but I do know that we need to get
those who are sick and addicted, so that you can purge these
evil people who violently perpetrate the business of drugs on
innocent communities all over the country. And your work
certainly includes a large part of that.
With respect to ATF, and I must take a moment to indicate
that I flew up yesterday, in the backdrop of the killing of
Constable Chief Greenwood, and I offered my sympathy to him on
the floor yesterday. And again, I offer it today. And this a
gentleman that had been a district attorney and decided that he
loved the law so much that, as he retired from the district
attorney's office, he would go into being a constable. And I do
not know if you are familiar with that in other jurisdictions,
but constables are like sheriffs over certain jurisdictions.
And he was, in that capacity, a chief deputy constable.
And there is a long story about all of his work. And he was
getting out of his car, and it was execution style. So, we know
that it was purposeful, and it was the illegal use of guns. And
I hope that we will be able to discuss these issues. I am a
member of the Congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force
and Policing Strategies Working Group that my chairman of the
full committee and ranking member of the full committee are
also members of. And we are looking at a number of issues, but
I think it is important to emphasize the crucial work of the
DEA and ATF.
And, in particular, every day in America, an average of 93
people die of gun violence, including seven children and teens.
That amounts to more than 33,000 people dying from gun violence
in this country every year. And so, I am interested in hearing
how we are able to enforce laws and certainly, to try and work
collaboratively on the importance of weeding out, if you will,
those who would use guns illegally. Those who would traffic
guns, which contribute to the dangers of drugs even more
because those who are in heavy drug trafficking, major drug
trafficking, certainly, are using weapons of choice, which are
guns.
I have introduced H.R. 62, the Gun Violence Resources Act,
which authorizes the hiring of additional 200 ATF agents and
investigators for enforcement of existing gun laws. I certainly
do not want to see a budget that diminishes the resources, and
I think all of us at this table have indicated that we believe
in law enforcement that is just. And that means that we adhere
to the principles of no racial profiling. We adhere to the
principles of ensuring that the case we make against
individuals is a just case, on the facts. And I believe that,
in many instances, in most instances, our Federal officers
abide by that.
So, we need them to be able to protect the people that are
really the victims, either of the surge of drugs, large
cartels, large shipments, as well as individuals who are taking
up guns just to be violent. We passed, as many of you know, in
2010, we lowered the crack powder synthesizing disparity from
100:1 to 18:1. Many local jurisdictions around the Nation are
assessing penalties on drug use, on individual drug use and
individual possession, in a way that does not incarcerate.
So, it is a combination of thinking that is on this
committee. And we need your insight as we try to balance that
individual person who is possessing, versus some of the large
actors and perpetrators that many of you address, whether it is
gun trafficking, or whether it is, of course, in major
trafficking.
Let me finish my point with respect to the DEA, Mr.
Chairman. Just on a point to indicate that there are new drugs
on the market, and I will be interested in hearing, Mr.
Rosenberg, how you are keeping up with those and how each new
nuance of the artificial drugs play into the Federal
enforcement, and what we could be helpful in.
And Mr. Brandon, there will be a series of questions that I
will ask, as well, with respect to your work and how we can be
helpful in saving lives.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back. The chair would now
recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your holding this hearing today, and I want to welcome Acting
Administrator Rosenberg and Acting Director Brandon, and I want
to thank both of you for your service, and I am happy that you
are with us today.
In April of 2015, during the tenure of DEA's former
administrator, I was very concerned about systemic problems in
the DEA disciplinary process, which had permeated several
levels of management. At that time, the inspector general
testified about serious misconduct by DEA agents, as well as
their supervisors. In addition, over the past 2 years, the
inspector general has conducted audits and examinations of
DEA's confidential source program, the El Paso Intelligence
Center, and DEA's aviation operations in Afghanistan. There
were numerous findings of mismanagement of resources and
significant lapses in oversight.
I am eager to hear what changes you have made, Mr.
Rosenberg, to rebuild the American public's trust in the DEA.
It is vital that the people have trust in Federal law
enforcement because America's prescription drug and heroine
epidemic is severe and growing. It effects Americans throughout
the country and does not discriminate on the basis of
socioeconomic status.
In 2015, there were over 52,000 drug overdose deaths in the
United States. Most than 60 percent of those deaths were
attributable to prescription opioids or heroine. Compounding
this epidemic are the importation and distribution of synthetic
drugs, including several variations of the drug fentanyl.
Although fentanyl has a medical use in certain situations,
greedy drug traffickers and their industrial chemists are
flooding our country with synthetic versions of fentanyl and
other drugs, sending Americans to emergency rooms and,
unfortunately, often, to their deaths.
These issues have, rightfully, gained Congress's attention.
While Congress has, and is, taking action to combat opioid
abuse and treat addiction, I would like to hear what tools DEA
needs in this fight, and what DEA is doing to stop the flow of
illegal drugs and to prevent the diversion of prescription
drugs into the illicit market. In that same vein, I would like
to hear what tools ATF needs to curb the surge in gun violence
that has plagued our urban communities in recent years.
We have numerous laws on the books that are there to
prevent gun violence and punish those who would use a firearm
illegally; however, it is disheartening that the previous
administration chose not to enforce those laws. In fact, the
data show that prosecutions for firearms violations in fiscal
year 2016 were down 34 percent from fiscal year 2006. This
trend is simply unacceptable and must be reversed.
I am a strong believer in the rights guaranteed by the
Second Amendment. At the same time, I want to ensure that law
enforcement is pursuing and prosecuting those who illegally
obtain and use firearms. At a recent meeting with the Attorney
General, I brought this issue to his attention, and I look
forward to working with him on it. While we know that no agency
is without flaws, we cannot ignore those flaws and must work
with those agencies to improve their performance and
productivity.
That is why I look forward to discussing the recent OIG
reports concerning ATF's use and management of confidential
informants and ATF's handling of information concerning the
traffickers of two firearms that were used in the attack in
Mexico by members of Los Zetas, a drug trafficking
organization, on Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents
Victor Avila and Jaime Zapata.
We look forward to hearing what steps ATF is taking to
address the issues raised in those reports. Acting
Administrator Rosenberg and Acting Director Brandon, I thank
you again for being here and for your continued service. I look
forward to your testimony, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The chairman yields back. The chair will now
recognize ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. I join in welcoming
our acting administrator for DEA and our acting director for
ATF. Welcome, gentlemen. This is a complicated activity that we
are in.
This morning, both agencies have difficult missions, at
least in part because our Nation has differing attitudes about
what their respective missions should be. It was President
Nixon, as part of his war on drugs, that established the Drug
Administration in 1973. And decades later, after billions of
dollars were spent and policies that led to mass incarceration,
which I criticize even today, many of our citizens question
whether we have pursued the right approach.
As for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, although the history
of this agency has led its accumulating responsibility for a
variety of issues, its role in protecting us from firearms
violence has been the focus of scrutiny and concern. I have no
doubt that the questions raised about the missions of these
agencies have made it difficult for their dedicated agents and
employees, particularly given the risk many of them undergo on
a daily basis.
We must take action to strengthen our firearm laws by
expanding background checks, by banning assault weapons and
high-capacity ammunition magazines, and strengthening
prohibitions against straw purchases.
We must look at several criticisms that have been made on
both agencies in recent years. We must have stability and
management. And I think that is a huge problem. We must have
clear policies regarding employee misconduct and improve trust
between these agencies and the public. In raising these issues,
we do so because we have to improve two very vital Department
of Justice agencies. We must go after, in the Drug Enforcement
Agency, the major traffickers and move away from punishing the
low-level street dealers and addicts with unnecessarily severe,
mandatory minimum sentences.
The Office of the Inspector General has issued a report on
the use of confidential informants that is fairly critical.
Their report on the review of investigations of Osorio and
Barba trafficking rings has been mentioned as critical. The New
York Times article regarding secret bank accounts of ATF needs
to be discussed today. Inspector General's report on undercover
storefront operatives and the Turk white paper, all critical.
And we need to do as much as we can to get behind the attempt
to not deal with appropriation writers that cater to the gun
lobby.
And so, this is a hugely important responsibility, funding,
through appropriations, to hire personnel and funds for
accomplishing the mission. And as a strong supporter of gun
safety and protection and the Second Amendment, I take pleasure
in welcoming you here, and looking forward to our discussion.
And I thank the chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. We have a very
distinguished panel here today. I am going to begin by swearing
in our witnesses.
If you would, please rise and lift your right hand. Do you
swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. You may take your seat.
I am going to ask the gentleman from Texas, the former
United States attorney, Mr. Johnny Ratcliffe, to introduce our
first witness.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to welcome my friend and former colleague to our
committee. Chuck Rosenberg, currently the acting administrator
of the Drug Enforcement Administration, has an incredibly
distinguished record in Federal law enforcement, including
service as counsel to former Attorney General of the United
States, John Ashcroft; Chief of Staff to the FBI director; and
in a very rare double, was United States attorney not once, but
twice, in both the southern district of Texas and the eastern
district of Virginia.
In dedicating the better part of 25 years to the Department
of Justice and its component agencies, Administrator Rosenberg
has served some of the most important law enforcement
positions, and handled some of the most sensitive matters of
national security, in both Republican and Democrat
administrations. He is respected by both parties, on both sides
of the aisle, for the very simple reason that he is known by
his actions and by his reputation to be blind to the color of
the jersey that you are wearing and, instead, always faithful
to the blindfolded lady holding a set of scales.
Administrator Rosenberg, it is great to see you, and thanks
for being here with us today.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Texas yields back. We are
equally happy to have our second witness, as the acting
director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives, Mr. Thomas Brandon.
After holding leadership roles in law enforcement divisions
across the country, Mr. Brandon was appointed to lead the ATF
in April of 2015. Prior to his service in the ATF, Mr. Brandon
served in the United States Marine Corps. We thank you both for
being here and your service to our country. Your full opening
statements are part of the record, and I know the members have
read them. So, I would ask you to summarize your openings in 5
minutes. And there are lights that will guide you in that
direction. And with that, Mr. Rosenberg, we will recognize you.
STATEMENTS OF CHUCK ROSENBERG, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; AND THOMAS BRANDON, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU
OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK ROSENBERG
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, and Congressman Ratcliffe for the kind introduction.
I appreciate it. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the
men and women of the DEA.
I think you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Jackson Lee
said it well. These are wonderful men and women that have
difficult jobs. They try their hardest to get it right. We are
not perfect, but we always try to get better. We try to be
fair. We try to be just. And when we make mistakes, we, as I
ask my people to do, identify them, admit them, and fix them.
That is not always an easy thing to do, and it is something we
need to be better at, but it is something we strive toward.
Let me just say a few words about the opioid and heroine
epidemic. You rightly pointed that 52,000 people died last
year. Actually, the numbers are for 2015, from fatal drug
overdose. Sometimes, when we use big numbers, it is hard to
picture what that really is. Let me give you another way,
perhaps, of thinking about it.
We all remember the tragic shooting in Orlando at the Pulse
Nightclub; 49 innocent people were slaughtered by a madman.
Imagine that happening 3 times a day, once in the morning, once
in the afternoon, and once in the evening every single day for
365 days. You do the math on that, and I have. It is roughly
the number of people who died from a fatal drug overdose in
2015. These are staggering numbers, and I am not given to
hyperbole or overstatement. I hope you understand that. But
what we have is an epidemic, and I think it is unprecedented.
And so, we are trying to think about this as broadly as we
can. I think Ms. Jackson Lee points out the importance of
treatment and prevention; addiction is a disease. We have to do
our supply-side law enforcement work. I think it is absolutely
critical, and that is a piece of this, but it is only a piece
of it. What I have told our special agents in charge around our
country that I want them to do is to identify the biggest, most
dangerous, and most violent threats in their jurisdictions and
mitigate them. It is that simple. Whatever the biggest, most
dangerous threat is, mitigate it. From there, if we are doing
that, then we are doing our supply-side law enforcement work, I
believe, in the right way.
But there is more. We are also a regulatory agency, and we
have an important role in the diversion of pharmaceuticals and
prescription pills. And I think this is critical. We also have
a demand reduction role.
From the very first days that I was a Federal prosecutor,
and I agree with Chairman Gowdy; I do not think I have ever had
a better job than being a Federal prosecutor. I never thought
we were going to enforce or prosecute our way out of this mess.
What we need to do, in some ways, is to change the culture. We
need to educate, and we need to prevent.
And one of the ways that we do that at the DEA is community
outreach. Our demand reduction program is not as big as I would
like it to be, but in partnership with the FBI, for instance,
we have produced a video called Chasing the Dragon, which we
have made available to everybody, free of charge, to talk about
the dangers of opioid addiction.
We have partnered with Discovery Education to build a STEM-
based curriculum for middle and high school students, free of
charge, to teach the science of opioid addiction. And twice a
year, we sponsor a National Take Back Day, at which citizens
can take stuff out of their medicine cabinets and return it to
one of 5,000 sites around the United States, anonymously, free
of charge, no questions asked. And the purpose of that is to
break the cycle.
Believe it or not, four out of five heroin users start on
prescription pills. And most of those folks get those pills
from a friend or a relative or a medicine cabinet. And we have
to break that cycle. And so, supply-side law enforcement is
crucial. I want to be very clear that we work at the highest
levels possible. We are looking for that unholy alliance
between violent street gangs and the cartels that supply them.
But we also have to do a good job as a regulator, and we have
to change the culture of drug use and addiction through our
outreach programs.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, it is a great
privilege to represent the men and women of the DEA. These are
the folks you want living next door to you. They are
passionate. They are principled. And they try really, really
hard to get this stuff right in a difficult and dangerous
environment. And just having the opportunity to represent them
is a great honor and privilege.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg.
Mr. Brandon.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS BRANDON
Mr. Brandon. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Jackson Lee,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today.
The mission of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives is to protect communities from violent
criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and
trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of
explosives, acts of arsons and bombings, acts of terrorism, and
the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco. To deliver on
such a vital and unique mission, you must have quality
personnel, and ATF does. Some of our special agents are former
Navy SEALs, Marine Recon, Army Ranger, and Green Beret. Other
special agents are former local police officers, deputy
sheriffs, State troopers, and special agents from other Federal
law enforcement agencies.
To balance our team, we have other special agents who are
former teachers, emergency room nurses, urban planners,
lawyers, and psychologists. ATF special agents are a
distinguished group of Americans that lay it on the line every
day to protect the public and serve their Nation. I could not
be more proud than to serve with them as an ATF special agent.
Of course, ATF has other employees that are vital to our
mission. Our industry operation investigators, many of whom are
retired law enforcement officers and military service members,
are vital to detecting the diversion of firearms and explosives
to the black markets. Our special agents and industry
operations investigators are supported by an outstanding staff
of professionals. They include attorneys, engineers, forensic
scientists, intelligence research specialists, forensic
auditors, I.T. specialists. These professionals ensure that ATF
remains at the forefront of the legal, technological, and
scientific developments, so necessary to be effective in the
challenging environment of law enforcement it focuses on today.
When you focus these exceptional employees to work together
as one ATF, one pure ATF, I believe we bring unique and special
value to the American taxpayer, namely to go after the trigger-
puller, the firearms trafficker, the arsonist, and the criminal
bomber. To remember our mission more easily, it is all about
bang, boom, and burn. One of the areas I hope to highlight
today is how ATF is utilizing a unique blend of talented and
dedicated public servants to tackle our mission priority,
reducing violent firearms crime.
Over the last 3 years, ATF has established Crime Gun
Intelligence Centers, or CGICs, in all of our 25 field
divisions. CGICs synthesize the skill of our special agents,
our IOIs, our intelligence research specialists, our ballistic
technicians, our laboratory scientists, and support staff, to
collect, analyze, and develop crime gun intelligence, creating
timely and actual leads for the dissemination to our field
agents and our local, State, Federal, and tribal partners.
Beyond the talent of our people, CGICs also utilize
powerful intelligence tools that are unique to ATF. The
firearms tracing results from our National Tracing Center in
Martinsburg, West Virginia, and data from the National
Integrated Ballistic Information Network, known as NIBIN, the
Nation's only automated ballistic imaging network. NIBIN
provides critical intelligence and investigative leads through
the analysis and comparison of ballistic evidence left at crime
scenes. By comparing the unique marks on the ammunition's
cartridge case, NIBIN produces correlations that link shooting
incidences, creating actual leads that aid in the
identification of the trigger-pullers who menace our community.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the last 2
years, I have had the honor to lead the ATF. It is been the
highlight of my professional career, and I openly admit that I
love America. I love the men and women of ATF, and I love our
mission of public safety and the regulatory mission.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Brandon. The chair will now
recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte,
for his questions.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenberg,
let me start with you. Over the past 10 years, the DEA has
seized more assets than any other law enforcement component of
the Department of Justice: 80 percent of the total. Recently,
the DOJ Office of Inspector General released an audit critical
of DEA's asset seizures and forfeitures. What is the DEA doing
to implement OIG's recommendations?
Mr. Rosenberg. All right. I am still working my way through
the report, but I have a couple of things that I have taken
away from it, Mr. Goodlatte. One is, as the I.G. said, this
program is effective and important, but I think we need to do a
better job of establishing linkages between seizures that we
make and criminal cases that we prosecute down the road. And
sometimes, we struggle with that piece of it.
I do not mean to sound overly defensive, but I want to
point out one sort of flaw, I think, in the I.G.'s report. A
lot of cases that they selected do not result in criminal
enforcement, but there are reasons for that. Sometimes, we will
have intelligence or, from a wiretap, know that a bad guy is
going to drive some cash south, having sold their drugs.
Chairman Goodlatte. Mr. Rosenberg, let me interrupt and
just say, I do not disagree where you have no one claiming the
property.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes.
Chairman Goodlatte. But where you do have people claiming
the property, there needs to be a much more transparent and
effective and cost-effective way for them to challenge the
seizure of their assets and get them back if they were
improperly taken.
Next, let me ask you about your recently-promulgated rule
regarding a drug code for marijuana derivatives, derivatives
such as cannabidiol, and maintaining marijuana, hemp, and other
derivatives as schedule I substances. Following that, a lawsuit
was filed in the Ninth Circuit. What is the current status of
hemp enforcement?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well, hemp remains a schedule I substance.
It is derived from the marijuana plant. So, sorry, do you
have----
Chairman Goodlatte. Are you looking to harass hemp farmers
and----
Mr. Rosenberg. No. No. As long as they abide by section
7606 of the farm bill, we are not looking to harass those who
abide by that statute. No, sir.
Chairman Goodlatte. All right. Well, we are working on
trying to make it clear that there should be an easier path for
people with a product that is commercially viable for a lot of
purposes, should be able to be produced in a more convenient
way, and more accessible to the market.
Mr. Rosenberg. And we have worked with your staff, sir, to
try and work through some of those issues. We will continue to
do so.
Chairman Goodlatte. Let me ask you this. I am getting
reports from people that there are restrictions by the DEA on
the supply of buprenorphine products, like SUBUTEX and
Suboxone, that they are being restricted to the same level that
a pharmacy sold last year. Is that true?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do not believe so. I will double check,
but I do not think that is right. I do not think that there are
shortages, and I do not think----
Chairman Goodlatte. As you know, the Congress passed, and
President Obama signed into law, the Carrot Act that promotes
medication-assisted treatment. And it sounds like the DEA may
be making it more difficult for people to get it because,
obviously, if they are being successful in getting people on
these kinds of treatments, the demand is going to go up. It
should not be flat like last year, when there is an emphasis
being made on making sure people have access to things that
could help them with their addictions.
Mr. Rosenberg. Well, access is crucial. I do not think
there is a backlog for data wave dots, at least from our
perspective.
Chairman Goodlatte. I have heard of patients having to go
from pharmacy to pharmacy, spending hours trying to find a
store with enough stock to fill a legal prescription.
Mr. Rosenberg. If that is the case, again, happy to work
with your committee and your staff to address it, sir.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you very much. Let me turn to Mr.
Brandon. Over the past 10 years, we have witnessed a
precipitous drop in firearms prosecutions. In fact, during the
last administration, prosecutions went down over 30 percent in
this area. Do you have any explanation for this drop?
Mr. Brandon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. I
know, in the previous administration, the operative word was
``impact,'' and that the cases, even though they would be few,
it should all be impactful. And we complied with that to try to
focus on the most violent, what we call trigger-pullers, and
the traffickers, supply, and then firearms.
Chairman Goodlatte. Let me tell you the problem that I have
with that. If you look at, I think, any recent year, you are
going to find that a number of people lie when they fill out
the instant check form for the NICS system when they purchase a
firearm. Most years, it is 60, 70,000 people. And most years,
the number of actual prosecutions is less than 100 out of 60 or
70,000. I have seen some years which have been 40, 60.
That means that, if you knowingly go into a gun store and
you attempt to purchase a firearm by providing false
information on the form, you know as you go in that the odds of
your being prosecuted, even if you are caught, and because the
instant check system, by no means, has all the data in it that
it would need to detect anybody who has a conviction that
should prevent them from purchasing a firearm, that the odds
are less than one in 1,000, even if you are caught, that you
are going to be prosecuted. Have you had any communications
with others in the justice department, the FBI, the U.S.
Attorneys' Offices about why this prosecution rate is so low?
Mr. Brandon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
Chairman Goodlatte. You know, and I would not say, you
talked about the most serious violations. Here is the problem.
If we do not send the message that this system is meant to stop
people from buying firearms who are prohibited by law from
buying firearms, what is the point of this system? You got to
prosecute people before they commit these acts, if they are
purchasing firearms that they are not supposed to be
purchasing.
Mr. Brandon. Yes, sir. Just so you know, when we are
referred on these cases by the FBI, everyone is examined, and
each U.S. attorney has prosecutorial guidelines, and then we
will review it against each district to see if the case would
be acceptable for prosecution. If it is, then it is forwarded
to the field division that has jurisdiction over that area
responsibility, and a case will be perfected.
But to answer your question, we look at all of them, and
then we go against the U.S. attorney guidelines for
prosecution. And if the facts and the evidence are something
that fit within the guidelines, a criminal case is perfected.
If it does not fall within the guidelines----
Chairman Goodlatte. Only one in 1,000 is making the cut?
That just does not seem like a good approach. Mr. Chairman, I
know I have exceeded my time. I would like to ask Mr. Brandon
about one other thing, if I may?
Mr. Gowdy. Of course.
Chairman Goodlatte. In Associate Deputy Director Turk's
white paper, he points out that, for over 2 years,
representatives within the firearms licensing community have
asked for clarification and/or a decision from ATF regarding
new Federal firearms license applicants requesting to conduct
business solely at gun shows.
The ATF has delayed a decision or guidance due to several
concerns, including what it means to be, ``engaged in the
business,'' of selling firearms, and ATF's ability to have
access to a dealer's records where they may not have routine
business hours. The ATF has already recognized FFL activities
via the internet without a classic storefront and is
considering whether to include gun show-only activities in a
similar manner.
He then correctly asserts that the marketplace has changed
significantly in recent years, and ATF's guidance to FFLs on
these issues has not kept pace with developments and commerce.
Classic brick-and-mortar storefronts with an on-hand inventory
and set, front-door business hours no longer apply, in many
instances, in today's modern marketplace. What are you doing
about that?
Mr. Brandon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. On
February 17 of this year, we sent a letter out to a private
request saying that, if the FFL wants to deal primarily at gun
shows, and as long as it is compliant with State and local law,
we issued the license. And so, we have showed a sensitivity to
the industry. If it is solely just to operate at a gun show,
that would require a statutory change by this committee, I
guess. We are issuing a license where they are primarily
selling at gun shows and that they have a place where we can go
in and inspect the records.
Chairman Goodlatte. So, in the meantime, what are you doing
to enforce the law, with regard to entities or individuals that
only sell at gun shows and are not doing the background check?
Because they are obviously not in compliance with the law.
Mr. Brandon. Yes, sir. And I know, Mr. Chairman, that, when
we met privately, you expressed your concern about that. One of
the plans is, or what we do is, an education component.
When ATF industry operation investigators will be at
certain gun shows, they do not walk up to people; they just
have a booth, and they educate them to say that, if your
activity is false within this or repetitive buying or selling
of firearms principally, you know, for profit, that you would
need a Federal firearms license. And also, the great men and
women, the Federal firearms licensing communities, our
frontline defense, often they will be frustrated because they
are saying, hey, I am playing by the rules, and this guy over
here is not.
Chairman Goodlatte. You bet they are frustrated, and so are
people who are frustrated, who think that, this way around,
having to comply with the NICS system is a loophole, and it
should be closed. Now, not the way some people have advocated,
but in terms of enforcing the law, which is very clear that, if
you sell a firearm at a gun show, you are required to do a
background check, just like anyone else is, unless you meet the
narrow exceptions of an individual transaction where you are
not in the business, or you are selling a collection and not
selling the collection and replenishing it and selling it
again. So, what is ATF's plan to go make sure that the people
selling at gun shows are getting in FFL, or if they are not
getting in FFL, they are not selling at gun shows?
Mr. Brandon. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the
question. We investigate allegations like this across the
country. Often, they come from the FFLs that are, like I just
mentioned previously, complying with the law, and doing things
correctly. And we will investigate, and if we can perfect a
criminal case, we will do that and recommend it for prosecution
to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for your forbearance.
Mr. Gowdy. You have any other questions? I have got all the
time you want. The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, and the work you do
is mounting and important, and questions are such that we all
need more time. But I am constrained by the time I have, and
so, let me try to focus on questions that we can get, and I do
not need answers, but to be instructed as a committee to be as
helpful as possible.
First, I want to be clear that I think that the work that
the DEA and the ATF does is extremely important, and I think
there should be a balance between treatment and enforcement,
but I think that we would be completely naive to think that the
enforcement arm is not important. It would be good to get to
the point, particularly as it relates to drugs, but that would
be less important; that we will be diminishing, if you will,
the users of the product and the suppliers would come down
automatically, that is not the case.
So, let me raise questions to both of you, dealing with
some of the issues that we are concerned about and a number of
questions that I have. Mr. Rosenberg, have you looked at the
disparities? Obviously, you are at, more or less, the top end.
You might give me, when you collaborate with local law
enforcement, when does DEA do that? And are you seeing
disparities in the arrests of more African Americans in drug
use, particularly marijuana, than others? And whites in
particular? And how would the DEA, in its capacity, the level
that it is at, deal with that disparity?
Mr. Rosenberg. At the Federal level?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
Mr. Rosenberg. We represent a very small piece of the
Federal, I am sorry, of law enforcement efforts in the United
States; a tiny sliver, if you would.
Our main interaction with State and local law enforcement
officers is through their participation as task force officers
with the DEA. We have about 4,600 DEA special agents, about
2,700 task force officers that work with us. But their work,
and if we are doing this right, is not aimed at low level, you
know, dealers or users. It is saying that, what I described
earlier, it is that unholy alliance between cartels and violent
street gangs. So, probably, the best place to go to answer your
question, which I think is an important one, would be the State
and local folks.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you have any discussions among your
team on disparities and the individuals that are arrested for
drug engagement?
Mr. Rosenberg. By race? I do not have those numbers, and I
do not ask for them, and I do not keep them.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. On the OIG report, one of the
issues of concern was the confidential informants. I just
wanted to get an answer from you that you view that as serious?
One of the issues that came up that I would be interested in as
a lawyer is limited source or limited use, such as, I hate to
say airline employees, professionals who may be helpful.
How are you answering that question? That is of great
concern. You are using some agents or agencies, or your
different units assess that source differently. How are you
addressing that question?
Mr. Rosenberg. It was actually an illuminating report,
Congresswoman. We have done a couple of things that I think are
important. So, confidential sources, confidential informants
are very important to our work, but we have to make sure we are
careful. So, for instance, as the report pointed out, where we
were using quasi-government employees, for instance, at places
like TSA and Amtrak, we have stopped that. We do not do that
anymore. We now have confidential source guidelines that are
fully in compliance with A.G. guidelines. We are now doing 90-
day reviews of every single one of our confidential sources. We
have put in place an awards review board, so we can make sure
that confidential sources are paid and treated the same way
across the country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. My time is running out.
Mr. Rosenberg. I am happy to come brief you on it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I want you to do so. Let me quickly just
indicate, I think I was in Colombia when the incidents with the
DEA behavior, and you are handling that, with respect to the
kind of protocols that need to be followed? I just need----
Mr. Rosenberg. We have revised our standards of conduct,
and in fact, we have made a first-time offense for engaging in
prostitution, even in a place where it is legal, is cause for
removal.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Let me quickly go to Mr.
Brandon. And thank you very much, from Mr. Piralter, who was
very effective at a meeting that we had dealing with gun
violence. Thank you again.
Let me try to get you to answer what you think is the
reason for the proliferation of illegal guns. Let me also take
note of the fact that, over a period of time, in the Obama
administration, when people asked what the ATF does
effectively, 65.4 million gun purchases since Obama took
office, 91 percent more. That means that you were doing
65,376,373 background checks. It looks just, to me--what can
you say about the proliferation of illegal guns? And which
tools does ATF have to combat gun trafficking, and are they
helpful? And what is the role that silencers would play in
enhanced gun violence, if used inappropriately?
Mr. Brandon. Thank you, ma'am, for the questions. First, on
the proliferation of gun violence, I have been an agent for the
government 29-and-one-half years. If bad people want to get a
hold of guns, they are going to get them. We have seen an
increase in Federal firearms licensing burglaries, and that
increased even from last year to this year, from 2015 to 2016,
a 56 percent increase. A number of guns. Some of the motives
for those burglaries have been gang-related or related to
opioids, trying to feed their drug habits and so forth.
The tools that we have, the comprehensive tracing of
firearms at the Tracing Center, is a vital technique and a
tool. And like I mentioned in my statement, NIBIN, the National
Integrated Ballistics Information Network is something, whether
you are a Democrat or a Republican, it is an American issue. It
is an effective tool of linking up shootings that you would
never detect previously. And when you have that with the
comprehensive tracing of firearms, the other tool, and along
with exploiting local police department intelligence, you can
go after the trigger-pullers who are perpetuating the violence.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Silencers?
Mr. Brandon. Silencers, 42 States now, legal. It has
created a demand for us. It is still covered under the National
Firearms Act. The industry refers to them as suppressors, and
it is something that we are dealing with.
Right now, we have an 8-month backlog. We have applied
resources of 30 additional people. We have applied overtime
money to try to fulfill our obligation at ATF to do the
background and authorize the silencer to be transferred to the
individual purchasing it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. My last point. Did you benefit from an
increase in ATF officers?
Mr. Brandon. No. No, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You could not benefit from a----
Mr. Brandon. Oh, could--yeah, no, I would welcome it. The
pun is intended here: you get a lot of bang for your buck when
you put an ATF agent on the street, working with the locals.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back. The chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.
Mr. Poe. I thank the chairman. Thank you both for being
here.
I want to tap my foot and say amen to what the chairman
said regarding the work you do in law enforcement. Yesterday
morning, we had a peace officer, Clint Greenwood, a friend of
mine, was ambushed and murdered. He had an interesting
background. He was not just a police officer. He was a
prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office, a private
attorney, worked for the sheriff's department, constable's
office, for over 30 years. And what you do is dangerous, but it
is appreciated.
As the chairman mentioned, I was a former judge, and a
former prosecutor. And I have talked to a lot of former
prosecutors over the years, and they have all gone on to do
other things. But I think most of them, if not all, always go
back to when they were a prosecutor, and those were the best
years of their careers, so I want to thank you both for that.
I want to deal specifically, Mr. Rosenberg, with the
border, with Mexico. I have a map here that I got from the DEA,
so you are familiar with it. And Mr. Chairman, I would like
unanimous consent to introduce this into the record.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Poe. And it shows most of Mexico, except for a few
places that are controlled by the drug cartels. The Texas
border has on it the gulf cartels, the Zetas, and the Juarez
drug cartels, moving drugs into the United States on the Texas-
Mexico border. You mentioned in your testimony that the drug
cartels work with criminal gangs in the United States. Would a
fair statement be primarily, one of them is the MS-13 gang?
Mr. Rosenberg. Certainly, it is one of them.
Mr. Poe. All right. Do the drug cartels not only bring
drugs illegally into the United States; they bring anything
else for money? Including people, human trafficking, and bring
all of that into the U.S.? And some cases, turn that over to
the criminal gangs to disperse it into the United States? Is
that a fair statement or not?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well, I would say it a little bit
differently, sir. These cartels are poly-crime and poly-drug
organizations; they are out to make money. Generally, they stay
out of the human smuggling business, except that they often do
two things. They tax human smugglers for the use of their
corridors or plazas, and sometimes, they will force people who
are coming across the border to carry their stuff. But by and
large, they stay out of the human smuggling business, to the
best of our intelligence.
Mr. Poe. They subcontract that out to people coming across
the border, and that would include human trafficking; would it
not?
Mr. Rosenberg. It includes all sorts of crimes, sir.
Mr. Poe. Smuggling and trafficking are two different
things.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes sir.
Mr. Poe. Would you recommend or not that the Congress
consider, these drug cartels that have been in operation for
years in Mexico, making them foreign terrorist organizations?
Mr. Rosenberg. I am sorry, making them?
Mr. Poe. Making them foreign terrorist organizations.
Labeling them as a foreign terrorist organization?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do not know the ramifications of that. I
have not been asked that question before. Can I least think
about it a bit?
Mr. Poe. Sure.
Mr. Rosenberg. And give you an answer.
Mr. Poe. Sure. Just give me your opinion in writing if you
would.
Mr. Rosenberg. I will.
Mr. Poe. Recently, on the Texas-Mexico border, primarily in
the McClellan sector down by not only the border with Mexico,
but the Gulf of Mexico, Texas law enforcement has been working
there in connection with border security, putting a lot of
boots on the ground, even the National Guard, in some places.
They got these fast boats that I got to be on. They are quite
amazing. They can go 70 miles an hour in 17 inches of water,
armed. Is it your opinion, like many others, that that presence
on the border for that 100 and 150 miles, the drug cartels quit
crossing primarily and just moved up river more?
Mr. Rosenberg. It is a bit of whack-a-mole. When we clamp
down on one part, they will find another part because the trade
is so lucrative, which is why, in part, we need to change the
culture and knock down the demand. But it is a bit of whack-a-
mole, sir.
Mr. Poe. I agree with you. Stop the demand in the United
States is the long-term answer. But sir, the crossings into the
United States by the drug cartels, they are done primarily on
the border with Mexico.
Mr. Rosenberg. Primarily.
Mr. Poe. And if we want to decrease those crossings, we
need to have a good presence all the way on the border, not
just in portions of the border, to prevent whack-a mole.
Mr. Rosenberg. We need good intel; we need good agents; and
we need a good presence, yes, sir.
Mr. Poe. A couple more questions. What assets do you need
on the southern border of Mexico? What are the assets you need?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well, DEA is actually, down believe it or
not, about a 1,000 employees over the last 5, 6, 7 years, and
almost 500 special agents. Now, I do not want anything, sir, at
the expense of my brothers and sisters in the Department of
Justice. But we are, and this is a cliche, literally doing more
with less. We are down quite a bit. And as you look at the
demographics of our agent population, we have 30 percent of our
special agents within about 5 years of retirement. So, I do not
want to call it a crisis. But it is absolutely a challenge.
Mr. Poe. A crisis, that is what it is. Do you work well
with the Mexican government? Because you know there is a
reputation or a rumor out there that it is tense between the
United States and the Mexican government. They do not work
well; they give you partial information; sometimes it is wrong.
Explain that to me. That is my last question.
Mr. Rosenberg. We work well. It is not perfect; no
relationship is, but we work well. Those are extraordinarily
brave men and women in Mexico with whom we partner. We also
have a large presence of DEA agents and analysists and
professional staff in Mexico. Seymour, the Mexican Marines, are
extraordinary. They go above and beyond the call of duty. And
so, I would describe the relationship as very good and very
healthy.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. Judge Poe yields back. The chair will now
recognize its friend from Florida, Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. I thank the chairman. And I thank the ranking
member for his kindness in allowing me to jump ahead.
Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Brandon, thank you both for the work
that you do for our country, to all of the men and women who
work in your important organizations for the service and
security they provide all of us. We appreciate it.
Mr. Brandon, Ronald Turk is, as I understand it, your
number two at ATF. And obviously, ATF uses regulations to
discount violence and ensure public safety, among other things.
And on January 20, Chief Operating Officer Turk released a
white paper entitled, ``Options to Reduce or Modify Firearm
Regulations.'' The white paper begins by recognizing that ATF's
enforcement and regulatory efforts are focused on reducing
violence and increasing public safety. We could not agree more,
and we are grateful for that. And yet it supports and, indeed,
advocates for reducing a number of gun regulations that I think
most people would wonder how reducing these regulations would
make anyone any safer.
The recommendations consider the removal of silencers from
the protection of the National Firearms Act, silencers that
make it much more difficult for law enforcement and bystanders
to hear gunshots and react quickly. The white paper also
suggests having further discussions on change in the Anti-
Trafficking Program that require dealers in southwestern States
to notify ATF about multiple sales of high-powered rifles. And
the white paper calls for examining permitting gun dealers to
avoid reporting requirements that assist law enforcement
investigating trafficking, even after the dealer has sold many
guns that were later used in crimes. And there are lots of
other proposals to eliminate gun regulations described in this
white paper.
The proposals in this white paper, coming from ATF, are
greatly concerning to a lot of us. They would weaken the
authority of ATF; they would undermine the Agency's authority
to protect public safety. I just would like to know from you,
first of all, why was this drafted? What was the purpose of
this white paper?
Mr. Brandon. Congressman, thank you for the question. These
were the personal views of Associate Deputy Director Ron Turk,
my number two. They are not the positions of the agency.
Mr. Deutch. The white paper does not represent the official
opinion of ATF. Did anyone ask your number two, the number two
at ATF, to offer his personal reflections in a white paper in
this way?
Mr. Brandon. Associate Deputy Director Turk notified me, it
was Inauguration Day. As soon as I saw President Trump sworn
in, I went on the White House website, and I saw that he was
going to have the head of every Federal agency review its
regulations. And I sent an email to all of my executive team.
Ron wrote back to me, ``Hey, I am working on a white paper.''
And I said, ``Well, enjoy your weekend. Let's talk on Monday.''
Part of the process of leading a team is to have deliberations
and active conversations about things. But it does not
necessarily reflect the opinion of the agency. And clearly,
that paper is not a position of ATF.
Mr. Deutch. Are any of the concerns raised in the paper
shared by ATF? And more specifically, is ATF considering
adopting any of the proposals contained in the white paper?
Mr. Brandon. You know, these positions go through the
administration. The administration is new. And when the deputy
attorney general was confirmed, there will be various
conversations like we have had, you know, previously, and get
guidance from the department.
Mr. Deutch. I do not understand what that means. Does that
mean that they are being considered? It is simple, right?
Mr. Brandon. I am trying to be truthful. Like you know we
would talk, for instance, silencers.
Mr. Deutch. Yeah.
Mr. Brandon. The demand that you know 42 States created and
the backlog, we were always getting Congressional inquiries,
what are you doing about the backlog? My constituent is
waiting. And so, we were applying resources, and that is how
this conversation came up. If silencers went under the Gun
Control Act and still went through a NICS check, is it still
public safety being met? And seeing how there has been a change
within the country candidly at the State level.
Mr. Deutch. So, again, I just want to make sure I
understand. So, the President was inaugurated, and this review
was to commence. And it sounds like he had already started the
process. Did someone ask him to do it beforehand?
Mr. Brandon. No, I did not ask him to do it. And being
honest here, which I would not be anything but, he obviously
had to be working on it before Inauguration Day.
Mr. Deutch. I think we would like to find out how that
started. But just in my last few seconds, in an exchange you
had with the chairman earlier, the chairman referred to the
narrow background check exception. And if I understand you
correctly, you said that ATF conducts the background checks at
gun shows for those who are in the business of repeatedly
buying and selling because they are required to have a license.
The narrow exception for those not in the business, how is
that defined? What is the definition? How do we know whether
someone fits under that narrow exception, as the chairman
referred to it?
Mr. Brandon. Well, we produce guidance, sir, for what is
legally required, you know, your activities. So, it is the
repetitive sale of firearms for profit and livelihood. That
said, you would fall in and need to be licensed. I just want to
clear; ATF does not do these NICS checks. They are done by the
FBI. And the Federal firearms licenses are required to conduct
them before they transfer a firearm to a non-licensee.
Mr. Deutch. Last question, Mr. Brandon. Do you think that
the background checks that are done on people who are in the
business, acknowledging that is it is unclear how we define
that, which is something a lot of us think should be done, and
that the exception is not narrow at all? But, do you think that
there would be benefit, if we are conducting those background
checks, for people who buy a gun at a gun store, to have
everyone who buys a gun at a gun show or online to be subjected
to the same background checks?
Mr. Brandon. Yes, sir, that would be a legislative change
that, you know, I should not be commenting on as the head of an
agency. But if Congress passed a law, we would enforce it.
Mr. Deutch. Well, I look forward to that day. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Florida yields back. The
chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, former U.S.
attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Brandon, I
got the chance to welcome my friend Chuck Rosenberg, and I
wanted to be sure that I had a chance to welcome you. We had a
chance to visit for the first time yesterday, but before that
meeting, I had a conversation with former Acting ATF Director
Mike Sullivan, who is a close friend and, actually, former
colleague of Mr. Rosenberg, as well, and someone whose opinion
I value greatly. He described you to me ``A conscientious,
hard-working, disciplined, open-minded, just a terrific guy and
phenomenal human being.'' So, pretty high praise, and from what
I have, heard well deserved.
Having gotten those niceties out of the way, I have what
maybe a difficult question for you to answer, but one that I
think is important. Because I am from Texas, you would not be
surprised to hear that there are quite a few hunters and law
abiding gun owners in my district. And hunters, not just in my
State, but certainly across the country, are being forced to
use alternative, non-lead ammunition.
And the problem, as you know, is that manufactures cannot
make brass or steel core ammunition for a 306 or a 270 deer
hunting rifle unless they get a waiver from the Attorney
General saying that it is primarily intended for sporting
purposes.
Now, in a prior hearing when I had the prior Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, in here, I asked about a number of
petitions that were pending for those waivers. And at that
time, unfortunately, none of those had been granted, but I
think, even more importantly, none of those had even received a
response. So, the prior administration, for whatever reason,
did not feel that manufactures were deserving of a response. Is
there any reason for hope or optimism that this administration
might respond to this issue?
Mr. Brandon. Sir, thank you for the question, and also,
please thank Mr. Sullivan. I think the world of him. He was
very good for ATF. Regarding armor-piercing ammunition and the
exemption request that we would have from manufactures, that is
true. We have not been able to act on them. I believe that,
when the deputy attorney general is confirmed, that we will be
able to bring our issues to him. And that we will be able to
answer the mail to the manufacturers; it is our obligation to
do so.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, great, I am very glad to hear that and
eager for that to occur. Administrator Rosenberg, I know you
will get a bunch of questions today about marijuana and its
derivatives as schedule I drugs. As former prosecutors, we will
often refer to marijuana as a gateway drug. The more recent
statistics seem to lend themselves to the argument that
prescription pills have become a gateway drug to heroin. You
talked about four out of five heroin users starting on
prescription pills. Is that accurate, if I were to refer to it
as a gateway drug?
Mr. Rosenberg. Four out of five heroin users begin on
prescription pills. That is our best information, sir, yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So, in the focus on the opiates and the
opioid epidemic in this country, there has been a lot of finger
pointing. I know at least one Senator that has pointed the
finger of blame at DEA, which, of course, has the power to set
the limit for how many opioids can be manufactured in the
United States. So, do you think that is fair or legitimate
criticism? I want to give you a chance to address that
publicly.
Mr. Rosenberg. And I have spoken with that particular
Senator. I understand the impulse, but I do not think the
criticism is entirely accurate. Here is why.
We do set the aggregate production quota. But we are guided
by statute in how we set that aggregate production quota. So,
it is the ceiling; manufactures typically do not manufacture to
that ceiling. They manufacture below it. In partial response to
that, Mr. Ratcliffe, we have cut the aggregate production quota
by 25 percent. We are trying to be responsive and thoughtful.
But as I have tried to explain, and maybe I did not do a very
good job of it, that aggregate production quota is largely
driven by statute. We are required to look at last year's
manufacturing, last year's production, put aside some reserve,
put aside some inventory. So, it would require DEA to work with
this Congress to reset how that aggregate production quota is
determined.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you. As my time is expiring, and I
know the chairman is a stickler for time, so I want to get my
last question in. You have talked a little bit about the DEA's
role; we all know that DEA is really good at reducing supply.
That is what law enforcement does: goes after cartels and the
street gangs that source the supply. And the problem, you
referred to this earlier, is that we can never enforce or
prosecute our way out of the problem. So, the other half of the
equation is reducing demand.
And so, you talked a little bit about some of the things
that you have been trying to do. You know, obviously, public
education is part of the answer. You have talked about STEM and
the Chasing the Dragon video and the National Prescription Drug
Take Back Program. Has that been effective? What else are you
doing, and what, if anything, else can we be doing? What can
Congress do to support those efforts on that side?
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, if I may
respond in full to that, I will take a couple of minutes. Mr.
Ratcliffe, you are a very good and very highly respected
Federal prosecutor. And so, I think you know as well as anyone
that we are not going to prosecute our way out of this mess.
That said, I think some of our programs make a lot of
sense. Our National Take Back Program, for instance, sir, last
year on 2 separate days, we took in, and this is a stunning
number, 1.6 million pounds of stuff. That people dropped off at
5,000 sites around the country. Our next National Take Back Day
is April 29th.
I want to tell you that we think that about 10 percent of
the stuff that is dropped off are opioids. But even if it is
only--because you can drop off anything. You can drop off
BENGAY; you can drop off an old tennis racket. I mean, we will
take it. But it is ``only 10 percent,'' that is 160,000 pounds
of opioids that were returned to the DEA and incinerated in a
safe and effective way. So, we are going to continue to do
that.
You mentioned the Operation Prevention Program, sir, with
Discovery Education, we have created a STEM-based curricula,
free of charge, to any middle or high school in the nation. And
I believe the last number I had is at more than 200,000
students have viewed that. So, we have to change the culture.
It is a hard thing to do. This may seem like a silly example,
but I do not think it is; we have changed the culture in the
United States with respect to using seatbelts. It took a long
time, and it took a lot of determination. But I believe that
has saved lives. We can do it here as well.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, and I just want to close by
joining the chairman in asking that you relay to all of the
women and men in your agencies, the agents, and the teams that
support those agents, our gratitude as we do approach Police
Week coming up. You know, law enforcement officers, much like
our Armed Forces, they courageously face the dangers that
others have the luxury of running away from.
So, please thank your team for the sacrifices they make. I
know they miss out on a lot. Crime does not sleep, does not
take a day off, and your team rarely gets a day off as well.
So, please extend our thanks and gratitude.
Mr. Rosenberg. We will. Thank you for that, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back, and he is grateful
there is not mandatory minimums for exceeding the time.
With that, we recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. And thank you for
your testimony. I want to direct this to Mr. Rosenberg,
Administrator Rosenberg.
A small percentage of individuals convicted of violating
Federal laws are high-level suppliers or major traffickers. But
is not it more constructive to go after the sources of illicit
drugs to end or slow the flow of drugs into this country? If it
is more constructive to go after the suppliers, how do you
explain why most people convicted of violating Federal drug
laws are, in fact, low-level sellers instead of suppliers or
major traffickers?
Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. Conyers, if we are doing our jobs right,
and we are not perfect, so we do not always get it right, we
are aiming at that unholy alliance between the cartels and the
violent street gangs. My goal is to hit that spot and work up.
It is a very difficult thing to do, as I am sure you
understand. We should not be prosecuting, you know, folks for
simple possession or simple users or addicts. That would be, I
think, a mismanagement.
Mr. Conyers. But you are.
Mr. Rosenberg. I think in the main, we are not, sir. My
understanding, at least from the statistics I have seen, is
that we are not prosecuting low-level users. We are trying to
work our way up the chain, again, not always perfectly. But if
I have that wrong, and I am happy to look at the statistics
again. I will come back and tell you that I have it wrong.
Mr. Conyers. Well, I will look at mine again, too, and let
you know because I think that is key to this whole discussion
today. Are we able to go after the major traffickers or not?
And if not, then we have to alter our strategy.
Mr. Rosenberg. As far as strategy goes, sir, my direction
to our special agents in charge is very simple. Identify the
biggest, most difficult, and most dangerous threats in your
jurisdictions and mitigate that. Now, again hard to do, and we
do not always get it right. But that is my direction to them. I
do not want us to be spending our limited resources on simple
possessors or low-level users, sir.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. This, I think, is one of the
biggest issues that we are confronted with. And I wanted to
return to Director Brandon. The Police Foundation and the Major
City Chiefs Association recently published a report making 25
recommendations detailing how Federal Government could best
assist State and local law enforcement, positively impact
violent crime. Now, the report spoke of the critical need for a
Federal firearms trafficking law. How, in your view, would
legislation making firearms trafficking a Federal crime help
ATF and the U.S. attorneys to prevent firearms from getting
into the hands of criminals?
Mr. Brandon. Congressman, thank you for the question. And,
you know, the predecessors to my distinguished Acting Director
Sullivan, that was the U.S. attorney in Boston, and former
Director Jones, both weighed in on this, and I see it the way
they do, that a firearms trafficking statute would be effective
on having more substantial penalties for those that are
trafficking in firearms. And the information I learned on it,
also, is that it has like a kingpin and where, instead of
getting the paper violations for lying and buying, and we would
be able to work our way up and target, ultimately, the person
that is pulling the strings, with all these store purchases,
and the statute would help that, along with allowing us, as a
Title III, it could be an investigative technique. It would be
a predicate to the RICO statute. So, there is a number of
things. I am not an attorney, but I agree with my former bosses
that it would be an effective tool in addressing violent gun
crime across the country.
Mr. Conyers. It is a big challenge. And if I could get--
well, my time is expired. I will be in touch with you for some
more discussion, which, if we get it in time, we will include
it in the record. If not, I will have it for my personal
edification. But I value you both coming before the committee
today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. The chair
will now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want
to echo the gratitude of all my colleagues to you good men and
to your colleagues for all of your important work. We are
grateful you are at the helm. A couple of quick questions, Mr.
Rosenberg, about the National Guard Counterdrug Program.
I am from Louisiana, and Louisiana National Guard
participates, and from our perspective, the program is shown to
be a good resource for State and local agencies to fight
against drug abuse and all these problems. I assume you agree
it is a valuable program?
Mr. Rosenberg. Completely agree.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The problem is that, despite the
clear benefits that are obvious to us, of the National Guard
Program, over the past several years, going back to about 2012,
the National Guard has seen repeated reductions in their
funding. And that has effected resources and, of course,
impacted their ability to adequately meet the counterdrug
objectives. And it includes limiting the operational capacity
to support the DEA. We talk a lot about budget cuts, but do you
think the level of success in drug and criminal intervention is
where it needs to be? And more specifically, do you think there
is added value to the DEA's efforts when the National Guard is
able to assist in that way?
Mr. Rosenberg. I will take the second question first, sir.
Absolutely. As I travel around the country, and I have paid 98
office visits so far to the men and women of DEA, in a little
under 2 years. I meet men and women of the National Guard
everywhere I go. They are an extraordinary part of who and what
we are.
So, the second part is easy. With respect to the first
part, as I mentioned, we are down more than a 1,000 people over
the last 5, 6, 7 years, more than 500 special agents. But were
also down intel analysists, professionals support, diversion
investigators, and so it just makes our job that much more
difficult. That is why I love having the National Guard sit
with us. High-quality men and women, and they do high-quality
work. If you have more, I will take them.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We would like to give you more.
Over the course of the last 17 years, the El Paso Intelligence
Center, EPIC, has grown from an entity consisting of three law
enforcement agencies to a center comprised now of over 20
agencies. And of course, they share a common mission to
identify threats to the Nation with an emphasis on the
southwest border. Just from an outsider's perspective looking
in, can you describe for us what the value is in having 20
agencies now involved who have the same mission?
Mr. Rosenberg. Having a bunch of folks sitting together and
exchanging information quickly and, I hope, seamlessly is
enormously valuable. Plus, all these men and women reach back
out to their own home agencies and at the resources that they
bring to bear. So, when you have a lot of really smart and
dedicated people sitting in the same room, focused on the same
problem set, same mission set, that is a good thing for your
government.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I was in a conference room a few
moments ago back here. The Louisiana Sheriffs' Association is
in town, and we were talking about similar issues with
coordination among agencies. And we understand how that can
work. But when you are doing that, you are maximizing
efficiency and communication, do you experience any
collaboration issues with so many Federal agencies passing down
information and intelligence to the local law enforcement?
Mr. Rosenberg. Oh, sure, there are bumps. And I am sure Tom
Brandon would tell you the exact same thing; there are bumps.
But we are better when we are together. And I know that sounds
cliched. But we have fusion centers around the country; we have
OCDETF task forces around the country. We sit with our brothers
and sisters at ATF and FBI and the Marshals Service, around the
country. Perfect? No. But to borrow Tom's phrase, you get more
bang for your buck that way. It is a good thing.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appreciate it. That is all I
have. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Louisiana yields back. The
chair will now recognize the other gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
for being here. Let me start with something that has come up
before. I would assume both of your agencies use confidential
informants?
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Richmond. Do you track your confidential informants and
any crimes that may have been committed by them? Because we
learned last year that the FBI does not.
Mr. Brandon. Congressman, thank you for the question. Yes,
we do. And as far as when an informant is registered, you know,
a criminal history is done. And in the semi-annual review, they
have to run checks to see if they have been involved in any
criminal activity.
Mr. Richmond. And I would assume that means that they do
not get passes for petty crimes for the work they do?
Mr. Brandon. Any time that the control agent is aware of
that activity, and it is brought to the supervisor, and
depending like, say, if they get a parking ticket, or you know,
something like that, or drunk in public, they should let the
assistant U.S. attorney know that, if that person is involved
in a case, of any unlawful activity, and the judgement call is
made whether to continue the informant on the rolls.
Mr. Richmond. Mr. Rosenberg.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yeah, we are also trying to tighten up a bit
here. Sir, we are not perfect. But we are doing 90-day reviews
now. We are bringing it to higher level supervisors, something
we did not do in the past. For instance, if a C.S.,
confidential source, has been inactive for 6 months or more, we
are going to look to shut that down unless a higher-level
supervisor finds a reason to keep it open. So, we have a little
tidying up we need to do. I have created a small section within
headquarters to essentially audit and inspect how well we are
doing this in the field.
Mr. Richmond. Oh, good. Second, and it is more for you, Mr.
Rosenberg, do you agree with this new treatment type approach:
addiction, mental health, and real health response to the
opioid crisis that we are facing?
Mr. Rosenberg. Absolutely.
Mr. Richmond. Do you think it would have been more
appropriate for the response to the crack epidemic in the early
1980s, or do you think that the crack response was adequate? Or
knowing what we know now, it should look more like this?
Mr. Rosenberg. We are better now than we were then.
Treatment has to be a part of the solution. Addiction is a
disease. I do not want to lose sight on a supply-side
enforcement role because I think that is very, very important.
I think we are better now than we were, you know, 10 years ago
or 20 years ago or 30 years ago. Hopefully, in 10 years from
now, we will be better still, sir.
Mr. Brandon. Congressman?
Mr. Richmond. Go ahead.
Mr. Brandon. May I go back on the informant issue with ATF?
Mr. Richmond. Yes.
Mr. Brandon. There is this important thing that I forgot to
mention. We have a 24/7 monitoring of our informants. So, if
they get arrested, we will get notified through NCIC. And also,
when we fingerprint them, we run it through AFIS, the Automated
Fingerprint and Identification System, to make sure their true
identity, in case they have fraudulent identification. If they
have been arrested previously, we would know if they are lying
to us. Sir, I just wanted to supplement with that. And thank
you, sir.
Mr. Richmond. Let me, and Mr. Brandon, I am just using it
as an example; I do not need you to respond. But this committee
held many hearings and was furious about the Fast and Furious
Program. At least from my knowledge of DEA and other drug
agencies, oftentimes, part of a bigger sting is letting
transactions and other things go through.
Now, it is a very specific question. In DEA's past,
present, future, anytime, do you let drugs hit communities in
order to get the bigger fish?
Mr. Brandon. We are not supposed to, no, sir.
Mr. Richmond. Okay. Are you aware of any instances where it
may happen?
Mr. Brandon. I will have to check and get back to you on
that.
Mr. Richmond. Okay, last question is, what is the status of
the investigation of the DEA agents in New Orleans that are
under investigation? And two, do you have a process where you
go back and review all of the cases that they have made to make
sure that they were legitimate cases?
Mr. Brandon. Second question first, if I may, sir. We are
doing that with our Federal and State and local prosecutor
partners. So, absolutely. I am more limited to what I can say
with respect to your first question because it is an ongoing
investigation. I made management changes in that division. I
added a second SES supervisor to the New Orleans division
because we have to get things right there. And we are working
closely with both the Inspector General at the Department of
Justice and with the FBI on a criminal investigation. But
again, I am somewhat limited in what I can say about that
because it is pending.
Mr. Richmond. Let me just close with this. I think
transparency and trust and community participation is vital for
law enforcement. And I think that it helps our agents; it
ensures that they know everything that is going on; and it
makes their job safer. But to have that trust where people in
certain communities will risk their lives to help officers, I
think it has to go both ways. And here is--and you do not have
to respond. Here is my concern from growing up during the crack
cocaine era, which it was a lot heavier of a hand than the
opioid response. And the question becomes, is it because of the
neighborhood or the victims or the sellers?
Question, second part with the Fast and the Furious, the
victims were police officers, and that is very, very, tragic.
The question becomes, do we get drugs back in our
neighborhoods, which creates more addicts, more crack babies,
and more other things? Is it because of who the victims are?
Now, assuming, in the best light, that I am reaching on
both of those, it does affect your ability to get cooperation
from certain communities. And we just have to think about how
we address it, and whatever has happened in the past is it
happened. But we have to address it because there is that
festering feeling. And I think that it does not serve law
enforcement well because you do not get the assistance that you
need. And it does not serve those communities either. So, with
that, I look forward to working with both of you all to make
sure we can close some of those gaps.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Louisiana yields back. The
gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenberg, Mr.
Brandon, thank you for your service. Thanks for being here
today. You know, for 8 years, the Obama administration was
continually pushing the supposition that far too many low-
level, non-violent drug offenders were being investigated and
prosecuted and imprisoned federally. President Obama issued
1,715 commutations that represents an awful lot of Federal man
hours, women hours, hours where people had their lives on the
line to make those arrests and see them through to prosecution.
He also had a flat 212 outright pardons of drug offenders that
he claimed were serving lengthy prison terms.
At one time, I looked, and the figures Jeff Sessions had
gotten was that I think like nearly three-fourths of those who
were in Federal prison for simple possession actually were not
in the United States; they were not U.S. citizens; they were
not here legally. But the number of possessions, there were not
that many in Federal prison for possession compared to
traffickers.
So, the public has gotten the idea that people in Federal
prison are these poor guys that maybe they smoked a joint or
something and ended up doing life without parole. But my
experience, in my time as a State assistant D.A. and my time as
a felony judge, the Federal prosecutors, normally, did not take
small cases. What is your experience, Mr. Rosenberg?
Mr. Rosenberg. I was a Federal prosecutor, sir, for many
years. And I just personally did not see cases involving low-
level, first-time offenders. We had neither the resources, nor
the inclination to do those types of cases.
Mr. Gohmert. The State did though, right? If it was
something to prosecute, they would go ahead; you would say,
``We are waving off; you guys take it?''
Mr. Rosenberg. It would not be unusual, sir, for a case to
be split, where we take the higher level, the more serious
offender.
Mr. Gohmert. The Federal would take the higher, yeah.
Mr. Rosenberg. Others go to State prosecutors or are nolle
prossed. That is entirely possible, too. But from a Federal
perspective, that was not my experience, that we would do low-
level, first-time offenders.
Mr. Gohmert. And when we see somebody in Federal prison for
simple possession, it makes me wonder based on my experience; I
want to ask your experience. Did you see people offered a plea
agreement they would only be prosecuted for simple possession
if they would turn and help them go after the other guy? It
seems like that was the only time Federal officials wanted to
go after for simple possession.
Mr. Rosenberg. That is plausible. Ironically enough, given
my current job, I was actually not a narcotics prosecutor, when
I was an assistant U.S. attorney. But there might be reasons
why you find folks who fit that, you know, description in
Federal prison. But it has to be the exception and not the
rule. It has to be, in my experience, an extenuating
circumstance or somebody who may have plea bargained down to
something like that. But it would surprise me if there was a
very large number of that.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, there were not that many in Federal
prison for simple possession. Well, we have a President who had
promised; you may have heard something about it; some call it a
wall. And some think that is being punitive to Mexico. But it
seems to me, when you look at Mexico, they have some of the
hardest working people in the world. The location is absolutely
perfect for being maybe the greatest trading partner the world
has ever seen, with two oceans, two continents on either side.
And, yet, I mean, their economy is in the '60s. It seems
like they ought to be in the top 10. But the reason I keep
hearing over and over companies are not moving there more
quickly than they are is corruption. And corruption is related
to the drug cartels. The drug cartels are related to the tens
of billions of dollars in drugs coming across our border.
If we secured the border with a wall where it is possible
and really got serious about securing the border, yeah, there
may be tunnels, but there is new technology that could
anticipate and determine when they were being tunneled. If we
really got serious about enforcing that border, what would you
see, based on your experience, happening to drug availability,
illegal drug availability, in the United States?
Mr. Rosenberg. Here is what worries me, sir. As long as
there remains a significant demand in the United States and a
significant profit to be made from meeting that demand, the
traffickers are going to find a way to get this poison into our
country.
Mr. Gohmert. So, you do not see, no matter how much we
protect ourselves from the free flow of narcotics across our
southern border, it would not affect any supplies here in the
U.S.?
Mr. Rosenberg. I am not a border----
Mr. Gohmert. That is an interesting position by the way.
Mr. Rosenberg. Border security is important. And I have
worked in national security, so I appreciate its importance. I
am talking about a more, sort of a smaller dynamic, which is,
with a significant demand and a significant profit margin, I
worry that traffickers are going to find a way: under, around.
Mr. Gohmert. I understand your worry. I just wanted to get,
you know, you are under oath, basically, here. It is a crime to
not tell the truth to a congressional committee. I just want to
make sure the record is clear your position. We secure the
border, cut drugs to a trickle coming in from Mexico, you do
not see it having much effect?
Mr. Rosenberg. No, I did not say that, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. You said they will find a way to be here.
Mr. Rosenberg. I believe they will find a way to be here.
Mr. Gohmert. So, it would not affect the drug availability?
Mr. Rosenberg. We could well see price fluctuations. Look,
it is a good thing to secure our border. No question, it will
make a difference in the work we do. I just find it difficult
to imagine, given the profit that is to be made, that we could
turn it down to zero.
Mr. Gohmert. My time has expired.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from the great State of New York, my friend, Mr. Jefferies, is
recognized.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gohmert. My question, though, is not would it get it to
zero. Basically, would it materially effect, and I did not get
an answer to that.
Mr. Gowdy. The record will reflect the gentlemen's
question. Now, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jefferies.
Mr. Jeffries. I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding, for his leadership, as well as the distinguished
witnesses, Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Brandon, for your presence and
for your service to this country and helping to make America as
safe as it could possibly be.
I just wanted to turn to Mr. Rosenberg for a few questions.
With respect to the trajectory of the war on drugs that has
been underway here in America for the last few decades, would
it be accurate to say that the war on drugs has been underway
now for more than 45 years?
Mr. Rosenberg. Yeah, I do not use that terminology, but it
is around for a long time.
Mr. Jeffries. I guess the demarcation point in terms of the
beginning of the so-called war on drugs was when Richard Nixon
declared drug abuse in America public enemy number one. He did
that in 1971; is that correct?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do not know when he declared it. I know he
created the DEA in 1973.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, at the time that the DEA was created in
1973, there were approximately 350,000 or so people
incarcerated in America; is that right?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do not know.
Mr. Jeffries. Today, there are more than 2.1 million people
incarcerated in America; is that correct?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do not know. Is that State and Federal
sir?
Mr. Jeffries. That is State and Federal.
Mr. Rosenberg. I will accept your number. I do not know the
number.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. So, I mean, is that a relevant bit of
information in terms of the person in charge of such an
important and prominent organization as the DEA, how many
Americans are incarcerated in this country?
Mr. Rosenberg. For any crime or?
Mr. Jeffries. Any crime.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes. It is a relevant bit of information.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And a significant number of those
individuals, that 2.1 million, are incarcerated as a result of
drug crimes; is that correct?
Mr. Rosenberg. Probably a significant portion, yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. I think numbers that I have seen, maybe,
approximately, 50 percent of those individuals incarcerated
overall are nonviolent drug crimes in some way, shape, or form.
Now, the DEA, I think, initially had approximately 1500 special
agents when the agency was created in 1973; is that right?
Mr. Rosenberg. I would have to check the number. But it is
less than we have now.
Mr. Jeffries. And currently, the number is a little over
4,000. Is that right?
Mr. Rosenberg. 4,500, 4,600.
Mr. Jeffries. And the DEA's initial budget in 1973 was
about 75 million; is that correct?
Mr. Rosenberg. I do not know.
Mr. Jeffries. But the budget today is a little over 2
billion?
Mr. Rosenberg. Correct.
Mr. Jeffries. Oh, yeah. Now, so, I think it is fair to say
that during the 45-year-plus history of the so-called war on
drugs, I know it is not a phrase, and I understand why, that
you would embrace.
Mr. Rosenberg. I do not think it is very descriptive, which
is why I do not use it.
Mr. Jeffries. During that 45-plus-year period, is it fair
to say that there has been a significant increase in the number
of people incarcerated? A significant increase in the number of
agents that the Agency has at its disposal? Although I
understand that there is a shortfall in your view, and I think
all of us are concerned about that possibility, but a
significant increase compared to when the Agency was initially
enacted and a very significant increase in the amount of yearly
resources allocated, 75 million at one point in 1973, over $2
billion.
But during that same period of time, am I correct that,
though the nature of the drugs that Americans have used and or
have been subject to a variety of different crises, heroin,
methamphetamines, crack cocaine, cocaine, now back to heroin,
fentanyl, opioid, that has changed, but the crisis has remained
the same; is that correct?
Mr. Rosenberg. By crisis, you mean the amount of violence
that attends it? The number of people dying?
Mr. Jeffries. All of the above.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yeah, those are big numbers, and it worries
me.
Mr. Jeffries. In fact, you can make the argument, based on
what you said earlier in terms of the overdosing that took
place in 2015, the most recent year for which we have figures,
that, in some ways, the drug crisis in America has not gotten
better; it has gotten worse. Correct?
Mr. Rosenberg. Which is why, as I have mentioned, we have
to also attack the demand side, and we have to educate, and we
have to treat.
Mr. Jeffries. So, we have done some things right. We have
done some things wrong. I think that is fair to say.
Mr. Rosenberg. I agree with that.
Mr. Jeffries. Based on the way we were, the way we are
today, what exactly in your view, as succinctly as possible--my
time is running out; do you think we can do differently? Based
on the fact that we have expended a significant amount of
resources devoted to this problem.
The nature of the crisis has changed; the intensity of it
has either remained the same or gotten worse. And we have
exploded our incarcerated population to a point where we now
incarcerate more people than any other country in the world.
And thankfully, there is a bipartisan effort of which the
chairman and others are involved in to try to deal with this
mass incarceration phenomena. But from your perspective as a
top law enforcement professional, what can we do differently?
Mr. Rosenberg. That is a very good question. I am not sure
how succinct I can be in answering it because I think it is
multi-layered. I will say this: I think the mix of stuff that
we are trying to do, demand reduction, supply reduction, and
regulation, is the right mix. And we can always debate, you
know, how much should be in each bucket.
But while I have seen some bad trajectories and some bad
news, sir, I have also seen some good news. I have seen
communities where I think we have made a difference. I have
talked to families, you know, who have helped us get the
message to kids about the dangers of opioids and heroin.
I think our National Take Back Program works. I think we
should continue down those paths. I think we are thinking about
treatment and rehabilitation in much more sophisticated and
helpful ways then we have in the past. I am already probably
violating your request that I be succinct, but I would be happy
to come talk to you about it some more if you would have me.
Mr. Jeffries. Well, I only made that request to indulge the
chairman and his desire to move this hearing along. But I
appreciate your willingness, and I appreciate the chairman
giving you an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Gowdy. I appreciate the gentleman from New York being
concerned about the time limit. I wish other members had your
same sense of fairness. With that, the gentleman from Utah is
recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Chaffetz. I assure the chairman that I will be
punctual. I thank the chairman.
To both the ATF and DEA, I cannot thank the men and women
enough who are on the front lines doing the hard, difficult
work putting their lives in jeopardy on a regular basis, and I
hope you both carry that back, and they know how much people
root for them, care for them, and are concerned about them. We
also, in Congress, have to be concerned about the expenditures
and making sure that we are giving proper oversight.
Mr. Rosenberg, I want to talk about the confidential
informant policy. It has been a source of a scathing review by
the Inspector General's Office, how that is being executed;
there is a supplement to that, as well. You have a confidential
informant policy in place, correct?
Mr. Rosenberg. Which now meets the Attorney General's
guidelines, yes, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. And we have been trying in the Oversight
Government Reform Committee, as well as Senator Grassley in the
Senate Judiciary Committee, to get a copy of this policy. Why
would you not give it to us?
Mr. Rosenberg. Well, two things, sir. One is I believe we
made it available to you and to Senator Grassley's staff in-
camera review if I am not mistaken. In terms of just providing
it that goes back to Department of Justice policy by which I am
constrained.
Mr. Chaffetz. You testified on June 22 of 2016, you said to
Senator Grassley in a Senate hearing regarding this policy,
``It has been finalized. It has been approved by the
department. I am more than happy to provide a copy to this
committee and to your staff, sir,'' yet you did not do that.
Who is prohibiting you from giving that copy to Congress? I see
a huge difference between in-camera review and actually
providing it to the Congress.
Mr. Rosenberg. And I respectfully do not see a huge
difference. I understand your point. We have made it available
for in-camera review.
Mr. Chaffetz. And that is true. By the way, that is my
understanding of it, was well. But I just do not understand
what you believe what Congress had the right to have and not
have the right to have. You freely give it to the Inspector
General, but you will not give it to the United States
Congress.
Mr. Rosenberg. And while I do not see a big difference, I
understand your point. Nevertheless, I am constrained by the
department.
Mr. Chaffetz. Who, at the Department of Justice, is telling
you this?
Mr. Rosenberg. The name of the person I do not know, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. Will you give me that name?
Mr. Rosenberg. I will ask the Department of Justice if I
can give you that name. I will give you----
Mr. Chaffetz. No, no, no. Come on, that is silly season
here.
Mr. Rosenberg. No, I do not think it is silly.
Mr. Chaffetz. I want to know specifically. Because there is
hundreds of thousands of people involved here. I need a name.
Can you give that to me by the end of the week?
Mr. Rosenberg. I will ask if I can provide you----
Mr. Chaffetz. No, no, I am asking you to give me the name
of the person who is denying access to this. Here is what I am
forced to do. We have a hearing next door on the Oversight
Committee, as well as with both of your deputies.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. We are issuing a subpoena.
Mr. Rosenberg. Okay.
Mr. Chaffetz. And so, I see no choice. We have been trying
to do this. Senator Grassley has been trying to do this. I have
been trying to do this. The Department of Justice just does not
get to hide things from the United States Congress. And there
is a huge difference between an in-camera review, no notes,
people looking over your shoulder. Members of Congress have a
very difficult time accessing that information. And if we are
going to provide proper access, it seems like we should be able
to review this, especially in the light of hundreds of millions
of dollars over the course of a year going out the door. The
Inspector General giving you all a ``gentlemen's C,'' as he
called it, to grade how this is done. We have had massive
problems with people misusing money and assets. And so, I am
left with no choice. I have issued you a subpoena.
Mr. Rosenberg. Okay.
Mr. Chaffetz. We expect you to comply with that subpoena. I
wish we did not have to do that.
Mr. Rosenberg. Oh, I understand.
Mr. Chaffetz. But I want to have a further discussion, and
I need names as to who is holding us back at the Department of
Justice.
Mr. Rosenberg. I can promise you two things. I will look at
the subpoena carefully, and I will have a further discussion
with you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Fair enough. Mr. Chairman, I have plenty of
time on the clock, but I am happy to yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlemen shockingly yields back with 33
seconds left. I will now recognize myself to go last.
Gentlemen, 5 minutes is not much time to resolve issues. It is
barely enough time to raise them. So, I do not know that I will
have that many questions for you other than raise points that I
would like you to reflect upon. And then over the course of
your tenure and as long as I am in Congress, would like to work
with your respective agencies to see if we can make some
progress.
I know both of you have been in the justice system before,
so you have seen the majesty of a system that exceeds people's
expectations. There is a reason we have a phrase, ``May justice
be done, though the heavens fall.'' And it is beautiful and
majestic to watch a justice system that inspires people.
On the other side, if you have ever had witnesses that had
knowledge refuse to cooperate, you have had victims that had no
expectation whatsoever that the system would work for them.
Perception is reality. And when you have communities among our
American family that do not have confidence in the justice
system, it is all of our problems. And we can debate the
legitimacy of those perceptions, but the perceptions remain.
So, my focus on whatever amount of time I have left in this
job is to try to find that justice system that is not just
respected, but worthy of respect, aspirationally worthy of
respect. So, I am going to raise some issues that may be
unusual for Republicans to raise.
And I will start with the ratio between cocaine base and
cocaine powder. I understand it is a rational basis test. I
understand we just have to have a reason for it, or at least
they did when the law was initially passed. But at some point,
Mr. Rosenberg, I would love to sit down with whoever the
pharmacological experts are at the DEA and understand what it
is about the pharmacology of baking soda that makes the ratio
18:1. And if there is a basis for it, then help me understand
it.
I get going back to Con law, there is a rational basis
test. But confidence in the justice system is the most
compelling national interest we could possibly have. So, I
would love to work with the DEA and understand why a one-to-one
ratio is not better. A mandatory minimum, some think they work
great in violent crime cases; I would be in that camp. Less so
for, perhaps, for economic or nonviolent crime cases.
Also, as a former prosecutor, I know mandatory minimums are
an effective way to get folks to cooperate. But whether or not
the drug amount levels need to be raised, whether there can be
some proportionality as we, you know, treat methamphetamine,
and heroin, and cocaine powder, and cocaine base, and you know,
marijuana, it takes tractor trailers full to reach a mandatory
minimum, but not so with other drugs.
To my friends at ATF 924(e), I have not seen the
statistics, but when you have someone who has more than one
felony conviction, and they are in possession of a firearm or
ammunition, that has a lot more jury appeal.
Trust me, I get the lack of jury appeal for 922(g) cases; I
lived it. It is hard to get a jury interested in lying and
buying or simply being a felon in possession of a gun that you
are going to use to go squirrel hunting, and you had a
conviction 20 years ago. There is not a lot of jury appeal.
Murder cases have jury appeal. But our objective is to prevent
the murder prosecution. It is to save the life. And I have seen
it done in South Carolina.
Bill Nettles was the United States attorney in South
Carolina. He was appointed by President Obama, so politically,
we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. But he did great work
that part of 922(g) that deals with domestic violence. South
Carolina ranks number one in the Nation in men killing women.
So, he used the 922(g), that subsection that relates to orders
of protection and domestic violence convictions; that is a
misdemeanor, not felony, in South Carolina.
Certain domestic violence cases are. To Chairman
Goodlatte's point, it would be great for me to see your
referrals versus the declarations. If you are getting the cases
from State locals, and you are writing up a bluebook or
whatever they call them now, and it is being declined by the
Assistant United States Attorney, we need to know it. And if
you are presenting 924(e)(k)s and they are being declined, we
need to know it. And I am not beating up on prosecutors. I
actually like them.
But I need to know, if there has been a decrease in
firearms prosecutions, it is either the referrals have dried
up, or we are not adopting them, or you are adopting them, and
they are being declined. And we need to figure that out. 922(g)
also includes a subsection for people who had been adjudicated
``mentally defective.'' Those are the words of the statute.
Those are not my words.
So, we will just go with ``mental illness,'' those who had
been adjudicated mentally ill. That is already against the law
for someone who has been adjudicated, to possess a firearm or
ammunition. So, when I look at the statistics for the
prosecutions, they are anemic. And I do not know if it is
because the cases are not being referred, if they are not being
adopted, or if there has been a declination.
So, one other point: I hear some of my friends mentioned a
gun show loophole. There may be a background check loophole,
but there is not a selling a firearm to a prohibited person
loophole. You could be prosecuted for giving a firearm to a
prohibited person whether you are an FFL or not. And one way to
get the attention of folks who do not think that they have to
do background checks is to see an uptick in prosecutions for
folks who fail to ask simple questions. ``Are you a convicted
felon? Have you been adjudicated mentally ill? Are you subject
to a restraining order or domestic violence case?'' The notion
that you can sell a firearm to whoever you want to is just not
accurate. Maybe from a background check, but not from the
actual transfer of the weapon.
Last point, Mr. Rosenberg, I know it is hard to prosecute
doctors. I grew up with one. He is the most popular person in
the community that I grew up in, and I never would have won the
district attorney's race had it not been for my father. I get
how popular doctors are. Also get how impossible it is to get a
prescription without going to a doctor. And there used to be a
DEA diversion group that investigated physicians who were
writing prescriptions outside the course of a legitimate
medical practice.
I assume DEA is still doing that. I hear more on the drug
companies, the distributors, than I do that middle component.
But getting physicians to understand that you cannot write
prescriptions for controlled substances on napkins at a bar for
someone you just met, which is a fact pattern of one of the
cases I handle, getting that message out may also be part of us
combatting the opioid epidemic that we have.
So, I am going to recognize the ranking member for her
concluding remarks, but I will just tell you this raised a lot
of issues. You are too busy; you are too busy, but just assign
someone to come help me. I understand either what is going on
or maybe we can make improvements, and where they ought to be
made. I want to adjust this system that people respect. So,
with that, you are welcome to respond, and then I am going to
recognize the ranking member from Texas.
Mr. Rosenberg. Happy to come talk to you myself about those
issues; they are also very important to me. I heard someone
recently describe the majesty of our justice system in the
following way. Actually, I had not heard it before; I thought
it was really interesting. ``We have courts in which the United
States government can lose, and we do.'' And, to me, I think
that is, you know, again we are all human; therefore, we are
all flawed. None of us are perfect. But the fact that the
United States Government can lose in its own courts tells you
that we have a justice system that should be admired and,
frankly, copied.
Mr. Brandon. Mr. Chairman, can I speak for a minute?
Mr. Gowdy. Sure.
Mr. Brandon I could not agree more with you about a justice
system worthy of trust, and that is one thing that drilled into
our new hires, the special agents, and everyone that everybody
is worthy of trust. And that is in the culture of ATF, and we
look forward to working with you, and if the committee would
ever like a demonstration of the National Integrated Ballistics
Information Network, we just had a van built out, along with a
trailer, where you can do test fires, so it can respond to
seams. We briefed the Attorney General on it last Monday, but
if that is something that you, Mr. Chairman, would like to see,
we would be happy to bring it up to Capitol Hill.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you. And, with that, I will recognize the
ranking member for any concluding remarks you may have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and
thank you, particularly, for giving me the opportunity to have
just a few, brief closing remarks.
Let me say that I think you are seeing evidence in this
committee, I hope, of our very strong attempt to work in a
bipartisan way. So, Mr. Brandon, it would be the chairman and
the ranking member that may, if we decide, welcome that vehicle
to come. It is also the chairman and the ranking member, as I
conclude, that, again, offers her appreciation to the men and
women who work for you, Mr. Rosenberg, the DEA, and then Mr.
Brandon for the ATF, and all of the law enforcement officers
that work throughout the Nation and, particularly, those under
our jurisdiction, which is a Federal jurisdiction.
I want to just raise two quick points as it relates to the
legislation that we have been working on: the Sentences
Reduction Act, where we took special note, we were dealing with
drug offenses, nonviolent, and we think we were on the right
track in reducing sentences. But what came to mind was phenol.
And I just want a quick answer, Mr. Rosenberg, so that my time
will not be yielded away, how dangerous and how prolific that
is, and how important it is that we work together on that.
Mr. Rosenberg. Very succinctly, incredibly dangerous and
very important. Amphenol is up to 50 times more potent than
heroin. Carphenol, which we are beginning to see, is up to 100
times more potent than phenol. So, extraordinarily dangerous.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, we will work with you on that. I would
like to invite you to my office; we have an epidemic of Kush--I
do not know if you have heard that word--in our area, in
Houston, Texas. And I would like to follow up on some questions
that I have raised on the question of drugs.
Mr. Rosenberg. I would be delighted.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. And I would certainly welcome
the chairman on joining on some of the meetings that he has
asked and some of the meetings that I have asked. I just want
to quickly read into the record one of the responsibilities of
the ATF, and that is to deal with gang violence and violent
actions as one of your works. Would you please--and I ask
unanimous consent. Let me just read it specifically; I am
sorry. It was just ``to reduce risk to public safety caused by
criminal organizations and gangs.''
I think that it still one of your responsibilities. I want
to put into the record, and I ask unanimous consent, the Gang
Resistance Education Training Program, which I discussed this
weekend, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would also like to offer my sympathy,
but also put into the record the headline ``Purview shaken over
the deaths of two students over the weekend, ages 21 and 20,
not far away from being students in middle school and
elementary.'' Would you just quickly say how important--and can
we expand the great program--how important you have seen it,
and can we expand it?
Mr. Brandon. Yes, ma'am. That was the special agent in
charge in Detroit and was an advocate for Gang Resistance
Education and Training program, was started in 1991 by the
Phoenix P.D. and ATF, and it trains officers, primarily, but
also Federal agents, to go into the middle school classes. They
have a curriculum, and it is really to train them on
controlling their emotion, impulse control. I was at Detroit
Homicide when an 18-year-old kid pulled the trigger over a beef
over a female, and he ruined his life, and I was friends with a
homicide detective that was a task force officer with us.
And it was, for lack of a better word, learn how to hit the
``pause'' button, so you do not do something that you ruins
your life; you ruin another person's life. And I believe there
were studies to validate the effectiveness of GREAT, and every
year, the kids that would successfully go through the program
would be treated to a Detroit Tiger game, a great game, and
they would have someone of influence to talk to them and to
give them a congratulatory speech on doing that. And I am a fan
on preventing, and then I am a fan on going after the trigger-
pullers, and I think, like Chuck Rosenberg said, and as all of
you know, you got to address it from both sides. And GREAT does
that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
think there are many ways that we can work together on really
making the criminal justice system work for everyone. Both for
those who are, unfortunately, victims on the enforcement side,
but also on the justice side as well and the prevention side,
which I think is crucial to, how shall I say, moving America
forward. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you
so very much.
Mr. Gowdy. Yes, ma'am. This concludes today's hearing. I
want to thank both of our witnesses again.
Without objection, all members have 5 legislative days to
submit additional questions for the witnesses or additional
material for the record. The last thing I will ask you to do is
the first thing I asked you to do: make sure the men and women
of your respective agencies, not just the agents,
administrative folks, folks that run background checks, all of
them, know how grateful we are for their service.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]