    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED
                           AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  FIRST SESSION

                                  ________________

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
                              AND RELATED AGENCIES

                       JOSE E. SERRANO, New York, Chairman

      MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania		ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
      GRACE MENG, New York			MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
      BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan		STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
      CHARLIE CRIST, Florida		TOM GRAVES, Georgia
      ED CASE, Hawaii
      MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

    NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
    committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
    committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                 Bob Bonner, Jeff Ashford, Matt Smith, BG Wright,
               TJ Lowdermilk, Shannon McCully, and Trisha Castaneda
                                Subcommittee Staff

                                _____________________

                                      PART 6

                                                                       Page

      National Aeronautics and Space Administration...................    1
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.................   55
      Department of Commerce..........................................   83
      Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................  101
      Department of Justice...........................................  127
      Oversight of the 2020 Census Preparation........................  203
      Outside Witness Testimony.......................................  251

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                _____________________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-827                  WASHINGTON : 2019

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

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                      NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman

      MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio				KAY GRANGER, Texas
      PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana			HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
      JOSE E. SERRANO, New York			ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
      ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut			MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
      DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina		JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
      LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California		KEN CALVERT, California
      SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia		TOM COLE, Oklahoma
      BARBARA LEE, California			MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
      BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota			TOM GRAVES, Georgia
      TIM RYAN, Ohio				STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
      C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland		JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
      DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida		CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
      HENRY CUELLAR, Texas				JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
      CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine			DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
      MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois			ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
      DEREK KILMER, Washington			MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
      MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania			MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
      GRACE MENG, New York				CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      MARK POCAN, Wisconsin				STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
      KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts		DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      PETE AGUILAR, California			JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      LOIS FRANKEL, Florida				JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
      CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois			 WILL HURD, Texas
      BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
      BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
      NORMA J. TORRES, California
      CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
      ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
      ED CASE, Hawaii

                       Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (ii)

    COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2020

                                  ----------

                                           Wednesday, March 27, 2019.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

                                    WITNESS

    JAMES BRIDENSTINE, ADMINISTRATOR, NASA
        Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee shall come to order. I would
    like to welcome NASA administrator James Bridenstine to the
    subcommittee. Welcome, my friend. It has been a while since I
    have seen you at the other place.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Serrano. It is nice to see you here.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. The other place is the House, you know.
        Mr. Bridenstine. The locker room downstairs, where we used
    to have----
        Mr. Serrano. Are you going to clean it out one of these
    days?
        Mr. Bridenstine. You used to be right next to me.
        Mr. Serrano. I didn't want to say that. Yes. The locker was
    right next to mine and he hasn't cleaned it out yet.
        Mr. Bridenstine. It is on the agenda.
        Mr. Serrano. Did you know something because you had a NASA
    t-shirt, I noticed.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Can you imagine?
        Mr. Serrano. NASA is a great agency that has accomplished
    much over the last 60 years. A milestone in space flight
    occurred on July 20, 1969, 50 years ago, when American
    commander Neil Armstrong and Lunar Module pilot, Buzz Aldrin,
    landed the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle on the moon at 4:17 p.m.
    Eastern Standard Time. Armstrong became the first man to step
    onto the lunar surface, an inspiring accomplishment.
        NASA continues its missions by being responsible for
    civilian space activities, science, and aeronautics research.
    NASA plays a key role in fostering innovation and opportunity.
    As most of you know, I am a strong supporter of NASA and
    believe that its missions help keep the United States at the
    forefront of space exploration and scientific research.
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2020
    includes $21 billion for NASA, which is nearly $500 million
    decrease from 2019 enacted level. While NASA provides funding
    for a number of science and exploration activities, this budget
    proposal reduces funding for a number of important areas. I am
    particularly concerned that the President's budget request
    proposes a $602 million cut to NASA's science mission
    directorate.
        From the fiscal year 2019 enacted level, this again zeroes
    out funding for three longstanding programs with NASA's Office
    of STEM Engagement which help inspire the next generation of
    scientists, it is very naive for NASA to propose, once again,
    to cut these investments after Congress spoke very clearly a
    little over two months ago when the omnibus was signed into
    law. It is my intention, as chairman of this subcommittee, to
    provide robust funding for these programs that are so important
    for the future of our youth and our country.
        President Trump's budget request also proposes cutting
    funding for earth science, which is reduced by 151.2 million
    below last year. The research funded in this account is
    critical to understanding the impact of climate change on our
    planet. Our future literally depends on it, which makes these
    proposals so troubling.
        In addition, I am extremely concerned by the intent to
    eliminate the Wide Field InfraRed Survey Telescope, WFIRST.
    This project received $312 million. In fiscal year 2019, it was
    ranked as the highest scientific priority space astrophysics
    mission by the 2010 Decadal Survey.
        I also have to express my strong reservations with a
    proposal to procure commercial rockets for a mission prior to
    the planned Exploration Mission 1, EM-1, in June 2020 instead
    of January 2021, at an additional cost estimated to be nearly
    $1 billion. These significant amounts of money can be better
    utilized for other programs that NASA wants to cancel and that
    are greatly needed.
        Lastly, as you very well know, I am also a strong supporter
    of the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. NASA's fiscal year
    2020 budget request includes funding for NASA activities at the
    observatory and I would like to hear more about this work.
    Thank you once again, Administrator, for joining us today. I
    look forward to hearing your testimony. Now, I would like to
    turn to my colleague and friend, Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding and I
    want to join you in welcoming the NASA Administrator, Jim
    Bridenstine, to the subcommittee this afternoon. And
    Administrator, we appreciate you being here to discuss the
    fiscal year 2020 budget. And I know, of course you served in
    the House, but I think this is your first time before this
    subcommittee----
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. In this capacity. And so we
    welcome you to be here today and thank you for your service.
        For nearly 60 years, we have relied on the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration to ensure that the United
    States remained a world leader in space exploration. Through
    NASA's scientific research, technological developments, and
    missions, we have furthered our understanding of Aeronautics,
    the Earth, and the Moon, distant planets, and even far off
    galaxies.
        I am honored to serve on this subcommittee since my home
    state of Alabama has a long and proud tradition of supporting
    our nation's space program. Since 1960, the Marshall Space
    Flight Center in Huntsville has been NASA's lead center for
    rocket propulsion. Marshall has also been the lead center, or
    played major roles in lander work, as well as major science
    programs including designing the Hubble telescope to be service
    accessible.
        I think many of us had prepared remarks and questions,
    which suddenly took a little bit of a turn and took a new
    meaning yesterday. I believe the vice president made one of the
    most important space policy speeches since President Kennedy
    laid out the challenge to land on the moon back in the 1960s.
        There are several themes to draw on from that speech, but
    two which stand out to me as being urgent and being
    accountable. To look to the future, I think we can learn from a
    glance at the past. The Apollo program was an urgent mission.
    Government and private sector had to find new ways to work
    together, and both had to be willing to undergo internal
    shakeups and to know when to hit the reset button and to surge
    ahead.
        After Sputnik flew over America, the completion of the task
    in our own program occurred much faster. SLS is in the
    spotlight. The vice president at the National Space Council
    meeting yesterday, as you know, called on us to all rise to a
    higher level of excellence. I expect the NASA's contractor
    partner, Boeing, to rise to the occasion of this new urgency
    and redouble their efforts to get SLS ready to fly in 2020.
        NASA as a manager has the duty to rise to the occasion,
    examine their internal process from top to bottom, to clear out
    bureaucracy, to make this an agency priority, and make better,
    faster decisions which allow Boeing to finish the project. NASA
    must access the next steps and move forward quickly, and not
    get caught up on the paralysis of analysis, as the vice
    president said.
        I believe this call to excellence, however, extends to more
    programs than just the SLS core stage. We need to finish the
    Orion capsule. We need to complete the ground operations. We
    need to complete the James Webb telescope. And we need to
    review the centers' operational budgets to ensure that they are
    sufficient to fulfill their mission.
        With great respect to the administration, we also need to
    move ahead with the Exploration Upper Stage or what is referred
    to as the EUS. This upper stage will allow flights for both
    astronauts and very large cargo elements on the same flight. To
    use that, we much also push ahead with a mobile launch platform
    design for the block 1B SLS, instead of continuing to modify a
    platform originally made for a much smaller Aries 1 rocket.
        The EUS stage will allow us to meet the challenge to safe--
    of safely landing astronauts on the moon in 2024. Mr. Chairman,
    I would--I want to also speak up for excellence in the
    planetary exploration program.
        Congress has directed that NASA use the SLS for the Europa
    mission. The proposed change to a commercial rocket means we
    lose the mission plan advantages of the unparallel faring size
    and the tremendous speed made possible by the EUS. The change
    would add years of waiting to the data from the mission. I
    would expect NASA to abide by the provisions in the previous
    bill language.
        Likewise, the vice president called for moving ahead with
    innovation of nuclear propulsion, low and rich uranium, and the
    thermal propulsion which offers a safe and speedy way to
    transport humans and thereby avoid much of the dangerous
    radiation exposure.
        We must start work now to be ready when the planetary
    orbits once again create a favorable time to launch to Mars.
        And finally, Mr. Chairman, it is time that NASA officials
    make a serious results driven examination of the contracting
    and other aspects of commercial programs. It is not enough to
    promise savings and speed, and then serve up hardware delays,
    schedule delays, and cost overruns. It is most certainly too
    early to exclude SLS from delivering gateway elements and
    landers.
        The same excellence we are going to demand of SLS program,
    must be required of these programs as well. And I will close by
    saying, Mr. Chairman, that I share your concerns about cuts to
    STEM Engagement. With a looming wave of retiring engineers from
    both the government sector and the private sector, now is not
    the time to stop encouraging our young people to major in these
    areas. NASA is revered by the public and has unique abilities
    to inspire youth.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and look forward
    to hearing the testimony of the administrator today. Thank you
    very much.
        Mr. Serrano. Do you know the drill? You keep it to 5
    minutes and we include your whole statement in the record.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Chairman Serrano, Ranking Member Aderholt,
    and members of the committee, it is great to be back in the
    House of Representatives, seeing your smiling faces. I hope
    they stay that way for the rest of the hearing. It is good to
    be back in the House.
        I will tell you that the budget request is strong for NASA.
    I heard your language about maybe it is a little smaller than
    what got passed in February, but it is a good budget request
    that helps us accomplish the objectives of Space Policy
    Directive-1. Science is still strong, and of course, we have
    got ongoing missions that we are sustaining in the best
    interest of our country.
        I think the big thing that we have underway right now is a
    return to the moon. This time, we are doing it differently than
    we did it during the Apollo era, and we are doing it
    differently than has ever been prescribed by previous
    administrations. This time when we go to the moon, we are going
    sustainably. What does that mean?
        That means this time when we go to the moon, we are going
    to stay. Does that mean we are going to have a permanent human
    presence on the surface of the moon? No, but what it means is
    that we are going to have robots, landers, rovers, and humans,
    all going back and forth to the moon for a sustainable duration
    to get more resources than ever before.
        The President's Space Policy Directive-1 says, ``Go to the
    moon. Go sustainably. Utilize the resources of the Moon.'' In
    2008 and in 2009, we made discoveries. We now know that there
    is hundreds of millions of tons of water ice at the poles of
    the moon. Water ice represents life support. It is air to
    breathe. It is water to drink. It is hydrogen and oxygen, which
    is rocket fuel and it is available in hundreds of millions of
    tons at the poles of the Moon.
        That is a game changer for the future. Those resources, we
    intend to utilize those resources. The other benefit of the
    Moon is it is a proving ground. That ultimately at the end of
    the day, we can learn to live and work on another world, and
    then take those capabilities and as much as possible, replicate
    them for a journey to Mars, which is still high on the agenda.
        The President's budget request has sufficient funds to do
    these activities, but we are not missing the fact that at the
    end of the day, the goal is Mars. The Science Mission
    Directorate is continuing to focus on Mars. In fact, for the
    first time, we are going to be funding the Mars Sample Return
    mission. We have all seen what we have gotten already from the
    Mars missions that we have done.
        We now know that Mars at one time had a magnetosphere that
    protected it from the radiation of deep space. It had two-
    thirds of its northern hemisphere covered by an ocean at Mars.
    It had a thick atmosphere. In other words, Mars was at one time
    habitable. We are not saying it was inhabited, but it was
    capable. It was habitable at one point in its history.
        At some point, it all changed. The magnetosphere went away.
    The oceans dried up. The atmosphere became very thin. It is not
    carbon dioxide rather than potentially water vapor or other
    things.
        All of this conspires to say, what can we learn about Mars
    to inform us about our own planet and how it is changing. That
    is one of the reasons it is important to do Planetary Science
    so we can also apply that to Earth Science. The Earth Science
    budget is strong. We are still sensing the Earth across large
    parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and we are using that
    data to make critically important decisions about how our own
    climate here is changing. It is true that this is the only
    planet we know to host life. Therefore, it is the planet that I
    care about the most, as well as all of us should care about the
    most.
        When we think about ultimately the other parts of the
    Science Mission Directorate, we talk about heliophysics, the
    study of the Sun. We have the Parker Solar Probe right now
    orbiting the Sun, and in fact doing missions that will take it
    through the Sun's atmosphere, if you can imagine that, the
    corona. That is the solar corona, I should say.
        This is an amazing mission. It has proven to be very
    successful already. We are going to continue it. It is going to
    help us be able to predict solar flares. It is going to help us
    predict coronal mass ejections potentially. That could be very
    damaging to astronauts in deep space as we return to the Moon
    and eventually go on to Mars. We need to be able to predict
    those to protect human life into the future.
        Of course, astrophysics is critically important. The James
    Webb Space Telescope, we are getting that back on track, it had
    some schedule problems. Of course, because of the support of
    this committee, we are moving forward and anticipate launching
    that in March of 2021. We have margin in the schedule to
    accomplish that objective.
        The Science Mission Directorate is strong. The Human
    Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate is strong. The
    Aeronautics Mission Directorate, which sometimes gets missed.
    The first A in NASA, is Aeronautics, and we really believe that
    can have a transformational impact for our country
    economically, as we work to make aviation more fuel efficient,
    more friendly for the environment, and certainly the idea that
    we could even fly across the United States in a way that would
    be supersonic and yet have a low boom.
        In other words, in a way that we could actually fly across
    from New York, Mr. Chairman, to maybe even Huntsville, Alabama
    in a matter of 30 minutes because we can fly supersonic, rather
    than plowing through the atmosphere at .6 Mach as we have been
    doing for the last 60 years.
        A lot of exciting things that we are doing. The budget is
    strong. I am happy to answer any of your questions, and of
    course, I am glad to be back in the House of Representatives
    with you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Serrano. Let me just say to begin, and before the
    questions maybe get a little hard and you stop smiling, that I
    can sense the excitement that you feel about leading this
    agency. I will tell you, that is how we feel in this committee
    and I think in the whole Congress. That is a very exciting
    thing.
        So, I am encouraged by that. I am not encouraged by the
    fact that you say you are not going to leave humans on the Moon
    because Mr. Aderholt and I were making a list of people to send
    to the Moon.
        Mr. Bridenstine. I might have a list of my own, sir.
        Mr. Serrano. I hope we are not on it. Mr. Administrator,
    initially, the President's budget request does not include an
    extra one billion dollars to fund a launch in addition to the
    previously planned space launch system, EM-1. On March 13, you
    testified before the Senate that we should launch a mission
    around the Moon in June 2020 using a commercial, off the shelf
    rocket in lieu of the heavily invested Space Launch System.
        Yesterday at the Marshal Space Flight Center, you said that
    none of the commercial solutions would work for a June 2020
    launch and that accelerating SLS is the right answer. Then
    yesterday also at the same place, the Vice President appeared
    to pressure the folks at the Marshall Space Flight Center for a
    solution to meet a June 2020 date, which looks more and more
    like a political deadline. That is at least three different
    directions in only two weeks.
        These major swings on flagship programs are expensive. We
    are the committee providing the funding for such programs.
    Bottom line, are these sudden program shifts being made in
    response to political pressure?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Mr. Chairman, not because of political
    pressure. A couple of things. The June 2020 date was set years
    ago and in fact maybe even in the last administration. I am not
    sure on that. It was certainly done before I got to NASA as the
    Administrator. That date has been there.
        One of the challenges that we have had is slips in schedule
    without necessarily seeing a change in behavior. What I am
    trying to do is change that. If we tell Congress and we tell
    others that we are going to launch in June of 2020, it was my
    goal to make sure that we could launch in June of 2020.
        I did make the statement before the Senate a few weeks ago
    that we need to look at all options in order to maintain
    schedule. Again, the investments are big and we need to do what
    we can to maintain schedule. We did look at those commercial
    options, as you identified. We came to a determination that
    while some of those options are feasible, none of those
    options, as you identified, are going to keep us within budget
    and on schedule.
        The other thing to do is to figure out within the SLS and
    the Orion program, how do we accelerate the Space Launch
    System. We have got a 40-day study that is underway right now
    and it is our assessment that we can accelerate that. Will we
    meet a June of 2020 launch date? I don't think that is in the
    cards, but I do think we can accelerate significantly from
    where we were originally told that that launch date would
    occur, which could be a slip of almost a couple of years. I
    think we can accelerate well ahead of that based on a number of
    things that we have already done to accelerate. I can get into
    those, sir, if you are interested.
        Mr. Serrano. I understand and in a friendly gesture, let me
    tell you that, as you well know, 75 percent of our profession
    is perception and the perception by many is that it is being
    accelerated so that it can come in and excite the country a few
    months before a November election, something that is going to
    happen in 2020. So understand that is out there for people to
    talk about.
        Because our committee pays the bills, how much will this
    new effort cost to speed the delivery of the Space Launch
    System?
        Mr. Bridenstine. The cost would stay the same. We have got
    a 45-day study that is due in a couple of weeks. I say the cost
    would stay the same. We need to look at it. A 45-day study is
    not done yet, but there will be options. The intent is to stay
    within cost and increase the schedule.
        As far as you mentioned political pressure and the
    perception, I just want to be really clear. There is nobody who
    has had a conversation with me about launching in early 2020
    for any reasons other than the fact that we want to maintain
    schedule because it is important, I think, for the program and
    it is important for the support we have here in the House of
    Representatives to show that we are making progress in a
    meaningful way on the schedule that NASA committed to. That is
    the intent here.
        Mr. Serrano. One quick question before I go to Mr.
    Aderholt. Are there any planned astronaut-led missions? Because
    as I have told you many times, and I have told my committee
    many times, and they know it, in all my 29 years in the
    Congress, there is nothing more exciting than to see the faces
    of kids in a school when an astronaut visits.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. It is something really special. And the more
    opportunities we have to have folks who just came from space,
    the more that excitement and that interest in the science grows
    when they visit.
        Mr. Bridenstine. I agree completely, Mr. Chairman. I used
    to be the executive director of a non-profit Air and Space
    Museum in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and I can tell you firsthand that
    kind of interaction changes the lives of children. I have seen
    it firsthand. I may have experienced it myself when I was
    young, interacting with pilots, and working with wind tunnels
    at a summer camp when I was a child.
        It is absolutely true that we need to accomplish these
    objectives, because it is in the interest of our country to
    inspire the next generation to get active in the STEM fields.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my opening
    remarks, the vice president's speech at the meeting at the
    National Space Council yesterday down in Alabama was a
    significant change in course from the proposed Exploration
    Mission-1 modification that we have been hearing about lately.
    And let me just say I am glad to hear that you have set aside
    the idea of using commercial rockets to perform EM-1.
        Can you provide some insight into what procedure and
    management details you are reexamining to make sure that NASA
    meets the President's challenge to accelerate the Space Launch
    System?
        Mr. Bridenstine. I would be happy to. A couple of things.
    You mentioned management and what was the other thing?
    Procedures?
        Mr. Aderholt. Yes.
        Mr. Bridenstine. We have the 45-day study, I am going to
    get ahead of it. The reality is in a few short weeks, we are
    going to have the results of that study and there are going to
    be options for acceleration in that study. I will tell you the
    things that we have already been looking at and some of the
    items that I think will help us accelerate.
        In fact, we have already purchased hardware, tooling, that
    will help us integrate the Space Launch System horizontally
    rather than vertically. The challenge there has been, when you
    talk about the engine section of the SLS rocket, it has proven
    to be in the critical path. More complex and more challenging
    than we originally anticipated as an Agency. The challenge has
    been as long as they do vertical integration down at Michoud,
    on top of the engine section, the entire rocket is waiting for
    that engine section to be complete.
        That means there are a whole host of other things that we
    need to be doing that we can't get to do because we are waiting
    for the engine section. What we are trying to do is move that
    engine section out of the critical path. How do we do that?
    Well, we have had to buy new tooling so we can horizontally
    integrate the oxygen tank, the hydrogen tank, the inner tank,
    horizontally integrate those proponents so that we can actually
    be working on the rest of the rocket while we are waiting on
    the engine section. That required an investment in tooling and
    we have now made that investment in response to meetings that
    you and I have had in the past, in response to making sure that
    we are meeting our commitments.
        That is one thing that we have done. The key is in as many
    places as possible. When we talk about the production of a
    rocket, how do we make it instead of in series? How do we put
    it in parallel? How do we get things at the same time rather
    than doing things in series? There is an example and we are
    looking at other things as well.
        Some other things we are doing procedurally, when you think
    about the test of the rocket. Again, because of direction from
    Congress, we are using the space shuttle main engines, the RS-
    25s. These engines have flown hundreds of times, three engines
    on every shuttle launch. Of course, we did well over a hundred
    shuttle launches. These are well proven engines and they have
    been tested with millions of seconds of tests. Now we have
    digital controllers that are going to actually schedule fluids
    to these engines. What does that mean?
        What that means is that this brand-new rocket, which we are
    testing in all kinds of computer models, that you really can't
    test it until you actually test it. We have the main engines
    that are thoroughly tested, and now digital controllers, when
    we talk about the scheduling of fluids to those engines,
    through those digital controllers, we might be able to accept
    very high off nominal fluid flows. That is in the realm of what
    is possible based on the new technology that we are adding to
    the RS-25.
        Which means, if we can test each engine independently,
    there is a chance. I have got professional rocket engineers who
    are looking at this right now, I am not saying that we are
    going to do this, but there is a chance that we could actually
    test those engines again in parallel rather than in series. We
    don't have to wait for a full development of a rocket in order
    to test those engines.
        We can take those engines to Stennis, one at a time, four
    different engines, test them in high off nominal conditions,
    and then instead of building the rocket at Stennis, we can take
    the components as we test them in parallel, rather than in
    series, building the rocket and then rebuilding the rocket, we
    can actually move things to where we are integrating more of
    the rocket at the Cape rather than, again, doing things in
    series.
        Those are some of the things that we are looking at. There
    is more. There is a lot more. It is also true going back to
    your other question about the management, Mr. Ranking Member,
    the management has got to change, and this is one of the things
    that we have been working on for a little bit of time now. We
    talk about Human Exploration and Operations.
        There is a big difference between operations, which is when
    we talk about the International Space Station and resupplying
    the International Space Station, and flying crews to the
    International Space Station. These are all operational and
    development.
        Development is very different. We are talking about brand
    new, never used before equipment, and we are doing that within
    the operations with commercial crew. Don't get me wrong, I am
    not suggesting we are not, but talking about brand-new
    capabilities at a scale that we haven't had in a very long
    time, if at all, ever.
        What we are talking about is creating a new mission
    directorate at NASA and it is focused on development activities
    that are very large in scale. That mission directorate, we
    would call it Moon to Mars Mission Directorate because it is
    going to be focused on getting to the Moon and using those
    capabilities to go on to Mars.
        On a management side, we are trying to separate operations
    from development so that we can get a better mix of the right
    people in the right places to accomplish these objectives.
        Mr. Aderholt. Let me just follow up with one thing. It
    seems that continuing with the SLS green run test could take
    five to eight months. What details can you share with us as to
    whether NASA is reconsidering these tests, given such time
    constraints?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Another great question. The key is to test
    in a way that we know that we optimize the success of the first
    launch. That has got to be the goal.
        When we talk about a green run test, we are talking about
    building the core stage of the rocket with all four engines,
    all at the same time, and then running the whole rocket, if you
    will, minus the boosters, the side boosters that are solids,
    running the whole rocket with four main engines for a period of
    eight minutes.
        The question is, is that necessary and could we test each
    engine individually at very high off nominal kind of conditions
    to get certainty, to eliminate almost as much risk as we would
    if we ran the full green run.
        You are absolutely right. That could save six months' of
    schedule, depending on how we do it.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. We will begin now our first round
    of questions by members--with the Chairman holding a soft
    gavel. Ms. Meng.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
    Administrator, for being here today. As your classmate, I just
    want to again congratulate you.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you. Great to be here.
        Ms. Meng. As you know, March is Women's History Month where
    we celebrate the amazing accomplishments of all women. My
    eight-year-old niece, Marissa, wants to be the first woman on
    the Moon. And as much as I would love for her to be that woman,
    I hope you achieve it before then because she is only eight.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. We hope so too.
        Ms. Meng. But I wanted to talk about what was supposed to
    be the first all-female spacewalk at the International Space
    Station. Obviously, it's all over the news, but it would've
    been an amazing milestone for all women, and demonstrated to
    girls that nothing is impossible, even in space. And I know
    that the all-female spacewalk was not intentionally planned,
    but how could NASA not have realized earlier with the uniforms?
        Mr. Bridenstine. That is a great question, an important
    question. We are working every day to increase opportunities
    for women at NASA. It doesn't take long, either going to our
    centers or walking around headquarters, to see that women are
    under represented in the STEM fields. That is just the reality.
    We all recognize it and we are working to make changes to that.
        We have had really good success on the Science side. Maybe
    not so much success on the engineering side, but we are working
    every day to address it with different programs and
    opportunities. On the spacewalk specifically, it should be
    noted that the spacesuits, think of them as little space ships,
    each one of them is designed specifically, not just for the
    astronaut, but also for the mission.
        The challenge is we only have a certain number of
    spacesuits and the logistics of some are on the ground and
    being basically refurbished, and some are on the space station.
    We fully anticipated that we were going to be able to do the
    first all-female spacewalk. We were excited about it. We let
    people know about it and we encouraged people to watch.
        We discovered during the first spacewalk that the spacesuit
    was going to need to be adjusted. If we were to make that
    adjustment, remember these spacesuits are designed for the
    mission, as well as the person, it is going to take time away
    from the crew, a period of at least 12 hours to modify the
    spacesuit, plus additional risk. We have two female astronauts
    on the International Space Station right now, three Americans,
    two of them are females. We are very proud of that as well. Our
    astronaut, Anne McClain, made the decision that she wanted to
    make sure that the interest of mission success and safety came
    first, and she decided that in the interest of safety and
    mission success, that it would be easier and more appropriate
    to switch the person doing the spacewalk, rather than try to
    modify the spacesuit.
        She did the right thing and we are very proud that I run an
    Agency where people are making decisions for the best interest
    of the mission, even if it wasn't in the best interest of
    herself.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you. And if we can be helpful in Congress
    to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again, please
    don't hesitate to work with us.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Ms. Meng. I wanted to--I have a little bit of time left.
    The president's budget is asking for more than $21 billion for
    2020. However, just like last year's budget proposal, you've
    mentioned issues with STEM. No funding is requested for the
    Office of STEM Engagement. In the entire 807 pages long, the
    word ``woman'' is also only included one time. So you've
    addressed the problem about not enough women in the STEM
    fields, particularly engineering I think you mentioned.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Ms. Meng. So how can we continue to engage and encourage
    participation, especially for women and minorities?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. It is something we think
    about at NASA every day and we are making efforts to kind of
    change the direction. A couple of things.
        We do 100 percent believe in STEM Engagement, and we have
    to be starting that next generation of scientists and engineers
    to accomplish the missions of the future. I can say, we
    actually do a lot of education outreach and STEM engagement
    through programs through the mission directorates.
        For example, it is important to understand, we have got
    robots all over the solar system right now doing amazing
    things. All the way out in the Kuiper belt, which is beyond
    Pluto, and of course we have got robots on Mars, and around
    asteroids in deep space, Bennu, for example. So these are all
    exciting things.
        The question is how do we inspire that next generation of
    robotic technician, that robotic engineer, that robotic
    scientist? We engage through the science mission directorate an
    organization called First Robotics. That gets young people. We
    are talking about high schoolers, building robots, competing in
    competitions, and inspiring that next generation.
        I just went out to a robotics competition and had the
    opportunity to speak to a bunch of young kids. They are
    building things that are absolutely magnificent. They are
    reaching out to young girls and communities that are not
    represented well in the STEM fields. We support that effort in
    those areas, and we will absolutely continue to do that.
        We work, of course, with the mission directorates on
    internships and those activities. All through the education
    process, we are trying to engage kids at all different levels.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Ms. Roby.
        Ms. Roby. Well, thank you, Mr. Administrator. It is great
    to see you here today back in the House. And a couple of
    things, first of all, my son, George, who you have seen running
    around the halls here for many years, his new favorite thing is
    to watch the Science Channel with his mother.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Good.
        Ms. Roby. So, I will be excited to tell him tonight about
    the conversations that we had with you today.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Awesome.
        Ms. Roby. Also, in an effort not to repeat too much of what
    my other colleague from Alabama said, I will try not to. If I
    do, I apologize. And you know this jumping up and down is
    constituents in the hallway, and lots of hearings going on, so
    I know you can certainly appreciate that.
        Mr. Bridenstine. I understand.
        Ms. Roby. And we are here to talk about NASA's budget. And
    Mr. Administrator, you can probably guess, being from Alabama,
    what my questions are about. Just in Alabama alone, Space
    Launch System, SLS, provides more than 13,000 jobs, 2.2 billion
    economic impact among NASA contractors and the supplier
    workforce. Of course, as mentioned by Mr. Aderholt during
    yesterday's Space Council meeting, you reaffirmed that SLS is
    the best launch vehicle for Orion for Exploration Mission-1,
    EM-1, and future missions. And you called for an acceleration
    of the Exploration Upper Stage to be ready by EM-3. And I
    appreciate your decision, again, to reaffirm the use of SLS for
    the EM-1 and beyond.
        Can you highlight for us the key reasons SLS is the best
    approach for these missions, and what capabilities it provides
    that other alternatives cannot?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. When we talk about going
    to the Moon, we need a number of things, but the key thing is,
    we need large upmass. We have to be able to launch massive
    things into space that can be capable of keeping humans alive,
    we are talking about large mass, and not just put it in orbit
    around the Earth, but get it all the way to the Moon.
        If we are going to achieve that, SLS is the vehicle to do
    it. Are there others that can do it? Yes, there are others that
    could do it, barely. When I say barely, what I mean is they
    could perform a free return trajectory. A free return
    trajectory doesn't get us into orbit around the Moon, which is
    where you have to be if you want to get to the surface of the
    Moon.
        What we have got to do is, we have got to have a big
    rocket. That is what SLS is. What the Exploration Upper Stage
    ultimately allows us to do is put even more mass into orbit
    around the Moon, and ultimately get to a day where we can co-
    manifest payloads. In other words, we can launch hardware that
    would include a lander, it would include habitation, and
    include the Orion crew capsule, and the European service module
    all at the same time.
        If we want to accelerate to get to the Moon as soon as
    possible, the SLS is a critical piece of that, and so is the
    Exploration Upper Stage.
        Ms. Roby. So, talk to us, because SLS is the world's only
    human rated rocket in its class designed from the ground up to
    safely transport astronauts to the moon and deep space. How
    important is it that the U.S. be the leader in this capability
    with our international partners? And does SLS give the U.S. a
    tool to lead our international partners on these other
    missions?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Without question, I talk to our
    international partners all the time. I have met with the heads
    of all the space agencies around the world. Everybody is keen
    on partnering with us in going back to the Moon, this time
    sustainably. SLS is the key to that. There are other countries
    in the world that have ideas of having a super heavy lift
    capability similar to this. I would say that those countries,
    those capabilities are at this point on paper, great paper
    designs.
        We are actually building a rocket that is very real and the
    closest way that we are going to be able to launch to the Moon,
    is with that rocket. I believe we are going to do our first
    trip around the Moon in 2020, which is next year.
        Ms. Roby. So in light of the vice president's comments
    yesterday, when do you expect to announce the astronauts that
    will launch on the SLS and Orion for EM-2?
        Mr. Bridenstine. That is a great question. Soon.
        Ms. Roby. Because I would assume they would need to be
    begin training soon.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. The idea would be 2020 we
    would do the first launch of SLS uncrewed.
        Ms. Roby. Correct.
        Mr. Bridenstine. By the way, because it is uncrewed, that
    enables us to do things that we otherwise couldn't do, test
    envelopes, that kind of thing. Then the second launch of SLS
    with an Orion crew capsule would be crewed. We would be looking
    for that in 2022.
        It is an aggressive agenda, but we can do that.
        Ms. Roby. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you for your
    service to our country. And we appreciate, again, your time
    today. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Cartwright.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. James
    Bridenstine, Jim, great to have you back.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you. Good to be here.
        Mr. Cartwright. In case anybody missed it, Dr. Bridenstine
    was part of the greatest class ever elected to the United
    States Congress. Let the record reflect Congresswoman Meng is
    nodding in the affirmative.
        So thanks for being here today. I commend you on the
    progress that you have made in your short term in your position
    in positioning our nation as the leader in commercial space,
    really, what is a revolution. And also the leadership you have
    shown in our efforts to return to the Moon and beyond.
        Something that you and I have spoken of before, I am a
    little frustrated about the third consecutive year of proposed
    deep cuts to earth and climate science in NASA's budget. It
    clearly contradicts the priorities of both this subcommittee
    and of Congress. In recent years, we have seen a rapid increase
    in extreme weather events and tragically lost thousands of
    lives, many of them in the southeast United States.
        Additionally, between 2005 and 2018, you may know that
    total federal funding for disaster assistance is almost half a
    trillion dollars. So this is a big deal, focusing on the causes
    and the cures of climate change.
        Just last month, we heard from your Earth Science Director,
    Dr. Michael Freilich, that the Earth Science Division in 2018
    provided vital real time environmental data to agencies
    responding to wildfires in California, floods in the Midwest,
    and several hurricanes in the south. We learned that there are
    key scientific questions that NASA must continue working on to
    improve our understandings and our predictions of climate
    change and enable better resource management.
        This proposed 7.8 percent cut to Earth Science, which is
    out of proportion to other cuts in different parts of the
    Agency, I just want you to know as we set your funding, we do
    not see that as something that we can afford to have happen. It
    would make it harder to understand earth's complex climate
    patterns. It would make it much more expensive to adapt to our
    new and changing planet.
        I want to shift right over to the benefits of NASA
    innovations, if I might.
        NASA's increasing collaboration with the private sector on
    new space technologies and planetary explorations is what I
    want to talk about, includes some very new aerospace
    accelerator programs, which will select 10 start-up companies
    to develop new technologies for space. Can you give us specific
    examples of where such NASA and private-sector collaborations
    have led to new innovations and spurred economic growth right
    here in the United States?
        Mr. Bridenstine. I think so. Specifically, regarding Earth
    Science, is that----
        Mr. Cartwright. Any collaboration with the private sector.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Great. I have a couple of things I want to
    address because I want you to know that NASA is committed and I
    am committed to making sure that we are continuing to study the
    Earth and following the decadal surveys, and I have talked to
    you about my goal, to make sure that NASA remains apolitical,
    bipartisan. We love to have support from all sides.
        I understand your concern. Know that we are committed to
    the Earth Science budget of NASA; in fact, right now, we have
    the highest Earth Science budget in the history of NASA, which
    is a good thing. It is on par with last year at the same time,
    so I guess we might have lost a little bit. Again, with
    bipartisan support in the House and the Senate and even support
    from the administration, and it is also true that this budget
    request, while a little bit less than we are currently enacted,
    it is still higher than 5 of the years that were enacted in the
    previous administration. This is a very strong Earth Science
    budget request and I just want to make sure that we are all in
    agreement.
        You have my commitment that we are going to continue
    studying the Earth across large parts of the electromagnetic
    spectrum. We are going to continue to provide that critical
    information that I know that you are so keenly interested in.
    And I would love to work with you more if you have ideas on
    what we can do.
        As far as public-private partnerships, we saw just a few
    weeks ago, you probably saw Crew Dragon docked to the
    International Space Station. That was a big investment by NASA,
    but it was a big investment by the private sector at the same
    time, and it enabled us to locate and put a crew-capable
    vehicle docked to the International Space Station and come home
    safely. The idea being, when we do resupply to the
    International Space Station of equipment and food and other
    things, and when we send crew to the International Space
    Station, we want those activities, we want NASA, where there is
    a robust commercial marketplace, we want NASA to be one
    customer of many customers driving down to our costs and we
    want to have numerous providers that are competing on cost and
    innovation, which we have seen now. When commercial providers
    launched to the International Space Station, now we are seeing
    the re-use of rockets. Imagine flying an airplane from New York
    to LA and when you get to where you are going, you have to
    throw the airplane away. The cost would be so high, nobody
    would ever fly. That is what we have been doing with space
    launch for all these years.
        NASA has made a commitment that instead of purchasing,
    owning and operating hardware, where there is a robust
    marketplace, we want to be a customer and let them compete, as
    long as we are doing it safely, which we are very keen on, as
    well. We are on the precipice of commercializing low-earth
    orbit for human capability and we want to continue to see that
    happen.
        These public-private partnerships, of course, have been
    very successful on those activities, but also, even on earth
    science. We would like to see NASA buy data from commercial
    operators that are sensing the Earth in parts of the
    electromagnetic spectrum for purposes that NASA did not go out
    and seek their sensing. They are doing it for insurance
    companies. They are doing it for private, you know, weather
    kind of capabilities. They are doing it for agriculture
    companies. How can NASA tap into that? We want to buy that
    data, too, and become a customer there. We want to actually get
    more earth science data than ever before by taking advantage of
    those commercial capabilities.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
        Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Bridenstine, it is great to have you here
    today. I really enjoy hearing your knowledge on all subjects of
    NASA. It is fascinating. It is tremendous, and I think you are
    the right man or the right person for the job to serve as
    NASA's administrator.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
        Mr. Palazzo. I would have a couple questions. One of them
    is the enhanced-use lease agreement that NASA has been able to
    use very effectively to drive down costs and utilize underused
    properties. It seems like every year that is expiring and it
    affects all of your space centers--and I know you are trying to
    do a lot with limited resources--so every penny, every dollar
    that we save is a dollar that we can put in the exploration and
    development and do the things the American people want us to
    do.
        Can you tell me, do you support the EUL and why is it good
    for NASA?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Critically important for NASA. Enhanced-
    use lease enables us, as an Agency, to take property that might
    be underutilized and enable private companies to utilize it. It
    could be land for housing. It could be a test stand for
    Stennis. It could be a building that we have at one of our
    centers that is not fully utilized. If we can have a tenant
    occupy that property and, pay to improve that property, make it
    relevant for today's era--when we talk about test stands, we
    talk about launch sites, those kinds of things--we benefit
    greatly going back to what Congressman Cartwright was talking
    about, commercial helping us and us helping commercial, it
    works out very well when we can take advantage of enhanced-use
    leasing because it takes that underutilized capability, makes
    it utilized, and, of course, it brings resources to NASA then
    20 years from now, 30 years, 40 years, we are going to be able
    to have and/or use for other purposes. It is a really good
    program. We are very grateful to this committee and Congress,
    for making sure that is continued in the appropriations
    process.
        Mr. Palazzo. That's very good to hear. We are working on
    legislation to try to make the EUL longer, because as you know,
    I mean, with the exploration, it is almost a lot like flood
    insurance. People don't--you know, they want the certainty of
    the program being in place for a long time, but if it is
    expiring every six months, every year, every two years, I don't
    think we are fully utilizing the commerce, the industries, that
    would seek out NASA facilities and the joint ventures and the
    partnerships.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Then when there is a lapse in
    appropriations, everybody flees, and then we are back to where
    we started. You are exactly right, if we could make it
    permanent, it would be great.
        Mr. Palazzo. Right. I perfectly understand that. I know I
    came in a little late and I apologize, and there was some
    conversation on the Green Run. I know that is expected to be
    conducted at Stennis Space Center, so I would love, in the
    essence of time, if you would have one of your people come
    speak with us and just tell me some of the alternatives that
    you are talking about and what can we do to ensure that a Green
    Run is taking place.
        I know when I was on the space subcommittee, we had a lot
    of astronauts and a lot of people who have flown on rockets.
    Many of them had flown to the Moon. They understand how
    important testing our rocket engines are and testing them
    correctly, because you only get one chance. You don't want to
    test a rocket when you are strapped into that rocket.
        Mr. Bridenstine. That's right.
        Mr. Palazzo. We can't afford that.
        And they said one of the reasons of our successes was that
    we have tested the rockets and we did it well and we did it at
    Stennis Space Center. And I know they have an excellent record
    of making sure that when we send a man up to space, that man
    comes back--or woman or person--alive.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
        Mr. Palazzo. So, really quick--I have a little bit of
    time--I was going to ask about our Russian and China
    partnerships and the technological gap, but something that I
    have always been curious on from my previous committee is space
    debris. Is it getting worse? How are we going to address that?
    Because I do know that can affect not only our space stations,
    our satellites. Do we have any type of law in place that
    prevents other countries from say, detonating or exploding or
    polluting our space?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Great--all important points--great
    question. The answer is, yes, space debris is getting worse,
    not better. It is true that in low-earth orbit, debris does get
    removed just by the drag from the upper atmosphere, but a lot
    of what we do is beyond, you know, that lowest of low-earth
    orbits and that debris stays for a long time.
        It is important to note that NASA is a part of what's
    called the Interagency Space Debris Coordination Committee.
    That committee has basically, all the Space Agencies from
    around the world that do, you know, big activities in space.
    They have assessed, and NASA is a part of it, that every 5 to 9
    years, we are going to have a collision in orbit, similar to
    the Iridium-Cosmos collision that occurred, I think it was back
    in 2009.
        In other words, in every 5 to 9 years, we are going to have
    a collision that results in thousands of pieces of orbital
    debris that are trackable, which means that there are thousands
    of more pieces that are not trackable at this point. We need to
    do a number of things. We need to improve space-situational
    awareness. I know that the Air Force has been working on get
    the space fence online, so that is going to be an improvement,
    but that is just going to show us a lot more debris. Then we
    have to be able to characterize that debris and get better at
    assessing conjunctions and increasing the probabilistic, or I
    should say, the probabilities of those conjunctions occurring.
        When I say increasing the probability, I guess,
    increasing--you know, every piece of debris that has a bubble
    around it based on uncertainty. We need to get that bubble a
    lot smaller, in other words, reduce the uncertainty, so that
    while we see more debris, at the same time, we have more
    certainty that debris is not going to be impacting any of our
    missions and/or people we have on the International Space
    Station.
        Space-situational awareness and Space-traffic management is
    the next step after better space-situational awareness, and
    then mitigation--don't let it happen to begin with. Do space-
    situational awareness to make sure you understand it; space-
    traffic management to make sure you can control around it; and
    then eventually remediation, which is very costly, but getting
    it out of orbit. That is the next big thing. The European Space
    Agency is very keen on that right now. They want us to join
    them in that effort. We are looking at it.
        We do have some missions that are heading in that
    direction, but it ends up being very expensive and we need to
    make sure that we are doing all the necessary things. Here's
    the thing--important point--debris ends up being there for a
    long time. If we wreck space, we are not getting it back, and
    it is also important to note that creating debris fields
    intentionally is wrong. That is an important point, because
    some people like to test anti-satellite capabilities
    intentionally and create orbital debris fields that we, today,
    are still dealing with, and those same countries come to us for
    space-situational awareness because of the debris fields that
    they, themselves created, and that is being provided by the
    American taxpayer, not just to them, but to the entire world
    for free.
        The entire world has to step up and say, If you are going
    to do this, you are going to pay a consequence, and right now
    that consequence is not being paid.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Administrator Bridenstine, thank you for being here
    today. It is a pleasure to have you with us.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
        Mr. Crist. Despite the administration's rhetoric about
    leading in space and the announcement from the vice president
    yesterday to return humans to the surface of the moon by 2024,
    the fiscal year 2020 budget request proposes to reduce NASA's
    funding by almost half a billion dollars. This includes
    significant cuts to NASA's new exploration systems, the space-
    launch system, Orion crew capsule, and exploration ground
    systems. I am particularly concerned that these cuts would
    disproportionately impact my state of Florida. I am told that
    at least 250 million in cuts would directly impact
    infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center and additional cuts
    would impact Florida's NASA supplier companies, many of which
    are located within my district.
        This budget proposal also potentially undermines human
    exploration of deep space by deferring funding for the
    exploration upper stage of the Space Launch System and
    eliminating funding for a second mobile launcher, the latter of
    which could threaten hundreds of new jobs in Florida starting
    this year. I do agree that the exploration, upper stage, and
    second mobile launcher are critical to NASA's leadership in
    space and our ability to explore the Moon, Mars, and other
    deep-space destinations.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. I agree with that 100 percent.
        Mr. Crist. With the proposed cuts in this budget, can we
    meet the vice president's goal of returning to the Moon by
    2024?
        Mr. Bridenstine. We are going to--if we are going to have
    boots on the Moon in 2024, as the vice president indicated
    yesterday, which I believe we can achieve, we are going to need
    SLS. We are going to need to accelerate it and get as many of
    those as soon as possible. We are going to need exploration
    upper stage as soon as possible. 2024 is a very aggressive
    schedule and there is nothing that we can do to accelerate that
    in a more meaningful way to get boots on the Moon in 2024 than
    having exploration upper stage, you know, the Orion crew
    capsule, the European Service Module, and the Space Launch
    System. With the exploration upper stage, we need that second
    mobile launcher.
        Mr. Crist. So, I assume--pardon me, I am sorry.
        Mr. Bridenstine. That is all--you are absolutely accurate.
        Mr. Crist. So, I assume that all means that we would need
    more funding in order to accomplish those goals?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Mr. Crist. What about getting humans to Mars by 2033?
        Mr. Bridenstine. That is--you know, I want to make that
    happen. I want to be really clear.
        Mr. Crist. That would be great.
        Mr. Bridenstine. It is more challenging. There is a lot of
    technologies that have to be developed. I heard people talking
    earlier about nuclear thermal propulsion to--you know, that
    kind of capability. We talk about deep space, we talk about
    radiation affecting the human condition.
        What does that mean? We have got to get to Mars quicker. A
    7-month journey is going to be very harmful to the human
    condition, so we have to go faster and nuclear thermal is a
    part of that. We also need to figure out how do we shield from
    the radiation. We need to figure out how to live and work on
    another world.
        When you go to Mars, we are only lined up with Mars on the
    same side of the Sun once every 26 months. What does that mean?
    That means when we go to Mars, we are going to have to be able
    to live there for a couple of years before we can come home. We
    have to figure out how to, basically, what we call in-situ
    resource utilization. In this budget request, Congressman, we
    do have resources for in situ resource utilization for the
    first time and the President has given us a direction to
    actually utilize the resources of the Moon, which has never
    been done before.
        The reason we do that, the reason the Moon matters here, is
    because it is a proving ground. It is a proving ground for all
    of the capabilities that we need to test all of the
    capabilities where we need to learn. It is a 3-day journey
    home, which means things can go wrong and we can actually come
    home safely. We proved that with Apollo 13. We don't want to
    relive Apollo 13, but if things go wrong, the Moon--it is a
    better place--if that happened on the way to Mars, the
    astronauts would not have made it.
        The Moon is the best path to prove all these capabilities,
    technologies, and so, 2033 is, I think, aggressive, but the
    only way we can make that happen is to utilize the Moon as the
    proving ground.
        Mr. Crist. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
        Mr. Bridenstine. That is again, we are only on the same
    side of the Sun every 26 months, so when we go, we have got to
    be prepared.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, they better take a lot of DVDs.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yeah.
        Mr. Serrano. Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Bridenstine, welcome back.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you. By the way, Congressman
    Cartwright was teasing when he called me Doctor, so, just----
        Ms. Kaptur. Well, I am just trying to be a friendly source
    here.
        Mr. Bridenstine. All right.
        Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to ask you, your budget submission
    reflects some realignment of funding, moving money outside of
    the aeronautics line item. I am particularly interested in that
    line item. And could you please explain--and by the way, moving
    money out of aeronautics to me is quite a concerning move.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Ms. Kaptur. Could you please explain how decreasing in the
    aeronautics line will impact wind tunnels, specifically, at
    NASA's Glenn Research Facility in Brook Park, Ohio, which I
    represent, and I just wanted to place on the record that NASA's
    Glenn wind tunnels are critical for hypersonic testing. We are
    one of the only places in the world that can do this and I am
    concerned that there may be something happening somewhere
    within the Agency that I want to get on the record here.
        Could you please explain how and why you have decided to
    change this account for the wind tunnel budget in this way?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, ma'am. Critically important question,
    and know that we are 100 percent committed to the wind tunnels.
    There will be no change in the capabilities or the technologies
    that are available at Glenn because of this. This is basically
    moving numbers from one budget, line item to another budget
    line item. The reason we do that is because before, you know,
    we have wind tunnels--and this is throughout the Agency--that
    is utilized by different parts of NASA.
        We had the Science Mission Directorate paying a certain
    amount, and the Human Exploration and Operations Mission
    Directorate paying a certain amount, and the Aeronautics
    Mission Directorate paying a certain amount. It became
    difficult to track--who is paying what, who is using it most--
    and it became a challenge. What we have done now, is we have
    said we are going to take all of those resources that are being
    paid by the different mission directorates of NASA and instead,
    we are going to put them into one account and we are going to
    fund them from one account, so we can track it better and have
    better accounting on it.
        The key here is to know that there will be no change in
    capability at all at Glenn and, in fact, it stabilizes the
    funding in a way that will make things more predictable and I
    think better for the future.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. I just want to put on the record,
    you know, NASA Glenn Lewis Research Center is connected by an
    umbilical cord to the Plum Brook Research Center, where the
    Orion is being built right now----
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. In an international consortium.
    So, the wind tunnel issue is expensive and it has been
    developed over a long period of time and I want to hear you
    correctly that, in fact, though you are funding something
    centrally, it will not affect the mission?
        Mr. Bridenstine. That's correct.
        Ms. Kaptur. It will not--so, can I ask, what criteria did
    NASA use to determine whether a facility is best managed and
    funded centrally, by staff, or directly by any one of the
    mission directorates?
        Mr. Bridenstine. What I'd like to do, if possible, this was
    a project that was run out of CFO's office. I would like to
    take that for the record and get back to you on the specifics
    that went into this process, if that is okay.
        Ms. Kaptur. OK. That would be very, very helpful to us.
        Mr. Bridenstine. OK.
        Ms. Kaptur. And I have a related question on another topic,
    but I just know that that is my top priority----
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. And any other member up here
    representing a NASA center would do the same.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Ms. Kaptur. And we are--I said, how is it possible--just so
    you know my perspective--that a center named after John Glenn
    in a state that Neil Armstrong called home, could have the
    smallest NASA center in America?
        Mr. Bridenstine. And the Wright brothers.
        Ms. Kaptur. Well, that was a little before their time, but,
    yes, and the Wright brothers. So, I just sort of say, you know,
    I have got to defend my own and so we want to make sure that we
    don't compromise any asset that we have spent so long in
    perfecting.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Kaptur. OK. Thank you for listening.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur. My second question in my brief remaining time
    is in January 2019, NASA Glenn, Carnegie Melon University, and
    the National Energy Laboratory built on work in partnership
    with Magnetics, a company in Pittsburgh, and was awarded a U.S.
    patent for a commercialization-ready technology. Will your
    fiscal year 2020 budget allow Glenn to continue this type of
    collaboration with universities and industry throughout the
    Midwest?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, ma'am. We are--in fact, right now, as
    you mentioned, we have these programs. I think that is under
    kind of a community development line----
        Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
        Mr. Bridenstine [continuing]. And that is underway right
    now and I think it is around $5 million and we have 10
    different centers, of course, where that money is allocated to
    centers for distribution, but that activity is underway right
    now and it is in our interests.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. Very good. Thank you so much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. The overall budget request is
    nearly $500 million below last year's appropriated level. Some
    of the cuts carry heavy congressional and public interests such
    as Earth Science and Education. Does the administration see
    these as targets for the committee to fund from other
    resources; in other words, are these items that were left this
    way knowing that you have got friends over here who are going
    to--the agency has friends over here that are going to take
    care of it?
        Mr. Bridenstine. I don't think that was the intent at all,
    Mr. Chairman. I think, you know, any cuts that were there were
    based on priorities and the budget. We wanted to make sure that
    we were not duplicating efforts or doing things that were being
    done in other ways and, certainly, that was the effort here.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay. Just, again, perception, it would seem
    to some people that that is what happens every so often.
    Agencies know there is support for these programs so they don't
    include it and they submit better numbers, they think.
        The University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez and Rio Piedras
    campuses, especially the Mayaguez campus, has provided many
    scientists to NASA. These campuses have been recipients of the
    National Space Grant College and Fellowship Programs. Last
    year, the administration cut the education requests to zero and
    the committee added funding back. This year, it was zeroed
    again. Does the administration not see the need for such
    programs?
        Mr. Bridenstine. A couple of things. As of right now, and I
    looked this up because--so everybody knows, Mr. Chairman, you
    cornered me years ago, long before I had this job, about how
    important this was when you learned that I was potentially on
    the docket for this position. I looked up our different grant
    programs that are going to the University of Puerto Rico
    because I know it was of interest to you long ago. We have
    about 13 different grants right now that are active and it is
    also true that our goal is to make sure that we are reaching
    the right folks at the right time in order to stimulate young
    folks in the STEM curriculum, especially in those sometimes
    underprivileged or underrepresented communities, and our goal
    is to do that.
        We do that through the Science Mission Directorate, and
    through the Human Exploration and Operations Mission
    Directorate. We do it through the mission directorates, not
    always just through those grant programs that you mentioned.
    Again, what we are trying to do is make sure that we are
    allocating every dollar to the most effective possible way to
    accomplish the objective.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I would hope that you continue to look
    at that because these grants are very important to these
    campuses and they have provided NASA with a lot of engineers,
    as you know, the Mayaguez campus. And--the fact that I was born
    in Mayaguez, by the way; it is just an aside.
        Additionally, I have a keen interest in the continuation of
    the Arecibo Observatory in North Central Puerto Rico, that is
    partially funded by NASA. I trust funding will continue to be
    provided for Arecibo?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir. We have right now, about $4 and
    a half million dollars that we spend utilizing it on an annual
    basis and that is going to scale to about $5 million by 2022.
        Mr. Serrano. By 20?
        Mr. Bridenstine. 2022.
        Mr. Serrano. OK. When NASA's FY 2020 budget proposes to
    eliminate funding for the Wide-field Infrared Survey Telescope,
    that will be a first. This telescope was designed to work in
    concert with the James Webb Telescope by using its wide field
    of view to find objects while the James Webb Telescope would
    have the ability to focus in on more fine objects referred by
    the WFIRST telescope. If one was built to work with the other,
    why is WFIRST considered for elimination?
        Mr. Bridenstine. This is an important question and I want
    to make sure that I get it just right. They are intended to
    work together. One is wide-field, one is going to be able to
    look even further. With James Webb, we are talking about
    looking back to what we call cosmic dawn, the very first light
    in the universe, basically, looking back in time, which is kind
    of crazy to think about.
        Here, I think is the point. The James Webb Telescope is
    what we call a flagship mission. The WFIRST would be a flagship
    mission. One of the challenges, we have even right now within
    the Astrophysics Division of the Science Mission Directorate at
    NASA, is that the James Webb Space Telescope is well beyond its
    originally scheduled date. It is well over cost, and, of
    course, I have talked in Congress about this a lot recently.
        We are now getting it back on track. Because they work
    together, it makes sense to do one before the other and if
    James Webb is not yet ready, preparing WFIRST right away is
    probably not the right approach. What we are working on as an
    Agency, is better portfolio management. We need those large
    flagship missions like WFIRST, like James Webb, but we also
    need a balanced portfolio that includes smaller missions,
    medium-class missions, and small missions, to ultimately, in
    other words, spread the risk. I guess, think of it as hedging
    on these kinds of missions.
        The intent is to create a better balance of the portfolio
    in future years, but you are absolutely right. WFIRST is not
    funded in the budget requests because James Webb is not yet
    launched. We have that back on track to launch in March of
    2021. WFIRST will be a critical mission when James Webb is on
    orbit.
        Mr. Serrano. So, the plan is to still have them work
    together?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay. Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. As you know, a frequent and
    regular tempo of launches to--fix costs of aspects of launch
    programs. So, one launch a year is probably not the best use of
    taxpayer dollars. What steps are you examining, especially in
    light of yesterday's speech, to make greater use of SLS and
    also its unique large capacity?
        Mr. Bridenstine. The key is to have missions for SLS, and
    given, as you said, what the vice president said yesterday, we
    are, in fact, going to have missions for SLS. What we need to
    do is we have to accelerate that first launch, get an uncrewed
    test of the Orion crew vehicle around the Moon, and then we
    need to get to the second launch of SLS EM-2 with crew, and
    from that point forward, we are going into an operations-kind
    of tempo.
        I think we, as an Agency, can get to a point where we are
    surge, which is ultimately what we are going to need to do. We
    are going to need to surge SLS, surge Orion, and, in fact,
    surge the exploration of upper stage if we are going to put
    boots on the Moon in 2024. Getting a throughput, instead of
    once every year, getting a throughput of once every six months
    is what we are going to have to accomplish. If we do that, you
    are absolutely right, the costs per launch will be driven down.
        Another thing to consider, we have what we call the SM-1,
    which is Science Mission 1, it is written in the law that we
    are going to launch that on an SLS. For example, it is a Europa
    mission. It is going all the way out to Europa to help us
    assess and characterize Europa, which is a Moon of Jupiter, and
    it is water world; it is covered in ice and it has got liquid
    water plumes coming out of it. The question is: Could there be
    life there? That is what we are trying to characterize.
        One of the things that we need to consider, if the agenda
    is to get boots on the moon in 2024, do we want to use one of
    the very valuable and critical SLS launches to launch Europa,
    knowing that that is going to potentially take time? Could we,
    in essence, launch that on a different vehicle that would take
    a lot longer to get Europa--it could take an additional 3 years
    to get to Europa--but, at the same time, would not take away
    from the schedule to get boots on the Moon. I guess my point
    is, given the 2024 agenda, which is what you identified earlier
    and how important that is, if that is the case, there is going
    to be no shortage of missions for SLS and there is going to be
    no shortage of a desire to surge and, of course, all of this is
    going to require resources that we are going to--I am more than
    happy to work with you to figure out how to get those.
        Mr. Aderholt. OK. The exploration, upper stage, and the
    Mobile Launcher 2 are important Space Launch System upgrade
    elements which would allow future crewed missions to also bring
    along payloads like lunar landers, gateway elements and
    habitats to the Moon, and eventually to Mars. Can you comment
    on the unique capabilities of the EUS and how close NASA is to
    letting a contract for the Mobile Launcher 2?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. In May we will be under
    contract for the second mobile launcher. The second mobile
    launcher is valuable because it enables us to launch an SLS
    with an exploration upper stage, which gives us more upmass,
    more ability to launch bigger objects and objects further; in
    other words, all the way to the Moon.
        If we are going to land in 2024, we have got to have that
    second mobile launcher. We certainly need to have exploration
    upper stage, and all of these things need to be accelerated.
    The key is, when we talk about exploration upper stage, what it
    allows us to do is launch humans on the Orion crew capsule with
    the European Service Module and at the same time, launch
    hardware, big hardware with those humans. That big hardware
    could be habitation. It could be parts of the gateway. It could
    be landers that can get those humans to the surface of the
    Moon. The key, ultimately, is going to be larger upmass, which
    SLS is the key to doing that. Exploration upper stage helps us
    do that.
        Mr. Aderholt. Well, SLS and Orion programs are key to the
    health of our national aerospace supplier base and it has
    really helped to really put in a new boost of energy to the
    suppliers in all of the 50 states following the retirement of
    the space shuttle.
        And I am not aware of any other DOD program which has a
    broad supplier and workforce impact. The program supports NASA
    workforce, and infrastructure of Kennedy, Marshall, Stennis,
    and Michaud assembly facility.
        Can you talk about the importance of our national space
    programs, such as the capabilities, the supplier base, the
    innovation of SLS, the Orion benefit on a broad range of
    aerospace industry users.
        Mr. Bridenstine. That is a great point. When we talk about
    these kind of capabilities, it is part of our national
    infrastructure. It is part of our industrial base that keeps
    America the number one place in the world when it comes to
    exploration. The vice president was very clear yesterday. We
    are to remain the preeminent space faring nation. That is on
    our agenda. We have got to have the industrial base to achieve
    that.
        SLS and Orion are programs that keep that going. I can tell
    you as a former member of Congress from Oklahoma, we have a lot
    of suppliers to those programs in Oklahoma that are doing
    critically important work that actually spills over. We talk
    about the capability to launch a missile off of an airplane,
    for example, or the ability to do different types of design.
    All of these kind of capabilities are back in my home state of
    Oklahoma because of this particular program.
        Part of being part of the industrial base is, that is a big
    piece of what SLS is.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Ms. Roby.
        Ms. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And whereas this
    committee plays an important role of making sure we stay within
    our budget and on time. I would like to channel a little bit of
    the spirit of our former chairman, if I might, and just tell
    you this is really awesome. And it is really cool to be a part
    of this and to be able to ask you these questions, but to think
    about the role that we get to play as members of Congress and
    future space exploration. And so I am thrilled, as always, to
    be here.
        I am concerned that NASA hasn't moved ahead with the
    procurement of the SLS core stage for EM-3 and beyond. Despite
    having already purchased the engine's boosters and Orion crew
    vehicles for those missions, in order to expedite the lunar
    missions the vice president highlighted. Will you move forward
    quickly with the contract to allow the SLS program to procure
    the long lead items from suppliers and begin work on core stage
    3 and beyond?
        Mr. Bridenstine. We are going to need to. If we are going
    to achieve boots on the Moon, which is what the vice president
    called us to do yesterday by 2024, the answer is absolutely we
    need to move as quickly as possible, not just on EM-3, but EM-
    4, EM-5. There is a lot of work that has to be done very
    quickly. The answer is yes.
        The vice president was very clear, and he was talking on
    behalf of the President. This goes right back to space policy
    directive-1, that was signed over a year ago by the President
    to go to the Moon sustainably with commercial partners,
    international partners, and utilize the resources of the moon.
    If we are going to do--if we are going to put the pieces in
    place to put those boots on the Moon in 2024, we are going to
    have to move very quickly on all these pieces.
        Ms. Roby. Thank you again for being here. Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Administrator, the administration's goal
    is to privatize U.S. efforts at the International Space Station
    by 2025. Are you concerned about our partnerships if we don't
    continue U.S. presence in low Earth orbit after 2025 due to a
    lack of federal funding or a gap for a successor station?
        Mr. Bridenstine. It is a concern. We are in a position now,
    because of the International Space Station, we are
    commercializing low Earth orbit rapidly. This particular budget
    request does not specifically say that we are going to end
    direct funding for the ISS in 2025. It says we want to move to
    a new model of funding. In other words, how are we going to
    commercialize low Earth orbit in a more robust way? The goal
    being that if NASA can be one customer of many customers and we
    can have numerous providers competing on cost and innovation,
    not just for resupply of ISS, not just for commercial crew,
    getting crew to the ISS, but also habitation itself.
        Industry is interested in the microgravity environment,
    whether it is pharmaceuticals, or manufacturing, and the health
    care industry even larger. Right now, we have got experiments
    where we are using adult stem cells to print human organs in 3D
    and that could be transformational.
        There is a lot of market opportunities, plus there is an
    entire, I guess, ecosystem of people that are interested in
    going to space for tourism, just commercially just for, I
    guess, fun, vacation. There is an opportunity there as well.
    What we want to do is utilize the International Space Station
    to prove out those capabilities and those technologies.
        There are companies out there that are trying to develop
    their own commercial habitats. We want to encourage that. There
    is money in this budget to help them move along faster. Again,
    if we can commercialize and be a customer, then our costs go
    down, and then we can utilize our resources on activities for
    which there is not yet a commercial robust--a robust commercial
    marketplace, for example, returning to the Moon.
        That is the agenda here. We want to make sure that in low
    Earth orbit we do everything possible to commercialize, drive
    down costs, use resources to go where there is no commercial
    market yet.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt is going to the Moon on vacation
    he told me. And he has got a question.
        Mr. Aderholt. I am not going to Mars, though. It is too
    long of a trip. Over the last two fiscal years, Congress has
    provided over 175 million towards the development of a nuclear
    thermal propulsion. And therefore, we were a little
    disappointed to see the request did not include any of the
    funding for that purpose. How much of the 75 million that
    Congress provided in fiscal year 2018 for nuclear thermal
    propulsion activities has NASA spent towards demonstration
    preparation instead of, for example, multiple studies?
        And my understanding is that other nuclear work as produced
    power elements limited to one megawatt. Can you respond to
    that?
        Mr. Bridenstine. You are right. I think it is nuclear
    thermal propulsion and related activities. I think under that
    related activities, we did spend money on, as you mentioned,
    kilowatt power for being able to provide, in essence, a lot of
    power for people to live and work on the surface of the Moon.
    The answer is we have spent money on studies. We are continuing
    to develop. We are in phase one. We are trying to get really
    smart on how we would utilize nuclear thermal and that kind of
    thing, but as you heard yesterday, the vice president is keenly
    aware of the importance for nuclear thermal in order to get to
    Mars faster. The DOD has an interest in nuclear thermal as
    well.
        We want to make sure that we are doing that.
        Mr. Aderholt. Given Congress' direction on that and, of
    course, the vice president's speech yesterday, can you commit
    to us to moving ahead with plans for an in space demonstration
    of the nuclear thermal propulsion in 2024?
        Mr. Bridenstine. As far as plans for a demonstration in
    2024, I would have to get back to you specifically on where we
    are on that. I am not, off the top of my head, prepared to talk
    about where we are on that whole development.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. If you could get back with us on that,
    that would be great.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you
    for answering our questions. I hope you understand, and I think
    you do, that where we try to fill holes that may exist in the
    budget is because this chairman, and this ranking member, and
    the members of this subcommittee do have a lot of respect,
    understanding, and support for NASA. We think what you do is
    important for the future of our country. We want you to do
    more. And this is--I speak for Mr. Aderholt and Ms. Roby
    because I know they agree, do more with education and schools,
    you know, having your folks visit schools, visit children,
    visit students, visit colleges, let them know what is available
    at NASA and what NASA will bring to the next generation.
        So thank you, good luck, and we will see you at the end of
    the process.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. And the hearing is adjourned.
        [Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
    to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                           Wednesday, March 27, 2019.

                NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

                                   WITNESSES

    NEIL JACOBS, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
        ADMINISTRATION
        Mr.  Serrano. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Dr. Jacobs, NOAA's acting administrator, thank you for
    coming back for your second time.
        As acting administrator, Dr. Jacobs oversees the agency's
    $5.4 billion budget, which includes NOAA's sea, air, land, and
    space observing platforms, and the critical environmental data
    they provide. He also covers the wet side of NOAA in all of its
    work in fisheries and coastal management.
        Now, the administration has requested $4.46 billion for
    NOAA for fiscal year 2020. The agency's top three priorities
    include improving extreme weather prediction through the
    implementation of the Weather Act, expanding the Blue Economy,
    and further investments in space innovation. These are good
    steps but remain vastly overshadowed by the devastating cuts
    that President Trump has in store for NOAA.
        The request represents an 18 percent decrease or nearly a
    $1 billion cut from the 2019 enacted level. In terms of job
    cuts, this amounts to a reduction of 547 civilian positions
    within the agency, which is quite devastating. The massive cuts
    or outright elimination of vital environmental research remains
    wildly unrealistic and unworkable, just as they have for the
    past two fiscal years.
        This proposal severely cuts funding for ocean exploration
    and observations, species recovery programs, the tsunami
    warning program, fisheries management, program grants to our
    academic and nonprofit research institutions that conduct
    research to further NOAA's goals and mission, just to name a
    few.
        It, once again, proposes a complete elimination of funding
    for NOAA grant and education program. It deems as lower
    priority, including Sea Grants, Coastal Zone Management grants,
    Pacific coastal climate research, the Coastal Salmon Recovery
    Fund. These remain nonstarters with the subcommittee, we must
    tell you now.
        I would like to remind the administration that investment
    in critical research in our universities protecting coastal
    habitats, where one half of the U.S. population resides, and
    the livelihoods of fishermen are not low priority. Not to this
    subcommittee. These grant programs employ thousands of
    scientists across the country and territories, protect local
    economies, and give us the tools to safeguard our communities
    against sea level rise and climate change. The investments we
    make today will prepare us for the challenges we face tomorrow.
        As our February hearing on NOAA climate research made very
    clear, we are starting to experience those challenges now.
    Therefore, I do not believe this budget, as presented to us
    today, allows NOAA to live up to its core mission, as the
    Administration would have us believe.
        Dr. Jacobs, it is good to see you. Thank you for joining us
    to discuss NOAA's priorities and outlook for fiscal year 2020.
        At this time, I recognize my friend, the ranking member,
    Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. And I
    look forward to having another productive day of hearings. I
    think we got a pretty full day today.
        So good to have Dr. Jacobs here, and welcome back to the
    subcommittee, and we appreciate you taking the time to join us
    to discuss the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    better known as NOAA, fiscal year 2020 budget.
        Of course, as we see, the fiscal year 2020 budget request
    is $4.5 billion. Of course, a reduction, $968 million from
    fiscal year 2019 enacted level. I understand that formulating
    the fiscal year 2020 budget, you are required to make some
    tough choices, and you got to make some--put some programs
    above others. And while I have concerns that some potential
    programs impact and some of the things that would be impacted
    by this request, especially when it comes to key weather
    research programs, I am pleased to see that the--that your
    budget continues to--and NOAA continues to focus on identifying
    agency efficiencies, maximizing the economic contributions for
    our coastal and marine resources, and also reducing the impact
    of extreme weather.
        Utilizing the information that we gather from the hearing
    today, this subcommittee will work hard over the coming months
    to carefully review the budget proposal to provide NOAA the
    resources that it needs for fiscal year 2020 to effectively
    carry out this mission.
        So, Dr. Jacobs, again we look forward to your testimony,
    and continue to work together to better understand and predict
    the changes in our world's weather system and the bodies of
    water, and share that information to the public, and to
    conserve our coastal and marine resources.
        So with that, I yield back.
        Mr.  Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Jacobs, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Try to keep
    it to five, but please understand that your whole statement
    will be inserted in the record.
        Mr.  Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and
    members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. The President's fiscal year 2020 budget request
    for NOAA is $111 million above the fiscal year 2019 request and
    emphasizes core programs while making targeted investments
    which we believe will produce a substantial return for the
    American taxpayer.
        Accelerating advancements in the global modeling program is
    a top priority. While there have been many achievements in
    2018, problems exist with the current structure of weather
    research to operations. The internal and external strategy is
    fractured, and the computing procurement process is cumbersome
    and the funding process disincentivizes collaboration.
        The fiscal year 2020 request addresses many of these
    challenges through the creation of the Earth Prediction
    Innovation Center, or EPIC. Based on the Weather Research and
    Forecast Innovation Act of 2017 and the recently authorized
    National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization
    Act of 2018, EPIC will severe as the hub for building and
    maintaining a true community model.
        EPIC's innovative structure will link scientists and
    software engineers in academia, private industry, and partner
    agencies with research development and operational activities
    inside of NOAA. EPIC will significantly enhance our ability to
    access external expertise, reestablishing preeminence of U.S.
    forecast model skill, and improving our ability to provide
    accurate watches and warnings.
        The NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture study, or
    NSOSA, which was completed in 2017, analyzed various approaches
    to better meet mission requirements with greater flexibility
    and responsiveness and incorporating involving technologies.
    Congress recognized the importance of NSOSA codifying the
    program in the NIDIS Reauthorization Act of 2018.
        This budget initiates NSOSA implementation and invests to
    evaluate innovative space-based solutions and partnerships,
    including $12.3 million for joint venture partnerships and
    hosted payloads on geostationary and polar orbits. It also
    continues the importance of commercial weather data pilot
    program, as well as $5 million for the option to purchase data
    after successful testing.
        This budget makes necessary investments for strong coastal
    communities and economies. It includes an increase of $2.3
    million for regional fishery management councils to analyze and
    remove outdated or ineffective regulations. To help level the
    playing field for U.S. commercial fishermen in a global seafood
    marketplace, an additional $1.6 million is requested to enforce
    Seafood Import Monitoring Program and prevent the importation
    of seafood caught using illegal fishing practices.
        Finally, the budget includes an increase of $3.6 million to
    support aquaculture by assisting an industry with the
    regulatory compliance and conducting research to ensure the
    American farmed fish are safe and sustainable.
        Executive Order 13840 established the National Ocean Policy
    focused on providing tools to coastal communities to
    sustainably manage their offshore waters. The budget includes
    an additional $4 million of ocean data platforms, building on
    innovative tools developed by NOAA to improve siting and
    offshore activities.
        NOAA has made great strides in the past 2 years to reduce
    the amount of time needed for environmental review, the time to
    complete formal and informal Endangered Species Act
    consultations so it is reduced by over 22 and 65 percent,
    respectively. Incidental harassment authorizations under the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act have been reduced by 25 percent.
    The fiscal year 2020 budget builds on this success by providing
    an additional $3 million to further reduce the timeline of
    consultations and permits.
        Other sectors in the Blue Economy that this budget
    addresses include marine transportation through additional
    precision navigation data, efforts to reduce marine debris,
    accelerate economic benefit of new and expanded marine
    sanctuaries, and reducing the backlog of Natural Resource
    Damage Assessment cases.
        Finally, this budget includes $5 million for the National
    Oceanographic Partnership Program. We intend to use these funds
    to leverage investments from other Federal agencies, private
    industry, and philanthropic organizations that have shared
    interest in advancing ocean research. These funds can be used
    for a variety of partnerships, ranging from ocean exploration
    to new technology to detect and protect marine mammals.
        NOAA services touch every America every day. I believe this
    budget request meets NOAA's core mission by protecting lives
    and property, while also positioning the agency to be more
    efficient and effective moving forward.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
    would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Serrano. Thank you for your testimony, sir.
        Dr. Jacobs, and I say this with all due respect, I am
    having a hard time taking this budget proposal seriously. It
    includes an 18 percent top line cut along with wholesale
    elimination of nearly all of the grant programs. It proposes
    terminating 547 NOAA employees and upending the lives of so
    many students and post-docs whose funding would be pulled from
    Sea Grant, the cooperative institutes, and the other external
    research funding.
        Do you know how many students exactly would lose the
    funding they depend on to continue their studies? Is it dozens,
    hundreds, thousands maybe?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I don't know the exact number of students that
    would be impacted.
        Mr.  Serrano. Does anybody know at NOAA that could tell us
    at a sooner rather than later date?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I will look into that and see if I can find a
    number.
        Mr.  Serrano. So this budget would, in my opinion, halt the
    early careers of possibly thousands of young scientists. Has
    NOAA ever discussed that ramification with the department and
    OMB?
        Mr.  Jacobs. We have. But in the situation where we had to
    make some tough choices and balancing administration
    priorities, we really focused on our core mission of protecting
    life and property.
        Mr.  Serrano. Let me go back a second to my initial
    question. You say you don't know how many people it would
    affect. In the discussions with OMB, did it come up the
    possibility that Congress would ask you how many people it
    would affect? We tend to do that a lot.
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, as far as the impact to our ability to
    maintain our core mission, we still have what we need to do
    that. As far as the outreach into the educational aspect of it,
    I don't have that number.
        Mr.  Serrano. Continuing with education. I am extremely
    disappointed to once again see severe cuts to NOAA's Office of
    Education. In particular, the budget proposes to eliminate a
    program I helped create over 20 years ago, the Educational
    Partnership Program, with Minority-Serving Institutions.
        Do you know what some of the accomplishments of this
    program are, for example, that the partner institutions have
    produced over 2,300 degrees in the NOAA sciences since 2002?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Oh, it is a very valuable program. I would
    point out that we are a million dollars above the previous
    year's President's budget in this program. As far as STEM goes,
    there is actually quite a few aspects of this throughout NOAA.
    We have K-12 programs at the forecast offices. We have a lot of
    different outreach that we still do. In fact, moving the
    community model development program outside of NOAA and putting
    a lot of our data on external web portals gives the
    universities and students and PIs and post-docs access to a
    tremendous amount of information.
        So my hope is that a lot of this data, while we may not
    explicit be funding their research, we will be giving them
    access to more information and data to do research.
        Mr.  Serrano. Well, one of the things that troubles me with
    this whole presentation is that NOAA doesn't seem to know just
    how successful they have been. I mean, that the cuts are coming
    in without fully understanding that these programs mean a lot
    to a lot of people and produce for the future of our country.
        Are you also aware that over 50 percent of our Nation's
    Black Ph.D. Graduates in the marine and atmospheric sciences
    benefited from these programs? You do?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Again, it is--in the budget situation we are
    in, we had to make tough choices and focus on our----
        Mr.  Serrano. What is the budget situation you are in? Is
    it--I mean, because we have been around here long enough to
    also know that there is another way of presenting budgets, and
    that is you leave holes that are easy for anybody to see and
    then Congress will take care of it. Is this what is happening
    here, that you are all hoping that Congress will fill in these
    holes in negotiations with the House and the Senate?
        Mr.  Jacobs. We made a conscious decision to focus on our
    core mission of maintaining full-time employees and protecting
    life and property.
        Mr.  Serrano. Let me just ask you one more question. This
    budget proposes to cut an additional 248 employees from the
    National Weather Service, despite regular reports, including
    one from GAO of understaffing and subsequent negative impacts
    on the quality of forecast produced.
        How many hours have weather forecasters worked without pay
    covering vacant operational shifts because they have hit the
    overtime premium pay cap imposed by law? What efforts, if any,
    has the Weather Service taken to avoid requiring its
    forecasters to work shifts for which they will not be paid?
        Mr.  Jacobs. As far as I know, we are doing a tremendous
    amount of work in actually backfilling and hiring new
    forecasters. In fiscal year 2018, it was the first time since
    2011 that our actual hiring had outpaced attrition. And,
    granted, we had a setback during the shutdown because of
    typical retirements happening at the end of the year. We are
    staffed at roughly 91\1/2\ percent right now. And once we
    actually get to the point where we are fully staffed, we won't
    have to have people, you know, working overtime unless they
    want to.
        Mr.  Serrano. Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr.  Aderholt. National Water Center, it plays a key role,
    as you know, in strengthening our Nation's water forecast
    capabilities for floods and droughts and improving preparedness
    for water-related disasters. My question to you, Dr. Jacobs,
    would be, can you speak to the importance of the work that is
    being done at the National Water Center? Especially, I would be
    interested in speaking--if you could speak in light of the
    recent flooding events in Nebraska and the fact that NOAA's
    spring outlook indicated that two-thirds of the lower 48 States
    face an elevated risk of flooding through May.
        Mr.  Jacobs. The work being done in the National Water
    Center is extremely critical. It is a little known fact that
    water actually is responsible for the most deaths, over a
    hundred a year, and about half of those are in cars. It is a
    critical component of our integrated modeling system where we
    are working on forecasting precipitation, and integrating that
    with the national water model, which forecasts stream flow with
    the help of USGS gauges.
        The downstream effects of this are not just related to the
    protection of life and property, although that is the primary
    concern; it is actually hugely important to the economy,
    because the Mississippi River is a huge port, and the water
    flow, particularly now with the amount of volume going through
    there, is slowing down the shipping. So there is a tremendous
    amount of value that the Water Center provides, and it is an
    integral part of what we are doing.
        I would like to add that in fiscal year 2019, we will be
    including Hawaii in the scope of the National Water Center's
    coverage, and in fiscal year 2020, we will be including Puerto
    Rico.
        Mr.  Aderholt. As you know, the committee provided funds to
    expedite hiring within the Water Prediction Operation Division
    of the National Water Center. Is NOAA committed to maintaining
    those staffing levels for fiscal year 2020?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Absolutely. So right now, we have 68 staff at
    the Water Center. Our goal is to increase the staff by 25
    percent by the end of fiscal year 2019.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Would additional resources in staff help
    improve the Center's work that they do there? Is that----
        Mr.  Jacobs. We have the resources. We have $1.5 million
    provided by Congress. It is largely a timing and hiring issue,
    but we are on pace to hit the 25 percent.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Okay. As you are aware, the southeast
    experienced some of the most destructive and deadly tornadoes
    in the country. Just earlier this month, I pointed out
    yesterday in a hearing, that 23 people lost their lives when an
    EF4 tornado tore through east Alabama, and that is why my
    constituents and so many in Alabama, and even other parts of
    the southeast, really value the research programs like the
    VORTEX Southeast. It brings Federal agencies together to help
    better understand how environmental factors in the region
    affect tornado formation intensity and paths.
        Yesterday, Dr. Cordova was here with the NSF, and I spoke
    with her about the role in and our commitment to VORTEX
    Southeast as well.
        Can you take a moment to explain the role that NOAA plays
    in the VORTEX Southeast?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So the research and the ability to both
    observe and detect and predict tornadoes is right on the
    cutting edge of what we are doing. Typically, I refer to a
    tornado or a convective cell as sub-grid scale in the
    forecasting. And while we can observe tornadoes with radar,
    what we really want to do is understand the dynamics in
    thunderstorms and be able to try to predict them. And we are
    just now at the cutting edge of being able to predict rotation
    and thunderstorm cells. We can't actually predict tornadoes
    yet, but we can predict tornadic potential.
        So the outcome of this project VORTEX, as well as what we
    are going to be doing with the EPIC, we will be looking at
    convective resolving models, convective ensembles, and
    probabilistic forecasting. And eventually, my hope is to get to
    a point where we can improve what we call our warn on forecast
    capability, and that is actually issuing tornado warnings based
    on forecasted rotation and cells, instead of actually waiting
    to observe the rotation on radar imaging.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Well, given that NOAA has put such high
    priority on improving weather forecast models to save lives and
    protect property, what was the rationale in terminating this
    program?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So a lot of the research that is being done in
    that program, particularly when it comes to convective allowing
    models, is going to be done on the academic community side
    through the Earth Prediction Innovation Center. So while we are
    streamlining our unified forecasting systems, so there has been
    a lot of talk about the FV3 in the global model, but we are
    also going to an FV3-based convective-allowing model, which
    will be the next generation of our high-resolution convective
    forecast, which will obviously be the key model in predicting
    tornadic potential.
        Mr.  Aderholt. So this research would be carried out in a
    different area of NOAA?
        Mr.  Jacobs. There will be several different parts, both in
    the Weather Service, U.S. Weather Research Program, as well as
    other parts of OAR that we will be doing convective research as
    well as tornadic research.
        Mr.  Aderholt. You mentioned about the fact that it is--
    that you cannot really predict when a tornado will occur. What
    do you think it will take for us to develop a real accurate
    advanced tornado warning system?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Really, it will be probably parallel paths
    working on the convective-allowing models and probabilistic
    forecast, as well as looking into social sciences and the human
    response to tornado warnings and how they are issued.
    Originally, we thought that more lead time would provide better
    response, but how that is messaged is really a social science
    issue. So we are really looking at this from a social science
    angle to get the public to better respond to our warnings.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Serrano. Mr. Cartwright.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Dr. Jacobs, for coming back. We had you not too long ago.
        As you might recall from our last hearing, I am very
    interested in what NOAA is doing to address climate change.
    Significantly, I am interested in preventing damage to the
    American economy, and also, obviously, improving the science.
        As stated in the fourth National Climate Assessment, which
    NOAA helped produce, the impacts of climate change are already
    being felt in communities across the country. The increasing
    frequency and intensity of weather-related disasters, some of
    which Mr. Aderholt just referred to in the southeast, is having
    a real economic impact, not to mention lives lost.
        Between 2005 and 2018 alone, total Federal funding for
    disaster assistance in the United States has approached half a
    trillion dollars, half a trillion dollars in 13 years. Just
    last month, we heard from you that NOAA provides vital realtime
    weather and climate data to help communities prepare for severe
    weather events. We also learned there are key scientific
    questions that NOAA has to continue working on to improve the
    accuracy and reliability of the short- and long-term weather
    forecasts and climate models.
        Now, this proposed 18 percent cut to NOAA's budget
    decreases funding for weather research and modeling, surface
    ocean and upper air observations, and regional climate labs. It
    also eliminates competitive climate research funds and the
    Arctic Research Program. These are cuts that make it harder to
    improve forecasts for floods, hurricanes, wildfires, let alone
    trying to figure out how to predict tornadoes.
        I have some questions. In our last hearing, you confirmed
    that the National Climate Assessment is based on facts and
    sound science. Is that still your position?
        Mr.  Jacobs. It is--the National Climate Assessment
    basically took the RCP scenarios and extrapolated those to
    generate potential weather and climate forecast impacts, and
    the results based on those scenarios are grounded in science.
        Mr.  Cartwright. So just so we are on the same page, this
    means you agree with the NCA finding that human activities,
    especially emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel
    combustion, deforestation, and land use change, are primarily
    responsible for the climate changes observed over the last six
    decades. Correct?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, in absence of any other natural force in
    human production of CO2 as well as the removal of
    the CO2 sinks is certainly a dominant factor.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Do you agree with the NCA finding that we
    are already seeing the impacts of climate change, and that in
    the future, we will likely experience increased frequency and
    intensity of extreme weather events?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, so the impacts of climate change that we
    have been seeing now, like as far as sea level rise and such,
    are fairly well-documented. The scenarios of what the actual
    future weather impacts would be are still being debated. There
    is some frequency----
        Mr.  Cartwright. Let me stop you there. You signed off on
    the National Climate Assessment, and that is in there.
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, those are predictions based on
    predictions. If you believe the assumptions on the first set of
    predictions, then, yes. The discussion as far as----
        Mr.  Cartwright. I don't mean to interrupt you, but we have
    limited time. You believe it and that is why you signed off on
    it, right, Dr. Jacobs?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, those are peer-reviewed papers. But, you
    know, we would have to wait a hundred years to see if they
    verify.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Of course. Do you also agree with the NCA
    finding that without substantial and sustained reductions in
    global greenhouse gas emissions, the continued warming is
    expected to cause substantial net damage to the United States
    economy throughout this century?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, there is also a discussion of improved
    agricultural capabilities----
        Mr.  Cartwright. It is a yes or no question, and then you
    can explain. Do you agree with that? It is in the NCA finding
    that you signed off on.
        Mr.  Jacobs. I don't disagree with anything in the NCA.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Okay. And you can explain, I don't mean to
    cut you off.
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, I mean, there is--there could be
    positive potential impacts as well, and some of these are
    natural and some of them are human induced; it doesn't change
    the fact that we should be prepared to deal with them.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Exactly. Mr. Jacobs, have you communicated
    your views on the soundness of the NCA to the White House, who
    believe that climate change is a hoax?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I have had numerous discussions with Dr.
    Droegemeier, who is the advisor to the White House on all
    things related to science.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Well, do you think it is responsible
    leadership on the part of the Administration knowingly to
    ignore the advice of its foremost scientists, like you, Dr.
    Jacobs, on an issue that will cause significant harm to the
    United States economy and loss of lives?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I don't have any evidence that they are
    ignoring what they are being told.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor.
        I yield back.
        Mr.  Serrano. Mr. Case.
        Mr.  Case. Thank you.
        I understand--I think all we have at this point is your
    budget and brief. I don't think we have your congressional
    justifications of your budget yet. Is that correct?
        Mr. Jacobs. I don't believe so.
        Mr.  Case. Okay. And is there any reason for a delay in
    getting that to us?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I suspect part of it is related to the
    shutdown and just delaying our ability to get it out.
        Mr.  Case. Any expectation about when we can get a more
    detailed explanation of your budget?
        Mr.  Jacobs. We can certainly get you one--I can get you
    one as soon as I can. I am hoping later this week, but not
    completely sure on that.
        Mr.  Case. Okay. First of all, I just want to associate
    myself fully with my chair's remarks. I just find it
    unbelievable the cuts that were suggested in NOAA, and this
    comes from somebody that has believed in NOAA for a long, long
    time. I think many of us do. I think we believe in your
    mission. I think we believe it is critical, not just to the
    safety of folks and property around the world, but in a whole
    range of issues, really critical to our overall mission,
    scientific advancement, certainly our atmospheres as they are
    entering a critical phase and our oceans that are entering a
    critical phase. So I don't get the reductions and I don't get
    where those came from.
        I cannot believe that anybody in NOAA that believes in the
    mission of NOAA supports these cuts, and so I have to assume
    that somebody somewhere told you, hey, cut it. So is it correct
    that this was a top-down directive to reduce by that much in
    NOAA or was this some bottom-up judgment about priorities
    within NOAA?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Our primary mission was just to focus on
    dealing with some tough choices, and we really chose to
    prioritize our core mission and essential functions over a lot
    of the external grants.
        Mr.  Case. Okay. Well, let me give you an example in your
    budget, as I understand it. I was born and raised in Hilo.
    Hilo, Hawaii. Hilo, Hawaii, has had two devastating tsunamis in
    recent history, 1946 and 1960. I actually was there in 1960, I
    was a young boy. Our family routinely evacuated every time
    there was an earthquake anywhere in the Pacific rim. There was
    an earthquake in the danger zone, we didn't know if a tsunami
    was coming or not, we got out. And we would do that about once
    a year. We lived down by the ocean, we were in the danger zone.
    My school was in the danger zone.
        One day in 1960, the siren came on, we evacuated and we
    went to high ground. I went to sleep, I woke up, my town was
    devastated. There were 61 dead. And that was true throughout
    the Pacific rim. There was incredible damage in Chile; Japan,
    loss of life; California, loss of life, throughout the Pacific
    rim from a tsunami that was generated. And that was really the
    genesis for the tsunami warning systems that are so perfected
    today.
        The problem of why people died in Hilo in 1960 was that
    they didn't believe a tsunami was coming. They had no
    independent verification. They had an evacuation warning once a
    year, and they got into the lull of thinking, well, it is not
    going to happen this time around.
        And so when I see that you have proposed in this budget to
    cut the Pacific warning center, which seems to--you know, which
    may be a small amount in the big picture, but it is really,
    really critical to assure people of when a tsunami is and isn't
    coming, which still happens. Once a year, we have an earthquake
    somewhere in the Pacific rim. I don't get it. You know, that is
    a budget cutter up above you somewhere saying, well, let's just
    cut that. We don't understand the importance. And I am sitting
    here telling you, I lived through it. And that is very, very
    important to people.
        So can you elucidate a little bit on that one subject, why
    the tsunami warning function in the Pacific is being cut?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So the function itself is not. We are looking
    at consolidating the warning centers. Right now, we have two.
    We were looking at consolidating it to one. The actual DART
    array, as well as--we are actually exploring some other
    potential capabilities, so I will get into those in a second.
    But the DART array is fully funded. That is not going to
    decrease. It is the consolidation of the warning centers.
        There is actually the potential for us--we have a plus of
    $2.2 million for commercial data buys off ships, and there is
    some new interesting tsunami detection capability on several
    commercial ships. And now that they are installing SACCOM on
    these ships, there might be a way that we can actually enhance
    our tsunami-detection capability through this data.
        Mr.  Case. Will your scientists come before Congress and
    tell us that this replacement array facility capability that
    you suggest is going to be equally safe or safer from a tsunami
    prediction perspective than what we have now? Or is this simply
    about cutting budgets?
        Mr.  Jacobs. It won't be less safe. We haven't seen the
    data yet, so until we actually see the data and run the tests,
    it is going to be hard to quantify how much of an improvement
    it will add.
        Mr.  Case. OK. Well, I would suggest to you that that is
    putting the cart before the horse, because you are proposing to
    cut out that whole warning center before you have demonstrated
    and said with assurance that it is going to be safer. So I
    don't know why you are sitting here cutting it right now when
    you don't have the conclusions yet. But, anyway, we can move
    on.
        I am going to move on. Thank you.
        Mr.  Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.
        Mr.  Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Administrator
    Jacobs, thanks for coming back.
        This is going to seem a lot like deja vu, same questions,
    same issues, parochial to, not just my State, but to the Gulf
    of Mexico States, and probably the United States. I would like
    to jump in and discuss marine aquaculture.
        As you know, marine aquaculture produces healthy,
    sustainable, and affordable seafood, yet the United States
    ranks 16th in the world in terms of aquaculture production. We
    owe it to our citizens to do better, which is why I am
    reintroducing the bipartisan AQUAA Act this year, to provide a
    clear path for permitting aquaculture in U.S. waters.
        Given that reducing the seafood deficit is one of NOAA's
    top priorities, why does this budget proposal zero out Sea
    Grant programs which provides important aquaculture research
    that drives economic development?
        Mr.  Jacobs. When it comes to Sea Grants, we had to make
    some tough budget decisions and some choices, and really
    decided to focus on our core capability and mission.
        I would like to add that there is an additional $13 million
    directed at aquaculture. The funding would enhance coordination
    with aquaculture siting and research, permitting agencies to
    simplify the process and streamline it in Federal waters.
        Mr.  Palazzo. What can we in Congress do to help with that
    permitting process? In fact, that is what the AQUAA Act is
    designed to do. And I know my Senate colleagues are trying to
    perfect it right now, as well as my House colleagues, and we
    are working very closely with your team. So what can we do?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I think what you are doing with the AQUAA Act
    is perfectly in line with what we have in mind for aquaculture.
        Mr.  Palazzo. Why is aquaculture one of NOAA's top
    priorities? Why should we be invested in aquaculture?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, there is roughly a $16 billion seafood
    trade deficit, and that is one of the things that we are trying
    to mitigate. Right now, almost all of the farmed fish is
    imports, and there is really no reason why we shouldn't be
    doing that in our own waters.
        Mr.  Palazzo. All right. I know my colleague, Congressman
    DeLauro, would agree with you that we need to rely more on our
    domestic fisheries than foreign imports.
        So again, the AQUAA bill is very much a bipartisan bill,
    and I hope to be sharing that with everyone on this committee
    in the near future.
        OK. Moving on, let's talk about hypoxia. When you were here
    last month, we discussed the importance of hypoxia research in
    stopping the growth of harmful algae blooms. This year, we are
    forecasting unusually high flooding levels across the country.
    Thirty-two States, again, drain into the Mississippi River
    basin, two Canadian provinces, and much of the nutrients of
    freshwater that cause hypoxia make their way into the Gulf of
    Mexico. More flooding means a growing dead zone in the Gulf.
    And right now, we have some record flooding happening all
    across the Mississippi River basin.
        And I know the EPA spearheads the Mississippi River, the
    Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force. But how does NOAA also help
    stop the growth of hypoxia? And anything you would like to add
    to what NOAA is doing to help us understand it and hopefully
    research it and, you know, shrink it or prevent it from further
    growing.
        Mr.  Jacobs. So actually, preventing the events is beyond
    the scope of our mission, but what we can do is we can help
    predict them. So this is where we really need to focus on, not
    just integrating our precipitation forecast models with the
    national water model at the Natural Water Center, but also
    integrate the runoff that the national water model produces
    through areas that would be prone to take nutrients into waters
    that were would trigger harmful algal blooms.
        It is typically when these algae bloom that they trigger a
    hypoxia event. So this is all sort of traced back to, largely,
    inland water flow exiting in through the estuaries out into the
    ocean. So improving and integrating the modeling system, not
    just on the national water model side, but also on the harmful
    algal bloom side, having the coupled hydrological, ecological,
    biological models is going to be critical in this.
        Mr.  Palazzo. And I guess last October, we were talking to
    Rear Admiral Silah, who testified before the Senate committee
    about the NOAA fleet recapitalization. And I believe he stated
    that we are decommissioning more ships than we are
    commissioning. Can you tell us about your plans on the
    recapitalization of the NOAA research survey ships?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So at the end of fiscal year 2019, we had a
    deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $12.6 million in ORF
    and 11.4 in PAC. One of the things that we are looking at is
    the Hi'ialakai. There is $3 million invested in that, but it is
    not for actual repairs. It is actually to determine the
    critical missions that it does; you know, how can we offload
    those onto other vessels, whether we contract or charter or
    actually try to divide up the current hours that we use across
    the other fleet.
        Mr.  Palazzo. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr.  Serrano. Mr. Crist.
        Mr.  Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs,
    for being here today.
        Taking a look at this budget request, it appears that you
    will be cutting as much as 75 percent of the total funding NOAA
    provides for addressing harmful algae blooms. And as I am sure
    you can agree, algae bloom events have significant negative
    impacts on the communities that are affected by them.
        Following the devastating red tide bloom off the coast of
    Florida this past year, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
    performed a business damage assessment survey to gain a broad
    understanding of the economic impact of the algae bloom. That
    survey estimated that the total physical and economic damages
    between August and December of last year for the 12 most
    impacted counties in Florida was just over $130 million. So 12
    counties out of our 67, 5 months' time period, $130 million
    lost, which is a significant number.
        And unfortunately, the funding levels to support algae
    bloom research monitoring and response are already
    disproportionally low compared to the economic impact. So I was
    very disappointed to see that this budget request proposes to
    cut them even further.
        Considering the significant economic impact of harmful
    algae bloom events, how can you justify cutting that part of
    the budget in particular even more?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So, again, this is a tough budget decision. We
    made a conscious decision to retain. So out of that it was a
    cut of roughly $23.7 million. We are retaining $8.8 million for
    key personnel, particularly related to the forecasting of
    harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, pathogen research, and
    forecasting for habitat and species and the science related to
    that. So the actual forecast tools will remain, so the HABs
    prediction and hypoxia predictions will continue, but a lot of
    the research will be cut.
        Mr.  Crist. I think I heard you say that the cut is $23
    million?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, we actually do harmful algal bloom
    research in a lot of different areas, but we are retaining----
        Mr.  Crist. That is not what I asked you. I thought you
    just said--you cited a couple of numbers.
        Mr.  Jacobs. So for the end cost program, it is minus 23.7,
    but we are retaining 8.8. There will be potentially 94
    positions that, you know, will look at early retirement and
    such.
        Mr.  Crist. Well, you know, I studied a little math in
    school. So we are cutting 23 and we are keeping 8. So does that
    mean before it was $31 million total and is being reduced to 8?
        Mr.  Jacobs. We are going to retain 8.8 for this program,
    but there is actually--the work that we do for harmful algal
    blooms is not--there is a lot of different work that we do in
    different areas.
        Mr.  Crist. What is the total that you allocate for algae
    bloom research and effecting it?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I don't have the exact number for the total.
    It would--I mean, it would extend, some could argue, all the
    way back to our forecast models because of the water runoff at
    the National Water Center being a key component of this.
        Mr.  Crist. Let me ask it another way. Do you think that
    this budget request to us with these reductions of
    approximately 75 percent is appropriate in order for you to
    continue to meet your mission and help us avoid these kind of
    problems going forward, and be able to research and learn from
    them?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, it will obviously, you know, slow some
    of the research, but we will be able to maintain our core
    forecast capabilities at--certainly at their current standards.
        Mr.  Crist. So what did you do with the $23 million dollars
    if you could do it without it?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, that was dedicated at looking at how we
    could improve future capabilities.
        Mr.  Crist. That would be a pretty important mission, would
    it not? It is to Florida, and I am sure Mississippi and other
    places that are affected, to Alabama.
        Mr.  Jacobs. It is definitely important, but, you know, we
    had to make some tough decisions and chose to just retain the
    core essential functions.
        Mr.  Crist. This is not a part of your core essential
    function?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Oh, providing the harmful algal bloom
    forecast, that is part of our core essential function.
        Mr.  Crist. Which part is not? The research?
        Mr.  Jacobs. The external grants and research that would
    help us further improve our mission in the future.
        Mr.  Crist. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Jacobs, the administration is proposing the elimination
    of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean, NCCOS. Let's discuss
    this proposal. First, your budget says that you will continue
    some of the highest priority work, but you failed to provide
    any information about how you will implement this plan. Can you
    shed some light on it?
        Mr. Jacobs. I believe you are talking about the end cost,
    the minus 23.7.
        Mr.  Serrano. Yes.
        Mr.  Jacobs. So, again, we are retaining $8.8 million of
    that to maintain our core functions and the tools that we
    provide to the public for just--not just the harmful algal
    bloom and hypoxia that we were just discussing, but pathogen
    research and prevention. But, you know, the additional research
    that is being done is not part of that retention of core
    capability.
        Mr.  Serrano. But you still didn't tell us exactly how you
    are going to implement the plan, though.
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, implement the--the 8.8 will not be
    implementing anything new; it will just be retaining the core
    capabilities that we already do.
        Mr.  Serrano. You know, I am having difficulty with this
    hearing, because a lot of these things that are coming up look
    like they were not thought through completely. And as my
    colleague, Mr. Case, said, there has got to be people at NOAA
    who take this seriously, I mean, and I know you do. And it is
    clear to me that this did not come from you folks. You might
    have been told, here it is, and maybe you can comment on it,
    but this sounds like a policy that comes from some other place.
    But we will have to deal with that as time goes on.
        The budget also cuts a program in the Arctic that models
    and protects sea ice. Given that Russia is rapidly expanding
    its activities in the Arctic, our knowledge and understanding
    of sea ice is critical to our national security. How do you
    reconcile the elimination of NCCOS with the administration's
    broader national security efforts?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So a lot of the research that we do as it
    pertains to climate in the Arctic is being cut. But I would
    like to add that we are doing some enhanced work and
    development on forecasting and analyzing sea ice and sea ice
    flow as it pertains to both our dynamical weather model and our
    general circulation climate models. And this is something that
    we are working very closely with the Navy on.
        Mr.  Serrano. You are working with the Navy, and you feel
    that then this will make up for any deficiency that I might
    have pointed out?
        Mr.  Jacobs. It is yet to be determined if it would make up
    for the deficiencies. I think that the scope of it is a little
    bit different. It is more, how do we manage dealing with the
    sea ice and the analysis in the next couple of years versus
    very long range.
        Mr.  Serrano. NCCOS has been performing the work of
    evaluating the impact of rising sea levels on our coastal
    military installations, as Congress has repeatedly directed in
    the National Defense Authorization Act. Can you explain the
    seeming contradiction between the department's claims of
    prioritizing national security and the elimination of a program
    which is critical to it?
        Mr.  Jacobs. We actually are doing a tremendous amount of
    work in research and getting our data out there through various
    ocean data portals. Two of the things that I would like to
    point out--well, one of them, the marinecadastre.gov website.
    This is where you can actually access a lot of the sea level
    rise data. This is made available to the public. We are
    increasing this by $4 million to try to get the data out to the
    public.
        You know, this is something that I think would be very
    useful, not just for our stakeholders, but possibly any other--
    whether it is private sector or other government agency doing
    planning when it comes to future mitigation of sea level rise.
        Mr.  Serrano. Committee members will note that I am keeping
    to the 5-minute rules.
        Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Thank you.
        Let me go back to tornadoes. I want to take a moment to
    discuss the fiscal year 2020 request for the National Mesonet
    Program. Despite the fact that the National Mesonet Program is
    a key component of NOAA's efforts to develop a weather-ready
    Nation, the 2020 budget request proposes to reduce the
    geographic scope of the program from all 50 States to
    prioritize States most susceptible to tornadoes and severe
    weather.
        How important, in your opinion, is the Mesonet program
    improving weather predictions around the country?
        Mr.  Jacobs. The Mesonet program is very important because
    it is one of our only conduits to access data outside of the
    data that we actually collect ourselves. But it is beyond the
    typical Mesonet, which you would think is surface observations.
    There are other observing systems in there, such as atmospheric
    profilers and commercial aircraft data.
        The vertical profiles that we obtain through the Mesonet
    program are extremely critical. The surface obs, you could
    divide the surface obs in criticality based two ways. One would
    be the quality of the instrumentation, and the other one being
    the geographical location. So there are certain areas where the
    surface obs and the Mesonet would provide more impact in the
    model skill than the other.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Well, I appreciate that the program was
    protected in the request, but how will scaling back the program
    impact areas of the country, especially rural areas which rely
    on the program to define rapidly deterring weather conditions
    that are not identified by other observation platforms?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, that is--I mean, that is going to be
    tough to fill in those gaps. A lot of these--a lot of these
    Mesonets tend to be coincident with agriculture. So you tend to
    see a lot of the Mesonets in rural areas versus urban areas,
    which is actually a good thing because, as you say, there is
    not a lot of deployment of other systems out there.
        One of the only other ways that we can offset this is just
    through the better assimilation of satellite data, because in
    these rural areas where we don't have a lot of data, it is
    really hard to get information in the boundary layer.
        One of the things that the Mesonet program does do is
    regional airlines, which is a little bit different than the
    data we collect from the wide-body long-haul flights, and the
    regional airlines fly into these smaller regional airports, and
    the vertical profiles that they provide are extremely critical.
        Mr.  Aderholt. The 2019 conference report included guidance
    for NOAA to continue to expand the Mesonet program. How does
    NOAA plan to implement this direction in the upcoming year, and
    how will expanding the program improve weather forecast
    warning?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, the National Mesonet Program, I would
    argue the term ``national'' could possibly be a misnomer. It
    would be an interesting way to actually acquire non-NOAA
    related data that go well beyond the Nation's borders. For
    example, information from, you know, commercial aircraft data
    profilers or other Mesonets possibly in areas outside of our
    country.
        You know, when we really, over the next couple of years
    start to focus on high-resolution global modeling systems, the
    most valuable information might not actually be collected
    within our borders. It will most likely be collected to our
    west, whether it is over the Pacific Ocean or countries that we
    work with through the WMO and data-sharing agreements.
        It is entirely possible that we will find ourself in a
    situation where we would be doing commercial data buys for
    data--in situ data from observing systems overseas, and I can
    envision the National Mesonet Program possibly being one of
    those ways of doing that.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Let me switch briefly to improving our
    ability regarding the Earth Prediction Innovation Center. I
    think improving our ability to predict the Earth's systems,
    including weather climate and extreme events, has the potential
    to add enormous value to our economy, advance national
    security, and protect the safety of our communities.
        How will the Earth Prediction Innovation Center advance its
    capabilities?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So there is two primary hurdles that the EPIC
    tries to address. The first one is we really need access to
    expertise outside of NOAA, and these visiting scientists don't
    have security clearances to log into our machines. And it takes
    them--if they apply, it takes them well over a year to get it.
    So the only way I can think of to solve this problem is to move
    our software development to compute resources external to NOAA.
        The other thing is, per the Weather Research Innovation
    Act, we are required to develop a community model, and that
    doesn't necessarily just mean make the code community
    available; it means make the code accessible by the community
    on compute resources that the community has access to.
        So EPIC will sort of be the virtual hub where we manage the
    code development in commercial cloud vendors' hardware. So this
    will be the compute that the community has access to, and we
    make the code available and manage it through EPIC. So we are
    essentially crowdsourcing model development with the academic
    community and private industry.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Cartwright.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Well, Dr. Jacobs, in the oversight hearing last month, you
    and Dr. Freilich identified several gaps in our Earth-observing
    capabilities, saying that obviously it would be more--it would
    be useful to have more data on things like aerosols, vertical
    wind, and soil moisture, better to predict weather, manage our
    resources, and understand climate change.
        Why does the Administration want to cut funding for
    research in these areas when it is clear more resources would
    make sense?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, some of the low hanging fruit that we
    are looking for in analyzing the satellite data, which is what
    we were discussing at that last hearing, is actually extracting
    more value from the data. So right now, with the existing
    capability that we have, we do not use roughly 80 percent of
    the data that we bring in, just because the file sizes are too
    large. So we only use about 10 percent of the data that we
    collect, as far as prediction capabilities, and only about 2
    percent actually influences the initial conditions in the
    models.
        So for a small amount of investment on the satellite data
    simulation side, if we can move that number from 2 or 3 percent
    to 5 or 6 percent, we could potentially have huge gains in
    forecast model skill, just using the current data that we have
    access to.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Well, I know you are trying to invest your
    limited resources wisely, but it has to be obvious that you
    can't possibly make up for the slashing of all of the following
    programs, and this is a mouthful, so bear with me. And it is
    not a complete list of the programs this budget proposes to
    reduce or eliminate.
        The VORTEX Southeast, taking out $5 million, that is
    something that improves tornado forecasts in the southeast
    U.S., including Alabama, which as we have heard, was hit by
    about 40 tornadoes in March that killed more people than all of
    2018. And according to NOAA's website, the number of killer
    tornadoes in the southeastern U.S. is disproportionately large
    when compared to the overall number of tornadoes throughout the
    country.
        It cuts out $2.6 million from the Airborne Phased Array
    Radar, which improves detection and understanding of severe
    weather. It cuts out $60 million from the climate competitive
    research activities, including NOAA's funding for the National
    Climate Assessment. It takes out $3 million from the Antarctic
    ecosystem research program, Antarctic research. It takes out $6
    million from that to improve operational sea ice modeling and
    predictions. It slashes $3.7 million from the regional climate
    centers, which help regions deal with emerging droughts and
    floods. It takes out $4.8 million from the Air Resources Lab,
    which researches atmospheric dispersion of mercury and other
    pollutants harmful to human health.
        My question is, have you informed the administration that
    cutting funding for weather and climate research makes it
    harder for NOAA to improve forecast precision, which is an
    important element for securing people and property and the
    American economy?
        Mr.  Jacobs. We have worked hand in hand with them in
    formulating this budget.
        Mr.  Cartwright. So, yes, you have informed them. Thank you
    for that.
        So why is the administration ignoring the advice of its
    expert scientists on the importance of improving forecasts to
    secure lives and property and protect the American economy?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, we had to make some tough budget
    decisions and we were forced to essentially look at retaining
    our core missions for our current state of predictive
    capabilities.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Now, there is this ad hoc working group I
    want to ask you about. Did the White House ask NOAA for input
    into the formation of the White House's ad hoc working group to
    question climate science? And will NOAA's climate and science
    experts be any part of that?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I don't know that there is any ad hoc working
    group that has been formed.
        Mr.  Cartwright. OK. You are not a part of it if there is?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I have been in discussions with various folks
    about issues related to the climate change, that is primarily
    the OSTP's director's job, but I don't know of any ad hoc
    working group that has officially been formed.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Will you commit, Dr. Jacobs, to informing
    the administration that we know with certainty that humans are
    contributing to climate change and that NOAA can make available
    expert scientists to help explain it? And can you report back
    the results of these conversations?
        Mr.  Jacobs. We make available all of our data. Certainly,
    the administration is aware of the research that we do. I am
    happy to report that back. And within the potential scope of
    NCA-5, that will be the official report.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Last question. Are staff and scientists at
    NOAA ever discouraged from using terms such as ``climate
    change'' and ``resilience''? And if you have heard of such
    instances, what would you do about it?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I am vehemently opposed to any type of
    academic censorship on this front. And transparency and
    openness is key to what our agency does. Our entire mission is
    based on providing open and transparent, robust defendable
    science.
        Mr.  Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor, I appreciate that.
        I yield back.
        Mr.  Serrano. Mr. Case.
        Mr.  Case. Sorry, I am still on the overall budget cuts and
    trying to figure out what the message we are to take from the
    Administration is on the budget cuts. And I understand that you
    felt you were under, or perhaps I am putting words in your
    mouth, but felt you were under directions to do substantial
    reductions.
        As I look at kind of where the reductions really fell the
    worst on, it just seems inescapable that the programs of NOAA
    that are focused on the oceans, and I don't mean on fisheries
    management, I mean on the conservation and health and welfare
    of our oceans overall, were the ones that took the biggest hit.
    I see the National Ocean Service, if my math is correct, 65
    percent of fiscal year enacted. OAR, Ocean and Atmospheric
    Research, I don't know the division there, but 55 percent of
    prior enacted, whereas, really your atmospheric was reduced and
    your satellites were, for the most part, maintained.
        Now, I have no--I made the same motion--I breathe the same
    air as everybody else in Hawaii, and we have the same use for
    the satellites, all of which is incredible research in
    contributions by NOAA. But if you look at the map above the
    chair over there, you will see that in Hawaii, we kind of live
    in the middle of a big ocean, so we are more focused on the
    ocean.
        So was there some judgment within NOAA or somewhere else
    that somehow oceanic research was, you know, not pulling its
    weight or too many external grants, or is that a priority
    judgment I should take from this budget exercise?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So as far as the OAR research, we are funding
    climate at 88 million, oceans at 98, and weather at 110. But I
    would point out that a lot of the weather research we are doing
    benefits the climate research, so it is pretty linear across
    the board. Oceans are, you know, it is part of my life, I mean,
    surfing and fishing are my two favorite hobbies. One of the
    things that we are funding----
        Mr.  Case. We have something in common, by the way.
        Mr.  Jacobs. I know. I have been to Hawaii multiple times,
    I love it there.
        One of the things I would like to point out is our National
    Oceans Partnership Program. So we will be relying heavily on
    public-private partnerships with key stakeholders on this to do
    a lot of the work. You know, whether it is actual research or
    just outreach, I think that there is a lot of opportunities
    here, both on the oceanographic prediction side as well as the
    observing side, not just in the water chemistry, but also
    bathymetry.
        Mr.  Case. Can I switch back? I just need to switch. I am
    not sure that I understand your answer. One part of your answer
    could be that we are going to essentially privatize a lot of
    the functions of NOAA and, as you say, lean on the private
    sector for that. And I am not sure that that is the right
    policy decision, but anyway, we can have that discussion
    further.
        Can I switch back to the NOAA fleet and talk to you about
    the NOAA fleet, because your recapitalization program, which I
    fully agree with, called for replacement of NOAA ships
    overtime, but assumed that the Hi'ialakai, which is the NOAA
    ship home ported in Hawaii, would be continued in place for
    some period of time into the future. And as you and I know, the
    Hi'ialakai is no longer seaworthy. That came as a sudden
    surprise to many people. And so, therefore, the functions that
    are carried out of Hawaii are discontinued from that
    perspective.
        I think you mentioned--well, two questions. First of all,
    have you considered revising your recapitalization program to
    accelerate ship construction and to home port a replacement
    ship in Hawaii, number one? And then, number two, what is your
    plan in this budget for fulfilling the research needs of the
    Hawaii-based NOAA activities?
        I think that if I look--I don't think you mentioned $3
    million in your answer to my colleague, but I am not sure, is
    that allocated to Hawaii replacement time or is it across the
    board? I see $200,000 in here, but I don't know whether the $3
    million is in the materials that you gave us.
        Mr.  Jacobs. So the $3 million is directed at trying to
    offset all of the work that the Hi'ialakai was doing. And so
    whether we can use that funding to do it on other NOAA ships or
    we have to charter other vessels or contract it out is to be
    determined based on the specific requirements. There are some
    type of requirements that are very specific to the type of
    vessel based on instrumentation and how the vessel is
    outfitted. So those could be limiting factors.
        As we go through the revision of this plan, we would
    certainly love to work with you on this.
        Mr.  Case. Appreciate that. So just to recap what you just
    said. The $3 million would essentially buy replacement time for
    Hi'ialakai through the next fiscal year?
        Mr.  Jacobs. That is the plan.
        Mr.  Case. Okay. And what about my question on revising the
    recapitalization plan to account for the Hi'ialakai's
    departure?
        Mr.  Jacobs. We would definitely love to work with you on
    the development of that.
        Mr.  Case. Thank you.
        Mr.  Serrano. Mr. Aderholt, do you have any more questions?
        Mr.  Aderholt. Unless you have something, I could submit to
    the record. So whatever is good for you. If you want to
    continue on for another question or two or if you want to
    conclude, I can submit for the record.
        Mr.  Serrano. Well, let me just ask one question and then
    you can finish up.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Okay. All right. I will finish up with one
    question as well.
        Mr.  Serrano. Mr. Jacobs, Puerto Rico's coral reefs provide
    nearly $1 billion in economic value to the island annually,
    supporting the tourism industry and protecting lives and
    infrastructure from storm surge by acting as a barrier. In
    September 2017, Hurricanes Irma and Maria caused extensive
    damage to the these valuable and slow growing reefs.
    Fortunately, NOAA's coral restoration work helped dramatically
    speed up the recovery.
        How does the proposed 6 percent cut to the coral reef
    program reflect a need to restore Puerto Rico's damaged corals
    and coordinate with agencies like FEMA to conduct post-storm
    damage assessments?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So the coral reefs are incredibly important,
    and after the storm, one of the things that we did, in addition
    to working with the Marine Corps to install radars and get the
    basic observing system capabilities up there, was to go and
    revitalize and do a lot of the marine debris removal of the
    coral reefs.
        One of the issues, not just with the damage to the reef,
    but actually the reef itself was damaged just from debris, as
    well as enhancing the coral reef. One of the great things about
    the reefs that surround Puerto Rico is that they actually are
    an integral part of dissipating the wave energy. So it is
    incredibly important to have them in place to, you know, to
    essentially protect the land from not just storm surge but
    waves.
        Mr.  Serrano. So these cuts you think will affect that work
    in any way?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, a lot of this research just on the coral
    side is--it is a reduction of 1.6 from the enacted, but it
    retains $26.1 million to continue on with that research. And so
    there is the opportunity to focus research on coral restoration
    as well as disease and such.
        Mr.  Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Of course, every day, NOAA generates tens of
    terabytes of data from satellites, radar, ships, weather
    models, other sources. And, of course, NOAA makes that
    available to the public. What is the--tell us about the Big
    Data Project, and in what way is it different from what NOAA is
    already doing with the data?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So the Big Data Project is a great way to work
    with various cloud vendors in getting our data out to the
    public. So I know in the past I have discussed limitations with
    compute resources, but we also have limitation on storage,
    storing this data. We have well over 25, probably closer to 30
    petabytes of data that the public actually can make use of, not
    just the research community, but private industry and other
    government agencies.
        And so working with various cloud vendors, that they can
    set up a sort of interface where companies can actually
    download the data and generate value-add products from our data
    is enhancing, obviously, their business models, but it also
    benefits us. Because if we are driving industry to co-locate
    their operations adjacent to where we store our data on these
    cloud vendors, it is an incentive for them to work with us on
    negotiating a deal on storage because we are actually improving
    their revenue by generating business that wants access to the
    data that the taxpayers pay, and we produce and put on these
    data portals.
        Mr.  Aderholt. I know--and let me just change the subject,
    one thing about that, but it reminded me of it. I know growing
    up, I would listen to the NOAA weather radio reports and, of
    course, at that time, you didn't have weather available as
    quickly as we do nowadays with cellphones and apps and
    different things like that. Of course, you all still operate
    the weather radio program that has been in existence for--I am
    sure for decades.
        What--is there--in the day and age of smartphones, is there
    a way to access that data without a weather radio, or is it--do
    you have to have a weather radio to access that today?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So the NOAA weather radio is a very unique and
    important program. It actually saved my life in 1997. I would
    have been hit by a tornado had I not been listening to it.
    There are other ways to access that information. We disseminate
    our warnings and watches over various third-party vendor apps.
    There is also the capability of low Earth orbiting satellites
    that phone connectivity can get you access to this information,
    whether it is MRSAT or Iridium or another satellite data
    provider. But some of the, you know, the key core capabilities
    would still be part of the weather radio.
        So we are always looking at ways to try to get our message
    out there. And with the help of a lot of these various third-
    party app developers, certainly smartphone devices are one way
    to do it, but that doesn't mean that it would ever be something
    that could possibly replace that.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Is what--of course, the information--if you
    have a weather radio that is, of course, you have free access
    to that information. Is there an app that the public has access
    to free of charge?
        Mr.  Jacobs. So we don't develop apps ourself. One of the
    things that we made a conscious decision on, because if you
    look at the National Academies' fair weather report, it
    basically defines swimlanes of what the weather service would
    do versus what private industry would do. And private industry
    has done a tremendous job in developing these apps. Some are
    free, some are for cost. And we would--essentially, if we tried
    to develop a competitive app, would not only be competing with
    a product that is probably better than what we can do, we would
    rather rely on them as a key partner.
        So as part of the Weather-Ready Nation, we have ambassadors
    which are, you know, essentially private sector, what we call
    value-add industry, that we rely on to disseminate our warnings
    and watches deeper into the public.
        Mr.  Aderholt. And you access the information from the
    weather radio. If you don't have a weather radio, can you
    access it off the internet?
        Mr.  Jacobs. I don't know that you can access it in the
    exact same format. The weather radio essentially just reads a
    lot of these transcribed pieces of information.
        Mr.  Aderholt. So, in essence, you have to have a weather
    radio in order to get the----
        Mr.  Jacobs. The weather--the feed that goes out encoded
    for the weather radio is specifically designed to be heard over
    the weather radio.
        Mr.  Aderholt. And there is really no other way you can get
    that, at this point?
        Mr.  Jacobs. At this point, not that I know of. There might
    be a third-party app that could transcribe it into something on
    the internet. Technically, it is possible. It would essentially
    just be doing what the weather radio does except, you know,
    voiceover IT or something.
        Mr.  Aderholt. So you all made the conscious decision not
    to have, through the internet or through an app, where it would
    just read off the message that you get on the weather radio?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Well, the text--the text is just the warnings.
    Those are issued over the internet, they are issued over
    smartphone devices.
        Mr.  Aderholt. But verbally?
        Mr.  Jacobs. Verbally, I don't know. You would have to have
    some software that would actually read the text off a web
    browser out loud.
        Mr.  Aderholt. All right. Thank you very much.
        Mr.  Serrano. Let me just say on that point that we are big
    fans of NOAA here, and I suspect you could do a better job than
    private industry in putting together an app that could give us
    information. In fact, I will probably get a lot of letters on
    this--or some. But I bet you when they were putting together
    their apps, they were working off of a lot of information that
    you guys have been gathering for years. And NOAA--don't
    undersell yourself.
        Thank you for your testimony today. I am not making
    excuses, but if at times the questioning was probing, it is
    because we are big fans of NOAA here, and we want NOAA to
    succeed and to continue to succeed. And when we see a budget
    proposal like this one, it worries us.
        And I think, in this case, you know, when it comes to
    spending money, we always have differences on different sides
    of the aisle. But I can honestly speak for Mr. Aderholt to say
    that we are fans of NOAA, and we want NOAA to do the right job
    and to be prepared and supported by Congress in doing the right
    job. So that is why we ask the questions the way we did.
        Thank you, Mr. Jacobs, and hope to see you again.
        Mr.  Jacobs. Thank you for your support.
        Mr.  Aderholt. Thank you.
        Mr.  Serrano. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
    to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]

                                            Wednesday, April 3, 2019.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                                    WITNESS

    HON. WILBUR ROSS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee will come to order.
        We have an unusual situation today. We invited the
    Secretary of Commerce to come to testify before us this
    afternoon about his department's budget request, as Secretaries
    of Commerce have done consistently for many decades. After
    agreeing, he then communicated to us via or others at the
    Department that he was backing out and wanted to send his
    Deputy in his place. But Secretary Ross had no schedule
    conflicts to speak of and no other excuse, other than the fact
    that he simply didn't want to appear before this subcommittee
    and be held personally accountable.
        This is the second time the subcommittee has experienced
    this problem during this administration; the first was 2 years
    ago, when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions became worried
    about the Russian investigation; the second is today.
        I think that the Secretary's actions today show a stunning
    disrespect for the mechanisms of our democracy and the Article
    I powers of the Congress, as if we needed any reminding that
    the President and his staff couldn't care less about our
    institutions of democracy. We see a clear manifestation of that
    problem this afternoon.
        I understand that Deputy Secretary Karen Dunn Kelley has
    offered to testify; that will not be happening. This
    subcommittee invited Secretary Ross to testify and he is the
    only one who will be allowed to testify at this hearing.
    Neither the Deputy Secretary, nor any other Department
    officials, will be recognized to give a statement or to answer
    questions.
        I strongly believe in transparency and accountability, and
    that starts at the top of every government agency, including
    the Commerce Department. The Secretary has a lot of questions
    that he should answer directly. This is particularly true with
    regard to the Census where at this hearing last year the
    Secretary appeared to lie in response to questions about--from
    myself and Congresswoman Meng regarding the addition of a
    citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
        It is also true for the overall Commerce Department budget,
    which shows a shocking disregard for the American people. The
    Commerce Department budget process eliminating programs that
    specifically help rural and under-served communities like the
    Economic Development Administration and the Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership Program; it undermines community safety
    and climate change research by proposing an 18-percent cut to
    NOAA, including the elimination of several dozen important
    grant, research, and educational programs.
        The budget, once again, under-funds the Census Bureau, even
    for the critical census taking place in the year 2020. It
    proposes to eliminate funding for Minority Business Development
    Centers.
        The Secretary should be here to justify these harmful
    proposals rather than ducking our questions.
        Congress, through this committee, controls the power of the
    purse, as specified in Article I, Section 9 of our
    Constitution. Perhaps the Secretary has forgotten this and
    needs a reminder.
        At this time, I will recognize members of this subcommittee
    for any statements that they may want to make, starting with my
    friend and ranking member, Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    yielding. And of course thank you for scheduling these hearings
    that are important for us to learn more about the budget of our
    different departments.
        I think all of us would prefer to be able to visit with the
    Secretary today, but the absence of the Secretary, I believe,
    stems around the concern that this hearing might focus more on
    political or legal issues than the budget itself. Some have
    even speculated it might turn into a debate over the 2020
    Census.
        But this hearing is much bigger than that. It is an
    important budget hearing, covering an agency with a dozen major
    bureaus and a budget request of over $12 billion. This is the
    Appropriations Committee, as you well know, and I expect that
    we can and will tackle some significant issues here. There is
    no doubt about that, and I believe that there is time and a
    place for discussing all the matters important to this
    subcommittee.
        I will even say that I personally believe certain matters
    involving the Census, matters that are subject to ongoing
    litigation, are best not debated in Congress while the case is
    pending. And I have spoken with the Secretary and he feels very
    strongly about that as well.
        I do regret this missed opportunity to discuss the
    resources needed for the Commerce Secretary, but I
    wholeheartedly support the Department's efforts to promote job
    creation, economic competitiveness, and to protect our Nation's
    innovators and manufacturers, and ensure fair trade.
        I also support the 2020 Census, and the efforts to improve
    the quality and efficiency of the Census and other important
    surveys. Yet, while I take a very positive view of the work of
    the Department of Commerce, exchanges with Cabinet-level
    officials are always critical to the appropriations process.
        I do want to make note that there are several here from the
    Department of Commerce that has joined us here today. Dr.
    Steven Dillingham, the Director of the Census Bureau; Dr. Neil
    Jacobs, Assistant Secretary for Commerce and Environmental
    Observation, dealing with NOAA; John Fleming, Assistant
    Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development; Henry Childes,
    National Director of Minority Business Development
    Administration; Gil Kaplan, Undersecretary of Commerce for
    International Trade; Walter Copan, Undersecretary of Commerce
    for Standards and Technology; and Michael Platt, Assistant
    Secretary for Intergovernmental Legislative Affairs. So, I
    understand they are available and would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        And, furthermore, I understand from talking with the
    Secretary that at a later date of when we could mutually get an
    agreement, when this Census issue is more settled at the
    Supreme Court, that he is more than happy to come and testify
    before our subcommittee.
        So, with that, I want to say again, thank you for yielding,
    and I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        I would like to now recognize the chair of the full
    committee, Mrs. Lowey from New York.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am truly
    disappointed that Secretary Ross believes publicly justifying
    his budget request is an optional exercise.
        This administration clearly needs to take a course in
    constitutional law. The power of the purse rests in Congress
    and in particular in the Appropriations Committee. Given his
    lack of interest, I can't imagine he is listening to this, but
    if he were here I would tell him how unacceptable his budget
    request is, from eliminating Economic Development
    Administration grants, which provide funding and technical
    assistance to economically-distressed communities, to seriously
    under-funding the Census. This request is clearly out of touch
    with the needs of our constituents.
        It is really disappointing that Secretary Ross is not here;
    he should be here, and his absence disrespects this committee
    and the appropriation process as a whole.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Any other members who--the next in line would be Mrs. Roby.
        Mrs. Roby. I think Mr. Crist was here before me.
        Mr. Serrano. Yes, he was.
        Mrs. Roby. Well, I thank the chairman for yielding. To the
    nine agency department heads here, thank you for your time to
    be here this afternoon.
        The fact that we are addressing an empty chair with nine
    agency department heads here is unsettling, because we have
    people here that can answer our questions about the budget,
    which is the whole point of the hearing today. I wish we had an
    opportunity to ask those very important questions from an
    oversight perspective.
        And, as we all know, the census required by the
    Constitution has very high stakes. Population numbers are used
    to determine how many U.S. Representatives a state receives
    and, the more people in the state, the more representation in
    Congress, but the data is also used to draw congressional and
    state legislative districts, and for the distribution of
    federal funds.
        So there are a lot of important questions and we have
    people here that are experts, and I appreciate you being here
    and your willingness to answer our questions.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Cartwright.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Commerce's duty is to the
    people, first and foremost, and I want to say on behalf of the
    people of the United States we need to hear from the Secretary
    of Commerce. We have some serious questions to ask him on
    behalf of the people, we want to find out.
        Why does he want to terminate the Manufacturing Extension
    Program, which creates so many American manufacturing jobs? Why
    does he want to eliminate the Economic Development
    Administration, which again is formed for the purpose of
    creating good American jobs?
        Why does he want to reduce this budget in a way that will
    hurt the formation of American jobs?
        In fact, why does he refuse to come and testify about his
    own financial disclosures, which are very much an issue these
    days?
        When we talk about the Manufacturing Extension Partnership,
    the MEP is critical to keeping American manufacturing jobs in
    the United States, and helping small manufacturing companies
    expand and grow. In 2017 alone, MEP centers interacted with
    26,313 manufacturers, who created 110,000 new jobs, added $12.6
    billion to our domestic economy.
        MEP generates a 14.5-to-1 return on investment. Why would
    anyone in their right mind want to cut that program out? We
    need to know why the administration wants to do this; Mr. Ross
    is not here to tell us.
        We deserve to hear from him about the administration's
    budget proposal to eliminate the Economic Development
    Administration. For 50 years, this agency has provided economic
    opportunities to distressed communities across the country,
    including those in my home state of Pennsylvania. The EDA
    assists historic coal and manufacturing communities that are
    struggling with unemployment; it creates 25,000 jobs annually.
        And, finally, we do deserve to hear about Secretary Ross'
    own behavior. The Office of Government Ethics has rejected his
    financial disclosure because it was dishonest, in their view,
    and he has not submitted an updated disclosure.
        Moreover, he has made public misrepresentations not once,
    but twice about divesting from his own banking stock, held
    stock in companies that were tied to Putin's inner circle; he
    has been accused of insider trading by European lawmakers. He
    paid a confidential settlement last year over alleged
    fraudulent theft.
        These are legitimate questions that we have for Secretary
    Ross that should be asked here today and the silence that we
    are getting from that chair this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is
    deafening. This hearing was supposed to be about accountability
    and how we can support small businesses, manufacturers, expand
    our economy; instead, we get nothing.
        So, Chairman, I look forward to working with you on
    crafting a CJS bill that does those things, invests in
    manufacturing, invests in small business, and invests in our
    great American economy.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am not sure which I am more frustrated with at this
    point. I mean, I think about what is the goal of
    appropriations. The purpose of our committee is oversight and
    accountability, we have heard that here today, but I am not
    sure that is what the intent is of today's hearing.
        I hear that Mr. Cartwright would rather--he would ask some
    questions about the appropriations process, but wants to put
    Mr. Ross on trial today for something he has no information on
    or evidence of. There are other avenues and venues for that.
        But if this committee is really about asking the first
    questions Mr. Cartwright had about the elimination of programs,
    cutting of programs, and you have qualified, expert, Senate-
    confirmed individuals in this room who have been offered to
    answer those questions, why would you turn that down? Unless
    that is not the intent of today's hearing. Maybe it was
    something different, but you have people here ready to answer
    the questions.
        The Senate seemed to find their answers sufficient and the
    ability for them to answer the questions sufficient, but yet
    today's hearing has to be about an empty chair. So maybe it is
    a little bit more theater today and less about really
    accountability and transparency.
        Mr. Chairman, I think you used the term he needed to be
    held personally accountable. For what? Personally accountable--
    what has he done that he needs to be held personally
    accountable for today?
        Is there maybe some questions about the budget request and
    the proposal put before us? Absolutely, but those questions can
    be answered by the qualified individuals and the experts that
    are here, who probably were more involved in that compilation
    of the actual budget document anyhow.
        But I will bring us back to something that a couple of
    years ago, Mr. Chairman, you and I were on the same committee
    and still are today, and Mr. Aderholt was--I mean Mr. Ander
    Crenshaw was chairman, and I was chairman next and you were on
    the committee. I think you might have been ranking member when
    Mr. Crenshaw was chairman. We wanted Richard Cordray to come
    before our committee; denied every time, but I don't recall any
    outrage then. We wanted transparency and accountability then,
    we wanted to ask about the budget then, we wanted to ask about
    how were they really providing consumer protection through that
    bureau, but not once would he ever show up.
        So it is ironic that today seems to be the day that you
    choose to bring an empty chair. When I was chairman, I never
    did that. Instead, we found ways to accommodate and get the
    answer to the questions, and do it in a way that was fulfilling
    of our duty, as these subcommittees are on this, bringing
    accountability and oversight.
        So, if the purpose of Appropriations is that oversight and
    accountability in funding, then we have experts and individuals
    here that can answer those questions. If today is more about
    theater, I guess we will have to wait until another day in the
    future.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Ms. Meng.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for arranging this
    hearing. I too am utterly disappointed and angry at Secretary
    Ross' irresponsible decision to not appear today. His failure
    to testify on the Commerce Department's fiscal year 2020 budget
    request is undoubtedly an abandonment of his responsibilities
    as the Secretary of Commerce. It is an assault and an attack on
    transparency and trust.
        A major component of the Commerce Department's 2020 budget
    involves the funding for the 2020 Census, the largest ticket
    item of the Department. By my estimate, the President's budget
    request underestimated the necessary funding for the 2020
    Census and dangerously shortchanged the Department of Commerce
    and, by extension, the American people.
        Respectfully, to our Ranking Member Aderholt's comments,
    this is not political. The American people deserve an open and
    transparent debate on the census, because the census funding
    affects both Republican and Democratic districts in every
    single part of the country.
        There is--let me remind everyone, there is no do-over with
    the decennial census and a mistake will last for 10 years, at
    minimum.
        Even with esteemed agency heads in the room today, and I
    appreciate you all being here, we want to find out political
    motivations that have been demonstrated by communications with
    the Secretary himself and agency heads may not be able to
    adequately respond to those types of questions.
        And so this year he is a no-show. He is a public official
    who should be held accountable for his dereliction of duty.
        Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you again, and thank all
    the subcommittee staff members for all the preparation that
    went into arranging today's hearing.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Palazzo.
        Mr. Palazzo. I will pass. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Lawrence.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Department of Commerce exercises a broad range of
    activities that are critical to our beloved country; a few are
    conducting a cost-effective and accurate census, working with
    distressed communities to support economic development,
    enforcing trade laws. Few departments have the potential to
    directly impact the strength and sustainability of our
    communities and local businesses back home.
        Wilbur Ross, as a private citizen, stepped up and accepted
    a job, and stood publicly and took an oath to serve and perform
    the duties of the job he accepted. And, because of this, I am
    deeply disappointed that Secretary Ross declined to appear
    before us as part of his job. We are not some outside entity,
    we are part of the government, performing our task as allocated
    on this committee. He declined to--declined, ladies and
    gentlemen--to appear before us to defend, explain, and support
    the Commerce Department's budget in the amount of $12.2
    billion, $12.2 billion.
        Where is Wilbur? What is his reason for declining to do his
    job? I hope he is well, but I don't know this.
        I want you to know that article I, section 9 of the
    Constitution designates the Congress with the power of the
    purse. As members of Congress and this committee, we have a
    responsibility to carry out our work in a timely fashion.
        Again, I want to express my frustration to why the
    Secretary is not with us today to explain the rationale for
    drastic cuts to critical programs, these programs that are not
    partisan. Ladies and gentlemen, the programs and the funding is
    across the board. My colleagues on the other side know that
    this budget affects them as well.
        Now, I understand the Supreme Court this month will hear
    arguments over Trump's administration decision to add his
    citizenship question to the 2020 questionnaire, and at this
    time we have already seen two federal judges separately block
    the decision by Secretary Wilbur Ross to add the citizenship
    question.
        This is deeply concerning, because the 2020 Census will
    help guide the allocation of more than $880 billion in federal
    funds for the next decade. Every American citizen pays taxes
    and we are held accountable to ensure that these dollars are
    being spent, and the whole basis and foundation of us doing our
    job is based on an accurate census. We have the responsibility
    to ask those questions.
        In my home state of Michigan, around $30 billion is
    dependent upon an accurate, complete, and reliable census.
        With all these priorities I just mentioned, I want to know
    exactly where is Secretary Wilbur Ross and why he is not here
    today.
        Mr. Chairman, this is not a game; this is not a decision
    that you can make once you take that oath of office. There are
    some hearings I would love not to sit through, but I show up
    here and I do my job, because I took the oath and I am part of
    this government. And whether it is the Republicans in charge or
    the Democrats, that does not stop me from doing my job.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Palazzo.
        Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, I am
    kind of just disappointed that we are not able to hear from the
    ladies and gentlemen that the Secretary did send over here to
    answer our questions. We do have an oversight function and I
    have a lot of questions on the budget.
        I know many of the agencies and related agencies, they do
    extremely great work. A lot of things are parochial to the
    Mississippi Gulf Coast, but I think the people that they sent
    in lieu of the Secretary are sometimes best situated to answer
    our more direct questions, because when you are the Secretary
    you have a huge umbrella of agencies underneath you, tens of
    thousands employees, numerous issues, so sometimes it is best
    to get into those subdepartments and get the answers that we
    need.
        So I don't, you know, really blame the Secretary for not
    being here. I think him sending ten of his best and brightest
    to answer our questions would satisfy. So, you know, I feel
    like my colleagues are wasting a great opportunity to get the
    answers to our questions that we have, and I guess we will
    submit those for the record.
        And at this time I would like to yield the balance of my
    time to my friend Congressman Graves.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, my
    understanding is, is that the Secretary has offered to return
    to this subcommittee at a time in the future. That when the
    request was sent out, he offered to send experts in lieu of his
    place now, eight of which are Senate-confirmed, Senate-
    confirmed, and yet we won't hear their responses. Is there a
    question that you don't think they can answer here today?
        Mr. Serrano. No. The question is that we are elected to do
    a job as appropriations. Not everybody is in the Constitution,
    our job is in the Constitution. So it is for the Secretary to
    come in and not hide because he thinks it is going to get
    political.
        The fact of life is that if every appropriations discussion
    stuck only to numbers, we would have a whole new Congress and a
    whole new day. There are other questions that are answered. And
    if he has got nothing to worry about, then he has nothing to
    worry about in showing up before us, because we may ask hard
    questions, but we never disrespect anybody.
        Mr. Graves. Well, in reclaiming----
        Mr. Serrano. And by not showing up----
        Mr. Graves [continuing]. I understand----
        Mr. Serrano [continuing]. It is disrespectful.
        Mr. Graves.--reclaiming my time. I don't think he is shying
    away from anything and I don't think you are calling him a
    coward in any way. I think the Secretary said he would be happy
    to address this committee at a day in the future, it just
    didn't happen to comport to the calendar that the new majority
    wants right now.
        But might I bring everybody back--and, Mrs. Lawrence, I
    hope you all know--that Richard Cordray never would appear
    before this committee. This is an individual that could not be
    terminated, this is an individual that had zero oversight, this
    is an individual that had basically an unlimited budget, zero
    oversight by Congress at all, and we tried and tried again. We
    would offer amendments to help get it done. We offered
    invitations, public, private, what would it take, and every
    time he refused to sit before an elected body, constitutionally
    constituted, in defiance, in essence, of Congress.
        So we have seen it in the past. I just wish there had been
    equal outrage at that time, Mr. Chairman, because we had an
    opportunity to really bring forward accountability and
    transparency at that point. But, unfortunately, we heard the
    outcry that, no, no, no, he can't come before this committee,
    it just can't happen, and yet here we are today with an empty
    chair. If only we knew these tactics would be used today, maybe
    we should have done that then.
        And I will be happy to yield back to Mr. Palazzo.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Palazzo.
        Mr. Palazzo. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.
        Mr. Case. Thank you. I yield 30 seconds to my colleague
    Mrs. Lawrence.
        Mrs. Lawrence. I just--we are supposed to direct our
    comments to the chair. So, Mr. Chair, I just want to know, so
    often we refer to what happened in the past, the past isn't
    always the right thing. We have before us now a situation that
    should not be evaluated through history, but evaluated through
    the urgency of the moment of now. I respect what you said, I
    was not involved in it.
        And I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
        And I want to fully associate myself with the remarks of my
    majority colleagues. The remarks that hit me most directly were
    my full committee chair's reference to the Constitution and to
    our obligations in Congress to be the appropriators, to provide
    oversight, and recalling also that appropriations start in the
    House.
        And so, although both the Senate and the House have had
    their oversight committees, have had their budget committees,
    we now start in a process that is our responsibility to start
    here today in this subcommittee and that is critical to our
    work. And so I share the concerns that the Secretary would not
    appear here today to help us to start that process.
        To my colleague Mr. Graves' comments in a couple of
    different areas. You asked about accountability, where is the
    personal accountability. Mr. Ross is the Secretary of this
    Department and he is accountable for the decisions that were
    made and are made in putting that budget together and we are
    entitled to ask him along those lines. So, yes, there is
    accountability at the Secretary level. You have offered up a
    different level.
        And actually I have sat in these hearings with many of the
    good people here to my left testifying, we have asked them
    about how budgets are policies and priorities, budgets reflect
    policies and priorities. This is not politics, it is policies--
    what policies do you support and not support, what priorities
    do you prioritize and not prioritize. And several of the
    persons that you have offered up to testify here today have
    basically said, hey, look, the decision was made above my head.
        Now, presumably the Secretary is aware that those decisions
    were made, since he is in charge of the Department and
    presumably he knows how he balanced everything across all of
    those departments.
        So I think it is entirely appropriate for us here to expect
    that that level be before this committee when we start this
    appropriations process. Yes, of course, we have experts, they
    are all good advocates for their divisions, but they are not
    the priority-setters; they are in their divisions, but not in
    the big picture. If somehow the Secretary does not have that
    role, then perhaps he should not be Secretary, but I say that
    just because I think this is a failure of accountability.
        So, you know, I share the concerns of my colleagues on
    areas that I wanted to ask about. I wanted to ask about EDA
    cuts, I wanted to ask about cuts, significant cuts to NOAA that
    have already been referenced here today. The capable NOAA
    administrator testified just a few weeks ago that those cuts
    were handed down--and I am putting words in his mouth, so with
    apologies--were handed down from the top. So I wanted to know,
    okay, well, how was that judgment made against something else?
    He is not capable of doing that, he won't do it, but the
    Secretary is responsible for it. So that is the reason here.
        I think I definitely wanted to ask about the 75-percent cut
    to the Minority Business Development Agency, which is so
    critical to minority-owned businesses across our country. I
    could give you a whole range of examples of minority-owned
    businesses, 11 million minority-owned businesses that are
    responsible and are benefitted from this program. Is it a
    policy of this administration that they do not support
    minority-owned businesses? Because that is exactly what is
    reflected in a 75-percent cut to a budget. Maybe there is a
    reason, maybe there is a judgment that it is done some other
    way that has not been answered.
        So there are a lot of questions that can only be answered
    at the Secretary level and, furthermore, should be answered at
    that level as a matter of us discharging our constitutional
    responsibilities.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Let me just briefly say in closing that to infer, as the
    Department has, that coming here would detract from the work of
    the Commerce Department is just the opposite, in my opinion.
    Not showing up makes our markup, makes our writing of the bill
    much more difficult.
        Secondly, repetition of what I said before, if anybody
    thinks that you can have a hearing with an agency as large, a
    department as large as the Commerce Department and not discuss
    other issues that are before us and that are pending, then you
    have never been on the Appropriations Committee. And I am not
    suggesting anyone said that, but that is part of what was said
    in the letter that the Secretary sent to us.
        So we are going to recess the committee, subject to the
    call of the chair, with the hope that the Secretary understands
    that this is not about making his life miserable. This is about
    making sure we have a good department, we have good programs
    that all the agencies within that department are taking care
    of, and, yes, that there is a fair and accurate census count.
        And so with that we will recess, subject to the call of the
    chair.
        [Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
    to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Thursday, April 4, 2019.

                        FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

                                    WITNESS

    CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
        Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Good morning, everyone, and welcome to a hearing to which
    the appropriate official shows up. An inside joke.
        This morning, we welcome the Director of the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation, Christopher Wray, in his first appearance
    before the subcommittee to discuss the FBI's fiscal 2020 budget
    request and related issues.
        Much of your budget falls on the defense side of the
    ledger, but the President's efforts to increase defense
    spending do not seem to include your critical agency. Your
    fiscal year 2020 salaries and expenses request is only $65
    million above last year and includes some targeted investments,
    such as an additional $70 million for cyber threats, $18.3
    million for counterintelligence operations, and $4.2 million
    for the NICS; however, this increase is not enough to cover
    your new and continuing program course without some significant
    efficiencies in cost-cutting. We hope to learn how you plan to
    make ends meet.
        Director, you have testified before Congress on
    unprecedented threats from abroad and within, from cyber
    threats, espionage, and terrorism. The work of the FBI is
    extremely important in addressing these dangers, as well as
    white collar crime, foreign election interference, civil rights
    violations, including voting rights, and color of law
    violations, and much, much more. You also run our Nation's
    background check system, a vital oversight mechanism to ensure
    guns do not fall in the wrong hands.
        We also want to hear how the FBI is applying lessons from
    the financial crisis 10 years ago to target the type of white
    collar and institutional criminal activity that led to that
    economic disaster, and help keep history from repeating itself.
        And at a time when many communities suffer from rifts in
    trust with their law enforcement institutions, we would like to
    know how the FBI is taking steps, both in its own culture and
    operations, and in working with law enforcement partners
    nationwide to help bridge such gaps.
        It is extremely important that you have the resources
    necessary to enforce the law in all of these diverse areas
    without having to choose one at the expense of another.
        I have long been concerned about our overemphasis on
    pursuing so-called ``Islamic terrorism'' at the expense of
    important FBI missions like civil rights investigations and
    white collar crime. My concerns have grown along with the rise
    of white nationalist extremism. White supremacist terror
    attacks in Pittsburgh, Charlottesville, and Charleston have
    made headlines, and statistics show such attacks are on the
    rise; yet your budget request does not mention them. I realize
    the President minimizes this threat, but you should not, and I
    hope you can tell us more today about your work on areas
    outside of international terrorism.
        Speaking of the President, I do not think that we can hold
    this hearing without addressing Mr. Trump's persistent attacks
    on your agency. The FBI has not faced this level of political
    threat since Watergate. No one on this committee confuses
    honesty--and I mean no one on this committee confuses honest
    criticism of your agency, which is healthy and necessary, with
    insidious attacks on the reputation of the FBI workforce. These
    are poorly disguised efforts to undercut the legitimacy of an
    agency that must be free to enforce the law and the
    Constitution fairly, and without regard to politics of persons.
    It is deeply worrisome with the variety of important missions
    you have the President continues to focus on settling personal
    scores.
        To add injury to insult, the FBI faced its longest lapse in
    appropriations in history, compelling you to tell your 36,000
    employees that you were, quote, ``about as angry as I have been
    in a long time,'' end of quote. I can assure you, Director,
    every member of this committee on both sides shares your
    feelings.
        I hope to hear today how the shutdown affected your
    operations and why the FBI and our whole criminal justice
    system should not be held hostage again.
        Mr. Serrano. With that, let me turn to my ranking member,
    Mr. Aderholt, for his opening comments.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too would like
    to welcome Director Wray to the Commerce, Justice, Science
    Subcommittee today for testifying for the fiscal year 2020
    budget request.
        Director Wray, as you well know as the Nation's premier law
    enforcement and intelligence agency, you are charged with
    combating terrorism, transnational organized crime, gang
    violence, and the foreign adversaries targeting our military,
    technology, and economic institutions, just to name a few
    facets of your diverse mission. Yet while these threats are not
    new, the means by which criminal actors implement them are
    always changing.
        Today, the FBI is increasingly fighting crime by leveraging
    big data analytics and employing data exploitation measures.
    This morning we look forward to hearing more about how the FBI
    is working to stay ahead of various developments in technology,
    as criminal actors abuse new technology to advance their
    lawless operations.
        I appreciate your efforts to identify and close strategic
    gaps, and the multi-year planning approach outlined in your
    budget, as well as your efforts to leverage the reach,
    expertise, and resources of your numerous intelligence
    community and law enforcement partners in the midst of an ever-
    changing threat environment.
        Finally, as always, central to the FBI's success are the
    superb individuals that support the agency and its mission. We
    are all very deeply grateful for the dedicated patriots of the
    FBI who persist in their efforts to bravely respond to the
    domestic and the foreign threats facing the U.S., and who
    faithfully endeavor to preserve the civil liberties of all
    Americans while doing so.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing this
    morning. Thank you, Director, for being here. And I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Director, it is your turn now. We wish you could keep
    it to 5 minutes, but we give you our word that your full
    statement will be included in the record, and the 5 minutes is
    so that these great people alongside of me can ask you
    questions.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Wray. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member Aderholt, members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to
    be here today representing the men and women of the FBI. It is
    our people, 37,000 of them, who are really the heart of the
    Bureau, and I am proud of their service, of their commitment to
    our mission. Every day I see them tackling their jobs with
    integrity, with perseverance, with professionalism.
        And I should say that I have now had the chance to visit
    all 56 of our FBI field offices all over the country over my
    first year and a half on the job. That means I visited the home
    states of every member of this Subcommittee, not only meeting
    with FBI employees in all those places, but also talking in
    each instance with state and local law enforcement partners in
    those communities, and with other members of the community
    about the issues that matter most to them. And I am grateful
    for the support and insight of those partners as we work
    together to keep 325 million American people safe and to make
    our communities even stronger.
        I want to thank this Subcommittee for the funding you have
    provided us in the past. The reality is, without your support,
    we wouldn't be able to do the important work we do. I have
    included details about our 2020 budget request in my written
    statement for the record and I am happy to address your
    questions about that request, of course, but I also want to
    touch, Mr. Chairman, on the wide array of threats that we face
    as Americans, including the terrorist threat from home-grown
    violent extremists, domestic terrorists, and foreign terrorist
    organizations; hostile foreign intelligence services actively
    seeking our state and military secrets, our trade secrets, our
    innovation, and our ideas; the scourge of gang violence and
    other violent crime, complex frauds, and transnational
    organized crime; crimes against children, human trafficking,
    and the opioid epidemic; and the list goes on and on.
        And increasingly these threats and others are cyber-based,
    and the more we shift to the Internet as the conduit and the
    repository for everything that we use and share and manage, the
    more we need the best tools and the most creative ways to
    combat this cross-cutting and growing dimension of the threat,
    which leads me naturally to the problem that is known
    throughout the law enforcement community as going dark.
        It is by now patently clear that those who would do all of
    us harm--criminals, terrorists, hackers, and spies--are
    exploiting encryption and other methods to hide their
    communications and their crimes. And, in a world of apps and
    smartphones, we continue to face hurdles in getting evidence
    that we have the legal authority to get in a timely manner.
        Let me be clear, we all recognize the important benefits of
    strong methods of encryption. Cyber security is, after all, an
    important part of our mission at the FBI, but it just cannot be
    an acceptable end state for companies to carve out, even
    unintentionally, an entire unfettered space for rogue actors,
    terrorists, and criminals to hide and do horrible things to
    innocent people.
        This country is home to a world-class technology sector and
    I believe that sector can and should work with us in pressing
    forward together to find solutions.
        We cannot afford to be complacent. We have got to stay
    ahead of the evolving terrorist, counterintelligence, and
    criminal threats, which includes things like enhancing our
    technical and analytical capabilities related to counter-
    terrorism vetting; enhancing our cyber and foreign intelligence
    capabilities; enhancing our targeting and disruption of the
    financial and Darknet networks used by transnational organized
    crime groups; increasing our capacity to perform criminal
    background checks; and improving our ability to render safe a
    weapon of mass destruction.
        These threats are all ever changing and we have got to get
    even more agile and more predictive. We have got to keep pace
    with technology, we have got to help our law enforcement
    partners in your districts, all across the country, and
    partners all around the world, and we can't do any of that
    without your support.
        The threats that we face as a nation have never been
    greater and the expectations on the men and women of the FBI
    have never been higher, but I see those men and women every day
    meeting and exceeding those expectations. So, thank you for
    this opportunity to discuss their work, and I look forward to
    answering your questions.

                                BUDGET SHORTFALL

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Five minutes, incredible. Thank
    you.
        Let me first just make a comment. In our conversation prior
    to your appearance here, you told me that you had reinstituted
    or expanded on visits to different places, and conversations
    with new agents and current agents to remind them what happens
    when government does not treat its people fairly, its citizens
    fairly, and including visiting the Holocaust museum. So I want
    to commend you for that, because I think that that is something
    that shows what the FBI should be thinking about as it fights
    the fights that it has to fight and it can't be won at the
    expense of our rights; it has to be a combination and a
    balance, and so I appreciate that.
        You are requesting a total of $9.925 billion in salaries
    and expenses, which includes six program enhancements and
    additional positions. However, the $65 million you requested
    over the fiscal year 2019 appropriations is not enough to cover
    the full costs of the requested enhancements, let alone cover
    necessary adjustments to base, and you propose to rescind an
    additional $60 million in balances on top of that.
        What kinds of efficiencies could the FBI achieve that would
    permit it to cover this current services shortfall you face?
        Mr. Wray. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question.
    Certainly, we try to be careful stewards of the taxpayers'
    money in lots of ways and we are always looking for
    efficiencies.
        I should say, which is an important clarification, that the
    fiscal year 2020 budget request was, as I understand it,
    assembled before the ultimate 2019 Appropriation that we
    received from the Congress, which means that it was not built
    off of the 2019 budget, but rather the 2019 CR, and that has
    the perverse effect of making it actually $200 million short.
    So there is a gap there.
        We are obviously very grateful for the 2019 Appropriation
    that this Subcommittee helped secure, which includes some very
    important increases for the FBI, and anything this Subcommittee
    could help us do to close the gap that I just referred to would
    be very much appreciated, and I can assure you we would put
    those resources to good use.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. And, without telling you anything I
    am not supposed to tell you at this point, you have people on
    both sides of this committee that want to be helpful and have
    you do the job that you need to do.

                                  HATE CRIMES

        The 2017 FBI hate crime statistics published last November
    showed that hate crime incidents increased 17 percent over
    2016, a deplorable third straight year such crimes increased.
    This increase has been linked by some researchers, especially
    in late 2016, with the impact of Russian social media
    manipulation aimed at fomenting racial division in the U.S.
    While 2018 statistics have not been released, what is the FBI
    observing particularly in light of recent violent hate crimes
    in the past several years that have grown from isolated events
    to mass violence?
        Mr. Wray. Well, Mr. Chairman, like you, we are determined
    not to tolerate hate-fueled violence in our communities and we
    are going to aggressively investigate those cases. It is true
    that we have seen an increase in the reporting of hate crimes
    and the FBI's own number of hate crime cases have increased. It
    is not clear whether the increase is due to the number of
    agencies that are now reporting who weren't before. The FBI is
    doing a lot to raise awareness in the community, so that there
    will be more reporting. So I think it is a good thing that
    there is more reporting, but certainly we are concerned.
        We have brought a number of hate crime cases recently,
    including just last week, actually. We secured the 29-count
    hate crime guilty plea from an individual connected with the
    Charlottesville incident, for example. And, not that long
    before that, we had eight defendants charged during the Rise
    Above movement with rioting charges for the violence that they
    had caused during various rallies.
        So we have got quite a number of cases that we are pursuing
    at the moment. We are using every tool at our disposal, whether
    it is hate crimes charges, gun charges, explosives charges, or
    as in the example of the Rise Above movement charges we
    brought, we are trying to be creative in looking at other
    charges that might be available to us like the Federal rioting
    statute.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        What resources does the FBI need to deal with these issues
    within the Civil Rights Division and your partners in state and
    local law enforcement in combating the increase in hate crimes?
        Mr. Wray. Well, certainly we are stretched thin, there is
    no question about it. We try to tackle this kind of activity
    both through our criminal programs in the Civil Rights side as
    hate crimes, and then in other instances we are also using our
    counter-terrorism resources, pursuing them through the JTTFs on
    the domestic terrorism side.
        And so the more resources we have available to us in terms
    of agents and personnel and tools, because of the avalanche of
    data that Ranking Member Aderholt referred to, for example, the
    more effective we can be in fighting this problem.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        I suspect we are going to have a vote sometime during this
    hearing, so I will move it along so that we can get in as many
    questions as possible from as many members as possible.

                         REGIONAL COMPUTER FORENSIC LAB

        Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        I was very pleased to be involved in the probes process
    even in a small way as the Regional Computer Forensic Lab was
    created in Huntsville, Alabama, and excited to hear the FBI
    will be expanding its footprint in the Huntsville area with
    even more infrastructure for technology-focused training and
    other critical programs.
        What I would want to pose to you is, could you tell us here
    this morning about the importance of the Regional Computer
    Forensic Lab and explain the benefits to the states and the
    localities?
        Mr. Wray. Thank you for the question, it is an important
    topic, increasingly important. The reality is that criminals of
    all shapes and sizes, virtually in every instance now, are
    using one, if not multiple electronic devices, which means that
    in basically every kind of case the FBI or our state and local
    law enforcement partners handle there is going to be digital
    evidence. And where the RCFLs, the Regional Computer Forensics
    Labs, fit in is it basically becomes one-stop shopping for
    state and local law enforcement working together with the FBI
    to be able to do forensic exploitation of that digital evidence
    through properly certified and trained personnel. So there is a
    training dimension, but more importantly there is an ability to
    get through and forensically exploit the evidence that is
    critical to pretty much solving every kind of crime there is
    out there.
        And there was not--until the recent RCFL in Huntsville,
    there was not an RCFL in that region of the country. So it is
    not just good for Alabama, it is good for the whole region, and
    it is particularly helpful to our state and local partners who
    without it would be really high and dry.
        Mr. Aderholt. What other activities are you planning as the
    FBI to relocate into that area?
        Mr. Wray. Well, we are focusing on expanding on the data
    analytics side and we are ultimately expecting it could be as
    many as about 3,000 FBI employees there at Redstone Arsenal.
        We have of course been in Huntsville since back in the
    early '70s when we stood up our Hazardous Device School, which
    is the place that trains all state, local, and Federal civilian
    bomb techs all over the country. We then added in the last
    decade TEDAC, which is the place that forensically examines
    terrorist explosive devices. So when IEDs get picked up on the
    battlefield, they are exploited there at that lab.
        We have added things like the Ballistics Research Facility.
    There is of course a thriving cleared defense contractor
    community down there. So we now have something called the
    National Defense Cyber Alliance, which is a place where we work
    with other cleared defense contractors and Intelligence
    Community partners to exploit cyber threat intelligence.
        So I think we are really excited about the prospects and
    building on the momentum that, as I said, started in the early
    '70s, but is really kicking into high gear over the last year
    or so.

                                OPIOID EPIDEMIC

        Mr. Aderholt. You highlighted in your written testimony
    that the FBI is doing some extraordinary work disrupting opioid
    trafficking networks on the dark net. What are some of the key
    investments you would make with an additional $18 million you
    requested to enhance your transnational organized crime
    efforts, including the J-CODE initiative?
        Mr. Wray. So, needless to say, the opioid epidemic is
    something that exceeds the bandwidth of any Federal agency and
    it is a problem that faces the entire country. We are trying to
    do our part and that is where our budget request and whatever
    resources Congress can send our way would be extremely helpful
    through our specific contribution.
        So, first, the Darknet; increasingly there is opioid
    trafficking on the Darknet. We stood up an initiative a while
    ago called J-CODE, which focuses on elicit opioid trafficking
    and other kinds of trafficking on the Darknet. That was largely
    done with a very small investment and it is already having a
    very significant impact. And that is clearly where the threat
    is moving, so that would be a place where the personnel and
    technological investments that we have requested, those kinds
    of things could help drive it.
        There is the transnational organized crime piece, which is
    also reflected in our budget request. The supply, right now we
    are targeting that through our Transnational Organized Crime
    West Program, which really deals with the cartels and others
    who are supplying that pernicious substance. We also have a
    prescription drug initiative, which is very focused on going
    after medical professionals, because of course the opioid
    epidemic is heavily fueled by over and abusive prescribing, you
    know, pill mills and things like that, and we have gotten very
    aggressive there. And that relies heavily on data analytics
    there too, because we are looking at things like over-
    prescribing patterns and there is an avalanche of data that
    comes there as well.
        And then, last, our Safe Streets Task Forces all over the
    country focus on what I would call the distributors, the gangs,
    et cetera, that are pushing heroin and fentanyl-related
    substances in our streets.
        Mr. Aderholt. I see my time is up and I know we have a lot
    to get to, so I will yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.

                              RESOURCE REQUIREMENT

        Mr. Cartwright.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Director Wray, I would like to continue the line of
    questioning of Mr. Aderholt and I want to make sure I
    understand. You have asked for $18 million additional, is that
    just for the Joint Criminal Opioid Dark Net Enforcement, or is
    it for all opioid, anti-opioid efforts?
        Mr. Wray. I think hang on a second, let me check with my
    CFO here.
        It is a broad request, not just for the J-CODE initiative.
        Mr. Cartwright. OK, fair enough. But you also just said
    ``please send us whatever resources can be sent our way,'' and
    I was listening when you said that. What do you need? What do
    you guys need to do an effective job of addressing not only the
    dark net, but this horrible opioid crisis that is killing our
    young people and people of all ages in this country?
        Mr. Wray. Well, I think at the end of the day it comes down
    to people and technology and tools. Our budget request
    highlights some of the things that we thought were of the
    highest priority and highlights the nature of the problem.
    Certainly we, like Congress, try to balance the demands of our
    mission with trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers'
    resources.
        Mr. Cartwright. All right. I also want to ask you about the
    fiscal year 2020 request for 33 positions, including three
    special agents, and $70.5 million to enhance cyber information
    sharing abilities and increased cyber tools and capacities. It
    is the same question, Director Wray: is that enough or do you
    need more than that?
        Mr. Wray. Well, I can assure you, Congressman, that
    whatever resources you were to make available to us on the
    cyber mission could immediately be put to good use. The cyber
    threat has grown in its range of actors, from nation states to
    criminal hacktivist and global crime syndicates; the increase
    in range of attack methods, whether it's botnets, ransomware,
    DDoS attacks, et cetera; and the range of targets, from Fortune
    100 companies down to startups out in Silicon Valley has
    increased exponentially.
        So, make no mistake, it is a significant challenge and it
    exceeds the bandwidth that we have at the moment.
        Mr. Cartwright. All right. So when I think about 33 new
    positions, I am thinking programmers and really tech-savvy
    people to attack the cyber threat, but I am also wondering, do
    you not outsource a good deal of that to companies that
    specialize in cyber threats?
        Mr. Wray. Well, I wouldn't say we outsource exactly. We do
    partner with the private sector and of the 33 positions that we
    have asked for, I think 25 of them would be data analysts,
    which gets back to this theme that we have already discussed a
    little bit here about the importance of data analytics. Let me
    just put a little context around that, because I think it
    affects all the areas that we have asked about.

                            SIZE OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE

        The Las Vegas attacks, so let's take that outside of cyber
    for a minute, the mass shooting in Las Vegas, that one case, a
    big case to be sure--a tragic, horrible case--one petabyte of
    data. Now, one petabyte of data, if you are like me and not
    like my kids, you think petabyte, I don't know what petabyte
    is, but----
        Mr. Cartwright. More than a terabyte.
        Mr. Wray [continuing]. The entire digital library at the
    Library of Congress, the digital records of the entire Library
    of Congress has seven petabytes of data. So Las Vegas, one
    case, had about a sixth of the entire Library of Congress
    digital records. Just a few years ago, we were ingesting
    annually about half of what the Library of Congress digital
    records has annually. So, for us to keep up with it, we are
    having to do things right now, like in Las Vegas and in Boston,
    where we have had to take the digital evidence and fly it clear
    across the country to Quantico, whereas if we could have more
    of the resources that we are asking for it would enable us to
    be more forward-deployed in terms of marshaling some of this
    information. So that is an example.

                          UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

        Mr. Cartwright. My final question is about HRA. We just
    passed a bill for universal background checks with a list of
    specific sensible exceptions. The question is, would a
    universal background check requirement be helpful to law
    enforcement in preventing and/or solving violent crime
    involving firearms?
        Mr. Wray. Well, certainly, the more information we have,
    the more effective we can be. There are other considerations. I
    would have to look closely at the legislation, which I have not
    done, to be able to review it and give you a more meaningful
    answer.
        Mr. Cartwright. I would urge to do that and maybe we will
    work together.
        Mr. Wray. Thank you.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Director.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director, good to have you. Thank you for your work, thank
    you for the Bureau's work. I know it is a tremendous task each
    and every one of you deal with each day. And it is good to have
    Georgian with us as well today.

                                     CYBER

        Just following up on cyber, that is one of my main focuses
    and lanes that I stay in, and you have noted it is a big part
    of your testimony as well that the private sector faces ever-
    increasing threats each and every day.
        So, while you are working with the private sector, is it
    safe to say that when you are investigating these cyber attacks
    you are engaging the private sector and you are relying on them
    to cooperate with the investigation or to help gather
    information or to help with attribution, is the private sector
    involved in that way as well?
        Mr. Wray. Yes. I think in the cyber arena, probably more
    than maybe any other of the threat areas we contend with, the
    partnership that needs to exist and does exist between the FBI
    and the private sector is incredibly important. The reality is
    that the most effective defense against cyber threats is
    prevention and increasingly mitigation, right? In other words,
    as soon as there has been an intrusion, detecting it quickly
    and getting rid of it quickly, and that requires that
    collaboration.
        There are a lot of things that we do in terms of providing
    so-called TTPs to the private sector, you know, providing
    information about different things that we are seeing, getting
    information from them about what they are seeing, forging
    relationships through a variety of programs, formal and
    informal, that we have so that we can have that bond. You know,
    there is a saying that the best time to patch the roof is when
    the sun is shining, and that is the approach we are trying to
    take with the private sector in that space.
        Mr. Graves. You acknowledge that the FBI, you know, limited
    resources, you focus primarily on the high-level intrusions and
    state-sponsored attacks. So, the private sector that doesn't
    meet that threshold, what tools, what resources do they have to
    help stop and prevent attacks or address attacks, what do you
    recommend there? I feel like we are a little short.
        Mr. Wray. Well, there is a swath--I think you have picked
    up on a very important point, which is in some ways where some
    things like this RCFL that we were talking about with
    Congressman Aderholt is so important--there is a swath of
    cyber-enabled criminal activity that is affecting businesses
    that is essentially below the level of the most sophisticated
    stuff that the Feds typically take on, but above the level that
    currently is in the range of most state and local law
    enforcement. Where these RCFLs fit in, as just one of many
    tools that we have, is that it is providing resources and
    capabilities to state and local law enforcement to sort of move
    up market, if you will, in terms of the kinds of things they
    can reach. It is also--you know, the old saying about teach a
    man to fish, we are training them at the same time, which then
    makes them even more effective and they can train others in
    their departments.
        So, in the long term, I think that will help us capture
    that gap that you are alluding to.
        Mr. Graves. You may be aware, I have been promoting a
    concept of active cyber defense, allowing the private sector to
    engage outside of their network to prevent an attack. And, you
    know, the Cyber Fraud and Abuse Act hasn't been updated in
    decades and I feel like the private sector is limited in what
    they can do. I would love a commitment from you to be able just
    to work with your team, your staff, to walk through some of the
    challenges, maybe walk through the policy I have proposed and
    how we might be able to enable the private sector to have a few
    more tools at their disposal, instead of a passive approach and
    additional defenses, maybe being able to actively defend their
    network. If I could just work with your team on that a little
    bit, I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Wray. We would be happy to work with you and take a
    look at any ideas you have. I do think that over the next 10
    years the partnership that is going to have to exist between
    law enforcement and the Intelligence Community and the private
    sector, in the cyber arena in particular, is going to be a
    significant paradigm shift, because otherwise we are not going
    to be able to stay ahead of the threat.
        Mr. Graves. Right, ever-increasing threats and successful
    attempts every day.

                                FBI HEADQUARTERS

        One final question, Mr. Chairman. As the Republican leader
    of the Financial Services Committee, there has been this issue
    developed over the years and a lot of controversy about the
    location of the FBI headquarters, can you bring a little
    clarity to us? We had a lot of debate with GSA just a few weeks
    ago about this, but our understanding is that the Bureau
    believes that the best approach to meeting the demands of the
    Bureau is to rebuild at the current location and site, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Wray. Yes. This is obviously an important issue to the
    men and women of the FBI, as well as to the American public.
        A little context, you know, I worked in the FBI building a
    lot on 9/11 and in the years after 9/11. The building was in
    bad shape then, and I can assure you it hasn't gotten better
    since then. When I came into this job, the previous project had
    already been canceled, so I wasn't involved in that part of it.
    So I came into it with a blank slate and we took a very long,
    careful, thorough look, and it is the FBI's view that the best
    balance of equities for the men and women of the FBI is to be
    here downtown, ideally in our current location. Building a new
    building--not trying to renovate the old one, but building a
    new building in that location gives us the ability to both have
    a Level 5 security facility to significantly grow the number of
    people we can have there, but also--and this is incredibly
    important--also make sure that our folks are within close
    proximity for the hundreds and hundreds of meetings that they
    have every day with their partners all within about a mile and
    a half of our current location, starting with, of course,
    across the street at the main Justice building. And so the
    ability to do that is something that we think is important.
        I think that is the best choice for the American people as
    well, thousands of whom visit the FBI building every day to see
    the FBI experience tour, and that is an important part of the
    transparency that I think needs to exist between the FBI and
    the taxpayer and the American public.
        Mr. Graves. To be clear, the decision was based on what is
    best for the Bureau, the security of our country, and not
    because of political pressure?
        Mr. Wray. Correct.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for
    being with us today, it is a pleasure to have you here.
        I am curious. You are under the Department of Justice,
    right?
        Mr. Wray. Yes, the FBI is part of the Justice Department.

                                 MUELLER REPORT

        Mr. Crist. Great. Have you had an occasion to read the
    Mueller report?
        Mr. Wray. I have not.

                                FBI HEADQUARTERS

        Mr. Crist. Let me get back to a little bit of what my
    colleague was just asking you about, because I sit on another
    Appropriations subcommittee that has some overlap with regard
    to your headquarters at the FBI.
        There was some consternation around exactly the GSA and the
    FBI had become--or had come, rather, to abandon a decade-old
    plan to build a suburban, centralized campus in favor of a more
    expensive plan, as you said, to knock down the current site and
    rebuild a smaller building there on Pennsylvania Avenue.
        Now, the GSA leader, Emily Murphy--you may know her, I
    don't know, but in her opening statement before the other
    committee she stated, ``I want to be clear, the FBI made the
    decision to propose remaining at its current location. I wish
    the FBI were here with me today to explain their reasoning for
    having done so, but there was a new FBI Director,'' which I
    assume was you, ``who joined the agency in August of 2017. And
    I don't find it at all surprising that a new leader coming into
    an agency would want to take a step back and look at the very
    best way to address the needs that he assessed for the
    agency.'' She is talking about you, I assume?
        Mr. Wray. I assume so as well.
        Mr. Crist. Great. You just addressed a little bit about,
    you know, what--was that ultimately your decision to abandon
    the prior idea of going to a campus location and stay downtown?
        Mr. Wray. It is absolutely the FBI's view, the FBI's
    choice, the FBI's preference to build a new building--a bigger
    building, not a smaller building--at our current location,
    which would allow us to, as I said, improve security, build a
    state-of-the-art facility, add the number of people in terms of
    consolidating our footprint, and be more accessible or remain
    accessible to all of our partners and to the public.
        Mr. Crist. Was it in fact contemplated that the campus
    location is something that had been embraced by your
    predecessors, or is that not the case?
        Mr. Wray. I can't speak for my predecessors. I know that
    when I came in and I asked the question, tell me why we are not
    building a building here in this location, it appeared to me
    that people had thought that that was not an option that was
    available to us. So I don't know that, given the choice, my
    predecessors wouldn't have made exactly the same choice that I
    am making.
        Mr. Crist. OK. Thank you, Director.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Roby.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director
    Wray, for being here this morning.

                             CRIMES AGAINST CHIDREN

        And I echo the sentiments of my colleague from Alabama
    about the ever-expanding footprint that the FBI has in Alabama,
    and so we are grateful for those efforts and want to continue
    to be a partner in that. But I want to spend my time talking
    about the almost two pages in your written testimony that are
    specific to crimes against children, child exploitation, and
    sex and human trafficking.
        I have been working with the Department of Justice in my
    other role on the Judiciary Committee to look at ways that we
    can enhance our laws. Unfortunately, we had a package of bills
    that moved by voice vote here in the House and failed in the
    Senate at the end of the last Congress. And I was very
    disappointed in that, because I felt like this was providing
    you, law enforcement, with even greater tools to go after these
    horrible predators who are seeking to do harm against children.
        So I wanted to give you an opportunity, since you only had
    5 minutes to give us a summary of your testimony. Again, this
    is important to all of us on this committee, this is important
    to this legislative body to make sure that we are doing all
    that we can to eradicate modern-day slavery and particularly
    crimes against children. So I want to know as a policymaker, as
    an appropriator, as a member of the Judiciary Committee as
    well, number one, give us--it is in your testimony, I
    understand, but give us a recap on your efforts to work with
    law enforcement across this country to eradicate these horrific
    crimes, but also give us suggestions as to how we can be more
    helpful in assuring that you have every tool necessary to help
    eradicate this.
        Mr. Wray. Well, thank you for the question. This is a topic
    that is not only a high priority for the FBI, but it is
    something that is near and dear to my heart personally. One of
    the few pro bono projects that I was pushing in private
    practice at the time that I was nominated for this position was
    to try to look for ways, which I don't think has historically
    been done much in the private sector, to help the victims of
    human trafficking.
        The FBI tackles this problem through multiple programs,
    multiple weapons that we bring to bear. We have our VCAC
    Program, our Violent Crimes Against Children Program, is the
    program that kind of manages the effort primarily. We have 81
    Child Exploitation Task Forces around the country where we work
    with state and local law enforcement and other folks; we have
    18 human trafficking task forces on top of those.
        And it is important, I think, for people to understand that
    it is not just immigrant victims, you know, the majority of
    human trafficking victims in this country are actually U.S.
    citizens. And I think your use of the word slavery is spot-on.
    I mean, frankly, I struggle for words to capture how horrific
    this is. I mean, it is downright medieval in 2019 that activity
    like this can happen. And barely a week goes by where I am not
    hearing about our successes in taking down some sex
    trafficking, typically child sex trafficking network, where we
    are recovering--you know, I think the number of kids that we
    rescued and recovered last year I think was well over a
    hundred. And some of these kids are just horrifyingly young.
        It is not something that the FBI does alone. We do it with
    Federal partners, we do it with state and local law
    enforcement. We rely heavily on our Victim Services Division,
    because there is obviously a huge victim impact dimension to
    this. So we try to work on how we can position these folks,
    especially the kids, to have at least some semblance of a
    normal life after this is all over and done with; we try to
    work with social services providers.
        So I think it starts with the Congress and Members like
    yourself kind of raising awareness, and then using all the
    different tools that we have asked for in our 2020 request in
    some way end up touching on this. The data analytics piece, the
    transnational organized crime piece, all those things tie in,
    among other things, to the human trafficking piece as well.
        Mrs. Roby. From a resource/budgetary standpoint, do you
    feel as though you have the resources that you need in order to
    carry out these programs?
        Mr. Wray. Well, I would say I am very proud of the hard
    work that our folks are doing and the successes we are
    accomplishing with our partners, but there is also no question
    in my mind that if Congress were to send more resources our way
    to deal with this problem those people would be busy
    immediately.
        Mrs. Roby. OK. Thank you for your service to our country,
    and your family as well, we very much appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Ms. Meng.

                                HATE CRIMES DATA

        Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director,
    for being here and for your service to our country.
        I wanted to ask about the under-reporting by local law
    enforcement of hate crimes; it remains a major problem.
    According to ProPublica's Documenting Hate Project, thousands
    of local law enforcement agencies choose not to report hate
    crime stats to the FBI at all. And a separate investigation
    revealed that 120 Federal agencies have not complied with
    mandates to submit hate crime data to the FBI, and also reports
    that the FBI itself does not regularly submit hate crimes it
    investigates to its own database.
        I just wanted to know what is the FBI doing to improve the
    situation, to bring not only local law enforcement agencies,
    but also Federal agencies and FBI itself, into compliance for
    reporting hate crimes.
        Mr. Wray. Well, first, I would say you are correct that
    there has historically been under-reporting of hate crimes
    throughout this country. That is the bad news. The good news is
    that there has been a very positive upward trend in terms of
    the number of agencies that are reporting. We are still not
    where we need to be in terms of getting our arms fully around
    the scope and extent of the problem, but it is definitely
    moving in the right direction, and I think the statistics
    reflect that.
        We at the FBI are trying to do a number of things from a
    sort of outreach perspective, working with partners to try to
    raise awareness and help our partners understand why it is in
    everybody's interest for the information to be reported.
        For the most part, crime statistics, whether it is hate
    crimes or other types of crimes, you know, our pitch to the law
    enforcement community is we are all better off if we have the
    actual data and the actual facts. Otherwise, what happens is
    people start trying to analyze the issue based only on media
    reporting, which is not necessarily reliable.
        So, good or bad, we think it is in the best interests of
    the profession, and therefore the country, to have complete and
    accurate data, and so we are committed to trying to ensure
    that.

                           HATE CRIMES UNDERREPORTING

        Ms. Meng. I appreciate efforts for increased outreach and
    raising awareness, I think that is great.
        I also wanted to ask about under-reporting specifically by
    certain more marginalized or under-represented communities;
    immigrant communities, people with disabilities, Arab
    Americans, South Asian Americans, people who might not speak
    English proficiently, many of these communities don't report,
    they can't report, or they don't feel safe reporting. How is
    the FBI engaging or doing outreach with these communities? And
    we work together in my district to have seminars and workshops
    with the FBI, for example.
        And also with the rise of immigration enforcement
    activities, how is the FBI countering the fear that some of
    these victims might have and still encouraging them to report
    their crimes?
        Mr. Wray. Well, certainly I believe very strongly, and I
    think most people in the FBI believe very strongly, that the
    better we know all of our communities and the better they know
    us, the better we can protect them and uphold the Constitution.
    And there are all shapes and sizes, some formal, some informal,
    of community engagement with all the communities we serve. And
    I say that now with the benefit of having been to all 56 field
    offices and in the vast majority of them met not just with
    state and local law enforcement partners, but also with
    community leaders.
        So I have gotten feedback directly from community leaders
    from all different corners of the country, and the feedback I
    get there is that they appreciate the engagement that our
    offices are doing. We are always looking for new and better
    ways to do that, we are never satisfied, but I think we are
    moving in the right direction. And we are doing things like our
    FBI Citizens Academy, where we will often include people from a
    wide variety of backgrounds and communities within the broader
    community, and those folks then stay involved and then help
    recruit and bring more people in. And they get to understand
    the FBI and law enforcement in a way that is I think very
    helpful, increasing the likelihood that when they are the
    victim of a crime they are going to reach out and say so,
    because there is a greater level of trust. I think that is the
    goal.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        I am going to start a second round now. The members know
    that there will be votes, the votes will take about an hour. So
    probably whatever we can do now will be the end of the hearing,
    but we will stay in touch with you along the way to make sure
    that we get things done.

                               VIOLENT EXTREMISM

        So, with that in mind, let me not make my opening statement
    to this question and get to the question. How would you
    describe the danger to public safety that is posed by white
    supremacist extremism? Is it changing in its qualities or in
    the kinds of resources that the FBI and other law enforcement
    agencies need to respond?
        And secondly, the second part to that question, your budget
    request does not mention white supremacist extremism at all.
    How much funding and how many employees are dedicated to
    investigating white nationalist and white supremacist
    extremists in your fiscal year 2020 budget?
        So what is the danger to the country and what do you need
    to fight it?
        Mr. Wray. Well, the danger, I think, of white supremacist
    violent extremism, or any other kind of violent extremism, is
    of course significant. We assess that it is a persistent,
    pervasive threat. We tackle it both through our Joint Terrorism
    Task Forces on the domestic terrorism side, as well as through
    our Civil Rights program on the criminal side through hate
    crime enforcement.
        I think as to whether I would see any significant
    difference or trend there, or whether it is changing, I think I
    would say in general domestic terrorism in this country has
    changed in the sense that it is less structured, less
    organized, fewer groups, more uncoordinated one-off
    individuals, as opposed to some structured hierarchy, and that
    presents its own share of challenges. But certainly we tackle
    it through agents, analysts, professional staff, and
    technology, because there is a lot of social media exploitation
    that comes with it.
        So, again, it comes back to this theme of data analytics
    and the volume of data that we talked about before.

                                FBI RECRUITMENT

        Mr. Serrano. Let me just ask you about recruitment. The FBI
    has always attracted talented young persons to its national
    security and law enforcement missions, but it is now finding it
    more difficult to compete with industry, particularly when it
    comes to technology skills. As a result, the FBI, like many
    Federal agencies, is trying to train current employees to fill
    such positions.
        What is the current skill gap the FBI faces in this regard,
    both in terms of categories of positions and numbers of such
    personnel, and what is the FBI doing to close it?
        Mr. Wray. Well, certainly we are trying to be more focused
    on recruiting employees with STEM backgrounds, for example. We
    have a variety of programs where we start reaching out to kids,
    you know, at a much younger age to get them interested in
    careers with the FBI. We have created positions like the data
    analyst and computer scientist positions.
        But you are correct, Mr. Chairman, that we are focusing
    very heavily on training, because the reality is, in this
    economy, that the sort of cyber whiz-kids that are out there
    are in short supply. Even Silicon Valley can't recruit enough
    of them and they have something else to offer that we don't
    have as much of.
        Mr. Serrano. Right.
        Mr. Wray. We have mission and we think we can compete on
    mission with anybody. But we think, if we are ultimately going
    to be where we need to be for the future, we are going to have
    to not only recruit more people with those backgrounds, but,
    frankly, raise the proficiency level throughout the workforce,
    because it is no longer just a case of a Cyber Division. As I
    said in my opening remarks, pretty much every threat area we
    have talked about here today has a cyber dimension to it or a
    digital evidence dimension to it.
        So we need to improve kind of the median proficiency
    throughout the FBI workforce, so that the really sophisticated
    nation state intrusions and things like that can be the focus
    of our sort of cyber black belts, if you will, and that is the
    approach we are taking.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Director.
        Mr. Aderholt.

                           SEXUAL ASSAULT KIT BACKLOG

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to ask about sexual assault kits. The effort to
    address the backlog of sexual assault kits nationwide has led
    to tens of thousands of long-shelf kits being tested over the
    last several years. And while the analysis of sexual assault
    evidence seems primarily a state or a local law enforcement
    matter, I understand the FBI actually played a role in helping
    to ensure that these kits not go--don't go untested.
        My question would be is under what program is or was the
    FBI involved with the testing of these rape kits?
        Mr. Wray. So, Congressman, our FBI lab has been a very,
    very important partner with state and local law enforcement in
    trying to clear through this backlog of sexual assault kits,
    rape kits, and it is a very impressive operation. I have been
    down there and seen it firsthand, and I am very proud of their
    work. Not only is that clearing the backlog, but of course in
    many cases these are serial rapists who are out and about until
    the backlog was cleared.
        So this is having a real impact in a positive way on the
    safety of people all across the country.
        Mr. Aderholt. What has the testing of these volumes of
    these backlogged sexual assault kits have taught the FBI
    about--and other law enforcement about crime in general?
        Mr. Wray. Well, it certainly highlights something that we
    talk about all the time, which is the value of partnership
    between Federal, state and local law enforcement. It has also
    taught us a lot about the value of the forensic skill set that
    is required to address all of the criminal threats we have, and
    of course it has highlighted the importance of Rapid DNA in
    particular, which is a place that has become an indispensable
    tool in this country both for catching the guilty, but also for
    exonerating the innocent.

                                   RAPID DNA

        Mr. Aderholt. I want to--I will quickly just move on. Rapid
    DNA, it is a term that is used to describe the fully automated
    process developing DNA profile from a cheek swab without a
    human intervention. Can you talk about the goal of the FBI's
    rapid DNA initiative?
        Mr. Wray. We are very excited about rapid DNA. Essentially,
    as you say, rapid DNA would allow for much, much faster and
    more agile and nimble DNA testing for the same kinds of results
    I was referring to just a second ago. We are trying to be very
    thoughtful about how we build up to this. Right now, we are
    moving in a direction where we are starting to use it in
    booking stations, in the more stable platform that that
    provides. Ultimately--but that's the key word, ultimately, we
    are not there yet. We want to be in a position where it can be
    used at crime scenes, but that is not where we are yet and that
    has got to be done very carefully, because we know there will
    be court challenges and other things. And we want to make sure
    that this very exciting, very promising technology to
    protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution
    is preserved and doesn't take a stumble by us starting out of
    the starting gate too quickly. But I know that in talking to my
    state and local law enforcement partners that we are all very
    excited about what this could mean for the profession and the
    country.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Cartwright.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         H.R. 1112 CHARLESTON LOOPHOLE

        Director Wray, you and I briefly touched on H.R. 8, and
    thank you for agreeing to work with me as you go through it and
    think about the ramifications on what that means for your
    agency. I also wanted to ask you about H.R. 1112, which is the
    closing the Charleston loophole bill. Same question, have you
    had a chance to review that and think about the ramifications
    for the FBI?
        Mr. Wray. I am afraid I have not had a chance to review
    that particular piece of legislation, but I would be happy for
    us to do that--view it, review it, that is.
        Mr. Cartwright. Let's go over that offline, shall we? But
    it struck me as odd. The Trump Administration has come out
    against both H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112, and obviously they did not
    ask you to review those things, otherwise you would have done
    it by today, I assume, with a view toward how that would affect
    FBI operations.

                                   FBI MORALE

        Mr. Wray. Well, just to be clear, I am saying that I
    personally have not reviewed either of the pieces of
    legislation you are referring to. I don't know for sure whether
    somebody in the 37,000-person workforce that we have might have
    reviewed and provided an assessment of the operational impact.
        Mr. Cartwright. Well, they are not terribly long bills. And
    I understand you are a graduate of the Yale Law School and I
    understand that is an accredited law school at this point.
        Mr. Wray. The last time I checked, yes.
        Mr. Cartwright. Let's work together and maybe you can give
    some context yourself to the White House on whether it ought to
    be opposing those bills.
        I also wanted to talk about FBI morale and the reputation
    of the FBI. The FBI has seen really more than its fair share of
    negative press coverage over the past several years. The
    Administration has really gone to unprecedented lengths to
    criticize and undermine the FBI as an institution and several
    of its employees specifically. I am concerned about a potential
    political polarization of the FBI. We don't want to see that.
    The FBI works for all Americans and I know you understand that.
    And I know that the men and women of the FBI are resilient,
    professional, hard-working, and largely able to focus on their
    mission even while subjected to unfair criticism.
        Here is my question. What is your sense of the morale right
    now of the FBI and its employees in light of what I think are
    unfair attacks?
        Mr. Wray. Well, as you say, the men and women of the FBI
    are resilient, and I could give you story after story having
    gone now to all 56 offices and met with all of our employees in
    all those places. I would tell you that, while there are plenty
    of opinions out there about the FBI, the opinions that I
    encounter from our partners, Federal, state and local law
    enforcement, from prosecutors, from judges, from community
    groups, from private sector organizations, from the workforce
    that we are recruiting, has, frankly, been uniformly positive,
    in fact in a way that I think is a good measure of morale. Do
    you know that since October, we have had more people applying
    to be special agents of the FBI than all of the prior fiscal
    years. So that says, I think, good things about the morale.
        Mr. Cartwright. It would be a good leading indicator there.
    Well, good.
        Well, tell me, do you believe that public confidence in an
    agency is impacted when an elected official relentlessly
    attacks an agency and its members, and tries to undermine its
    credibility, do you think there is any effect of those things?

                                 FBI EXPERIENCE

        Mr. Wray. You know, I don't think it is really my place to
    be weighing in or commenting on political speech and social
    media; those things have their place, I am focused on us
    getting the work done. I think that is what most of our folks
    are doing and the results I see there are not only strong, but
    improving all the time.
        Mr. Cartwright. I am certainly glad to hear that Director.
    And thank you for coming today and your testimony.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves--and, by the way, before I go to Mr. Graves, I
    am glad you keep saying 56 places that you went to, because it
    has been my mantra that there are more than 50 states of the
    American flag.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Graves. Director, thank you again. No question, just I
    really want to commend you and your team, and particularly the
    personal attention that Mr. Halley gave to myself and others
    earlier this year, including my family as we came to visit
    headquarters and enjoy the new, I guess, tour that is
    available. And I must say, it is inspiring. If there is one
    thing that may be assisting with the new recruits or attention
    to wanting to join the Bureau, maybe that was it, because it
    was really inspiring as to the work and the history of the FBI
    and the challenges you face.
        But I just wanted to thank you and your team, and Mr. Haley
    in particular, for their attention to us. Thanks for joining us
    today.
        Mr. Wray. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I guess it is me. We will use whatever
    time we have here for a second.

                    FBI DIVERSITY AGENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAM

        The FBI has a Diversity Agent Recruitment Program; how does
    it work and what would you regard as a measure of success for
    that program?
        Mr. Wray. Well, Mr. Chairman, diversity is very important
    to me personally, and I think it is to the whole FBI. We view
    it as critical to our effectiveness, I think we make better
    decisions when we have a more diverse workforce; I think it is
    essential to our credibility. There have been a lot of
    questions today about the trust of the community and we need,
    in order to have that trust, to be credible with all the
    different communities we engage with, and I think it is about
    respect and treating everybody with respect.
        Our Diversity Agent Recruitment Program has a number of
    dimensions. We do a lot of social media exposure of what it is
    like to work at the FBI and we sort of prominently feature
    diverse employees to try to encourage greater application from
    that standpoint. We have Diversity Agent Recruitment events all
    across the country. I have gone and spoken at well over, I
    think about a half dozen of them myself to set the tone. And
    where we bring in people from, you know, historically African-
    American colleges and things like that, community groups, et
    cetera, to try to get people interested in careers with the
    FBI, and there is a whole sort of job fair dimension to that.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I wanted to ask you----
        Mr. Wray. And the results are actually quite encouraging.
    The last couple years, we have seen----
        Mr. Serrano. Excuse me, I wanted to ask you about that,
    because I want it to be clear that you do participate in job
    fairs the way so many other people do.
        Mr. Wray. Well, these are sort of our own----
        Mr. Serrano. Your own job fairs----
        Mr. Wray. Job fairs----
        Mr. Serrano. Right.
        Mr. Wray. Because we like to make sure people are
    completely focused on the FBI when we are doing them, as
    opposed to showing up in some of these other settings, but we
    probably do a little bit of that too.
        I would say that the results are encouraging. The last few
    years of our entering classes have been up in terms of the
    diversity that they represent. Each of those years is also more
    as a percentage matter than the current percentage of our
    workforce. And, importantly, this year the percentage, the
    diversity of applications--I mentioned a minute ago how
    recruiting is up--within that, the percentage of diverse
    candidates is up quite significantly in terms of the
    applications. So I think that is also a very promising sign for
    the future of the organization.

                                  9/11 FUNDING

        Mr. Serrano. Very briefly, my last question. I was part of
    this committee right after 9/11 and we gave a lot of money to
    the FBI, and rightfully so, to do what had to be done after 9/
    11. And I started worrying then, and I still worry now, that
    maybe the focus on criminals, drug dealers, and others, the
    white collar crimes, if you will, would not be paid attention
    to with the same fervor as it was before. What can you tell us
    about that?
        Mr. Wray. Well, certainly 9/11 is very important to me
    personally, as I know it is to you. And as I mentioned to you
    when we spoke on the phone, I have actually now added a visit
    to the 9/11 Memorial for every new training class, along with
    the Holocaust Memorial and the MLK Memorial.
        I would say that while counter-terrorism remains our top
    priority, if you looked at where are our resources are
    allocated in terms of just the sheer numbers of agents,
    analysts, and professional staff, our traditional criminal
    programs are still where the lion's share of the resources are
    allocated. So you might hear us talking more about counter-
    terrorism and it might get a little more attention in the
    leadership just because of the stakes, the mass-casualty stakes
    that are implicated by a terrorist attack, but in terms of just
    the day-to-day cadence of the organization, our criminal
    programs still represent the biggest program we have.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt.

                                  MS-13 THREAT

        Mr. Aderholt. Let me ask about some other gang and violent
    crime issues. Other than the opioid epidemic, violent crime and
    gangs seem to affect just about every part of our community.
    Can you talk about MS-13 a little bit and just talk about the
    current--is it still a threat, as we have, you know, seen a lot
    in the news over the past several months and years on that? And
    just talk a little bit about MS-13 in general.
        Mr. Wray. So, certainly MS-13 remains a threat, it remains
    an organization that we are tackling very aggressively. We have
    had significant MS-13 cases of course in Long Island, but not
    exclusively. I think in Queens and Long Island, for example,
    not that long ago we took down I think about 45 of the most
    dangerous MS-13 members. But what is important about the way we
    tackle the MS-13 threat is that it is not just here in the U.S.
    with our Safe Streets Task Forces, we also have what we call
    our TAGS, which are task forces that are in El Salvador,
    Guatemala, and Honduras, where we work with local law
    enforcement there to help them address more of the problem
    there as well.
        And so those two kind of bookends help us tackle the threat
    in a more cross-border way and sort of not just kind of getting
    it when it is here inside our borders.

                   VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

        Mr. Aderholt. Has there been an increase in violence
    against law enforcement officers that you have been aware of?
        Mr. Wray. Last year, 2018, there was an increase in the
    number of law enforcement officers in this country who were
    shot and killed in the line of duty. And I say that because I
    personally call every time that happens the chief or sheriff or
    commissioner involved to express my support and condolences.
    And so every single one of those instances I am seeing myself,
    the picture of the person who was killed, information about his
    or her family, how long they were on the job, and it was up
    last year. I don't have the percentage or the number off the
    top of my head, but it was up last year in a way that I find
    very alarming.
        And I would also say, which is in some ways even more
    concerning, that the number of those deaths that were as a
    result of ambush was up last year as well, as a subset.
        This year, it is not clear yet whether the number will be
    up this year but this is a time for, you know, considerable
    concern about the well-being and safety of the men and women of
    law enforcement who put themselves at great risk. And it takes
    a very, very, very special person to every day be willing to
    sacrifice your life for a complete stranger. There are not a
    lot of people willing to do that and we all as Americans owe
    those people a debt of gratitude, and my heart and the hearts
    of everybody in the FBI breaks whenever one of these things
    happens.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves. No questions.
        Mr. Serrano. That is it.
        We want to thank you, Mr. Director, for coming before us
    today. Your agency is one that has our respect. When we
    disagree with you, we tell you in a diplomatic way to make
    changes, throughout our history, my personal history on this
    committee and I know the other members. The FBI at times has
    had difficult relationships with different communities, it did
    so in Puerto Rico for many years, and Director Freeh opened up
    those files for people to see and then changes were made to
    make sure that that didn't happen again.
        And so you can tell the members of your workforce, your
    agents, that we respect them and we will do whatever we need to
    do to make sure they do the right job and do it properly, but
    do it with the support of Congress, and that is very important.
    And we thank you for your testimony.
        This meeting is adjourned.
        [Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
    to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Tuesday, April 9, 2019.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                   WITNESSES

    WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
    LEE J. LOFTHUS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION
        Mr. Serrano. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
    order.
        Today we welcome the new Attorney General, William Barr,
    before the subcommittee. As the Attorney General during the
    George H. W. Bush administration, he has testified before this
    committee in the past, but this is his first time in quite a
    while. Welcome and congratulations to your new and old
    position, sir.
        We also welcome Assistant Attorney General for
    Administration Lee Lofthus. Because Attorney General Barr was
    not confirmed when this year's budget proposal was largely
    formulated, he has asked that the Assistant Attorney General be
    allowed to join him at the table to answer some of the nuts-
    and-bolts questions that we will ask regarding the budget.
        This year we have held several hearings for components of
    the Department, including the FBI, the ATF, the Civil Rights
    Division, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. I
    appreciate the willingness of the Department to come and
    testify, even though we may have different opinions on
    different issues.
        Let me take a moment to describe some concerns prompted by
    those hearings. We have heard what appears to be a lack of
    commitment to the Department's traditional mission to defend
    civil rights, disability rights, and prevent discrimination. We
    have discussed what appears to be a clear animus towards
    policies that protect individuals' health care, voting rights,
    access to education, and much, much more.
        We have discussed the need for additional resources to
    address gun violence in this country, while at the same time
    hearing ATF say that the budget request would result in
    staffing reductions. We have talked to the head of the
    Executive Office for Immigration Review about the need to
    protect due process and fairness in our immigration courts, and
    the many policy changes that make such goals more difficult to
    achieve. We have heard the FBI describe the threats our Nation
    faces, but also that their budget request will not fully fund
    their efforts to address those threats. As we discuss the
    Department today, we are faced with a budget request that fails
    to address many of these concerns and raises new problems.
        And of course, Mr. Attorney General, we could not hold this
    hearing without mentioning the elephant in the room, and I am
    not referring to my colleagues on the other side. Two and a
    half weeks ago, the Mueller report was completed. In extremely
    quick fashion, you turned a 300-plus-page report into a four-
    page letter that supposedly summarized the findings. Last week,
    the New York Times reported that the Special Counsel's office
    had already created summary documents that were ignored in your
    letter, and that some investigators within the Special
    Counsel's office felt that the summary understates the level of
    malfeasance by the President and several of his campaign and
    White House advisors.
        The American people have been left with many unanswered
    questions; serious concerns about the process by which you
    formulated your letter; and uncertainty about when we can
    expect to see the full report. I believe the American people
    deserve to see the full report and to be trusted to make our
    own determinations on the merits based on what the Special
    Counsel has presented.
        Mr. Attorney General, if there is one thing I would like to
    leave with you today, something you already know, but just my
    role to remind you, is that this Congress voted unanimously to
    see that report, that the Congress and the committees of
    jurisdiction want to see the report, and that the American
    people want to see the report. I think it would strike a
    serious blow to our system and, yes, to our democracy if that
    report is not fully seen. And when it comes to redactions, we
    would hope that you could tell us when something is redacted,
    if you feel it has to be, what area it covered. I just see a
    blackout, it doesn't tell us where it came from and why it
    might have been redacted.
        We are not here today to be in a confrontational situation
    with you. We want to help you do your job and you need to help
    us do ours, but what cannot happen is that somebody higher than
    you tells you that you don't have to answer our questions or
    you don't have to deal with us at all; that is not who we are
    as a country, that is not who we are as a democracy, that is
    not who we are as an Appropriations committee.
        So let me just say this. Since 2017, our Nation's Justice
    Department has too often failed to meet the needs of the
    American people. I hope that with your ascension to Attorney
    General we can work together to change that.
        And, with that said, I would turn to my colleague and
    friend Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I
    too would like to welcome Attorney General Barr and Assistant
    Attorney General Lofthus to the Commerce, Justice, Science
    Subcommittee to testify regarding the fiscal year 2020 budget
    request.
        Your stewardship of the Department of Justice is important
    to all our communities and your budget proposes key investments
    in what we can all agree on are critical criminal justice
    priorities, such as strengthening national security, reducing
    violent crime, enforcing our Nation's immigration laws,
    combating the opioid crisis, and reducing recidivism.
        Attorney General Barr, we recognize that you have an
    incredibly demanding job. Your presence here this morning
    reveals how seriously you take the Department's fiscal year
    2020 budget request, as well as the role of Congress and this
    committee in making the funding decisions. So, thank you for
    being here this morning. We want to work with you, as the
    chairman said, to ensure that the programs you administer to
    help keep this country safe are as effective and efficient as
    possible.
        I hope your testimony today will address many of the issues
    that affect our local communities. I am particularly interested
    in the Justice Department's efforts to help curb the deadly
    opioid epidemic; I hope to learn more about high-tech law
    enforcement initiatives you are using to disrupt the
    sophisticated transnational criminal organizations at the heart
    of this scourge, and how we can best support these efforts.
        I am also interested in hearing about your perspective on
    the humanitarian and the security crisis that we now have on
    our Southern border that we are hearing so much about, and how
    it affects the workload at your Department.
        I look forward to working with Chairman Serrano on these
    and many other issues with the appropriations process as we
    move forward for the fiscal year 2020 appropriations process.
        So, with that, we look forward to your testimony this
    morning, and I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
        Let me now turn to the chairwoman of the full committee, my
    colleague from New York, Mrs. Lowey.
        Mrs. Lowey. I would like to thank Chairman Serrano, Ranking
    Member Aderholt, for holding this hearing. And, Attorney
    General Barr, welcome, and thank you for appearing this
    morning.
        Before getting into your budget request, I want to address
    a serious oversight matter: your unacceptable handing of
    Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report. It has been reported
    that the report is 300 to 400 pages. And I use the term
    ``reported,'' because we have no idea how long it actually is.
    All we have is your four-page summary, which seems to cherry-
    pick from the report to draw the most favorable conclusion
    possible for the President. And, in many ways, your letter
    raises more questions than it answers.
        I must say, it is extraordinary to evaluate hundreds of
    pages of evidence, legal documents, and findings based on a 22-
    month long inquiry and make definitive legal conclusions in
    less than 48 hours. Even for someone who has done this job
    before, I would argue it is more suspicious than impressive.
        Your conclusion is something we have seen before. In fact,
    we have seen it in your own legal writing. In June 2018, you
    wrote a memo as a private citizen and a former Attorney General
    to the Department of Justice laying out the President's case
    against obstruction of justice. Your audition clearly went
    well.
        I look forward to reviewing the Mueller report myself, and
    I know my constituents do as well. I understand that portions
    of it must be redacted as a matter of law, but my hope is that
    you will stop there and bring transparency to this process as
    soon as possible. The American people deserve the facts.
        Now to your fiscal year 2020 budget request. The request
    provides a significant increase for immigration judges and a
    modest increase for most Federal law enforcement. However, it
    either eliminates or significantly cuts respected grant
    programs at the Department of Justice that really make a
    difference in our constituents' daily lives.
        For example, your request significantly decreases essential
    programs, including the COPS program, which advances community
    policing on a state and a local level would be cut by $205
    million; the DNA Initiative program, which provides grants to
    reduce the rape kit backlog by ensuring evidence that could
    lead to meaningful convictions does not sit on forgotten
    shelves, and that would be cut by $25 million; and the Juvenile
    Justice program, which helps prevent youth crime, violence, and
    reduce recidivism, which would be cut by $48.5 million.
        These are simply unacceptable reductions.
        I look forward to a productive discussion today. I hope you
    can shed some light on how this budget request can adequately
    respond to the grave task the Department of Justice and its
    grant programs undertake daily.
        Thank you again for appearing before us. I look forward to
    an open discussion, an honest discussion, and address the many
    challenges before us today.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        And now, Attorney General Barr, you are recognized to give
    your opening statement. We ask you please to try to keep it to
    5 minutes and your whole statement will be included in the
    record. Thank you.
        Attorney General Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam
    Chair, and Ranking Member Aderholt.
        I am pleased to be here today to present to you the
    President's fiscal year 2020 budget for the Department of
    Justice, and I am joined here today by the Department's Chief
    Financial Officer, Assistant Attorney General for
    Administration, Lee Lofthus. We look forward to discussing how
    our requested appropriations will help protect the safety and
    rights of our constituents and your constituents.
        For two fiscal years in a row, the Department has broken
    records for prosecuting violent crime. The Department has also
    significantly increased prosecution of firearms offenses, and
    in fiscal year 2018 prosecuted more firearm defendants than
    ever before.
        As prosecutions have gone up, crime has gone down, and in
    2017, after 2 years of increases, violent crime and homicide
    rates went down nationwide.
        The FBI's preliminary data for the first 6 months of 2018
    show a 4.3 percent decline in violent crime overall and a 6.7
    percent decline in murders, and a 12 percent decline in robbery
    and burglary compared to the first 6 months of 2017.
        In order to continue this momentum, President Trump has
    requested an additional $137 million for violent crime and
    transnational organized crime prosecutions, as well as an
    additional $100 million for the Project Safe Neighborhood
    grants to state and local law enforcement. The Department also
    requests $5.8 million to enhance violent crime and firearms
    prosecutions.
        Over the first 2 years of the Trump administration, we have
    also gained ground against the opioid epidemic, which is by far
    the deadliest drug crisis that this country has ever faced. The
    Department increased the number of defendants charged with
    Federal opioid-related crimes by 28 percent from fiscal year
    2017 to fiscal year 2018. Prescriptions of the seven most
    frequently abused prescription opioids are down more than 23
    percent since 2016, to the lowest level in at least a decade,
    and over the same period the DEA has lowered the legal limits
    on production of the active ingredients in these opioids by 47
    percent.
        More importantly, drug overdose deaths may have finally
    stopped rising. According to preliminary data from the CDC,
    overdose deaths decreased slightly from September 2017 to
    August 2018. But there is a lot more work to be done and that
    is why the President's budget provides for $295 million to
    combat the opioid epidemic, including $18.2 million for the
    FBI's Joint Criminal Opioid Darknet Enforcement initiative or
    J-CODE, which is a team of agents that work to disrupt and
    dismantle the sale of synthetic opioids on the darknet.
        The President requests $11.1 million for five new heroin
    enforcement groups that will be deployed to DEA field divisions
    that have identified heroin as the first or second-greatest
    threat in their area. The President also includes $2 million in
    operational funds for the National Opioid Initiative of our
    OCDETF program.
        The President's budget also proposes to permanently
    transfer $254 million from the White House Office of National
    Drug Control Policy to the DEA for the HIDTA programs, the High
    Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. This change will eliminate
    redundancies by placing this program under the agency that
    leads our drug enforcement efforts.
        We know that most of the illicit drugs in this country came
    across our Southern border. In the fight against an
    unprecedented drug crisis, border security is imperative.
        In fiscal year 2018, the Department charged more defendants
    with illegal entry into this country than in any year before.
    At the same time, the Department increased the number of felony
    illegal reentry prosecutions by more than 38 percent.
        Our immigration courts, which are under the Department of
    Justice, have also become more productive under this
    Administration. Since the beginning of 2017, the Department has
    conducted an unprecedented surge in hiring immigration judges.
    The Department has hired more immigration judges under
    President Trump than in the previous 7 years combined. We now
    employ the largest number of immigration judges in history,
    with 46 percent more immigration judges than just 3 years ago.
    That is having an impact on immigration cases.
        After 8 consecutive years of declining or stagnant
    productivity between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2016, our
    immigration judges have increased case completions 2 years in a
    row. In fiscal year 2018, immigration judges completed the most
    cases in 7 years.
        In order to continue this progress, the Department requests
    $71 million for 100 new immigration judges and additional
    support staff in fiscal year 2020. This would bring the number
    of authorized immigration judges to 634, which would more than
    double the number of immigration judges on board in fiscal year
    2016. Given the fact that these judges face a record-breaking
    860,000 case backlog, this investment is more than warranted.
        And with the crisis on our Southwest border, the Department
    requests $6 million for our Southwest Border Rural Law
    Enforcement Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, which will help
    law enforcement agencies serving rural areas along and near the
    border to fight rural crime.
        The Department also plays a critical role in protecting our
    national security in combating terrorism and cyber crime, and
    that is why the President requests an additional $70.5 million
    to enhance the FBI's cyber information-sharing abilities and
    cyber tools and capabilities, as well as $16 million for our
    National Vetting Center.
        The President requests an additional $18 million for the
    FBI to address counterintelligence threats, particularly cyber
    attacks and threats from hostile foreign intelligence services.
        Mr. Chairman, there are many other issues facing law
    enforcement that we could talk about today, but the bottom line
    is the more than 112,000 men and women at the Department of
    Justice are doing important work, and we ask for your support.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]
     [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Mr. Serrano. Attorney General Barr, in your confirmation
    hearing you say you believed it very important that results of
    Special Counsel Mueller's investigation be shared with Congress
    and the public; we agree on that. FBI Director Wray, the
    Nation's top counterintelligence investigator, told us last
    week he had not read the Special Counsel's report.
        My question is, with regard to your March 24 and 29 letters
    to the Judiciary Committees, did Special Counsel Mueller or
    anyone on his team have a role in drafting them or reviewing
    them in advance? Did you use any of the summary documents
    prepared by the Special Counsel in drafting these documents?
        Attorney General Barr. The 24th and 29th. The letter of the
    24th, Mr. Mueller's team did not play a role in drafting that
    document, although we offered him the opportunity to review it
    before we sent it out and he declined that.
        The letter on the 29th, I don't believe that that was
    reviewed by Mr. Mueller or that they participated in drafting
    that letter.
        But to go back to something you said in your opening
    statement about the availability of the report. As I said, as
    you pointed out, since my confirmation I do think it is
    important that the public have an opportunity to learn the
    results of the Special Counsel's work, and I said then that I
    would work diligently to make as much information public as I
    could and available to Congress as I could.
        You will recognize that I am operating under a regulation
    that was put together during the Clinton administration and
    does not provide for the publication of the report, but I am
    relying on my discretion to make as much public as I can.
        Now, in my letter of March 29, I identified four areas that
    I feel should be redacted, and I think most people would agree.
    The first is grand jury information, Rule 6(e); the second is
    information that the intelligence community believes would
    reveal intelligence sources and methods; the third is
    information in the report that could interfere with ongoing
    prosecutions. You will recall that the Special Counsel did spin
    off a number of cases that are still being pursued and we want
    to make sure that none of the information in the report would
    impinge upon either the ability of the prosecutors to prosecute
    the cases or the fairness to the defendants.
        And, finally, we intend to redact information that
    implicates the privacy or reputational interests of peripheral
    players where there is a decision not to charge them.
        Right now, the Special Counsel is working with us on
    identifying information in the reports that fall under those
    four categories. We will color code the excisions from the
    report and we will provide explanatory notes describing the
    basis for each redaction. So, for example, if a redaction is
    made because of a court order in a pending prosecution, we will
    state that and we will distinguish between the various
    categories. This process is going along very well and my
    original time table of being able to release this by mid-April
    stands.
        And so I think that, from my standpoint, within a week I
    will be in a position to release the report to the public, and
    then I will engage with the chairmen of both Judiciary
    Committees about that report and about any further requests
    that they have.
        Mr. Serrano. So let me just get one thing clear for the
    record. My concern during my opening statement that when you
    redact something we should know what area it falls under, that
    you say will happen?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes, yes, sir.
        Mr. Serrano. Your March 24 letter indicated that some
    actions the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising
    obstruction of justice concerns have not been publicly
    reported; will these actions be identified in the report sent
    to Congress?
        Attorney General Barr. As things stand now, I don't think
    that they will be redacted. So they will be identifiable, yes.
        Mr. Serrano. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              U.S. MEXICAN BORDER

        Mr. Attorney General, as you know, there is a serious
    humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border, and in fact the
    previous Administration specifically noted that transnational
    organized crime in Mexico makes the U.S. border more
    vulnerable, because it creates and maintains illicit corridors
    of border crossings that can be employed by other secondary
    criminal or terrorist actors or organizations. Of course, your
    fiscal year 2020 budget proposes an additional $18 million in
    resources to help advance the fight against organized crime.
        Can you talk a bit about the Department of Justice and how
    it is addressing the smuggling networks that are endangering so
    many of the lives that are being smuggled and trafficked across
    the Southern Border, and particularly the children?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes, sir. The problem we face on our
    Southern Border is really unprecedented, not just the volume
    and the makeup of the people coming across from an immigration
    policy standpoint, but by the strength of the criminal
    organizations in Mexico. One of the things that has changed a
    lot in the 30 years prior when I was Attorney General has been
    the strengthening of these criminal organizations in Mexico,
    these cartels, that are not only involved in multiple kinds of
    drugs and the transportation of those drugs and distribution in
    the United States, but also into human trafficking. So
    attacking those transnational criminal organizations is a high
    priority.
        The fiscal year 2020 budget requests a total of $3.2
    billion that is targeted at dealings with these transnational
    organizations, and we are seeking an increase of $109 million
    this year. We are also seeking $29 million in programmatic
    enhancements, including $18 million to strengthen the FBI's
    ability to monitor and target the transnational organizations;
    and $10 million to strengthen DEA's ability to operate its
    Judicial Wire Intercept Program in Central America; and another
    $1.7 million for DEA's Sensitive Intelligence Unit, which is
    targeting these groups and their illicit trafficking in
    narcotics.
        I personally believe that an important part of securing the
    Southern Border is to have a barrier system on the border, and
    I think that that will help not only in narcotics interdiction,
    but also in suppressing human trafficking, and it is an
    important part of our enforcement.

                                      FISA

        Mr. Aderholt. Let me switch gears just a minute. One of the
    most sacred rights, as you know, as Americans, is the right not
    to be spied on by the Government. A FISA order may only be
    issued based on a finding by the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Court that probable cause exists to believe that
    the target of surveillance is an agent of a foreign power.
        One of our colleagues, Representative Nunes, has referred
    eight persons to the FBI for investigation concerning alleged
    misconduct during the Russia investigation, including the leak
    of highly classified material, and alleged conspiracies to lie
    to Congress and the FISA Court in order to spy on then-
    candidate Trump and other persons. I would hope the Department
    of Justice will be giving these referrals appropriate and
    prompt consideration.
        My question is, now that President Trump has been
    exonerated of Russia collusion, is the Justice Department
    investigating how it came to be that your agency used a
    salacious and unverified dossier as a predicate for a FISA
    order on a U.S. citizen?
        Attorney General Barr. The Office of the Inspector General
    has a pending investigation of the FISA process in the Russia
    investigation and I expect that that will be complete in--
    probably in May or June, I am told. So, hopefully we will have
    some answers from Inspector General Horowitz on the issue of
    the FISA warrants.
        More general----
        Mr. Aderholt. Do you--go ahead.
        Attorney General Barr. More generally, I am reviewing the
    conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around
    all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that
    was conducted during the summer of 2016.
        Mr. Aderholt. Are you investigating who leaked the
    existence of the FISA order against Carter Page?
        Attorney General Barr. Who what?
        Mr. Aderholt. Are you investigating who leaked the
    existence of a FISA order against Carter Page?
        Attorney General Barr. I haven't seen the referrals yet
    from Congressman Nunes, but obviously, if there is a predicate
    for an investigation, it will be conducted.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Lowey.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Mrs. Lowey. Attorney General Barr, reports suggest that
    Special Counsel Mueller's report is anywhere between 300 and
    400 pages long. I would be interested in knowing, how many
    discussions did you have with the Deputy Attorney General and
    other staff between receiving the report and releasing the
    memo? Was there discussion or debate about the evidence and
    conclusions? How many staffers assisted you in digesting so
    many pages of complex information in such a short period of
    time?
        Let me tell you what I'm getting at that I find quite
    extraordinary. You received a very serious, detailed report,
    hundreds of pages of high-level information, weighed the
    factors and conclusions at length, outlined, prepared, edited,
    and released your memos in less than 48 hours. To me, to do
    this, it seems your mind must have been already made up. How
    did you do it?
        Attorney General Barr. The thinking of the Special Counsel
    was not a mystery to the people at the Department of Justice
    prior to his submission of the report. He had been interacting,
    he and his people had been interacting with the Deputy Attorney
    General and lawyers supporting the Deputy Attorney General in
    his supervision of the Special Counsel, and in that context
    there had been discussions. So there was some inkling as to
    some of the thinking of the Special Counsel.
        Furthermore, on March 5th, I believe, the Deputy and I met
    with Special Counsel Mueller and his team, and had a
    preliminary discussion about the report. So we had an inkling
    as to what was coming in our direction, and so even more
    thinking within the Department was done about that over that
    time; that was a matter of weeks. And then, when the report
    came, and it came approximately midday on Friday, the Deputy
    Attorney General and I and our staffs worked closely for the
    balance of that day, Saturday, and Sunday.
        Mrs. Lowey. I didn't want to interrupt you.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Attorney General Barr. That is----
        Mrs. Lowey. Did the White House see the report before you
    released your summary letter? Has the White House seen it since
    then? Have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in
    your summarizing letter to the Judiciary Committee?
        Attorney General Barr. I have said what I am going to say
    about the report today; I have issued three letters about it.
    And I was willing to discuss the historic information of how
    the report came to me and my decision on Sunday, but I have
    already laid out the process that is going forward to release
    these reports, hopefully within a week, and I am not going to
    say anything more about it until the report is out and everyone
    has a chance to look at it.
        Mrs. Lowey. I think there are some relevant questions that
    I do hope you could answer today, sir.
        On the question of obstruction of justice, your memo
    stated, quote, ``While this report does not conclude that the
    President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.''
    Yet President Trump has publicly stated that this report is a
    complete and total exoneration.
        Can you tell us who is factually accurate? And will the
    released report include details on the obstruction issue and
    why, as you noted, the President is not exonerated, or will
    that information be redacted?
        Attorney General Barr. I have already explained the
    information that is going to be redacted from the report, the
    four categories, that is what is going to govern the
    redactions, and in fact the Special Counsel and his staff are
    helping us select the information in the report that falls into
    those four categories. But, again, the report--I will be in a
    position, as I said, within a week to release the report,
    people can then read the report.
        I have already promised the Judiciary Committees that I
    would appear as soon as they are able to schedule a hearing
    after the report is released, so I am not going to discuss it
    any further until after the report is out.
        Mrs. Lowey. Could you just explain for us--I understand
    that you are going to appear before the Judiciary Committee,
    but in that short period of time, it is very puzzling to me
    that the 400 pages could have been reviewed, and the President
    states that this report is a complete and total exoneration;
    who is factually accurate?
        Attorney General Barr. As I say, it is hard to have that
    discussion without the contents of the report, isn't it? And
    that is why I am suggesting that we wait until the report is
    out and I am glad to talk to people about it after then, and I
    am already scheduled to testify about that.
        Mrs. Lowey. I appreciate that. In closing, I just hope that
    we, as members of Congress, are going to have the complete
    report and have discussions with you as to the accuracy of some
    of the statements.
        Thank you for appearing before us today. And we will--in
    closing, we will have the complete report, or are you going to
    be selective as to what you give Members of Congress?
        Attorney General Barr. You mean the un-redacted report?
        Mrs. Lowey. Yes.
        Attorney General Barr. No, the first pass at this is going
    to produce a report that makes these redactions based on these
    four categories, and that is something that I am hoping will be
    available to the public. As I said, I am glad to talk to
    Chairman Nadler and Chairman Graham as to whether they feel
    they need more information and see if there is a way we could
    accommodate that.
        Mrs. Lowey. Well, I do hope you can accommodate Members of
    Congress who feel it is our responsibility to see the complete
    report, and I look forward to continuing the discussion.
        Thank you again for appearing.
        Attorney General Barr. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mrs. Roby.

                           SEX AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING

        Mrs. Roby. Attorney General Barr and Assistant Attorney
    General Lofthus, thank you so much for appearing before this
    committee today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2020
    budget request.
        I would like to focus on the Department's efforts as it
    relates to sex and human trafficking. In the fiscal year 2018,
    the Justice Department initiated a total of 230 human
    trafficking prosecutions, charging 386 defendants and
    convicting a record 526 defendants. The Department continued
    its successfully Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team Initiative,
    working with partners in the Department of Homeland Security
    and the Department of Labor.
        In 2018, these ACT teams saw significant prosecution
    results, including increases of 10 percent, 75 percent, and 106
    percent in cases filed, defendants charged, and defendants
    convicted.
        I wear another hat sitting on the Judiciary Committee and,
    through that committee's efforts in the last Congress, we
    passed several pieces of legislation working with the
    Department specifically to close loopholes in the criminal code
    and make it easier for the Department to go after these folks
    that are exploiting children and trafficking human beings.
        This is modern-day slavery. It is important for me as a
    member of this committee and I suspect every member of this
    committee, I think I can say that, we all want to see sex and
    human trafficking eradicated in this country and want to make
    sure that your Department has the tools that you need to do so.
        Director Wray was here recently, I directed some questions
    specific to this issue as well and would like for you to
    address for the benefit of all of us as we put pen to paper in
    our appropriations bills, we know the successes, but where are
    the deficiencies and how can we on this subcommittee be helpful
    in making sure you have every tool that you need?
        Attorney General Barr. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Human trafficking is one of our highest priorities now in
    the Department and we have brought in an exceptional prosecutor
    as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Deputy's office,
    with a portfolio of coordinating the Department's efforts
    directed at human trafficking and are setting up task forces
    around the country that she works with.
        I met with this team within the last month, received a full
    briefing on their current activities, and I have asked them to
    come back to me with a plan of action that could take it to the
    next level. And that could include shifting some resources
    within the Department, as well as seeking some additional
    legislative provisions that would help our prosecutors.
        So rest assured that I am very focused on this and will be
    back to the committee and the Judiciary Committee with
    proposals as to how we could accelerate our efforts.
        Mrs. Roby. I certainly appreciate that. And I of course was
    extremely disappointed that we were able to get a package of
    bills through the House by voice vote only to see them fail in
    the United States Senate, which I know each of those pieces of
    legislation would have made law enforcement's job much easier,
    I guess. And I do appreciate too all of the work that you do
    with local law enforcement to make sure that they have the
    tools and the resources that they need in order to combat sex
    and human trafficking and child exploitation.

                        INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

        Most children now have access to the Internet and the
    Internet technology affords children access to vast amounts of
    valuable information and endless sources of entertainment;
    however, it also exposes children to certain dangers. Most
    worrisome, children may encounter, and oftentimes do, actual
    predators that use the Internet to identify and lure victims
    through chat rooms, instant messaging, and social networking
    sites.
        So, if you could with the short amount of time that I have
    left--and I can revisit this if there is a second round, but
    what does this DOJ's budget request bill do to safeguard our
    children from these predators specifically on the Internet?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, we are requesting $81 million
    for OJP's Missing and Exploited Children Program. We have $30
    million for NCMEC; we have $30 million for the ICAC task
    forces, which are now operating in states--we have 81 of them
    operating throughout the country; and then the activities of
    the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in the Department
    of Justice. So those are sort of the three pillars of our
    effort and all together it is approximately $90 million.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
        I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Cartwright.

                           AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)

        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Attorney General, for appearing before us today.
        I have understood for quite some time now that there are
    those in this country whose favorite pastime is attacking
    health care, but your decision as our new Attorney General to
    throw the weight of the United States Department of Justice
    behind an effort to get the Federal courts entirely to
    invalidate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as
    unconstitutional is breathtaking; it is unbelievable. It stands
    out, your decision does, for its breadth, its scope, its
    recklessness, and its lack of legal justification to invalidate
    the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
        If your efforts are successful, millions of Americans would
    lose their health care, tens of millions of Americans would see
    the premiums for their coverage skyrocket. One of our
    Republican colleagues in the Senate, Senator Collins, put it
    best when she wrote to you last week, her letter was dated
    April 1st--did you get her letter?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes.
        Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Then you saw that she wrote, ``Your
    decision to pursue this course of action in the Federal courts
    puts at risk not only critical consumer protections, such as
    those protecting individuals suffering from preexisting
    conditions, but also other important provisions of that law
    such as the Medicaid expansion, dependent coverage for young
    adults to age 26, coverage for preventative services, and the
    regulatory pathway for FDA approval of biosimilar drugs,''
    unquote.
        The Department of Justice's refusal to defend our law, the
    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is distressing
    because of the harm that it poses to the physical and financial
    well-being of millions of Americans, and also because DOJ's
    refusal appears to be driven by political considerations rather
    than health care policy discussions or sound legal arguments.
        Attorney General Barr, you are not a health care policy
    expert, but your Department is taking the lead on attempting a
    massive overhaul of our American health care system. So I want
    to make sure we agree on a few of the top-line facts and let's
    go through a couple of quick yes-or-no questions at the outset.
        Number one, have you conducted or reviewed an analysis to
    evaluate the effects of DOJ's litigation position to overturn
    the ACA, the effects on consumer costs and coverage, have you
    done that analysis or have you reviewed one?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, when we are faced with a legal
    question, we try to base our answer on the law.
        Mr. Cartwright. On the law. So the answer is no.
        And here is the thing: I can't imagine that you would take
    that kind of dramatic, drastic action without even trying to
    evaluate the consequences for the American consumers, the
    people using the health care, the people for whom these
    premiums are paid, but let's start the process of going through
    that----
        Attorney General Barr. Well, do you mean----
        Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. If we may.
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. In the event that the
    law is struck down?
        Mr. Cartwright. If you are successful in this lawsuit that
    you are supporting and the entire Patient Protection and
    Affordable Care Act is struck down, millions of Americans who
    currently receive health insurance coverage under the law are
    at risk of losing that coverage; am I correct in that?

                           AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)

        Attorney General Barr. I think the President has made clear
    that he favors not only protections for preexisting conditions,
    but would like action on a broad health plan. So he is
    proposing a substitute for ObamaCare.
        Mr. Cartwright. The one that is going to come after the
    next election, you mean?
        Attorney General Barr. The one that will come down if and
    when ObamaCare is struck down.
        Mr. Cartwright. Well, let me be the one to inform, should
    the law be struck down, millions of people who get their
    coverage through the ACA marketplace would lose their coverage,
    and tens of millions more would see their premiums skyrocket.
        In addition, if you are successful, 12 million people
    nationally and 750,000 people in my home state of Pennsylvania
    who have coverage under the Medicaid expansion would also
    likely lose that coverage; am I correct in that, sir?
        Attorney General Barr. Do you think it is likely we are
    going to prevail?
        Mr. Cartwright. If you prevail--well, you are devoting
    scarce resources of your department toward that effort; are you
    not, Attorney General?
        Attorney General Barr. We are in litigation, we have to
    take a position----
        Mr. Cartwright. The answer is yes----
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. We take a position----
        Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. You are trying to get it----
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. In litigation----
        Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. Invalidated and, if you
    succeed, that many people will lose their coverage nationally
    for Medicaid and 750,000 from Pennsylvania alone; right?
        Attorney General Barr. I am just saying that, if you think
    it is such an outrageous position, you have nothing to worry
    about. Let the courts do their job.
        Mr. Cartwright. If you--well, my time is out. We will come
    back to this.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.

                                 VIOLENT CRIME

        Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
    Attorney General, thank you for being here today.
        For a couple of years at the end of the Obama
    administration, violent crime in America started to tick up,
    that means more robberies, more murders, and more assaults. I
    am encouraged to see that the FBI's preliminary crime
    statistics that were released in late February show this
    alarming trend is being reversed.
        Can you tell me, what is the Department doing that is
    working and does your new budget add resources for fighting
    violent crime?
        Attorney General Barr. Thank you, sir. Reducing violent
    crime, as I said in my statement, is one of our priorities, and
    making sure we don't see a resurgence of violent crime. Our
    base amount in the budget is $4.3 billion and we are seeking
    $138 million enhancement to that; $120 million would go toward
    reducing violent crime in communities and $18 million would be
    to step up our efforts against these transnational criminal
    organizations.
        The flagship, one of the flagships in our fight against
    violent crime is our Project Safe Neighborhoods. This is really
    a concept that has been around for a while under various
    guises, but fundamentally what it is, it is a strategy to focus
    on high-crime areas that brings together the local community;
    the law enforcement, including Federal and state; and also the
    various social programs and social agencies that run and fund
    programs that are meant to prevent crimes from occurring. And
    they have had a tremendous record, there have been studies
    showing how it has suppressed crime where it has been deployed.
    We are seeking $100 million to increase--go from $20 million to
    $100 million to extend the Project Safe Neighborhoods program.
        We also are seeking $10.7 million to expand ATF's NIBIN
    program, which has proved to be a tremendous tool in the fight
    against violent crime. This helps us identify firearms when
    they are used in a crime and trace it back to particular
    individuals.
        So those are some of the main initiatives we have underway
    to grapple with violent crime and so far it looks as if they
    are successful.
        Mr. Palazzo. I definitely agree. Our local police chiefs
    and sheriffs really support the Project Safe Neighborhoods, and
    it is a great program with a high return on investment for
    helping reduce gun and violent crime in our communities.

                               HUMAN TRAFFICKING

        Also important to the State of Mississippi is addressing
    human trafficking. I know the state legislature has been
    working really hard on it and I know my colleague Mrs. Roby has
    asked you some questions. And I want to just talk a little bit
    about, I know the DOJ undertook a U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Human
    Trafficking Enforcement Initiative to combat trans-border
    trafficking. Can you speak on this initiative; specifically,
    how effective has it been in stopping trafficking across the
    border?
        Attorney General Barr. I am going to have to get back to
    you on that, Congressman. I really would have to talk to people
    to see whether it is having an impact at this point.

                                SOUTHERN BORDER

        Mr. Palazzo. Okay. With my limited time, I will jump over
    to address some of the issues with the crisis that we have on
    our Southern Border.
        I know we have an immigration case backlog. There are over
    820,000 immigration cases pending nationwide, with the past 12
    consecutive years seen an increase in the number of cases. This
    years budget request includes an additional $72 million to hire
    a hundred new immigration judges.
        In your testimony, you mentioned that additional reforms
    are necessary to manage the backlog of cases. What reforms does
    the Department of Justice need to manage the case backlog and
    what can Congress to help you better manage the backlog?
        Attorney General Barr. On inauguration day, there were 306
    immigration judges, today we have 424. One of the problems we
    had was the long lead time of hiring these judges, which we
    have now cut from 2 years to 6 months. So it only takes 6
    months to onboard a judge. Currently, there at 534 slots
    authorized and we are asking for a hundred more slots. So we
    will be going up to 634, if that is approved.
        The backlog, however, we are not making progress right now
    against the backlog. Our productivity is increasing, so that,
    for example, in the first quarter of this year, 19,000 cases
    were completed; however, during that same time 26,000 new cases
    emerged. So we actually lost ground in the first quarter. As we
    bring on more judges, we are hoping that we are actually going
    to start working down that backlog. But until we can get some
    control of the inflow, we are not going to be able to work down
    that backlog.
        And the inflow is a function of a number of factors. The
    problems with the asylum laws and applying the asylum laws is
    one of the chief factors, the fact that they can be gained, and
    when people are then released--the catch-and-release situation,
    so when people are released into the country and never show up
    again, that prospect is what is drawing people up from Central
    America, and also the fact that so many children are now
    included in that population.
        So we need to have reform, as the President has said
    repeatedly, we need to have reform of the immigration laws, and
    we need to do all we can to discourage people from making the
    journey up to the United States by mechanisms such as a border
    barrier system.
        Mr. Serrano. Ms. Meng.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, and thank you,
    Assistant Attorney General Lofthus, for being here today and
    for your service to our country.
        I don't have a question about the substance or redactions
    of the report, but I do want to know, was the President or
    anyone at the White House alerted in advance of your letter's
    release?
        Attorney General Barr. The March 24th letter, I don't
    believe so. But as I said, once the report is out, I will be
    testifying and I will be glad to discuss all aspects of the
    process, and also explain the decisions I have made.
        Ms. Meng. Did you or anyone on your team consult with
    anyone in the White House in the crafting of that letter?
        Attorney General Barr. Are you talking about the March 24th
    letter?
        Ms. Meng. Yes.
        Attorney General Barr. The answer to that is no, but as I
    say, I am not going to discuss this further until after the
    report is out.
        Ms. Meng. Okay. So they did not have to approve for you to
    release the letter, the White House?
        Attorney General Barr. No.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you.

                               VOTING RIGHTS ACT

        I do want to ask my second question and if you could answer
    yes or no, just in the interest of time, running out of time,
    does the DOJ under the Trump administration consider
    enforcement of the Voting Rights Act a priority?
        Chief Roberts himself has stated that voting discrimination
    still exists; no one doubts that.
        Attorney General Barr. Yes, we do, we consider voting
    rights a priority.
        Ms. Meng. Has the DOJ, the Civil Rights Division, brought
    any cases under the Trump administration to enforce Section 2
    of the VRA?
        Attorney General Barr. No, but I would point out that
    during the first 4 years of the Obama administration one case
    was brought. So----
        Ms. Meng. Well, according to your website, the Department
    of Justice under Obama, both President Bushes, and President
    Clinton have brought at least over 30 cases in enforcement of
    Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

                          CENSUS CITIZENSHIP QUESTION

        Secretary Ross credits the Department of Justice's need to
    enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for the reason why a
    citizenship question is needed on the census. The DOJ has been
    enforcing the Voting Rights Act for over 50 years without the
    need for a citizenship question. What are your thoughts on
    that?
        Attorney General Barr. My thoughts are that it is being
    litigated right now and I think oral argument is on April 23rd,
    so I am not going to discuss it.

                             ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY

        Ms. Meng. Okay. I wanted to also ask about zero tolerance
    policy. Do you agree with your predecessor's zero tolerance
    policy memorandum issued last year, April 2018?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, there is a lot of
    misunderstanding about the zero tolerance policy. The zero
    tolerance policy is that the Department would prosecute cases
    that are referred to the Department and the thing that caused
    family separation was the referral of cases to the Department
    that involved families with children. The Administration--the
    President has put out an executive order, I believe, saying
    that we are not going--that DHS is not going to follow that
    policy and, as far as I know, we are not getting referrals of
    that type. But the general proposition that the Department will
    prosecute cases that are referred to it stands.
        Ms. Meng. Well, according to an article in the New York
    Times yesterday, President Trump has been pushing to restart
    this practice of separating parents from their children. The
    term ``binary choice policy'' has certainly been getting
    traction; is that something that you support?
        Attorney General Barr. I haven't heard that.
        Ms. Meng. You haven't heard that?
        Attorney General Barr. No.
        Ms. Meng. OK. We can submit articles to your office.
        Are you aware of research showing that separation, from
    initial stages to ongoing and long-term, is devastating and
    detrimental to children's health and development?
        Attorney General Barr. I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
        Ms. Meng. Are you aware of any research that shows
    separation of families and children are detrimental to their
    health?
        Attorney General Barr. I mean, I haven't reviewed that
    research, but as I said, the President has already put out an
    order stopping the separation of families.
        Ms. Meng. So would you enforce and put forth policies of
    new discussions that have been happening about President Trump
    wanting to restart this separate practice?
        Attorney General Barr. All I can say, I personally, sitting
    here, am not familiar with those discussions.
        Ms. Meng. Would you support continuation of separation of
    families?
        Attorney General Barr. I support the President's policy,
    which is we are not going to separate families.
        Ms. Meng. So you support that we will not separate families
    anymore?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Graves.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General,
    thanks for being with us.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        I will just remind the committee, we have heard a lot about
    the Mueller report today. Twenty-two months of investigation,
    2,800 subpoenas, $25 million from taxpayers, 500 witness
    interviews, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents and who knows how many
    warrants, and the conclusions were simple: no collusion, no
    obstruction.
        I remember when the summary letter was released there were
    a lot of complaints then, Attorney General, that you weren't
    releasing the summary soon enough, and then here today I hear
    it was too hasty, too quick.
        So now you have had time to review, and your team has had
    time to review, you have indicated within the next week we will
    get the report. So, for the committee, is there anything new
    you have seen in the review of the entirety of the report that
    would change your conclusions?
        Attorney General Barr. No, Congressman. As I have
    explained, my March 24th letter was meant to state the bottom
    line conclusions of the report, not summarize the report, and I
    tried to use as much of the Special Counsel's own language as I
    could, but they were just stating the bottom line conclusions
    and there is nothing to suggest to me that, you know, that
    those weren't----
        Mr. Graves. No collusion, no obstruction----
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. A fair statement of the
    conclusions.
        Mr. Graves. It is over, it is done--it is over.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, the letter speaks for itself.
        Mr. Graves. I thought it did too. Well, I will shift for a
    second, because Members of Congress have said they intend to
    ignore the public redactions and leak the full report; would
    that give you pause if that were to occur?
        Attorney General Barr. Someone is going to leak the full
    report?
        Mr. Graves. That is what----
        Attorney General Barr. Well, that would be----
        Mr. Graves [continuing]. That is what----
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Unfortunate.
        Mr. Graves [continuing]. Members of Congress have been
    saying.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, that would be unfortunate,
    because, you know, there is grand jury information in there
    that under the law has to be redacted.
        Mr. Graves. We have heard members of this committee today
    say that the American people deserve to see the full report,
    and so even members of this committee have indicated that. The
    Chairman of the Judiciary just this weekend said that--this is
    Chairman Nadler--certainly some of it would not leak publicly,
    that he has discretion, and his committee has a very good
    record of protecting information which it decides to protect.
        So, General Barr, under Federal law, does a Member of
    Congress have the power to arbitrarily decide what portions of
    the Special Counsel's report they might release, redacted or
    not?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, not if it violates the law,
    and we believe Rule 6(e) does apply to Members of Congress.
        So, you know, I--it is interesting, because this whole
    mechanism for the Special Counsel, as I said, was established
    during the Clinton administration in the wake of Ken Starr's
    report and that is why the current rule says that the report
    should be kept confidential, because there was a lot of
    reaction against the publication of Ken Starr's report, and
    many of the people who are right now calling for release of
    this report were basically castigating Ken Starr and others for
    releasing the Starr report.
        I have already said that I think the situation here
    requires me to exercise my discretion to get as much
    information out as I can and I think these categories, I think
    most fair-minded people would agree are things that have to be
    redacted.
        Mr. Graves. Right. Just thinking about the Chairman of
    Judiciary, if he were to release or any Member of Congress were
    to release the full report or redacted portions of the report,
    are they in compliance with the law or in violation of the law,
    and how do you deal with that?
        Attorney General Barr. I don't want to speculate about all
    the circumstances that would be involved. I don't intend at
    this stage to send the full, un-redacted report to the
    committee, so I am not sure where he would get it.
        Mr. Graves. OK. And then just----
        Attorney General Barr. If you get it directly from the
    Special Counsel, that would be unfortunate; I doubt that would
    happen.
        Mr. Graves. And a quick question about the subpoena. I am
    not on the Judiciary Committee; my understanding is, though,
    they have issued a subpoena to you to release the full report.
    Would that put you in violation of Federal law if you were to
    comply with----
        Attorney General Barr. In the current situation, I don't
    think I have the latitude to release Rule 6(e) material. As to
    the other categories, as I said, I am willing to discuss those
    with the Judiciary Committees. I want to try to accommodate and
    satisfy their interests, but at the same time uphold the law.
    And right now--and there has been a recent case decided in the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Disrict of Columbia Circuit just
    I think within the last week on this--the Rule 6(e) material is
    not releaseable.
        Mr. Graves. Well, thank you for the fashion in which you
    have handled this. I think you have been upright, you have been
    an example of integrity, and I know that you are going to abide
    by the law and my hope is that all Members of Congress would
    follow in like manner.
        So, thank you, Attorney General, for your good work.
        Attorney General Barr. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Attorney
    General Barr, for being with us today.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        On the question of obstruction of justice, you stated in
    your March 24th letter that the Mueller report does not
    exonerate the President. Can you elaborate on what is meant by
    ``does not exonerate the President'' ?
        Attorney General Barr. I think that is the language from
    the report.
        Mr. Crist. Right, I understand that.
        Attorney General Barr. That is a statement made by the
    Special Counsel----
        Mr. Crist. Right.
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Which I reported as one
    of his bottom line conclusions. So I am not in a position to
    discuss that further until the report is all out and then what
    is meant by exonerate is really a question that I can't answer,
    what he meant by that.
        Mr. Crist. But, as you sit here today, you can't opine,
    after having read the report, why it reaches that conclusion
    that it does not exonerate the President?
        Attorney General Barr. That is right.

                               MARCH 24TH LETTER

        Mr. Crist. Okay. Reports have emerged recently, General,
    that members of the Special Counsel's team are frustrated at
    some level with the limited information included in your March
    24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately
    necessary portray the report's findings; do you know what they
    are referencing with that?
        Attorney General Barr. No, I don't. I think--I suspect that
    they probably wanted, you know, more put out, but in my view I
    was not interested in putting out summaries or trying to
    summarize, because I think any summary, regardless of who
    prepares it, not only runs the risk of, you know, being under-
    inclusive or over-inclusive, but also, you know, would trigger
    a lot of discussion and analysis that really should await
    everything coming out at once.
        So I was not interested in a summary of the report, and in
    fact at the time I put out my March 24th letter there was
    nothing from the Special Counsel that wasn't marked as
    potentially containing Rule 6(e) material and I had no material
    that had been sanitized of Rule 6(e) material. So I felt that I
    should state the bottom line conclusions and I tried to use
    Special Counsel Mueller's own language in doing that.
        Mr. Crist. I am curious, did you feel that there was an
    obligation upon you or your office to prepare this four-letter
    overview, if you will, rather than summary, rather than having
    the Special Counsel's team do it themselves? Why did that
    happen, I guess is what I'm trying to find out.
        Attorney General Barr. It happened because the Special
    Counsel was providing the report to the Attorney General and I
    was making the decision as to whether to make it public or any
    part of it public. And, in my judgment, it was important for
    people to know the bottom line conclusions of the report while
    we worked on the necessary redactions to make the whole thing
    available.
        Mr. Crist. Let me ask then----
        Attorney General Barr. Unfortunately, you know, that is a
    matter of weeks and I don't think that the public would have
    tolerated and Congress would not have tolerated at least
    knowing the bottom line. And, as you know from your own
    experience, from a prosecutor's standpoint, the bottom line is
    binary, which is charges or no charges.
        Mr. Crist. Indeed. Did you contemplate having the Special
    Counsel's office help you with the preparation of your March
    24th letter, or did you?
        Attorney General Barr. We offered to have Bob review it
    before putting it out and he declined.
        Mr. Crist. I didn't ask you about reviewing. I asked if you
    thought about having them help prepare the March 24th letter. I
    mean, they did----
        Attorney General Barr. No, I didn't think about it----
        Mr. Crist [continuing]. The report after all.
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. No, I didn't think
    about it.
        Mr. Crist. Why not?
        Attorney General Barr. Because it was my letter.
        Mr. Crist. You said that the Special Counsel and his team
    were not shown--or did not review the March 24th letter, right?
    You offered to let him review it?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes.
        Mr. Crist. Did you offer to anyone else to let other people
    review it besides the Special Counsel?
        Attorney General Barr. Not that I recall. You mean outside
    the Department?
        Mr. Crist. Anywhere. Yes, outside the Department, let's
    start there.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, the answer, I am pretty sure,
    is no, but----
        Mr. Crist. You are not sure?
        Attorney General Barr. I am sure.
        Mr. Crist. OK. I think I will yield. I only have 15
    seconds. Thank you, General.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I would love to
    talk to you about your 2020 budget, but what is far more
    critical at present and has much far-more-reaching consequences
    to the credibility of our government is the prompt and full
    disclosure of the Mueller report.
        The current non-disclosure of that report has only worsened
    the pervasive distrust of government generally and of Mr.
    Mueller's investigation, and your Department's response to it
    specifically. This really started very early on in the
    investigation with excessive secrecy about exactly what we were
    taking a look at. Here is the supplemental memo from the Deputy
    Acting Attorney General, and this is what drives the public
    crazy when they see something like this. This is what we have
    to try to avoid when we get into this.
        In your March 24th, three-and-a-half-page summary of the
    report, you stated that you are, quote, ``mindful of the public
    interest in this matter,'' and that you intend to release,
    quote, ``as much of the report as you can, consistent with
    applicable law, regulations, and Department policies.''
        You know, of course, that on March 14th the House resolved
    unanimously, 420-to-zero, all Members of this committee and
    House voting, that the full report be released publicly, except
    where prohibited by law, and be released to Congress
    unconditionally.
        Do you appreciate the importance of a full disclosure of
    this report, both personally and on behalf of your department?
        Attorney General Barr. I appreciate the importance of
    releasing as much of the information in the report as I can
    consistent with the law.
        Mr. Case. OK. Well, let's get into that then. What specific
    laws, regulations, and Department policies, as you cited in
    your letter, do you claim require or justify you to withhold
    portions of the report? You have already talked about 6(e);
    what else?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, as I said, there are four
    categories of information that are being redacted.
        Mr. Case. I understand that, sir.
        Attorney General Barr. Okay, first----
        Mr. Case. And one of those categories----
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. You asked what else.
    The other one is we have asked the intelligence community to
    identify any information that could reveal intelligence sources
    and methods. The third----
        Mr. Case. Yes, but what authority do you have to state that
    you have discretion to withhold--I get the grand jury cite,
    that is 6(e). And, by the way, you know as well as I do that
    6(e) also encompasses an intelligence committee exception. So I
    assume you are going to say that that falls under that
    category, that there can be some release or withholding of
    intelligence-specific information under your 6(e) category.
    What about the other two categories? What justifies you in
    claiming the discretion to withhold that information?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, are you talking about the
    intelligence information?
        Mr. Case. No, I am talking about the other two categories.
    I am talking about ongoing prosecutions, but I am particularly
    focused on privacy and reputational interests, because it seems
    to me that that is an exception that you can just drive a truck
    through.
        So, I mean, you are the one that says you have the
    discretion to do that and, I am asking you, where does your
    discretion lie; where is your authority?
        Attorney General Barr. Regulation, because the regulation
    that sets up the Special Counsel and also provides for his
    report to the Attorney General, and also what the Attorney
    General can release, specifies that it has to be consistent
    with the Department's long-standing policies. And the
    Department's long-standing policy and practice is that, if we
    are not going to charge someone, we don't go out and discuss
    the bad or derogatory information about them. That is what got
    everyone outraged at what FBI Director Comey did in the case of
    Hillary Clinton.
        Mr. Case. Okay. So the regulation, back to long-standing
    policy, is what justifies that exception, right, in your view?
        Attorney General Barr. The regulation that says that any
    release has to be consistent with that.

                              EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

        Mr. Case. Okay, good. Let's go to 6(e) here for a second--
    well, before I get to 6(e), are you maintaining or will you
    maintain any right to withhold any of the information in that
    report based on a so-called claim of executive privilege?
        Attorney General Barr. Am I what?
        Mr. Case. Are you going to claim that you have a right to
    withhold any of that report based on a so-called claim of
    executive privilege?
        Attorney General Barr. Any claim of executive privilege
    would have to be asserted by the President.
        Mr. Case. And he, the President----
        Attorney General Barr. As I said in my letter, which sort
    of speaks for itself, he has said that he is leaving the
    decisions up to me.
        Mr. Case. Okay. Are you going to claim executive privilege
    to keep any of that report back?
        Attorney General Barr. As I said, there is no plan, I have
    no plan to do that.
        Mr. Case. Okay. Do you believe that executive privilege
    applies to any broader range of communications and specific
    direct communications from the President?
        Attorney General Barr. You know, I would have to review the
    latest opinions from OLC about the precise scope of it, but it
    is not relevant to me right now.
        Mr. Case. And, as far as you know, does it apply to any
    communications by the President before he was President?
        Attorney General Barr. As I say, I am not sure what the
    learning is in the Department of Justice on that.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Mr. Case. You are aware that some of the--that there are
    exceptions under 6(e) under which you can in fact disclose
    grand jury material; some of those are within your discretion,
    but many of those are subject to a ruling of a court, correct?
        Attorney General Barr. What are they?
        Mr. Case. Well, there is 6(e), there are five exceptions in
    6(e) that allow you to go to court to ask the court for
    permission to release those. It is up to the court to decide
    whether to release.
        Are you intending to go to court to ask for guidance and/or
    direction and/or an order where you are uncertain whether you
    can in fact release or should in fact release materials?
        Attorney General Barr. I mean, the Chairman of the
    Judiciary Committee is free to go to court if he feels one of
    those exceptions is applicable.
        Mr. Case. The right is yours to ask for these exceptions.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, why do you say the right is
    mine?
        Mr. Case. Because you are the exercising authority under
    6(e).
        Attorney General Barr. Yeah, but I think if the chairman
    believes that he is entitled to receive it, he can move the
    court forward.
        Mr. Case. Well, I will come back to this. It is your right
    to ask, so I am asking, what is your intention?
        Attorney General Barr. My intention is not to ask for it at
    this stage. I mean, if the chairman has a good explanation of
    why 6(e) does not apply and his need for the information, I am
    willing to listen to that.
        As I say, my first agenda item here is to get the public
    report out, what can be gotten out publicly, that is going to
    be within a week. So I----
        Mr. Case. My time is up----
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Will discuss----
        Mr. Case [continuing]. I will come back.
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. I will discuss these
    issues in greater detail after that occurs.
        Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Lawrence.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

                                  CIVIL RIGHTS

        Attorney General, according to recent reporting, the Trump
    administration is pursuing far fewer civil rights cases,
    including hate crimes, police bias, and disability right cases
    than the Obama or Bush administrations. The DOJ's Civil Rights
    Department has started 60 percent fewer cases against potential
    violations during the first 2 years of the Trump administration
    than during the President Obama administration and 50 percent
    fewer than under the George Bush administration.
        Can you please provide me why that is happening and what
    are you planning to do to address that?
        Attorney General Barr. I would have to see those figures
    and how they are broken down. I haven't seen those figures
    before. The areas that I am familiar with, such as hate crimes,
    it is simply not true. We have an enviable record of
    prosecuting hate crimes at the same or higher rate than
    previous administrations, as far as I am aware. I would have to
    see what else you are talking about.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Are you familiar with the data of what the
    percentage have they increased under the Trump administration--
    --
        Attorney General Barr. I think there----
        Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. There are indications they
    have?
        Attorney General Barr. Have they increased?
        Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
        Attorney General Barr. Whether hate crimes versus the
    prosecution of hate crimes has?
        Mrs. Lawrence. Hate crimes, have they increased under this
    administration.
        Attorney General Barr. I haven't seen any data, you know,
    going from 2017----
        Mrs. Lawrence. So is it a priority? You haven't looked at
    the data, you are not aware of it.
        Attorney General Barr. No, as I said in my confirmation
    hearings, I am very concerned about hate crimes and intend to
    vigorously pursue them. The data that I have seen have showed
    an increase going back to 2013. So, I agree with you that they
    have been increasing, but I have seen no data to say that it is
    different under the Trump administration.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Attorney General, I want you to--we use the
    word ``stay woke'' sometime in community activism where you are
    in tune with what is happening on the ground. I appreciate your
    tenure or your length of time that you have been Attorney
    General, but I can tell you that this is something that is very
    important and I expect for you to be informed and aware of what
    is happening in this area.

                           AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)

        I wanted to follow up on a question that my colleague
    Cartwright asked, because I really need to ask this question. I
    watched the deliberate intent of your answers when who do you
    report to, the President of the United States or to the people
    of America. You, during your confirmation, without duress, said
    you report to the people, but you just said when it came to the
    ACA ruling that you gave that the President was very clear that
    he opposed it and so let it work out in legislation. I want you
    to be very----
        Attorney General Barr. I didn't say----
        Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. I want you to be very----
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. I didn't say----
        Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. Let me finish my question,
    because that is what I heard, maybe you need to clarify it--I
    want you to explain to me, do you understand your role, when
    you issue a statement abolishing the Affordable Care Act that
    you, as the Attorney General of the people of the United
    States, have a responsibility to understand and support that
    decision not based on the policy of a President of the United
    States. It was clearly laid out the impact it will have and I
    want you to respond to that, because that is what I heard, sir.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, if you did listen to my
    confirmation----
        Mrs. Lawrence. I did, sir.
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Okay, I distinguished
    between three different roles the Attorney General plays; one
    is in enforcement, another is in a policy role, and the third
    is in providing legal advice. And what I said then is that the
    Attorney General has the responsibility to provide straight-
    from-the-shoulder legal advice as to what the Attorney General
    thinks is the right view of the law.
        Mrs. Lawrence. So in this case of ACA you felt it was the
    right decision under the law to issue that you support
    abolishing----
        Attorney General Barr. Well----
        Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. The Affordable Care Act, that
    is your legal opinion.
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. No. You didn't let me
    finish, which is that the first obligation is to provide your
    best view of the law. If the President or the executive branch
    agencies that you are representing and are stakeholders in the
    issue disagree with that advice and want to pursue a different
    position, then the Attorney General litigating on behalf of the
    United States should take that position, if it is reasonable
    and a defensible legal position----
        Mrs. Lawrence. So----
        Attorney General Barr [continuing]. Even if it is not the
    position that the Attorney General would take if the Attorney
    General was a judge. That is the position I stated at my
    confirmation hearing.
        Mrs. Lawrence. So----
        Attorney General Barr. Also, I did not----
        Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. That we can be clear, sir, what
    you are saying is that, if you disagree with the President, if
    your legal experience and your expertise doesn't agree and your
    President says something different, you are obligated to agree
    and enforce what the President says, is that what you are
    telling me as the Attorney General of the United States of
    America?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, it is----
        Mrs. Lawrence. Is that your statement, sir?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, it is the same as when we
    represent and are defending a law of Congress, sometimes we
    don't think the law as an original matter actually----
        Mrs. Lawrence. Sir, we pass laws; the President of the
    United States does not pass laws.
        Attorney General Barr. Right, but I am saying that--but I
    feel that if there is a reasonable and defensible argument that
    could be made to defend a statute, we frequently do that.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Sir----
        Attorney General Barr. So the----
        Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. I am very concerned at this
    point. I am over my time and I will come back at my second one,
    but I am very concerned with your statement.
        Thank you.

                               VIOLENT EXTREMISM

        Mr. Serrano. So, Attorney General, in your testimony you
    said violent crime has declined since 2016, but as we learned
    from the FBI, home-grown violent extremism has grown over the
    same time. What priority and resources have you included in the
    2020 budget to counter such violent extremism?
        Attorney General Barr. I don't think we break out--maybe
    you can help me, Lee--I don't think we break out the budget
    targeting that particular category of offense.
        Mr. Lofthus. We do not have a separate category for violent
    extremism, but we do pursue all matters of violent crime
    together. And we have $138 million and 135 new positions for
    our violent crime efforts. In the FBI, we are adding 47 new FBI
    agents to the FBI for a variety of new initiatives, and among
    them is the FBI's work on violent extremism.
        Mr. Serrano. OK. It is important for this committee to know
    at a certain point how many folks will be assigned to this or
    how many dollars will be assigned to it, because it is an issue
    that concerns all Americans, I believe, and we need to deal
    with it in a proper way.
        Attorney General Barr. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but, you know,
    the people who are on the watch for this kind of thing, whether
    they be FBI agents or U.S. Attorneys pursuing potential cases,
    are the very same people that would also be looking at other
    forms of terrorism potentially. So it is hard to allocate
    exactly the dollars by that category, but, you know, obviously
    it is a serious issue and it is one that the FBI devotes a lot
    of effort to.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, as long as we know that the Department,
    the agency is looking at it, is dealing with it, is taking it
    seriously, we can then work together on it; that is the easier
    part.
        Mr. Lofthus. Mr. Chairman, if I can add a bit more? We do
    have in the FBI's budget this year, we have the $16 million for
    the FBI's participation in the National Vetting Center with
    other Federal entities, and that helps the FBI look closely at
    individuals who may be coming to the United States. So we have
    that vetting money in the FBI.
        We also have $4 million in the Office of Justice programs
    on grants that go towards looking at extremism and domestic
    terrorism.

                                   ATF BUDGET

        Mr. Serrano. Good. A few weeks ago, the ATF Director
    Brandon told us that the Department's fiscal year 2020 budget
    request would result in ATF being forced to let go more than
    300 staff due to increasing investigatory costs. As we seek to
    address rising gun violence in this Nation, how can the
    Department justify a proposal that would result in fewer
    resources dedicated to that goal?
        Attorney General Barr. Let me just say first that I am a
    huge fan of ATF, I think they are an outstanding agency and I
    would--you know, any money spent on the ATF is well worth it.
    One of the common themes I hear from U.S. Attorneys is how
    valuable the ATF agents are and their technology is just
    outstanding in helping to deal with gun violence and violent
    crime.
        Now, I am told that the statement made by Mr. Brandon was
    actually based on faulty information and we don't think that it
    would lead to--we are asking for more money for ATF and we
    don't think it would result in fewer agents, but, you know,
    maybe Lee could help me with that.
        Mr. Lofthus. Sure. So I think very highly of the ATF chief.
    I have known him for years, we have worked together very, very
    closely; we took a hard look at his budget. This year's budget
    will increase ATF by 3.9 percent--actually, just about 4
    percent, it does have increases for ATF. If you look back over
    the last 3 years, we have given an 8.7 percent increase to ATF.
    So we do think ATF is important, we are trying to support ATF.
        I know the ATF chief is very concerned about his agency.
    His budget is susceptible to absorbing inflationary increases
    and if the pay raise isn't funded, or if his rents or contracts
    go up, he is very concerned about that, and he is worried that
    it will translate into a loss of staff.
        I can tell you that we have looked at this year's budget,
    though, and at the 4 percent increase we are asking for, we
    don't think that translates into loss of hundreds of staff. And
    our commitment is that we want to work closely with ATF, make
    sure they have what they need. As the Attorney General says,
    ``Any resources ATF receives, I think will be put to very good
    use.'' But we are committed to working closely with the ATF
    folks to make sure they make it through the year.
        And again, a 4 percent increase on this budget, we think is
    a strong request for ATF, strong request for their NIBIN
    system, the $11 million for that. There is $4 million for their
    Spartan Case Management System. So we are trying to stand
    behind ATF in this budget.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I would hope that you can get this issue
    resolved in terms of letting us know what really is going on
    because as we put together the bill, and that will happen
    pretty soon, you know, I need to be able to go to this young
    woman on my right and tell her I need more money for certain
    agencies. And we can't do this if they are saying they are
    going to lose over 300 folks and you all say they are not, or
    that it is not--we need that picture cleared up. Thank you.
        Mr. Lofthus. Absolutely. And we will help you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mr. Aderholt?
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And of course, the
    Department of Justice has submitted almost $30 billion,
    taxpayer dollars to use and I want to remind my colleagues that
    that is what this--the purpose of the Attorney General being
    here today is to talk about how that $30 billion of taxpayer
    dollars is going to be used. And unfortunately, I see so many
    of the questions here this morning have gone toward a grassy
    knoll conspiracy theory regarding the Mueller report.

                                 DNA FORENSICS

        So I hope we can focus on the questions of having the
    Attorney General giving up his time this morning to be here to
    answer these questions regarding the budget. As you know,
    General Barr, DNA forensic science can speed the prosecution of
    the guilty, protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution, and
    exonerate the wrongfully convicted.
        Mr. Lofthus, as in prior years, the DOJ is proposing to use
    the fund available under the Debbie Smith program for DNA
    analysis and capacity enhancement, along with, ``Other local,
    state, and federal forensic activities.'' So long as sexual
    assault kit backlogs persist, I believe it is important that
    this funding be focused on DNA analysis and capacity
    enhancement.
        What are some of the, ``Other local, state, and federal
    forensic activities,'' that are funded under this authority?
        Mr. Lofthus. The National Institute of Justice, which is
    inside OJP funds a program that strengthens the medical
    examiner and coroner systems within our country in a variety of
    ways, supporting forensic pathologists. And there is an
    alarming shortage of pathologists across the country. Opioid
    crisis has created an additional strain due to overdose deaths.
        So one of the focuses of our grant money today is on
    medical examiners and coroners. We also provide grants directly
    to forensic laboratories to encourage their research. And the
    focus of the grant is to make sure that they have all the tools
    they need to have effective forensic testing. And that has a
    real impact on the DNA backlogs across the country. If we can
    help them with their technology, we can really reduce the
    backlog. So that is one of our key things we are focused on.
        We have $105 million in this budget for DNA related
    programs. And we have $47 and a half million to work on the
    backlog of the National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative. And we
    want to make sure that that money is funded in the budget
    because it is very important to help the states and localities
    with the sexual assault examinations, and the kits, and make
    sure that is taken care of.
        So we believe we have a good, solid budget in this area
    that continue to work on both the DNA and the sexual assault
    kit areas.

                                OPIOID EPIDEMIC

        Mr. Aderholt. Let me switch over just a minute to opioids.
    Of course, that epidemic continues to ravage communities in my
    home state of Alabama. And I know you realize that fentanyl is
    50 times more potent than heroin and overdose deaths are on the
    rise with fentanyl. The President has called this a national
    health crisis. It is impacting families and the future of this
    country.
        What would you say are some of the most significant actions
    that the Department of Justice has taken to curb the deadly
    opioid epidemic that is plaguing the country currently?
        Attorney General Barr. Just fentanyl or the whole opioid
    epidemic?
        Mr. Aderholt. Well, you know, both, or either one that you
    want to address.
        Attorney General Barr. Fentanyl, there has recently been a
    development, as you know, most of the fentanyl and fentanyl
    analogues come from China. And the Chinese have agreed to
    schedule all fentanyl or fentanyl analogues, which would make
    enforcement much easier in China. And we would like to see a
    comparable action taken here in the United States to allow us
    to schedule fentanyl, keep fentanyl on the schedule, and all
    analogues of fentanyl. That is a very important step.
        Now, whether the Chinese action--they actually deliver on
    it from an enforcement standpoint remains to be seen, but it is
    something we have been asking them to do and we are very
    pleased that they have done it.
        But generally speaking, in the opioid arena, as you know,
    there--one of the main problems, and essentially the sort of
    the groundwork for this epidemic was set by the abuse of
    prescription drugs and the diversion of licit drugs. And a lot
    of our efforts are devoted toward going after healthcare
    providers and companies and others that contributed to this by
    over-prescription or permitting diversion.
        And so there are a lot of civil and criminal actions around
    the country that are going after these bad actors and there are
    task forces around the country focused on that aspect of it.
        And so the first effort is to contract the pool of people
    who are addicted by licit drugs. On the illicit drug front, we
    basically have a two-prong strategy of going after the TOCs,
    the transnational criminal organizations, primarily in Mexico,
    that are responsible for most of these drugs coming into the
    United States, and also the local distribution networks.
        And we have the FBI, the DEA, and a substantial portion of
    our U.S. Attorney's Offices focused on dealing with these local
    distribution networks. And so that is basically the strategy.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I yield back.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Attorney General Barr. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think it
    was Congressman Crist was asking me about the letters and
    whether anyone was involved in the letters, other than people
    at Justice. And I checked with my staff and was told that just
    before the letters went out, after they were finalized and just
    before they went out, we did advise the White House Counsel's
    Office that the letters were being sent. But they were not
    allowed or even asked to make any changes to the letters. But
    we notified them before we issued them.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist I'm sure would have asked you, did
    they get to see the letter, however?
        Attorney General Barr. I think it may have been read to
    them. They did not get to see the letter.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Mrs. Lowey.

                               BACKGROUND CHECKS

        Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Attorney General, I want to get to some
    other items in the budget today because under current law,
    background checks must be done within three days or the
    transaction is allowed to proceed, regardless of whether a
    person is lawfully permitted to buy a gun. My judgment, it is
    vitally important that background checks are done thoroughly,
    as we know the results of incomplete information can be fatal.
    For example, we know that the shooter who perpetrated the
    Charleston shooting had passed the background check, despite
    information that should have disqualified him.
        The House passed Enhanced Background Checks Act
    substantially increases the amount of time allowed for a NICS
    background check to ensure that we close these loopholes. I am
    concerned that until this bill moves through the Senate and on
    to the President's desk, that three days is not often enough
    time to evaluate a background check with questionable
    information.
        In your judgment, would fewer prohibited individuals be
    able to purchase firearms if this time period was extended?
        Attorney General Barr. The data that I have heard is that
    there are about 6,000 of these delayed responses, where these
    default sales occur after the expiration of the 3 days. And
    that when you go back and look at those 6,000, approximately
    2,000 of those, about a third, are people that would have
    flunked the background check and ATF goes out and gets the
    weapon, retrieves the weapon.
        I think it is fairly rare that--well, I think the Aurora
    shooter may have been someone who got that default sale, that
    it was sold to them after the 3 day period. So it does
    occasionally happen.
        Mrs. Lowey. Occasionally? Didn't you mention 2,000, 6,000.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, they are not all shooters. In
    other words, it does sometimes happen that somebody does----
        Mrs. Lowey. Do you support extending the time period? I
    have had an interaction with so many people in law enforcement
    and in many cases, 3 days is just not enough. Do you support
    extending the time period?
        Attorney General Barr. No. I think that puts a burden on a
    lot of people.
        Mrs. Lowey. Maybe buying a gun that shouldn't have a gun;
    is that what you are saying? When you are saying it puts a
    burden on a lot of people----
        Attorney General Barr. I think we are----
        Mrs. Lowey. I would rather put a burden on those who are
    doing the investigation than the potential shooter.
        Attorney General Barr. I would put the emphasis on getting
    accurate records put into the system and make sure that we are
    getting all of the records into this system. I think a far
    bigger problem is the problem of mental health. That is another
    elephant in the room. That is where all these school shootings
    are arising from. And we have to figure out a way of upgrading
    the NICS system so it actually helps us to detect people with
    mental illness that should not have guns. And I think we should
    be investing in NICS, the accuracy of the records, the
    obligations of states to put those records into the system, and
    make that a stronger system, one that we can rely on. That is
    where I would put the effort.
        Mrs. Lowey. I am not sure what you mean by a stronger
    system. In other words, if one of your colleagues was doing a
    study and looking at a background check and said, ``I need 3
    more days,'' do you feel that person should have 3 more days, 2
    more days, 6 more days? Isn't it more important to get a good,
    thorough background check than limiting the office to 3 days?
        Attorney General Barr. No. What I was saying is that the
    better job we do of getting the records into the system, that
    we won't have those 3 days--the level of a 3 day default sale.
        I mean, you mentioned sometimes federal agencies are not
    putting the appropriate records in, as we saw with the Air
    Force situation. Sometimes state agencies are not putting the
    records in. So there are gaps in the records and that is a far
    more important thing to address.

                                      VAWA

        Mrs. Lowey. Let me go on to the next question. Let me go on
    to the next question. I do hope we can continue this
    conversation another time. You have referred to the Violence
    Against Women Act as a bad idea and not a legitimate interest
    of the Federal Government. These are investments that fund
    services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault that
    many of my constituents, including those trapped in cycles of
    domestic violence, and looking for a way out rely on.
        Under Republican leadership in the previous Congress, maybe
    I will just wait a minute.
        Attorney General Barr. I am sorry.
        Mrs. Lowey. The authorization of the Violence Against Women
    Act was allowed to expire despite bipartisan support.
    Thankfully, last week, the reauthorization passed the House,
    again with bipartisan support. During your confirmation
    hearing, you changed your position and supported VAWA's
    programs, pledging to familiarize yourself with the office's
    work and its program. I was delighted to hear that.
        So I would be interested in knowing whether you support the
    reauthorization of VAWA and do you support the House passed
    reauthorization bill?
        Attorney General Barr. I do support the reauthorization of
    Violence Against Women Act. I am not sure about the House bill
    and what is in it, but I do support the reauthorization of that
    provision. Let me just say that to the extent I said something
    against the Violence Against Women Statute, I believe that that
    was in the context of when it originally came up 2 and a half
    decades ago, or 30 years ago, somewhere in that range, and what
    I said was that at that point, it was a substantive law
    relating to the--federalizing certain acts of violence against
    women. And that was eventually struck down as not having a
    sufficient commerce clause basis.
        I think that is what my concern with the Violence Against
    Women Act was many, many years ago. It was a different kind of
    Act. I fully support what we are doing right now on Violence
    Against Women.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much and I am delighted that you
    support the current actions. And I am glad to know that there
    was good bipartisan support for the bill. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Serrano. Mrs. Roby.

                     STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS

        Mrs. Roby. Attorney General Barr, I mentioned earlier in my
    questions about sex and human trafficking about the
    coordination between state and local law enforcement and how
    important that is in combating a number of different areas of
    crime. And I wanted you to address, if you would, the overall
    reduction of state and local law enforcement activities, grant
    programs by the amount of $583 million.
        Attorney General Barr. Right. Well, I think part of that, a
    big chunk of that is the reduction in the COPS grant program,
    which was in the $300 millions and we are putting it down to
    $99 million. But the $99 million does cover the hiring part of
    the COPS grant program. So that translates into continued
    hiring of state and local law enforcement officers.
        The rationale for not funding the rest of COPS is that that
    is really, we feel, addressed in the funding that goes to the
    federal opioid task forces and other task forces that the
    states can participate in and get paid by the Federal
    Government, but they are part of a federal state cooperative
    task force.
        So it is really reorienting the spending toward those joint
    task forces versus funding purely state task forces. Lee, I
    don't know if you have something to add on it about the other
    grant money.
        Mr. Lofthus. All right, on the other grant money, the
    apparent reductions in the 2020 request, one reason the grant
    dollars look smaller is that the Office of Violence Against
    Women is proposed to be moved into a mandatory funding account,
    where we think it can ensure that there is available money for
    Violence Against Women programs. The $493 million we have for
    Violence Against Women programs.
        There is also an adjustment to the crime victims money. The
    obligation limit there goes down by about a billion dollars.
    But over the last two years, that is an area that has received
    $8 billion and it has received $10 billion over the last 3
    years. So overall, we still have over $4.3 billion in grant
    programs proposed in this budget.
        The Attorney General talked about the impact on COPS, but
    $4.3 billion is what we are looking for your help on in
    supporting this year's budget.

                                  ELDER FRAUD

        Mrs. Roby. Okay. Thank you. The area that I represent is
    home to a large number of retirees. I am increasingly concerned
    about the elderly being taken advantage of by scammers and con
    men, especially given the rise of technology and social media.
    So I am sure you are aware of this problem, but the question is
    what are you doing about it and again, as always, what
    deficiencies may exist that you need more resources to help?
        Attorney General Barr. Right. You know, in the area of
    fraud, it is such a vast area of law enforcement that I have
    always felt it is important to focus on the sleeping giants.
    And when I was attorney general last time, it was healthcare
    fraud, and that was, in fact, the sleeping giant. This time, I
    am trying to focus on elder fraud, which suddenly awoken into a
    major area of criminality.
        It arises because of a concatenation of events, including
    the baby boomers, a larger elder population, and the internet,
    new technologies, and some of the increased loneliness that
    many elderly people, unfortunately, experience later in life.
        And this has mushroomed, as I think anyone whose phone
    rings over the weekend with these scammers knows, more and more
    of these scams are coming along. We have a major effort in this
    area. We have one person in the department in the deputy's
    office focused on elder care enforcement and the task forces
    that are being set up to deal with that.
        In March, we had a big national sweep where we indicted 200
    defendants involved in these various scams. A lot of these
    scams are perpetrated wholly within the United States, but
    increasingly, they are actually operated by international
    criminal organizations. A lot of them come out of India. There
    are signs that organized crime, not La Cosa Nostra, but other
    kinds of global organized crime are getting into these areas.
    They are so lucrative. And the losses are substantial. And
    people--this is a population that doesn't have a runway to
    recover when they lose their life's savings.
        So we are ratcheting up the effort. We have had two annual
    sweeps with tremendous results, but I have set up a strike
    force to go after the large organized criminal organizations
    that we think are behind this.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you. And thank you again for being here.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Cartwright.

                           AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)

        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General
    Barr, I would like to finish up our discussion of the
    healthcare law. Our Republican colleagues in the Senate, and in
    particular Senator McConnell, have made it clear that they have
    no intention of introducing, let alone passing, a new
    healthcare law, a new healthcare plan for at least the next two
    years. And apparently, that view has been prevailed upon the
    White House and the President has accepted it.
        My question is we have already discussed the devastating
    effects if this lawsuit wins and repeals the Patient Protection
    and Affordable Care Act. Given the position of the Senate
    Republicans and the President himself opposing any progress on
    healthcare for the next two years, if the Supreme Court of the
    United States were to grant credence to your position and sweep
    away the healthcare law, either in part or in entirety, would
    the Department of Justice support a stay of the effect of that
    ruling until Congress, the President, this Nation can formulate
    a plan properly to supplant the Patient Protection and
    Affordable Care Act?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, you are asking me to speculate
    whether or not we are going to--the administration's position
    is going to prevail in court. And beyond that, whether if it
    does prevail in court, when that is. And also whether or not
    there will be a legislative response, if in fact we prevail.
        Mr. Cartwright. That is absolutely true. I am asking you to
    speculate on those and ``if'' questions are proper in this
    room, Attorney General. If you win the case, will you agree
    that we ought to stay the effect of that until a new plan can
    go in place, rather than strand all of the people with
    preexisting conditions, and all the people that--whose
    healthcare will lapse because of that ruling?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, from my experience, the
    Supreme Court would likely deal with that in their opinion and
    provide some kind of period to wind it down.
        Mr. Cartwright. You want them to do it sua sponte, on their
    own motion with no prompting from the Justice Department; is
    that it?
        Attorney General Barr. I didn't say that. I would say
    whatever the administration's position is at that point, we
    will carry out from a legal standpoint.
        Mr. Cartwright. Well, I am dismayed to hear that you are
    willing to drive our healthcare system off the cliff with no
    plan for replacing it.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, I think your premise that the
    Justice Department makes healthcare policy is simply wrong. We
    take legal positions in cases.
        Mr. Cartwright. Well, let me--I am going to follow that up.
    Numerous reports have indicated that you, the chief lawyer for
    the Federal Government and Secretary Azar, who is the lead on
    healthcare policy for our Federal Government, strongly argued
    against supporting the complete repeal of the Patient
    Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, reports indicate
    you and Secretary Azar were overruled by Acting Chief of Staff
    Mick Mulvaney and the President himself. Now, at any point, did
    you convey either to Mr. Mulvaney or the President any concerns
    about either the effects of this lawsuit prevailing, if it
    does, or concerns about the dubious legal arguments in this
    lawsuit? And did Secretary Azar communicate concerns about the
    effects on our American healthcare system?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, I am not going to get into,
    you know, the internal deliberations of the administration on
    this point. I had ample opportunity to present my views and I
    believe that the final decision reached is a legally defensible
    and reasonable legal position. It is a position that prevailed
    in the district court. And it is a position taken by the 4
    dissenting Justices in the NFIB case, which is that once you do
    away with the mandate, the rest of the statute cannot stand.
        Mr. Cartwright. Are you citing executive privilege by
    declining to tell me about the discussions between you, Mr.
    Azar, Mr. Mulvaney?
        Attorney General Barr. Call it what you wish, I am not
    discussing it.
        Mr. Cartwright. You are refusing to discuss it. All right.
    Well, it is a decision that makes more extreme, and in fact
    even contradicts, the decision to go forward with this position
    contradicts the DOJ's June 2018 position on the case, which was
    so controversial then that 3 of the 4 career attorneys
    representing the government refused to sign onto the briefs and
    actually removed themselves from the case. The American people
    deserve to understand if you and Secretary Azar support this
    lawsuit based on sound rationale, or if it was just bald
    politics talking----
        Attorney General Barr. I said it was----
        Mr. Cartwright.--we are requesting that you submit this
    assertion of executive privilege in writing to this committee
    if that is what you are doing. Don't ask us to call it what it
    is. I am asking you if you are exercising executive privilege,
    we need to know it, and we need to know it in writing. I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Palazzo.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Attorney
    General Barr. In your testimony, you mentioned cybersecurity.
    And being that the FBI is the lead federal agency for
    investigating cyber attacks by criminals, overseas adversaries,
    and terrorists, the threat is incredibly serious and growing.
    Cyber intrusion is more commonplace, more dangerous, and more
    sophisticated.
        Targets include critical infrastructure, trade secrets,
    cutting edge R and D, identity theft, and as well as online
    predators and et cetera. While my colleagues on the left are
    chasing shiny objects, I believe the American people want us to
    address the real physical and financial threats that exist in
    the real world. Can you elaborate on the growing threat, and
    maybe provide some scenarios that we should be concerned with,
    call out some of these foreign overseas adversaries? And what
    is the FBI doing to transform itself and protect Americans?
        Attorney General Barr. You are correct that the cyber
    threat is a serious and growing threat, obviously. And it is a
    threat to our intellectual capital, our trade secrets, and
    therefore our economic health. It is a threat to our national
    security. It exposes some of our fundamental infrastructure to
    disruption. We all have heard about the attempt to penetrate
    into election infrastructure and the results of that could be
    devastating.
        The FBI is receiving in this budget $70 million to upgrade
    and enhance their cyber tools and capabilities to deal with
    these threats. A total of $72 million is in the budget.
        In terms of emerging threats, as you know, we have a China
    initiative in the department because China, we think, poses a
    very serious threat to the United States in terms of economic
    espionage, as well as classical espionage. And a lot of that
    does use cyber tools and threats--involves cyber threats to the
    United States. And we are very focused on that, as well as not
    just the industrial espionage, but also the use of non-
    traditional collectors that the Chinese are able to marshal
    within the United States by coopting Chinese nationals who may
    be working in universities, or laboratories, and so forth.
        So it is a broad gauge threat and probably our highest
    priority at this point in terms of dealing with counter
    espionage.
        Mr. Lofthus. If I can add one thing. We have over $750
    million overall in our budget. The Attorney General mentions
    the $72 million increase. $70 million is the FBI. The smaller
    piece, though, it worth mentioning. It is only $2 million, but
    it is really going to have a lot of bang for its buck. It is
    money put into the Justice Security Operations Center. That
    allows us to protect our own networks from intrusions and
    malware. So it is really important that the agencies protect
    their own networks.
        Mr. Palazzo. We definitely appreciate the FBI's work on
    this. I mean, when our universities are coming up with cutting
    edge research and development and technologies, just to see
    them stolen by our adversaries. They didn't invest any money in
    it. They didn't work hard to create it. And they take it from
    us, that is--we are wasting taxpayer dollars.
        When I first came to Congress, I was on the Armed Services
    Committee and many of the generals and admirals said in one of
    their--they have several threats that they are concerned with
    that keep them up at night. There is never just one. But one of
    them that was recurring was our cyber threats, knocking out our
    power grids, crippling us, our financial markets. And that
    would just create massive amounts of chaos.
        And so these are extremely important. This is why I think
    the American people are interested in having this conversation,
    and making sure the FBI is using their resources in the
    protection and security of America.
        And to know now that that technological gap between some of
    us and our overseas adversaries, where it was 25, 30, 40 years,
    just 8 years ago now we are neck and neck. That is a true
    threat to our economy, as well as our national security. So
    Attorney General, thank you. And thank your team at the FBI for
    taking care and keeping America safe. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Ms. Meng.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Ms. Meng. Thank you. And Attorney General, I want to thank
    you for clarifying the answers to my questions. And I just want
    to confirm in relation to communication with the White House or
    any of its team, you are answering that for both the March 24
    and the March 29 letters, correct?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes. Yes.

                                  ELDER FRAUD

        Ms. Meng. Thank you. You brought up a really important
    topic in my district, and I am sure in many of my colleagues'
    districts, about elder fraud. Last year, I had a piece of
    legislation signed into law by President Trump, supported by
    Congressman Barton and Lance at the time. And basically
    targeting and allowing the United States to prosecute those
    calls that you mentioned that were actually coming from outside
    of the United States.
        We were very happy to have the legislation signed. However,
    our local law enforcement, in our case, the NYPD, is having a
    difficult time in terms of actually catching and figuring out
    who these perpetrators are. I don't know if you have any
    further ideas on how we can approach this, and just in general
    in the future, I would love to work with your office on this.
        Attorney General Barr. Yes, I would like to do that,
    Congresswoman. That is exactly why I set up the strike force to
    be able--I think we need to get ourselves to a higher level of
    sophistication in pursuing these crimes because although they
    might appear to the victim to be sort of not very
    sophisticated, they are, in fact, very sophisticated and we
    have to get back to the people behind the scam. And we have to
    use all of our tools, our treaty tools, our cooperative
    agreements with the enforcement authorities in other countries
    to get the information we need.

                                 CIVIL DIVISION

        Mr. Lofthus. You can help us in our budget on this. We have
    $611,000 in the Civil Division's budget in the consumer
    protection branch. They do a lot of elder fraud work and we
    sure could use that money in this year's budget to help the
    civil division continue its work in the elder fraud area.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you. My second question----
        Attorney General Barr. One other thing I could say is that
    I have asked to put together a number of additional legislative
    proposals that would give us more tools in this area, as well
    as more effective penalties. And I think that is being done and
    I will be proposing them. So I would like to provide them to
    you once we are done.

                                SANCTUARY CITIES

        Ms. Meng. Sure. Thank you. I just wanted to ask about
    sanctuary jurisdictions. As you know, last November, Judge
    Ramos of the Southern District of New York said the Trump
    administration cannot compel states and cities to cooperate
    with federal immigration authorities as a condition for
    receiving law enforcement funds, such as Byrne JAG. In other
    words, Judge Ramos ordered the administration to award fiscal
    year 2017 funds without condition, and became the fourth
    federal judge to rule against the administration on this issue.
        The Department of Justice's 2018, 2022 strategic plan
    states that you still intend to end sanctuary jurisdictions.
    What is the plan? How do you intend to continue with these
    conditions for the fiscal year 2019 grants?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, you are right that we have
    lost in a number of district courts, but that is why we have
    appellate courts. So we are appealing those decisions.
        Ms. Meng. So you still intend to continue then. Okay.
        Attorney General Barr. Yes.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Graves.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I am just
    trying to close things out. Oftentimes when an individual or
    folks are in denial, closure helps. And there are a lot of
    unanswered questions. We have heard some here today. I want to
    just read a few quotes to you and then let's go through a
    series of questions.
        Presidential candidate Eric Swalwell, who is a member of
    the House Intelligence Committee, said, ``In our investigation,
    we saw strong evidence of collusion.'' He declared President
    Trump an agent, ``working on behalf of the Russians.''
    Judiciary Chairman Nadler claimed, ``It is clear that the
    campaign colluded. And there is a lot of evidence of that.''
    Senator Blumenthal, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee,
    assured us last year that, ``The evidence is pretty clear that
    there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the
    Russians.''
        Now, assuming they are speaking from a position of truth
    and not attempting to mislead anyone, do they have access to
    any evidence that the investigators did not have access to?
        Attorney General Barr. Not to my knowledge, but I don't
    know what access they had. I would be in a better position to
    address that once the report is out.
        Mr. Graves. To your knowledge, are they withholding any
    evidence from the investigators?
        Attorney General Barr. Not to my knowledge.
        Mr. Graves. And if they did knowingly withhold any evidence
    from the investigators, is that akin to obstruction or
    something similar?
        Attorney General Barr. I don't want to speculate about
    that.

                               MARCH 24TH LETTER

        Mr. Graves. You also stated earlier that as you were
    preparing the March 24th letter, you offered the Mueller team
    the opportunity to assist in that, yet they declined; is that
    correct?
        Attorney General Barr. Not to assist. We----
        Mr. Graves. Or to review. What was your term?
        Attorney General Barr. To review it.
        Mr. Graves. To review. And yet reports indicate that there
    were a few disgruntled investigators on the team who since
    then, without names, under a shroud of secrecy themselves, have
    expressed that they are upset with your findings. But your
    findings basically just restated the report; is that correct?
        Attorney General Barr. That is what I tried to do.
        Mr. Graves. So in essence----
        Attorney General Barr. They weren't my findings. I was just
    trying to state the principal conclusions of the report.
        Mr. Graves. So the letter just basically restated what was
    found in the report as it was given to you.
        Attorney General Barr. As I say, the bottom line
    conclusions.
        Mr. Graves. And so, in essence, they are just upset with
    their own findings.
        Attorney General Barr. I don't know whether they are upset.
        Mr. Graves. Have you heard from any of the disgruntled
    Mueller investigators?
        Attorney General Barr. I think the article says something
    like associates, is sourced to associates of----
        Mr. Graves. Third person, too, if I might add.
        Attorney General Barr. Some of the people who worked on the
    Mueller report. I am not sure who it refers to. I haven't----
        Mr. Graves. Were the investigators, or anyone assisting the
    Mueller team, did they have security clearances?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes. I would think so, yes. At least
    many of them did, I am sure.
        Mr. Graves. So it is possible that some of this information
    that is being leaked or potentially going to be leaked is in
    violation of security clearances as well?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, only if it were classified
    information. I haven't seen any classified information leaked
    from--that I would attribute to the special counsel's office.
        Mr. Graves. Right, so this information--I think as you
    stated it, is multiple levels removed from the source, it
    seems, so I would hope no one on this committee and no member
    of Congress would take that information as fact.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Shifting to cybersecurity, first let me thank you. You have
    done a great job today answering our questions. We did meet
    with Director Wray last week and he is doing a fantastic job as
    well. Cybersecurity is something that I have a passion for. I
    have been very aggressive in advocating for a policy that
    allows for active cyber defense, allowing one the ability to
    defend his or her network outside of that network, and not
    requiring he or she wait in a passive posture until he or she
    has actually been impacted.
        Your department has broad purview over a lot of this and I
    would like the opportunity to work with you and your team to
    see how we might better advance policy. The Cyber Fraud and
    Abuse Act hasn't been updated in decades. It deserves a good
    review and an aggressive stance. Again, I would like to work
    with you, your team, or whoever you might designate as we look
    ahead. Thank you again for your testimony today, for taking
    time to join us, and for your good work. Mr. Chairman, thank
    you.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.

                           AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (ACA)

        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barr, during the
    heat of the 2018 midterm election, President Trump pledged to
    protect coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions. Are
    you aware of that or were you aware of that?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes.
        Mr. Crist. Are you aware that prior to the Affordable Care
    Act, up to 130 million Americans had some type of preexisting
    condition that insurance companies could use to deny coverage,
    delay treatment, or limit access?
        Attorney General Barr. I didn't know that number, but it
    sounds reasonable. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Crist. Are you aware that the Affordable Care Act made
    discrimination against preexisting conditions against the law?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes.
        Mr. Crist. Do you agree that the Texas Affordable Care Act
    ruling, if affirmed by the Supreme Court, would eliminate the
    law in its entirety, which would necessarily include
    eliminating protections for preexisting conditions?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes. And the President has made
    clear that he supports protection of preexisting conditions.
        Mr. Crist. But pursuing this case would remove them if it
    is successful.
        Attorney General Barr. Is that a reason to take a legal
    position?
        Mr. Crist. I don't know.
        Attorney General Barr. You know, I hear members of the
    committee basically saying, you know, you have taken this legal
    position that can have bad consequences, bad policy
    consequences.
        Mr. Crist. Yes.
        Attorney General Barr. But as you know, as an Attorney
    General, you take positions based on the law, and you litigate
    them in court, and the court makes the decision.
        Mr. Crist. That is true.
        Attorney General Barr. So if this was such a hokey position
    to take, what are you worried about?
        Mr. Crist. What am I worried about?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes. You are acting like--you say
    that the administration's position is hokey. And then you say
    the sky is falling.
        Mr. Crist. I didn't say that.
        Attorney General Barr. Well.
        Mr. Crist. Those are your words, sir.
        Attorney General Barr. OK. So if it is not hokey, then----
        Mr. Crist. What am I worried about? I am worried about
    millions of Americans----
        Attorney General Barr. I am just saying, I am a lawyer. You
    know, I am not in charge of healthcare. I litigate on behalf of
    the United States.
        Mr. Crist. I will try not to interrupt you. I would expect
    the same. What I am worried about are the people I work for,
    the American people, and the people you work for, sir. And it
    is our duty around here to look out for their best interest as
    public servants. And that is what I am worried about.
        Attorney General Barr. We are very worried about them. And
    the President has made clear that he wants a strong healthcare
    legislation and he wants to protect preexisting conditions in
    the event that the court accepts the legal arguments that we
    have presented.
        Mr. Crist. Worries about it so much so that you are
    pursuing a case that would take it away from them. The irony of
    that is rich.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, as I say, we----
        Mr. Crist. I yield my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Case.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Mr. Case. Thank you. When you offered Mr. Mueller the
    opportunity to review or edit, I am not exactly sure what your
    characterization was--your 3 and a half page summary of his
    report, and he declined, did he give you a reason why he
    declined?
        Attorney General Barr. I didn't talk to him directly.
        Mr. Case. Were you provided with a reason why the Mueller
    team did not want to participate?
        Attorney General Barr. I don't recall whether I was--
    whether a reason was given.
        Mr. Case. So somebody offered to them that they could
    review your summary, make comments.
        Attorney General Barr. It wasn't a summary. It was a
    statement of the principal conclusions. It wasn't a summary of
    the report.
        Mr. Case. Okay. Your 3 and a half page letter, did you take
    it that there was no reason given back for their declining to
    do so?
        Attorney General Barr. Did I what?
        Mr. Case. Did you take it that there was no reason for them
    to do so? In other words, did they not tell you, in any way,
    shape, or form why they declined to participate in reviewing
    your 3 and a half page letter?
        Attorney General Barr. As I say, I don't recall whether
    that was relayed to me. My sense was that he understood that
    this was the function of the Attorney General. I am the person
    to whom the report is given.
        Mr. Case. Okay. You know, I am listening to you on the
    Mueller report and here is my problem. You say in your March
    24th letter that you are mindful of the public interest on this
    matter and that you will release as much of the report as you
    can, consistent with applicable law, regulations, and
    department policies.
        You follow up with a letter of a few days later outlining
    four categories in which you are evaluating redactions. One of
    those categories is Grand Jury related to Federal Rule of
    Criminal Procedure 6(e). The other three are intelligence,
    ongoing prosecutions, and privacy reputational interests. And I
    ask you what is the authority for that. And you track it back
    to department policies, which do not have the force of law.
        Attorney General Barr. They do when they are embodied in
    regulation.
        Mr. Case. The regulation triggers back to department
    policies which----
        Attorney General Barr. Right. The regulation states that
    any disclosure has to be in accord with those policies. It is a
    regulatory mandate.
        Mr. Case. Do you consider that you have the discretion as
    to how you apply those department policies?
        Attorney General Barr. I have discretion.
        Mr. Case. Okay. And so we are sitting here, from my
    perspective, with virtually unlimited discretion for you to
    redact from that document. And maybe if I trusted my government
    more, I would be comfortable with that. But since I don't, I am
    not comfortable with that. And I am looking for some way in
    which your judgment, which is going to be the arbiter as I
    understand it, of what the public sees, the arbiter, it is you
    ultimately, can be overseen.
        I have suggested to you that under 6(e), there are
    procedures under which you can go to court to ask the court to
    give you guidance, direction, or an order. I am not sure
    whether you will do that or not. I am----
        Attorney General Barr. Well, the court is limited to the
    grounds stated in 6(e).
        Mr. Case. This is correct. But you do have quite a bit of
    discretion to go to court under 6(e) if you review it. So that
    is one category. The other category, obviously, is that there
    would be some function for Congress to exercise in its
    oversight responsibility under the Constitution, but I am not
    clear as I sit here today whether you envision a role for
    Congress in that oversight.

                    SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION

        Attorney General Barr. Well, I think I sort of addressed
    that. I identified the four categories. And the team that
    includes the special counsel office lawyers are implementing
    that. So they are the ones redacting what is Rule 6(e). They
    are the ones who conducted the investigation. They know what is
    Rule 6(e) and what is not Rule 6(e). That is why I am dependent
    on the special counsel to identify Rule 6(e) material.
        And the intelligence community will identify the
    intelligence stuff. And the lawyers who were prosecuting the
    cases in the special counsel's office can identify whether
    there is going to be a conflict between releasing any
    information and a court order or an ongoing prosecution.
        And the special counsel's office knows who the peripheral
    players are that they have said shouldn't be charged. So those
    are the categories.
        Mr. Case. Does Congress have a role in overseeing your
    decision as to what is and isn't taken out of the Mueller
    report? Is there any circumstances under which any member of
    Congress would have full access to all of the Mueller report,
    period, maybe under conditions. But is there any circumstance
    you can envision, sir, where Congress with whatever protective
    procedures may be in place, would have access to the full
    report to review it?
        Attorney General Barr. Yes. I did say here that once that
    report is ready for release, I would not only give it to the
    chairmen of the judiciary committees, but I would talk to them
    and engage with them about what additional information they
    feel they require and whether there is a way of accommodating
    that. As you, I am sure----
        Mr. Case. They have to give you a reason? What if they just
    want to see the report to satisfy themselves of your exercise
    of discretion?
        Attorney General Barr. Well, it depends. Take classified
    information. I can envision----
        Mr. Case. You have an intelligence committee for that.
        Attorney General Barr. Well, if you let me finish. I was
    saying I can envision a situation where under appropriate
    safeguards that information would be shared. I also think there
    may be under appropriate safeguards a way of people verifying
    that these categories were not abused and that the information
    is bonafide privacy related information and so forth. And I am
    willing to work with the judiciary committees on that.
        But I will have to say that until someone shows me a
    provision in Rule 6(e) that permits its release, Congress
    doesn't get 6(e), unless there is a provision that permits it.
        Mr. Case. There is plenty of discretion in 6(e) for you to
    make that judgment.
        Attorney General Barr. Where would you find that?
        Mr. Case. Judicial proceedings, akin to judicial
    proceedings, if you want to go there. I am sorry. I am really
    out of time. But there are a number of interpretations you can
    make of 6(e) that would give you some pretty good discretion to
    come up to Congress under limited circumstances possibly to be
    able to satisfy somebody in Congress who gets to see the entire
    report, and who gets to oversee you.
        Mr. Serrano. Ms. Lawrence.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you. I want to publicly thank you,
    Attorney General, for your support of Violence Against Women
    Act. It is long overdue and I do look forward to your support
    of that law.
        Also, I look forward to your release of the report next
    week, for it to be timely, and I look forward to the things
    that you are saying.

                                  HATE CRIMES

        I just wanted to follow up to the previous question and let
    you know that under the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the
    FBI is required to collect and report hate crimes from state,
    local, and federal offices. In 2017, the most recent data
    available, the FBI reported a 17 percent increase in hate
    crimes on race, religion, and sexual orientation. And I do
    encourage you to look at those numbers.
        Attorney General Barr. Can I say something?
        Ms. Lawrence. Yes.
        Attorney General Barr. You know, I am very concerned about
    hate crimes and one of the priorities we have is to make sure
    that those numbers are not understating the level of hate
    crime. As you probably know, local jurisdictions are very
    spotty in the extent to which they report hate crimes. There
    are some major U.S. cities, major cities, that say there are
    zero hate crimes.
        So as you may know, the FBI is engaged in a major
    initiative to try to----
        Ms. Lawrence. Yes.
        Attorney General Barr. [continuing]. Make sure that these
    jurisdictions are accurately reporting and are converting their
    crime reporting system into a new system that actually will
    have a field in the system for hate crimes. So we are hopeful--
    one of the things we have to do is get a better handle on the
    actual level of this, where it is, and so forth, and that
    depends on reporting and we are trying to improve that.
        Ms. Lawrence. And taking those who committed to trial.
        Attorney General Barr. Yes.

                                  COPS GRANTS

        Ms. Lawrence. I thank you. That is a lot better answer than
    before. I wanted to talk to you, I was previously a mayor
    before becoming to Congress and COPS grants, which I used as a
    mayor, was just really an amazing support that we have in our
    cities across the country. Unfortunately, there is cities who
    are being told they are no longer eligible. This is creating,
    we know after the economic downfall, a number of cities reduced
    their number of police officers. And although they are not back
    at the regular--at the amount they were before, they were able
    to increase that deficit with COPS.
        Can you tell me what was the thinking, and what is
    happening with the COPS grant? And you are going to hear more
    about this because this is a critical funding to cities.
        Attorney General Barr. Right. So as I understand it, the
    COPS grants had two components: one was the hiring of police
    officers, and that was running at $99 million, and that is what
    we are asking for in this budget, which is to continue that
    program.
        The other money related to the funding of state and local
    task forces. And I think the thinking behind not asking for
    that money was that we would rather--support joint federal,
    state, and local task forces, where the money does benefit the
    state and locals because when they participate in the joint
    federal state task forces, they are paid. But the idea was
    let's put our effort on these joint task forces rather than
    putting the dollars----

                                CIVIL RIGHTS/CRS

        Ms. Lawrence. I ask that you look at that because that is
    critical. And those joint task forces, human trafficking and
    drug trafficking has been extremely beneficial in cities.
        The other question I want to ask is about the decision of
    the President's budget to transfer the Community Relations
    Service to the civil rights department. And that activity, the
    proposal requests minimum funding and staff to be dedicated to
    the functions of community relations.
        Attorney General, you know so many of the issues that we
    have had, and riots, and civil unrest, we have deliberately
    infused money into the community relations. In doing this, in
    consolidating, there are going to be reductions in staffing of
    the civil rights community relations initiative. How do you
    ensure that the Civil Rights Act is fully enforced with these
    cuts to the budget?
        Attorney General Barr. Right. This, I think, is the second
    year in a row this is being proposed. My understanding of the
    rationale is that currently the CRS has I think maybe 50
    positions, and they are spread in small offices around the
    country, sometimes just one or two people in whole areas of the
    country.
        And I think the idea is that given what they are actually
    involved in, it would be more efficient to have them co-housed
    with the civil rights division and have a reservoir of people,
    essentially, I think 15 slots of people who could be deployed
    when there is a situation that needs their services, rather
    than maintaining this whole nationwide structure with very
    small offices. That is the rationale for it.
        Ms. Lawrence. Yes. I really need you to do a deep dive in
    that because this proposed move undermines the express terms of
    Title 10 of the Civil Rights Act by inserting the civil--I
    mean, the community relations into a division that you are not
    supposed to have in a division that litigates and investigates.
        And so to me, I see this combining is a direct attack on
    Title 10 and it is also--it is not in compliance with combining
    those two together. And so this is an area that I will be
    looking at very closely and the funding of doing that is not
    something I would support. Thank you.
        Attorney General Barr. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Attorney General, before I close, I am
    just going to make a very personal statement. Like so many
    people in this House, I grew up politically in the 1960s. That
    is where I developed a lot of my feelings about things in our
    great country. And we were a group of people trying to make the
    country even better than it was, knowing that it was great at
    all times. It is still great.
        Whenever things got rough with segregated housing, or
    education issues, or civil rights issues, or voting rights
    issues, we knew there was always a Justice Department we could
    turn to. We always knew that that Justice Department would
    defend the law and therefore defend the people, and somehow
    come through for us.
        It is very troublesome to see a Justice Department against
    the law of the land when there are many people who if not
    liking the whole law, certainly like the preexisting conditions
    provision, the ability to keep their child on their plan until
    that person is 26. And so I hope that if you take something
    from here today, since we took a lot from you in information,
    is to maybe look around and realize, or pay more attention to
    the fact that we lean on you to come through for this country.
    And when we see you taking sides against the law of the land,
    or taking sides that we may not think is in the best interest
    of the American people, it troubles us.
        Nevertheless, we want to thank you for your testimony
    today, for your patience with the time, and I think--I want to
    thank my committee members on both sides. Mr. Aderholt, it was
    a great hearing, great attendance, and I am sure your picture
    is somewhere in the files today. Thank you so much, Mr.
    Attorney General.
        Attorney General Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. The meeting is adjourned.
        [Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
    to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Tuesday, April 30, 2019.

                    OVERSIGHT OF THE 2020 CENSUS PREPARATION

                                   WITNESSES

     STEVEN DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
    ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
        ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
    NICHOLAS MARINOS, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CYBERSECURITY,
        GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
    KEVIN SMITH, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
        Mr. Serrano. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
    morning, everyone.
        Today we welcome Dr. Steven Dillingham, Director of the
    Census Bureau; Kevin Smith, the Chief Innovation Officer of the
    Census Bureau; Robert Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues,
    Government Accountability Office; and Nicholas Marinos, the
    Director of Information Technology and Cybersecurity at the
    Government Accountability Office.
        You are all here to talk about the 2020 Census
    preparations, which are now in their final stages.
        We are now in the critical stages of the rollout and
    administration of the 2020 Census. Unfortunately, as we
    discussed the funding needs for fiscal year 2020, we seem to
    have more uncertainty than I have ever seen at this point in a
    decennial cycle. That is almost entirely the result of the
    decision to try and add an untested citizenship question to the
    form.
        While we wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the legality
    and constitutionality of that addition, I am deeply concerned
    that the Bureau remains unprepared for and unwilling to admit
    culpability in creating this situation. In particular, I am
    worried that the Bureau remains seriously unready to administer
    a census that includes a citizenship question. I have heard
    little of any plans to address community fears in immigrant
    communities about what this information is used for. You are
    only studying the impact of the question this summer when it
    will be too late to address outreach and communications, based
    on the results.
        Your budget request of $6.149 billion for the 2020 Census
    is inadequate and does not include funding for a contingency
    fund previously requested by Secretary Ross. I am not sure if
    these decisions are yours, Director Dillingham, but it is
    apparent that the White House and the Secretary have little
    interest in a fair or accurate census; in other words, the fix
    is in.
        I realize, Director Dillingham, this mess is not entirely
    your fault. After all, you were not confirmed when the decision
    was made to add a citizenship question to the decennial form
    and you report to the Secretary of Commerce, who instigated
    this political farce in the first place. I have no doubt about
    your desire or the desire of the thousands of Census Bureau
    employees to administer a census that accurately reflects how
    our country has grown and changed, but you have been dealt a
    very bad hand and you are being forced to administer this
    census at an extreme disadvantage.
        Today, I hope we can hear about the Bureau's preparations
    for next year, what challenges remain, and how the Bureau will
    react when the Supreme Court rules on the validity of the
    Secretary's process for changing the decennial census form.
    This committee stands ready to help you in every way possible,
    and our questions today are designed to highlight our concerns
    and our communities' needs as you move forward. We hope you and
    your staff and paying close attention to these concerns.
        This is, of course, something that is on everybody's mind
    in many communities throughout the country. I can tell you that
    in mine it is a big issue and it is everywhere, and it is on
    the mind of many people in Congress. So I hope that we all pay
    attention to today's hearings, both here and afar, because this
    issue still has to be resolved and we need a fair and accurate
    count.
        And with that let me turn to my friend Ranking Member
    Aderholt for his remarks.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and I
    too want to welcome all of our witnesses that are here to the
    Commerce, Justice, Science subcommittee today to testify
    regarding the 2020 Census.
        It is difficult to believe that we are just now 11 months
    out from Census Day, April 1st, 2020. As we all know, Census
    Day will represent the culmination of nearly a decade of
    research, design, integration, and testing of the Bureau's
    substantial efforts to modernize the census and make it easier
    for people to respond any time and anywhere.
        I do appreciate the Bureau's commitment to assuring a full,
    fair, and accurate count of all Americans in 2020. The Bureau
    has a monumental task and it is a task that I know all four of
    you take very seriously.
        For fiscal year 2020, the Department of Commerce has
    requested, as you know, $2.3 billion in additional funding in
    order to support your efforts to meet the constitutional
    mandate for the 2020 Census. This subcommittee must examine,
    therefore, whether the funding requested for fiscal year 2020
    is adequate to meet your needs, both anticipated and those
    arising under different contingencies.
        The ambitious, but worthy effort of converting to an
    Internet-based enumeration has required much research,
    planning, and coordination, not to mention the scaling of
    complex systems to make sure they can handle the massive amount
    of data that comes with counting more than 300 million people.
        I look forward to learning today as we have this hearing
    about the key indicators of your readiness, such as the 2018
    End-to-End Test; the status and nature of your communications
    campaign; the on-boarding activities well underway this year;
    and, finally, I would like to say a few words about the topic I
    know that there is a lot of concern about by a good number of
    people. And let me just add, a lot of good people disagree on
    this issue, but I will say I do believe the Federal Government
    does has a compelling interest in collecting primary-source
    data on citizenship.
        By law, the Census Bureau cannot disclose anyone's response
    or share data from which an individual can be identified, and
    that goes to even other Federal agencies. The law, in my
    opinion and what I understand, is very clear on this: a
    person's response that they are not a citizen does not provide
    the government with any reliable information about whether they
    are lawfully present in the United States.
        There are some who would like to turn this into some kind
    of campaign of fear surrounding this question, but I really
    think this can be a situation about education.
        I look forward to hearing about the census effort to
    mitigate the skepticism and the lack of awareness associated
    with every decennial census, and expect to hear that equal
    focus will be afforded to all segments of the so-called hard-
    to-count populations, including a lot who live in my home state
    of Alabama. Many of them lack broadband Internet service, a lot
    of them have rural addresses, and there are, of course, quite a
    few that distrust the Federal Government, and it might result
    in an undercount.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
    will yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
        Now it is my pleasure to introduce my chairwoman, the
    Chairwoman of the Full Committee, Mrs. Lowey of New York, for
    her remarks.
        Mrs. Lowey. Welcome. Thank you, Chairman Serrano and
    Ranking Member Aderholt, for holding this important hearing.
        While I frankly was very disappointed that Secretary Ross
    refused to testify before the subcommittee, and I am really
    puzzled about that, I have known the Secretary for a long time
    and I was looking forward to hearing from him today, but I am
    very pleased to have these esteemed witnesses with us and I
    thank you for appearing.
        The 2020 Census is a serious constitutional obligation that
    must be adequately funded and free of partisan interference.
    The 2020 count will shape how federal dollars are shared
    nationwide for the next decade and that means it determines how
    much each community receives for schools, roads, health care,
    and other public services that our constituents rely on daily.
    Unfortunately, this Administration is playing football with
    this fundamental function of our government.
        We know that certain hard-to-reach populations are much
    more difficult to count than others; those groups are
    vulnerable to underestimation. My home state of New York has a
    number of people who are frequently undercounted, such as
    African Americans, foreign-born residents, Latinos. Part of the
    beauty of New York is our diversity and we must do everything
    we can to ensure an accurate census count. Underfunding the
    census puts New York communities that need funding most at risk
    of losing more than $73.3 billion.
        On top of funding issues associated with the census, this
    Administration's decision to include the citizenship question
    is, frankly, highly offensive and, as multiple Federal courts
    have held, unconstitutional. It is an unnecessary addition and
    a clear attack on immigrant and other minority communities;
    frankly, it must be stopped. Congress and this committee should
    work together with the Census Bureau to protect our most
    vulnerable communities, and I look forward to a productive
    discussion today that highlights ways we can preserve the
    sanctity of our democracy and best represent our constituents.
        So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Chairwoman Lowey.
        Director Dillingham, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Please try to keep it to 5 minutes and you have our word that
    every word you wrote will be on the record.
        Mr. Dillingham. Good morning, Chairman Serrano, Committee
    Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to be with you today.
    We appreciate your strong support for the Census Bureau and its
    work; we are deeply grateful to Congress for funding our
    programs. We are highly confident that the budget request for
    fiscal year 2020 supports the operation of a complete and
    accurate count of our Nation's population.
        The budget request has $7.2 billion in total resources, it
    includes $1 billion in carried-over funds. The request
    represents a $3.3 billion, 88-percent increase from fiscal year
    2019. Of that, $6.3 billion is for the 2020 Census, the rest is
    for other programs, including data processing and
    dissemination; data releases of the Economic Census, Census of
    Governments; and a collection of monthly, quarterly, and annual
    data, including the Principal Economic Indicators, the American
    Community Survey, and other economic, demographic, and
    geographic programs.
        In fiscal year 2018, you provided advanced funding of
    nearly $1 billion, allowing us to continue our 2020 Census work
    during the funding lapsing, and we thank you. Funding certainty
    will continue to be a vital need.
        Presently, we are on schedule, on budget, on message, and
    on course to complete the biggest and best census ever. We and
    our partners are excited and committed. Our mission is to count
    every person once, only once, and in the right place, and with
    your support we will accomplish this mission.
        We have made a number of major improvements, including
    better technologies for canvassing and enumerating; new options
    for responding--the Internet, the phone, as well as the paper--
    more language assistance; customer-assistance phone centers;
    more partners and partnership specialists; a sophisticated and
    expanded media campaign; and advanced IT safeguards and privacy
    protections.
        These successes and time-tested operations increase our
    confidence that we can conduct a complete and accurate census
    within the budget.
        During the 2018 End-to-End Test, which was our dress
    rehearsal, we successfully tested and deployed census
    operations and systems. The results, including the self-
    response rates, exceeded projections. The systems worked
    efficiently, enumerator productivity rose about 50 percent, and
    responded information was securely encrypted and processed.
        Confidentiality is a core part of the Census Bureau's
    culture, it requires response data to be used only for
    statistical purposes. Those working with the data take a
    lifetime oath not to share confidential information, including
    with law enforcement. Unlawful disclosures subject violators to
    fines and imprisonment. The Bureau has decades of success in
    carrying out this responsibility.
        IT security enhancements and preparations for 2020 are
    underway. In-Field Address Canvassing begins in August. Our
    communications contractor team includes leaders in advertising
    and multi-cultural subcontractors with experience in reaching
    everyone.
        We are recruiting trusted voices from communities to
    motivate people to respond. We are hiring 1,500 local
    partnership specialists, almost double that from the last
    decennial census. We plan to establish a record 300,000
    partnerships. Communications and partnerships encourage
    everyone, especially the hard-to-count, to respond to the
    census. We plan to reach under-counted children; areas with
    limited Internet access; rural and remote areas; hard-to-count
    groups; and households lacking English proficiency through
    online and phone assistance in English and 12 other languages
    covering more than 99 percent of all households, plus materials
    in 59 languages.
        We are committed to reaching the hard-to-count populations,
    and have answered the committee's request as to how this might
    be expanded.
        In closing, I am pleased to testify with the Government
    Accountability Office. We consult closely with GAO on key risks
    and steps to mitigate them; we have closed about two thirds of
    the GAO recommendations, we have action plans for the others.
    We value GAO input and engagement, and are encouraged by recent
    progress.
        We thank this committee and Congress for communicating the
    shared message that the 2020 Census is easy, safe, and
    important. It is easy, because you can respond online, by
    phone, or on paper. This creates new efficiencies, it saves
    dollars, it relieves burdens, and it reassures people that
    assistance is but a phone call away. It is safe, because we
    have the latest and best technologies and practices to protect
    the data and confidentiality. And it is important, because it
    is used to apportion the House of Representatives; to allocate
    the billions of dollars, as was mentioned; and to guide
    decisions by individuals, communities, businesses, and
    government at all levels.
        Finally, we commend the members of this subcommittee, and
    the full committee and the Congress, for your interest, support
    and valued partnership. We look forward to working together.
        I will be happy to answer your questions.
        [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Director Goldenkoff, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Same rules, same request, try to keep it to 5 minutes and we
    will include everything in the record for you.
        Mr. Goldenkoff. Thank you.
        Chairman Serrano, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member
    Aderholt, and members of the subcommittee. GAO is pleased to be
    here today to discuss the Census Bureau's readiness for the
    2020 head count.
        As you know, in recent years we have identified a number of
    operational, IT, cybersecurity, and other challenges that raise
    serious concerns about the Bureau's ability to conduct a cost-
    effective enumeration. In February 2017, we added the 2020
    Census to GAO's list of high-risk government programs and it
    remains on our high-risk list today.
        My remarks this morning will focus on two such challenges:
    implementing design innovations aimed at controlling costs and
    developing reliable cost estimates that better account for
    risks and inform annual budget requests. My colleague Nick
    Marinos will then discuss the challenges the Bureau faces in
    implementing and securing critical IT systems.
        The bottom line is that, as the countdown to Census Day
    grows short, the Bureau has made important progress toward
    mitigating some of the risks facing the Census, and we are
    encouraged by the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau's
    leadership commitment toward carrying out a cost-effective
    enumeration. Still, the Bureau estimates that the census may
    cost as much as $15.6 billion, which is a $3 billion increase
    over the Bureau's original estimate, and significant
    operational uncertainties lie ahead.
        For example, with respect to design innovations, to help
    control costs while maintaining accuracy, the Bureau will use
    new procedures and technology for 2020, including greater use
    of automated data-collection methods; administrative records in
    place of data collected by enumerators; verifying most
    addresses using aerial imagery and other in-office procedures
    rather than by going door to door; and allowing households the
    option of responding to the Census via the Internet.
        These innovations show promise for controlling costs, but
    they also introduce new risks, in part because they have not
    been used extensively, if at all, in early numerations. As a
    result, testing is essential to ensure that key IT systems and
    operations will function as planned. However, citing budgetary
    uncertainties, the Bureau scaled back operational tests in 2017
    and 2018. Without sufficient testing across a range of
    geographic locations, housing types, living arrangements, and
    demographic groups, operational problems can go undiscovered,
    and the opportunity to refine procedures and systems could be
    lost.
        Another risk factor is the reliability of the Bureau's 2020
    life cycle cost estimate. In August 2018, we found that,
    although the Bureau had taken steps to improve its cost-
    estimation process compared to prior iterations, it still
    needed to implement a system to track and record variances
    between actual and estimated cost elements. The Bureau plans to
    release an updated version of the cost estimate sometime this
    spring. To ensure that this and any future versions reflect
    best practices, it will be important for the Bureau to
    implement our open recommendations.
        In short, while the Bureau and the Department of Commerce
    have taken important steps to keep preparations for the
    decennial on track, additional steps are needed. For example,
    over the past decade GAO has made 97 recommendations to help
    address risks facing the 2020 Census. The Department of
    Commerce has generally agreed with these recommendations and
    has taken actions to address many of them. However, as of April
    2019, 24 of the recommendations have not been fully
    implemented.
        Going forward, to help ensure a cost-effective head count
    in the months ahead, continued leadership attention and strong
    congressional oversight will be needed to help ensure that the
    Bureau implements our open recommendation; that key components
    and systems work as required; that preparations stay on
    schedule; and that management functions follow leading
    practices.
        This concludes my prepared remarks. I will now turn it over
    to my colleague Rick Marinos, who will discuss the risks facing
    the Bureau's IT and cyber efforts.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Director Marinos, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Marinos. Thank you.
        Chairman Serrano, Chairwoman Lowey, Ranking Member
    Aderholt, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    inviting GAO to discuss the Bureau's efforts to prepare for the
    2020 Census.
        As Robert mentioned, our most recent high-risk report
    highlighted a number of IT-related challenges, these included
    IT systems readiness and cybersecurity. To sum up where we
    stand today, significant work still remains for the Bureau to
    address these challenges prior to the 2020 Census.
        Starting with systems readiness. The Bureau plans to rely
    heavily on IT for the 2020 Census, including through using over
    50 systems across different stages of Census operations. Many
    of these systems will be deployed multiple times in order to
    add needed functionality over the course of 16 operational
    deliveries planned by the Bureau.
        Last fall, the Bureau delivered the first group of systems
    to support early hiring and training, and the next 4 months
    will see key testing and production deadlines for many
    additional systems. However, our written statement notes that
    the Bureau is at risk of not meeting near-term system
    development and testing schedule milestones for two upcoming
    operational deliveries. These include deliveries that support
    address canvassing, which is intended to verify the location of
    housing units across the country, and Internet self-response, a
    new innovation that the Bureau intends to rely on for a
    significant portion of responses to the census. The Bureau
    needs to closely monitor the risks associated with the systems
    that support these two important census activities in order to
    ensure that they are all delivered on time.
        Regarding cybersecurity, the Bureau has efforts underway to
    assess the security of its systems and identify weaknesses that
    need fixing. To the Bureau's credit, it has established a risk-
    management framework that requires it to conduct a security
    assessment for each system expected to be used for the 2020
    Census and to address any security vulnerabilities identified
    through the course of testing.
        We are encouraged that, in addition to performing its own
    assessments, the Bureau is coordinating with the Department of
    Homeland Security on cybersecurity issues. Through assessments
    conducted over the last 2 years, DHS has made 17
    recommendations aimed at improving the Bureau's cybersecurity
    posture and strengthening its ability to respond to potential
    cyber threats. These internal and external assessment
    activities and their findings are critical, especially since
    the majority of the Bureau's systems that will support the 2020
    operations contain personally identifiable information.
    However, our written statement calls for significant management
    attention by Commerce and Bureau leadership in order to ensure
    that security deficiencies are not only identified, but
    corrected.
        Specifically, we are making two recommendations today. The
    first calls for the Bureau to address its security to-do list
    in a timelier manner. Recent data indicates that the Bureau has
    been challenged in meeting its self-prescribed time frames for
    taking corrective actions for security weaknesses, including
    those it designates as high or very high risk. Resolving
    identified vulnerabilities within these time frames can help
    reduce the risk that unauthorized individuals may exploit
    weaknesses to gain access to sensitive information in systems.
        The second recommendation calls for the Bureau to improve
    its process for tracking and completing corrective actions in
    response to DHS's assessments and recommendations. At the
    present time, the Bureau has yet to fully establish such a
    formal process.
        The bottom line is that the security-assessment efforts
    conducted by DHS and the Bureau itself will only be as valuable
    as the security fixes that the Bureau fully implements.
        In summary, we are running short on time before key census
    operations begin. Moving forward, it will be vital for the
    Bureau to devote enough time and effort to complete IT system
    development activities and address identified security
    weaknesses in a timely and prioritized way.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Director Dillingham, as I mentioned in my opening
    statement, there is a greater degree of uncertainty with regard
    to the administration of the 2020 Census than any decennial
    census I have dealt with. We are currently waiting for the
    Supreme Court to determine the legality and constitutionality
    of the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 form, but
    the Bureau has had to continue preparing for the 2020 Census
    regardless.
        My understanding is that you essentially have two versions
    of the 2020 Census ready to go for printing; however, what is
    less clear to me is whether your outreach, communications, and
    partnership activities also have two parallel paths.
        Question: what is the Bureau doing to prepare for the
    Supreme Court's decision? You have different strategies for
    deployment depending on results and can you share those changes
    with us today?
        Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    update you and I appreciate the concerns about uncertainties
    surrounding the decennial census in some quarters and in the
    media, et cetera.
        I can assure you that--you asked if we had two different
    plans, for printing purposes in the beginning of July, we do.
    We have two systems ready to go as to which questionnaire will
    be printed, but after that we have a process in place and an
    execution plan that will proceed regardless.
        Now, one of the issues, as you have pointed out and as
    Committee Chairwoman Lowey has pointed out, is what about there
    could be a question on citizenship in there and how might that
    impact. And we are conducting a study this summer, the results
    will be available in October, for just the purpose of
    operational needs. So as a result of doing a survey of 480,000
    households, half with the question and half without, that will
    better inform us as to any particular needs for deploying our
    resources.
        You mentioned how we are preparing for the census overall.
    We have an extensive campaign and I would be glad to brief you
    and other members of the committee, but one element that I want
    to bring to your attention is our communications plan and our
    integration with partnership.
        We are going to deploy almost twice as many partnership
    specialists into the communities, particularly the hard-to-
    reach communities, and our targeting messages with the campaign
    will be to reach the hard-to-count populations. So we have a
    number of subcontractors creating messages specifically for the
    hard-to-count populations.
        Mr. Serrano. But there seems to be, unless I heard it
    wrong, a contradiction here that Mr. Marinos, Director Marinos,
    tells us that he is concerned or his department is concerned
    that you are not moving fast enough to take care of some needs
    within the Bureau for the Census and then you tell me that you
    will be ready to deal with whatever decision the Supreme Court
    hands down; isn't there a contradiction there?
        Mr. Dillingham. We don't see a contradiction, Mr. Chairman,
    but an explanation. You know, the GAO has over time and for a
    number of years been monitoring and presenting progress
    reports, and we are very pleased that they have done that. We
    are also pleased with the Inspector General, with the Congress
    and others, and the Department leadership. We have a number of
    people looking over our shoulders as to where we are.
        Now, most recently, in today's testimony the GAO has
    highlighted four specific areas which were mentioned in their
    comments, and that is the areas of innovations and some of the
    challenges there with implementing IT, with making sure we have
    the cybersecurity safeguards, and also in our cost estimates
    and cost-control measures.
        The first--when we were placed on the high-risk list, which
    was deservedly so, this is one of the largest projects, one of
    the largest hirings of civilian employment since World War II
    and it happens every ten years, as you are well aware from
    prior censuses. This is a mammoth operation, it deserves
    special scrutiny, and it deserves the resources that are needed
    to get the job done.
        So, yes, we are on the high-risk list, I expect we will be
    on there until we complete this census, and every census will
    probably be on the high-risk list. That being said, the five
    things, the areas of improvement the GAO previously pointed out
    with the leadership, with the capacity, with the action plans,
    with the monitoring, and with demonstrating results, they say
    that we have made substantial progress and on the leadership
    they said we have met those needs.
        Now, today we are still focused on continuing needs. The
    four that I pointed out with the innovations, this will be the
    most innovative census by far; it is a sea change from prior
    censuses. We will be collecting most of the information during
    this census electronically, that is a major change. It has
    always been on paper, a substantial amount will still be on
    paper, but we are collecting information by the Internet, by
    phone, and our enumerators will have electronic devices.
        So it will be more efficient and there will be challenges,
    and there are challenges, we are meeting those challenges. We
    have identified more than 26,000 tasks as a part of this census
    with tens of thousands of relationships. Nevertheless, we
    monitor on a weekly basis more than a hundred of those critical
    tasks and activities. And we do color-code it, as GAO points
    out, some are in yellow and actually we have sometimes some in
    red. So that is a process by which we look at all these
    important tasks. We give them a green or shades of green and,
    if it needs management attention, we put it in yellow. And if
    it is more than 9 days late--and this has been going on for
    several years--we put it in red to make sure we get the people
    and the resources assigned to that particular need.
        So we are very pleased. We are going to be busy, we are
    going to be fulfilling these needs, we are going to continue to
    make progress up until the completion of the census, but there
    is a lot of work yet to be done, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. I want to stop here, because I want
    to let Mr. Aderholt ask his questions, so that we can move to
    our chairwoman, because I know she has got 12 committees to
    attend.
        Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. I will defer to her if she needs to--I know
    she has got a lot of committees to go to, so I will defer.
        Mrs. Lowey. You are so gracious.
        Mr. Serrano. Bipartisanship at its best.
        Mrs. Lowey. Oh, my goodness.
        [Laughter.]
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Serrano. You realize you made me look very bad, right?
        [Laughter.]
        Mrs. Lowey. I really do appreciate it. Thank you very much.
    Oh, you don't have a clock. I was saying I will make sure I
    stick to my time.
        Thank you again to the panel for appearing before us, and
    this is really so important and very exciting to know what you
    will be doing electronically. I hope that a great percentage of
    the people can understand how to use the electronics you are
    offering.
        I want to get back to the citizenship question again,
    because, as a career statistician and you are an expert, you
    must be concerned that Census is asking the citizenship
    question, which has not been asked of the entire nation in
    nearly 7 zero, 70 years, are you worried? Are you worried that
    in the current political environment this question could have a
    very negative effect on the 2020 Census count, especially in
    places like New York where the chairman and I are very well
    aware of these challenges? Could you give us a straight answer
    about this?
        Mr. Dillingham. I certainly will, but let me first of all
    mention--you mentioned New York and I had the opportunity last
    week to visit areas of New York City and to visit four
    districts, including your own--both the chairman and your
    districts. I very much appreciated meeting with your staff
    there. We also visited other members of this committee and some
    not on this committee, we visited their districts.
        What we looked at in those districts were the hard-to-count
    populations. As you pointed out, there are--you have a very
    diverse district----
        Mrs. Lowey. We sure do.
        Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. And you do have hard-to-count
    populations. Now, in your districts, your self-response rate is
    higher than the national average, and that is a good thing, but
    there are pockets, there are tracts within your district. And
    we track them, we have them on our website, and we during the
    census will have that in real time, you can look at these
    tracts and see how they are responding.
        So, even though you are above average overall in your
    congressional district, some of those areas are less than half
    that. So what we are trying to do is get our resources and our
    partnership specialists and to work with your partners to make
    sure we reach those populations.
        And I will say that I have seen the list of your partnering
    organizations. The chairman has, I must say, the longest list
    so far, but it is changing daily. And one Member who is not on
    this committee was so pleased with the length of her list that
    she said she may be speaking with you for a healthy
    competition, and we would welcome that.
        But we cannot perform this census without these
    partnerships, without the people from your communities in New
    York and other jurisdictions, they are the key. So we are going
    to be partnering with them and partnering with them in many
    different ways.
        On the citizenship question, part of that is really, the
    manifestation of concerns is, will it reduce the response rate
    and will we perhaps not be able to count everyone. We are
    designing some of the best media campaign, some of which are
    located in New York City, at least the national headquarters,
    who know those communities. We have some of these
    subcontractors that know the various communities. And we will
    have partnership specialists from those communities and, where
    English is not the primary language, they will be speaking
    those languages.
        So, yes, we have a plan in place and, yes, we intend to
    carry it out. And we are focused, laser-focused on reaching
    those hard-to-count populations such as in your area. So, if a
    population feels particularly that the question causes them
    concern, we want to address it and we want to address it as
    soon as possible and right out front, and we are going to do
    that and to a large extent through our media campaign.
        We need everyone to understand that the census is easy to
    complete, that it is safe to complete. We do not release any
    information except aggregate data; we release numbers. So there
    should be no fear among individuals completing the census,
    because at the end of the day we have aggregate numbers for
    geographical areas.
        Mrs. Lowey. May I interrupt at that point----
        Mr. Serrano. Yes.
        Mrs. Lowey. [continuing]. Because I am really puzzled and
    this is a serious question.
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
        Mrs. Lowey. So if you have a building with 20 apartments in
    it and the person who is helping you, you said you are dealing
    with all kinds of people, know that in 50 percent of those
    apartments they are not citizens. OK, but they should be
    counted for the census, but they are not citizens. Is there
    going to be a process where someone says, look, OK, ten of
    these apartments, they are not citizens, who are they?
        I am puzzled at how somebody could feel comfortable being
    interviewed if that material is going to this Administration
    with the citizenship question.
        Mr. Dillingham. Sure.
        Mrs. Lowey. And certainly, as Chairman Serrano and I know
    in New York, we depend--we give more money to Washington than
    we get from Washington, we need the money. So I just want to
    know how will the process work?
        Now, many of these people may have access online, but if
    there are follow-ups, one of your assistants will say, huh,
    there are 20, whatever I said, 30 apartments in this building,
    half of them are not citizens, what is the next step? What is
    your responsibility?
        Mr. Dillingham. Chairwoman Lowey, when we met with your
    staff, we were lucky enough to meet with some of those partners
    and some of those local government officials. We went through
    the neighborhoods in your district, we found exactly those--we
    saw some of the New York City Housing Authority complexes. We
    were told that in some instances those people may not be
    citizens, we were told in some instances there will be more
    than one family per unit in those complexes. There are
    challenges and that is why we are going to devote all of our
    resources and talents, but more importantly working with the
    partners in your community to ensure that we understand that
    complex, that we know who the trusted voices are, and that we
    have----
        Mrs. Lowey. Excuse me for a minute, because I don't want to
    take advantage of your generosity in giving me the time. I know
    you are very kind and I know you are going to use all the
    partners. What is your responsibility regarding citizenship?
    You have a building, you have someone helping you who knows
    everyone in that building, they also know 50, 60 percent may
    not be citizens; what can you do, what do you do, what ought
    you to do with that information?
        Mr. Dillingham. Chairwoman, we are ordered to take a count
    and we are going to do everything that we can to ensure people
    self-respond----
        Mrs. Lowey. To take a count----
        Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. To take a count of those
    people----
        Mrs. Lowey. [continuing]. Not pass that information on to
    some other authority. Let's face it, that is the concern.
        Mr. Dillingham. Exactly. That would be a legal violation
    and, if I was to prove that, I would go to prison, and if
    anyone in the Census Bureau does it they are subject to fines
    and imprisonment.
        Mrs. Lowey. So let me repeat it, because I think this is
    the key question that we are worried about in many of our
    communities. You go to a building, and I am sure you have been
    to Port Chester, Tarrytown, several of those communities, you
    know or the person who is helping you know that 50 percent--I
    am just saying--of the people there are not citizens. You are
    just interested in the count of the number of people there, you
    are not directed, you have no order, you have no responsibility
    to report to anyone, Secretary Ross, how many people are
    citizens and how many are not; is that correct?
        Mr. Dillingham. That is exactly correct, except for the
    fact that we encourage everyone to complete all the questions
    on the form.
        Mrs. Lowey. I know that, but if a person is a non-citizen
    in a building, whether there are 50 percent, 30 percent, 20
    percent--and there have been pickups by ICE in these
    communities--your responsibility is to count the numbers and
    you have no order or directive based on information you have
    gotten by responsible leaders to report to Secretary Ross how
    many people did not respond to the citizenship question and,
    based on your advice or assistance, 50 percent are not
    citizens, you have no directive to do that?
        Mr. Dillingham. You are exactly correct, Chairwoman.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Serrano. And before I go to Mr. Aderholt, please
    forgive me for this, but I can't pass this up.
        So we know that you are not supposed to give information
    out by law, but there is a reason for putting that question
    there. On down the line, it will give us a lot of information
    about who we are as a people; what we look like, where we come
    from, how many of us were born overseas, how many were born
    here. Why do I fear that at some point you would also say X
    amount are not citizens and X amount are undocumented, which
    you are not supposed to do in the Constitution, regardless of
    what the court does now, they may have to rewrite that part of
    the Constitution to just count the people amongst the states,
    nothing else.
        So you are telling her--and I want this on the record again
    and then I will close--that you have no instructions, the
    Census Bureau, to take citizenship question information and
    pass it on to the Administration or to someone else?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly correct.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
        Director Dillingham and Associate Director Smith, I will
    direct this question to you all. Unfortunately, about 80
    percent of the 24 million American households don't have
    reliable, affordable, high-speed Internet that live in rural
    areas, and it is easy for individuals who reside in cities and
    suburbs to overlook the fact that many of our rural
    communities, particularly in my home state of Alabama, still
    lack broadband Internet technology, whether it is to educate
    their children, expand their businesses, whatever the case may
    be, and not to mention respond to a census.
        Can you talk a little bit about what you are doing to
    really concentrate on those rural areas where there is no
    Internet technology and how you can make sure that you can have
    those accurately counted?
        Mr. Dillingham. Ranking Member, thank you for that
    question, it is an excellent question. We do have special plans
    for rural areas and we consider them part and parcel with the
    hard-to-count areas. So if people, residential areas do not
    have much connectivity, we have a separate process by which we
    process the collection of the data, and that is that we have a
    process where in the first instance we have about five contacts
    we make with these people by mail, but we will send out in the
    first instance--if connectivity is low, we will send out a
    letter and instructions along with the census form.
        So in the other areas, in the other 80 percent of the
    areas, we typically wait until the fourth contact, because we
    encourage people to go online or get on their phone and to
    answer the census, but we do it in those areas, those special
    areas where we provide the form up front and then again, on the
    fourth contact, we give them the form again. But, in addition
    to that, we also are educating the people and notifying in the
    correspondence and through our partnership specialists, as well
    as through our media, that they can make a phone call. And in
    many of those areas they have access to phones or they know
    people who do have access to phones, so they can answer the
    census by phone.
        And then, finally, we have the non-response follow-up. So
    if we don't get responses by the Internet, if we don't get
    responses by phone, if we don't get the written responses, then
    ultimately we do send people out and they will knock on doors.
    So that is the more expensive way of getting the information
    and contacting them. So we expect that people with limited
    connectivity that we will reach--we will collect much of that
    information electronically regardless, but we will encourage
    and we will do the follow-up needed to make sure we reach them.
        Mr. Aderholt. Well, all of us as Members, we talk to
    groups, you know, constantly, whether they be groups from our
    constituencies that are in Washington or back in our districts
    that are talking to different groups, what can we do to help in
    this regard? Not just in regard to those who do not have
    Internet, but just in general.
        Mr. Dillingham. Well, there are a couple of things. And
    one, as a Member of Congress, we will be distributing some kits
    to your offices on how congressional offices can particularly
    be of assistance and how they can work with the partnership
    groups more closely, but most importantly is really the public
    message that completing the census is easy. You have got three
    ways now, very easy; if you do have the Internet access, you
    can do it by phone, or you can do it in the traditional written
    form.
        So that is the first time, this is the first time where
    most of the information that we will be collecting is going to
    be collected electronically, and stored and transmitted
    electronically, and protected electronically. But the easiness
    is a very important message.
        The safety, particularly as the chairwoman and as the
    chairman here have pointed out, there is a concern about
    possible fears in the community, we want to make sure they
    understood the dialogue that we just had is that this
    information is protected, only for statistical purposes will it
    be used, it will not be shared with other agencies, and their
    identities, the confidentiality will be protected in a number
    of ways, and some ways are brand new ways with the latest
    technologies that we might discuss with you later. But it is
    easy, it is safe, and then it is important.
        We also want to encourage, the theme of this year's
    campaign is ``Shape your future, start here.'' So you will see
    that in the creative media commercials, you will see it in
    print, you will hear it on the radio, you will see it in the
    social media. ``Shape your future, start here.'' So we are
    encouraging people to know and the stakeholder groups to
    understand how important these data are. We are going to need
    to reinforce that message that it is in their interest, it is
    in their community's interest, it is in their group interest,
    community interest, and many of the partners that we have are
    spreading that word.
        We are working with the libraries across the Nation, they
    are going to be assisting, they are going to make their
    computers available. So in some of those areas that may be more
    remote, there is usually at least a library in those areas, and
    the libraries of America are going to be our partners.
        So there are a number of ways we are going to reach those
    people and encourage. And the message that I would leave is,
    again, the simplification; easy, safe, and important. And that
    is kind of the theme that we are reinforcing.
        Mr. Aderholt. You mentioned these kits that you will be
    distributing to Members of Congress----
        Mr. Dillingham. Yes.
        Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. When will those be available?
        Mr. Dillingham. My understanding is within a matter of
    weeks, it could be a month or two, but I will be checking into
    that. I have asked that question and it will be in relatively
    short order, this summer you will----
        Mr. Aderholt. And, again, these kits will help us do what
    now?
        Mr. Dillingham. They will help congressional districts to
    help organize, work with the partners; they will also tell you
    more about what we have online and on the website, how you can
    track your districts and you will know the tracts that are
    hard-to-count populations. So you can just go right online and
    see that in my district I have these tracts that where the
    self-response rate is lower than my district, and you can make
    special efforts in those areas. But our partnership specialists
    will be working with you on that and our media campaign will be
    devoting resources directly to that.
        Mr. Aderholt. And I understand this is the first time that
    the questionnaires for the census will be electronic and not
    paper; is that correct?
        Mr. Dillingham. Well, you have the option, you have the
    options. You can certainly do it by paper, if that is what you
    would like to do----
        Mr. Aderholt. But, historically, it has always been paper,
    right?
        Mr. Dillingham. That is correct, that is correct.
        Mr. Aderholt. So this is the first time that it won't be--
    --
        Mr. Dillingham. The first time the Internet and the phone
    will be used.
        Mr. Aderholt. Has there been any discussion about backup on
    paper, so when this in the future is studied--when it is
    released--of course eventually, after how many years is it,
    that you can--70 years or----
        Mr. Dillingham. Seventy two years.
        Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Seventy two years, you know,
    obviously we are seeing results from 72 years ago now, but this
    will be very important to look back for historical reasons. Is
    there any--has there been any that this will be backed up on
    paper?
        No paper copies are stored. The Census Bureau works with
    the National Archives and Records Administration to ensure
    records are stored in a format that is retrievable in the
    future.
        Mr. Dillingham. I could--I am not certain. Let me get back
    to you, but I don't know what the printed products might be
    with the actual data, but we have the electronic data. I
    haven't been briefed exactly if we are going to be storing that
    information in another form.
        Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, the reason I ask that, in 72 years, I
    have a feeling the electronics they will use then will be
    different from what we use today.
        Mr. Dillingham. Exactly.
        Mr. Aderholt. So, you know, I think it is--you know, I am
    thinking from a historical standpoint now, not from----
        Mr. Dillingham. I can assure you, the Census Bureau, as the
    Nation's largest collector of data and information, will have
    ways that people will be able to access and even the electronic
    data will be able to access. But let me ask our CIO if he may
    have some other insights on this.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
        Mr. Smith. Yes, good morning. I just wanted to add that
    within technology changes and backing up of electronic data,
    there are absolutely migration paths to use the more modern
    technology. So electronic records have been stored for long
    periods of time, 70 years, 90 years are some of the
    stipulations people have, and there are technology ways to move
    from old technology to new technology to keep that data
    electronically archived to the right period of time.
        Mr. Aderholt. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Case.
        Mr. Case. Good morning, Dr. Dillingham. Can I follow up,
    please, on my committee and subcommittee chairs' questions on
    citizenship, but not only citizenship, because you have assured
    us that information will not be shared and I take by that that
    you are referring to individual information; however, the
    census does report its results.
        Mr. Dillingham. That is correct.
        Mr. Case. And so, therefore, if you ask a citizenship
    question or any other question for that matter, ethnicity,
    income, there is a report, a public report of that information.
    So there will be a public report, I would assume, at some level
    if the citizenship question is on the census of where people
    are or are not citizens; correct?
        Mr. Dillingham. We will have aggregate data that sometimes
    will be geographic, that is correct.
        Mr. Case. Okay. And so my question then is, how granular is
    that aggregate data? Do you report down to the tract level or
    do you report lower than that?
        And where I am obviously going with this is, okay, fine,
    you talk about the individual data not being available;
    however, at some level, there is a pretty good interpolation of
    the data reported to make inferences as to some level of
    specificity, and I am wondering how specific that is and what
    the policy judgments are behind that specificity, and the
    consequences.
        Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, that is an excellent question,
    and things are changing in that regard. There is an interest
    and there are some people, particularly researchers and other,
    that want the most granular data possible. And we collect data
    by the blocks, we aggregate blocks, and then we have tracts.
        One of the new protections we are putting in place as a
    result of our research was that we do not want in the future
    people with great computer capabilities and with other data
    sets to try to match the data and try to figure out and
    identify individuals. So one of the tradeoffs that we have in
    protecting data, and we call this disclosure avoidance, is that
    we actually inject noise into the data at the lowest levels. So
    that that data at the lowest level, perhaps at a block level,
    will not be accurate at that level, but when you aggregate the
    data at a certain level it will have increased accuracy.
        Mr. Case. Okay, so let me just cut to the chase here. At
    what level do you actually report the results, is it at the
    tract level? So, in other words, X tract somewhere in Y state
    has 20 percent non-citizens in it, what level is that at?
        Mr. Dillingham. My understanding is that we are focused on
    the tract level, but exactly the format by which and in the
    units by which it will be tabulated I would have to get back to
    you. But it is a change from past practice and we do have some
    data users that have legitimate concerns that they will not
    have the granularity that they once had.
        Mr. Case. I do understand the tradeoff, so--and by the way,
    I am not making a policy judgment, at least in these questions,
    about citizenship or anything else, I am just trying to
    understand what is that tradeoff.
        And, following up on that, have you considered with a
    question as controversial as citizenship--and there are two
    sides to that argument--have you considered injecting more
    noise at a higher level for a particular question that is a
    more sensitive question, so that it cannot be traced back with
    such granularity as, for example, I can look up the last census
    and identify with some specificity how many Japanese Americans
    are living in Y tract in downtown Honolulu. Have you considered
    elevating the noise to a higher level than tract to address the
    concerns over the misuse of this data--public data, by the way?
        Mr. Dillingham. Congressman, we haven't made a
    determination yet as to the level. We are still continuing to
    study it with some of the best minds in the country and we can
    get back and advise you of where we are in that process, but as
    of yet we have not decided. We view it somewhat as a dial and
    you have to set the dial on a certain level of protection.
        And the intent here and the reason we are doing this and
    employing the newest and best techniques from high-tech
    industry and from academics is just for that purpose of
    protecting people for any question identifying individual
    answers to those things, but we will have aggregate data for
    some geographical area that will reflect answers to the
    questions.
        Mr. Case. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Ms. Roby.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, thank you for making time to be with us this
    morning and to speak before this committee. Of course, as been
    said I'm sure multiple times in my absence, we are almost
    exactly one year to the date from the next year's census. And I
    am sure you are aware Alabama is a state that has some concerns
    that we could potentially lose a congressional seat which has
    more than just the obvious implications. I mean, as you can
    see, you have already talked to my colleague from Alabama, you
    have two of us sitting up here this morning. And so I just want
    to highlight the census and its future outcome further.
        In the 2010 Census, Alabama did not do as good of a job as
    we could for accounting for all of its people, especially our
    youngest population, children below the age of six, but
    particularly in rural communities. So we have to make sure that
    that is not the case again in next year's count.
        And I know Mr. Aderholt already talked about the issue of
    rural Alabama, rural America, and my understanding is that
    there will be a strong focus on advertising and the use of
    social media platforms to get the word out regarding the
    census. But you need to know, rural America doesn't always have
    access to social media platforms, because they don't have
    access to broadband, which is going to be a challenge in order
    to make sure that folks are aware of what is going on.
        So I just want to give you the opportunity to talk about
    what methods do you have to build in to make sure that these
    rural areas get the message and particularly those that may not
    have access to the Internet or to social media platforms, what
    is the plan?
        Mr. Dillingham. Thank you very much for that question,
    Congresswoman, and I do note there is a joinder of interest
    with the other member here in this area.
        So, we had a previous discussion on the rural areas and
    some of the challenges. You correctly point out that the
    undercount of children is a major concern. That is a hard-to-
    reach population, and we are doing a number of things both,
    nationally and locally, and working with our partners.
        I have meetings this afternoon, as a matter of fact, with
    The Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, who has been
    leading in this area for making sure we remedy the undercount
    and potential undercount of children. We are working with
    partners everywhere, the medical community, the pediatrics
    associations. Just on Sunday morning, the deputy director was
    over in Baltimore at Pediatrics Association meeting and they
    are very interested in what they can do.
        We have Statistics in Schools program where we are working
    with the educational communities. We are trying to educate from
    a variety of perspectives, particularly the importance of
    counting children in households. And it is using that
    population, it is very difficult. There are nontraditional
    family structures these days and sometimes, without any
    intention whatsoever, we are getting an undercount because the
    children may be with the grandmother or a trusted family friend
    and they may not consider them their children, so they don't
    count them.
        So we are training our enumerators and we are training
    others to make sure we get a complete count, particularly with
    the undercount problem with children, up until age 5--that is a
    particular concern--but there are other communities and,
    certainly, the rural areas, as we mentioned, we are going to
    use all the media we can, the radio, et cetera, so even though
    the television coverage may be limited in some areas, we want
    to use the radio.
        We do use the social media, but as you say, if the
    connectivity is low, we have to have other ways to reach them.
    We do that through our partnerships. So, we have an integrated
    campaign with our media and our partners. So, we have almost
    double the number of partnership specialists. We should have--
    we will have partners in every state and there will be
    partnerships, numerous partnerships reaching every
    congressional district. And when we send out the tool kits and
    stuff, it will explain this in greater detail.
        Mrs. Roby. And just lastly--and I appreciate your answer
    and I hope you will keep us posted on any additional
    developments there--but Alabama and other states across our
    country have been beaten with hurricanes and tornados and other
    powerful storms. There has been flooding throughout the Midwest
    and fires throughout California. So, what is the Census Bureau
    as it relates to make sure that those displaced from their
    homes as a result of a national disaster being included in next
    year's count?
        Mr. Dillingham. Again, Congresswoman, that is an excellent
    question. I know there is a particular interest with Puerto
    Rico and we have special procedures we are going to implement
    where we reach and we verify the address. Physically, someone
    will go to those residences, they will verify the address, and
    they will also leave information for completing the census,
    including the census form. So, we call that update leave. So,
    that is where we have people that actually go to every address.
        There is such an area in Florida. There is one in
    California that was subject to the terrible fires in
    California. And should something else occur between now and
    during the collection of that information, we will have that
    resource available.
        Mrs. Roby. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, again, for being
    here.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Crist.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panel
    for being here today. I appreciate your cooperation.
        Dr. Dillingham, do you agree that the key to an accurate
    and successful census is making sure every single person is, in
    fact, counted?
        Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely. That is our number one goal.
        Mr. Crist. And do you agree that minority, immigrant, low-
    income, and rural communities tend to be some of the most
    difficult to count, but that those communities often have the
    most at stake in the census since the data is used to
    distribute federal resources and support programs?
        Mr. Dillingham. Congressman Crist, we consider the hard-to-
    count population our number one priority and we are going to be
    working and targeting those populations. And one of the
    benefits, as just pointed out with our innovations, is now we
    can take the capacity to respond to the census directly into
    the community. They don't have to leave the community. They
    don't have to go up to a brick-and-mortar office somewhere else
    in the city or somewhere else in the area. We want to reach
    them directly and through their internet, through their
    telephones, et cetera, we hope they will be able to answer. We
    will encourage them to answer, working with our partners, from
    wherever they are, whenever they want to.
        Mr. Crist. Are you going to dedicate additional resources
    for that purpose?
        Mr. Dillingham. We have almost doubled our partnership
    specialists.
        Mr. Crist. I don't know what that means.
        Mr. Dillingham. Where we have a partnership--well,
    partnership specialists, we have almost doubled--but we are
    increasing our partnerships. We have national partners. As you
    are well aware in Florida, we have a state commission for a
    complete count. In the local areas, we have local complete-
    count committees, but apart from that, we also have national
    partners and we have local partners, and we envision more than
    300,000 partners.
        So, when I saw a list the other day when I was in New York
    City and we are looking at--I don't want to miss the number
    here--but there were at least 5 dozen partners already with the
    chairman's district where a list that we have, people working
    in his congressional district that are already partnering with
    us. So, the outreach through the partnerships are so valuable.
    I can't stress that enough. Without the partnerships, we would
    not be able to nearly as effectively reach those hard-to-count
    populations.
        Mr. Crist. Okay. Thank you. And you have stated that you
    are going to have an advertising campaign to try to make people
    aware to not be concerned or frightened or worried about the
    census and that it will be easy. I imagine you have a budget
    already dedicated for that; how much is that budget?
        Mr. Dillingham. Our immediate outreach budget is about a
    half billion dollars. It is the largest budget ever. I think
    the last decennial census, it was somewhere around $350
    million. So, it is a substantial investment and we think it
    will prove to be a very wise investment.
        Mr. Crist. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I wanted to
    ask you, federal agencies rely on the census data to make
    decisions about law enforcement, health care, equal employment
    opportunities, among other things, and that LGBTQ people have
    needs and experiences unique to their communities. LGBTQ
    advocates have long pushed for questions regarding sexual
    orientation, gender identity to be included on the census.
        In 2017, the Census Bureau appeared to propose including
    those types of questions in the ``Subjects Planned for the 2020
    Census Report.'' Then almost as quickly as the questions were
    added, they disappeared. I know this happened before your
    tenure began, but in response, the Census Bureau released a
    statement calling the LGBTQ inclusion, ``a mistake.''
        Do you consider including questions about a marginalized,
    vulnerable, and disenfranchised population a mistake,
    particularly, if it helps to direct needed resources to the
    appropriate locations?
        Mr. Dillingham. Congressman Crist, that is a topic that we
    work closely with those communities and we have representatives
    of those communities on our advisory board. They are also very
    prominent members of our stakeholders groups and they are
    partnering with us in many different ways.
        The working of this decennial census has been decided. It
    was decided and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
    a few years ago, and so the wording will not change for this
    decennial census.
        But our outreach to those communities will change. We are
    going to make sure that our trusted partners in all of those
    communities are working with us and ensuring that their
    communities know the importance, as you well pointed out, the
    importance of this data. So, the data is important in so many
    different ways--not just with government, but even in the
    private sector, even in individual decisions and community
    decisions. But the particular community, the LGBTQ community,
    that information is not collected in this decennial census.
        But we do have some changes in the census. We do ask people
    about the sex of their spouse, and if it is a same-sex spouse,
    they can mark it on the census. But that doesn't resolve the
    issues of the future about where might the wording go. I can
    tell you that we have a number of people that are studying
    this. We will continue to study this. We will continue to work
    with those groups and we will look at options and certainly
    consider in the future how those questions might be asked.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Ms. Lawrence.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Director Dillingham, you were in Detroit
    recently and thank you----
        Mr. Dillingham. I very much appreciate that visit and I
    appreciate your attending that function.
        Mrs. Lawrence. And I appreciate you being there because the
    concern that we have, as one of the hard-to-count communities,
    and as my colleague had said, being one of those communities
    that need it the most, during your visit, you were talking
    about the questionnaire assistance centers. I want to know--my
    question is, how many locations will there be? How many staff
    hours will be devoted? And do you have a plan yet to roll those
    out? And when can we expect to receive the plan?
        Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, first let me express my
    pleasure with the meeting in Detroit. I learned so much about
    Detroit. I learned so much about the hard-to-count areas.
    Saturday morning we went on tours of the hard-to-count areas in
    Detroit, along with the city officials and partners. We learned
    so much.
        Detroit has unique residential needs. There is much being
    done in Detroit, particularly, the revitalization, but in those
    neighborhoods, Detroit, as you well know, is more than 140
    square miles.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
        Mr. Dillingham. It is lost more than a million in
    population. It has lost population every census since 1950.
    When the manufacturing that kind of dried up in Detroit, it
    created unique challenges in those neighborhoods and we saw
    those challenges. And we are very pleased to see the partners
    and appreciate them educating us to those challenges. Detroit
    is--you can argue that every city is unique--but Detroit, going
    through a bankruptcy, et cetera, is a very unique city
    situation.
        Now, the hard-to-reach populations there--and this gets
    back to sort of if I have a theme here--is that we want to take
    the capacity directly into those communities. When I went
    through the districts, the relatively new districts in Detroit,
    we saw civic centers that were vibrant. We saw areas where
    people got together. There were still active churches and
    houses of worship in Detroit.
        And we think we need to get the capacity directly to the
    people in those communities where they can complete the census.
    And we can do it with laptops. We can do it with phones. And we
    can do it with partners.
        Mrs. Lawrence. So, those community centers will be
    officially the assistance centers?
        Mr. Dillingham. Well, let me explain that the
    Appropriations Committee has asked us to look at two options,
    to study two options.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Okay.
        Mr. Dillingham. If we had enhanced resources, where would
    we recommend applying them and what's our assessment. When we
    looked at the questionnaire assistance centers, we recommended
    that we would not be taking action, that it was not feasible.
    That by the time you go through the process of getting the
    leases, et cetera, a year-long process--a year-and-a-half-long
    process, it really wasn't as cost-effective as we would have
    hoped.
        Mrs. Lawrence. So, we are not going to do them?
        Mr. Dillingham. Well, we are going to do--every--we are
    going to have partnerships and we are going to have resources
    with every library. Libraries across the nation will be open
    for business in helping to explain and helping to assist,
    including internet use.
        We are going to have other areas. We have partnership
    specialists in Detroit. We want to beef that up, and we have
    the multitude of partners--
        Mrs. Lawrence. So, Director, I do want to put this concern.
        Mr. Dillingham. Okay.
        Mrs. Lawrence. One of the things, using a library, a lot of
    our public libraries, especially in the poorer neighborhoods,
    have been closed or have limited hours; they are only open so
    many days a week. It is important that we create that sense of
    energy in those communities.
        Now, I didn't know you weren't going to do the assistance
    centers, but we need to plan. Because for us to be partners in
    those communities, we need to know where they are and how we
    support it, and I am concerned about the time. So, we are
    rapidly approaching, and so we can't be talking about this.
    They should be identified and then we, you know, as a member of
    Congress, I can monitor and engage and make sure that I am
    being supportive.
        So, when will I know where you are a partner and where they
    are going to be?
        Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, we delivered a report to the
    committee yesterday. My understanding is that it was delivered
    yesterday in response to the Appropriations' request on how we
    could beef up partnerships if additional resources were added.
    So, there is a plan there.
        But I can tell you we have an existing plan by almost
    doubling our partnership specialists in those communities, but
    we did submit to the record--it was requested by Appropriations
    that we present a plan on what we would do with partnerships.
    And that plan actually conceptually, I think, is very promising
    for the circumstances and issues you point out.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Again, promising is one thing. I am very
    concerned about the presence in the community, I tell you, I
    want to see, once we do our work and the funds are approved, I
    expect a fast turnaround to identify these communities--places
    where you are going to be. And I can't tell you--this leads
    into my last point here--is that where are we in the timeline
    of being effective?
        Because we are far behind the census. That, as a mayor of a
    city, I was far ahead--further ahead than I am now. So, I don't
    want excuses. I don't want, Well, you know, we don't have a
    plan yet, and then I get the pushback from the communities. I
    get calls every day that people are so concerned about us not
    being able to do a full count.
        Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, we do have a plan. What I
    was referring to was the committee asked us for an additional
    plan if other circumstances occurred. The plan--and I think it
    was a good evidence, the meeting we had----
        Mrs. Lawrence. It was a good meeting.
        Mr. Dillingham. All the partners in the communities that
    want to work with us, the ones that took us through the city of
    Detroit and showed us those special areas, they are going to be
    our partners.
        On our partnership-specialists hiring, I was informed this
    morning that we have over 900 that are either hired or in the
    process; they have accepted those jobs. So, out of the 1,501,
    we have more than 900 being hired.
        That being said, what is important, as you well point out,
    is not just having the plan, but it is executing that plan.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
        Mr. Dillingham. So, we want to work with all the partners
    in the Detroit area, as well as all areas, in carrying out that
    plan. And as I mentioned, the partners are absolutely
    essential, and to the extent we can better coordinate and
    assist those partners, the better.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
        Mr. Serrano. Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Dr. Dillingham and your staff. Could you explain
    to me, why is the information from the U.S. Postal Service not
    sufficient to provide you with your base maps and where you
    send information on the census?
        Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, the information from the
    Postal Office is very helpful, very valuable, but we have to
    reach everyone and it actually is not quite sufficient. So, not
    only do we use the postal information, there are rural
    communities and other locations for which there may be
    mailboxes and other things that need to be coordinated. So, not
    all residences actually are on the mail list.
        As I recall--I could be wrong on this--something like that
    87 percent are accounted for by the postal mail addresses, but
    we need to--it may be higher--but we need to add to that and we
    do add to that. We do aerial surveillance. We do a lot of
    different ways to find out where people are living and
    sometimes we actually--this morning, someone was discussing
    with me in certain areas of the country where people are mobile
    where they are living. They are actually traveling in
    recreational vehicles and living out of those vehicles. So, we
    have to capture them, even where there isn't a mailing address.
        Ms. Kaptur. So, driver's licenses are important, perhaps?
        Mr. Dillingham. Title 13 tells us that we are to use
    administrative data to the maximum extent possible to help
    carry out our surveys and our censuses, and so we do that. We
    do various datasets and federal agencies share data with us, et
    cetera, so we can verify certain essentially information,
    including addresses.
        Ms. Kaptur. It is good to know, though, that it sounds like
    over 80 percent of the households you need to reach would be at
    addresses that the Postal Service has, they are very important.
        Mr. Dillingham. It may be higher than that.
        Ms. Kaptur. They are very, very important in your work.
        In past census documents, there were, on the--not the short
    form, but the long form, the ability of a family to indicate
    its heritage if they chose to do that. Will that be on this
    year's census?
        Mr. Dillingham. The questions that we have on this year's
    census, we do have race and ethnicity--two separate questions--
    and we have--there is the ability for people to write in. So,
    we have an ``other'' category, and we also have where people
    can write in their answer.
        Ms. Kaptur. But you are not providing the list--
        Mr. Dillingham. No, we provide a list, a relatively
    comprehensive list----
        Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
        Mr. Dillingham [continuing]. But at the same time,
    actually--there are some anomalies in the historic research
    that sometimes, over time, people actually can change their
    race and ethnicity, as to how they report it.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for that statement.
        I was looking for--you had in your testimony, you--oh, here
    we go. On page 6, you talk about the various organizations you
    are partnering with--the Library Association, Boys & Girls
    Clubs, Latino Elected Officials. I represent a region where we
    have vast ethnic and racial diversity, so I am just going to
    tick off some groups and tell me if you think you would partner
    with some of these organizations: Albanian, Lebanese, Puerto
    Rican--we have many, many--maybe Congressman Serrano already
    went over this--I don't know--but as a result of the tragedies
    in Puerto Rico, we have many, many citizens moving to Ohio,
    literally, thousands, and so, that would be an important
    organizational category--Polish, Turkish, Arab-American,
    Hungarian. I can't speak for Congresswoman Beatty in Columbus,
    but there are several new immigrants from countries in Africa.
        And so, I guess my question is, how are you linking to the
    national organizations or state organizations that these
    individuals belong to? How do you link to them?
        Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, we are doing it in many,
    many different ways. Just by way of example, when I was in
    Chicago, I went to a focus group where we were discussing the
    census with the Polish community in their language. This was a
    group, a focus group with people that did not speak English,
    but spoke Polish. And so, we have more than 100 focus groups
    across the nation where we are looking at these communities and
    talking with them.
        And sometimes it is very important because in our
    instructions and in our outreach media, one word can matter. It
    can be that a translator would want to use this word, maybe
    with an academic background, but the community may have a
    different interpretation of that word. So, only in our
    materials in our outreach, but, particularly, in our
    partnerships, we invite all of those communities to partner
    with us.
        So, if there are associations and groups, our partnership
    specialists actually will be hiring from those communities. We
    are making every effort that we hire people from those
    communities, as our enumerators, as well.
        Ms. Kaptur. Excuse me, and would you permit the members of
    the Ohio delegation, on a bipartisan basis, to give you a list
    of the groups they are aware of in Ohio?
        Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely.
        Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
        Mr. Dillingham. And we will give you further information
    how we have engaged in outreach to date, but we would be glad
    to work with those groups.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. I thank you. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Ms. Meng.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Director, and all of you for being here and
    your service, as well. I wanted to sort of piggyback off of
    what Congresswoman Kaptur was talking about in terms of
    partnering with local organizations, especially in these
    communities of color, immigrant communities. It remains
    imperative that the Federal Government take its responsibility
    seriously and continue to invest and engage in these hard-to-
    count communities over the next year. I appreciate you going
    around the country. I know that you were in New York last week,
    as well, and I thank you for engaging.
        I wanted to talk about the partnership plan and where the
    Census Bureau is in its hiring process for partnership staff
    and are you on track.
        Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, again, that is an excellent
    question. We did experience some delay in setting up the
    partnership specialists and bringing them onboard. Within a
    month, we will be back on track. We had very ambitious goals.
        As I mentioned, this morning I was informed that we had
    more than 900 either hired or had accepted the positions. So,
    out of the 1,500, we have about two-thirds that will soon be
    operational.
        But we do have already--and when I did do a tour of the
    areas of New York City, including your district, we did have
    partnership specialists in place in some of those areas. And as
    a matter of fact, I was in a van and we pulled over to the curb
    and I spoke for the New York region, which includes New York,
    all the way through Maine, I spoke to some 96 partnership
    specialists who were on the phone and I was encouraging them
    and commending them for the job they are doing.
        So, that is a very important area, and we are looking at
    other ways to make sure that these partnership specialists are
    working with the partners. I was looking--I thought I might
    have the list from your district--but I did see a lengthy list
    of partners in your area and I am sure--and I am told that list
    is growing daily.
        So, we appreciate the members of Congress that assisting
    and their staffs that are assisting with these partnership
    efforts. And it is a good way for both, the Congress to stay
    involved with what's going on in their districts, and for these
    people to express their opinions about the needs and the
    coordination, et cetera.
        So, we think we know we devoted more resources to
    partnerships than ever before. We think nationally, when we
    combine all the partnerships at the national, state, and local
    government level, and the community level, that we will have
    more than 300,000, which will be a significant increase over
    the last decennial census.
        But bringing on all those partners also creates work. So,
    we will need to coordinate that work and make sure that our
    partnership specialists are both, skilled at it and committed
    to it, and I think you will find that they are.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you. I want to echo Congresswoman Kaptur's
    request in relation to New York. If we can be helpful in
    working with you on this growing list of partnership
    organizations.
        But I also specifically wanted to find out about the
    seemingly lack of language support for native Hawaiians and
    Pacific Islanders, as well as Alaska natives and American
    Indians, outside of Navajo. We are told that the Census Bureau
    is not providing translated-language assistance guides, whether
    in print or video, for these communities.
        Mr. Dillingham. Well, we are in the process of ensuring--
    and some of the translation services, I am not sure they have
    completed this yet--but we will offer the census questionnaire
    in 13 languages, including English. And that reaches more than
    99 percent of the nation's households. But in addition to that,
    we will have translated materials in 59 supported languages. I
    am told that those materials will represent languages spoken by
    2,000 or more limited-english-speaking households.
        In addition to that, though, our partnership specialists
    are tasked with finding how to reach--if they find these
    communities, say it is 100 people in a community with a special
    language not covered by the materials and not covered by the
    questionnaires, then we will find trusted sources in that
    community. If it is sizable enough in some instances,
    particularly in tribal areas, we will hire partnership
    specialists from those communities. But in the event that we
    don't have a specialist that has that language, we will find
    someone with that language skill. And so, we have the ability
    to contract and hire on a temporary basis, people with those
    language skills, once we identify them, and that is part of the
    responsibility of the partnership specialists.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you. And I will just quickly ask the last
    part of my questioning. Last year's hearing before the
    subcommittee, then Acting Director Jarmin confirmed two things;
    one, that unanswered survey questions were marked as ``identity
    non-response'' and, two, not answering some questions on the
    census survey would not negate the entire survey response, but
    responses to answered questions would still be tabulated.
        About 2 months ago, Chairman Serrano and I sent a letter
    urgency you to publicly confirm that full consideration and
    count of household census survey responses will be conducted
    regardless of any potential unanswered questions in the form.
    We are still awaiting a response to this letter. Do you know
    why or what has the commerce secretary instructed officials of
    the Census Bureau in relation to this issue?
        Mr. Dillingham. Congresswoman, the deputy director's
    observations were correct. I apologize if the committee has not
    yet received our response. I had been advised that the response
    would be issued in short order recently, we will be getting you
    a response on that.
        Ms. Meng. Okay. Do you know now, before the letter--and I
    appreciate your response.
        Mr. Dillingham. The deputy director had a correct answer to
    that question.
        Ms. Meng. Okay. So, if the citizenship question is added to
    the 2020 Decennial Census and it happens to be left unanswered
    on the survey, would that survey still be counted?
        Mr. Dillingham. I can assure you that we encourage everyone
    to answer all questions.
        Ms. Meng. Yes.
        Mr. Dillingham. But it is the historical practice of the
    Census Bureau in all censuses and surveys that we have varying
    rates at which questions are answered, and sometimes we can
    detect that some answers may not be fully accurate. So, we do
    accommodate that. We have some of the best and brightest that
    work on resolving that, but we will accept the information
    online, on the phone, or on paper that may have some areas that
    are not totally complete.
        Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Director, your budget request for the 2020 Census is $6.149
    billion, which is significantly less than your life-cycle cost
    estimate and does not include a contingency fund that the
    secretary had previously asked for. Given the uncertainty and
    controversy surrounding this census under this administration,
    how can you justify these proposed reductions?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for asking
    that question, and let me thank the GAO who is always
    encouraging us and pointing out the wisdom in having a complete
    and accurate cost estimate. And we do go through the process
    and use the procedures prescribed by the GAO, very elaborate
    procedures, making sure that our cost estimates are well-
    documented, that they are accurate, they are credible, and they
    are comprehensive.
        As you pointed out correctly, the earlier estimate for the
    total cost of the census about at about $12.5 billion and that
    was in 2015. The secretary, when he came in, he wanted a re-
    examination of that and wanted to make sure that we have
    sufficient resources to get the job done.
        As a result of that both, the Census Bureau and the
    Department of Congress, applied their best talents to that
    process and they developed and they reconciled an independent
    cost estimate. And that independent cost estimate was $14.1
    billion, and then the secretary subsequently, based on his
    business experience and business acumen, wanted even that re-
    examined and to see if there might be a need for additional
    funding. So, there was a $15.6 billion life-cycle cost estimate
    that was developed.
        And it really was an extension of the independent cost
    estimate with adding some additional contingencies and those
    contingencies were considered to be the unknowns. What if
    something that we can't project happens? An example might be a
    natural disaster, something of that magnitude. Would it be
    advisable to have funds built into the budget for such a
    purpose?
        Well, the current budget request is built on the $14.1
    billion independent cost estimate that the Bureau and the
    Department has agreed to that followed the GAO guidance. Over
    time, built on successes and time-tested operations, some of
    the built-in contingencies that we had expected did not occur.
        So, now we are at the stage of execution. So, now we are
    less than a year away. We haven't incurred those contingencies,
    yet we still have a little over a billion dollars in a
    contingency fund. So, if, as a result of our current research
    this summer or other factors, we have to shift some areas of
    responsibilities, some priorities, we do have, basically, a
    billion dollars in contingency funding and some of that comes
    from the carryover funds that this committee has approved for
    us.
        So, we currently are very confident, based on our
    experience and considering the contingencies and rationale
    built into the independent cost estimate, that it can get the
    job done. So, we can get the job done. We are projecting
    getting the job done at $14.1 billion, total life-cycle cost,
    built on the independent cost estimate, but it is at a total
    figure that was below what had been considered.
        So, we haven't had those contingencies. We don't think we
    are going to experience those contingencies. We have a
    contingency budget that we think can accommodate some
    variations in the self-response rate, which is one of the
    primary considerations, and that is why the current budget
    request is based on and consistent with the $14.1 billion
    independent cost estimate.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, it is very important, Director, that the
    Bureau stay in touch with us and with our staff to let us know
    how things are going. Because what we don't want as
    legislators, staff doesn't want it, and you don't want is for
    people to say we short-changed the census after all the fuss we
    made about getting a fair and accurate count. So, please don't
    be--I can't believe I am saying this--don't be shy about
    asking, OK?
        Mr. Dillingham. Chairman, we appreciate that.
        Mr. Serrano. I didn't say that.
        Director Dillingham, a critical component of adding a new
    question to the census is testing it. Unfortunately, a
    citizenship question will only be tested for the first time
    this summer with results that will come in too late to mitigate
    impacts. What is Commerce's plan if the results of this test
    conclude that self-response rates in 2020 will be far lower
    than what is currently assumed and budgeted for? For that
    matter, will the test be cancelled if the Supreme Court finds
    that the citizenship question should not be included in the
    census?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, we think the test that we are
    doing this summer and the research and analytics associated
    with it are very prudent, because we want to see if something
    that we had not projected occurs in administering the census
    with the question, as well as without.
        This test will be completed regardless. It is going to
    inform us to the future. It will provide very valuable
    information. But it is--it does have--it instigated for
    purposes of operational needs. If we see area in which we need
    to devote more resources, that is what we intend to do.
        So, we think it is going to be very valuable to conduct
    that research, to use that research to see if we see a need,
    and then we have the one-billion-dollar contingency fund that
    we can, within certain parameters, accommodate those findings
    from that research. If there is some percentage-point drop in
    the self-response rate, we have a cushion built into the
    contingency funding that we can accommodate that. We are not
    expecting anything dramatic outside of those parameters, and so
    we think we are on course for doing a complete count.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
        Mr. Goldenkoff or Mr. Marinos, with respect to the 2019
    census test, what will GAO be looking for in terms of how this
    test and its results can be utilized, given the results won't
    be available until October?
        Mr. Goldenkoff. We are going to be looking at the rigor of
    the test. We have looked at it on its face, and so far, the
    methodology appears to have some face validity to it. As Dr.
    Dillingham already mentioned, the purpose of the test was to
    look to see what the citizenship question, how that might
    affect the non-response follow-up workload and some of the
    additional operational requirements that might be needed. So,
    it will be looking at the results and then we will see how the
    Census Bureau is reacting to the results of the test; the
    extent to which they are incorporating the results of that test
    into their operations.
        Mr. Marinos. I would echo Mr. Goldenkoff. I think the one
    thing to articulate--and maybe stating the obvious here--is
    that the reality is any late changes to a process are going to
    introduce risk, so I think it just highlights those high-risk
    areas that we have articulated within this area recently.
        Mr. Serrano. Director, a question that is not on my list--
    my staff hates that when I do that, you know----
        Mr. Dillingham. My staff does, as well, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. People, at times, respond to people they know
    and they see and they follow. So, will you be, in your
    advertising campaign, or will be people that you hire for the
    advertising campaign, be willing to look at, you know,
    professional athletes, people in the Hollywood community, you
    know, Broadway people, just to say, Listen, I am so and so, and
    you should be counted.
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, we would like to brief you on
    that campaign, where we are, and especially as we have some of
    the products to share with you. I can say that a lot of thought
    is going into just that.
        We do, particularly, with some of our subcontractors that
    are focused on hard-to-count groups and special groups, trying
    to determine who is the trusted voice for that community. And I
    am informed, in various instances, with some of those
    communities, they have identified people they think are trusted
    voices. Some might be from the--might have a background in
    athletics or similar types, that are well- known in those
    communities.
        At the same time, we have to be very careful with doing
    that because sometimes a public persona, the image or
    activities can give rise to unknowns in that area. So, it is a
    trade-off. We are looking at trusted voices, but, particularly,
    in administering our campaign at the local level, we want local
    trusted voices as part of our partnership arrangements.
        So, the mayors that I have visited with--and I will be
    going to the mayors' conference--they have, the ones that I
    have talked with, are all onboard for partnering with us. But
    the national figures and those associated with certain
    communities, we are examining that and I expect there will be
    some of that and, particularly, people recognizable in those
    communities. I don't want to get into any of those communities
    right now, because nothing has been finally settled on.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay. I can tell you, for instance, in the
    Latino community, Univision and Telemundo, last time, I don't
    know if they were subcontractors or what or if they took it on
    their own, but it was a huge campaign, where every 10 minutes,
    they were telling people, Count yourself, and explaining to
    them the importance of it and what it meant and the fact that
    that information could not be shared and so on.
        Mr. Dillingham. And I think you will be seeing that again
    in this decennial census.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Just going back to the budget
    question that the chairman asked about. Of course, the
    President's budget proposed $7.2 billion for the census for
    fiscal year 2020 if I am correct?
        Mr. Dillingham. That's right.
        Mr. Aderholt. And that was a level that is below the
    secretary's estimate of funding needs as of last year. And as
    you know, outside census analysts have said it is too low for
    the Bureau to complete all its needs in the decade's final
    year.
        Can you talk a little bit about is that and how you--I know
    you mentioned that a little bit earlier--but talk a little bit
    more about that in light of the fact that there were some that
    census analysts have said that it is too low.
        Mr. Dillingham. Ranking Member Aderholt, as I said, we are
    on course and we are on budget and we are on schedule and
    consistent with the President's budget and the $14.1 billion.
    That is no guarantee about the future. Something totally
    unexpected and unknown could occur and that is what was built
    into that $15.6 billion estimate. There were certain
    contingencies. It was called a ``sensitivity analysis'' that
    was included that looked at potential increases in wages,
    perhaps diminished productivity, and perhaps significantly
    diminished response rates. So, the sensitivity analysis, as
    well, is in the category that internally we called it the
    ``unknown unknowns,'' and that was just, in my mind, a consider
    it sort of an insurance policy if the unexpected occurs.
        We are down to the wire now. We are less than a year away.
    We are executing the plan and we haven't experienced the kinds
    of things that the unknowns as of yet, and we are very, very
    confident that we are on course to complete a full and accurate
    count at the $14.1 billion life-cycle cost level.
        So, that is kind of where we are, and we are working very
    hard. Again, we are on budget. Our operations is consistent
    with that budget. So, that is the budget that we are working
    under at the present.
        Mr. Aderholt. And that includes for the 2020, as well? You
    include that in that, as well as----
        Mr. Dillingham. Yeah, the--that is correct. That was for
    the 2020 Census; that's correct.
        Mr. Aderholt. But for the 2020 request for the----
        Mr. Dillingham. The 2020 request, I think we had a $6.3
    billion request and then we had a carryover of a billion
    dollars, so that made it the 7.2, 7.3 figure.
        $7.2 billion is the correct amount.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. All right. The GAO, why don't you give
    me your thoughts on the budget adequacy request.
        Mr. Goldenkoff. You know, we have looked at the budget. We
    have spoken to the Census Bureau officials. We think that it is
    good that there is a contingency fund, especially the unknown
    unknowns. Our focus, too, was on the justification for that
    budget with the life-cycle cost estimate; that has been an
    ongoing challenge for the Bureau to come up with a reliable
    cost estimate.
        We have seen some improvements there, so, one of the things
    that we were looking for was the extent to which the budget was
    actually justified within the life-cycle cost estimate. And so,
    now, we have seen that $14 billion that is baked into the cost
    estimate, so that is a good thing.
        And then in subsequent conversations with Census Bureau
    officials, as we have heard today, the director feels that the
    amount of money is adequate to conduct a complete and accurate
    account.
        Mr. Aderholt. Well, regarding the census, let me on my last
    question, how do you determine where a person should be counted
    if they are, you know, in a transitory location or they are a
    foreign citizen that is spending some time here in the United
    States for a period of time? How do you go about it in your
    calculation of trying to count them?
        Mr. Dillingham. Ranking Member, that is an excellent
    question, and there is an art to it and a science to it. In
    discussing some of those issues recently with the head of our
    decennial census, with many years of experience--and I must say
    that in conducting the census, we are very honored to have
    institutional knowledge, experience, and history, from which we
    are building. So, even though, as GAO points out, we have a
    number of innovations, we also have a history of what we have
    done and how we are doing it.
        So, in that regard, the transitory populations, sometimes
    it may require a judgment call. But if we know people are here
    on a temporary basis, if they are visiting from another
    country, if they are a tourist or whatever, we don't count
    them; however, at some--you can change the information
    somewhat, and if they are staying here and want to stay here
    and the time in which they are leaving is indefinite and they
    have been here for 6 months or longer, then we are probably
    going to count them--where were you on April the 1st, because
    you are not giving us any information that you are leaving
    anytime soon.
        So, a lot of it is a factual determination and we have
    guidance and criteria, but that is both, a challenge, and as I
    said, there is an art to it, that sometimes we have to seek out
    that information.
        Mr. Aderholt. So, one of the determining factors is their
    intent to reside?
        Mr. Dillingham. Intent certainly is very important; that is
    correct. But if they have been here, you know----
        Mr. Aderholt. Say someone is visiting from another country
    and are here and staying here for 6 months doing a research
    project and they are here on April 1st.
        Mr. Dillingham. If they are absolutely sure they are
    leaving and they have been here for--the 6 months bothers me a
    little bit because that is most of the year--but if it is
    absolutely certain they are leaving and they know----
        Mr. Aderholt. Say they were only here for 7 months.
        Mr. Dillingham. Well, again, that is a--I would have to
    consult with our experts and see how they are doing that, but
    they do----
        Mr. Aderholt. Say they are here just for the purpose of
    maybe conducting a study. They are from--and they are doing a
    study, but they obviously don't want to live in a hotel for 7
    months.
        Mr. Dillingham. Sure. You know, one of the things about the
    census is we are counting the people that are living here. So,
    at some point, we draw lines. Those lines are not, to my
    understanding and the information I have, those are not solid
    lines, but they do sometimes require further inquiry as to the
    nature of their stay, the length of their stay, and what their
    intent is.
        Mr. Aderholt. So, they could be counted, then?
        Mr. Dillingham. They could be counted if certain facts are
    that they have been living here for a significant period of
    time and it is indefinite and not sure when they are going back
    to wherever they are from.
        Mr. Aderholt. So, would they ask that question about their
    intent to leave?
        Mr. Dillingham. In the non-response follow-up, our
    enumerators have a series of questions and they are trained to
    ask, professional, those questions, and then the information
    will be entered in accordance with their assessment of that
    individual's set of facts.
        Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, a question like this makes your job
    hard. I mean----
        Mr. Dillingham. It does.
        Mr. Aderholt [continuing]. Because you have people that may
    be here for a certain amount of time on April 1st and, you
    know, unless you really dig down deep into what they are doing
    here and how long they're going to be here and why they are
    here, and, you know, there is a lot of----
        Mr. Dillingham. There is a lot to it. And, particularly,
    when people are, for example, as you are well aware, we have
    special circumstances when people are in prison or in certain
    group quarters and we have different criteria for all that. And
    as I pointed out earlier, if someone is living out of their
    mobile home or recreational vehicle, not only do we need to
    count them, but we need to assign them a location. And so,
    there will be--judgments will be made based on the individual
    facts of that circumstance.
        Mr. Aderholt. And I have one more question. You mentioned
    that you had been to Congressman Serrano's district and met
    with some folks in Congresswoman Lowey's district and
    Congresswoman Lawrence's district. What the chances that we
    will get you to Alabama?
        Mr. Dillingham. We are working on that, Congressman. We
    have made inquiries and not yet made a commitment as to, and
    check the schedules, but we have asked, and we will be----
        Mr. Aderholt. Can we work with you on that to try to----
        Mr. Dillingham. Absolutely. We will be working with your
    office.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Perfect.
        All right. I yield back.
        Mr. Serrano. I encourage you, as chairman of this
    committee, to go to Alabama.
        But you know, the ranking member brings up an interesting
    question, though. People who know me know that it is very hard
    for me to do one hearing without mentioning Puerto Rico, Frank
    Sinatra, or baseball. So, there are baseball players who come
    here April 1st when the season starts. They stay here it will
    September. If they are lucky, they go into October, right? And
    some of them do that year after year after year.
        Do they get counted here?
        Mr. Dillingham. If I understood--and I am not an expert on
    the baseball players and the time which they are in the
    country--but if they are here for an extended period of time
    and they are here on April 1st, I would imagine, especially if
    they are here for the majority of the year, they would probably
    be counted. But don't hold me to that, because I don't know
    if--how hard they are to catch. You know, I don't know if we
    can----
        Mr. Serrano. That is a nice pun there. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Serrano. Some of them are very difficult at catching,
    yes. Well, anyway, they show up in February for spring training
    and they don't leave till the end of September and some stay
    till October. And if you have a good career, you do that single
    year, and then you have thousands in the minor leagues in the
    same situation.
        Mr. Dillingham. Sure.
        Mr. Serrano. Just a--not an important question, but a fun
    question.
        Mr. Dillingham. It is important----
        Mr. Serrano. Yes, right.
        How does Commerce intend to use the data provided by DHS
    for its decennial operation?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, by law,
    Congress has provided that we will, to the maximum extent
    possible, use administrative data, particularly for, I call it
    ``quality-assurance activities.'' So, we receive data. We
    receive sensitive data. The Census Bureau has special statutory
    authorities and we use that data to make sure that our censuses
    and our surveys are accurate and complete.
        So, the data comes in. The data does not go back. So, if
    DHS provides us with data, we will use that data for our
    purposes, but we do not send data back to those federal
    agencies.
        Mr. Serrano. But, you can see where this adds to the issue.
    I mean, certain bells go off when you say citizenship question
    and other bells go off when you hear DHS will be providing
    information to the census. This was going on in prior years by
    the census?
        Mr. Dillingham. I can't say historically how, but I can say
    there are other sensitive data sources where we have the same
    issue in this forum. But it is well-known, we have access to
    certain Social Security around IRS data for purposes of
    verifying our data. But it is a one-way street; that data comes
    to us and we use that data for I will call it ``quality-
    assurance purposes'' and the data does not flow out.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay. So, we don't know if it is been done
    before in other censuses?
        The Census Bureau has not used microdata records from the
    Department of Homeland Security (or the predecessor Immigration
    and Naturalization Service) for enumeration in prior censuses.
    However, in the prior census the Census Bureau acquired
    aggregate data for use in evaluations of the census, including
    for the Demographic Analysis Program, which is an evaluation of
    census coverage.
        However, as the Census Bureau has sought data from many
    federal agencies, we are seeking data from the USCIS and other
    DHS components for potential use in the 2020 Census. The Census
    Bureau acquires and protects data under Title 13, and does not
    return or otherwise share these data.
        Mr. Dillingham. With DHS, I would have to check to see when
    that started.
        Mr. Serrano. That is important because some people, if that
    gets published a lot--I know there are people here that are
    going to publish it right now.
        Recognizing you may intend to use the data as
    administrative records toward identifying non-citizens'
    locations at the block level, wouldn't this exercise eliminate
    your need for a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form
    altogether?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, the need and the decision to
    have the citizenship question is before the Supreme Court. And
    what we have to do as an agency and what I have to do as the
    director, is not to take a position on the inclusion of that
    question, and we are waiting for the Court to decide the
    question.
        Mr. Serrano. Let me just ask something--this will be my
    last question, Mr. Aderholt, if you have any questions--
    something I have asked for, for a long time and I have gotten
    various answers that all mean no, but if you are an American
    citizen living in Puerto Rico--which is almost redundant if you
    were born there, right--you would only get counted--you get
    counted in Puerto Rico, but you don't get counted in the final
    number as to what the population of the United States is. Now,
    at the expense of being written up as being anti-immigrant,
    which God and every reporter knows I am not, technically, you
    could be undocumented in one of the states and get counted in
    the final population number, which is correct, but if you are
    living in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, and the
    Northern Mariana Islands, and you won't get counted in the
    final number. So, when we say, for argument's sake, the United
    States has 350 people--not really; it is got closer to 356 or
    57 because those folks don't get included.
        Have you heard anything during your tenure there, as to
    Serrano's mantra on including everybody under the American
    flag?
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, I have heard----
        Mr. Serrano. Notice how I said it: Everybody under the
    American flag should be counted.
        There are people in Europe, as you know, that are allowed
    to vote in our elections, because they are Americans living in
    Europe. I don't know what that arrangement is. I also
    understand that they get counted in the census, and yet, they
    are not living under the American flag.
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to widen this
    line of inquiry, but I have been advised that you have
    expressed concerns with the wording of the question for people
    in Puerto Rico, how they report their information, and also, I
    am now apprised that you are concerned about the tabulation of
    it.
        Now, on the wording of the question, the information I that
    I received was that the current wording of the question was
    developed by people that--the researchers that were studying it
    to improve the response and that, in fact, it has done that.
    That being said, with all our questions, we continuously
    revisit our questions to see if improvements can be made. And I
    would say the same holds true for the tabulation of our data.
        I am not specifically aware, and would be glad to work with
    you and your staff, on your concerns with the tabulation, and
    whether there are ways that we might be able to be of
    assistance or even to reconsider some of those practices. So,
    we are very open. We are very open with all of our questions.
    We are open with all of our tabulations for areas of
    improvement, and I would be glad to work with you and your
    staff in looking at that.
        Mr. Serrano. Well, I am glad to hear that you are open, but
    I think one of the answers we got throughout the years--and I
    probably shouldn't tell you this, but somebody will tell you--a
    lawyer will tell--was that the Constitution says count people
    amongst the states, which speaks to the citizenship question,
    right--people, not citizens.
        But on the other hand, these are territories, but I am not
    sure that when that was written in the Constitution, there were
    people thinking ahead to the fact that someday you would have
    territories with citizens living in those territories, and
    people who are born, as I was, an American citizen. I was born
    no different than someone who was born in New York. And my son
    was born in New York.
        Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, again, we will work with you
    on that. I can't promise you that if something has
    constitutional underpinnings that I am in a position to change
    it, but we will look to see what we can do.
        Mr. Serrano. Mr. Aderholt.
        Mr. Aderholt. I don't have anything else.
        Mr. Serrano. I want to thank you for coming here. As you
    know, we pay a lot of attention to the census. All Americans
    should. Sometimes I wonder why some folks in some states go out
    of their way to--the census and so on, when it actually helps
    them if everybody gets counted.
        I also understand, unfortunately, that some people have
    problems, some people who are not here, documented--I don't
    understand it, really, but I understand those feelings that
    they have, you know, they have them and that is it; I have to
    deal with it--try to change their mind--but they, sometimes,
    forget that those folks get counted and that means dollars for
    their state. It means congressional districts for their state
    and it means other things.
        And so, we take this very seriously. We want to help you in
    making the best and most accurate count. We are on your side.
    Notwithstanding a line of questioning or how we ask you about
    dollars and cents, we want this to work and we want it to work
    properly. So, we thank you for today.
        Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Serrano. And the hearing is adjourned.
        [Clerk's note. The Department did not respond with answers
    to submitted questions in time for inclusion in the record.]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               [all]