[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 
                    AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                 ___________________________________

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
                          AND RELATED AGENCIES

                 MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania, Chairman

  GRACE MENG, New York			ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama	
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida		STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  ED CASE, Hawaii			BEN CLINE, Virginia
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland	MIKE GARCIA, California
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland


  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair 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, Faye Cobb, TJ Lowdermilk,
                Shannon McCully, James Wise, and Nora Faye
                            Subcommittee Staff

                     ___________________________________

                                  PART 6

                                                                   Page
  Violent Extremism and Domestic 
Terrorism in America: The Role and 
Response of the Department of Justice...                                
                                                                      1
                                        
  Department of Justice Fiscal Year 2022 
Budget Request..........................                                
                                                                     53
                                        
  Department of Commerce Fiscal Year 
2022 Budget Request.....................                                
                                                                    149
                                        
  National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Fiscal Year 2022 Budget 
Request.................................                               
                                                                    215
                                        

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations


                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-269                      WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  TIM RYAN, Ohio
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada

  KAY GRANGER, Texas
  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
  CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas

                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)

 
  COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  2022

                              ----------                              

                                          Thursday, April 29, 2021.

   VIOLENT EXTREMISM AND DOMESTIC TERRORISM IN AMERICA: THE ROLE AND 
                            RESPONSE OF DOJ

                               WITNESSES

JILL SANBORN, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI NATIONAL SECURITY 
    BRANCH
BRAD WIEGMANN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DOJ NATIONAL SECURITY 
    DIVISION
    Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin. As this hearing 
is fully virtual, we have to address a few housekeeping 
matters. For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by 
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I may ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will then unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved and you will retain 
the balance of your time. You will notice the clock on your 
screen that will show how much time is remaining. At 1 minute 
remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds 
remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that 
their time is almost expired. When your time has expired, the 
clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next 
member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member; then members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority; and, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    The subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. We meet 
today to explore a crisis of grave concern to this subcommittee 
and the American people: the rise of domestic terrorism and 
extremist violence in this country, the threat it poses to 
public safety, free speech, the rule of law, and our core 
democratic principles. We also will discuss how the Department 
of Justice and the FBI are addressing this crisis.
    The January 6th riot and the insurrection perpetrators are 
not, sadly, part of an insignificant minority. Whether actors 
have been lone wolves or conspiring and acting in groups this 
is a growing and metastasizing blight on our society.
    We, as Members of Congress, all personally experienced the 
January 6th insurrection. And we owe it not only to the people 
of our Nation but to the democratic institutions in which we 
serve to ensure such an event never happens again. The attack 
on the Capitol took domestic terrorism to a level that must not 
be downplayed.
    As FBI Director Wray testified to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee in March, quote: January 6th was not an isolated 
event. The problem of domestic terrorism has been metastasizing 
across the country for a long time now, and it is not going to 
go away any time soon, unquote.
    We have used the word ``metastasizing'' twice now, and that 
is not an accident. This is a cancer on our country. All the 
evidence of the past 2 years documented in the comprehensive 
database of terrorist incidents maintained by the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies shows that right-wing 
extremist attacks and plots have greatly outnumbered those from 
all other groups combined and caused more deaths as well.
    Since 2015, White supremacists, extremist militia 
supporters, and like-minded individuals were involved in 267 
plots or attacks and 91 fatalities, while incidents alleged to 
be from all other groups accounted for 66 incidents, leading to 
19 deaths, including only 5 percent associated with Salafi-
Jihadists, the lowest share since 2008. And the CSIS data show 
that the January 6th breach was just one of 11 far-right 
terrorism attacks in January, the most for any January on 
record.
    Now, despite all this evidence, we have to deal with 
uninformed public commentary and even intentionally 
inflammatory words from leaders who seek to deflect outrage or 
to resort to what-aboutism tactics to seek to minimize news 
about this crisis, some infamously after domestic terrorism 
incidents used terms such as ``fine people on both sides.''
    And our law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, need 
to revise bureaucratic mindsets and catch up to these new 
threats and our new reality in their investigative efforts, as 
suggested by former DEA Administrator and FBI Chief of Staff 
Chuck Rosenberg.
    Now, Attorney General Garland said recently, in reference 
to his role as the lead prosecutor in the 1995 Oklahoma City 
bombing case, quote: I have a chance to lead a department that 
needs to fight against domestic violent extremists so that the 
kind of tragedy that we had in Oklahoma City doesn't occur, 
unquote.
    We on this subcommittee want to help the Attorney General 
and the Department of Justice in this fight. To do that, we 
welcome two senior leaders from the Department of Justice.
    Executive Assistant Director Jill Sanborn leads the FBI 
National Security Branch, and she is a veteran of the efforts 
to deal with terrorism at home and abroad and was the first 
woman to lead the FBI's Counterterrorism Directorate.
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brad Wiegmann represents 
the National Security Division, which was established in 2006 
to consolidate the Department's primary national security 
operations and to ensure that Federal counterintelligence and 
counterterrorism activities do not violate the law.
    And for today, so that we are all on the same page in 
describing domestic terrorism, we will use the definition the 
FBI provided in a July 2020 report to the subcommittee, which 
described, quote, ``domestic violent extremists,'' unquote, as 
those who pose a persistent threat of violence and economic 
harm but distinct from those connected with international 
terrorism. And of these, the greatest threat is from, quote, 
``racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists,'' 
unquote, especially White supremacists.
    Because this hearing is in open session, we understand many 
matters of interest to the subcommittee may be too sensitive to 
discuss in detail. I believe we can have a fruitful and 
informative session at the unclassified level, but should some 
answers need to be handled under secure procedures, this 
subcommittee can certainly accommodate that requirement as 
well.
    Executive Assistant Director Sanborn and Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General Wiegmann, we look forward to your testimony.
    And now I yield to the ranking member for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to 
be with you today, along with our subcommittee members, even 
though we are virtually meeting today, but on this very 
important topic of domestic violent extremism.
    And I do appreciate our witnesses from the FBI who have 
joined us today and the Department of Justice, so we welcome 
both of you for taking time to meet with us this morning.
    Our First Amendment guarantees every American the right to 
speak freely and assemble peacefully. And I have always 
supported peaceful protests and, of course, the right to 
peaceful protests. Unfortunately, over the past year, we have 
seen stark examples of extremists using tragedies and other 
notable events to disguise their attempts to incite and to 
engage in violence and even domestic terrorism.
    All forms of domestic terrorism must be condemned, 
including violent extremism from the political left, like that 
which has alarmed the mayor of Portland, Maine, but also 
threats such as the violence associated with White supremacy.
    I hope that this hearing this morning is an opportunity to 
discuss the purported rise of domestic terrorism in the United 
States, evaluate the role of the Federal Government in 
combating domestic terrorism, and discuss potential solutions 
to address all forms of domestic terrorism.
    We can't surrender American cities or the safety of our 
communities to extremists who seek to intimidate, who seek to 
coerce or assault our American citizens. We must find ways to 
mitigate the simmering threat of violent extremists through 
measures that help promote deradicalization, reduce violent 
extremism, and prevent violence that is driven by ideology, all 
while at the same time preserving American rights to hold 
sometimes unpopular views.
    Today I look forward to hearing about the efforts of the 
FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the role of the U.S. Attorney 
Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, and how the Department of 
Justice coordinates the interagency partners to mitigate 
domestic terrorism threats.
    I also look forward to hearing what the Justice Department 
has learned and implemented as a result of 10 years of funding 
for research on domestic radicalization at the National 
Institute of Justice, including the degree in which abuse, 
trauma, economic struggles, bullying and discrimination can 
lead some individuals to actually be radicalized.
    We also need to discuss whether the Department has the 
proper resources in place to address these threats that are 
posed by violent extremists. If not today, then we will have 
this opportunity when the Attorney General appears before our 
committee in the coming days.
    America is governed by law, not violence. It is not 
governed by intimidation nor mobs. We must deal with this 
problem with the seriousness that it deserves.
    Assistant Director Sanborn, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General Wiegmann, thank you for both being here today to 
testify. I look forward to your testimony.
    Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding, and I look 
forward to the hearing.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    And at this time, we are going to recognize our witnesses 
for testimony.
    And Executive Assistant Director Sanborn, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes. Keep your eye on the clock. We prefer 
you don't go over. And always remember that your entire written 
testimony will be submitted for the record, so you don't have 
to feel like you left out any points.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes, Executive Assistant 
Director Sanborn.
    Ms. Sanborn. Good morning, Chairman Cartwright, Ranking 
Member Aderholt, and members of the subcommittee. It is an 
honor to be here with you today. As I told your Senate 
colleagues in a hearing last month, I am always excited to have 
the opportunity to speak with you because I actually started my 
career in public service as a Senate page in 1987.
    Before I get too far into my testimony today, I want to 
take a minute to offer my condolences to all of you and the 
officers who served the United States Capitol Police and the 
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department, who had to 
endure up close and personally the violence and destruction 
that occurred on January 6.
    The siege on the Capitol complex while you were carrying 
out your duties as our elected representatives was not just 
unacceptable and disturbing, it was criminal. Violence designed 
to intimidate the population and influence the government is 
exactly what the FBI's Counterterrorism Division was designed 
to combat. And the American people deserve nothing less than 
our commitment to see this investigation through and, maybe 
even more importantly, to prevent acts of violence like this in 
the future because the FBI's number one priority is preventing 
acts of terrorism from any place by any actor.
    Across the board, the greatest terrorism threat we face is 
the threat posed by lone actors, both domestic violent 
extremists and homegrown violent extremists. These actors are 
especially challenging for law enforcement because, by 
definition, their insular nature makes them particularly 
difficult to identify and disrupt before they have an 
opportunity to act.
    I know today you are particularly interested in talking 
about domestic terrorism, and I appreciate your attention to 
this threat. The FBI has been investigating domestic terrorism 
throughout our organization's history, but today's threat is 
different than it was years ago and continues to evolve.
    And just in the last year, we have surged resources to our 
domestic terrorism investigations to counter this threat, 
representing a 260-percent increase in domestic terrorism 
personnel. Let me walk you through some of the themes we are 
looking at.
    2019 was the most fatal year for domestic violent extremist 
attacks since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. And, as you 
know, the 26th anniversary of that bombing was just last week.
    Between 2015 and 2020, racially or ethnically motivated 
violent extremists were responsible for the most fatal domestic 
terrorism attacks. However, three of the four fatal domestic 
extremist attacks in 2020 were perpetrated by antigovernment or 
anti-authority violent extremists.
    One of those attacks was perpetrated by an anarchist 
violent extremist in Portland, Oregon, which was actually the 
first fatal anarchist violent extremist attack in over 20 
years.
    Looking forward, we assess domestic violent extremists will 
continue to pose an elevated threat of violence to the United 
States. We expect racially or ethnically motivated violent 
extremists and antigovernment or anti-authority violent 
extremists will very likely pose the greatest domestic 
terrorism threats throughout 2020 and likely into 2022.
    At the same time, it is important to note that the threats 
from international terrorism have not diminished. Rather, as we 
head into 2021, potentially for the first time in my 20 years, 
the threats from domestic terrorism, Salafi-Jihadism, and 
state-sponsored terrorism are all elevated simultaneously.
    As we work to counter these threats, I want to underscore 
the importance of partnerships to the counterterrorism fight. 
Our investigations and disruptions rely on our cooperation with 
our Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners, as well 
as the communities we serve.
    In fiscal year 2020 alone, the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task 
Forces across the country, representing the States that you all 
represent, arrested 235 terrorism subjects, both international 
and domestic.
    Just to highlight a few of those, in March of 2020, we 
disrupted a racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist 
who advocated for the superiority of the White race who was 
plotting to bomb a Missouri hospital.
    Last May, we arrested a Florida-based individual who was 
planning and attempting to carry out an attack on behalf of 
ISIS.
    In June, we arrested a Kentucky-based U.S. soldier who was 
planning a deadly attack on his Army unit by disclosing 
sensitive information to multiple extremists, to include 
individuals associated with racially or ethnically motivated 
violent extremism and al-Qaida.
    Later in October, we prevented multiple militia violent 
extremists from executing a plan to kidnap the Governor of 
Michigan in response to COVID-19 policies.
    Lastly, in November, initially based on a tip we received 
from our foreign law enforcement partners, we arrested a New 
York-based militia violent extremist for making threatening 
interstate communications towards New York Senator Schumer.
    We also continue to expand our partnerships in academia, 
the private sector, and within the communities we serve. This 
is critical because nearly half of our cases are predicated on 
tips from the public or referrals from other law enforcement 
agencies.
    I also want to take this opportunity to reemphasize the 
FBI's mission to uphold the Constitution, protect the American 
people. This is dual and simultaneous and not contradictory. 
That said, when a person crosses the line from expressing 
beliefs to violating Federal law, we aggressively pursue those 
threats.
    I want to conclude my remarks by expressing the FBI's 
appreciation for the support that you have provided and 
continue to provide the men and women of the FBI. I look 
forward to answering any questions you might have.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Sanborn.
    And at this time, we recognize Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General Wiegmann for 5 minutes of testimony. And the same 
request goes to you.
    Mr. Wiegmann, please keep your remarks to 5 minutes. 
Remember, your entire written submission will be included in 
the record. You are recognized.
    Mr. Wiegmann. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright, Ranking 
Member Aderholt, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today about the work being done by the 
Department of Justice to counter domestic terrorism.
    As has been said, the events of January 6th have 
underscored that domestic terrorism continues to pose a 
significant threat to the public and to the rule of law. The 
attack on our Nation's Capitol was an intolerable assault on a 
fundamental institution of our democracy. It showed an 
appalling disregard for institutions of government and the 
safety of legislators, law enforcement, and the public.
    Since that day, DOJ and the FBI have launched an 
extraordinary effort to hold accountable all those who engaged 
in criminal acts at the Capitol. The investigation spanned 
almost the entire country, and agents and prosecutors in 
multiple States are a vital part of it. The prosecution efforts 
are being led by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of 
Columbia. More than 430 individuals have been charged thus far, 
and that number continues to grow.
    We have also recently witnessed efforts to intimidate 
members of our communities, apparently based only on who they 
are, as has been the case with recent horrific attacks directed 
at Asian Americans.
    The Department and the FBI are fully supporting State and 
local investigations into those attacks, while assessing 
whether Federal hate crimes were involved. Regardless of the 
motivation, our goals at DOJ are to prevent such attacks and to 
bring those responsible to justice.
    Today I would like to give you just a brief overview of how 
the Department of Justice is organized to handle domestic 
terrorism cases and the legal authorities on which we rely. We 
use all of the tools at our disposal to take a holistic 
approach to combating this threat.
    On the front lines are 94 U.S. Attorney's Offices. Each 
office coordinates a group of Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement in the district, called the Anti-Terrorism Advisory 
Council, or ATAC. The ATAC works in close partnership with its 
corresponding FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. The ATACs promote 
training and information sharing among Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement.
    Each U.S. Attorney's Office also has a senior prosecutor 
who serves as the ATAC coordinator. This designee is specially 
trained and serves as the lead counterterrorism prosecutor for 
the district. Many offices have also designated national 
security sections that focus on counterterrorism and other 
national security threats.
    At Main Justice here in Washington, the National Security 
Division of which I am a part was created in 2006 to integrate 
the Department's national security work nationwide. We have a 
counterterrorism section with more than 35 attorneys, all of 
whom are equipped to work on both domestic and international 
terrorism matters. We also have a counsel for domestic 
terrorism and four domestic terrorism coordinators.
    Department policy now requires notification to the National 
Security Division of any investigations or prosecutions with a 
nexus to domestic terrorism, and NSD attorneys coordinate and 
provide assistance in those matters.
    In addition, other divisions of the Department play an 
important role. For example, the Civil Rights Division is 
responsible for overseeing the prosecution of hate crimes, some 
of which may also qualify as acts of domestic terrorism.
    Turning to our legal authorities, we have prosecuted 
domestic terrorists using a wide range of criminal statutes. 
These include weapons and explosives charges, threat, hoax or 
riot charges, and charges proscribing attacks on Federal 
officials and facilities. As I mentioned, hate crimes charges 
may also be appropriate where conduct is motivated by bias 
against race, religion, or ethnic minority.
    We also work closely with our State and local partners to 
confront domestic terrorism. Some cases are best prosecuted 
under State law, and in those circumstances, we support our 
State and local partners where we can.
    While there is no single Federal crime labeled domestic 
terrorism, the Criminal Code does include a definition of 
domestic terrorism as well as Federal crime of terrorism. These 
definitions provide us with an array of expanded authorities. 
For example, judges can issue nationwide search warrants. 
Government attorneys have additional authority to share grand 
jury information. And Congress has created a presumption of 
pretrial detention for terrorism offenses. Finally, the 
sentencing guidelines also provide a significant enhancement 
for these offenses.
    In my written testimony, I provided a number of examples of 
recent cases that we brought. Consistent with longstanding 
Department policy, our practice is always to charge and pursue 
the most serious, readily provable offense available, based on 
the facts of the case.
    It is important to emphasize that we prosecute individuals 
for their criminal acts, not for their beliefs or associations. 
The FBI may not investigate solely on the basis of First 
Amendment protected activity. But the FBI will pursue and DOJ 
will prosecute those who use violence in violation of Federal 
law in an attempt to further their ideological goals.
    With that, I will close, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to discuss these issues today and look forward to answering 
your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Wiegmann.
    We proceed now to the question-and-answer session. I will 
recognize myself first for 5 minutes, then go to Ranking Member 
Aderholt, and then we will go back and forth between Democrats 
and Republicans for the full first round, then probably proceed 
to a second round as well.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Assistant Director Sanborn, we have to talk about 
definitions, as Mr. Wiegmann just mentioned. I understand the 
FBI applies the term ``domestic terrorism'' to criminal acts 
that violate Federal law, in particular 18 United States Code--
that is the Crimes Code--section 2331, subpart 5, primarily 
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, which 
represent more than simply First Amendment protected speech, no 
matter how vitriolic or hateful.
    Ms. Sanborn, is that an accurate description of the FBI's 
approach to the definition of domestic terrorism?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir. The definition is defined by section 
2331.
    Mr. Cartwright. So here is a question for the both of you. 
In an unclassified March 2021 summary, the Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence stated that, quote: Domestic 
violent extremists, DVEs, who are motivated by a range of 
ideologies and galvanized by recent political and societal 
events in the United States, pose an elevated threat to the 
Homeland in 2021.
    For each of you, do you concur with that assessment?
    Ms. Sanborn. I will start. This is Jill. We definitely--we 
published some recent products saying just that. So, yes, sir, 
we do agree that that is something that we should pay attention 
to as we go into the future.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Sanborn.
    Mr. Wiegmann.
    Mr. Wiegmann. That is my understanding as well.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So this month, The Washington Post 
reported, based on multiyear data collected by the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies, that incidents of domestic 
terrorism have, quote, soared to new highs in the United 
States, driven chiefly by White supremacists, anti-Muslim and 
antigovernment extremists on the far right.
    Again, I toss out for both of you, do you agree with that 
analysis, and, if not, could you elaborate?
    Ms. Sanborn. Sir, I will start. I am not familiar 
specifically with the CSIS analysis, but 2019 was the deadliest 
year since Oklahoma City bombing. So, yes, we have definitely 
seen an increase in lethality.
    And the trend that I mentioned in my opening, 
interestingly, last year the majority of the attacks were from 
those who espouse antigovernment, anti-authority violent 
extremists.
    Mr. Cartwright. And Mr. Wiegmann?
    Mr. Wiegmann. I really would defer to the FBI, but that is 
my understanding as well, that there has been an increase and 
it has been attributable to racially motivated violent 
extremists and antigovernment, anti-authority extremists.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Extremists of all varieties use 
hate speech and social media to motivate and indoctrinate and, 
in some cases, conspire to commit or facilitate violence.
    While expressing hateful ideas may have First Amendment 
protection, it is also Black Letter Law that the First 
Amendment prohibits governmental sanctioning of speech unless 
that speech incites, quote, imminent lawless action and is 
likely to incite such action, unquote.
    Drawing a line between what is free expression and what is 
terrorism is something we are clearly still struggling with. 
Possibly because there are numerous types of groups, there seem 
to be many different popular perceptions of what violent 
extremism and terrorism mean. Government agencies need legal 
clarity.
    In your opinions, are the current legal and practical 
definitions of domestic terrorism and violent extremism 
working? And if not, what areas do you see as problematic and 
in need of improvement or clarification?
    We will start with you, Ms. Sanborn.
    Ms. Sanborn. Sir, I would actually defer to Mr. Wiegmann on 
this, but I think you pointed out what we believe is a 
challenge for us, which is separating where hateful speech is 
just speech and where that has turned to planning and plotting. 
And that is why we try to focus so much on the indicators of 
behavior changing.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. And you are deferred to, Mr. 
Wiegmann.
    Mr. Wiegmann. So I think we are comfortable with the 
definitions that we have in the U.S. Code today. There are 
always some gray areas, as you pointed out, with respect to 
when do you cross that line from speech, let's say, to a true 
threat or to incitement. But those are things where the courts 
have given us guidance, and they are things that we work with 
in our prosecutions on a regular basis and have done for many 
years.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you for that. And my time has 
expired. So I am going to yield to our distinguished ranking 
member, Mr. Aderholt, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, again, thanks for both of our guests being here today 
before our committee virtually.
    As Mr. Wiegmann had noted, it was domestic terrorists who 
shot and injured four people at the congressional baseball 
practice back in 2017. Included in that injuries was the 
majority whip at the time, Steve Scalise, and a lobbyist that 
was working with the baseball team, Matt Mika. They were both 
critically wounded.
    The shooter was a deranged supporter of Bernie Sanders who 
had actually, in my understanding, had a list of Republican 
Members of Congress in his pocket when he actually ambushed the 
group.
    Some of us learned just last week that the FBI classified 
the 2017 congressional baseball shooting as a suicide by cop. 
And as my colleague, Brad Wenstrup, has stated, classifying the 
attack as suicide by cop really defies logic.
    Ms. Sanborn, has the FBI cleared up this by reclassifying 
the incident as an act of domestic terrorism?
    Ms. Sanborn. Thank you for the question. It is fair to say 
that the shooter was motivated by a desire to commit an attack 
on Members of Congress and then knowing by doing so he would 
likely be killed in the process.
    Cases like this are challenging because there were, as you 
mentioned, a couple clues left behind, but he died in the 
process, never allowing us to fully examine through, say, an 
interview his motivation.
    This is also a good example of what I will talk about 
probably as we go on today with a trend that we started to see 
probably 2016-ish, which is that the motivation and sort of 
what drove somebody to mobilize is a very personalized 
grievance that they hold, which is something different from the 
domestic terrorism threat that we saw in years past.
    There are also indicators that the shooter intended for the 
shooting to be his final act on Earth, but those things are not 
inconsistent with someone who is motivated by a variety of 
factors to commit violent acts based on a blend of ideological 
or personal motivations. And this conduct is something that 
today we would characterize as a domestic terrorism event.
    Mr. Aderholt. So it is being considered an act of domestic 
terrorism?
    Ms. Sanborn. If it were to happen today, we would open this 
as a domestic terrorism case.
    Mr. Aderholt. What was the rationale behind the decision 
not to classify it as domestic terrorism?
    Ms. Sanborn. I am not aware of the rationale. I was not in 
my seat at the time, so I would have to get back to you on the 
specifics of what that rationale was. But in going back and 
looking at it and, honestly, the trend we have seen of sort of 
that personalized grievance motivation, it fits squarely into 
the phenomena that the Director and I have talked about often, 
which is this very personalized sort of blending of ideologies 
that motivates somebody.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, I think we would be interested in 
knowing just what the rationale was. So, if you could provide 
that for us, it would be great.
    Director Wray has said that social media has become in many 
ways the key amplifier to domestic violent extremism, just as 
it has for evil foreign influence.
    I will address this question to you, Mr. Wiegmann. When 
social media platforms kick offensive groups off their sites, 
does it make it more difficult for the FBI to monitor and track 
their behavior and threats?
    Mr. Wiegmann. I would actually look to Ms. Sanborn to 
answer that question.
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir. Social media definitely has 
increased the speed and dissemination of violent material 
online. And so that definitely, because of its existence of 
speed, the amount of rhetoric, as I mentioned previously, there 
is definitely a challenge for us in trying to filter through 
all the noise out there and figure out what individual may 
actually have the intent to then take their hate-fueled, you 
know, free speech farther into an act of breaking Federal law.
    Mr. Aderholt. What would you consider more dangerous--and 
either one of you can answer this--dangerous domestic violent 
extremists promoting violence in the open or underground, such 
as on the dark web?
    Ms. Sanborn. I think the method that they express their 
intent doesn't necessarily make one more dangerous than the 
other. I think--what would I put out there for you something to 
think about is it would propose a challenge to us, right?
    Like, we have the potential--and, again, half of our cases 
are generated on tips and leads, thankfully, to partners and 
community members. If it is not something that we see, that 
potential tip or lead, and if we can't get to it with a lawful 
warrant, it is something that could go unnoticed and 
unprevented.
    So sort of the dark web, encrypted, unable-to-get-to poses 
definitely probably a greater challenge for us because of that 
inability.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has 
lapsed.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    And the chair recognizes Representative Grace Meng for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to our witnesses for your work and for being 
here today.
    I actually wanted to follow up on Mr. Aderholt's 
questioning about social media. Platforms like Twitter and 
Facebook have really played a central role in elevating 
conspiracy theories, hate, bigotry.
    And while some of these companies have occasionally banned 
from their platforms certain individuals or dangerous rhetoric, 
there are still other social media apps like Parler, Telegraph, 
or even Signal. And I just wanted to know what some of these 
companies can do. And I know that I have heard that platforms 
like Signal, for example, are even harder to sort of monitor. 
So what can these companies do better and what can Congress do?
    And the second part of this question: Are there any 
noticeable trends after the January 6th insurrection that you 
are seeing with how domestic right-wing groups are using some 
of these platforms?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, thank you for the question. I will start. 
You know, we have a very good relationship with a lot of the 
private sector partners that you mentioned in your question. 
And so that relationship is always increasing, and I am 
encouraged by the cooperation with them.
    And I think one of the important things about the 
partnerships that we have with them that we have learned is 
very fruitful is when we can educate them on the things that 
they should be worried about, the threats that we collectively 
are facing, it allows them to be very thoughtful and mindful 
about that when they build out, say, a terms of use agreement 
with a user.
    And so I think that that is one way that we are partnering 
with them. In fact, there is a specific section inside the 
Counterterrorism Division that focuses on nothing but those 
sort of strategic private sector partners.
    As far as the second half of your question on trends, I 
don't know that it is unique or anything new, but oftentimes 
across both international and domestic terrorism, we see 
individuals potentially initiate their first sort of 
relationship or connection with, say, a like-minded individual 
in the open sort of social media forum, but then often they 
look to move those conversations to some sort of encrypted 
application.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I also wanted to ask about the 
[inaudible] Some of these right wing extremist groups. There 
are anecdotes of affinities between American-based right-wing 
groups and those abroad. They may feed off each other. And 
while we can ban certain individuals from visiting the U.S., we 
can't stop their hateful ideas from proliferating across the 
internet.
    So I just wanted to ask about your concerns about domestic 
groups potentially sharing info with international groups and 
vice versa. And are there gaps in your efforts to understand 
some of these efforts and, you know, what additional resources 
or personnel could you need?
    Ms. Sanborn. Thank you very much for that question. I mean, 
I would tell you, having grown up sort of working international 
terrorism for most of my career, I will never be at a point 
where I think I have the intel I need. I always want more. So 
there are always gaps.
    I would also say we don't necessarily--I think it is 
important to lay this foundation. We do not investigate 
ideology or groups.
    But to your question about sort of the foreign connection, 
obviously--and this is across all threats that the FBI faces--
the internet poses the potential and allows for the 
facilitation of like-minded individuals to link up across the 
globe.
    And so we are always looking for individuals here in the 
United States that may be reaching out to foreign entities and 
using that link-up to then incite violence or mobilize to 
violence here in the United States.
    And so one of the ways we tackle that is with our Legal 
Attache Program and try to work very closely with our foreign 
partners to see what indicators and warnings we can get of 
potential violence, not only here in the United States but 
overseas.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Meng.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Congressman Cline for 5 
minutes of questions.
    We may have to bounce back to Mr. Cline. And so, in default 
with him, the chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to Mr. 
Cline, I see he is online now. I would hate to cut in front of 
him unnecessarily here, seeing him, if we want to go back. I 
prefer to yield back to Mr. Cline, if that is all right.
    Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cline is recognized for 5 minutes. Nice 
to have you back, Mr. Cline. Oh, I think we scared him off, Mr. 
Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Back to you again. We are going to go with 
you, Mr. Garcia. Go ahead, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Sounds good, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
    Thank you both for your testimony and your service to our 
Nation. Just to level-set as we were kind of hitting on the 
edges of the definition of domestic terrorism, can one of you 
please just recite the language?
    I am seeing in the package that was brought forth on page 6 
there is a definition, but I just want to just make sure that 
we are all on the same page. Maybe, Ms. Sanborn, if you are 
able to do that.
    Mr. Wiegmann. I can do that. I have it right in front of 
me.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay.
    Mr. Wiegmann. So it is 18 U.S. Code 2331, section 5. And I 
will just read it: The term ``domestic terrorism'' means 
activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a 
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any 
State.
    And they must appear to be intended either, one, to 
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; two, to influence 
the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or, 
three, to affect the conduct of a government by mass 
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and then. Finally, 
they must occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the 
United States.
    Mr. Garcia. Great. Thank you for level-setting us there.
    Would you agree that this definition applies to the entire 
political spectrum, not just the far right but also the far 
left and any American or any threat to American lives in 
between?
    Mr. Wiegmann. Absolutely.
    Mr. Garcia. And would you agree also that this applies to 
all races and all ethnicities? Mr. Wiegmann, you mentioned that 
this was focused primarily on actions taken against ethnic 
minorities, in your words, but the reality is this legislation, 
this law, I should say, is actually applicable to protecting 
all Americans. Is that an accurate statement?
    Mr. Wiegmann. That is totally correct. Whatever the race 
might be would be covered, absolutely.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely. And so my question is relative to 
what we have seen over the course of the last year and a half 
in cities like Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis, where we 
have organizations and individuals not just protesting, which 
is obviously constitutional and encouraged--peaceful protests 
are the core of our American heritage and should be encouraged. 
But these protests have devolved into riots, looting, the 
destruction of small businesses, the occupation many times of 
cities and suburbs and small segments of metropolitan areas 
with the interest of intimidating or coercing a civilian 
population and influencing the policy of governments by 
intimidation or coercion and to affect the conduct of a 
government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. I 
think there has been murders in several of these cities.
    Are these riots and destruction in these various 
metropolitan areas like Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis 
being treated as acts of domestic terrorism, as defined by the 
law as you describe?
    Mr. Wiegmann. I do believe the previous Attorney General 
did conclude that some of those acts were qualified as domestic 
terrorism. And what we would do in any case is apply the 
evidence in any specific case against this legal standard. And 
if it meets that legal standard, absolutely, it would be 
considered domestic terrorism.
    Mr. Garcia. Do you have any idea how many active charges or 
cases are actually in the system right now for domestic 
terrorism relative to the riots in the various metropolitan 
areas?
    Mr. Wiegmann. So, again, as I explained earlier in my 
testimony, there isn't a Federal domestic terrorism charge. 
Typically, the types of charges, it could be riots, it could be 
threats, it could be assaulting a Federal officer, et cetera. 
So there is not necessarily on the face of the charges 
indication as to whether in that particular case it qualifies 
as domestic terrorism. So that would be individualized, based 
on each case.
    But I do know that there were several hundred charges 
brought as a result of unrest over the last summer between May 
and let's say September. So there were several hundred Federal 
charges. I don't know the number of State charges.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. And then just to help us put to bed or 
help in the debate of an issue that we have seen is a statement 
from a sitting official, elected official, whether a Member of 
Congress or State legislature, along the lines of we need to 
become more confrontational in our protests in the midst of a 
heated environment around race issues, would you consider that 
to fall underneath the definition of the Criminal Code as you 
described earlier of domestic terrorism?
    Mr. Wiegmann. Again, in general, I wouldn't want to comment 
on hypotheticals. But on that, it clearly wouldn't meet the 
definition because it is not dangerous to human life or 
anything like that. So----
    Mr. Garcia. There is not coercion inferences in that 
statement?
    Mr. Wiegmann. I would not think that statement alone would 
qualify.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. Thank you, sir.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Crist for 
5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
hearing and the opportunity to be here.
    Ms. Sanborn, an incident involving the neo-Nazi 
organization Atomwaffen hit pretty close to home for my 
constituents in 2017. In neighboring Tampa, a double murder 
occurred at a house where four members of the organization 
lived when one of the members turned on two others.
    When they looked in the house, in addition to firearms 
cache, they found buckets of explosives. You probably know 
better than myself, Ms. Sanborn, but, to my knowledge, these 
people were not on the authorities' radar, despite their 
recruitment and planning being done online. And who knows what 
would have happened if they had not turned on one another.
    So my question, it seems to me that my constituents in the 
Tampa area are pretty lucky that nothing worse did happen. Has 
anything changed over the last 4 years, to your knowledge, to 
keep the situation I described from happening again?
    Ms. Sanborn. Sir, I mean, we have talked about this a 
little bit. I think the biggest challenge we face is, how do we 
get the indicators and warnings? How do we get the tip, the 
lead, exactly what you mentioned those individuals were 
plotting to do?
    We rely heavily, and this is something that we use a heavy 
amount of our resources for, is having sources and undercovers 
that can help us get that information, or educating the 
community that can pay attention to that and warn us of 
something they might have seen that is just out of sorts. And 
so you definitely pinpoint the challenge for us in trying to 
get those indicators and warnings and what we really need to 
get to the bottom of that.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you very much. Recently, the water 
treatment plant in Oldsmar, Florida, right next to my district, 
was hacked. Whoever hacked the plant raised the sodium 
hydroxide levels, the main ingredient in drain cleaner, from 
100 parts per million to about 11,000 per million. I understand 
that, at that level, it is considered corrosive to any human 
tissue that it might touch.
    While a plant operator noticed the hack and was able to 
correct it, it does raise questions about cybersecurity for 
facilities in places like Oldsmar that don't have the security 
resources of larger cities and whether or not they are targets 
for terrorism and violent extremism.
    For either witness, how does the work you do to prevent 
terrorism apply to preventing cyberterrorism in communities 
that are smaller, such as Oldsmar, Florida?
    Ms. Sanborn. Sir, I will start. I think you present I think 
a very important point. Not only are the elevation of the 
threats that I outlined in my opening high, but we are also at 
a time when the threats from China and Russia as well as the 
threats we face from cyber in general also are very high. We 
work that very closely with our Cyber Division.
    And, again, one of our biggest tools in our toolbox outside 
the Joint Terrorism Task Force is really those partnerships 
with the private sector. And we are sort of helping them 
understand potential vulnerabilities, and working with them is 
probably the best defense we have to defend any of their 
networks against any actor.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you very much.
    For either witness, if somebody is under investigation for 
their ties to violent extremism or domestic terrorism and they 
have not yet been charged with a crime that prohibits them from 
purchasing a firearm, will their ties to domestic terrorism be 
flagged if they attempt to purchase an assault weapon, and 
would they be prevented from purchasing one? Also, would you be 
notified if a subject of an investigation has purchased a 
firearm?
    Ms. Sanborn. I will start and then, Brad, if you want to 
chime in with anything on your side.
    Sir, I do know that if they are an outright prohibited 
possessor, that there are definitely red flags that would put 
that on our radar.
    I would have to get back to you on just the sheer presence 
of them being, you know, an assessment or a case, whether or 
not that would be a red flag. I don't have the granularity to 
give you the specifics on that, if you would want a followup on 
that.
    Mr. Crist. That would be great. Thank you.
    I am running to the end of my time.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back, and thank you.
    And I thank both the witnesses.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Cline for 
5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Am I coming through?
    Mr. Cartwright. Yes. Don't touch anything. It is working 
now.
    Mr. Cline. I apologize. I appreciate the patience.
    Ensuring the security of the American people is the primary 
duty of all Members of Congress, and it is imperative that we 
are doing everything possible to prevent attacks on the 
citizens of our Nation.
    Violence committed by any individual or group has no place 
in our society, and Congress must ensure that law enforcement 
is working efficiently and effectively to combat an ever-
changing landscape of threats.
    Ms. Sanborn, through 2020, throughout the last year, the 
FBI observed activity that indicated there was the potential 
for increased violent extremist activity at lawful protests 
taking place in communities all across the United States.
    Has the FBI determined what contributing factors led to 
this uptick in potential?
    Ms. Sanborn. Sir, that is a great question, and I alluded 
to a little bit of it in my opening in I think the answer to 
the baseball game question.
    Really pinpointing what is driving somebody to mobilize and 
commit their acts of violence is incredibly complex in general 
but more so probably in the domestic violent extremist space 
than any others because what we have found as we go back and we 
look at post-incident is it is a blend of their ideology but 
oftentimes really partnered closely with a personalized 
grievance.
    And so, as you can imagine, that makes it very hard to 
figure out what truly was the motivating factor in pushing them 
to mobilization. And so that is an incredible challenge for us 
because of that personalized nature.
    Mr. Cline. Was this the fact when you were looking at 
extremist activity at lawful protests on both or across the 
political spectrum, were these contributing factors existing, 
no matter whether it was on the right or the left? Because we 
had those protests on both the right and the left taking place 
across the United States.
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir, exactly. Trying to figure out 
throughout the whole country in 2020 what was the specific 
mobilization factor for each case that we looked at was 
incredibly challenging and oftentimes, like I said, very 
personalized. And, you know, depending on if they interviewed 
with us and if they told us what that mobilization factor is, 
very unlikely that we may ever get to the real bottom of what 
motivated them that day.
    Mr. Cline. All right. Can you talk about what the FBI has 
done to counteract domestic violent extremists? And if these 
groups are on the rise, how will the FBI work to prevent future 
attacks?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir. That is a great question. Again, the 
majority of what we do outside investigative techniques--and I 
will hit on that in a second--is really educating the 
community. Right? Half of our cases are predicated on a tip and 
a lead from somebody in the community or another law 
enforcement partner seeing something that rises to the level of 
telling us. And that happens time and time again. And I would 
say, the more we do that, the better, right? If we can kick 
that 50 percent to a 60 or a 70, that is great. And so that is 
an effort well worth our time.
    But also, it is using our resources, especially when you 
think about the potential issues with encryption and collection 
on the technical side, how do we get more sources and 
undercovers in the right places. You know, very similar to the 
Michigan plot. How do we get people in the right space that can 
tell us about a plot that is in the making.
    Mr. Cline. Right. While still going through the appropriate 
legal procedures, obtaining court orders before sifting through 
the NSA's collection of communications, things like that, 
correct?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cline. Ms. Sanborn, Director Wray has stated that the 
greatest threat we face in the homeland is that posed by loan 
actors radicalized online who look to attack soft targets. Can 
you tell me what the FBI is doing to combat this disturbing 
trend, and are additional tools needed to prevent radicalized 
individuals from terrorizing our communities?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think that speaks 
to the insular nature. It is very hard when somebody can be 
online in the privacy of their home and sort of come up with 
whatever their plot might be and actually even mobilize, 
acquire a weapon, acquire a knife, whatever it happens to be, 
without any indicators and warnings that they are doing that. 
So that is a challenge for us.
    I think with resources, some of the things we could do 
better potentially is data analytics. Right? When I was a case 
agent, the most voluminous data I might come across would be 
hundreds of pages of telephone records. Our case agents today 
are faced with petabytes of information that comes from a 
plethora of avenues, PayPal, Snapchat, WhatsApp. And so we are 
sifting and trying to sift through an enormous amount of data 
to look just for exactly the kinds of things that you are 
talking about.
    Mr. Cline. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Case for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    To the witnesses, this being appropriations, my basic 
question is, do you think you have the resources you need to do 
your job, especially as it seems to have become so much more 
critical, especially in the past couple of months?
    And so, Ms. Sanborn, let me just kind of start with you. I 
think I heard you say during your testimony that you had seen a 
260 percent increase in domestic terrorism personnel. I think 
it was year over year, if I am not mistaken. I am looking at 
the budget numbers and I think I understand this correctly, 
that your department, DOJ counterterrorism, started in fiscal 
year 2019 at $1.235 billion. Fiscal year 2021, $1.294 billion 
for 5 percent over 2 years. That just seems to me to be pretty 
insufficient given what has happened in the last number of 
years.
    Is that a fair statement? You made the comment earlier that 
you could always use more resources and, of course, we could 
always use more resources. Kind of a difference between, you 
know, want and critical need. So I am asking for your 
assessment. Are you asking for a significant increase in terms 
of your fiscal year 2022 budget?
    Ms. Sanborn. So I will let Brad comment after I am done, 
and I will try to, you know, stay away from the specific 
appropriation conversations as my role is AD. But just to 
highlight a few things is, the 260 percent personnel increase 
that we talked about was just last year alone, and the cases 
doubled last year, right? So both the effort and cases are 
increasing.
    And what I would just leave you with is, while we are 
aggressively trying to do that, and I think the surge in our 
arrest numbers show you we are trying to get ahead of that, 
that is not really a recipe for a long-term, strategic 
prevention approach for the FBI. And some of the things that 
more resources would get us, which we have kind of alluded to 
already, is better and more data analytics, more task force 
officers, the ability to create more sources, the ability to 
pay and have more undercover operations. And so if we had more 
resources, we would definitely be good stewards of those and 
use those things in those sort of categories that I put out.
    But, Brad, defer to you on a formal sort of appropriation 
conversation.
    Mr. Wiegmann. Yeah. So as was alluded to in my written 
testimony, the President's request for fiscal year 2022 
discretionary funding, which was released in April, does ask 
for additional resources to address the surge in domestic 
terrorism threat. So it is asking for another $101 million in 
this area, which would be $45 million for the FBI for DT-
related investigations, $40 million for U.S. Attorney's Offices 
to handle the increase in caseload, $12 million for the 
Marshals, and $4 million for National Institute of Justice for 
additional research.
    So that is the amount that the administration will be 
requesting as an increase over and above, I think, has already 
been some shifting of resources in the fiscal year 2021 to 
counter the threat as well, so----
    Mr. Case. Okay. So 10 percent year on year, roughly. Fiscal 
year 2021 to fiscal year 2022. Okay.
    Let me ask you a kind of a broader question. I mean, I am 
listening to you and also, you know, taking a look at some of 
the other budgets, such as Department of Homeland Security. One 
of the major conclusions of the post-9/11 Commission was 
stovepiping across too many departments throughout government, 
where there was no coordination, where intelligence was not 
shared, where there was not any kind of central coordinating 
body. And we made corrections and perhaps the result has been 
mixed, but the conclusion was still, I think, anybody would 
agree, was a valid one.
    Is that happening in the area of domestic terrorism? Do you 
perceive that there is a comparable situation here? We fund to 
DOJ, we fund to the Department of Homeland Security, we fund a 
lot of places from this perspective. Does there need to be a 
better coordination of those resources across departments or 
agencies of government? Do you feel comfortable in the 
coordination?
    Ms. Sanborn. I will start. It is not necessarily a resource 
answer per se, but having lived through 9/11 and the Commission 
Report, I can appreciate where you are coming from with that 
and having been a detailee to the CIA for 2 years, I am a very 
huge proponent of partnerships. I believe that as we counter 
the domestic violent extremist threat, we really take near and 
dear to us our partnership with DHS as well as the support we 
get from NCTC and our State and local partners.
    I don't think there is silos and stovepipes. There is 
always room to sort of educate State and local partners of more 
indicators and warnings, and so I think that is room for, you 
know, growth for us is to continue those training efforts, but 
I don't think they are silos or stovepipes. I think the 
partnerships, when you look at the fact that we have over 2,000 
State and local partners on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces 
across the country, we represent just that, sir.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you. My time is up, so I will defer 
back. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Trone for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank both our witnesses also for your service. 
Really appreciate it.
    During last month's Senate Judiciary hearing on this topic, 
FBI Director Wray stated, quote: Racially motivated violent 
extremism, specifically the sort for advocates for the 
superiority of the White race is persistent, evolving threat. 
It is the biggest chunk of our racially motivated violent 
extremism cases for sure, and racially motivated violent 
extremism is the biggest chunk of our domestic terrorism 
portfolio, if you will.
    So, Ms. Sanborn, we talked a bit today already about the 
rise of this toxic discourse, this toxic disinformation. And if 
you could expand more, we could hear more about the role of 
social media and what social media and even direct media, some 
of the networks who seem to think this is a good thing in 
radicalizing and recruiting individuals who are receptive to 
this extremist messaging.
    Ms. Sanborn. Yeah. I think we talked about it a little bit, 
but, obviously, social media has increased, not only the speed, 
but the ability to disseminate and the accessibility of all 
kinds of violent extremist rhetoric, both international and 
domestic. I am, again, very happy with the amount of 
cooperation that we get with the social media companies. We 
spend a lot of time. There is always, of course, room for 
growth on that, but as I mentioned, sort of educating them on 
what the threats are that we face allows them to be very 
thoughtful and mindful as they think about their terms of use. 
And I think that is a great sign and definitely a move forward.
    Mr. Trone. What do you think, though, about some of our 
networks that actually have an opinion? It is no longer the 
news. It is instead their position and what they think the news 
means and are pushing people to the left or pushing people to 
the right. Do you think that serves as sort of a backdrop, a 
supporting mechanism to ferment these radicalized behaviors? 
Because a lot of information we are hearing on respected 
networks is clearly disinformation.
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes. I think that is an interesting topic. I 
don't really think I know enough specifically to have an 
opinion one way or the other, but I do think, you know, we 
talked about this a little bit briefly, but we really take to 
heart our dual-headed mission of protecting an individual's 
First Amendment rights, as much as it is our right to protect 
the American people. And so we are very cognizant of trying to 
walk the line of really focusing on the violence and the intent 
and not focusing on necessarily the ideology or the even 
assembly with like-minded individuals. We look really closely 
at trying to find that individual that is about ready to break 
Federal law.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you. How has the migration of the violent 
extremists to the frenzy's encrypted platforms impacted your 
ability amongst individuals in groups who share this ideology? 
And talk more about what challenges it is creating, these 
encrypted platforms, for law enforcement's ability to detect 
domestic terrorist threats.
    Ms. Sanborn. Yeah. I think encrypted communications 
definitely present a great challenge for us and will continue 
to do so as we go into the future. And while it is not a 
domestic violent extremist example, I think the best example I 
could throw out for you of that challenge is the attack in 
Pensacola, right? Like, that individual was talking with al-
Qaida up until the night before, and we were unable to get that 
information as quickly as, you know, the citizens of this 
country should expect. And so encrypted communications and the 
inability with lawful process to get those is probably one of 
the most significant challenges we face into the future.
    Mr. Trone. Quickly, we are almost out of time, Mr. 
Wiegmann, what can Congress do to properly ensure that the 
resources we allocate to protect our national security while 
also ensuring these resources are not later used to target the 
very communities that are the most vulnerable that are perhaps 
the most overly surveilled already?
    Mr. Wiegmann. Well, as Ms. Sanborn just explained, we have 
strict rules about when we can initiate an investigation. We 
have the attorney general domestic operations guidelines. FBI 
has implementing guidelines as well that are about a phone book 
about a thick set of rules that FBI strictly follows in terms 
of when they can initiate any investigative activity, what the 
standards are. It is detailed both for online activity and for 
operational activity. And I know that is something that the FBI 
takes very seriously, and that would be for minority groups, 
majority groups, religion, race, any of those sensitive 
categories. We are super careful about how we conduct these 
investigations and making sure that we comply with the 
constraints that don't have a chilling effect on First 
Amendment protected speech.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
    We begin our next round of questioning. And I want to pick 
up from where Mr. Trone left off. Christopher Wray did talk 
about the rise of a right-wing violent extremism, and this is 
what he said in addition to what Mr. Trone quoted: ``So when it 
comes to racially motivated violent extremism, that number, 
again, number of investigations and number of arrests has grown 
significantly on my watch. And the number of arrests, for 
example, of racially motivated violent extremists who are what 
you would categorize as White supremacists last year was almost 
triple the number it was in my first year as director.''
    And, Ms. Sanborn, is that a trend you have been seeing?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay. And so I guess the question is, can 
either of you identify which domestic violent extremist 
categories should receive the closest attention with some 
context as to how we should gauge their significance, and can 
you also explain the basis for identifying the categories you 
have identified as deserving the most attention?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. This is 
a process I am fairly passionate about, but we go through a 
process every year to look at all of the threats that we face 
going into the next year, and we really think about, you know, 
what is the risk there and how can we mitigate the risk. And as 
we went through that process this year and, actually, it first 
started a couple years ago with the Director, we definitely see 
racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, the 
highest domestic threat we face on par with ISIS in what we 
refer to as the homegrown violent extremists.
    That being said, that process has also shown us that 
antigovernment/antiauthority is something we should pay 
attention to as it was right below those other top priority 
threats.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. The next question is, estimating 
the number of persons who might be involved with, support, or 
be sympathetic to domestic violent extremism objectives is 
certainly a difficult task given the need to protect civil 
liberties and acknowledging the problem of lone actors as we 
have touched on before. So for either witness, while you may 
not be able to provide any form of estimate of the number of 
persons who may be considered engaged in DVE-related activity, 
could you say whether the FBI carries out such analysis? And if 
so, if more detail might be provided to the committee in a 
secure setting?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir. I think what you are asking is how 
do we find sort of the unknowns, right? And I think we do that 
two different ways. We are constantly, again, using community 
outreach, as well as our State and local partners for some 
referrals. But we also use our already predicated 
investigations. Right? The same sort of network analysis that 
we would have done back in the day with gang and drug cases, we 
have, you know, continued applying those same tools in our 
toolbox to terrorism cases, and that includes domestic violent 
extremism. And so sort of target discovery of what that unknown 
threat might be from an individual is something that we 
dedicate a significant amount of our resources to.
    Mr. Cartwright. Now, this question is for you, Mr. 
Wiegmann, and it is one suggested by our colleague 
Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, who could not be 
with us. She is in transit right now, but she is interested in 
this, and I am too.
    In the criminal code and the sentencing guidelines, is the 
involvement of domestic violent extremism, is that taken into 
account? Is that an aggravating factor as far as sentencing? 
Walk us through that, if you will, Mr. Wiegmann.
    Mr. Wiegmann. Yes, it is, absolutely. In the U.S. Code, in 
18 U.S.C. 2332E(g)(5) defines what is considered a Federal 
crime of terrorism, that could be domestic or international. 
And if it qualifies as a Federal crime of terrorism under the 
sentencing guidelines, you get a significant sentencing 
enhancement for offenses that involve a Federal crime of 
terrorism, which can often increase the guideline's range for 
that conduct to the statutory maximum.
    There is also an upward departure for other offenses that 
could be calculated to influence or affect the conduct of 
government by intimidation or coercion. So, absolutely, there 
is provision in the sentencing guidelines and the U.S. Code for 
sentencing enhancement for terrorism matters.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. My time's up.
    And I am going to yield the floor to our ranking member, 
Mr. Aderholt, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I will direct to Ms. Sanborn. All forms of domestic 
terrorism must be condemned, and I think we all agree with 
that, and no one should tolerate agitators or extremists who 
plan to commit violence.
    Does the FBI designate any domestic terrorist groups by 
name?
    Ms. Sanborn. No, sir, the FBI is not a part of any domestic 
terrorism designation process. In my understanding, one does 
not exist for the United States.
    Mr. Aderholt. Do you believe that the mental health impacts 
related to COVID-19 isolation have contributed to domestic--the 
growth that we have seen in domestic terrorism?
    Ms. Sanborn. I don't have any specific data related to 
COVID-19, but we definitely--this is something we work very 
closely with our State and local partners is just the mental 
health in general across the country and the effects of that 
potentially on individuals and the potential risks that could 
put somebody at to conduct acts of violence.
    Mr. Aderholt. And I will address this to either one of you. 
In the United States, of course, we depend on law enforcement 
to focus on actions and not thoughts. What challenges does it 
present as the Justice Department works to conduct threat 
assessments related to violent extremism when, again, we focus 
on actions and we don't on thoughts?
    Ms. Sanborn. I will start, and, Brad, if you want to chime 
in. I think it definitely poses kind of a big challenge for us, 
and I would say primarilythe reason is, is because the amount 
of just sort of rhetoric out there in general and that rhetoric 
could be hateful. And so looking specifically for maybe that 
one sliver of, this is an individual who is planning or 
plotting something is definitely a challenge because of the 
amount of data out there and being cognizant of individual's 
rights.
    Mr. Aderholt. Let me follow up on that. Given your 
extensive experience in counterterrorism operations over the 
years, what strategies do you think can be employed to prevent 
domestic terror without violating the actual privacy rights of 
Americans citizens?
    Ms. Sanborn. Thank you for that question. I think, again, 
really our see something, say something, right? Like, community 
members, employers, parents, et cetera. We have found that 
almost every single time--we call it the bystander phenomena--
almost every single time somebody engages in an attack, when we 
go back and we interview family members and friends, they say, 
yes, I started to notice something. Something was just starting 
to change with this individual or not right.
    And so educating people and getting them to warn not only 
allows for potential prevention, but potentially allows us to 
get that person, if it is a mental health issue, right, help 
instead of them being jailed later on.
    So I definitely think the community and awareness in 
teaching them is our strongest tool.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Sometimes politicians will, in my 
opinion, inaccurately claim that President Trump called White 
supremacists ``fine people'', and that can provoke heated 
reactions. For either witness, do you believe that efforts to 
combat disinformation can help to counteract the growth of 
domestic terrorism?
    Ms. Sanborn. I don't really have--I don't know a background 
or enough information to comment on like specific 
disinformation avenues.
    Mr. Wiegmann. I would just add, yeah, I do think that 
disinformation is something that we are concerned about in the 
administration; in other words, I think conspiracy theories and 
so forth are things that can contribute to a culture of 
violence in general. It is a difficult problem, but it is 
something that, I think, that we want to wrestle with. In other 
words, domestic terrorism or other types of violence just with 
the prevalence of social media and so forth, it is something 
that is--that we need to be concerned about.
    Mr. Aderholt. What other strategies do you think can be 
implemented to deter domestic terrorism in this political 
climate that we live in that is very divided right now? Any 
thoughts on that?
    Ms. Sanborn. I mean, Brad, I will let you chime in too, but 
I think, you know, people getting held accountable for their 
actions is a deterrent and, you know, the great partnership we 
have with our prosecutors in holding people accountable, I 
think, can be a great deterrent for the future.
    Mr. Wiegmann. So I agree with that. And then I would also 
just say on the other side of it is identifying people when 
people do what Jill said and identify someone who they think is 
headed down a path towards violence, we have worked on violence 
prevention programs with local communities where we can try to 
work to turn people away from violence, as Jill explained 
earlier, can be idiosyncratic. They may have personal 
grievances mixed up with kind of conspiracy theories they see 
online, mixed up with other problems they may be having. And if 
we can have interventions with those individuals, if they can 
be flagged to us, then there may be other ways, even apart from 
the criminal justice system, that they can be turned away from 
violence.
    And those are things that we work on, that DHS has funding 
to pursue. It is really important at the local level, it is not 
something that we have law enforcement take the lead on, but it 
is something that we could try to facilitate with local 
communities and social services, things like that. So I just 
wanted to mention that as another piece of it that I think both 
the last administration and this administration have both been 
focused on.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my 
time is expired.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Ms. Sanborn, I will start here. And following up a little 
bit on our prior discussion about coordination, and I 
appreciate that you mentioned State and local partners because 
that is kind of where I was going next. We, of course, fund 
many of these programs. We have got, you know, State Homeland 
Security grants, we have got Urban Area Security Initiatives, 
and then Byrne JAG program. And actually, if we add all of 
those grant members up, it actually exceeds the Justice's 
counterterrorism budget. Of course, those are not all directed 
to domestic terrorism; they are across the spectrum of law 
enforcement.
    But my question is a very general one. I just would like 
you to expand on how those programs are going with your State 
and local law enforcement partners? And how are they morphing, 
I guess I would ask you, as you are own responsibilities ramp 
up and our collective concerns ramp up? Are those programs--you 
know, do they have enough flexibility in them to adjust to the 
exigencies of the times?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir, I think they do, and I think those 
programs are going well. We benefit greatly from the Department 
of Homeland Security's fusion centers. One of the ones that I 
have personal experience with and I can tell you the 
partnership--thanks to the partnership with them has often 
predicated a lot of cases for us. There is one out of Orange 
County, California. So we benefit greatly from the funding of 
those fusion centers and the relationship that we, the FBI, 
have with them.
    Also, there is lots of instances that I could tell you 
about where, thanks to the work of our State and local 
partners, and say they are on the heels of a search warrant in 
somebody's home, they notice something that alerts them to 
potentially a domestic violent extremist ideology might be 
present there and we benefit from the referrals of those. So 
teaching them what to look for in that partnership has 
continued to pay off as well.
    Mr. Case. Is that teaching, is that part of those grant 
programs? I mean, we provide that money to them to partner with 
you, but where do they actually get that? Where is the actual 
interaction going on from a teaching perspective, that 
sensitization, I guess I would say, perspective? Because I 
would assume that throughout the country, with thousands and 
thousands of probably agencies out there at the State and local 
level, that there are--there are some that are just very good 
at recognizing the signs that are reporting back and some that 
are perhaps a little bit more removed from Washington, D.C. in 
that way. How do you actually get that education across?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yeah. That is a great question. And so 
anything we do on their behalf is definitely coming out of our 
funding. So that would be something that we would fund sort of 
a teaching them the different things that we want them to pay 
attention to, but it also comes from the day-to-day interaction 
with them on the JTTF, and that, again, is something we would 
fund would be their spot on the Joint Terrorism Task Force. And 
so they get both formal training from us. They participate in 
JTTF executive board meetings that happen, at minimum, 
quarterly and oftentimes monthly. And then their day-to-day 
presence on the JTTF is also almost like on-the-job training as 
they work hand-in-hand with us.
    Mr. Case. Going back to kind of the middle part of my 
question. I assume you are saying that, yes, they are in their 
current construct flexible enough to adjust to what you believe 
you need from your State and local law enforcement partners 
right now?
    Ms. Sanborn. I believe so, sir. And, you know, as I 
mentioned earlier, that is one area that we would potentially 
grow, you know, with our increase in potential resources would 
be to add task force officers, more training, et cetera.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Mr. Wiegmann, anything to add in my 
remaining time?
    Mr. Wiegmann. No, sir.
    Mr. Case. Okay. And then I will just take a little bit more 
time then and ask you kind of the same general question about 
your ATAC, Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, with the U.S. 
attorneys. Ms. Sanborn, set up, operating well. I think you 
would agree part of your front lines as well?
    Mr. Wiegmann. Yeah, they are all on the front lines and 
they work very closely----
    Mr. Case. I am sorry. I am sorry. I got the wrong person to 
ask the question of. Go ahead.
    Mr. Wiegmann. Yes. They work--we think they work pretty 
well. We want to make sure that--I mean, historically they 
focus on international terrorism and domestic terrorism, but we 
want to reemphasize [inaudible] The domestic terrorist threat 
and they are doing that. They work very closely with the JTTF 
that Jill has already described. So we think they are 
functioning effectively, but we are doubling down just in light 
of the current threat environment to increase the training to 
make sure we are doing everything possible with our different 
U.S. attorney's offices to make sure they have the tools they 
need and the people, the personnel, and the training to make 
sure they are on top of this.
    Mr. Case. That is part of your 10 percent budget increase 
request also?
    Mr. Wiegmann. It would be, and the U.S. attorney's offices 
they would plus up in that area.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Cline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to circle back to Mr. Wiegmann's answer to a 
question. I was having some technical difficulty from a remote 
location.
    Mr. Wiegmann, the mission of the National Security Division 
is to protect the United States from threats to our national 
security by pursuing justice through law. And you mentioned 
your position on proposals to codify a domestic terrorism 
charge in the criminal code.
    Can you reiterate your position on that, whether you think 
that is necessary, and what sections of the code are already in 
use to combat domestic terrorism?
    Mr. Wiegmann. Yes. So thanks for that question. That is 
something that we are thinking about as we are looking at all 
of our tools to see, in light of a threat environment, are we 
doing everything we can to counter the threat. So one of the 
things we are looking at is would we need new authorities.
    We think we have been pretty successful using the 
authorities that we have already. And just to mention the 
different statutes that we have used in this area, we have, you 
know, weapons charges, charges related to explosives, threat, 
riot, hoax charges, attacks on Federal officials and 
facilities, hate crimes when that is available, arson. There is 
a long laundry list of charges that really depend on the facts 
of the case that we use.
    And so the question we are really wrestling with is, are 
there gaps? Is there some type of conduct that we can envision 
that we can't cover or would there be a benefit, otherwise 
benefit in having something else, other than what we are having 
now.
    We haven't reached any conclusions on that. It is something 
that we are thinking about. And if we do come up with 
something, well, obviously, we will work with this committee 
and others in Congress towards that, but we haven't identified 
anything yet that would be a need for legislation, but it is 
something that we are actively considering.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you. I would ask that you keep in 
touch with members on both sides of the aisle on this committee 
and on the Judiciary Committee if you are working towards that 
end.
    Mr. Wiegmann. Absolutely.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, that was my remaining question, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to follow up on our previous conversation. We 
defined domestic terrorism. We talked about some of the cases--
or some of the situations around the Nation and our 
metropolitan areas as well as January 6. You ended with, Mr. 
Wiegmann, that domestic terrorism itself is not an applicable 
or available charge. That is a correct statement, right? I just 
want to make sure that I captured that last statement 
correctly.
    Mr. Wiegmann. That is correct. There is no domestic 
terrorism offense as such.
    Mr. Garcia. With the Federal code, it does provide the 
enhancements, one of which you talked about which is maximizing 
the statutory--enhancing the statutory maximums for offenses 
involving or intended to facilitate domestic or international 
terrorism. But it also defines other expanded investigative 
tools beyond just the sentencing enhancements, to include the 
search warrants, expediting search warrants and investigations, 
reducing delays, allowing judges to grant orders giving 
investigators greater access to certain educational and 
taxpayer records and domestic and international terrorism. 
There is a few other things. The statutory maximums probably 
being the most important piece of that.
    I guess to follow up on the questions that I had relative 
to really any of the events over the last call it year and a 
half, are you seeing the application of any of these 
enhancement tools to either the events on--well, let's start 
with the events on January 6. Are the enhancement tools 
available as defined under this domestic terrorism clause being 
applied at all to folks who were arrested or investigated 
during January 6 events?
    Mr. Wiegmann. So those are ongoing cases. I don't think we 
have gotten any cases that have gotten to that stage yet in 
terms of sentencing, so I don't think we will be in a position 
yet to----
    Mr. Garcia. But there is tools that are presentencing, 
right? There is the application of search warrants in cases 
involving domestic terrorism. Outside of their districts, 
judges can now authorize search warrants, expedited search 
warrants. Judges may grant orders giving investigators a 
greater access to certain educational and taxpayer records. 
Have any of those tools presentencing been applied for the 
events of January 6?
    Mr. Wiegmann. It is a good question. I don't know the 
answer. My expectation would be some of them would. I know that 
some people, for example, have been held in a pretrial 
detention and that we have invoked that provision that is a 
presumption for pretrial detention in those cases. I don't know 
if Ms. Sanborn has any more specific information about that. 
Ask her.
    Mr. Garcia. Ms. Sanborn?
    Ms. Sanborn. Nothing to add to it, Brad.
    Mr. Garcia. Have any of these enhancement tools been 
applied either in the presentencing or sentencing stage, which 
I am assuming we are there now, for riots in cities like 
Portland, Seattle, or Minneapolis?
    Mr. Wiegmann. So it is a good question, Congressman. I just 
don't know the answer. I can get back to you.
    Mr. Garcia. I think it is really important to understand 
that. I mean, if we are talking about how prolific and expanded 
domestic terrorism is and DVE is becoming more prolific, I 
think it is very important, especially with these agencies, to 
understand where we are applying these enhancements as defined 
under the code as you have outlined and really understand not 
only where they are being used, but the effectivity of their 
use so that we can communicate to our constituents what the 
government is doing to protect them. I think that is very 
important.
    Has anyone--and I understand that domestic terrorism itself 
is not an applicable charge, but is terrorism being charged in 
any of the events around January 6?
    Mr. Wiegmann. No. There is no terrorism--there is no 
really--there are charges related to international terrorism. 
Those obviously would not be applicable to January 6, but there 
is no terrorism charge per se that is being used for the 
Capitol.
    Mr. Garcia. There is a Federal crime of terrorism, right? 
It is not just international terrorism. The crime is terrorism, 
correct?
    Mr. Wiegmann. The one that I think of the most is 2339B, 
which is material support to terrorism. That is to a designated 
foreign terrorist organization, so that is only for 
international. There is also terrorism that transcends national 
boundaries. That is an international terrorism charge. So we 
have some things in the international terrorism area that are 
closer to what you would call a terrorism offense that we don't 
have on the domestic side.
    Mr. Garcia. I am out of time. I would love to get your 
input on whether there should be a discrete charge for domestic 
terrorism under these statutes, but we can defer that for later 
conversations.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    And you will get that chance in a third round. We are going 
to go to a third round, since there are only four of us 
remaining.
    I want to pick up with our witnesses on something Mr. Case 
was talking about, coordination among agencies in the fight 
against terrorism of any strife.
    Data on domestic terrorism, unlike that of international 
terrorism, is not maintained in any single repository. It 
certainly doesn't pop up easily on an internet search. FBI, 
NSD, ATF, and BJS all keep different data, some only accessible 
through Freedom of Information Act requests. And there are also 
multiple private databases such as TRAC, T-R-A-C, at Syracuse, 
and START at the University of Maryland.
    This alphabet soup of information may keep researchers 
employed, but it is not easy to sift through. So, Mr. Wiegmann, 
here is the question: Does NSD routinely track prosecutions and 
convictions related to domestic terrorism and DVEs? And if not, 
please explain.
    Mr. Wiegmann. Yes. So here is the challenge. You are 
absolutely right, it can be confusing on the data tracking, at 
least on the prosecution side. And the reason for that is--
there are a few reasons for that. Until very recently, the 
Department's process for tracking these cases was totally 
decentralized. In other words, you can have U.S. attorney's 
office around the country bringing cases, as I mentioned 
earlier. If there is none, a domestic terrorism charge. So it 
could just be a weapons charge, or could be a threat charge, 
could be arson. You don't know what the charge might be. And 
there wasn't a centralized mechanism for overseeing all of 
those cases.
    Also within Main Justice, you have the Civil Rights 
Division, you have even a Tax Division because some terrorists 
refuse to pay taxes, antigovernment people. You have the 
National Security Division. So even within Main Justice, you 
had different divisions. So, recently, we have taken steps to 
address that situation, because that made data collection for 
DOJ on prosecutions very challenging in a way that it wasn't on 
the international side. So we just recently issued guidance, 
and I talked about this a little bit in my written testimony, 
to the field which is creating a new mechanism whereby they are 
going to have to report to the National Security Division, the 
counterterrorism section, any case that is designated as DVE 
related.
    It creates standards for setting a case as DVE related, and 
so we are going to have a more centralized mechanism that will 
help us track data going forward. That is a new change. It just 
was instituted last month, but we are taking steps in that 
direction.
    Mr. Cartwright. I would think that is particularly 
important, and please pass it up the chain, if more resources 
are needed to get that done, we want to know about it.
    And, by the way, to both of our witnesses, you have 
received requests from members of our subcommittee, I think, 
notably Mr. Cline and Mr. Garcia, for more information. And I 
would consider it the right thing to do on behalf of the entire 
subcommittee. Please cooperate with them and give them what 
they need.
    Now, Ms. Sanborn, I want to note, the fiscal year 2021 
appropriation requires the FBI report not later than 180 days 
after enactment of the act on, quote, the number of incidents 
in fiscal years 2016 through 2020 that required surveillance, 
investigation, and prosecution of White supremacists' activity 
or racially motivated violent extremism associated with White 
supremacists' ideology, and include, if available, incidents in 
which the FBI deferred to State or local authorities, unquote.
    Is the Bureau on track to provide that report?
    Ms. Sanborn. Sir, I am not tracking the specific report 
that you are referencing, so I will look into that, but I am 
aware of the report that we are in the process of publishing 
under the NDAA, which I think will feed into exactly what you 
started your questioning with, which is sort of a holistic view 
of the domestic violent extremist threat.
    Mr. Cartwright. Let's follow up on that. And to the extent 
statistics on DVE incidents could be shared in more 
transparent, if sanitize or aggregate form to Congress and the 
public, is that something that the FBI would support, Ms. 
Sanborn?
    Ms. Sanborn. Sir, yes, I think that is exactly what the 
product under the NDAA will provide. Historically, I think that 
has been classified. And what the NDAA report that is in the 
works and it is getting coordinated on now is at the 
unclassified level so that it is shareable with you all and the 
communities.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    I yield to our ranking member, Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In his testimony before the United States Senate, Director 
Wray depicted the group that came into the Capitol on January 
the 6, the protesters, as an inverted pyramid, with peaceful 
protesters compromising the largest numbers of those that were 
involved. The next level were people who attended the protest 
and were swept up in the momentum of the day, mostly engaging 
in low-level trespassing. And finally, the third group was the 
most threatening, and those were those that breached the 
grounds of the Capitol and engaged in acts of actual violence.
    And I would ask this question to either one of you. Among 
those who protested at the Capitol on January 6, how many or 
what percentage do you estimate were actual domestic violent 
extremists?
    Ms. Sanborn. Sir, so we wouldn't necessarily have any 
collection on just those individuals who were exercising their 
First Amendment right to protest. Really, what we focused on in 
that inverted pyramid as was described by the Director is that 
smaller bucket that showed up intent on conducting harm, and 
those would be the individuals who assaulted Federal officers, 
breached the building, and got inside. And of those cases, 
there definitely are some of those individuals that we look at 
as domestic violent extremists. Can't comment on any specific 
particulars because those are still ongoing, but that smaller 
tip of the pyramid, again, is what we focused on, and some of 
those individuals definitely fall in the domestic violent 
extremist category.
    Mr. Aderholt. And would you distinguish those from perhaps 
what the Director said was low-level trespassing?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir. We do just have some cases on 
individuals who made it into the Capitol that maybe potentially 
weren't involved in the actual breach and/or the assault on 
Federal officers. And the evidence we presented to the United 
States Attorney likely would just result in trespassing 
charges.
    Mr. Aderholt. As far as the people that has actually been 
charged in connection with the January 6, with the militant and 
domestic terrorism networks, what will be your guess or do you 
know how many people have actually been charged?
    Mr. Wiegmann. There is over 430 people who have been 
charged total, and that number keeps changing, so that will 
keep going up, if that was your question.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes, sir. Yes, thank you.
    Do you believe that the prolonged security measures that we 
currently have at the U.S. Capitol have been appropriate to 
prevent domestic terror threats?
    Ms. Sanborn. I will start and, Brad, you can comment. I 
don't have any specifics on, you know, the actual mechanisms in 
place. I would just say to you one phenomena that we have at 
least seen in the international terrorism side is, we do know 
that our adversaries in the terrorism space pay attention to 
hardened and soft targets. And so having the appearance of it 
being a hardened target is always a potential deterrent. So we 
have at least seen them pay attention to that and comment on 
soft versus hard targets, and so I would imagine that that is 
true for all of our adversaries.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
    Mr. Wiegmann. I would just defer to the security experts on 
that.
    Mr. Aderholt. And then lastly, what are some examples or 
incidences where the FBI have identified acts of Antifa 
violence or people subscribing to Antifa in recent months or 
years? And how successful has the Justice Department been in 
prosecuting members of the Antifa extremist violent groups?
    Ms. Sanborn. I will start with just highlighting that, you 
know, Antifa definitely is a real thing and it actually falls 
into our antigovernment/antiauthority overarching bucket and 
specifically anarchist violent extremists. We definitely have 
cases on individuals who self-identify with Antifa.
    Thinking back on my last year as the AD of CTD, I can only 
think of one individual in particular who would have self-
identified with Antifa, who then went on to conduct a violent 
act, and that would be the individual in Portland, Mr. 
Reinoehl, when he shot Aaron Danielson.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Wiegmann, you have anything to add?
    Mr. Wiegmann. There have been cases that we have brought 
against, as Ms. Sanborn mentioned, in the category of anarchist 
extremists, which is what Antifa falls into that bucket. 
Whether we have any individual case where the person self-
identified as Antifa, I am not sure. We do have some cases 
against anarchists. We have the case that Ms. Sanborn mentioned 
where the individual was killed before he was able to be 
apprehended, where that person, I think, did self-identify as 
Antifa. And then, obviously, the absence of an indication on 
the charging document whether someone self-identifies with 
Antifa is not necessarily an indication that there aren't any 
cases because that is true in a lot of our cases. You don't 
necessarily have a specific group or ideology that someonehas 
identified with. You think they have been associated with a 
riot or other behavior, but you just may not have that based on 
the charges or may not be necessary for the case.
    So I am sorry. It is a little bit complicated to your 
question, but we are not necessarily going to know because the 
people may not always announce themselves as to what group they 
are affiliated with and so forth. But we do have a number of 
cases that we would put in the anarchists bucket, that is, this 
is the bucket that Antifa and people associated with the Antifa 
movement would fall into.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    And before I ask my question, I just want to say that I 
personally appreciate your testimony and your service. I think 
it is a very hard time to get this right, and I appreciate your 
realistic assessment of where we are and what we need to do.
    Let me talk a little bit about our military, because one of 
the unfortunate and tragic, in many cases, realities we have 
had to face is extremism within our armed services. And the 
FBI, of course, has reviewed this and reported to our Armed 
Services Committees on the subject about last June I think it 
was. And I am interested in following up on that and 
understanding the broader picture of what coordinated 
activities are taking--well, I guess I would ask you two 
questions.
    Is the primary perceived threat more a matter of individual 
action by folks enlisting or gaining entry to our military who 
are predisposed perhaps to violence, as we have seen in some 
cases, or is there a realistic threat of kind of a more 
organized attempt to get into our military from a terrorism 
perspective that would, you know, give rise to a broader set of 
concerns? And what is the coordination going on, I suppose, 
between the FBI or Justice overall and our military? How is 
that issue being addressed right now? What is its status and 
where is it going?
    Ms. Sanborn. Thank you for the question. And I understand 
the importance of it, obviously, because those are individuals 
that are in positions of trust and we--while we certainly have 
domestic violent extremist cases on individuals that are 
associated with the military and law enforcement, that number 
is actually relatively small, and it is primarily on 
individuals that are formers, not currents. And so that is one 
thing I would note.
    I would also note that we don't necessarily see sort of a 
concerted organized effort, and we also don't necessarily know 
whether an individual, say, seeks out military or law 
enforcement because of an ideology or whether they are in the 
military and law enforcement and some sort of violent extremist 
ideology comes later. But, like I said, we have seen some 
instances of that. It is fairly small.
    What I can tell you that is a very positive is, we have a 
great relationship with the U.S. military. They actually sit on 
the National Joint Terrorism Task Force, the most sits out 
there at Liberty Crossings with us. And so we often get not 
only referrals from them, but work those cases closely, and 
actually they take this very seriously and I think had a stand-
down day where we actually then did an employee all hands for 
them and we talked to their workforce about violent extremism.
    Mr. Case. What about the basics of just advance, advance 
joining the military or, for that matter, after people are in 
the military, you know, data collection to identify potential 
risks, just as you are doing in the general population, using, 
you know, the early warning systems that you have in place 
through State and local partners.
    Is that coordinated with the military so that they have the 
information they need to make basic decisions about whether to, 
you know, enlist or otherwise admit people to the Armed 
Services?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir. I think the process that I 
highlighted for you of the relationship once the individual is 
in the military is very mature and robust. I think you 
definitely have highlighted something that we are working on, 
which is a closer relationship with them in sort of the 
application process because if somebody ends up washing out for 
some reason, how do we potentially have a relationship with 
them where that could be a potential referral to us. And so 
that is something months ago we started working on them with 
and something we hope to keep continuing and perfecting.
    Mr. Case. Do they routinely consult with you on enlistments 
from the perspective of, you know, cross-coordinating between 
their information sources and your information sources?
    Ms. Sanborn. No, sir, not that I am aware of. Like I said, 
we both have had conversations with, you know, how to have a 
process and improve on that process. Again, not mature yet, but 
at this point, that is one area I think we can continue to work 
closer with them on and try to make it as effective as the 
process of the individual that is already in service.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Mr. Wiegmann, anything to add?
    Mr. Wiegmann. No, sir.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    And, Mr. Garcia, we recognize you for the last 5 minutes of 
questions. Make them good ones.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best.
    Ms. Sanborn, you mentioned something a few minutes ago 
where you said--I think I have got it written down--that there 
has only been one member who has self-identified as Antifa that 
went on to commit violent acts that you are aware of. I think 
you cited, I think it was Mr. Michael Reinoehl, who killed 
Aaron Danielson, as the example of that.
    Is what I just stated what you meant to say? Really only 
one person who has self-identified as Antifa went on to commit 
violent acts?
    Ms. Sanborn. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question, because 
it does afford some clarification.
    So, of our predicated subjects, so of people that are on 
our radar screen, in my last 1 year as the Assistant Director, 
I cannot think--it doesn't mean that there is not one there I 
can't remember, but I can only think of one subject that self-
identified with Antifa as part of our anarchist violent 
extremist cases that went on to conduct a violent act, and that 
would be Mr. Reinoehl.
    So it is very possible that other self-identifying Antifa 
individuals might have done something that just are not an FBI 
predicated case or not on our radar.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you for that clarification. I would 
submit there have been dozens if not hundreds of self-
identified Antifa members who have, maybe not killed someone or 
committed murder, but have been looting, violently confronting 
law enforcement around our Nation in various cities, have 
started fires, torn down businesses, et cetera.
    So I just want to make sure that we are not--while we are 
putting a spotlight on what you all have called the far right 
domestic violence that we are not also forgetting those from 
the far left and, frankly, everyone in between. This is a 
problem that is full spectrum and deserves to be treated as 
such.
    Thank you for that clarification.
    Mr. Wiegmann, I want to go back to the last question, my 
fade-away shot from the last round there, if you will. Do you 
think that having a discrete charge for domestic terrorism is 
warranted? And, if so, why? If not, why not?
    Mr. Wiegmann. As I mentioned in response to one of the 
other questions, that is something that we are actually 
considering. Our overall position is we think we have been 
pretty successful with the authorities we have already. We have 
a lot of criminal statutes in our toolkit that we have talked 
about today that we use.
    We have been pretty successful. We haven't identified a lot 
of cases where we can't charge someone based on a lack of 
authority. But we are looking at it to see whether we think an 
additional charge would be useful. And if we come up with 
something, then we would obviously work with the Congress on 
that proposal.
    Mr. Garcia. I am keenly interested. As Chairman Cartwright 
mentioned, I do want to see the data behind the enhancement 
tools, whether they have been applied, the success of those 
applications in presentencing and during the sentencing phase.
    I think, you know, these words matter. The statutes matter. 
The enhancements matter. And having that closed feedback loop 
on the effects of these enhancements and these tools that are 
being made available is very important and that it is not just 
being used as a political tool or to weaponize something 
against a certain demographic. So really interested.
    Just to be clear, the ask is, if we can, especially, you 
know, let's bound it with an 18-month scope here, places where 
these enhancement tools, not the charges but just the tools 
that come with the enhanced capabilities have been applied in 
any of the riots throughout our Nation but also in addition to 
the events on January 6th.
    And, obviously, if there are any charges that have gotten 
through the sentencing phase, if there has been any application 
of the enhanced statutory maximums being applied to those 
charges as a result of having a flavor of domestic terrorism, 
that specifically is the information.
    I am not asking you to boil the ocean or give us every 
charge that is currently being, you know, looked at that may 
have these enhancements, but just the riots within our cities 
related to the various movements as well as January 6th, if 
that makes sense.
    Mr. Wiegmann. We will see what kind of information we can 
generate for you, sir.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    And to our witnesses, Executive Assistant Director Sanborn 
and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Wiegmann, thank you for 
appearing today for questioning. It is a particular pleasure 
for Members of Congress to be able to interrogate FBI agents 
and Federal prosecutors, but we appreciate your answers. I 
appreciate your willingness to further engage with our members 
to satisfy their concerns.
    And, with that, this hearing is hereby adjourned.

    [Clerks note: The Department of Justice did not respond to 
additional questions for the record in time for publication.]

                                              Tuesday, May 4, 2021.

     FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                WITNESS

HON. MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
    Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I may ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will go ahead and unmute your 
microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved and you will retain 
the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired. 
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member. Then, members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority. And, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    The subcommittee will come to order. Good morning. We meet 
today to review the President's fiscal year 2022 budget request 
for the Department of Justice.
    I am pleased to welcome our new Attorney General, Merrick 
Garland, for his first appearance before this subcommittee. Our 
Attorney General has a distinguished career in public service. 
With an enviable academic record and an impressive trajectory 
in private practice, he chose to take up the mantle of Federal 
prosecutor.
    In the course of that work, he led the investigation and 
prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing case and supervised 
major cases, such as the Unabomber case, before joining the 
second-highest court in our Nation, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia. He served there with 
great distinction for 24 years, 7 as chief judge, where his 
reputation as an influential and formidable jurist was widely 
acknowledged.
    The Department of Justice mission encompasses the whole 
range of public and civic life, protecting the fundamental 
freedoms to vote, express ourselves, worship, study, and work 
without fear. Above all, the Department of Justice ensures the 
rule of law is followed under our Constitution.
    As a result, the Attorney General, through the Department, 
exercises many broad functions, including leading the domestic 
Federal response to terrorism and foreign threats; employing 
expansive criminal and civil investigative enforcement and 
regulatory responsibilities; serving as a watchdog for civil 
and human rights; playing a key role in our immigration system, 
determining benefits and citizenship; leading national efforts 
against trafficking in human beings, illicit drugs, and 
firearms; operating detention and correction programs 
responsible for hundreds of thousands of people who are 
awaiting trial or serving Federal sentences; and, through its 
grants and related service programs, improving access to and 
administration of justice at State, local, and Tribal levels.
    To carry out the Department's many missions, the so-called 
skinny budget that the Office of Management and Budget provided 
Congress on April 9 proposes a funding level of $35.2 billion 
in fiscal year 2022, a $1.8 billion or 5.3 percent increase 
over the fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
    And, of course, the Department continues to operate during 
this global health pandemic, albeit one that should be 
lessening under your watch, General Garland.
    While we are a somewhat limited because we have yet to 
receive the full budget proposal, today we will discuss and 
review the initiatives highlighted in the skinny budget that 
was forwarded.
    The proposed increase for civil rights enforcement is 
sorely needed. This is a historic opportunity to address 
systemic barriers to full participation in society, ensure 
access to economic opportunities, and protect the right to 
vote.
    As we face unprecedented threats from domestic violent 
extremism, such as the attack on the Capitol on January 6 this 
year, and a national epidemic of firearm deaths and injuries, 
your proposed increases to address those problems are critical, 
and we look forward to your testimony and your explanation of 
how these funds will be utilized.
    We also want to hear how the Department would use proposed 
increases to the Office of Violence Against Women to support 
victims and aid in our fight against heinous gender-based 
crimes.
    The administration has proposed a $157 million increase for 
the Executive Office for Immigration Review to reduce delays in 
immigration processing. We expect to learn more about how the 
Department can help make our immigration system work fairly and 
efficiently.
    We also are interested in your plans in other priority 
areas, including environmental justice and protecting 
intellectual property rights to ensure the U.S. can compete 
fairly on the global stage as well as protect American 
industries and jobs.
    The Department is, like our country, at a crossroads. As a 
Nation, we must work to restore faith, not only in our 
political system but in the ties that bind us together as a 
society. These ties have been tested, certainly, but not 
broken, and we must ensure that remains true.
    Attorney General Garland, you are entrusted to restore 
faith in the Department and its ability to carry out 
impartially on a nonpartisan basis its historic 
responsibilities. I know these are challenges you will face 
head-on. We look forward to working with you on all of these 
challenges, Attorney General Garland, and we look forward to 
your testimony.
    And, at this time, I would like to turn to our esteemed 
ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, and yield to him for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 
with you this morning, and thank you for yielding.
    I, too, would like to welcome Attorney General Garland to 
the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee of 
Appropriations to testify regarding the Department of Justice 
2022 budget request.
    First of all, congratulations to you, Attorney General 
Garland, on your new role. And your stewardship there at the 
Department of Justice is important to all of our communities 
around this Nation, and we sincerely do wish you well.
    While we still don't have your full budget to review, as 
the chairman mentioned, I have taken note of the 
administration's budget summary for the Department of Justice 
and the programmatic increases highlighted therein.
    These substantial increases, such as the doubling of the 
budget for the Office of Violence Against Women, hundreds of 
millions of dollars for new sensitivity training programs and 
other efforts to improve police-community relationships, and 
the $100 million to incentivize States to enact new gun control 
laws, just to name a few, add up very quickly and likely come 
at the expense of some of the more important national 
priorities.
    And yet it is important to know, are there any tradeoffs 
that are being made? Because your budget summary only tells one 
side of the story. However, we can glean from what we have been 
provided that among the lower priorities are resources to 
address foreign terrorist threats, improve human trafficking 
prosecutions, and protect U.S. intelligence property against 
foreign government interference and exploitation.
    I do believe that there will be opportunities to find some 
agreement on measures to reduce violent crime, fight the 
scourge of addiction, and protect the vulnerable from those who 
would seek to abuse or exploit them. But I am concerned that, 
if implemented, this budget would irresponsibly invest taxpayer 
dollars in initiatives that lack the proper grounding in 
evidence or in science, such as the highly questionable gun 
buyback schemes and controversial restorative justice programs.
    Serious initiatives are needed to address the violent crime 
plaguing many U.S. cities. If the Department of Justice truly 
wants to address gun crime, it must not waste its precious 
resources on these liberal, feel-good programs like gun 
buybacks and incentives for licensing restrictions that 
infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding 
citizens while there are those that are on the streets that 
ignore those with impunity the same way they ignore every other 
gun law that is on the books today.
    It is my opinion that if you truly want to make a 
difference, piling on new laws and burdensome reporting 
requirements will not be the solution. America needs tough, no-
nonsense enforcements to remove not just the guns but the 
shooters from the streets once and for all. Sustained, 
systemic, and coordinated law enforcement initiatives, like 
Operation Legend, which surged resources and Federal law 
enforcement assistance into major cities last year to fight 
crime alongside State and local officers, are a good start.
    Further, the budget summary is signaling some troubling 
policy shifts. I will have some questions as we move forward in 
this hearing today about whether these policy priorities 
comport with the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that funded 
the Department of Justice for the current fiscal year, as new 
initiatives and undertakings necessarily require resources to 
implement.
    Investigating and prosecuting alleged civil rights 
violations by police officers is a legitimate focus for the 
Department of Justice. I nevertheless have concerns about the 
decision to revive the Obama administration's heavy-handed, 
constitutionally troubling, and questionably effective approach 
to consent decrees.
    I am also interested in hearing your perspective on the 
humanitarian and the security crisis on our southern border and 
how it affects the workload of the Department of Justice. Also, 
I would like to hear how the Justice Department is working to 
prevent the proceeds of human smuggling operations from further 
fueling violent cartels, creating even more dangerous 
conditions in Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries.
    I strongly believe that supporting law enforcement and 
immigration policies that serve to mitigate the crisis on our 
southern border should be a top priority for this subcommittee.
    Attorney General Garland, we recognize that you have an 
incredibly demanding job. No one would minimize that. And I 
hope your testimony today will reveal a well-reasoned approach 
to the many difficult criminal justice issues that affect our 
local communities in reflection to your years of service to our 
community and certainly also as a Federal judge. We want to 
work with you to ensure that the programs you administer are as 
effective and efficient as possible in supporting the rule of 
law.
    And I look forward to working with Chairman Cartwright in 
support of funding of the many important missions of the 
Department of Justice as this year's appropriations process 
moves forward.
    Again, we do appreciate you being here today virtually to 
answer our questions. And we look forward to receiving the 
Department's complete budget submission while there is still 
time to give it our full attention.
    So, again, thank you for your testimony today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    And, Attorney General Garland, you are recognized for your 
5 minutes of testimony. Please don't worry about leaving 
something out. Your entire written submission will be included 
for the record, and try to hit the highlights in 5 minutes.
    You are recognized, Attorney General Garland.
    Attorney General Garland. Good morning, Chairman 
Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and other distinguished 
members. I am honored to make my first appearance before the 
subcommittee.
    I am here today to discuss the President's Department of 
Justice budget request for fiscal year 2022. Let me start by 
thanking you for your support for the Department in the 
recently enacted Fiscal Year 2021 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
    In remarks to the 115,000-plus employees of the Justice 
Department on my first day in office, I explained how I will 
approach this job. Quote, ``All of us are united by our 
commitment to the rule of law and to seeking equal justice 
under law. We are united by our commitment to protecting our 
country, as our oath says, from all enemies, foreign and 
domestic, and by our commitment to enforcing our country's laws 
and to ensuring the civil rights and civil liberties of our 
people.''
    My approach reflects the Justice Department's mission, and 
the Department's mission is reflected in our $35.2 billion 
fiscal year 2022 budget request. I will share a few highlights 
with you now.
    First, our budget supports my commitment to protecting our 
national security, including addressing both international and 
domestic terrorism, while respecting civil liberties. It 
includes increases of $45 million for the FBI domestic 
terrorism investigations and $40 million for the U.S. attorneys 
to manage increasing domestic terrorism caseloads.
    Second, almost 65 years after its creation, the Civil 
Rights Division's work remains vital to addressing unlawful 
discrimination and bias. Our budget seeks to increase the 
Department's civil rights funding by $33 million, providing a 
total of $209 million for the Civil Rights Division, the 
Community Relations Service, and related civil rights work.
    From protecting voting rights to prosecuting hate crimes 
like those experienced by our Asian-American and Pacific 
Islander communities during the pandemic, DOJ's civil rights 
work is critical to protecting the American Dream.
    Another highlight of the President's request is a historic 
investment of $1 billion to support the work of the Justice 
Department's Office of Violence Against Women. The important 
grant programs administered by OVW will assist our State, 
local, territorial, and Tribal partners in addressing gender-
based violence. In addition, $120 million is provided to expand 
our efforts to address widespread rape-kit backlogs and to fund 
new investigative training programs for law enforcement 
officers and prosecutors in units dedicated to investigating 
gender-based violence.
    Promoting public trust between communities and law 
enforcement is essential to making both communities and 
policing safer. Our budget proposes increased investment in 
programs that support community-oriented policing and 
addressing systemic inequities, including $1.2 billion, an 
increase of $304 million.
    Gun deaths continue to occur at a staggering rate in our 
country. There is more that we can do to make our communities 
safer. This is both a law enforcement and a public health 
issue. We are seeking to increase our support to combat gun 
violence by $232 million for fiscal year 2022, supporting both 
DOJ Federal law enforcement resources as well as grant funding 
for community violence intervention programs, improved 
background checks, and more comprehensive red-flag laws.
    We are also stepping up our work on environmental justice. 
Communities of color, low-income communities, and Tribal 
communities often suffer the most harm from environmental 
crimes and pollution. Among our efforts, we are seeking 
increased resources for our Environment and Natural Resources 
Division to help these vulnerable populations.
    The antitrust laws are the charter of our economic liberty, 
and the Justice Department is committed to enforcing them. The 
fiscal year 2022 request for increased resources for the 
Antitrust Division reflects that commitment.
    Finally, there are nearly 1.3 million cases pending before 
the immigration courts. A 21-percent budget increase for the 
Executive Office for Immigration Review will help support 100 
new immigration judges, improve technology, and other 
efficiency mechanisms to reduce that backlog.
    I have mentioned only a few of the Department's important 
programs this morning. I ask your support for our budget as the 
entire Department works to ensure adherence to the rule of law, 
protection of public safety, and equal justice for all 
Americans.
    Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Attorney General Garland.
    At this time, we will start the questioning period. I will 
open by recognizing myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    I want to start with civil rights and, in particular, 
voting rights.
    I am 60 years old, Attorney General Garland, and, for 
almost my entire life, what was normal in the United States was 
that, if a jurisdiction wanted to change its voting laws, it 
had to get preclearance from the Justice Department or the 
district court in the District of Columbia. That was because of 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
    Now, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 came about largely 
because of the efforts of our dear departed colleague, John 
Lewis, and his efforts that culminated in Bloody Sunday in 
Selma, Alabama, in the spring of 1965, and it led to the 
passage of that bill into law in August.
    That was sustained by the United States Supreme Court in 
South Carolina v. Katzenbach the next year. And it has been 
called one of the most effective pieces of civil rights 
legislation in American history. In fact, it was called that by 
the Justice Department in 2014.
    All of that was upended in 2013 by the Shelby County 
decision, which all of a sudden invalidated the preclearance 
requirement. So, now, instead of normal, what we have is, the 
Justice Department has to file suit every time there is an 
unconstitutional change in voting laws that offends the 15th 
Amendment or some other part of the Constitution.
    And, as a result, your Justice Department has to spend a 
lot more money filing lawsuits to reverse these voting law 
changes. Am I correct in that?
    You are muted, sir.
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. We will try to get 
the technology better. This is my first virtual hearing.
    Yes, you are correct. Shelby County invalidated the 
coverage formula which permitted the preclearance program to 
continue. So it is now the case that the Justice Department is 
largely limited to bringing affirmative cases in which it 
finds, under section 2 of the act, an unconstitutional pattern 
of practices or procedures with respect to voting that 
discriminate against race.
    This does require us to bring individual cases. That is a 
much more time-consuming and more expensive process.
    Mr. Cartwright. In fact, what it does is it reverses the 
burden of proof. It was normal during the vast bulk of my 
lifetime that, if a jurisdiction wanted to change their voting 
laws, if it was a jurisdiction that was listed as among those 
having traditionally and historically violated the Constitution 
for voting rights--if a jurisdiction like that wanted to change 
its voting laws, you know, to make people guess how many 
jellybeans are in the jar or to enact sweeping purges of voting 
rules, things like that, they had to get preclearance, they had 
to get permission from the Attorney General. And so the 
Attorney General was in control of that.
    Now, it is all flipped on its head. The Attorney General 
has to file a lawsuit and carry the burden of proof, which 
could involve months and months and even years of litigation to 
invalidate, you know, a Jim Crow kind of a voting law change 
like that.
    Am I correct, Attorney General?
    You are muted again, sir.
    Attorney General Garland. Am I muted now?
    Mr. Cartwright. I can hear you.
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you. I am sorry. I am 
just--to get back to the question, you are correct. The burden 
of proof is now on the Justice Department to prove in each 
individual case a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, what we are here to talk about are 
resources for your Department of Justice. What does that mean?
    If we have any hope of preserving voting rights in the 
parts of this country that historically discriminated against 
African Americans and others on the basis of race for voting 
rights, if we have any hope of combating these changes, you 
know, that are being enacted vigorously now in the United 
States, how much money is it going to cost the American 
taxpayer because of that Shelby County decision?
    Attorney General Garland. The right to vote is absolutely 
fundamental. It is the cornerstone of a democracy. The Justice 
Department is pledged, as part of its original purpose in its 
establishment during Reconstruction, to protect voting rights.
    The 1965 Voting Rights Act gave us additional authorities, 
one part of which was removed as a consequence of the Shelby 
County case. We do now have to bring each case individually, 
and you are correct, that is a very large investment of 
resources. And that is part of the reason why we are asking for 
the 15.8-percent increase in the budget for the Civil Rights 
Division.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, I thank you for that.
    And I yield now to our distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
Aderholt, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Attorney General, my first question would involve the 
immigration courts.
    Advocates have claimed that 89 percent of all asylum 
applicants attended their final court hearing to receive a 
decision on their application. However, this claim is 
misleading, because the DOJ's own stats demonstrate that 38 
percent of individuals whose cases began with a credible fear 
never even bothered to file an asylum application, despite 
claiming a fear of returning to their home country. Hence, they 
are not even being counted among the pool of asylum applicants.
    Based on this information, do you agree that stats, like 
the doubtful 89-percent statistic I mentioned, don't tell the 
whole story of the immigration enforcement crisis that is 
currently going on in this country?
    Attorney General Garland. Congressman, I am not familiar 
with the specific statistics nor the rebuttal to the specifics 
that you presented. But I will certainly ask my team and the 
people who know those statistics to get back to your staff on 
that.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. That would be helpful, if you could do 
that.
    And could you tell us what specific measures that you have 
implemented or maybe that you plan to implement to enforce the 
immigration laws and protect the current rule of law?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, for the Department of 
Justice, there are a number of issues. I will make clear, of 
course, that the Border Patrol and the Customs and ICE are all 
in the Department of Homeland Security, and so they have the 
primary responsibility at the border. We have a large number of 
U.S. attorneys at the border who prosecute the cases that are 
brought to them by the Department of Homeland Security agents, 
and so part of our budget request is for money for them.
    Then we do manage the immigration courts, the immigration 
judges. That is our Executive Office for Immigration Review. 
That is the principal amount of the increase in money that we 
are asking for in this area, an increase of 21 percent. That is 
because we had, at the time the new administration took office, 
over a million cases backlogged in that system, and we are 
going to need new, additional immigration judges.
    So part of this increase is to add 100 immigration judges, 
plus the teams of support and technology that are necessary to 
accelerate the hearings in those cases.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
    As was noted, the immigration courts' backlog stands at 
over 1.3 million cases. I think that you had noted that. In 25 
hearing locations I understand that an individual will wait 
over 3 years for adjudication, and in 3 locations they will 
wait over 4 years.
    The previous administration implemented case-based 
performance metrics as a basis for evaluating immigration court 
judicial resources. Are those performance metrics still being 
utilized under your administration?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, my understanding--can you 
hear me?
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes.
    Attorney General Garland. My understanding is that the 
Executive Offices for Immigration Review is reviewing the 
nature of those metrics, trying to figure out ways of 
accelerating performance.
    Of course, any system requires some set of metrics. 
Precisely which metrics are reviewed, you know, on a regular, 
routine basis, we are going to be doing that on to ensure that 
we both provide due process for the people coming through the 
system but also efficiency for the system itself.
    Mr. Aderholt. What effect is the pending caseload having on 
due process? And do you have any concern about that issue at 
all?
    Attorney General Garland. I am very concerned about the 
backlog. I think it obviously is not working for the people who 
are in the system and not working for the government with 
respect to evaluating those people.
    We have cut IJ hiring times--IJ, immigration judges--from 
2-plus years now to approximately 6 months. So we expect to be 
able to get a lot more immigration judges in than, so far, we 
have been able to hire. And then we are asking for an 
additional 100 as well. That should, of course, cut the 
backlog.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. But due process is something you are 
concerned about?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Yes, of course. The longer 
people are waiting and the bigger the workload and the faster 
judges have to decide, the less due process is provided. So we 
are concerned to get the right balance.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Grace 
Meng for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congratulations again, Mr. Attorney General Garland.
    I wanted to applaud your March 30 memorandum which directs 
a 30-day review and commitment to a whole-of-agency approach to 
addressing hate-based violence and incidents against the Asian/
Pacific-American community. I appreciate so much your 
leadership, and it shows the communities that their concerns 
are our government's concerns.
    As you know, May is Asian/Pacific-American Heritage Month. 
And I believe this month's celebration should be a clarion call 
for the community and our Nation to shout that anti-Asian hate 
is unequivocally wrong.
    Can you share with this subcommittee what the findings and 
recommendations are? And what additional resources do you need 
to ensure the change you envision will succeed?
    And part two of this question is: While your memo discusses 
the need for better resources to combat hate crimes, you also 
state correctly that communities will need additional tools to 
heal after hateful incidents occur.
    There is a great role for DOJ's Community Relations Service 
to play in healing those affected by hate crimes and violence, 
including those who are the ones who commit the acts. Some 
communities are distrustful of law enforcement and attorneys' 
offices but may be more receptive to someone from CRS for 
solutions that bring restorative justice and peace to their 
communities.
    So I wanted to ask, from your perspective, is CRS scalable? 
And how can we work, if increasing funds, that to--work to 
ensure that CRS will engage with communities on the ground?
    And, separately, how can DOJ help local community groups 
seek help outside of the criminal justice system, developing 
alternatives to carceral punishment, for those convicted of 
hate crimes?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, you hit on a question that 
I only recently realized was extremely important--not the hate 
crimes issue, but the Community Relations Service one.
    So I am very familiar with the service, it having been 
quite important the last time I was at the Justice Department 
in doing the kind of work you are talking about, in developing 
better relationships between communities, victims, and police. 
So one of the first things I did when we were all concerned 
about what might be happening in Minneapolis was to call and 
ask that members of the Community Relations Service assess how 
many there were there and how many more could be brought.
    Sadly, I learned we only had about 26 or 27 total members 
at the Community Relations Service at this point. That service 
has, I would say, badly withered over the years--over quite a 
number of years. And so an important part of our request for a 
budget increase for the Civil Rights Division is to increase 
hiring for the Community Relations Service.
    So I think it is a very good point you raise, and I am not 
sure that many people understand what good work the Community 
Relations Service can do.
    With respect to the hate crimes issue, a significant part, 
also, of the money increase for Civil Rights Division will go 
to hate crime prosecutions. That division does prosecute those, 
and with the additional money we will be able to look into that 
further.
    You are also right that prosecution isn't the only solution 
here. And so we have grant programs under the Office of Justice 
Programs, and we are hoping to move in that direction.
    You asked for non-incarceral resolutions, and so part of 
that is what is called restorative justice, a chance for 
victims and victimizers to get together in a certain way to 
both reduce recidivism and to reduce the pain felt by the 
victim.
    So there are a number of--it is a pretty broad set of 
programs that we have available in this area.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you so much. I really look forward to 
working with you on this issue.
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
    Ms. Meng. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Meng.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Palazzo for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Attorney General Garland, thank you for being here 
today.
    I would like to briefly address the crisis that we have on 
our southern border. It seems to be somewhat of a manufactured 
crisis, but it is a crisis. It is a huge challenge. We 
basically have an invasion taking place on our southern border.
    And, listen, I know we gotta handle this in a humanitarian 
way, and I am all for that, but we are also a Nation of law and 
order. And without law and order, we are creating chaos.
    My biggest concern is the flow of people, not those who are 
coming through the points of entry, but it is the ones that are 
taking advantage of this crisis, and it is the human 
trafficking, it is the drug smuggling, it is the bringing in of 
foreign nationals, some who have been apprehended that we know 
are on the terror watchlist.
    So can you address, what does the Department of Justice see 
at the border? Are there foreign actors coming across that 
could be dangerous? I mean, what are we doing?
    I mean, because we all respect, you know, the FBI and our 
law enforcement communities and officers, and I just feel like 
we are just adding a huge burden upon them, but more so upon 
our local law enforcement officers, who are going to have to be 
basically dealing with the criminal activity that is coming 
across and the hard narcotics in their backyards.
    Could you quickly address what the Department of Justice is 
doing? And how are you advising the administration to get this 
under control?
    Attorney General Garland. Look, the issue of major 
narcotics traffickers sending narcotics across the border is a 
vital concern to us, particularly, now, the transition to 
synthetic opioids, to the fentanyl analogs. The precursors of 
these are coming in some part from China, moving into Mexico, 
then moving across the border.
    We have put a lot of effort into interdiction and into 
enforcement on this. We are spending $2.2 billion in the 
current fiscal year 2021 budget across DOJ for immigration and 
southwest border enforcement. This funds our DEA agents and, as 
I mentioned in the previous question, our prosecutors in the 
southwest border.
    One of the first things I did internationally as Attorney 
General was to speak to the Attorney General of Mexico to seek 
and confirm his cooperation with respect to fighting 
transnational narcotics organizations, and he pledged his 
support to this as well.
    So this is a serious problem, and we are seized with it.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, one thing is for sure: The transnational 
criminal organizations are making a fortune off the crisis at 
the border. And the flow of drugs--I mean, if you just look at 
what the Coast Guard is pulling off the oceans before it makes 
its way into America, we are talking about hundreds of millions 
of tons of cocaine over the past several years. And it is going 
to be a huge crisis. I mean, we already have, you know, so many 
issues facing our country.
    Real quick, can you address, what are we doing to counter 
China, especially in their theft of intellectual property?
    We know they love to steal our technology, and it has 
actually allowed them to close the technological gap to 
actually exceed us in some areas, which is a national security 
crisis as well, but it is also just a theft of, you know, 
trillions of dollars of our resources paid for either private 
or public institutions here in America. Obviously, it is 
unfair. They don't see it that way. They see it as all being, 
you know, fair game to steal other countries', you know, 
intellectual property.
    What is the DOJ doing to counter that? And are you all 
prosecuting individuals engaged in theft of our intellectual 
property?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, within the last month or 
so, the intelligence community has identified China as a threat 
in precisely the regard that you mention, with respect to 
espionage, with respect to theft of intellectual property. So, 
you know, the FBI is working very hard on these issues.
    There is also, obviously, an important cyber crime and 
cyber hacking element of this. And so a lot of money and new 
resources are being put into protecting against that hacking 
and then prosecuting where we are unsuccessful in protection 
and then plugging the holes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate your time.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Case of Hawaii for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Attorney General Garland.
    First of all, I want to, as the Representative from Hawaii, 
with the highest percentage of Asian/Pacific Americans in the 
entire country, I want to fully associate myself with my 
colleague Ms. Meng's remarks as to hate crimes, as well as to 
endorse your efforts to take a whole-of-government approach. 
That is critical for us to get to the bottom of this and do 
whatever we can in that regard. So I appreciate your effort on 
that front.
    Second, as to Mr. Palazzo's comments about China, the 
Department of Justice does have the China Initiative underway, 
which I believe is appropriate under the circumstances. I don't 
think any of us should be under any illusions as to what China 
is up to here. However, there have been many concerns across 
our country, especially in our Chinese-American community, as 
to really profiling of Chinese Americans in connection with our 
reviews of China's interference and theft of our intellectual 
property, et cetera, particularly in our institutions of higher 
learning.
    So I would simply relay a caution to you, that please be 
very attentive to those concerns and take them seriously. The 
intelligence community has done that, and within your own 
organization I hope you will as well.
    Let me cover an issue which is not specific to Hawaii but 
impacts us in particular, and that is that, in our Federal 
district court system, our district of Hawaii has been without 
a residential reentry center for almost 2 years now. We had a 
residential reentry center--or halfway house, if you want to 
refer to it as--for 29 years, until 2019, when the situation 
changed. And we have been struggling with DOJ and the Bureau of 
Prisons in particular to get one up and running again.
    And, of course, you know from your own experience that the 
consequence of the absence of a residential reentry center not 
only prevents a reintegration of Federal inmates into their 
community but, in the case of the district of Hawaii--and I 
think this is true beyond the district of Hawaii--the courts 
utilize that as an alternative to incarceration for two 
distinct populations: pretrial release and those on supervised 
release or so-called public law placement.
    When you dig down to the bottom of this issue, it seems to 
be a question of unrealistic expectations being placed on the 
solicitation process and the bid process. We are in a unique 
situation here in Hawaii, and essentially the solicitations are 
ruling out any effective bids on this. And that is just not 
acceptable. We cannot send our, you know, prisoners and former 
inmates, you know, to the continental United States for these 
purposes. We shouldn't have to do that. The discussion has been 
the alternative of day release, which is not going to do the 
trick.
    And so I would simply ask for your own personal review and 
attention to this issue to see whether we can't punch through 
this and get that solution in place as soon as possible. May I 
respectfully request that?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, of course. Residential 
reentry is critical to the First Step Act and the Second Chance 
Act approaches, which were passed by Congress. They are the way 
both to reduce our prison population and also to prevent 
recidivism and to make it easier for people to reintegrate into 
the community and become good citizens within the community. So 
they are quite essential in that regard.
    I don't know the specifics with respect to the reentry 
program in Hawaii, although I do understand that there is a new 
solicitation being worked on. And I will ask my members of the 
team to work this up and then talk to your staff about it 
directly.
    Mr. Case. Thank you very much, Attorney General.
    In my remaining time, let me just follow up on Mr. 
Palazzo's comments on immigration. And I won't have time for 
your response, but I leave this with you.
    In reviewing immigration and especially a recent trip to 
the border, it became crystal-clear to me that the burden on 
our immigration judges is, in fact, very, very acute and is 
essentially incentivizing, as Mr. Palazzo said, the cartels to 
manipulate weaknesses in our system to basically enhance human 
trafficking and their profits. And the critical weakness here 
is a lack of adjudication on a timely matter of immigration-
related issues.
    And so my question to you--and we can take this up after 
the fact--is: Is your request itself sufficient to handle what 
you view correctly as a huge problem? Is that going to do the 
job in terms of reincentivizing that?
    And I am afraid I am going to have to leave you with that 
hanging question and hopefully take it up with you in some 
other way, but it is a rhetorical question. Is that enough?
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case. And we will allow the 
witness to answer.
    Take 30 seconds and tell us what you can in that space of 
time, Attorney General.
    Attorney General Garland. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Cartwright. Yes.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Yeah, so we have asked for a 
substantial increase for immigration judges and, equally 
important, for the whole team that supports the immigration 
judges. This will be extremely helpful for us at this point. 
This is the amount that we need right now.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. At this time, the chair recognizes 
Congressman Ben Cline for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright. I appreciate you 
and Ranking Member Aderholt for holding today's hearing. 
Ensuring that our justice system is operating effectively and 
efficiently in accordance with the law is essential. And I 
appreciate the Attorney General, his appearance before us today 
to discuss the Department's funding request.
    I will go out of order on my questions briefly, just to 
address the burden on immigration judges. I would posit that it 
is a direct result of this administration's changes in policies 
and put in place a catch-and-release program, repealing of 
remain across the border while their asylum claims are being 
heard, the numerous policy changes that have incentivized 
individuals to make this journey with small children and claim 
asylum for no other reason other than they are trying to escape 
poverty. Now, that is a reason to explore legal immigration 
process and reforms, but I would argue that it is not cause for 
asylum.
    And I would argue that, before we grant a significant 
increase in funding for immigration judges, we need to see some 
recognition by this administration that it is, first, indeed a 
crisis and, secondly, that they are taking steps to address 
this crisis by restoring some order to the border and some 
structure to enforcing our border.
    I want to ask the Attorney General, in the past, GAO has 
estimated that the Department has not collected most of the 
outstanding criminal debt, both fines and restitution, due to, 
among other factors, the nature of the debt and a lack of 
coordination between relevant DOJ components. My last report 
was that it was under a 5-percent collection rate. That is 
abhorrent. At the end of fiscal year 2016, DOJ had identified 
$10 billion of outstanding collectable restitution debt.
    So, as you come asking for an increase in budgeting, is 
collecting this debt a priority for the Department at all? And 
is DOJ adequately measuring its criminal debt collection 
performance against any established goals?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, certainly, bringing in the 
money is that owed is very important to the Department. This 
problem of debt collection has been a problem for--you know, 
since the last time I was in the Justice Department. And I 
certainly will draw my attention to this again.
    Of course, the restitution issue doesn't go to the 
government. The restitution goes to the victims.
    But I will certainly look at this question. The more money 
we can bring in from people who owe us money, the less money we 
would need from you, although, again, I don't believe the debt 
goes directly to the Justice Department, but to the Treasury, 
as is appropriate.
    Mr. Cline. I appreciate that.
    Shifting over to another topic, last year we saw an 
unprecedented and overwhelming number of firearm sales and, 
with those sales, an unprecedented increase in checks run 
through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 
In fact, the 1-year increase from 2019 to 2020 alone was nearly 
40 percent.
    In your opinion, does NICS have the necessary resources to 
handle what I would imagine is continued strain on the system? 
And can you provide the committee with the latest stats on the 
percentage of background checks that fall into, rather than 
``proceed'' or ``denied'' status, ``delayed'' status and the 
percentage of those checks that are then resolved within 3 
business days, 10, 30, and 88 business days when they are 
purged from the system?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, Congressman, you are 
absolutely right that the more sales there are, the more 
pressure there is on NICS to do the background checks. 
Obviously absolutely right.
    In fiscal year 2021, we received $168 million for expanding 
NICS capacity and to address the workload increases for FBI and 
ATF, so we have resources that we are now being able to put 
into this problem.
    I don't know the statistics--I know the issue that you are 
talking about. I don't know the statistics on how long a delay 
there is and whether it is satisfied within the 3-day proceed 
window----
    Mr. Cline. Well, if you could get those to us, I would 
appreciate that.
    Attorney General Garland. Of course, and we will do that.
    Mr. Cline. Let me just ask one more question. Current law 
requires a prospective buyer of a firearm to provide a photo ID 
to exercise this core constitutional right. Would you argue 
that that is a reasonable requirement?
    Attorney General Garland. I would, but I don't know what 
the requirements are. Again, this is slightly beyond my area of 
expertise, and I would have to look into what the requirements 
are.
    Mr. Cline. Well, 26(a) on the form requires a valid 
government photo ID. So----
    Attorney General Garland. Okay. Then that is the answer.
    Mr. Cline. And you would argue that that is a responsible 
requirement?
    Attorney General Garland. I would.
    Mr. Cline. Would you also argue that, to exercise your 
constitutional right to vote, that requiring a photo ID, 
government-issued photo ID, would also be a reasonable 
requirement?
    I am sorry. You are muted, sir.
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I think I may be 
being muted by the subcommittee every time a member speaks, but 
we are doing the best we can here, so----
    Mr. Cline. I appreciate that.
    Attorney General Garland [continuing]. I am sorry.
    Mr. Cline. Would you consider that?
    Attorney General Garland. So the question on voter ID is 
what kind of disparate impact it has on voters of different 
races, colors, and language groups and whether it violates the 
Constitution by having a disparate impact on people's ability 
to vote.
    The Supreme Court has held that voter ID as a concept is 
constitutional. And the issue is what in any individual case, 
as the records show, about whether it deprives certain groups 
protected by the 14th Amendment right to vote.
    That is the question. It is not a question of whether voter 
ID is sensible or not sensible. It is a question of how it 
impacts and what the cost of that impact is and what--
    Mr. Cline. But you don't ask that question for a Second 
Amendment right when purchasing a firearm.
    Attorney General Garland. I think----
    Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cline, we are going to have a second 
round of questions.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Brenda 
Lawrence for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Hello, everyone. Thank you so much.
    And congratulations, Attorney General.
    I wanted to ask the question about mental health and law 
enforcement. The Biden administration's skinny budget includes 
an incentive to partner mental health providers with law 
enforcement across the country, which I believe is incredibly 
important as we look toward ensuring that community policing is 
meeting the needs of all of our residents.
    Will the Department be taking any efforts to prioritize 
grant applicants who intend to use funds to expand or create 
partnerships between mental health providers and law 
enforcement?
    Attorney General Garland. I think the answer in general to 
that is yes.
    We do believe that taking the burden off of law 
enforcement, particularly with respect to some of these very 
high-risk contacts with people who have mental disabilities or 
who are in crisis for any other reason, and to bring along or 
to substitute social workers and mental healthcare 
professionals is a good way to reduce risk both for the officer 
and for the person who is involved.
    So there is $271 million in our OJP increase request, the 
Office of Justice Programs, to performing core processes. And 
this also includes separately that question of having mental 
health courts and drug courts, which is another related issue 
to the one you were asking about.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
    I want to talk to you a little bit about the Civil Rights 
Division. For example, after years of arguing that a Texas 
voter ID law intentionally discriminated against minorities, 
the previous administration's Justice Department abandoned that 
position. Today, States across the country, including my home 
State of Michigan, are attempting to pass restrictive measures 
that would clearly make it harder for Americans to vote.
    Additionally, even the number of hate crimes across the 
country spiked, and Federal prosecutors of hate crimes haven't 
come close to keeping pace.
    Can you explain how the Civil Rights Division will once 
again return to its mission to uphold civil and constitutional 
rights for all Americans?
    Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department, as I 
mentioned, was founded with the principal original purpose of 
protecting the rights of African Americans during 
Reconstruction--their rights particularly with respect to 
voting but also with respect to protection against domestic 
violent extremists and the first incarnation of the Ku Klux 
Klan. That was the original purpose of the Department, 
reinvigorated when the Civil Rights Division was created by one 
of the Civil Rights Acts.
    We are carrying that forward now by requesting an 18.6-
percent increase in our budget for civil rights enforcement 
over last year. A portion of that money will go into the voting 
rights issues about which you were just speaking, and a portion 
of that money will also go into protection against and 
enforcement of hate crimes statutes which Congress has provided 
us.
    Mr. Cartwright. Mrs. Lawrence, you are muted, I think.
    Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. Two things that are really 
important to me. The mental health piece, when we look at 
justice in policing and we see so many people who are mentally 
ill, and we see police officers who are not equipped to respond 
to a person having a psychotic episode versus a criminal.
    In addition to that, if you truly believe in something, it 
will be funded, and it will be a department under your 
leadership that will actively uphold their responsibility when 
it comes to civil rights.
    So I look forward to your leadership. Thank you so much. 
And we have a lot of work to do in your department.
    Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Congresswoman Lawrence.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Attorney General, thank you. Congratulations on the 
appointment, and thank you for your service to our beautiful 
Nation and the monumental mission you have in front of you 
here.
    I am from California, northern L.A. County. We are a State 
where we have a legal cannabis industry. But we are also a 
State, and especially in my district in the deserts above Los 
Angeles, where we are seeing a massive influx of an illegal 
marijuana industry. And I think it is being understated at 
local levels, at State levels, and certainly not appreciated at 
the Federal level.
    I have been able to take a tour with the local law 
enforcement agencies to see it from the air. And I can tell you 
firsthand that, if you remember the first time you went flying 
over a small neighborhood, your reaction was probably, ``Wow, I 
can't believe there are this many pools in our neighborhoods.'' 
I had the same reaction when I toured our Antelope Valley area 
with regards to these illegal pot operations. There are 
literally hundreds, if not thousands, of these greenhouses 
being propped up in our deserts, in areas where, frankly, 
vegetation should not be growing. It is difficult to farm out 
here.
    What is happening is we have folks who are operating 
illegally on a black market who are stealing natural resources; 
they are stealing water. In many cases, the folks working these 
illegal pot operations are indentured servants illegally here, 
trying to make ends meet and being taken advantage of. We have 
local citizens being intimidated by some of these transnational 
criminal organizations that are running these illegal marijuana 
operations.
    The magnitude of this problem is staggering. And I know 
that the Federal Government, I know that DOJ, under DEA, has 
pots of money that do go towards eradicating these illegal 
marijuana operations, but it is at a magnitude, like I said, 
that is beyond comprehension, I think. And I really do believe 
it is worth the DOJ's attention, not only at the Federal level 
but also in support of the local law enforcement agencies.
    My question is, what, in your opinion, can be done from a 
Federal level to help prosecute folks who are growing marijuana 
illegally?
    There is a series of charges that have been deemed, really, 
misdemeanors. The distribution, the sale, the growing of 
marijuana in California is treated as misdemeanors. But the 
stealing of natural resources, in some cases, the squatting on 
land, the intimidation against local residents for illegal 
purposes is rising to the level of felony behavior. And, 
frankly, it is a true security issue at the local level but 
also national security.
    What can we do at the Federal level under your 
administration and your leadership to help us eradicate the 
illegal marijuana problem?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I am not precisely familiar 
with the specifics, obviously, that you were able to see 
through your aerial flights, but the Department's view on 
marijuana use is that enforcement against use is not a good use 
of our resources. I understand that is not what you are talking 
about. You are really talking about growing it and 
manufacturing it on a large scale.
    It is probably not a good use of our resources where it is 
regulated by the State. And, again, I take it that that is not 
what you are asking about. So to the extent you are asking, for 
example, about transnational operations of large amounts coming 
from Mexico or of transnational operators who are coming into 
the United States to do the growing, these are certainly within 
our jurisdiction and within our scope of concern.
    Mr. Garcia. Well, thank you, Attorney General. I would love 
to host you out here to get you and your respective points of 
contact a first-row view of what is going on out here. It is 
staggering.
    The local law enforcement agencies get about $19,000 per 
year from the Federal Government for overtime to help fight 
this. They hit that cap, that $19,000 limit, usually in June or 
July of each year, and it is, frankly, not enough.
    And, like I said, this--we have had seven dead bodies show 
up at these illegal grows here in southern California just in 
the last few months.
    Would really appreciate hosting you out here and getting 
not only the DEA but also ATF and FBI representatives to see 
firsthand what we are seeing on the ground here.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Trone of Maryland 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Attorney General Garland, it is great to be here with 
you today. For the last decade or so, my office has been in 
Bethesda, so we are neighbors. And it is awesome to have 
someone of your qualifications in this job.
    I want to start off today about pretrial and jail 
incarceration rates. Even short stays, pretrial detention, is 
associated with harmful outcomes, costing people their jobs, 
their homes, lose custody of their kids. This practice also 
leads to an increased likelihood of being convicted, receiving 
a harsher sentence, and future involvement in the criminal 
justice system.
    The pretrial detention rates in the Federal system are at a 
record level: 75 percent of individuals detained pretrial. 
Disproportionately, this falls on people of color. Federal 
prosecutors have requested from 56 percent in 1997, now up to 
77 percent, even though the data shows 99 percent of those 
released return to court.
    So, Mr. Garland, could you speak to DOJ's current pretrial 
retention policies and your views on pretrial detention?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, Congressman, I quite agree 
with the concerns you express. I do think that unnecessary 
pretrial detention does make it harder for somebody to build a 
case to defend themselves, which is one point, and, point two, 
often means they lose their job, which, even if they are then 
adjudicated as not guilty, damages their ability to make a 
livelihood. So there is no question about that.
    I served, when I was the chief judge of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on the Executive Committee of the 
Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia. That is 
a statutory appointment. That agency has a Nation-leading 
reputation for analyzing pretrial detainees and making 
recommendations to judges about which ones need to be detained, 
which ones don't, and what kind of more minimal conditions can 
be required, because they have a very good method of figuring 
out who might recidivate while on release or after release.
    And I know that the judges of both the Federal court and 
the superior court are happy with the results of that. So one 
thing might be to help model that program in other districts.
    The Federal law permits pretrial detention only if there is 
no combination of other kinds of conditions that will ensure 
the return of the person who has been arrested and secure the 
safety of the community. That is the underlying test. There are 
provisions that provide a presumption of detention when the 
sentence faced is extremely high or when the crime itself is 
extremely dangerous, but even in those circumstances, it is 
only a presumption.
    Mr. Trone. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, 
after the enactment of the [inaudible] Crime bill, you spent 
$127 million a year on pretrial detention in today's dollars. 
Today, that is over $2 billion, yet our prison population has 
been reduced significantly from where it was three decades ago. 
Does this seem like somewhat of an outsized increase to you, 
given these crime rates are lower?
    Attorney General Garland. You know, I honestly don't know. 
I don't know the Vera statistics, whether the reference is to 
Federal pretrial detention or not. As you can imagine, we are 
not charging people with low-level crimes, in order to 
prioritize our resources and, frankly, to be fair and just. We 
are looking for only, in the area of street crime, violent 
offenders, big-time offenders.
    So it may be that our detention statistics are higher than 
you might guess, for example, if what we are looking at is what 
a local prosecutor brings in. But, to be honest, I simply don't 
know the statistics that you are citing.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you. That is the Federal number.
    Quickly, the President's skinny budget outlined $1.5 
billion, an increase of $500 million, for grants that support 
the reform of State and local criminal justice systems, 
including funding to support diversions and alternative court 
programs.
    Attorney General Garland. Right.
    Mr. Trone. Can you expand on how the funding could be used 
or allocated to safely reduce rates of pretrial detention?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, that is part of the 
important role that these alternative programs provide. The 
drug courts, the mental health courts often allow people 
released on personal recognizance released altogether pending 
various kinds of agreements to monitoring and substance abuse--
taking substance abuse programs, that sort of thing.
    And, as you said, there is $271 million in the OJP, Office 
of Justice Programs, proposal which can be given for those 
kinds of programs.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
    Attorney General Garland and members of our subcommittee, 
we will now take a 10-minute recess, and we will resume for our 
second round of questioning at 11:25 a.m.
    We are in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. Let us gavel back in and resume 
our hearing with the Attorney General of the United States.
    Mr. Attorney General, I am going to recognize myself for 5 
more minutes of questions, and we will begin our second round.
    I know you are acutely aware of the security needs of the 
Federal judiciary. Now, last summer, we saw the shocking attack 
at the home of Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey, resulting in 
the death of her 20-year-old son and the wounding of her 
husband--a horrible incident by any measure. And, in fact, it 
was found out later that the perpetrator was an antifeminist 
extremist who had plans to conduct a similar attack on 
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 
Sonia Sotomayor.
    The Judicial Conference of the United States has noted 
significant concerns about the physical security of 
courthouses, that judges and courts are the targets of higher 
numbers of serious threat communications. And related measures 
indicate judiciary security is at greater risk.
    Do you agree that the Federal judiciary faces a more 
dangerous security environment now than it has in times past?
    Attorney General Garland. I do, Mr. Chairman. And, as you 
mentioned, I am acutely aware of this. I served, when I was a 
judge, on the Security Committee of the Judicial Conference of 
the United States, and I served as the chair of the Executive 
Committee of the Judicial Conference. And, in both positions, I 
and the Conference as a whole were extremely concerned about 
judicial security.
    I think with the rise of domestic violent extremism, 
judges, as is true of many other government officials, both in 
the Federal and State governments, are becoming more likely to 
be targets. So this is something we have to be very, very 
concerned about.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, having said that, Attorney General, 
could you share how the Justice Department, particularly 
through the United States Marshals Service, can improve 
security and whether there will be more judicial security 
resources in your fiscal year 2022 request?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Thank you.
    You are right, it is the Marshals Service who are 
responsible for the protection of Federal judges. The fiscal 
year 2021 budget included an additional $7.4 million for 
Marshals intelligence to use looking at open sources for 
threats and to expand their intelligence unit and another $4.4 
million to modernize the home-intrusion security systems that 
Congress authorized a while ago for each Federal judge.
    The specifics of the fiscal year 2022 budget are not yet 
available, but they will include money for judicial security.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that.
    We had a short discussion earlier about illegal drugs. Now, 
the Department of Justice devotes significant resources to 
reduce the impact of drugs on society. On the enforcement side, 
in fiscal year 2021, your overall DEA and Federal Organized 
Crime and Drug Task Force funding is just shy of $3 billion, 
with almost $400 million for grants under the Comprehensive 
Addiction and Recovery Act.
    The question is, how will the Department ramp up efforts 
under your leadership to reduce the damage from prescription 
opioids and synthetic drugs.
    Attorney General Garland. Right. So this is a terrible 
scourge on our society, the consequences of prescription 
opioids. And we are spending currently $9.5 billion really 
across all of DOJ on all drug enforcement issues, which include 
diversion of opioids. DEA is working with FDA to limit the 
availability, consistent with the needs of medical practice.
    But a significant part of this is not just law enforcement. 
A significant part is also in the President's budget, but not 
for DOJ, but for HHS, some $394 million in grants under the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act as well.
    So there is a significant amount of money on both sides of 
this issue, protecting from a law enforcement point of view and 
then helping addiction recovery.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
    Well, Attorney General, in your view, what are the largest 
challenges still facing the Department in its efforts to 
address the American opioid epidemic?
    Attorney General Garland. I am glad you gave me an 
opportunity, because I think I mixed up the programs I was 
talking about. The President's budget with respect to the 
opioid problem for HHS is an increase in $3.9 billion. So I 
have my decimal point in the wrong place, for which I 
apologize. It is a pretty big number.
    Those are the two kinds of areas in which we are trying to 
work here--one on the law enforcement side and the other on the 
health side and the relief for people who are addicted.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, sir.
    My time is up, and I am going to yield to our ranking 
member, Mr. Aderholt, for 5 additional minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Cartwright. Yep.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
    Attorney General, last week, we had a chance to have 
someone from the FBI before our subcommittee. And one of the 
questions that I asked was about if they had reclassified the 
2017 congressional baseball shooting as a domestic terrorist 
attack rather than a case of suicide by cop. Unfortunately, I 
think the answer that I received was wholly unsatisfactory.
    As Attorney General, are you able to right this obvious 
wrong?
    Attorney General Garland. I did read about your question. I 
have not yet had a chance to speak with the FBI about it, but 
we, the Department, will speak with the FBI about this and find 
out what the situation was.
    Mr. Aderholt. But, from your understanding, obviously, it 
was well-documented that the shooter was not aware that the 
Capitol Police would be there, and he clearly undertook 
defensive measures to shield himself from the bullets, but yet 
it was still classified as suicide by cop.
    So, you know, just from what you understand about the case, 
you know, would you be able to come in there and correct this 
wrong that has been--you know, how it was classified?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know enough about what 
the classification means at this point or in what record it is, 
but I promise I will raise this issue with the FBI.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, I would love to get some feedback on 
that, because this is clearly one of the cases where I think it 
needs to be reclassified, because I think the evidence is very 
clear. And, actually, you know, many Members of Congress could 
have lost their lives in that situation, so it is a very 
important issue, I think, for all Members of Congress, whether 
Democrat or Republican.
    One thing I want to--or another thing I would like to ask 
about is about the private prisons. The Marshals Service 
maintains custody of approximately, as I understand it, around 
60,000 prisoners. And since the Marshals Service neither owns 
nor does it operate its own facilities, it typically partners 
with the State and with local governments or the Bureau of 
Prisons or enters into agreements with contract-operated 
detention facilities in order to satisfy the--and humanely 
house detainees.
    According to the Marshals Service, in several areas of the 
United States, the Bureau of Prison facilities and State and 
local facilities either do not exist or they have limited space 
for them to use. In those events, the Marshals Service houses 
inmates in contractor-operated facilities.
    Nevertheless, in January, the President signed an executive 
order that arbitrarily eliminates the use of contractor-
operated detention facilities, including those used by the 
Marshals Service.
    Have you had a chance to evaluate the impact that this 
decision will have on the Marshals Service's budget and the 
administration of justice?
    Attorney General Garland. So the Marshals Service's 
contracting is with respect to pretrial detainees. And there 
are 13 private contracts that the Marshals Service currently 
manages. The Marshals Service began the process of ending two 
of those contracts that were set to expire within 90 days.
    The Marshals Service will be doing this evaluation in a way 
to ensure that it is able to safely house prisoners after 
transitions and also make sure that their location near the 
community is still available.
    So this is not an immediate setoff with respect to the 
Marshals Service. This will be done in a way that the Marshals 
Service is able to safely and efficiently manage the 
transition.
    Mr. Aderholt. Could you talk about why it is important for 
the Department of Justice to house those in Federal custody 
and, to the maximum practical, in proximity to their 
communities and to their families or their lawyers?
    Attorney General Garland. I quite agree it is important, 
for just exactly the reasons you point out. There is a need for 
lawyers to be able to speak with their clients, particularly, 
obviously, in this pretrial circumstance so they can prepare 
their defense, and, likewise, to be able to communicate with 
their families for purposes of ultimate reintegration with the 
community.
    Both of those are important factors. And that requires some 
question about what the vicinity means, but it definitely does 
mean relative ease of access. You are quite right about that.
    Mr. Aderholt. One thing more I want to ask: How do you 
think the surge of illegal immigration impacts the Marshals 
Service's ability to secure adequate detention space?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer to that 
question, and I will have to look into that and see if my staff 
can get back to you on that. I am not sure of the 
interrelationship between those two issues.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. That would be helpful, if you could get 
back to us on that. Thank you.
    I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Meng for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to ask about the issue of ghost guns, which are 
one of the fastest-growing gun safety issues in our country. 
President Biden, as you know, spoke about this a few weeks ago 
and announced a number of steps to combat it.
    They lack identifying marks, they leave no paper trail, and 
can be acquired without even a background check. It is no 
wonder they are favored by gun traffickers who are flooding our 
cities with illegal guns and armed extremists looking to 
undermine our democracy.
    Ghost guns can be made with unregulated kits, parts, or 3D 
printers using computer codes. Despite President Biden's 
actions to stop the proliferation of ghost guns, I was 
discouraged to see that a court overturned a stay stopping the 
release of computer code used to 3D-print guns.
    Can you explain your thoughts on how the DOJ could tackle 
this issue, including what you know about the prevalence of 
these weapons and how the Department could address kits, parts, 
and 3D-printed firearms?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Well, you have identified a 
serious problem with respect to these so-called ghost guns. 
They are kits, sometimes described as buy-build-shoot kits, 
where virtually all the components are contained in the kit, 
with instructions for putting together into a gun within--
sometimes within as little as 30 minutes.
    The problem is, because they are not currently--it is not 
clear that they are defined as firearms themselves or as the 
frame or receiver of the firearm, they are not inscribed with a 
serial number, and there isn't a requirement for a background 
check before the purchase of the kit. This means somebody can 
get the gun who might be statutorily barred, say, for example, 
a former felon, from getting the kit and making the gun, and 
then, once the gun is made, because it doesn't have a serial 
number, it is very difficult to trace.
    So the ATF has in the works right now--working up a 
proposal for rulemaking, called a notice of proposed 
rulemaking, which should be coming out pretty soon to address 
this question. There will be a rulemaking period and then, 
depending on the result, a regulation with respect to ghost 
guns.
    Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
    Mr. Palazzo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright.
    This is somewhat of a technical question, Attorney General 
Garland, so, if you don't have the exact answers, you know, 
maybe you can submit them to me later.
    But the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated interest in 
the potential to use new technologies to facilitate the capture 
of fingerprints required to search Federal and State criminal 
history record systems. Law enforcement organizations as well 
as populations who are required to undergo FBI fingerprint-
based background checks desire to have new approved methods to 
capture and submit fingerprint images to the FBI using 
contactless technology.
    So a three-part question: Where is the FBI in its 
evaluation and approval of contactless technologies to acquire 
and submit fingerprint images to the FBI databases? What 
timeline is the FBI working from to enable new contactless 
acquisition methods? And please specify the time table for 
FBI's evaluation and approval of these new technologies.
    We are aware that the Transportation Security 
Administration as well as many State law enforcement agencies 
have immediate need to use new contactless technologies and 
request that the FBI prioritize and expedite its evaluation of 
these new capabilities.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, Congressman, you did hit 
the nail right on the head. This is an area that I don't know 
the exact answer, with respect to the contactless fingerprint 
technologies. But I can assure you that my team will get back 
to you on that. We will find out the answers to your question, 
including the timeline question, and get back to your staff as 
well.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, I would really appreciate that.
    And I know it has been mentioned several times during this 
hearing, lacking specifics to the President's budget request. I 
do know that, when I was serving on the House Armed Services 
Committee, a popular question that we would ask the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and others is, you know, what keeps you up at 
night regarding the safety of the United States of America? You 
know, can you share with me maybe some of, you know, the things 
that, you know, you have grave concern about in protecting 
America and the Americans?
    Attorney General Garland. Right. So my oath is to protect 
the Constitution and Americans from all enemies, both foreign 
and domestic, and so both forms of terrorism are of 
extraordinary concern to me.
    We never want to take our eyes off of what happened on 9/11 
and the risks that the country continues to face from foreign-
origin terrorist attacks on the homeland. Likewise, we have a 
growing fear of domestic violent extremism and domestic 
terrorism. And both of those keep me up at night.
    Every morning, virtually every morning, I get a briefing 
from the FBI in one or the other or both areas.
    Since the last time I was in the Justice Department, when 
both were concerns as well, the lethality of weapons available 
to these kind of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, has 
increased. The consequence of the internet and encryption means 
that they can send information and make plans much more swiftly 
and in greater secrecy than could have been done before.
    So we have an emerging and accelerating threat, and the 
Department is putting its resources into defending the country 
with respect to both. And needless to say, this is an all-of-
government problem and an all-of-government solution. The 
Department of Homeland Security, extraordinarily important in 
these areas. And with respect to the foreign threats, 
obviously, our intelligence services and Department of Defense.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Attorney General. I appreciate you 
being with us today. And I thank the men and women under your 
jurisdiction and their families for their service and 
sacrifice.
    And, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Attorney General.
    First of all, I do want to express support for some of the 
specific programs that are reflected in the President's budget 
from a policy perspective. And the ones that I would note from 
your testimony are support for the Office of Violence Against 
Women, especially to reduce the rape-kit backlogs; community-
oriented policing; enforcing our environmental laws and 
environmental justice; and, finally, enforcing our antitrust 
laws, where we see too much centralization of power going on 
out there, market power. So definitely support those 
initiatives.
    Can I please return with you to the subject of immigration? 
Because, in my prior questioning, I asked you whether your 
request for an increase in the immigration judges was enough, 
given the backlog of 1.3 million, I think it is, cases, and you 
said, yes, it is enough for the time.
    And I just want to kind of get into that a little bit more 
with you, because it seems pretty obvious to me that the delay 
in adjudication, especially on the asylum side, is directly 
manipulated by those that are engaged in human trafficking. And 
so, therefore, the answer to that seems to be in two 
categories. One would be the speed of adjudication, which 
addresses some of the issues there, and the other is perhaps a 
broader policy question of our asylum laws to start with.
    And so I guess the first question I would have is, why do 
you think your request is enough? And what actually will that 
achieve? Will it achieve a reduction in the backlog of 
adjudications to, you know, 1 to 2 months? My understanding, at 
least, is that, in some cases, it is up to 2 years. I don't 
know that, but that is what I am told, at least.
    And then, finally, have you considered broader changes to 
our asylum laws, the procedure by which people can seek asylum, 
the standards for asylum? My understanding is that most of the 
asylum claims are denied when they are eventually adjudicated, 
so that would tell me that our asylum laws need to be updated.
    So a two-part question, the same problem.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, let me start with the human 
trafficking problem that you mentioned. This is part of our law 
enforcement concern and comes out of the law enforcement part 
of our budget. We do have a Human Trafficking Task Force, and 
we have some representatives in the Northern Triangle countries 
and in Mexico who are working on this problem. You are quite 
right that it is a significant problem that we have to defend 
against and provide law enforcement for. The money for that is 
also already included within our Criminal Division budget.
    I can't tell you, you know, exactly how much the reduction 
will be or to what number it will be, with respect to the 
backlog. That is going to be the result of a combination of 
factors, one being the increase in the number of immigration 
judges and their associated staff, and the second being 
technology improvements that we are hoping will improve that, 
and a third will be the mechanisms that the Executive Office 
for Immigration Review is looking to put into place to make 
these run more efficiently.
    So, very difficult to project what the reduction will be, 
but, with this kind of many-pronged attack on the problem, I 
think it should be quite substantial.
    Mr. Case. But if I could just interject there for a second, 
you made a request. I mean, the request is for 100 additional 
immigration judges. You have a 1.3 million backlog. There must 
have been some basic assumptions that you and your department 
made in requesting that level of increase in immigration judges 
and that level of increase in funding that somebody felt was 
going to result in a sufficient amount of resources committed 
to the problem.
    So there must have been an assumption of the problem and of 
where this got us to and the solution, and I guess what I am 
asking is, what are those assumptions? Are you assuming that 
there will be, then, a significant reduction--a very 
significant reduction in the backlog, which would, I think, at 
least, result in some relieving of pressure on the exploitation 
of the weakness?
    Attorney General Garland. I agree with you that reducing 
the backlog will reduce the exploitation of the weakness. There 
is a total of a 21.5-percent increase here, which will--it is 
focused precisely on the backlog.
    We are also trying to hire up for positions that were not 
filled. So it is not just 100 additional. And there are limits 
to our ability to hire in any particular year.
    So we are trying to be good stewards of the money that you 
provide us. This is the amount of money that we believe we can 
effectuate, we can hire up for our authorized level that are 
not yet hired, and then with the new hires, to make a 
significant impact.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Well, we will leave it there, and I 
appreciate the response.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    And, Mr. Cline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to stay with the issue of Second Amendment rights.
    Attorney General, recently the Supreme Court agreed to hear 
a challenge to a New York law that effectively prevents law-
abiding members of the public, including those with advanced 
firearms training, from carrying a handgun in public for self-
defense.
    Now, as you know, in the past, the Department has sided 
with the individual rights view of the Second Amendment and the 
individual's right to keep and bear arms. Can you state today 
that the DOJ will support that constitutional right to bear 
arms for self-defense and support the challenge to this law in 
court?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, there is no question that 
there is an individual right to bear arms for self-defense. The 
Supreme Court has so held now at least twice, so there is no 
doubt about that question.
    The issue in this case is an effort, I think on both sides, 
to clarify exactly what the scope of that right is. And that is 
what the Supreme Court will do in that case. When it does, then 
we will know.
    Right now, there is some uncertainty as to the extent of 
the right, whether it extends to open carry, whether it extends 
to concealed carry, whether it extends outside the home. At 
least part of that issue will be clarified by the Supreme 
Court.
    But the question of an individual right is not up for 
grabs. The Supreme Court has already decided that question.
    Mr. Cline. Attorney General, your fiscal year 2022 request 
includes $100 million which would go to programs creating 
government incentives for States to adopt gun licensing laws 
and buyback programs.
    Are you creating a gun confiscation program?
    Attorney General Garland. The answer to that is no.
    My understanding of the buyback programs is that they are 
exactly that, that when--and I am not completely familiar with 
all the details, but my understanding is that these are 
circumstances where somebody has been adjudicated impermissible 
to have a gun anymore, for example, because he has committed a 
felony or any of the other statutory violations in a particular 
State. There has to be a method of taking the gun away without 
expropriating it, and I think that is the purpose of these 
statutes, to remove guns from people who aren't entitled to by 
providing----
    Mr. Cline. So it is your contention that this is not a 
program that will use taxpayer dollars to take lawfully owned 
firearms away from Americans?
    Attorney General Garland. No. At the bottom, it is a 
totally voluntary program. With respect to the purchase, with 
respect to people who are not permitted to have a gun, that is 
up to each State as to how to deal with this.
    To be clear, these are about State laws, not about Federal 
laws.
    Mr. Cline. I was a prosecutor for several years. I worked 
in a jurisdiction that was engaged in a 287(g) agreement with 
the locality to honor ICE detainers. And when law enforcement 
agencies don't honor ICE detainers, these individuals, who 
often have significant criminal histories or engaged in sex 
trafficking or drug trafficking, are released onto the street 
and present a potential and real public safety threat.
    As our Nation's top law enforcement official and someone 
with a statutory responsibility for fostering a cooperative and 
complementary relationship with State and local law 
enforcement, not to mention DOJ's Federal partners, do you 
believe that State and local law enforcement entities should 
honor ICE detainers?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I believe that if ICE has 
lawfully levied a detainer, then, yes, they should.
    Mr. Cline. Staying with this issue related to local 
prosecutions, I was a domestic violence prosecutor for many 
years. And your budget claims to expand funding for restorative 
justice programs using a portion of the funding allocated for 
Violence Against Women Act programs.
    Domestic violence perpetrators are often manipulators of 
their victims. And once a victim musters the courage to report 
or leave their abuser, the abuser will often do or say just 
about anything to convince the victim to return to the 
relationship--hence, the vicious and often deadly cycle of 
abusive relationships.
    Doesn't restorative justice, by definition, involve victims 
and perpetrators reengaging with each other?
    Attorney General Garland. You know, these are State and 
local programs where the people on the ground have the best 
idea of which circumstances they work in and which ones they 
don't work in.
    The problem that you are pointing out is indeed a problem, 
and where there is a risk of manipulation the program shouldn't 
be used. I don't disagree with that. But those are to be 
determined by what works on an evidence-based set of facts.
    Mr. Cline. Are you aware of any studies that involve 
restorative justice in domestic violence or sexual violence 
cases?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know. No, I am not.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Attorney General, thank you again for your patience. I just 
want to revisit the first discussion that we had about illegal 
marijuana operations, particularly in southern California, just 
to close that out.
    I do want to clarify, in alignment with your statements, 
that these are definitely not legal operations. These aren't 
businesses that are being sanctioned underneath California's 
cannabis industry regulations, nor are they taxed. There is no 
oversight. There is no regulatory body touching them.
    And these are also not, I would say, mom-and-pop operations 
or single families with small illegal grows in their backyards. 
These are, in southern California, very large-scale nurseries 
being put up in the middle of our desert.
    They are literally stealing water out of fire hydrants and 
out of California's aqueduct system. They are, in some cases, 
stealing land and squatting on these desert properties and, in 
many cases, over 90 percent of them, using free labor in the 
form of indentured servants from people who are here illegally 
and don't have an ability to go to police, like most employees 
would have.
    So this is truly a threat. It is a national security 
threat. It is an international threat. It is a domestic threat. 
And I would really welcome you to send a delegation out here to 
see it firsthand. This isn't a political thing, by any stretch 
of the imagination.
    But I would love to have your commitment to have a small 
delegation from DEA, ATF, and, if appropriate, FBI to come see 
it firsthand. We are starting to get traction with local law 
enforcement, but they desperately need the funding and support 
from the Federal level. Would you be able to make a commitment 
to support at least a site visit here to southern California on 
this?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, let me have a chance to 
speak to the DEA about this or to have one of my staff speak to 
the DEA and see what they know about the circumstances that you 
are describing. They certainly, the way you are describing 
them, of course--plus, you mentioned, I think, seven dead 
bodies being found.
    The combination of large-scale illegal activity, violence, 
indentured servitude--none of those are things that we should 
be ignoring. So I will be sure that the DEA looks into this.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Attorney General. I truly do 
appreciate that. This is something I think all hands on deck, 
all levels of government, is necessary to actually eradicate 
this. And, like I said, it is actually bad for the legal 
cannabis industry as well. That is a, sort of, collateral 
negative effect.
    I do want to also go back to the conversation that we had 
around voter ID. I want to just tag up on my friend 
Representative Cline's comments and your response real quick to 
that.
    You mentioned that the question with voter ID comes down 
to, does voter ID cause a disparate effect on certain 
demographics. I would like to just get your sense of the answer 
to that.
    In your opinion--and I know you are not an election expert. 
I know you are not necessarily a social justice expert as well. 
But, in your opinion, do you think requiring identification for 
the purposes of participating in an election does cause 
disparate effects on certain demographics? And, if so, which 
demographics are those? Why does it cause a disparate effect? 
And what can we do to help that?
    Attorney General Garland. Yeah. So I should have added 
``intentional or disparate impact,'' obviously.
    And the answer to that, in general, is it depends on the 
particular jurisdiction and circumstance. This is not--the 
Supreme Court has made clear, and as I pointed out, the mere 
fact of requiring voter ID alone is not the issue. The question 
is whether it deprives individuals of the right to vote and, 
you know, sort of, what the risk on the other side--what the 
evidentiary risk, on the other side, of fraud is.
    So you can certainly imagine--you don't need to imagine. I 
would say, as a general--at sort of a high level, the question 
is, are there people in demographic groups, for example, 
African Americans, who do not have a voter ID for any number of 
reasons? There may be people in poor and disadvantaged 
neighborhoods who don't have automobiles or don't have a 
driver's license, who are unemployed and, therefore, don't have 
those kind of identifications.
    So the question of having a photo ID is, you know, to many 
of us, is, you know, not a problem. Everybody that we know has 
a voter ID. But that is not the case for many people all across 
America. And when it comes out that that deprives people of 
their right to vote, we have a serious problem.
    And that is something that is determined on a case-by-case 
basis. And, as the chairman mentioned, it is a resource-
intensive investigation to make a determination of whether, in 
a particular circumstance, voter ID has that consequence.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Attorney General.
    If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just--I do know a lot of Black 
people, Hispanics, poors of all demographics, and they 
certainly haven't had a challenge getting identifications. I 
think it is offensive to those demographics to imply that.
    But I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Attorney General.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    Well, Attorney General Garland, you have held up well under 
the withering fusillade of interrogation of this subcommittee. 
I thank you for joining us. And I look forward to further 
discussion of the full budget from the White House when we get 
it.
    In the meantime, I want to compliment you on the bipartisan 
nature of the portraiture behind you. It looks like we have 
President Gerald Ford's Attorney General and, obviously, 
President Kennedy's and Johnson's Attorney General. A lot of 
people might not be familiar with Edward Hirsch Levi. Have I 
pronounced his name correctly?
    Okay. He was said to be the top lawyer of his generation. 
And I am glad you have his portrait on the wall, not only 
because he was a Republican Attorney General but because he was 
such a preeminent trial lawyer at his time.
    Attorney General Garland. I am no art expert, but I do 
revere both of those Attorneys General.
    Mr. Cartwright. I also wanted to ask you, by the way--there 
was a prior predecessor of yours named Garland. It was Attorney 
General Augustus Garland, who was Glover Cleveland's Attorney 
General. I take it you are his great-grandson.
    Attorney General Garland. No. And my understanding, he is 
in a famous Supreme Court case involving a pardon of a 
Confederate sympathizer. So I think I would like to keep 
distance from him.
    Mr. Cartwright. You are disowning him. All right.
    Well, Attorney General Garland, thank you for favoring us 
with your presence today. We will have you back, and we will 
have more questions about the direction of the Department of 
Justice and the funding that it requires over time.
    Members of the subcommittee and Attorney General Merrick 
Garland, this hearing is hereby adjourned.

    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                             Thursday, May 6, 2021.

     FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                                WITNESS

HON. GINA M. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few 
housekeeping matters. For today's meeting, the chair or staff 
designated by the chair may mute participants' microphones when 
they are not under recognition for the purposes of eliminating 
inadvertent background noise. Members are responsible for 
muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not 
unmuted yourself, I may ask you if you would like the staff to 
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will 
then go ahead and unmute your microphones.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired. 
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member, and members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority. And then, finally, members not present at the time 
the hearing is called to order will be recognized.
    Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or 
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to 
your staff.
    The subcommittee shall come to order. Good afternoon.
    Today we welcome the Secretary of Commerce, Ms. Gina 
Raimondo, in her first appearance before this subcommittee to 
testify on the Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2022 budget 
request. Thank you for being with us today, Madam Secretary.
    The President's fiscal year 2022 budget request proposes a 
bold $2.5 billion increase to the Department of Commerce's 
budget to further its vital role in our Nation's economic 
recovery following the pandemic. The request focuses on 
American jobs, businesses, and manufacturing, as well as 
ensuring a safe supply chain, the continuation of keeping 
America competitive in a global trade market; and, finally, 
restoring America's position as a global leader in 
semiconductor production.
    Additionally, the request invests in our future by 
increasing broadband deployment, so everyone has the 
opportunity to participate in our modern economy and education 
system.
    The request also includes initiatives in weather, climate 
and oceans research, and services that will improve our 
resiliency to climate change and create jobs and prosperity.
    Our global competitors and adversaries will often seek to 
undermine or circumvent our trade laws, steal our intellectual 
property, and impose retaliatory tariffs or other barriers to 
trade. Bureaus, such as the International Trade Administration, 
play an important role in protecting American businesses and 
industries from unfair trade practices that directly impact 
American workers. That is why I am glad to see a continued 
commitment to ensuring staffing and resources for the 
Department's bureaus focused on both trade enforcement and 
export controls in the top line budget.
    While our hearing today will focus on the budget request, 
we will also want to discuss other areas of general oversight 
concerning the Department of Commerce. I look forward to 
hearing more about requirements for the U.S. Census Bureau as 
it continues to roll out the 2020 decennial Census results. It 
goes without saying that the Census Bureau had an enormous 
unprecedented task in conducting its operations in the midst of 
a global pandemic, but concerns persist around a potential 
undercount, especially of those in hard to count and minority 
communities.
    I would also like to highlight a couple of other issues. 
First, when the pandemic struck, the Office of Management and 
Budget sent Congress a formal letter requesting supplemental 
funds to deal with internal impacts of that upheaval. For 
whatever reason, the Commerce Department was one of the only 
Federal agencies that the previous administration chose not to 
include in that request. This oversight has squeezed your 
budgets and hampered several initiatives. I hope this 
administration will not let that sort of thing happen again.
    Second, I want to make sure you are aware of ongoing issues 
with hiring, most notably, at NOAA. Your proposal includes an 
increase of $1.4 billion for NOAA, which would certainly 
necessitate considerable hiring. The current delays in 
onboarding new staff is incompatible with the President's 
climate goals. So, my advice to you is that you begin to 
address that problem right away.
    We need NOAA to play a very big role in addressing climate 
change, so they need to be firing on all cylinders. Any 
organization is only as good as its people, so please make 
streamlining the hiring process a priority.
    While we look forward to receiving the full budget request 
from the administration in the near future, what we know, based 
on the initial top-line requests, illustrates a serious 
commitment to reinvesting in the improvement of the overall 
quality of life for the American people, and restoring 
America's competitiveness and position as a leader in the 
global economy. And we know this proposed investment will only 
be augmented by funding from the administration's American Jobs 
Plan. I am looking forward to hearing more from you on how the 
American Jobs Plan will work in concert with the budget 
proposal.
    And now, I would like to yield the floor for the opening 
statement from our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be 
with you today. Thank you for yielding. And I appreciate you 
holding this hearing today, and I am pleased to be joining the 
subcommittee today to hopefully learn more about the Department 
of Commerce's fiscal year 2022 discretionary budget, as you 
rightly mentioned.
    First, I would like to also welcome Secretary Raimondo for 
her inaugural hearing before the Commerce, Justice, and Science 
Subcommittee. It is great to have you here today. 
Congratulations on your new role as Secretary.
    Ms. Raimondo, your stewardship of the Department is 
important to our Nation, all of our communities, and we 
sincerely do wish you the best. I wholeheartedly support the 
Department's efforts to promote job creation and economic 
competitiveness, and protect our Nation's innovators and 
manufacturers from unfair trade practices.
    In the last few years, the Commerce Department has stood up 
more for manufacturing jobs in Alabama and across the United 
States than I believe any time in recent history. I hope, and 
did expect that you will continue to make America industry a 
top priority.
    As you well know, beyond fostering jobs and opportunities 
for the people of north Alabama, and across our State and 
across our Nation, the Commerce Department also oversees many 
other important programs. This includes critical activities at 
NOAA, including the provision of daily weather forecasts, 
severe storm warnings, and climate monitoring, along with 
efforts to support fisheries and foster marine commerce. The 
important work being done by the Alabama Water Center and the 
Vortex Southeast Program remains critical to people of my 
State, and also my district.
    In addition, the Department of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology works to advance measurement of 
science, standards, and technology in the ways that enhance 
economic security, and improve our quality of life. NIST's 
mission is truly at the forefront of many of the most exciting 
and life-altering technological advancements in the world 
today.
    These are just a few of the many important missions at the 
Commerce Department, and I hold them in high regard.
    And while the scarce budget details have been provided fall 
short, I have taken note of the administration's summary for 
the Department of Commerce, and the program increases you have 
highlighted. Unfortunately, it is impossible to assess, or if 
there is going to be tradeoffs that are being made. 
Nevertheless, I believe there will be opportunities to find 
agreement on measures that help advance manufacturing, and also 
innovation to improve weather forecasting, spur much-needed 
economic development as well.
    But going forward, I strongly encourage you to put forth a 
budget submission with a serious focus on developing and 
implementing a strong export control strategy that matches the 
enormity of the threat that is posed by China.
    And I further urge a greater focus on addressing unfair 
foreign trade practices and barriers that harm U.S. workers and 
businesses.
    I look forward to discussing these and many other important 
matters with you here today during our hearing, and I will have 
questions about trade enforcement, particularly when it comes 
to aluminum; the importance of securing our microelectronic 
supply chain; and the office of space commerce, just to name a 
few.
    We want to work with you to ensure that the programs you 
administer are as effective and that they are as safe as 
possible, and I look forward to working with our chairman, 
Chairman Cartwright, and our full committee chairman, to make 
sure that we do everything to support the many missions that is 
under the Department of Commerce and this year's appropriation 
process, and as it does move forward.
    We sincerely appreciate you being here with us, and making 
yourself available this afternoon. We look forward to receiving 
the Department's complete budget submission in time to 
thoroughly review it before the chair commences the markup 
efforts.
    So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding this 
afternoon, and I look forward to the hearing.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    At this time, it is my pleasure now to turn to the chair of 
the full committee, Representative DeLauro, for any statements 
she would like to make at this time.
    The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Aderholt, for holding this hearing. And I want 
to welcome Secretary Raimondo for your first appearance before 
this subcommittee. I also might add it was such a great 
pleasure to welcome you to Connecticut earlier this week, as we 
talked more in depth about the profound ways in which 
registered apprenticeships and job training programs can help 
furnish our workers with the resources and the skills that they 
need to build successful careers, and a path to a brighter and 
a more prosperous future. So thank you so much for being in 
Connecticut.
    I deeply appreciate the work that you are doing to build 
back better, revitalize our workforce and the American economy, 
following the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic. And I am so 
grateful for the work you have been doing especially as it 
relates to women, and in the strengthening of the care economy.
    While I know this is not something specifically within the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, I do want to stress 
the importance of addressing the issues we have seen in the 
childcare economy that have been further exacerbated by this 
pandemic, so that women and mothers can go back to work. As you 
know, the recent release of the 2020 Census results showed a 
somewhat surprising drop in the birth rate. This is despite 
surveys that show that women want to have as many babies as 
ever, so I think there is no doubt that is due, in large part, 
to the so-called shecession, and the lack of childcare and 
daycare and educational resources for American families across 
the income spectrum.
    So, again, I think this is a particularly important part of 
what you are doing, Madam Secretary, in your work to bring back 
our economy and to create jobs.
    But let me turn more specifically to the Biden 
administration's funding request for the Department of 
Commerce. As you know, the 2022 discretionary request for the 
Department is $11.4 billion, a 28 percent increase. It includes 
significant increases for the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, NIST; the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
program; Minority Business Development Agency; and the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    As someone from a coastal district, I know very well how 
important it is for NOAA to continue investing in climate 
resilience and supporting coastal communities.
    This funding request also includes $500 million over 2021 
for the next generation of NOAA satellites, incorporating a 
diverse array of new technologies, which would improve data for 
weather and climate forecasts and provide critical information 
to the public.
    Finally, in addition to these specific funding proposals, 
the administration is also sending a strong signal that support 
for trade enforcement and addressing unfair trade practices 
will continue. I fully believe that these important 
initiatives, coupled with further investments in American jobs, 
will spur economic growth, create jobs, and it will play a 
crucial role in revitalizing our economy. And I look forward to 
learning more about the administration's plans for the future.
    So let me say thank you again to you, Secretary Raimondo, 
and for all of your tireless work, for joining us to discuss 
these critical issues. And let me say a thank you to Chairman 
Cartwright and Ranking Member Aderholt.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chair DeLauro.
    At this time, Secretary Raimondo, I am going to recognize 
you for 5 minutes of your testimony. The clock is visible to 
you, I believe, and we ask that you abide by that and don't 
worry about leaving out points, because we will be including 
your entire written testimony in the permanent record.
    At this time, Secretary Raimondo, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    It is a great pleasure for me to be here with you, and to 
those of you who I haven't met in person, I look forward to 
doing that soon.
    Chairman Cartwright and Chair DeLauro, Ranking Member 
Aderholt, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity to discuss President Biden's fiscal year 2022 
discretionary request for the Department of Commerce.
    As has been said already, the President's request includes 
an $11.4 billion for the Department of Commerce, which is a 27 
percent increase above the 2021 enacted level, so a reasonably 
significant increase. With these funds, we will be able to 
maintain existing programs, but also make critical investments 
necessary to boost the Nation's ability to address the crises 
we face today.
    And I will say, we all have the task of working through the 
appropriations process in light of incredible crises. We are 
facing four simultaneous crises of unprecedented scope. First, 
a once-in-a-century pandemic that has already claimed the lives 
of a half a million Americans; second, an economic crisis that 
has been punishing, and still, we have nearly 10 million people 
out of work; third, a national reckoning on race inequality; 
and, fourth, the growing threat of climate change to the 
American people and economy.
    The Department of Commerce will play an integral role in 
addressing each of these crises. As some of you had mentioned, 
NIST has already been critical. NIST research has developed a 
way to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the common swab 
test for COVID-19. The EDA has already awarded more than $1 
billion in grants to help communities and businesses across the 
country recover from the economic crisis.
    The MBDA enabled technical assistance programs to help 
minority business enterprises execute on about $8 billion in 
transactions in 2020. And NOAA continues to save lives and 
property by providing early warning systems and decision 
support tools to avoid the most devastating impacts of extreme 
weather events, many of which, I don't have to tell you, are 
increasing in frequency and intensity, of course, due to 
climate change.
    I am very proud of the work that the Department has done 
and is doing to confront these crises, but I am very aware of 
the challenges that remain, and the President's discretionary 
request puts forward significant investments to help us do the 
work necessary to build back better after these crises.
    I look forward to talking with you over the next however 
many minutes, but permit me for a second just to highlight a 
few of the key initiatives included in the increased 
discretionary request.
    First, there is significant investment, additional 
investment in manufacturing, including in the Manufacturing 
Innovation Institutes Program and the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership. There is additional money for EDA, including in 
the assistance to coal communities, substantial investments in 
NOAA to ensure that we have top-notch climate science, 
observation, forecasting and research, improvements in weather 
and climate, and also additional investments in NIST to spur 
research and technological innovation by expanding scientific 
and technical research.
    As many of you said, we have to lean in to improve our 
Nation's competitiveness. We have to make our decisions based 
upon science. We have to make our decisions with an eye towards 
equity, and I look forward to working with all of you to create 
jobs, spur growth, and do it in a way that supports American 
businesses and workers now and into the future.
    I am very happy to take your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Secretary Raimondo.
    And before we get into the question period, I would like to 
extend an invitation to you to visit my own district in 
northeastern Pennsylvania to meet with our local businesses, 
see the potential for growth in our area, and understand our 
economic development needs. I do hope we can find a convenient 
time for that, perhaps this summer or fall when most of the 
COVID restrictions have been lifted.
    Can I count on you to visit northeastern Pennsylvania?
    Secretary Raimondo. Absolutely. I would say--I actually 
love being out in the community. I was with Chair DeLauro, as 
she said, earlier this week in Connecticut. Last week I was in 
New Hampshire. And it is important to hear from the people that 
we serve, so thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. I believe that. When you are in Rhode 
Island, if you take one wrong turn, you are in Connecticut.
    Secretary Raimondo. Hey, hey, hey.
    Mr. Cartwright. I am going to recognize----
    The Chair. That would be a right turn there. That would be 
a right turn coming to Connecticut, Cartwright.
    Mr. Cartwright. I stand corrected, Madam Chair.
    I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
    Secretary Raimondo, in his American Jobs Plan, President 
Biden has proposed $50 billion for a new office in the 
Department of Commerce, quote, ``dedicated to monitoring 
domestic industrial capacity and funding investments that 
support production of critical goods,'' unquote.
    No additional details have been provided so far on this 
proposal. So, the first question is, can you provide more 
information on the specific activities this planned new 
Commerce Department office is to support? Is the $50 billion in 
proposed funding for the office for a single year of operation? 
And will additional funding be sought for subsequent years? If 
so, how much funding do you imagine this requiring annually?
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    So, obviously, more details will be forthcoming about this 
new office, but I will say a few things: The office is intended 
to help us deal with the challenges that we are seeing in our 
supply chains. I think we all realized during COVID how 
vulnerable some of our supply chains are. Too many things are 
being built offshore; and, so, we envision the office will have 
three primary functions. The first is monitoring, and commerce 
is well positioned to do that, so monitoring across critical 
supply chains to find where there are vulnerabilities for 
critical products.
    As a side note, I will say that a year ago, I was the 
Governor of Rhode Island, and struggling with the problems of 
our supply chain because we couldn't get our--as was Tom Wolf. 
We couldn't get our hands on enough ventilators and enough PPE. 
So monitoring is one of the key components.
    A second component will be grants, so we envision making 
grants out of this office to create new production capacity, 
particularly for small- and medium-size manufacturers so they 
can make products in America.
    And then, finally, an investment arm, which will allow 
commerce to partner with the private sector to address 
vulnerabilities and, frankly, get ahead of supply chain 
resiliency issues.
    And it is envisioned that this money would be spent over 
several years.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that.
    The next question is about smaller and midsize communities, 
like the ones in my district. They don't have the resources to 
invest into professional grant writers, and they don't have the 
ability to monitor grant opportunities. Certainly, my staff 
work around the clock to help our constituents and the local 
municipal officials and chambers of commerce, but we can't be 
everywhere.
    What will you do to make sure communities like mine are 
understanding what opportunities are available and getting full 
consideration as this additional money is spent?
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for that question.
    And, again, I hear you because, as you pointed out, Rhode 
Island is a small State, and a lot of small communities, and 
they don't have the person power to do--you know, to do that 
work.
    In both MBDA and EDA, a significant portion of the funds 
will be dedicated to doing exactly what you are talking about, 
which is to say, providing local communities technical support 
and assistance, so that they can, in fact, access the monies, 
do the grant writing, hire consultants and such, to augment 
their own staff so that they are able to be eligible 
successfully for the EDA funding, the MBDA funding, and some of 
the Department's other funding.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that.
    We will go into a second round of questioning, but I want 
to yield the floor to Ranking Member Aderholt for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, section 232, tariff program ops could be 
utilized in a much better way to stem the tide of well-
documented subsidies that drive overcapacity in China. For the 
aluminum industry in particular, the execution of the program 
and its exclusion process has actually been hurting domestic 
aluminum producers rather than actually helping them.
    In December, the Commerce Department published a round of 
changes to the exclusion process, but acknowledged technical 
and policy issues remain. And I believe some of the changes 
that were made, like the new general approve exclusion, 
deserves a reexamination.
    Will you and your team there at the Department of Commerce 
take a fresh look at the exclusion process and assess the 
impact of the domestic industry to address these various 
countless problems that we are seeing in the U.S. industry that 
has highlighted in [inaudible].
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So, first of all, I would like to 
thank you for your question. The 232 tariffs were imposed to 
protect our workers in the steel industry, in the aluminum 
industry from primarily China dumping its highly subsidized 
cheap steel and aluminum into our markets. Having said that, 
the exclusions process, which was intended, as you say, to help 
consuming industries has--you know, has had challenges, and for 
a while there were backlogs.
    I am very pleased to say the Department has improved, and 
currently, it has substantially reduced the amount of time that 
it takes to receive an exclusion. We are down to about 50 days 
to grant an exclusion from the time it is asked for until the 
time it is granted.
    Having said that, the answer to your question is yes, I 
think there is continued room for improvement, and I would 
welcome an opportunity to visit with you and hear your feedback 
on how you think we could continue to improve.
    Mr. Aderholt. That would be great.
    And since the chairman took the liberty to ask about coming 
to Pennsylvania, hopefully we can schedule something to come 
down to Alabama at some point.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Also, I need to let you know that 
my father, believe it or not, went to the University of 
Alabama, which is a story I can share with you when I visit 
with you. But he was an Italian kid from the tenements of 
Providence. He served in the 2nd World War, and got the GI 
Bill, and went to the University of Alabama, so we are big Roll 
Tide people in my family.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, I represent Tuscaloosa, so that would 
be perfect. Maybe we can get you over to Tuscaloosa.
    Secretary Raimondo. Great.
    Mr. Aderholt. Let me switch about dealing with weather. 
Back in March, The Washington Post reported that the National 
Weather Service internet systems were crumbling as key 
platforms are being taxed and they are failing. Most of the 
agency's online systems went down during a recent tornado 
outbreak here in the South, and a vital resource for relaying 
information crashed. The agency's office is in Birmingham, and 
it had to switch to a third-party instant messaging service 
just to keep people informed.
    These revelations are serious and cause concern, and there 
is a strong, bipartisan support for addressing this issue, and 
it is my hope that fixing these systems will be one of your top 
priorities as you take the helm there at the Department of 
Commerce.
    Can you explain what is going on with the dissemination of 
weather information to the public, and what your fiscal year 
2022 budget proposes to try and do about this?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Thank you.
    And I share your concern. The systems and the IT are older, 
and the reality is that given the severity and frequency of 
severe weather events, the demand from the private sector, 
States, other public entities, the demand for our weather 
services has been, frankly, outstripping our ability to supply 
that information.
    And so, yes, I will commit to you to prioritizing this. The 
President's discretionary budget calls for over $1 billion of 
additional funding into NOAA, and a good portion of that ought 
to be to improve the science, technology, and technological 
systems exactly as you say. And I will commit to working with 
you and prioritizing that.
    If anything, it is more important than ever, and I think it 
is $1.4 billion that the President calls for into NOAA, and a 
good part of that will be in improving our technology.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Well, thank you for your commitment on 
that.
    So, you are saying with confidence that the fiscal year 
2022 budget includes enough funding to fix the problem as 
quickly as possible?
    Secretary Raimondo. I am saying that when the details come 
out, I will go through them carefully and make sure that that 
is the case; but yes, I believe the answer is yes.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    At this time the chair recognizes overall Appropriations 
Chair DeLauro for 5 minutes of her questions.
    The Chair. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Raimondo, you know--by the way, I know you were 
in Joe Courtney's district, so that means there has got to be 
another trip to Connecticut for my district. And I will just 
say this, I don't want to take away from your time or my time, 
but Rhode Island and Connecticut go back and forth as to who 
has the most Italian Americans, you know. And I fight with 
Cicilline all the time, it has got to be Connecticut, Madam 
Secretary, so I know we will continue to fight as well.
    As you know, trade enforcement is a critical mission for 
the Commerce Department; and to assure that American businesses 
workers thrive in that global market, the Department has to 
ensure that we are enforcing the trade laws, to make sure that 
foreign governments play by the rules, and are in compliance 
with our international agreements.
    Can you just talk about, what are the trade enforcement 
priorities you have as Secretary of Commerce moving forward? 
What is the administration's trade enforcement agenda going to 
look like to protect American workers and businesses?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Thank you.
    So, first of all, I couldn't agree more that American 
workers deserve a level playing field, and everybody needs to 
play by the same rules. That is what this is all about. So we 
need to disseminate the rules, and then enforce the rules and, 
quite frankly, ensure that our allies enforce the rules. And 
one of my areas of focus will be to work more closely than, 
say, the last administration with our allies to align around 
not only policies, but enforcement. So that is enforcement of 
the Entities List. That is enforcement of countervailing 
antidumping and countervailing duties. That is an area that I 
plan to focus significantly to make sure that we do the 
enforcement. IP protection, you know, we have a China team 
within the Department of Commerce. You know, it is vital that 
we have strong patents, but also that they are enforced.
    And, so, I had a meeting just this morning talking with ITA 
to talk about this very issue, which is the rules are only as 
good as the enforcement, and, so, we intend to execute on that.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    I was really pleased to see within the last 24 hours that 
the administration lifted the waiver for India and South Africa 
to be able to deal with manufacturing, you know, the vaccines 
that are needed in those countries, and India, particularly, 
being devastated. So, you know, thank you for that. And I know 
we want to protect intellectual property, but you know when you 
are looking at intellectual property versus saving lives, I am 
so pleased that the administration moved from the direction 
that you did.
    Let me also ask if----
    Secretary Raimondo. I would just say on that, 
Congresswoman, you were clear about that with me when I saw you 
Monday, and I was clear about expressing your strong support.
    The Chair. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. It 
really is--I can't tell you how excited and pleased we all are, 
and what that means for those countries.
    There is a Section 6001 in the American Rescue Plan. There 
is $3 billion there for the Economic Adjustment Assistance Fund 
to help communities impacted by loss of travel and tourism. Can 
you talk about that a little bit, and how that might be 
implemented?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So it is a floor of $750 million 
out of the $3 billion that will go specifically to travel and 
tourism. I don't need to tell anyone in this meeting how 
devastated the travel and tourism industry has been. I saw it 
in Rhode Island, you see it in Connecticut, small hotels, 
restaurants, et cetera. We will be very soon working very hard 
to get that money out later this spring, $750 million, to--
every State should benefit, and we will send it out in grants 
to communities, so that they can use it right away to help get 
their industry back on track.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you very, very much for that.
    And I am going to--you know, we can talk at some point 
about, you know, again, a little bit outside the scope. But, 
you know, your helping to support and bolster the 
infrastructure of the care economy, which I think is such a 
critical issue as we move down the road.
    Delighted that you are there and look forward to working 
with you very closely. Thank you so much.
    And I thank my colleagues and chair and the ranking member 
and yield back my time.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chair DeLauro.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Cline for 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and 
Ranking Member Aderholt holding today's hearing.
    I want to welcome the Secretary. I wish we were in person. 
I saw your testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee 
a few weeks back, and it was nice to watch a committee working, 
and you in front of them answering questions; but this will 
have to do today.
    As our Nation moves forward and continues to recover from 
the devastating effects brought on by COVID-19, it is vital we 
are ensuring that businesses can remain open so that our 
economy is thriving once again.
    I want to go specifically to an issue that affects my 
district, lumber prices. Lumber prices have been quite volatile 
in the wake of the pandemic over the last year. Lumber prices 
have been skyrocketing with oriented strand board jumping over 
250 percent since March of 2020. A sheet of OSB was around $8 
in March of 2020, while today it is well over $60 a sheet and 
climbing. The National Association of Homebuilders say overall 
lumber prices have tripled and the increase translates to a 
nearly $36,000 increase in the price of the average single-
family home. And as you know, this has ripple effects across 
our economy. We are seeing a buying panic as a result around 
the country as home prices jump.
    Can you discuss what resources may be available, or have 
been dedicated by the Department to look into the causes of 
skyrocketing lumber prices and what impact this is having on 
the economy? And can you commit to working with industry 
stakeholders and with Congress to identify the challenges and 
potential solutions to the crisis we are experiencing?
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for your question.
    So, first, let me say I agree with you that the 
homebuilding industry and the housing sector is a vital portion 
of our economy, and they are struggling, as you say. A lot of 
supply chains have been disrupted during the pandemic. It isn't 
just lumber. We see it across the board. I see it across the 
board in the work that we are doing, so many supply chains have 
been disrupted.
    So recently, ITA has been doing a good deal of convening of 
stakeholders to try to learn exactly why this is happening. And 
what I can commit to you is to follow up with you, to work 
collaboratively with you. I actually would love your guidance 
on what you think could be done.
    So right now, we are trying to get under the covers of what 
is going on, what are the root causes, and then what can we do 
at ITA to try to solve the problem, because I understand the 
problem, and it affects the whole industry.
    Mr. Cline. Great. Thank you very much.
    Moving over to another industry, Congress established a 
clear division of responsibility for spectrum management. As 
you know, the FCC is responsible for commercial spectrum and 
NTIA is responsible for Federal Government spectrum. But in 
recent years, it seems that other Federal agencies do think 
that they are responsible for their own spectrum management 
rather than NTIA. How can we ensure that NTIA fulfills its 
statutory responsibility to manage Federal spectrum?
    Secretary Raimondo. I will assure you that that will 
happen. So, as you said, that is NTIA's job, and the truth of 
it is, we have to make more spectrum available if we are going 
to move forward with 5G and all of the innovation that 
surrounds 5G, and all of the job creation that will come in 
America if we lead in 5G.
    And, so, sometimes that means NTIA may have challenging 
conversations with, say, the DOD; but that is what needs to 
happen. And, so, we are going to have, led by NTIA, a whole-of-
government spectrum strategy. I have actually already talked to 
Secretary Austin about this, and he is eager to be 
collaborative.
    Mr. Cline. And that is led by NTIA?
    Secretary Raimondo. That is led by NTIA, absolutely. NTIA 
needs to drive the bus on coming up with that whole-of-
government strategy.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Good.
    One more question before my time runs out. Sometimes the 
FCC's role as the manager of commercial spectrum and NTIA's 
role as the manager of Federal spectrum come into conflict. How 
can we ensure that the FCC and NTIA work in partnership, rather 
than cross purposes to address spectrum management issues that 
impact Federal and commercial entities?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So what I will tell you quickly is 
this is a priority of mine. I have already reached out to the 
acting chair of the FCC. It is relationships, it is 
collaboration, it is better mapping, better data, and, as I 
said, NTIA leading in concert a whole-of-government strategy.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Grace Meng 
of New York. And, Ms. Meng, we are not buying that phony 
background, by the way.
    Ms. Meng. I knew you were too smart for that.
    Mr. Cartwright. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Meng. I am in my Queens, New York City yard.
    Thank you so much, Madam Secretary, and congratulations. 
Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Aderholt, for convening 
us today.
    Madam Secretary, I wanted to ask, you serve as a co-chair 
of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific 
Islanders, which is critical to ensuring the full participation 
of AAPIs in this country. Last year Congress included a 
provision in the annual spending bill directing Commerce to 
submit a report to the subcommittee on how it intends to ensure 
the initiative is a good fit at MBDA versus previous 
administrations under Departments of Education and HHS.
    So can you discuss what your vision is for the initiative 
at MBDA? And how can it coordinate with local Asian-American 
community groups and other Federal agencies?
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for the question. And it was 
nice to see you yesterday at the AAPI event.
    So, first of all, I would say that MBDA has a great deal of 
expertise in convening stakeholders, working with local 
chambers. They have already and will continue to do a lot of 
convening and consultation with Asian-American chambers. This 
is what they are good at. And then we will use that information 
to provide support in two areas particularly. One is technical 
assistance, especially helping Asian American owned businesses, 
especially small businesses, get Federal contracts, improve 
exports, you know, technical help for them; and then, secondly, 
grants.
    So--in fact, I have it here--MBDA assisted AAPI owned 
businesses secure more than $235 million in contracts, and $120 
million in capital in fiscal year 2020. And that is a floor, 
right? And the President's budget, this budget that we are 
talking about now in 2022, calls for significant more 
investment in MBDA, and we ought to work together to make sure 
that the Asian-American business community is--you know, gets 
their fair share, frankly.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you so much.
    Madam Secretary, if we can be of any help, either 
nationally, or even in and around the region of New York, 
please don't hesitate.
    I wanted to ask a question about the Census. You know, just 
keep trying to think about how we approached this as a country 
over the past 2 years or so in conducting this last Census and, 
you know, thinking that a majority of Americans have 
smartphones now, giving them the ability to search information 
while on the go.
    According to a Pew Research survey, nearly 80 percent of 
Americans were cited as having a smartphone. So, I just wonder 
if there is any thought or ability to consider Federal agencies 
like Commerce using a smartphone app, or something that can be 
done on the go and more easily than just paper, for example, to 
help people fill out the Census.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Such a good question. And the 
answer is, we need to get there. As a mother of two teenagers, 
I don't think my kids are going to be able to do anything 
without their smartphones. So, yes, we have to get there if we 
want to engage everyone.
    The Census Bureau now uses what they call responsive 
website design, which is, you know, mobile friendly; but with 
more resources, the Census Bureau could definitely explore 
other options to support what you are talking about, mobile app 
development. And I would have to get back to you to give you a 
number on exactly how much that would cost; but I think, you 
know, designing that kind of mobile app would be an excellent 
thing to do.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you. I look forward to it.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Meng.
    And at this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright.
    And, Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure to meet you. 
Hopefully we can see each other in person one of these days, 
hopefully soon. Congratulations on the appointment, and I wish 
you the best of luck on this very challenging mission that we 
collectively have here.
    I want to go back to a discussion that you were having 
earlier about the Entity List, specifically, the China team. I 
know, you know, DOD and State Department share a responsibility 
to ensure ITAR-controlled items are going to the right folks. 
And given the environment that we are seeing right now with 
China effectively pirating and stealing a lot of our IP and 
technologies real-time, something that seems like innocuous 
technology, or early generation technology, they are actually 
able to evolve further and use against us.
    Can you speak a little bit deeper about what the China team 
is doing and how Commerce is looking at enforcing the 
regulations, the licensing, the controls inherent and embedded 
in some of these licenses underneath the Entity List?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    I guess I would say--first I would say, you know, President 
Biden has been crystal clear with us, his team, that the 
competition with China is among our top priorities. It is real. 
It is significant. China has proven over and over again that it 
is willing to be anticompetitive, coercive, violate human 
rights, steal our technology, use it against us. And so, the 
first thing you need to know is that we are taking it 
incredibly seriously, and we are going to be as tough as we 
need to be, so as a matter of policy or, I guess, strategy.
    The second thing is with respect to technology, you are 
exactly right--I mean, which is why we have the Entity List. 
Since I have been Commerce Secretary, we have already issued 
five or six--don't quote me on the exact number--subpoenas to 
Chinese companies, because we want to--we are not joking 
around. I mean, we are going to enforce the requirement, and we 
are going to do that to the fullest extent possible.
    And, then, as I think I said to one of your colleagues, 
where we want to move is identify what is the key technology, 
like the absolutely core technology, chokepoints, and then work 
with our allies to make sure that they also aren't letting, you 
know, China get their hands on this technology and then work 
with them for rigorous enforcement.
    Mr. Garcia. Great. I appreciate that sentiment. I think, 
you know, obviously, that is a bipartisan national security 
concern. It is a real threat. So I really appreciate that.
    You know, I think a by-product of that, you know, you kind 
of alluded to it, is finding not only those chokepoints but 
also those dependencies. We are seeing in a lot of industries 
right now a dependency on microchips, semiconductor mimic 
technology coming out of China, and whether it was, you know, 
inadvertent on the heels of the pandemic or not, you know, is 
debatable, but it is had a real impact on industry and 
production here, and car manufacturers closing down lines, et 
cetera. So that is encouraging to hear that that will be in the 
spotlight.
    If I may pivot real quick, completely different subject. 
There is about a $500 million plug for NOAA next-generation 
satellites. I represent a district in California that is 
susceptible and vulnerable, frankly, to wildfires on an annual 
basis, almost year-round now. I supported an initiative to help 
NOAA stand up an artificial intelligence center with one of the 
missions being to help predictive and modeling analysis for 
wildfires.
    Can you touch on NOAA's responsibility and how they are 
progressing in helping us not only fight fires, but detect 
wildfires and plan assets around that briefly?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So, first, I would say, with your 
permission, I would love to go deeper on that and come back to 
you, give you a proper answer exactly what they have done.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay.
    Secretary Raimondo. But what I can tell you is--well, 
really, what you just said, which is the $500 million is for 
next-generation satellites. We are making a big push generally 
in NOAA to improve the weather service, the weather technology, 
super computers. Much of this money is to invest in, basically 
next-generation's science so that we can have the data 
necessary, and then also, continuing to do an even better job 
disseminating that information to cities, towns, Tribes, 
localities, the private sector.
    My opinion is that the value of this data is going to go up 
a lot in the coming years due to the extreme weather events, 
and that will be a focus of mine. But I owe you a proper, 
deeper answer on exactly what has been done with the wildfire 
weather service, and I will get back to you.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Secretary. My time is up.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Aloha, Madam Secretary. I represent Hawaii. And 
with due respect to Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Alabama, we also 
invite you here. The directions are not that complex. Just get 
on a plane and head west for 10 hours, looking for the sun. You 
should be able to find us. So we hope to see you sometime, 
perhaps after your summer visit to Mr. Cartwright's district.
    And, by the way, I completely endorse my colleagues' 
questions and your answers on NOAA. As you have seen, I think 
three colleagues before me have talked about the critical 
importance of NOAA, from the perspective of climate change, of 
course, being our number one challenge from a NOAA perspective, 
but also the cutting edge oceanographic research that NOAA 
does, fisheries management--our fisheries are endangered around 
the world. And, finally, just basic atmospheric observation at 
places like Mauna Loa here in Hawaii who have really led in 
climate change.
    So please take us at our word in our support, full support 
for NOAA. The last 4 years have been defensive, and we want to 
go on the offense again with NOAA.
    Let me follow up on travel and tourism because, you know, 
you recognized the importance in your comments. But I want to 
drive that point home with you and ask you some very specific 
questions. I don't think that most people realize the impact of 
travel and tourism to our national economy.
    Before COVID-19, U.S. travel and tourism accounted for 
about $2 trillion in economic output. It accounted for 
somewhere in the range of 16 million jobs. It was our second 
largest industry export after transportation. That surprises 
people sometimes, our second largest export industry in our 
entire country. People like to live here--visit here, and that 
is an export industry. It was our seventh largest private 
employer. It has been devastated. Everybody always says that, 
but I don't think people realize the devastation of U.S. travel 
and tourism, a loss of somewhere around half of that economic 
output, reduction in jobs by 30 to 40 percent, a reduction in 
Federal, State, and county revenues as a result.
    And I want to say to you that the response across the board 
by our Federal Government in terms of emergency assistance has 
been very, very uneven for travel and tourism. We have seen 
aspects of travel and tourism, such as the airline industry 
which saw $75 billion of assistance, and the restaurant 
industry, which is seeing right now about $25 billion of 
assistance. So $750 million that you are administering with the 
EDA right now, which I am grateful for, doesn't really match up 
in terms of the overall impact to travel and tourism.
    The U.S. travel--and so, in all honesty, we feel as part of 
the industry that we are getting lost in the shuffle. And part 
of that, I believe, has to do with the position given travel 
and tourism within the Department of Commerce, where it is, 
frankly, a subagency. I mean, it is an agency. But, you know, 
many, many countries around the world treat travel and tourism 
as a major area from the perspective of government organization 
and focus at the subcabinet, even sometimes, cabinet level.
    The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, which is the 
formal advisor to the Department of Commerce, to you, on travel 
and tourism, sent you a letter on March 4 providing specific 
recommendations on what the Federal Government can do. And one 
of their primary recommendations to you was elevate travel and 
tourism within the Department of Commerce up to the subcabinet 
level, create an assistant secretary for travel and tourism, 
create a national--I am sorry, a U.S. travel and tourism agency 
headed by an assistant secretary.
    Do you have thoughts yet on whether you can support that 
recommendation to give far more emphasis and focus to national 
travel and tourism policy coming out of COVID-19?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, so, first of all, let me say I did 
receive that letter. And, shortly thereafter, on March 31, I 
convened, and I attended for over an hour, I chaired a meeting 
of that U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, and we had a 
great discussion hearing from them, their issues, including 
assistant secretary idea. And I am planning on chairing a 
meeting with the Tourism Policy Council shortly to discuss 
further.
    I agree with you that the 750 isn't enough. It is 
important, and I am working hard to get it out the door 
quickly. I do think there is merit to the assistant secretary 
position. I am not in a position to obviously commit to that on 
behalf of the administration, but I will tell you from my 
position as Secretary of Commerce, I am hearing it over and 
over, and I think there is merit to it, and I would look 
forward to, you know, discussing it further with you and with 
the industry when I am doing all of this convening.
    Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case. At this time, the 
chair recognizes Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence of Michigan for 
5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much. It is always a pleasure 
to meet with you, Madam Secretary. I have a few questions. When 
you met with the Women's Caucus, I just wanted to reiterate how 
important it is if we build back better, that we continue the 
commitment to ensure that women are included in the training 
and the job opportunities and the investment in small 
businesses.
    As you know, women, during this pandemic, have been hit 
harder. The majority of the job loss and all of that has fallen 
in the area of women and women-owned businesses.
    So I want to ask a question. From day one, the Biden 
administration has been working to fulfill its promise to build 
back better. And that these actions represent a strong 
commitment. And, however, I want to stress the importance of 
building back better that represents all of America. Can you 
provide--I would like to ask a question: Through the agencies 
like the EDA, the MBDA, as they continue to assist businesses 
across the country, how can we ensure that women, minority-
owned business, and traditionally underserved businesses are 
included in these efforts? How are we going to monitor it?
    Secretary Raimondo. First of all, thank you for the 
question. Second, this is a--as a former female business owner 
myself, this is a top priority of mine, and, of course, the 
President is very clear to build back better means build back 
more equitably.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
    Secretary Raimondo. So in--sorry, can you hear me?
    Mrs. Lawrence. Yes, I can hear you.
    Secretary Raimondo. Okay. In the 2022 budget, the President 
calls for an increase of more than $20 million for MBDA, and to 
elevate the office to have an assistant secretary and authorize 
the MBDA office--which I think is absolutely vital to your 
point of accountability that is critical. So, what I can tell 
you is in that office, we are committed to making sure that the 
money gets to minority-owned businesses and women-owned 
businesses as necessary. Similarly, in EDA. I mean, I will 
commit to you that everything we do in Commerce, we will have 
an equity lens and make sure that the money we put out into the 
community is done with stakeholder engagement, and also, you 
know, with transparency, so that you will have accountability. 
So Congress--you ought to have me back here in a year and 2 
years and say, you know, so much money has been spent, and that 
it will be done in an equitable way.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Well, thank you for that commitment, and we 
will keep repeating it, because we know that we don't want 
anyone to get distracted. I, too, as all of these amazing 
invitations have come to you, you know that southeastern 
Michigan, which I represent, has about 200,000 high-paying, 
direct manufacturing jobs. And the field is among the most 
technologically-advanced and innovative. And production is 
forecasted to continue increasing over the next three decades.
    What we have found in Michigan is that we have the 
infrastructure, and we are growing it, and, you know, 
innovating to ensure that we stay competitive.
    I want to speak for the Midwest. We are locked ready and 
ready to roll to ensure that manufacturing continues, as we 
have seen it lose its place. As we are going to build back 
better, that means reinvesting in our manufacturing and stop 
sending it overseas. And, so, I would love to invite you to 
Detroit, and to have you sit down with some of our innovators 
in our manufacturing industry to discuss how we can partner and 
build back better in the manufacturing area. And we can expand 
it to the Midwest and have a Midwestern conference on building 
back the manufacturing industry. And thank you. With that, I 
will yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you. My in-laws all live in Mount 
Pleasant, Michigan.
    Mrs. Lawrence. That is where, Central Michigan, I went to 
college.
    Secretary Raimondo. That is where they were professors at. 
They were Chippewas at CMU.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Okay. Great.
    Secretary Raimondo. Good to see you.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Good to see you too.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence. And now, the 
chair will recognize Mr. Trone of Maryland for 5 minutes. And 
during your questioning, Mr. Trone, the chair expects that you 
will be obeying all speed limits and traffic signals. Uh-oh, I 
scared him away.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Do we have a problem we need to discuss?
    Mr. Cartwright. I think we have a connection problem.
    Mr. Trone, you are recognized for 5 minutes if you could do 
it.
    Mr. Trone. Do you hear me now?
    Mr. Cartwright. Yes. No, I can't hear you. You are muted. 
It looks like you are muted, Mr. Trone.
    Mr. Trone. How am I looking now?
    Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Now, I can hear you.
    Mr. Trone. Oh, man. It is great to see you again. I really 
enjoyed our visit to Gaithersburg, Maryland to the NIST 
facility for the vaccines. That was a good trip, and we really 
appreciate it.
    I think you and I were both blown away by what is happening 
at NIST from developing tools, to advanced biomanufacturing, 
biotherapeutics, developing strategies related to new carbon 
sequestration to help address climate change, the one-of-a-kind 
fire research lab, and search and rescue robots. I mean so much 
is happening at NIST, it is just fantastic.
    And while NIST is on the cutting edge of innovation in its 
facilities, they are from the 1960s. So, currently, NIST has 
over $800 million in deferred maintenance backlog, and it is 
only growing each year. And we all know that deferring 
maintenance only leads to more costly repairs once we have to 
make them.
    Right before the pandemic, we had piped infrastructure that 
flooded the labs of over $5 million, repeated HVAC shutdowns, 
causing everybody to relocate the entire campus. The current 
facilities condition assessment found 58 percent of the 
buildings are poor or in critical condition.
    So, the question is, how can we expect NIST to help us deal 
with these leaky pipes, infrastructure, so we continue the 
cutting-edge technology? So if you can speak to your priorities 
around expanding NIST and supporting NIST?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, so thank you for the question. And 
I also enjoyed meeting you, and I appreciate you coming with me 
to that visit. I was, like you, both blown away with the 
quality of the science. And, also, we saw it with our own eyes. 
The buildings have seen better days. And we have cataloged the 
needs. As you say, there is a huge backlog. The President's 
fiscal 2022 budget includes almost a $500 million addition for 
NIST. And while the details of that haven't yet been released, 
I can just assure you, and we will stay in touch, that this is 
very much on our radar and a top priority. It is not--everybody 
that works there deserves to be able to go to work in a place 
that is safe. And, secondly, we are making massive investments 
in artificial intelligence, research and development, et 
cetera. And we need to also improve the capital facilities 
there.
    And so, as the budget details become available we can 
continue this dialogue, but rest assured, that, you know, there 
will be significant funding there, and it is definitely a 
priority of mine having been, you know, visited and seen it 
with my own eyes.
    Mr. Trone. Well, that is great. Thank you very much. Let's 
jump to cyber attacks. You know, increasing threats not just 
against the government but also the business world that you 
come from and I come from. And I will see Homeland Security and 
other defense intelligence agencies play a leading role. But 
NIST has an important role here, too.
    I would like you to actually tell us as much as you can, 
publicly, about the extent of the impacts to the Department of 
the SolarWinds Act, and how much have we recovered from the 
damage that was done?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yeah. Thank you for the question. You 
know, it was significant. And as a result, we are taking it 
very, very seriously. I can assure you that cyber will continue 
to be the main area of focus for NIST. Actually, in Rockville, 
Maryland, NIST has the Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, and 
cyber will continue to be a great focus for us. As I said, 
there will be a lot more money coming into NIST. Commerce is 
also at the center of the ICTS work that the President signed 
his executive order on that. And in that work, we are going to 
be not only securing, you know, Federal Government networks, 
but also, looking to help small- and medium-sized companies who 
are increasingly hit with these attacks and, frankly, don't 
necessarily know how to handle it. And, so, that will be a 
continued focus for us.
    Mr. Trone. Well, you anticipated my next question, and I 
was helping those small businesses who can't respond like 
government can. So, thank you very, very much for that.
    With that, Madam Secretary, it is great seeing you. And I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Raimondo. Nice to see you. Thank you.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone. We have now finished 
our first round of questioning. And, Madam Secretary, I will 
offer you a 10-minute recess, if you would like one, but it 
looks like we have about another 20 minutes of questioning. 
What is your pleasure?
    Secretary Raimondo. I am happy to keep going, if you guys 
are, if that is okay?
    Mr. Cartwright. Very good. In that case, I will recognize 
myself for a second round of questions. I want to talk about 
innovation and manufacturing. There are numerous proposals 
currently working their way through Congress about how to 
improve American innovation. And I certainly support any of 
these initiatives, but I worry that we may be missing a bigger 
issue. America is already pretty good at innovation. The 
problem is, taking that intellectual property, holding onto it, 
and converting it into American manufacturing facilities so 
that the middle class sees the direct effect on jobs. And I 
know, this is a part of your personal story, seeing American 
manufacturing depart our shores, and you are welcome to comment 
on that.
    But here is the thing, we invented solar panels and 
semiconductors, but neither are being manufactured much here at 
all, because other countries have stolen the intellectual 
property, or are so heavily subsidized in manufacturing that we 
struggle to compete.
    So the question is, what are we doing to address these 
problems and increase American competitiveness? How do we 
convert American innovation into family-sustaining, blue-collar 
jobs?
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for the question. And you are 
right, this is a passion of mine. For those of you who don't 
know me, I come from Rhode Island. Rhode Island was once the 
jewelry manufacturing capital of the world. We had tons of 
jewelry manufacturing jobs here. My dad worked at the Bulova 
Watch Company. There were over 1,000 people working there in 
its hay day. When he was 56 after 28 years, the factory closed. 
All the jobs went to China. And it was really stuff tough for 
my family and our whole community. So, I have religion on this 
topic, and I will believe strongly that is our moment to 
reshore a lot of manufacturing and create millions of decent 
paying, family-supporting manufacturing jobs. And it will be a 
primary focus of what I do.
    I think there is--I will be very brief. There is things we 
can do on offense, and things we can do on defense. On offense, 
we need to invest. You know, we need to make capital available 
to small and medium-sized manufacturers. The President's budget 
for Commerce calls for big increases in the manufacturing 
extension partnership. I worked that as Governor. We always had 
much more demand than supply. This absolutely will create 
manufacturing jobs, advanced manufacturing, and innovation. The 
President's budget calls for a manufacturing innovation center 
around semiconductors, making more semiconductors in America. 
We don't make enough semiconductors in America.
    So I think big investments in research and development, job 
training, extra capital for manufacturers playing offense so we 
can reshore up manufacturing. Playing defense, also. You know, 
tariffs if necessary. Like, I talked about with the ranking 
member, countervailing duties and antidumping enforcement, 
export control so China can get their hands on our technology 
so we they flourish.
    I really do believe the next 10-plus years we can see a 
resurgence of manufacturing jobs in America. That is the 
President's, you know, focus and belief, and I am going to use 
the full set of tools in the Commerce toolbox to do everything 
I can against that goal.
    Mr. Cartwright. I am glad to hear that. And now, Madam 
Secretary, you also did talk a little bit about intellectual 
property theft, and I want to give you a chance to expand on 
that. How do we deal with IP theft issues, especially with 
countries like China?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, well, first of all, I think it 
starts with having strong patent protection at home. And, you 
know, my job, of course, will be to administer an effective, 
efficient, strong patent system through the USPTO. And then, 
secondly, we have to enforce the laws to the greatest extent 
possible, and get our allies to do the same.
    This is a challenging issue, and I would welcome any advice 
from any of you at any time. China doesn't respect our IP. They 
break the rules. And, so, we--it comes back to what I talked 
about with your colleague, it is about enforcement. And I can 
just say that under my watch at Commerce, we are going to spend 
as much time on enforcement across everything that we do, as we 
are on promulgating policies.
    Mr. Cartwright. Why thank you for that, Secretary Raimondo. 
And I want to yield the floor at this time to our Ranking 
Member, Mr. Aderholt, for 5 more minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up 
on the same line of questioning from the chairman, and also 
from Mr. Garcia, regarding technology. The Bureau of Industry 
and Security administers the U.S. export control regime to 
ensure that technology that is sensitive to our national 
security does not make it into the hands of our adversaries. 
And, yet, as one of my colleagues, Representative McCaul from 
Texas, who is also the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, appropriately and noted just this week that one of 
the biggest challenges in our competition with the Chinese 
Communist Party, is over the access to critical technology in 
its supply chain. Yet, our efforts to identify and control 
these emerging and foundational technologies are woefully 
insufficient and risk turning into a hollow exercise.
    My question is, why has the Bureau of Industry and Security 
not fully implemented the key provisions of the Export Control 
Reform Act, such as the emerging and foundational technology 
list? Could you speak to that?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, yes. Thank you. We are in the 
process of doing that. And as I have said, it is a priority of 
ours. I think I may have mentioned, you know, I have been here 
for 7 weeks, and we have already issued 7 subpoenas against 
Chinese companies to enforce our export controls, and we will 
continue to do that. The President's budget calls for increased 
funding for BIS and ITA, and some of that will be used for more 
aggressive or comprehensive efforts in BIS around export 
controls. I think you are on mute.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Is that good? All right. Thank you. You 
may or may not have seen The Wall Street Journal article that 
was dated April the 28 of this year. And it includes concerns 
about whether the FAA is responding forcefully enough, 
regarding violations which pertains to commercial launch 
activities. Meanwhile, the FCC is managing the use of space for 
competing satellite systems.
    My question, it would be to you, is if the Commerce 
Department's Office of Space Commerce takes on a greater role 
in the regulation of space operations, what can you do, or what 
would you do to make sure that the office maintains equal 
treatment to competitors, and stands firm on regulations and 
consequences as opposed to becoming a pass-through agency 
through--for almost any commercial launch idea?
    Secretary Raimondo. So thank you for the question. So, 
first, let me say, I think this is an exciting area of 
Commerce, Office of Space Commerce, where I predict over the 
next 5 to 10 years, we will see a lot more activity. And as a 
result we have to--I think we need a real whole-of-government 
approach to come up with our strategy around regulations in 
Space Commerce. I think there will be a lot more commercial 
opportunity in Space Commerce, and it will be important for us 
to encourage that innovation, but also regulate. And, by the 
way, everybody has to play by the same rules. I am not sure 
exactly what that article was, but you know I had seen articles 
about certain entrepreneurs who think they don't have to follow 
the rules, and I think we have to be very clear that they do.
    So this--my incoming deputy, Don Graves, plans to really 
lead around Space Commerce. I have a background as an 
innovation investor, and I would be happy to visit with you on 
this, because I think working with the FCC Defense 
Transportation Commerce has an important role to play, and it 
is regulation, but it is also, you know, innovation because I 
think there will be a lot more commerce down here.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. And I would also like to 
associate myself with the comments that made by Mr. Cline with 
regard to timber and lumber. I am hearing that constantly in 
the--as I am down in the State of Alabama in the district. I 
understand that there is plenty of lumber that is being 
delivered, but the prices are continuing to go up. And I think 
there is an issue with production. So, if you could make this a 
priority to find out what we can do to try to--because it is 
really putting a lot of folks in a very difficult position for 
home building and various construction projects. And so if you 
could ask someone in your office to make that a priority, I 
think that is very important.
    Secretary Raimondo. I promise you I will.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Cline, you are 
recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam 
Secretary, for going through a second round of questions. I 
want to get back to China and review something you said a month 
ago in a White House press briefing. I am quoting you, 
``China's actions are uncompetitive, coercive, underhanded. If 
proven, they will do whatever it takes. And so I plan to use 
all the tools in my toolbox,'' and you said that again today, 
``as aggressively as possible to protect American workers and 
businesses from unfair Chinese practices.''
    So using that line of thinking, wouldn't it be using all 
the tools in your toolbox as aggressively as possible to force, 
bite, dance to sell TikTok? And wouldn't it also be aggressive 
to place Huawei on the Department's Entity List?
    Secretary Raimondo. Well, it is at the Department's Entity 
List, and there is no reason to think that they will.
    Mr. Cline. To keep them, yeah.
    Secretary Raimondo. Exactly. I was going to say, there is 
no reason to think that they will be removed from that Entity 
List. And we are going through a review to figure out, you 
know, constantly what other companies may also find themselves 
on the Entity List. So, anyway, I know that came up in my 
confirmation, and I wanted to clarify that. And then----
    Mr. Cline. And I appreciate that. And I just want to get a 
status report on that review of China policy. It was over a 
month ago. You said that you were--reviews were ongoing, and I 
just want to figure out when those are going to conclude, and, 
hopefully, we can see that aggressive stance toward China 
renewed here in the immediate future.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So this is something 
being led by the White House in the interagency process, and I 
think it is ongoing. I, you know, later on this spring, early 
summer, I think, we will be continuing to flesh it out. In the 
meantime, we aren't stopping. You know, we are--in my 
Department, I can tell you we are being aggressive, 
appropriately so, with enforcement. I mentioned the subpoenas a 
couple of times, and with keeping these companies on the Entity 
List and deciding where new companies have to come on.
    Mr. Cline. I am glad that you are supportive of keeping 
Huawei on the Entity List. You mentioned also a strong patent 
system, and I share that position. But last year, an OIG report 
highlighted deficiencies in the PTO's Patent Capture and 
Application Processing System. The report found that PTO has no 
assurance that it can restore critical applications in the 
event of system failure, or a cyber attack. And that the 
USPTO's continued delay in updating legacy systems rendered a 
$4 million per-year alternate processing site adequate and 
impractical.
    I want to ask, given PTO's mission to foster innovation, 
competitiveness, and economic growth, it is no surprise that 
PTO and its applicants wish to secure their property rights, 
and that those rights rely heavily on a dependable IT 
infrastructure to achieve this mission. The OIG report made 
several recommendations. And I understand the PTO's working to 
address them. Do you have an update on that? Can you provide us 
an update on that and whether they have implemented these 
recommendations?
    Secretary Raimondo. So, thank you for bringing this up. I 
understand the significance of the issue, and I am going to 
have to get back to you with details. I will do that, and I 
will submit the answer, you know, for the record.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline. Mr. Garcia, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, again, 
thanks for the patience on this, and weathering the storm. I 
was encouraged by your words, your desire to be more 
competitive as a Nation on the open market in terms of 
supporting businesses and encouraging business growth 
throughout our country, and especially relative to China 
becoming more competitive.
    In 2017, we had the Tax Cut in Jobs Act, which was really 
the catalyst for a booming economy over the last 5 years. We 
saw massive job growth, record low employment numbers. We saw 
companies hiring at record pace. We saw those same companies 
investing in internal research and development as a result of 
the corporate tax breaks. We saw them, in parallel, lowering 
their prices of goods and products to Americans, while also 
increasing wages to the average employees on their books. That, 
to me, was the essence of being competitive.
    I wasn't a fan of the State and local tax deduction cap. 
Being a Californian, I think that could have been removed. But 
I do believe that the 2017 Tax Cut in Jobs Act was the answer 
for being competitive on the open market space.
    As we pivot to this administration and, specifically, this 
year under President Biden's tax plan, what we are seeing is, 
effectively, a doubling of the tax rate on material long-term 
capital gains from 20 percent to 40 percent; eliminating the 
qualified income deduction for partnerships and S-corps; 
increasing the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent; adding 
a new 12.4 percent high-earner payroll tax on all income 
earners above $400,000; raising the top individual tax rate 
back up to 39.6 percent from 37 percent.
    These are the folks who are creating jobs. They are 
creating incomes which, ultimately, drive revenue growth at the 
national and State levels for us. Yet, this tax plan seems to 
be almost punishing those companies that are doing well. And 
those small business owners who, frankly, right now, are just 
starting to recover on the heels of the pandemic.
    And I come from a State that is overly taxed, and it is 
crushing our businesses here at the State level. But this 
administration seems to be adopting the same mindset that 
Sacramento has adopted in terms of tax and not being business-
friendly, overlaying bureaucracy and regulation on small 
businesses at a time where they desperately need the help.
    I have read your bio, I have seen your background, and I 
know, as someone who has been involved with the Treasurer and 
economics, I would love to just get your personal opinion as to 
whether you think increasing taxes on corporations and small 
business owners and those who are creating jobs is actually 
making us, as a Nation, more competitive on the world market on 
businesses and those seeking to invest in those businesses?
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you. So like we could probably go 
out for dinner and talk about this for 2 hours, but I will give 
you my thoughts in a minute and 50 seconds. I agree that the 
tax sector has to be competitive and fair. I think that this 
country's economy could be much, much stronger if we make the 
big investments that the President is calling for in 
infrastructure. And in the past month and a half, I have talked 
to probably 70 CEOs of big companies, and dozens and dozens of 
small companies, and that everyone agrees, we need broadband 
investments, airports, trains, infrastructure, transit, et 
cetera, housing. And I think it is responsible to pay for that. 
And, so, the President has set forth a plan, which I think is 
very strong and will make us competitive, and he has promised 
he is not going to increase taxes on anyone who makes less than 
$400,000 a year. And the fact is, he proposes significant tax 
cuts for middle-income, working class, lower-income Americans, 
who, I think, deserve a break.
    So, you know, last year, as you said, many businesses were 
extremely successful. We had many big large multibillion dollar 
profitable companies in America that paid zero in taxes. And 
that, to me, just says that corporate Tax Code is broken if 
there is so many----
    Mr. Garcia. If I may----
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Loopholes.
    Mr. Garcia [continuing]. If I may reclaim time, Madam 
Secretary. If I may reclaim. The net zero in overall tax 
payments is a result of government rebates. But in actuality, 
they are paying taxes, they are creating jobs that ultimately 
are contributions to the tax rolls at the national and state 
level. And I will submit that just because your taxes aren't 
going up if you are less than 400K, you may actually be losing 
your job. And so, yes, there may come a tax cut in the form of 
being unemployed because your employer is no longer in 
business.
    But I would love to sit down and have that conversation 
over dinner. You are right. Five minutes doesn't do it justice. 
But I would really appreciate having someone advocating for 
small businesses and taxpayers in this administration. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. And I want to 
congratulate you, Mr. Garcia. Just about everybody on this 
subcommittee invited the witness to their district, I think 
except you, but you scored a dinner invitation from the 
witness. You are, I believe, one of those smooth-talking 
Californians.
    Mr. Garcia. Well, we have good food out here. And it will 
cost a little bit more, Madam Secretary, but I would love to 
have you out here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. And, Madam Secretary, thank you for your 
presence today at this hearing. You have acquitted yourself 
very well in your maiden voyage before this subcommittee, and I 
congratulate you. We all look forward to working with you in 
support of small businesses and middle-class Americans. And 
with that, I declare this hearing is adjourned.

    [Answers to submitted questions follow.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                           Wednesday, May 19, 2021.

                FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST FOR NASA

                                WITNESS

HON. BILL NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
    ADMINISTRATION
    Mr. Cartwright. Good afternoon, everybody. Let us gavel in 
and begin.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition, for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if 
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will then go ahead and unmute your 
microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute, the clock will turn 
yellow. At 30 seconds, I will gently tap the gavel to remind 
that their time has almost expired. And when your time has 
expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin to recognize 
the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the 
chair and ranking member. Then, members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority, and, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    And, at this time, I will recognize myself for an opening 
statement.
    It is my pleasure to welcome everyone to today's hearing on 
the NASA budget request for fiscal year 2022.
    Our witness today is a man who needs no introduction to the 
space community, but I am going to introduce him anyway. 
Administrator Bill Nelson has had a remarkable career of 
service to our Nation. He has been a soldier, an astronaut, a 
Member of the House, a Senator from the State of Florida, and 
now the 14th Senate-confirmed Administrator of NASA.
    Administrator, we are glad to have you with us today, and 
thank you for your very kind call with me last week. I enjoyed 
our talk, and I hope it is the first of many that we have 
together.
    This is a very exciting time for space exploration. The 
landing of Perseverance on Mars is a major achievement, and the 
flights of Ingenuity have been nothing short of extraordinary 
and unprecedented. The men and women of NASA are to be 
congratulated for inspiring all of us with their work that is 
happening literally a world away.
    Because this is my first NASA hearing as chairman of this 
subcommittee, I want to start with a quick observation. A 
generation ago, it was said that, quote, ``politics stop at the 
water's edge,'' unquote. And whether that adage is still true 
or not today may be up for debate, but it is true that today 
our politics must stop at the atmosphere's edge. The importance 
and unifying nature of space is too great for us to get bogged 
down in petty party partisanship.
    In the coming years, America can create jobs and grow a 
truly innovative industry by fostering the commercial space 
economy. By some estimates, the commercial space economy could 
be a $1 trillion market by 2040, but only if we continue to 
invest in our workforce and the industrial base that will build 
the equipment for it and the infrastructure on which it stands.
    We have the potential to unlock so much knowledge about our 
own planet and the rest of the universe, but only if we invest 
in science and the scientists who will interpret the data that 
the new satellites will collect.
    And we have to foster our international space partnerships, 
because growing our industry and maximizing the science only 
happen if the community of space-faring nations has a set of 
rules to play by. The Artemis Accords are an important 
beginning, but we have to bring more nations into the system, 
and we have to expand our science and exploration partnerships 
with those space-faring allies.
    These opportunities and challenges compel us to work 
together to ensure that NASA has a strong financial foundation 
successfully to complete its many, many missions. And, to that 
end, I believe the President's so-called skinny budget sets a 
good tone, proposing $24.7 billion for fiscal year 2022, an 
increase of more than 6 percent over the current level.
    Included in that request are several critically important 
priorities that deserve more attention and more resources. And, 
most notably, I applaud the proposed increase in Earth science 
research and the continued joint investment with the private 
sector that is critical to the future of America's economy and 
our space endeavors.
    The growing relationships between NASA and the private 
sector include companies that will deliver crew and materials 
to the International Space Station, those that are building and 
launching small satellites, and smaller partnerships through 
SBIR and STTR contracts.
    I would like to see NASA continue to make greater use of 
SBIR and STTR, as well as the options for maturing contractors, 
such as the Mentor-Protege Program and Tipping Point 
partnerships, to create even more opportunities for small 
businesses to show what they can do for our Nation's space 
program.
    We are going to need robust competition across the entire 
spectrum if we are both going to maximize economic gains and 
also ensure that the taxpayers are getting the best bang for 
their buck.
    Administrator Nelson, thank you for NASA's continued 
efforts to ensure that small manufacturers and other small 
businesses are able to contribute to the space economy. I know 
you share my commitment to ensuring that our American 
manufacturing base is strong and diverse enough to support the 
next generation of space exploration.
    I am extremely grateful for NASA's upcoming discussion with 
the many small manufacturers in northeastern Pennsylvania. And 
let's get you up there to meet with them in person someday 
soon, and we can grab a Hank's Hoagies--President Biden's 
favorite sandwich shop in Scranton--lunch while we are up 
there.
    NASA's mission is also about inspiring the next generation 
of scientists and entrepreneurs. As we explore new worlds, NASA 
excites the imagination of our kids and gets them interested in 
all facets of space science. And that work is especially 
important at a time when other countries are competing so 
vigorously with us in the STEM fields, and they are not playing 
for second place.
    I know all the members of this subcommittee understand 
NASA's role in our economic and our scientific future, but this 
is also a time of risk for NASA. The agency currently has 34 
major missions, with an expected budget of $250 million or 
more, in formulation or already in implementation. And my 
understanding is that 34 major missions at once is the most in 
NASA's history.
    So, Administrator Nelson, it is going take some aggressive 
leadership to manage risk across the NASA enterprise and keep 
these many worthy initiatives on schedule and to ensure NASA's 
crewed spaceflight missions are as safe as possible. Now, that 
is a big job, but I know that you and the men and women of NASA 
are up to it. And I want to work with you to make sure that we 
give you the tools in the fiscal year 2022 CJS appropriations 
bill to keep NASA moving forward.
    I know that testifying remotely and without a full budget 
before us is not the easiest thing, so we do appreciate the 
Administrator being here with us today, especially as it is 
your first hearing as a confirmed Administrator. So welcome to 
the subcommittee, and congratulations again on your 
confirmation in the Senate.
    And, with that, I would like to recognize our distinguish 
ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And I 
greatly appreciate you holding this important hearing today on 
the fiscal year 2022 budget request for NASA.
    Senator Nelson, welcome to this, your first hearing before 
the CJS Subcommittee. And, of course, as I told you last week, 
congratulations on your confirmation in the Senate, as you 
serve as, I believe it is, the 14th Administrator of NASA. And 
I am pleased that the Senate acted swiftly, which I felt they 
would. And thank you for joining us this afternoon and all the 
work that you do.
    The service that you have made over the years includes 
experience in the House, in the Senate, and, of course, even in 
space. And I understand that NASA runs in your blood. And with 
the experience that you have, your Florida background, your 
family ties to the Kennedy Space Center, I have no doubt that 
you will continue to advance the Nation's space exploration 
goals very well and have no question about that.
    Like you, my home State of Alabama has a long tradition of 
supporting our Nation's space program, going back to the days 
of Wernher von Braun. And I am proud to represent the 
hardworking people of northern Alabama in Congress and 
especially grateful to serve on this committee, which oversees 
the Federal funding for NASA.
    NASA may only represent a very small part of the national 
budget in the big scheme of things, but it continues to stir 
the dreams and ambitions that the chairman mentioned of the 
entire Nation, and including and especially young people.
    Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, with 6,000 
employees, has been making human exploration possible since the 
Apollo moon mission. Marshall leads NASA's rocket propulsion 
work, and it works on the habitat technologies, science 
missions such as the successful Hubble Telescope. And over 100 
Marshall engineers contributed to the success of the first 
American commercial crew flight to the International Space 
Station. Marshall also plays a vital role in NASA's Artemis 
Program to return American astronauts, including the first 
woman, to the Moon by 2024 and, of course, eventually onto 
Mars.
    I always hope for peaceful relations with all the countries 
around the world, but China's internal policies, as well as 
aggressive stance in the Pacific, mean that now, more than 
ever, NASA's programs are not only science-related and a 
stimulus to entrepreneurship but also critical to national 
security. And I will get into that a little bit later.
    Meanwhile, my name wouldn't be Robert Aderholt if I didn't 
mention SLS, the Space Launch System. Efficiencies of 40 
percent or more have been achieved just from the first rocket 
core to the second. This rocket, especially the Block 1B 
version, will carry several times even the capacity of our 
planned commercial rockets, and it is crucial to the safe 
transportation of the Orion spacecraft.
    But I believe that our space goals also require the 
planning of cargo-only SLS flights to carry critical systems 
and supplies to the Moon and, of course, eventually onto Mars.
    China's program and our Human Landing System, as well as 
other Artemis elements, such as SLS and Orion, eventually merge 
as a package of concerns. China's dramatic progress with Moon 
and Mars robotic elements, plus their space station elements, 
means that we cannot lose focus or momentum on developing our 
own programs.
    The SLS program was hampered its first 3 years by the 
administration's budget request, which were hundreds of 
millions of dollars below the recommended figures in the NASA 
authorization bill back in 2010. Currently, the Human Landing 
System is a big challenge, as you and I have discussed on the 
phone just as recently as last week.
    Before your arrival, the decision was made not to use a FAR 
contract, which would have allowed audits as well as U.S. 
Government ownership of systems and data. Given the fact that a 
Broad Agency Announcement contract is being used, we have to 
find a way to balance the national security needs and the 
business stimulus aspects of such a contract.
    With China's progress and the lack of U.S. Government 
ownership of the lander, it is unacceptable for the fate of the 
U.S. access to cislunar space to be in the hands of only one 
company.
    I will have to admit that I have concerns about the process 
and how it was used to make a single award. It is my 
understanding that the team of hundreds of NASA engineers, who 
had the task of interacting with three lander teams from May 
2020 to April 2021, were not a part of the evaluation process 
that was carried out by the source selection board. Normally, 
that would be a substantial component of evaluation. So no 
question, and I think you agree, this is troubling.
    So I hear about the need for funding, but the other side of 
the coin is that Congress needs to be presented with a process 
that ensures U.S. Government access to data and which creates 
confidence in the American people. I will ask more about that 
later as we get into questions, and I am sure a lot of my 
colleagues will have questions about HLS.
    Senator Nelson, I was pleased to hear that NASA is 
conducting an internal review of the Artemis Program to fully 
understand the budget needs of each program element, and their 
request includes an increase of $325 million for Artemis.
    I hope that increase includes support for all of the 
Artemis Program elements, and that would include the SLS 
Exploration Upper Stage. EUS has reached critical design 
review. And, with respect to national security, there is no 
time to be distracted with ideas about alternatives. We need to 
finish it and finish it promptly.
    I am also interested in discussing how the $325 million 
increase for space technology supports the nuclear thermal 
propulsion technologies and the design in the in-space 
demonstration. We have been at the research level for a long 
time; NASA needs to commit to a demonstration. I look forward 
to hearing about how the fiscal year 2022 request supports 
science missions and advances aeronautics.
    I want to work with you, as I know every member of this 
subcommittee does, to ensure that we are truly supporting 
competition instead of drifting to the point of issuing a 
disproportionate number of sole-source contracts. And we can 
talk about that more when we get into questions.
    But I hope we can meet in person soon. I appreciate you 
joining us here to discuss the goals for NASA and how the 
fiscal year 2022 request supports your agency's goals.
    So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing 
today. I think it is very important, and I look forward to the 
testimony from Senator Nelson.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Mr. Aderholt. And you 
won't have to look forward very long, because you are going to 
get it right now.
    Administrator Nelson, I happily and gladly turn the floor 
over to you for 5 minutes. Please don't worry that you are 
going to leave anything out, because we will enter your entire 
written remarks in the permanent record.
    And try not to be nervous, too. I know you have never 
testified before CJS before. It is intimidating, but try to 
keep it together, Administrator.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 
members of the committee.
    I want you to know, I spent 12 years in the House, and that 
was back in the old days. As a matter of fact, Richard Shelby 
and I came in the same class, 1978. And, of our class, he is 
the last still to be serving in the Congress, in the Senate, 
representing Robert Aderholt's State.
    Those 12 years were an era in which the Members got 
together socially; it didn't make any difference if you were an 
``R'' or a ``D.'' We often traveled together. We went to each 
other's districts. We went to each other's Little League 
baseball games for our children. It is some of the most 
pleasant times that my wife, Grace, and I have had.
    It is an honor for me to come back and join you all these 
years later.
    Let me say, as I testify to you, that I think I understand 
your position. You have an extremely important role, as a 
separate branch of government, to hold the executive branch of 
government to account. I served in that role and on the 
committees involving this particular subject for 30 years in 
the Federal Government, in the U.S. Congress. I will try to be 
sensitive to answer in detail in the way that you would want to 
have a member of the executive branch to respond.
    Let me just say that this is an exciting time for NASA. We 
are having a lot of things happen just in this next year. Not 
only will we launch the largest, most powerful rocket ever, the 
SLS, in its first maiden flight, which will be unmanned, and 
then to be followed in a couple of years with a manned mission, 
and then to be followed by the first human landing back on the 
surface of the Moon, the first woman and the next man to 
return.
    If that were not exciting enough, later in the year we are 
going to launch the James Webb Space Telescope, which is going 
to follow the accomplishments of the incredible Hubble Space 
Telescope that Congressman Aderholt mentioned and that I think 
you did also, Mr. Chairman. It has opened vistas of 
understanding about the cosmos to us that we never knew. Well, 
just think: At a position a million miles from the Earth, at a 
neutrally buoyant place gravitationally, where it will peer out 
into space, capturing the light from far, distant galaxies, I 
think we are going to be able to discover additional solar 
systems and possibly planets that will add to what we have 
already discovered with Hubble that may well replicate the 
conditions that we find here in our solar system with our own 
planet. That is going to be exciting.
    In the meantime, the President's budget that will be 
presented to you--and I have only seen the top lines--you see 
there is a big increase in Science Mission Directorate, there 
is an increase in STEM Engagement--two subjects that are 
particularly interesting to our young people.
    You remember what happened after the Apollo mission--first 
the Mercury, then the Gemini, then Apollo. That inspired a 
whole generation of students, and they went into engineering 
and mathematics and technology and science. For a couple of 
generations, that had ripple effects.
    One of those ripple effects--and you will continue to see 
the spin-offs, not only what are being developed on the 
International Space Station, utilizing the conditions of zero-G 
to manufacture and develop and research things, but, for 
example, in every one of your pockets, there is a cell phone, 
and in that cell phone it has a computer chip that is a camera, 
and that camera on a chip was developed by NASA for Earth 
observations, from satellites taking photography. Right there, 
you see the kind of spin-offs that are occurring. That is going 
to be an exciting future.
    Then you are going to see all kinds of research and 
development. Then let's not forget, especially geared to you, 
Mr. Chairman, the first ``A'' in ``NASA'' is ``Aeronautics.'' 
And, this year, an all-electric airplane, a research project of 
NASA, will fly. If such were ever perfected and at scale, not 
only would it be zero emittance of pollution, but it would be 
much more efficient and cost-effective as well.
    Those are just some of the exciting things, and I have only 
scratched the surface. I respect the time of staying within the 
5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to try to answer, after 10 
days on the job, as much detail as I possibly can muster to 
your questions.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
    And, at this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    The first question is about manufacturing that I mentioned 
in my opening statement, Administrator Nelson. By some 
estimates, the space economy could surpass $1 trillion in value 
by the year 2040. That is roughly triple what it is today. And 
I want to see this sector of the American economy grow, and I 
want companies that are investing in the future to do well.
    Now, I am pleased that, in large part, because of the 
sensitive nature of the work, space manufacturing for NASA and 
for American companies is almost exclusively done here in the 
United States. And I want to ensure that American workers and 
small businesses nationwide are sharing in that success.
    So the question is for you, Administrator Nelson, how does 
NASA ensure that contractors are meeting their small-business 
commitments? How does NASA cultivate new businesses for SBIR 
and STTR opportunities and especially those that are 
disadvantaged or veteran-, woman-, or minority-owned?
    And how does NASA ensure that it is utilizing the talent 
and capacity that is found in many parts of the country that 
have not been traditionally as involved in the space industry, 
such as those communities that don't have the benefit of being 
located close to a NASA facility?
    Take it away, Administrator.
    Mr. Nelson. Well, the short answer to your question, Mr. 
Chairman, is because the NASA leadership is going to be on top 
of it, getting it to the small business. And I can speak for 
the future Deputy Administrator that--we expect that, in her 
hearing tomorrow, she will be widely accepted in the Senate 
committee. That certainly is going to be true of the Associate 
Administrator whom I have just brought in, former astronaut 
commander, former Stennis Space Center director and Kennedy 
Space Center director, Bob Cabana. We are all going to be very 
sensitive to that.
    You have been kind enough to me, Mr. Chairman, to invite me 
next week to join you in a virtual event to discuss how small 
business in your district can partner with Artemis suppliers. I 
will be ready and have detail for you on that.
    NASA has a strategic goal to provide small businesses the 
maximum opportunity to participate on our missions. We actually 
have an Office of Small Business Programs that develops 
outreach and training opportunities for the small-business 
community.
    You may be interested to know that NASA spends annually $3 
billion to small business. On top of that, the fiscal year 2020 
NASA awarded an additional--it awarded an additional $3 billion 
to small business as subcontractors in fiscal year 2020.
    I am looking forward to sharing with you next week.
    Mr. Cartwright. Terrific.
    Now, to follow that up, NASA's Space Technology Directorate 
has an initiative to enhance the readiness of technologies 
needed to build out the infrastructure for future missions on 
the Moon and beyond. And these are called Tipping Point 
solicitations, and I am sure you have heard that term. They 
were worth $370 million last year. And, while some went, 
predictably, to the largest space companies, these kinds of 
contracts seem to have potential to help mature some of NASA's 
small-business partners as well as deepen relationships with 
more established contractors.
    Does NASA plan to issue a new round of these so-called 
Tipping Point solicitations in fiscal year 2022? And what 
funding or direction is needed from Congress to ensure the 
success of that program?
    Mr. Nelson. Tipping Point is an investment in a 
demonstration that is going to significantly mature the 
technology and increase the likelihood of infusion into a 
commercial space application.
    The short answer to your question is, yes, Mr. Chairman, 
depending on how much you all appropriate for it. The 
technology development part of NASA is planning to release this 
solicitation later this year.
    Mr. Cartwright. Very good.
    Well, I thank you for that, Administrator Nelson.
    And, with that, I would like to yield to the ranking 
member, Robert Aderholt, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman, I have not voted on this vote 
yet. I will go ahead and defer to my next in line on the 
Republican side, and then you can come back to me. So I am 
going to slip out for a minute and go vote.
    Mr. Cartwright. That would be Mr. Palazzo.
    And, Mr. Palazzo, if you are on, you are recognized for 5 
minutes of questions.
    I am not seeing Mr. Palazzo.
    Mr. Cline, you are recognized for Mr. Palazzo's 5 minutes, 
which was going to be Mr. Aderholt's 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take what I can 
get there.
    Mr. Administrator, welcome. It is great to have you here. I 
am jealous of you for your position. You have an amazing job, 
and it is must be thrilling every day to work in this field.
    Outer space is our final frontier, and the U.S. is leading 
the charge deep into space to explore, learn, and discover more 
about our vast universe than ever before.
    It is vital that we are ensuring the good management of 
taxpayer resources so America maintains its edge as we continue 
to pioneer and innovate to meet our goals of establishing a 
presence on the Moon again, on Mars, and beyond.
    Let me ask you, nuclear thermal propulsion is a critical 
technology required for future human exploration. And, 
recently, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine released a report entitled ``Space Nuclear Propulsion 
for Human Mars Exploration.'' The report concluded that an 
aggressive program could develop an NTP system capable of 
executing a human mission to Mars in 2039.
    As you may know, Congress has been funding nuclear thermal 
propulsion since 2017. However, NASA has only spent a fraction 
of those funds on the development of an NTP system.
    Would you commit today to the continued development of 
nuclear thermal propulsion and direct appropriated NTP funding 
be used for a demonstration of the technologies, which is 
required under the fiscal year 2021 NASA appropriations act?
    Mr. Nelson. Not only yes, but I am going to ask you all to 
be a partner in all of this. And I want to be so bold as to 
suggest that a good opportunity to do this is in the jobs bill 
that is coming along.
    Because the nuclear thermal propulsion that you are talking 
about is the Moon to Mars Program, and to Mars in the decade of 
the 2030s. We have to develop this propulsion technology, as 
well as nuclear fission technology once we are on the surface 
of Mars to generate the power that we need there.
    There is a suggestion that has already been given to the 
Congress, since we have been solicited about what we should do 
in the jobs bill, for $585 million that would not only have 
extraordinary R&D benefits but ultimately producing, because of 
the development of new technology, new things that produce new 
jobs.
    Mr. Cline. Great.
    As you know, Langley Research Center in Virginia is the 
home of some of NASA's most important aeronautics R&D programs 
that have been developing and testing innovative new aircraft 
structures, advanced composites, and propulsion technologies.
    Last year, Congress included direction in both the House 
and Senate NASA authorization bills, as well as in the fiscal 
year 2021 omnibus, to move forward on a new national subsonic 
X-plane flight demonstrator to demonstrate technologies 
developed by Langley and industry partners in flight.
    Can you share the latest on this subsonic X-plane program 
and Langley's role in this and associated subsonic technology 
projects?
    We lost your sound there.
    Mr. Nelson. We are talking about subsonic, not supersonic.
    Mr. Cline. Correct.
    Mr. Nelson. Specifically, are you talking about the X-57, 
which is the electric airplane?
    Mr. Cline. No. It is the subsonic X-plane flight 
demonstrator to demonstrate the technologies developed by 
Langley and by industry partners.
    Mr. Nelson. Okay. I think what you are getting at is the 
supersonic, which is the X-59. That is going to first go in 
2022. As a matter of fact, I just asked if there was any way 
that I could get in it and fly along with the pilot.
    What it is going to do eventually--now, this will be a 
smaller-scale model, but what this is going to do--we could go 
to Hong Kong, we could go to Sydney, Australia, all these long 
trips, in less than half the time.
    The idea is to develop a--you remember the French and the 
European Concorde. Well, the problem with that was that it 
emitted such a sonic boom that it disrupted people's lives, not 
only when it went from subsonic to supersonic, but then when it 
was coming from supersonic down to subsonic, and that big bang 
that often you associated with the space shuttle coming home.
    Well, what NASA is doing is developing this X-59, where it 
will be a very small sonic boom, so that you would not have to 
fly it subsonic over land and people and population, but you 
could get right on up to cruise in a supersonic method. And 
that is the research that is going on on the X-59.
    Ms. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. And I 
know that if there is a chance for the Administrator to be on a 
test flight, he is going to be on it.
    Mr. Nelson. Hey, since you are down there in the Norfolk-
Newport News area, one of the Members of Congress when I was in 
the House, one of the dear friends, is former Congressman and 
former Senator Paul Trible.
    Ms. Cline. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Nelson. He is now president of Christopher Newport. And 
I have been there and talked to the students, and that 
university is something else.
    Mr. Cline. It sure is, and appreciate you noticing. We are 
very proud of former Senator Trible's work down there. He has 
done a great job with the college.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Lawrence [presiding]. Thank you.
    The chair now recognizes Congresswoman Grace Meng for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Administrator Nelson, congratulations on your unanimous 
confirmation. Thank you again for your decades of public 
service to this Nation. We are grateful to have you serve once 
again.
    In your Senate confirmation written remarks, you spoke 
about the power to inspire the next generation of women and 
people of color when NASA returns to the Moon.
    Last year, NASA released a report that identified low 
percentages of women and people of color in the NASA workforce 
compared to the national civilian labor force. This fact is 
also true across the entire aerospace industry.
    If we are going to inspire women and people of color to 
dream big, they also need to see themselves in these positions 
as scientists, engineers, administrators, and astronauts.
    I wanted to ask, what steps will NASA take under your 
leadership to ensure that its workforce is more representative 
of the broader labor force and to address discrepancies in the 
composition of the workforce?
    Mr. Nelson. Well, thank you, Congresswoman.
    It starts with me. I requested of the President, when the 
White House called me, back--well, it wasn't the White House 
then; it was the transition had called. They said, the 
President-elect wants you to take NASA. I said, well, I had 
recommended three women to be the Administrator of NASA, and I 
will do it if you will consider nominating a person like one of 
the three.
    The President did exactly that. He nominated Pam Melroy, an 
astronaut commander, an Air Force test pilot. After NASA, she 
went to the FAA and to DARPA. So, I mean, she is the real deal. 
That is the first example.
    The second example is that Pam and I together then 
recommended to the White House that the third Senate-confirmed 
position in NASA--and there are only three--the Chief Financial 
Officer, be a woman who had been at Department of Energy and 
then to Department of Defense. Her parents had fled the 
Communists in Vietnam, fled in a fishing boat, and that is how 
they got to freedom. Margaret Vo Schaus, if the Senate 
confirms, she will be our third-ranking person in NASA.
    Then, as you go through the ranks, I think you will see, 
most of our positions are, of course, career positions because 
they are scientists and so forth, but NASA has been making a 
good-faith effort to bring in women and minorities. And that is 
clearly the direction from the President. I think you will 
see--in the process, that you will see the diversity of women 
and minorities.
    If you want to look close to home, look at my Senate office 
when I was last in the Senate. We had 63 percent of our Senate 
staff were women, and we had 43 percent of our Senate staff 
were diversity.
    I hope that will give you an indication. I can give you 
more details if you want, but that should give you an 
indication of where we are going.
    Ms. Meng. Appreciate it.
    And, Mr. Administrator, I know I am out of time, but I just 
wanted to put a plug in for NASA's Office of STEM Engagement. 
It was really refreshing to see President Biden's skinny budget 
including a $20 million increase for this office that is really 
critical to engaging the next generation of scientists and 
engineers.
    And please let us know if there are any resources from 
Congress that we can provide to ensure that the pipeline of 
STEM students remains strong and growing.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, may I add a comment on STEM for 
the Congresswoman?
    Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright [presiding]. Yes, you may, Administrator. Go 
right ahead.
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you.
    First of all, I want to thank you all, because it would not 
have been possible to have the STEM Engagement that we have, 
because, in the previous administration, in the President's 
budget, they had zeroed STEM in the NASA budget.You all in the 
House and the Senate restored it, and I thank you for that.
    In almost everybody's district, you have a STEM grant to 
one of your colleges or universities. It is extensive; it is 
important. It is the future generations. I want to see those 
young minds ignite with imagination about Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics, and often you can do that through 
the success of the space program.
    That is what we are going to try to do. Thank you again for 
your part.
    Mr. Cartwright. Very good.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes 
of questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Administrator Nelson, this is a special treat for me, 
as a former Naval aviator and now legislator. I envy you of 
your position. And thank you for your service, not only in the 
Army and the Congress, but where you are now and, obviously, 
with the prior space experience.
    I appreciate the sentiment of unity in pursuit of progress 
and security that you alluded to at the beginning. I think that 
is important. And looking forward to serving with you on this 
journey, especially during this transitional phase.
    I come from California's 25th Congressional District, which 
is home to Plant 42 in Palmdale/Lancaster/Antelope Valley. We 
have Edwards Air Force Base right in our backyard. So X-57, X-
59 are actually being built in my district. We have JPL just 
outside of our district, to the south; Boeing, Raytheon, 
SpaceX, pretty much every major defense and aerospace and space 
provider within a 50-mile radius. So a lot of employees, a lot 
of revenue, and lot of interest and equity, frankly, in our 
NASA program. So I really appreciate this opportunity.
    I want to just touch on, I think, what Mr. Aderholt was 
alluding to at the beginning. And this is true in all 
transitional phases, especially with major programs that start 
with ``B,'' in terms of billions of dollars.
    As we pivot to new leadership at the national level, can 
you just talk to how you personally and how NASA is ensuring 
that we are looking long for lineup, that we are looking for 
consistency and maintaining visions and missions that are 
consistent with what industry and NASA has been planning to 
over the last, we will call it, 4 to 6 years?
    And how are we imparting, sort of, the consistency in 
acquisition strategies to make sure we are not disincentivized 
or dissuading some of these key prime partners from 
participating in competitions?
    And we are all fully aware of the protests going on. I 
don't want to necessarily talk about that directly here. But it 
does raise some concerns about changes in the acquisition 
strategies and making sure that it is a transparent and clear 
playing field and not one that is, you know, either changing 
the way we buy things or the way we value things in 
competitions.
    But, more importantly, I think the macro question is, how 
are we maintaining that long-term vision and mission, the 
mission to the Moon, the mission to Mars, and maintaining a 
consistency on programs that, in some cases, have 20-year 
trajectories?
    Mr. Nelson. Well, it started 11 years ago, when Kay Bailey 
Hutchison and I wrote the bill that set NASA on a dual track. 
One was the commercial track, and the other was to get NASA out 
of low-Earth orbit and go explore the cosmos.
    Now, you have very accurately pointed to the need for 
competition. You have my commitment on competition. This is 
where you all become extremely important partners in this whole 
competition, because, if we are going to the surface of the 
Moon with humans, it is going to cost some money.
    One of the things that NASA was facing before my time and 
that decision was made was that they had asked for that Human 
Landing System in this current fiscal year for $3.4 billion and 
only had $850 million appropriated, and they just simply didn't 
have enough to keep going forward more than one lander.
    There is going to be plenty of opportunity. Now--assuming 
that the bid protest is not successful. If the bid protest is 
successful--and, of course, we are in the blackout period until 
about August the 1st--then what you have is, if it is 
successful, then everything starts over and you do the 
competition.
    If it is not successful, then, according to law, NASA's 
policies and procedures, and the Federal acquisitions 
regulations of the United States Government, what has been done 
is done, so your competition goes forward. That ``forward'' is 
all the additional landings. Because this first competition was 
only as a demonstrator to show that you can land and bring 
humans safely back home. There are many additional landings 
that are planned for on the Moon.
    May I suggest to you that you, the approps, as a partner, 
you have an opportunity to put over about $5 billion in the 
jobs bill. We have already communicated this to your committee 
staff. Specifically, we named about $5.4 billion on the Human 
Landing System. That would be, at the end of the day, producing 
jobs because of what you and the others have already outlined.
    In addition, $200 million could go in the jobs bill for the 
Artemis suits that we have to continue to develop--that is the 
EVA suits, the extravehicular activity suits--and then, as I 
mentioned to your colleague in a former conversation today, 
about $585 million on the Moon to Mars propulsion, the nuclear 
thermal propulsion. There is a good opportunity right in the 
jobs bill.
    Now, while I am on the jobs bill, may I also say, part of 
the jobs bill is infrastructure. Well, look at the NASA 
facilities in your State, Congressman Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
    Mr. Nelson. There is aging infrastructure that is 
dilapidated at Ames and at Armstrong and, for that matter, at 
JPL. JPL, of course, is the Cinderella center right now because 
of these fantastic accomplishments at Mars.
    Look in Congressman Aderholt's area. They have an 
administration building that they are going to have to tear 
down. Look in the Congressman from Mississippi's district, 
Stennis Space Center. Look right down at Michoud in New 
Orleans, which is tied up with the Marshall Space Flight 
Center. They have holes in the roof where they are putting 
together the core of the SLS.
    We estimate that to be about another $5.4 billion just in 
infrastructure that you could put in the jobs bill. You all can 
really, really help us.
    When Congressman Aderholt, if he is not back--I want to say 
again to him what I just said to you about Marshall and the one 
down in New Orleans, Michoud, because this would really, really 
help. That is a place where you can do it and it can be done 
and appropriated this year, even though it would be 
appropriations over the next 5 years.
    Mr. Garcia. Sure.
    Well, thank you, Mr. Nelson. I am out of time, but I am 
looking forward to partnering with you on these very topics and 
programs.
    I yield back, sir.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Wow, are you ever 
out of time. But we are not docking you. We know it was the 
witness. You know----
    Mr. Nelson. You have to dock me, Mr. Chairman. I am 
responsible for that.
    Mr. Cartwright. I heard that the voluble nature of our 
witness only happened because he went to the Senate. He didn't 
talk quite at much when he was a Member of our people's House.
    But thank you----
    Mr. Nelson. That is true. It is true that Senators don't 
know how to shut up. I agree.
    Mr. Cartwright. At this point, the chair recognizes Mr. 
Case for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Administrator, good to see you. Aloha. I think you were 
infected by the Speaker's minute, by the way, over in the 
House. I don't think it was the Senate.
    So the first thing I want to do is just a comment. I know 
that my colleague Ms. Meng was inquiring of you as to STEM 
education and particularly NASA's efforts to facilitate 
minority representation within your ranks, which I very, very 
much endorse.
    I also want to thank you because we have the benefit of 
some of NASA's STEM education and particularly your Minority 
University Research and Education Program, MUREP, which is an 
avenue for many of our underserved and underrepresented 
communities to go into the sciences generally and to go into 
NASA particularly. And I can give you some examples of that in 
my own backyard where that has been very successful.
    So I would simply comment to you that I hope that, as you 
refine your budget, that you give great attention to your STEM 
and MUREP programs, which are invaluable, I think, not only to 
your workforce but to your public image, which is always 
something you want to maintain the broad community support. So 
I give you that.
    I accept your invitation to Mr. Garcia to delve into NASA's 
activity in my own district, which, of course, is Hawaii. And, 
in Hawaii, your activities are world-class telescopes on world-
class locations, in Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Haleakala, that host 
the world's leading telescopes from all around the world, 
including--I think you have somewhere in the range of, I want 
to say, five telescopes that are NASA-connected one way or the 
other; either you have an ownership interest or you have 
cooperative agreements. These primarily focus in the planetary 
science and astrophysics area, where I don't think that you 
have actually refined your budget in those areas.
    So I think the first thing I would ask you is straight-out. 
I mean, is there any cause for concern there, where somehow you 
are contemplating a reduction in those budgets? I certainly 
hope you recognize the value of those telescopes to NASA's 
mission overall and would continue your support.
    Mr. Nelson. No, sir, you don't have any concern. As a 
matter of fact, in the skinny budget that has been released 
without the details, they did release the details from the 
White House that the science budget is going way up. If on the 
top of my head I remember, it is going up by $300 million.
    By the way, Congressman, I have been to the island of 
Hawaii, and I have been up to the top of both of those 
mountains. One of them, you have got the environmental 
experimentation. The other one, which is a little higher, we 
had to use oxygen to get to the top of it--you have all those 
space telescopes. I have seen those, the three to which you 
refer. I think they have a brilliant future.
    I think the significant increase recommended by the 
President in his budget is indicative of the support for the 
science budget.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Well, I really appreciate that. Those are 
world-class. The atmospheric one you are referring to is the 
NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory, which this subcommittee also has 
jurisdiction over. So I appreciate that you are aware of that 
world-class observatory. And that interacts particularly with 
NASA's efforts on climate change, because the world-leading 
research on climate change, actually, is occurring at Mauna 
Loa.
    Let me go back to Mauna Kea for a second. That is the 
higher one, where you needed to use the oxygen to get up to the 
top of. Mauna Kea is State land that is operated at the summit 
on a lease to the University of Hawaii. And there has been some 
discussion of altering that governing function in Hawaii to 
something other than the University of Hawaii. Some of the 
other Federal agencies that operate within the observatory 
precinct, the science precinct, as we say, on the summit of 
Mauna Kea, expressed some concerns about altering that 
governance. I know the National Science Foundation has those 
concerns.
    Are you aware of that issue? I don't expect you to be aware 
of it down to that level of detail, but if you are, great. If 
you are not, I would love to ask for your thoughts after the 
hearing on whether NASA has any particular thoughts on 
governance. Because we definitely want to get this right. That 
lease is invaluable to our astronomic efforts, really, across 
the world.
    Mr. Nelson. Well, I am aware, simply because we have great 
staff that have made me aware of it, anticipating that you 
might ask about that. We do not expect a change in Mauna Kea 
management organization to have a material impact on NASA's 
role in the Keck observatories.
    Mr. Case. Okay.
    Mr. Nelson. NASA provides the funding directly to the Keck 
management organization, which is at the University of Hawaii.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Okay. Well, that is a great staff, 
Administrator. I appreciate the response and the prep. I would 
love to work with you on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa and Haleakala 
further and on NASA overall.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Nelson. By the way, I went up there to those two 
mountains with Brian Schatz, and they had all kinds of 
experimentation going on up on the NOAA experiments.
    And, by the way, you may not know: I think it is two-thirds 
of NOAA's budget is paid back to NASA because NASA builds and 
designs the very specific instruments that measure all of the 
climate that NOAA then operates.
    Mr. Case. I did not know that, but it sounds like the right 
relationship.
    Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Case. Thank you again.
    Mr. Cartwright. Terrific. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    At this time, the chair recognizes our ranking member, Mr. 
Aderholt, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    As I mentioned, Senator, in my opening comments--and I know 
you realize that maintaining American leadership in space is 
extremely important to not only our economic security but also 
to our national defense. And that is why the Artemis Program, 
with the goal of accelerating America's return to the surface 
of the Moon, is one of my top priorities.
    Despite Congress having provided nearly $1.5 billion for 
the HLS program, including NASA's distribution of $967 million 
amongst the three lander teams, NASA selected only one 
contractor, as I referred to earlier, to continue with the 
development of the first commercial lunar lander.
    The commercial crew and cargo programs began with two 
contractors to ensure redundancy, also to reduce risk and 
promote long-term sustainability. Full funding was to be worked 
out over time, and it was.
    My question to you is, can you just talk to us a little bit 
about why NASA didn't follow the pattern for the HLS award?
    Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Congressman. I have already invoked 
your name in a similar question earlier, that I know that this 
was of grave concern to you and that I wanted to repeat my 
answer that I did while you were gone to vote on the floor.
    As a matter of fact, this is where you all can help so 
much, in helping us have the resources in order to carry on a 
vigorous competition. You have my commitment that, within the 
bounds of law, I will encourage and insist on that competition.
    Now, if the bid protest--of which we are in the blackout 
period until about August 1--if that protest is successful, 
then everything goes back to ground zero, and we start over in 
a competition. That is where you are going to need the money.
    If the bid protest is not successful, we still have the 
competition. What has been done thus far by NASA in making a 
selection was for one demonstration landing with humans and 
safely returning them to Earth. Then there are so many needs 
for so many other landings that NASA would execute contracts, 
and that should be a vigorous competition.
    I suggested--and I won't repeat, but just for purposes for 
you--that you all could use the jobs bill as a place--and we 
have recommended this to your staff--not only for the 
infrastructure needs--and, by the way, while you were gone, I 
also pointed out what is needed at Marshall. You have a 
headquarters there that has to be torn down. There is so much 
other--Michoud as well, but every NASA center. We have 
recommended an amount for that in the infrastructure part of 
the jobs bill.
    For other jobs, we have recommended things to help us do 
this competition in the Human Landing System; also the 
development of the new spacesuits that would be there for 
Artemis; and also, then, for the follow-on Moon to Mars Program 
for the nuclear thermal propulsion that, if we are going to 
Mars, we are going to have to develop that.
    All of those figures are within the bosom of your committee 
staff and the Senate committee staff as well.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah.
    And I understand, you know, when you talk about the other--
later on down the road will be. My concern is that the other 
lander teams can't afford to be in business and will not be 
there when it is time to do those other bids. And, you know, as 
we talked about the other day, that is my concern.
    But let me go ahead. I am told that, under the current BAA, 
that all three lander teams are eligible to receive funding 
through the end of August. Is that correct?
    Mr. Nelson. The short answer is no. We are in the middle of 
a blackout period. NASA is currently defending the protest 
filed by both unsuccessful offerers in that procurement, NASA 
is legally prohibited from engaging with any of the HLS 
contractors on additional development work that would have been 
accomplished under the initial competition.
    Mr. Aderholt. Well, what amount of fiscal year 2021 HLS 
funds have been obligated, as opposed to simply committed? And 
what amount of the fiscal year 2021 funds are you willing to 
spend to support the teams?
    Mr. Nelson. NASA has been obligated $410 million to date in 
fiscal year 2021. And that includes funding for the base-period 
milestones and the NASA Human Landing System program office. No 
funds have been made on the actual Option A selection.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. My time is up, so----
    Mr. Nelson. May I add something, Mr. Chairman, for the 
Congressman, indeed, for the whole committee?
    Mr. Chairman, may I take the provision and the affirmation 
of the chair to additionally go over the 5 minutes by adding 
some information for not only Congressman Aderholt but the 
whole committee?
    Mr. Aderholt. I think he must have stepped away for votes. 
So, so long as he is not here, you have probably got the floor.
    Mr. Nelson. All right. Mr. Acting Chairman, should I say, I 
want you to see this photograph. I hope that is coming through 
on the computer here. This is the Chinese rover that has now 
landed on Mars and has sent back this picture last night.
    Now, they are only--they, the Chinese Space Agency--the 
Chinese Government is the only second nation to successfully 
land on Mars. They are getting ready and have already publicly 
announced that they want to send three big landers to the south 
pole of the Moon. And that is where the water is. And we are 
still a year or two away from a much smaller lander going 
there.
    What I am now getting to is, what about landing humans on 
Mars, and why this is important to the subject matter that we 
just discussed about Artemis.
    This is what has been in public reports, that the Chinese 
Government and the space program officials from China are 
studying the possibility of conducting a fly-by and a lunar 
lander in the decade of the 2020s. I think that is now adding a 
new element as to whether or not we want to get serious and get 
a lot of activity going in landing humans back on the surface 
of the Moon.
    Thank you for letting me add that.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    Mr. Nelson. I see Congressman Crist.
    Mr. Crist. Senator Nelson, how are you?
    Mr. Nelson. I think the chairman must have gone to vote on 
the floor.
    Mr. Crist. I think you are right. Maybe Ranking Member 
Aderholt can direct us.
    I think I am next in the queue, Robert, but I am not----
    Mr. Aderholt [presiding]. I think you are, so just go 
ahead.
    Mr. Crist. Okay. Great. Well, first of all, thank you, 
Ranking Member. I appreciate that.
    I am extraordinarily honored to have the opportunity to see 
my friend Senator Bill Nelson, particularly in this role that 
is so appropriate to you, sir. And congratulations on your 
confirmation as NASA Administrator. No surprise to any of us at 
all and certainly something that is so well-deserved of a man 
of your stature and your career.
    I understand that you are maybe limited in how much you can 
say about the current status of the Human Landing System, but I 
firmly believe that the competition is critical to the success 
of NASA's missions.
    And, Senator, you may have already touched on this while I 
was away doing some voting. Forgive me if that is the case. Can 
you discuss how you envision maintaining competition for the 
human lunar lander? And do you anticipate NASA's out-year 
budgets will support that strategy?
    Mr. Nelson. Congressman, you have my commitment on 
competition. We are in the blackout period on the bid protest. 
Once that is decided, whichever way it goes, we are going to 
have the competition going.
    But we can't do it and my commitment doesn't mean anything 
without you all as partners because of the funding request that 
I have laid out and suggested that you could do quickly when 
you all consider the jobs bill.
    Not only that, but also under the infrastructure provision 
of that bill, the dilapidated and deteriorating infrastructure 
that we find in all of our centers and NASA facilities can be 
addressed in this bill.
    I have laid out those details to the committee staff 
earlier. I have laid it out in detail to other members of the 
committee who have asked that prior. But that certainly 
includes what you see in your State of Florida at the Kennedy 
Space Center, the aging infrastructure that is there as well.
    Mr. Crist. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator, very much.
    Can you share from where the Human Landing System will be 
launched? Any idea if it would be from Kennedy Space Center in 
Florida?
    Mr. Nelson. Absolutely. It is going to launch to--the 
Artemis Program has--first of all, the first Artemis that is 
going to launch at the end of the year, unmanned, will go from 
Pad 39B at the Kennedy Space Center.
    Artemis II, which will be the first human launch on the SLS 
and in the spacecraft, the capsule, Orion, will be from the 
same pad.
    Artemis III, which is going to be the first demonstration 
landing under the scenario that was awarded to SpaceX--and, 
remember, that is in a blackout period now. The SLS, with the 
crew, will launch from Pad 39B. It will rendezvous in lunar 
orbit, what they call cislunar orbit, and the crew will 
transfer into a lander, and that will go down to the surface, 
bring the crew back up, hitch up with Orion for the ride on the 
way home.
    The answer is, yes, going from Kennedy.
    Depending on the successful bidder on this or future use 
contracts of delivering crew to the surface of the Moon, there 
may be different architectures of how you transfer the crew in 
cislunar orbit, but, in fact, they will ride on Orion on top of 
the largest, most powerful rocket ever, the SLS, the Space 
Launch System, which will launch from Kennedy.
    Mr. Crist. Wonderful. Thank you very much.
    As you know, the Space Launch System arrived at the Kennedy 
Space Center last month, restoring the Cape to its historic 
role as the only place in the world to be capable of launching 
astronauts into deep space.
    With the Space Launch System and Orion soon beginning 
regular launch operations from the Cape, as you just suggested, 
what additional upgrades are being done at Kennedy to support 
these missions, or need to be done?
    Mr. Nelson. Well, very fortunately, because we have had a 
Kennedy Space Center director, Bob Cabana, who has been very 
visionary, he has basically remade Kennedy as a spaceport and 
coordinated with the Air Force, now the Space Force, at Cape 
Canaveral, into a multi-use spaceport. A lot of those upgrades 
are being made as we speak.
    I will give you an example: leased land. Blue Origin is 
manufacturing rockets right there at the Kennedy Space Center 
in a separate part. They have just doubled the amount of their 
leased land to expand their rocket.
    Congressman Aderholt's district has a similar kind of 
facility out there where they make the rockets.
    You are having that kind of activity that has really caused 
a rebirth of the economic activity at the Kennedy Space Center, 
which you have asked about.
    Mr. Crist. Great.
    Well, Senator, again, thank you very much. I really 
appreciate the thoroughness of your answers, and the level of 
knowledge you have on this topic is unsurpassed, truly. We are 
blessed to have you, sir. Please give my best to your lovely 
Grace, if you would.
    And I think it is--Ranking Member, it might be 
Representative Palazzo's opportunity for questioning, I think, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Hey, thanks, Charlie. I guess we are just 
passing the baton around.
    Administrator, welcome. It is great to see you again. I 
know, when I was a young freshman, we shared a stage at NASA 
headquarters to--I think it was one of their internet videos, 
just giving them an update on what the House was doing with the 
space bill and what the Senate was doing. You probably don't 
remember that. But I enjoyed your remarks then, and I have 
enjoyed your remarks today.
    Mr. Nelson. Well, Congressman, you still look young. You 
are just not a--you are now a veteran.
    Mr. Palazzo. I know. Well, appearances can be fooling.
    Well, listen, I remember when I first came to Congress, you 
know, NASA really didn't have a roadmap on where they were 
going. They were just changing objectives continuously. So 
really hard to resource, you know, precious dollars to precious 
programs. And now that we have a roadmap, I think we are in a 
much better place.
    And also what I remember--you know, I tell people I was the 
chairman of the Space Subcommittee, and they say, hey, you 
know, what is it like, you know, going to the Moon? And I had 
to tell them we can't get back to the Moon. And they were 
shocked about that. And then they were even more shocked when I 
would tell them in a townhall meeting or somewhere that we were 
paying $60 million to $70 million per astronaut to fly American 
astronauts on a Russian Soyuz rocket.
    And so, you know, to actually be back to the point to where 
we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from 
American soil is just a great feeling. It is a feeling of pride 
that I have deep within, and I think the American people do as 
well.
    And so, as you mentioned, the landing of the Chinese on 
Mars got a lot of people's attention last week. With SLS and 
Orion ready to go, I think we are hoping that there are not a 
lot more delays in getting humans back into deep space by using 
unnecessarily risky architectures.
    With the recent successful test of the SLS core stage, all 
components of SLS and Orion have now been thoroughly tested, 
engines are now ready to be flight-proven, and NASA is hopeful 
to launch Artemis I by the end of the year. Additionally, the 
second SLS and Orion are well on their way to being completed.
    Now that the backbone of the architecture to finally return 
humans to deep space is ready, can you discuss how you plan to 
keep and possibly accelerate the momentum of returning humans 
to deep space and how we can ensure that we are not overtaken 
by our foreign adversaries?
    Mr. Nelson. Absolutely.
    Congressman, there was a palpable sense of energy among the 
employees of the Stennis Space Center when all four of those 
engines in the core stage ignited and ran for 8-1/2 minutes, 
for the duration that would take them from the launchpad into 
orbital velocity.
    Bob Cabana tells me that, when that core stage barge 
arrived at the Kennedy Space Center, having been shipped from 
Stennis in Mississippi, that the employees just raced out there 
to see it, cheering. It is, as we speak, being stacked 
vertically in the Vehicle Assembly Building.
    We are at the point that we are beginning to recognize that 
it could well be, at the end of this year, those four engines 
on Pad 39B are going to ignite, fire up to lift that rocket, 
along with its solid rocket boosters, and we are going to see 
the dawn of the new era of deep space exploration, which will 
take us back to the Moon with the first woman on the first 
flight and the next man. Then we will see a plethora of 
astronauts and we will see the program of the Moon to Mars. 
That is starting. We have described all that.
    Now, I have described in detail several times--if you want 
me to get into the specifics about the competitions----
    Mr. Palazzo. No, sir. No, sir. But, if I may, I know my 
time is about to expire, and I am going to sneak in one more 
question----
    Mr. Nelson. Of course.
    Mr. Palazzo [continuing]. In case we don't have a second 
round.
    You know, as you know, with the successful completion of 
the SLS core stage green run in March, which was the largest 
rocket stage in history ever tested for a full-duration test on 
actual flight hardware, the SLS core stage is now fully 
certified for launch operations and ongoing production, which 
we have talked about.
    The next major developmental milestone for Stennis and the 
SLS program will be the green run of the Exploration Upper 
Stage, which will boost SLS performance to the Moon by nearly 
50 percent.
    Can you briefly discuss the importance of the Exploration 
Upper Stage to NASA? And what is the current schedule for the 
modification of the B-2 test stand at Stennis to prepare for 
the test?
    Mr. Nelson. Okay.
    Mr. Cartwright [presiding]. If I can interject, 
Administrator Nelson, we are going to have a second round, so 
you don't have to give him the full answer right now. Go ahead.
    Mr. Nelson. Well, I am happy to stay within whatever time 
constraints you prefer, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Yeah. Give him 60 seconds now, and he can 
follow up later.
    Mr. Nelson. Okay.
    Well, the first three missions will not have the 
Exploration Upper Stage. That's for when we have the much 
heavier loads that we have to have that. That is part of this 
budget that you will be receiving, and another opportunity in 
the jobs bill to put some money in there to get that--what you 
described, the EUS, Exploration Upper Stage, get it up and 
running.
    And so I will stop the answer there and go into more detail 
later.
    Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, sir.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Trone. I see Mr. 
Trone. If he is ready.
    There you go. Five minutes to you, Mr. Trone.
    Mr. Trone. Yes, sir. Your timing is perfect. Thank you.
    Mr. Nelson, thank you so much for joining us today. 
Congratulations on your confirmation. Maryland, proud home of 
the Goddard Space Flight Center as well as a significant 
aerospace workforce. NASA supports 35,000 jobs and billions in 
economic output in our State. So delighted to have you here 
today.
    As you know, with COVID, NASA has had an unprecedented 
challenges in supply-chain disruptions--the availability, 
materials, instruments. The recent inspector general report on 
the impact of COVID estimated a $47 million cost to the supply 
chain, fiscal year 2020 and 2021.
    So what impacts to local contractors have you seen for 
these project schedule delays? And how is NASA working to build 
supply-chain resiliency?
    Mr. Nelson. You are right, Maryland has considerable 
critical space centers and infrastructure, Goddard and the 
Applied Physics Laboratory. Kudos to all of your employees and 
what they produce for our Nation's space program.
    Specifically, your question on the supply-chain threat. It 
was only 4 days after the President was inaugurated, and he 
issued an executive order which establishes a policy for the 
U.S. needing resilient, diverse, and secure supply chains to 
ensure our national security and our economic health.
    It also called for a 100-day supply-chain review of risk. 
NASA is following this review very closely, given that the 
Agency has experienced some supply-chain challenges. That was 
particularly true of the challenges, the shortages on supply 
chains during the COVID crisis.
    Mr. Trone. So, just to follow up on that, availability of 
raw materials--titanium chips, rare-earth elements like lithium 
for batteries--you know, are we on track to have what we need 
for you?
    Mr. Nelson. It is always a challenge, Congressman. I know 
this from my background on the Armed Services Committee and 
also the Intel Committee. It is always a challenge on those 
rare-earth metals.
    Mr. Trone. Okay. But, overall, you feel like you are 
getting to the finish line where we have to?
    Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Trone. Okay.
    OSAM technology is critical to developing sustainable, you 
know, space architectures to bring us closer to a space economy 
in reality. So OSAM-1 is preparing for a calendar year 2025 
launch. Administrator, can you share how NASA will prioritize 
funding to keep this program, you know, on track?
    Mr. Nelson. For those who may not understand the acronym, 
what this is is a spacecraft that would go up and service a 
satellite on orbit. It could be a refueling, it could be a 
repair, it could also extend the lifespan of a satellite. It 
would be robotic technology at its best. That is what OSAM-1 
(Restore/Spider) is.
    Well, the first one that we are doing, it will refuel a 
satellite, followed by the assembly and the manufacturing 
demonstration. It is included in the 2022 budget. It is making 
excellent technical progress. They are going through something 
called the mission-critical design review, and that is 
scheduled for later this year. Then they are hoping for a 
flight demonstration in 2025.
    The most significant challenge has been the impact of 
COVID, because it has restricted the access to the planned 
hardware building and testing. The access to the laboratories 
is now improving.
    Mr. Trone. Excellent. Thank you. Time is perfect.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
    At this time, the chair recognizes the vice chair of the 
entire House Committee on Appropriations, Representative Brenda 
Lawrence, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having 
this hearing today.
    I want to commend the Biden administration for recognizing 
the significance of funding for NASA's STEM education 
initiatives. To develop a more diverse workforce, we must 
create opportunities for everyone.
    Administrator Nelson, NASA continues to demonstrate its 
commitment to diversity by landing the first woman and the 
first person of color on the Moon as a part of Artemis. How 
will NASA use STEM initiatives and the Space Grant Program to 
develop a future generation of leaders at NASA that reflects 
the diversity of this country?
    And I want to congratulate you on your confirmation as the 
next NASA Administrator.
    Mr. Nelson. Number one, Congresswoman, the diversity is not 
only a goal of Joe Biden but it is a goal of ours. And I won't 
repeat, but I gave a litany of the things that we have done 
already----
    Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
    Mr. Nelson [continuing]. To bring about diversity here. I 
think you will see that reflected in our appointments, for 
example, that are not career employees. We have that diversity 
there as well.
    I think the greater answer to your question about the 
future of STEM--and you being from Michigan, that is important. 
You get NASA STEM grants to your university----
    Mrs. Lawrence. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. Nelson [continuing]. In your State.
    The greatest way to answer your question is, look at 
history. Look what happened to young people getting turned on 
because of the space program back in Mercury, Gemini, and 
Apollo for a couple of generations. Look at the engineers and 
the mathematicians and the technologists and the scientists 
that came out of that.
    Then, as we unlock these mysteries of the universe with the 
telescopes--what the Hubble Space Telescope has already done 
and what James Webb that is going to launch at the end of this 
year is going to do is unlock more of these mysteries of 
looking back in time at the source of when light almost began.
    All of this is exciting young people. And, as you probably 
know, you walk into a room with kids, and if they are kind of 
bored, you start talking about space--
    Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
    Mr. Nelson [continuing]. Their little eyes light up, and 
you suddenly get them engaged.
    Interestingly, that history that I just recounted, 60 
percent of people alive today were not alive to see Apollo land 
on the Moon. Imagine, going forward, how we can inspire with 
the first woman and the first person of color when we land back 
on the Moon.
    Mrs. Lawrence. I am the co-chair of the Democratic Women's 
Caucus and second vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. 
I saw the first all-female team. They invited me to go and 
watch it live at the--I forget the name of the place here in 
D.C. That was so fascinating.
    I want you to know that, when we put women on the Moon, we 
will bring back some real perspectives, when we see the Moon 
out of the eyes of a woman.
    I want you to know that we have a high school academy just 
on NASA, and it is predominantly all African-American children. 
We do use the grant. It is making a difference. I want you as 
Administrator to please stay focused on that.
    Because, you know, it is kind of sad that, after all these 
years, we are finally getting a woman, you know, in the place 
of being able--and a person of color to be able to walk on the 
Moon, and I just want to say thank you for that. And I want to 
be at that launch, so we will talk about that.
    Mr. Nelson. Excellent. Excellent. Thank you.
    Mrs. Lawrence. I yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Vice Chair Lawrence.
    Administrator Nelson, we are going to begin a second round 
of questioning. I do not anticipate it will be as long as the 
first round, but I am offering you a comfort break, if you want 
to break for 5 minutes before we go forward.
    Mr. Nelson. I am ready to go, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right. In that case, I will recognize 
myself for a further round of 5 minutes.
    You touched a little bit on the research going into 
electrically propelled aeronautics, and I appreciate that. But 
I want to talk about alternative fuels.
    We have heard estimates that by 2050 there will be 10 
billion passengers flying every year in airplanes, with a 
distance of 12.4 trillion miles. And, according to NASA 
estimates, that would require over 570 megatons of fuel and 
would generate more than 1,800 megatons of carbon dioxide going 
into the atmosphere.
    Can you talk a bit more about NASA's role in testing of 
alternative fuels and how you will work with the many other 
agencies who play a role in alternative fuel development? The 
FAA, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, the 
Agriculture Department all have a role. And that makes this 
very important to have a whole-of-government approach so that 
we really make the best use of our taxpayers' dollars.
    Go ahead, Mr. Administrator.
    Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. Not only is NASA doing the all-
electric airplane, which would be revolutionary because there 
would be no emissions, but NASA is working on these alternative 
fuels as well.
    I might point out, take for example one of the spin-offs of 
NASA in our aeronautical research that is in use today. When 
you are on a commercial airliner, look out at the wing, and you 
will see that the end of the wing tips up. That was a NASA 
design and development, and what it does, it makes that 
airplane more fuel-efficient. It can get to altitude higher, 
quicker, and therefore safer, by getting out of the clogged 
airspace, and it is more fuel-efficient.
    There is a spin-off that directly answers your question.
    Mr. Cartwright. All right.
    And I would like you to discuss a little bit, if you will, 
how these efforts can contribute to meeting our climate goals 
and what the repercussions might be if we cannot achieve 
meaningful reductions in carbon emissions from our aviation 
system.
    Mr. Nelson. Well, aviation is just one part of it. 
Smokestacks are another part of it. Car exhaust. The energy 
efficiency of buildings is another biggie. You go through all 
of those, and they all contribute to the putting up of carbon 
dioxide and methane up in the upper atmosphere, which creates 
the greenhouse effect, which traps the heat that otherwise 
would be radiated out into space and keeps it trapped and, 
therefore, continues to heat up the Earth.
    One manifestation of that in a State like Florida is the 
sea-level rise. Of course, water sloshing over the curbs, that 
caused Miami Beach to have to put in millions of dollars of big 
pumps. There is only so much you can pump as you look down the 
road years into the future.
    We have to try all of the above, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Understood.
    I am going to switch gears now. My friend, former NASA 
Administrator Jim Bridenstine, in my opinion, deserves some 
credit here for building the Artemis Accords as the starting 
point for a rules-based international system of space 
governance. While he did get the ball rolling, there are only 
nine countries so far that have signed on.
    Administrator Nelson, while I understand that expanding the 
accords is going to be the job of the State Department and the 
Commerce Department, as well as NASA, can you talk a little bit 
about your vision for the future of these international 
accords?
    Mr. Nelson. Absolutely. First of all, I agree with you 
about Jim Bridenstine. He did a good job.
    Now we need to push those Artemis Accords ahead. It is 
another component of many, many components of the U.S. 
Government in addressing the question of the heating up of the 
Earth. I think we have other countries that are getting ready 
to sign some of these accords.
    It establishes norms in space. I hope other nations are 
going to be joining us in abiding by these norms. Don't we have 
about a handful of nation-states that have signed on to the 
accords? We have a long way to go, and I am going to try to do 
that.
    Mr. Cartwright. Well, I appreciate that, and I look forward 
to working with you on it.
    I don't see our ranking member. I was just about to yield 
to him. In lieu of him, I am going to yield to Mr. Garcia for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Nelson, again, thank you. And as much grief 
as the chairman gave you for being a little verbose on the 
previous answer, I will give you credit, because you shaved 
about 3 minutes off of my second round of questions. And I 
support the infrastructure programs you outlined as well, so 
thank you for that.
    I think there are a couple of other programs that I would 
like to just get your perspective on. We, obviously, at Edwards 
Air Force Base and the surrounding areas, different facilities 
under NASA, we are operating these white-tail pointy-nose 
aircraft, the F-15 legacy platform and the F-18 legacy 
platforms, three of each; a couple U-2s flying out of the high 
desert as well.
    I am concerned about the obsolescence challenge that these 
airframes have from a sensor perspective, but also, frankly, a 
fatigue life and flight-time safety perspective as well. I 
think we have heard from some of our constituents in our 
district that they actually are afraid of the safety component 
of some of these legacy Eagles and Hornets that they are 
flying.
    I am hopeful that we can figure out a path forward to 
recapitalize or at least modernize, either with life-extension 
modifications or, better yet, replacing those with the 
production line aircraft coming out of St. Louis, the F-15EX, 
F-18E/F, or whatever solution NASA deems feasible.
    But can you just discuss from an airframe perspective the 
recapitalization? That is question one.
    And then we also are the home of SOFIA, which is the 747 
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy Program. This 
is sort of an annual contender for funding. I think it is 
instrumental in the pursuit of characterizing and observing not 
only atmospherics but within our solar system and beyond, the 
birth of stars, formation of new solar systems.
    But just wanted to kind of hear your perspective on those 
two major issues there.
    Mr. Nelson. With regard to airframe life, I would ask you 
to refer to the Department of Defense specifically on that. We, 
NASA, Aeronautics, confers with all branches of government on 
where our NASA research is applicable, and if there is a 
specific application on airframe life, then I will find that 
out and pass it on to you that NASA is sharing with DOD and 
other agencies of government.
    Mr. Garcia. Got it.
    Mr. Nelson. With regard to the flying stratospheric 
observatory, you mentioned that that is--I think you said 
infrared. It is a complement to so many of the other 
instruments we had. We were talking with the Congressperson 
from Hawaii. What is it in the budget? I simply don't know yet, 
because the budget has not come out yet. But we will convey 
that to you----
    Mr. Garcia. Okay.
    Mr. Nelson [continuing]. With regard to the stratospheric 
observatory.
    When we were talking about Hawaii, there is an infrared 
telescope that is one of our telescopes looking out into deep 
space. It is on top of one of the two mountains on the big 
island of Hawaii.
    Mr. Garcia. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Nelson. I was just talking about that with Congressman 
Case. So we will get back to you on any detail once the budget 
comes out.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that, sir. Yeah, 
it is effectively a similar mission and scope, but SOFIA, on 
the 747, is doing it from 40,000 feet instead of, you know, 
15,000 feet. But it is also an international partnership, with 
Germany paying for about half of the total operating costs and 
upgrades to the aircraft.
    So I just want to make sure that is on your radar, so to 
speak. And very important to, I think, the country but 
especially our district, with everything going on around it.
    But thank you again, Mr. Administrator. It has been a 
pleasure. And it is going to be a great honor to serve 
alongside of you. And if you find two empty seats in the X-57 
or 59, give me a call. I will go flying with you as well.
    So I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Don't forget to plug 
it in, too, before you go.
    Mr. Garcia. That is right.
    Mr. Cartwright. At this point, the chair recognizes our 
ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for 5 more minutes of questions. 
Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. All right. Sorry 
about that. I went to cast my vote then. So I am back. But, 
anyway, good to be back.
    In fiscal year 2021, Congress provided $400 million for the 
Space Launch System's Block 1B development, including work on 
the Exploration Upper Stage and associated capabilities to 
support the mission available to launch in 2025. As you know, 
Block 1B will have the largest fairing in the world, with 
unrivaled power to deliver crew and payloads to the Moon and 
eventually on Mars.
    Can you discuss with us the importance of the Block 1B to 
our Nation's space program and how NASA plans to meet the 
launch goals outlined by Congress and how many cargo-only SLS 
launch missions are on your official manifest between now and 
2030?
    Mr. Nelson. Consistent with the 2021 appropriations 
direction that you mentioned, NASA has continued development of 
the Exploration Upper Stage for the SLS and completed the 
critical design review. It is planning for the first flight on 
Artemis IV. That would be the one after the demonstration 
landing of humans, which is Artemis III.
    Obviously I don't have the budget request, because the 
President hasn't put it out, but a little birdie told me that 
he thinks you will be happy with the budget request.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
    Is it possible to get the committee a list of the proposed 
SLS cargo-only missions over the next few weeks?
    Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. Once the budget is out, we will 
scramble up and get those to you.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
    Let's see. I have about 2\1/2\ minutes left. Let me just 
jump over.
    I recently suggested to General Raymond of the U.S. Space 
Force that NASA and the Air Force could benefit from more 
closely tracking the development funds each agency invests in 
commercial launches. In fact, when one agency ignores the funds 
invested in a company by the other agency, I think the criteria 
for making awards for the competition gets really skewed.
    Do you have any thoughts on this? Can you speak to this 
with General Raymond to establish a way to track investments 
and to make sure that the information is publicly available?
    Mr. Nelson. I can't speak to the issue of publicly 
available right now. I just simply don't know. But the genesis 
of the idea that you suggest is an excellent one.
    You know, instead of each agency being in its own stovepipe 
and having its own R&D, you ought to be sharing this across 
agencies so you get the additional energy that would come from 
that cross-pollination, as well as you eliminate some of the 
duplication.
    This was one of the original ideas of developing DARPA, so 
that you could get a forward-looking agency on R&D that would 
be inputting to all the agencies that would benefit from that. 
We ought to be doing that. We are going to certainly try to 
continue to do that.
    I think it will be of value that Pam Melroy will eventually 
be confirmed and be our Deputy Administrator at NASA. She was a 
member--a leader of the DARPA team after she left the Astronaut 
Office. I think you see where I am going.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. Well, if you could, you know, have a 
chance--like I said, I have already approached General Raymond 
about this, and I know he would like to speak with you. And so, 
if you could speak with him personally on this, I think it 
would be a great thing to make everything more efficient.
    So I see my time has expired, so I will yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Steven 
Palazzo for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator, it is good to be back. Again, I appreciate 
your vast knowledge of all things NASA and how important NASA 
is in space dominance and American-led leadership in space.
    I remember, back when we used to have Administrator Bolden 
come testify in front of our Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology, I want to say at the time there was something in 
the paper about an incident where a researcher--it may have 
been at Ames. I don't want to throw any names out there, but it 
was a research facility going on where a guy got on a plane and 
was heading back to mainland China with a laptop with a lot of 
proprietary data.
    And I know the Administrator then committed to the 
committee to foster a serious attitude about security breaches 
and protecting, you know, America's assets, which is our 
research and technology.
    And now I am just reading, like, on June 18, NASA released 
an audit report that revealed multiple data breaches that 
occurred over the past 10 years at JPL. And, you know, the 
hackers were able to not only access the IT--well, actually, 
they stole information about our mission to Mars. The hackers 
also accessed the IT network of NASA's deep-space network, 
which communicates between satellite dishes and active 
spacecraft. The hackers went undetected for almost a year.
    I know that is cyber; it is a little different than 
physically walking out of a building. But, you know, we know 
our foreign adversaries have been stealing data from us 
forever. That is how they were able to catch up and close that 
technological gap.
    Can you just tell me, Administrator Nelson, like, are you 
going to take security and the protection of America's secrets 
a little more seriously, maybe, than some other Administrators?
    Mr. Nelson. You have exactly put your finger on theft. 
Intelligence security is a concern that theft can occur with a 
hacksaw and a crowbar or a missing laptop. Theft today 
increasingly is cyber theft.
    You are looking at the former ranking member of the Cyber 
Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. What I 
found in my years on the Intel Committee and the Armed Services 
Committee, that it was hard to get the private sector involved 
and serious about cybersecurity. Well, I suppose the pipeline 
problem that we just have suffered through is going to be 
another reminder.
    When it comes to government, there is no excuse for slack 
cybersecurity. We had a big meeting on this just yesterday 
here, in my early tenure. It is of paramount importance to 
NASA, and especially with the high technology that we are 
dealing with that so many of our competitors would love to 
have. That also means our contractors have got to have that 
same kind of security.
    The fiscal year 2022 request provides for the modernization 
and expansion of cybersecurity, including continuous monitoring 
infrastructure and threat detection tools, integrated 
enterprise logging, and assessment services for visibility, 
improving patch management, and a fully implemented controlled 
unclassified information program.
    These are vital to the protection of NASA's people, the 
public, and the mission success by ensuring the cybersecurity 
that safeguards all of us against the malicious and 
unintentional breaches.
    I will just conclude by saying, how many times has your 
cell phone rung and it is somebody calling and saying, ``Oh, 
you just lost such and such,'' and it is nothing but a fake 
call trying to get your private information?
    Mr. Palazzo. That is true. Well, Administrator, thank you. 
And I know you are going to take security breaches seriously. 
You know, the culture across government-wide, I think we are 
starting to recognize we have lost hundreds of billions of 
dollars in intellectual property. It has all been outright 
theft by foreign adversaries.
    And, listen, thanks again for your testimony here today. I 
look forward to serving with you. Hopefully we can get together 
soon.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I went over my time, but I 
will yield back.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
    At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Cline for an 
additional 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Cline. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator, coming from Florida, you have a good 
understanding and appreciation for the ground infrastructure 
that makes our whole space program possible. You talked about 
that a little bit earlier.
    As you are probably aware, Virginia owns and operates the 
Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA's Wallops Flight 
Facility on the eastern shore. And it supports NASA's 
commercial cargo program, science missions to the Moon, and 
countless suborbital tests of sounding rockets.
    Industry partners Northrop Grumman, with their Antares 
rocket and now Cygnus Spacecraft, and now Rocket Lab, with 
their Electron rocket, are helping to drive a strong and 
growing space industrial base in Virginia.
    I hope you will take the opportunity to see firsthand how 
this unique State spaceport works with NASA and industry to 
deliver on NASA mission priorities. And it is not too far from 
our Nation's capital. So, as you settle into your new role, I 
hope we can count on to you make plans to attend a launch in 
person at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport.
    Mr. Nelson. I am looking forward to it, and I hope you will 
come with me.
    Mr. Cline. I certainly will. I appreciate that.
    The Artemis Program to return American astronauts to the 
surface of the Moon is very exciting, as you discussed. And 
with China becoming increasingly ambitious in its own efforts 
in space, it is more important than at any time since the Cold 
War that America demonstrate to the world our preeminence in 
space exploration.
    Can you elaborate a little bit on why you believe NASA's 
Human Landing System award to SpaceX and your follow-on efforts 
for commercial delivery services to the Moon present the best 
architecture to fulfill this important endeavor and stay ahead 
of China?
    Mr. Nelson. If you can see that, that is the lander on 
Mars. That photograph was sent last night by China.
    Mr. Cline. Beautiful.
    Mr. Nelson. They are the second nation. Now, we have been 
there since the mid-1970s. However, they have demonstrated the 
sophisticated technology to go millions and millions of miles 
and successfully land and transmit back to Earth.
    They are getting ready to have much larger spacecraft, a 
series of three, land on the south pole of the Moon. Why? That 
is where resources are, but that is also where water is. If you 
can find water and there is water there, you can make fuel.
    We have a much smaller lander that is going to the lunar 
south pole in a couple of years. What I am saying is, we are 
suddenly realizing that we don't own all of this. It is a very 
aggressive competitor.
    I read to the committee earlier--this needs to be taken 
note of by the committee. This is in public reports, that the 
Chinese Government and the Chinese space program officials are 
studying the possibility of conducting a fly-by and lunar 
landing in the decade of the 2020s.
    Now, that is published reports. In other words, they are 
going to be landing humans on the Moon. That should tell us 
something about our need to get off our duff and get our Human 
Landing System program going vigorously.
    NASA can't do it alone. You all are our partners. And I 
have suggested earlier in conversation with the committee that 
a good place to start that is not only the 2022 budget but, 
also, you have the jobs bill coming along. And, in the bosom of 
your committee, we have made specific recommendations as to 
what is tied to jobs and infrastructure with regard to the 
Human Landing System.
    Mr. Cline. And you believe that the award to SpaceX is the 
best way to fulfill this endeavor and stay ahead of China?
    Mr. Nelson. Well, that is done, only to be in a blackout 
period, because there is a protest of the bid. Around the first 
of August, we will find out what the GAO decides about the bid.
    If the bid is overturned, if the protest is honored, then 
there will be a whole new competition and you go back to the 
start. If the bid is not overturned, then what has been awarded 
is just a one-time demonstration landing of humans and return 
them safely.
    There are so many other landings that need to be competed. 
We want a vigorous competition, but we have to have the money 
in order to be able to do that. We have suggested ways in this 
jobs bill that you can do that.
    Mr. Cline. Well, I appreciate that, and I appreciate your 
commitment to staying ahead of China. It is critical that we do 
that, and we need to treat them as the adversary that they are. 
So I appreciate that.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
    And, Mr. Administrator, we have many more landings to do, 
and, if I have anything to say about it, we will have many more 
hearings with you as our guest. We have really appreciated your 
candor, the wealth of your knowledge and experience, and we all 
look forward very much to working with you as our new NASA 
Administrator. Congratulations, and thank you for your 
testimony today.
    With that, this hearing is hereby adjourned.

    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                        [all]