[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


            OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-63
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
54-925                    WASHINGTON : 2024                  
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
                        GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

                       ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair

MATT GAETZ, Florida                  SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas, Ranking 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Member
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    LUCY McBATH, Georgia
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
LAUREL LEE, Florida                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
KEVIN KILEY, California                  Georgia

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Wednesday, February 14, 2024

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and 
  Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona......     1
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from 
  the State of Texas.............................................     2
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     4

                                WITNESS

The Honorable Ronald L. Davis, Director, United States Marshals 
  Service
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on 
  Crime and Federal Government Surveillance are listed below.....    34

Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
  Surveillance from the State of Texas, for the record
  An article entitled, ``Exclusive: Threats to US federal judges 
      double since 2021, driven by politics,'' Feb. 13, 2024, 
      Reuters
  A statement from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
      Association (FLEOA), Feb. 13, 2024, to the Honorable Andy 
      Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal 
      Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona, and the 
      Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking Member of the 
      Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance 
      from the State of Texas
  A statement by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking Member 
      of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
      Surveillance from the State of Texas

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions to the Honorable Ronald L. Davis, Director, United 
  States Marshals Service, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold 
  Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State 
  of New York, and the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
  Surveillance from the State of Texas, for the record
    No response was received at the time of publication

 
            OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, February 14, 2024

                        House of Representatives

       Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Andy Biggs 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Biggs, Jordan, Tiffany, 
Nehls, Moore, Lee, Fry, Jackson Lee, Nadler, Dean, Cohen, and 
Johnson.
    Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
Surveillance is called to order. I appreciate all of you 
attendance today. Director Davis, thank you for being here.
    Welcome, everyone, to today's hearing on Oversight of the 
United States Marshals Service. The United States Marshals 
Service is the Federal law enforcement agency responsible for 
the protection of Federal judges and courthouses, apprehending 
fugitives, transporting prisoners in Federal custody, 
maintaining the Witness Security Program, and more.
    Just over a year ago, Congress passed judicial security 
legislation that prohibits Federal agencies and businesses from 
posting publicly the personally identifiable information of 
Federal judges and immediate families. Additionally, the law 
prohibits data brokers and other businesses from buying and 
selling this information, provides training for Federal judges 
and family members on best practices for maintaining on-line 
privacy. The law also authorized funding for the USMS to expand 
its office of protective intelligence of the Judicial Security 
Division by hiring additional Intelligence Analysts, Deputy 
Marshals, and other individuals necessary to anticipate and 
deter threats to the judiciary.
    The legislation was named after Daniel Anderl, son of Judge 
Esther Salas, who was murdered by an attorney who had a 
previous case in front of Judge Salas. When law enforcement 
later found the attorney's body after an apparent self-
inflicted gunshot wound, he had a list of other people he 
allegedly wanted to kill including three other judges. The 
legislation also came in the wake of Attorney General Merrick 
Garland's directive to the U.S. Marshals Service to provide 
enhanced, around-the-clock security at the residences of all 
nine Supreme Court justices. This directive occurred following 
the leak of a draft opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's 
Health Organization case. The leaked opinion ignited a series 
of organized harassment including picketing and harassment at 
the residences of several justices.
    The threat became so grave that in June 2022, a man showed 
up to the home of Justice Kavanaugh with a handgun, a tactical 
knife, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, and other gear to 
``remove some people from the Supreme Court'' to ``stop Roe v. 
Wade from being overturned.'' The man hoped to assassinate as 
many Supreme Court justices because in his own words if ``there 
are more liberal than conservative judges, they will have the 
power.'' The would-be assassin acted just weeks after Senator 
Schumer, the Senate Democrat leader stood on the Supreme Court 
steps and threatened specific justices by name,

        I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you 
        have released a whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You 
        won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful 
        decisions.

Despite these elevated threat risks, Attorney General Garland 
provided guidance to the U.S. Marshals Service to avoid 
arresting protesters unless absolutely necessary according to 
training documents obtained by Senator Katie Britt. The 
training materials directed U.S. Marshals Service personnel to 
``avoid, unless absolutely necessary, criminal enforcement 
actions involving the protest or protestors, especially in 
public spaces.'' These events are clear attempts to intimidate 
and influence the justices' rulings in violation of Federal law 
which prohibits ``pickets or parades in a near building or 
residence'' of a judge when done with the intent to interfere, 
strike, or impede the administration of justice.
    Unfortunately, not enforcing the law has become an all-too-
common theme with this administration. We have a Secretary of 
Homeland Security that refuses to enforce our Nation's border 
security laws. This should come as no surprise that we have an 
Attorney General that refuses to enforce our criminal laws as 
well.
    On May 3, 2023, Chair Jordan sent a letter to Director 
Davis requesting documents regarding the Attorney General's 
directive to stand down. I understand that Chair Jordan 
received a response to that letter just yesterday and I hope we 
can discuss that directive today. I have not had a chance to 
fully read that letter, but I intend to read it as we go along 
today, and we will ask questions no doubt.
    I would also note that left-wing threats to our justices 
persist, just a couple of months ago, Neal Sidhwaney was 
arrested for leaving a voice mail for Chief Justice John 
Roberts stating, ``I will f'ing kill you.''
    I look forward to the Director's testimony and to have a 
discussion on judicial security and the other important duties 
of the Marshals Service.
    With that, I am going to yield back and recognize the 
Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson Lee, for an opening statement.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning and I thank the Chair very 
much. Happy Valentine's Day to all gathered. I am delighted to 
be able to welcome Mr. Davis here this morning. Unfortunately, 
in the aftermath of a senseless revenge impeachment of a very 
fine public servant, Secretary Mayorkas, I think as we are in 
the Judiciary Committee, we should make it very clear that was 
an outrageous act, a one-vote margin, political in its nature, 
and truly ineffective in terms of working to bring us together 
around comprehensive immigration reform, as well as to bring us 
together around effective policing, law enforcement, and giving 
other tools of law enforcement to all our services. Secretary 
Mayorkas has jurisdiction over a number of our law enforcement 
agencies that every day are putting their lives on the line to 
protect the American people and to protect public officials and 
we are tragically, frivolously engaging in the misuse of 
impeachment by voting on an outrageous action. I for one am 
outraged about it and I want the record of the Judiciary 
Committee to reflect the insanity of doing this kind of work, 
as opposed to the work that helps the American people.
    So, again, I welcome you, Director Davis. Having been to 
the Judiciary Committee on several occasions, Director Davis 
has dedicated his career not simply to enforcing the law, but 
to the advancement of community policing, inspiring public 
trust, and enhancing accountability while improving public 
safety. For that we thank you. Recognizing his extensive 
background, I am confident that Director Davis is laser focused 
on meaningful implementation of the United States Marshals' 
multifaceted mission. The agency is as vital today as it was at 
its inception, more than 200 years ago. We rely on the Marshals 
Service comprised of over 10,000 employees across the country 
to uphold the rule of law, protect the Federal judicial 
process, and ensure the safety and security of our community. 
Each of the Marshals' key responsibilities are fundamental to 
the fabric of our justice system and their efforts extend 
beyond national borders, from apprehending fugitives and 
noncomplying sex offenders, to transporting and safeguarding 
prisoners, and overseeing the management of SSCs from criminal 
enterprises, these duties are essential to the preservation of 
public safety.
    Because the Marshals Service spends more than $2 billion on 
housing, detaining, providing their medical care, and 
transporting, it is necessary for us to examine implementation 
of President Biden's Executive Order that prohibits the 
continued use of private detention facilities by Federal 
agencies. Many of us on the Judiciary Committee have long 
called for an end to the use of private detention facilities 
due, in part, to a lack of meaningful oversight or 
accountability in the Federal Government's relationship with 
these facilities. That really has to improve. Confronted by 
security breaches, overcrowding, and misuse of funds, President 
Obama, and now President Biden, ordered a phasing out of these 
relationships. We are still far from fulfilling this mandate, 
nearly three years later. It is our responsibility to provide 
support to those agencies such as the Marshals that are 
responsible for implementing the President's Order.
    This leads me to another pressing issue the Marshals 
Service is currently facing which cannot go unaddressed today. 
Above all else, the Marshals Service plays a critical role in 
protecting the Federal judiciary which is foundational to our 
democracy. The agency's commitment to safeguarding the 
judiciary or judicial process is indispensable in maintaining 
the integrity of our court system, particularly during this 
politically charged time. Let us focus on making sure that the 
Marshals have the tools they need to protect nearly 3,000 
Federal judges, more than 30,000 Federal prosecutors, and core 
personnel serving in Federal Districts from the District of 
Columbia to the Districts of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. We have seen more than an uptick. We have seen 
a tsunami of attacks against these public officials.
    Judges and core personnel are enduring threats and personal 
attacks with increased regularity in States across the country 
including my home State of Texas. Just ordinary speech, 
however, it should not be characterized as being limited by our 
citizens. That we protect. What we are concerned about is any 
direct threats that may come about because of the position of 
the individual that is held.
    This problem is not new. Threats against judges have 
increased steadily over the last years, several years. Texas 
Office of Court Administration found that in Texas alone, there 
have been 522 judicial security threats since 2018, along with 
29 assaults, and 68 bomb threats. While many of these threats 
were not acted on, we can never forget the brazen attack on New 
Jersey District Judge Esther Salas that resulted in her son 
lying dead in her home and her husband critically injured. 
Today, the crescendo of threats precipitated by political 
divisiveness and malicious instigators on social media is more 
than concerning. Serious threats against Federal judges, those 
that require an investigation by the Marshals rose from 224 in 
Fiscal Year in 2021 to 457 in Fiscal Year 2023. Yet, it does 
not stop there. Serious threats against Federal prosecutors 
more than doubled during the same two-period. It is up to us to 
support the Marshals in their efforts to protect these 
individuals. The agency is vital to upholding the rule of law 
and safeguarding our judicial system and our system of 
democracy, ultimately protecting our communities and our 
democracy. As we fulfill our oversight duties today, let us 
focus our energies on supporting their efforts.
    Thank you very much and I will look forward to your 
testimony. Mr. Chair, do you want to recognize Mr. Nadler? 
Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Nehls. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields. I now 
recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, 
for his opening statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for convening 
today's hearing on Oversight of the United States Marshals 
Service. Welcome back, Director Davis, and thank you for being 
here today.
    The United States Marshals Service is the oldest Federal 
law enforcement agency in the world. It has broad and varied 
responsibilities and plays a vital role in enforcing the law 
and keeping us safe and secure. As the enforcement arm of the 
Federal courts, its duties include protecting the Federal 
judiciary, apprehending Federal fugitives, managing and selling 
seized assets, housing and transporting Federal prisoners, and 
operating the witness security program. To ensure the success 
and efficiency of the agency, it is essential that we fulfill 
our oversight responsibility by carefully examining the 
operations, performance, and challenges faced by the Marshals 
Service. More importantly, we must be certain that we are doing 
all that we can to support the agency's multifaceted mission 
which ultimately keeps Americans safe at home and abroad.
    I hope that we will take advantage of the opportunity to 
avoid party politics, so that we can delve into critical areas 
that should be a bipartisan concern. I am particularly 
interested in learning more about the management of the 
Marshals' budget and resources, the implementation of policies 
and procedures that promote safety, and the preservation of 
life, the responsible use of new technologies, and the 
protection of civil rights and civil liberties.
    The agency has an annual operating budget of more than $3.8 
billion with more than 550 offices throughout the country. 
Nearly half of its funding is expended to provide housing, 
subsistence, medical care, and transportation for Federal 
detainees that are housed largely in local State and private 
facilities. That presents unique challenges because the agency 
is charged with protecting detainees in facilities that they do 
not control.
    Despite having relied on the use of private detention 
facilities for many years, the Marshals are currently tasked 
with implementing President Biden's Executive Order to phaseout 
the Federal Government's use of private facilities. This was an 
important step because of the contrast of these private 
facilities provided for minimal oversight, leaving Congress, 
detainees, loved ones, and the public clamoring for information 
about the safety and well-being of Federal detainees.
    While they recognize that a deliberate process is necessary 
to carry out the President's Executive Order, including the 
consideration of logistical and due process concerns, I 
understand that the agency has continued to contract with some 
private facilities, often with the support of Federal defenders 
and District Court judges in affected districts. In some cases, 
the White House Counsel's Office has granted specific 
exemptions, but some of these contracts have been entered into 
by exploiting certain legal loopholes. I am interested to hear 
how the agency is working toward full compliance with the 
Executive Order.
    I also hope that we can examine more fully whether the 
Marshals maintain sufficient oversight of the facilities that 
it contracts with to house Federal detainees. This is true for 
private detention facilities, as well as State, local, and 
Federal detention facilities. We just also closely examine the 
Marshals' coordination with other law enforcement entities in 
its response to evolving threats and risks, particularly since 
threats and inappropriate communications against Federal judges 
and other court personnel continue to rise. There is an urgent 
need to understand the extent of the problem and to develop a 
strategy to address it as evidenced by the tragic attack on 
U.S. District Judge Esther Salas that left her son dead, and 
her husband seriously injured.
    The Marshals Service has many accomplishments to be proud 
of including the arrest of more than 73,000 fugitives while 
clearing over 86,000 State, local, and Federal arrest warrants 
last year. I also applaud the agency's earnest commitment to 
promoting transparency and enhancing public trust by equipping 
its offices with body-worn cameras. I am hopeful that today's 
hearing will be a constructive dialog across party lines that 
will enable us to address any deficiencies or inefficiencies 
that might hinder the agency's ability to fulfill its critical 
mission. With these goals in mind, I look forward to hearing 
from our witness, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Nehls. The Ranking Member yields. Without objection, 
all other opening statements will be included into the record.
    We will now introduce today's witness. The Honorable Ronald 
L. Davis is the Director of the United States Marshals Service. 
He was sworn in on September 27, 2021. Director Davis leads an 
agency with more than 10,000 employees and more than 500 
domestic offices and four foreign field offices. He has served 
more than 28 years in law enforcement and thank you for that, 
starting in 1985 with the Oakland, California Police 
Department. We welcome our witness and thank him for appearing 
today.
    We will begin by swearing you in. Will you please rise and 
raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of 
perjury that the testimony that you are about to give is true 
and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and 
belief so help you God?
    Let the record reflect that the witness has answered the 
affirmative. Thank you and please be seated. Please know that 
your written testimony will be entered into the record in its 
entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your 
testimony.
    Director Davis, you may begin.

             STATEMENT OF THE HON. RONALD L. DAVIS

    Mr. Davis. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Jackson 
Lee, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today.
    As was mentioned, after 35 years of public service starting 
in the military, over 28 years in law enforcement with 20 years 
in Oakland, and eight years as Police Chief in the beautiful 
city of East Palo Alto, and three years as Director of the 
Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, I am proud to appear before you today to discuss the 
agency I now have the distinct honor and privilege of leading, 
the United States Marshals Service.
    As mentioned, my complete statement for the record is 
available, but I would like to take a couple of moments to 
highlight several critical missions of our Nation's oldest 
Federal law enforcement agency. Let me start with the most 
important factor to our success and that is the women and men 
of the United States Marshals Service. Our workforce is 
comprised of dedicated, courageous, and effective professionals 
committed to our mission and the agency's core values of 
justice, integrity, and service.
    Let me give you a snapshot of just their work. In the last 
year, in partnership with our local, State, and Tribal 
partners, we apprehended over 73,000 fugitives. That includes 
over 5,400 homicide suspects. We also recovered 495 missing and 
endangered children and assisted local law enforcement in 
conducting over 53,000 sex offender compliance checks. As 
outlined in the Attorney General's Violence Reduction Strategy, 
focusing on those individuals that are the drivers of violent 
crime makes our community safer. This success, however, comes 
at an extremely steep price. My deputy and task force officers 
have faced gunfire during 47 separate incidents over a three-
year period. Just in the first two weeks of this month, in 
February, our deputies and task force officers faced gunfire 
during four separate incidents and one local sheriff's deputy 
that was assisting our efforts was shot and injured. I plan to 
visit this wounded sheriff's deputy over the next couple of 
weeks. When I do, he will be the eighth deputy marshal or local 
officer shot in the line of duty that I will visit just over 
two years as director.
    Our work is exceedingly dangerous. It requires exceptional 
skill and sophisticated training and equipment and as you can 
imagine, the daily risk is not just physical. It also includes 
psychological stress to our entire workforce and their 
families. Accordingly, officer safety, morale, and wellness 
have and will continue to be one of my top priorities. We 
cannot effectively serve the American people if we do not take 
care of our most valuable asset, that is the men and women of 
the United States Marshals Service.
    I am grateful that the administration included $29 million 
to support deputy safety and wellness in the Fiscal Year 2024 
budget. I hope this Committee in Congress will keep officer 
safety in front of mind as it finishes this budget.
    With that being said, let me now focus on our primary 
mission of judicial security. Since our creation in 1789, the 
United States Marshals Service has been charged with protecting 
the judicial process including safeguarding over 2,700 Federal 
judges and as was mentioned, over 30,000 members of the court 
family including prosecutors, defense attorneys, witnesses, 
jurors, and other court officials. In Fiscal Year 2023, the 
Marshals Service produced over 500,000 pretrial detainees in 
court proceedings and provided custody and care for an average 
daily population of over 59,000 detainees. We also provided 
security for over 800 Federal courts across the country.
    The importance of the judicial security mission cannot be 
overstated. Courts are a democracy are an independent judiciary 
that can operate safely without the threat of violence. This is 
why I am deeply concerned with the alarming increase in threats 
against our judiciary and the violent nature of those threats. 
In the past three years, the number of threats against Federal 
judges have more than doubled as have threats against 
prosecutors and other court officials. We are also seeing 
increases in the use of social media and platforms to target 
officials with hate language and violent rhetoric that has 
potential to incite violence. Additionally, there is a 
troubling increase in criminal swatting incidents.
    Let me give you a couple examples of threats. These were 
somewhat edited to protect the investigations. A Federal judge 
got a phone call from someone who said, ``I am going to kill 
you, if you don't kill yourself.'' In another case someone 
threatened to, ``Go to a Federal courthouse and do a mass 
shooting.'' As was mentioned at the opening, we cannot forget 
in 2022, there was attempted assassination of a U.S. Supreme 
Court Justice at his residence that was deterred by Deputy 
Marshals standing their post. These are just a few examples, 
but they highlight why the Marshals Service is now providing an 
unprecedented level of staff and resources toward judicial 
protection and risk mitigation measures.
    I must state in stark terms that the current and evolving 
threat environment facing the judiciary constitutes a 
substantial risk to our democracy. I look forward to discussing 
this risk in more detail and outline the measures we are 
taking, as well as the impact these resource-intense measures 
have on our other critical missions.
    Please allow me to close my opening comments as I started 
by thanking the men and women of the United States Marshals 
Service. It is my greatest professional honor to work beside 
them. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Ranking Member for this 
hearing. I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Davis follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Director Davis. I will now proceed 
under the five-minute rule with questioning. The Chair 
recognizes myself for five minutes.
    Director Davis, is it true that the U.S. Marshals Service 
is responsible for the care, control, and custody of the 
January 6th detainees?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chair. It will 
be for those that are still pending trial, yes.
    Mr. Nehls. Very good. Are you aware of a Lieutenant Crystal 
Lancaster?
    Mr. Davis. Offhand, no, I am not.
    Mr. Nehls. Fair enough. What about a Mr. Ronald Colton 
McAbee, this former deputy behind me, who was a January 6th 
inmate at the D.C. Department of Corrections?
    Mr. Davis. Mr. Chair, I am not. I just remind you that we 
do have over 59,000 people in our agency.
    Mr. Nehls. Fair enough. I am just asking the question are 
you aware or are you not.
    Director Davis, on September 6, 2022, at around 11:45 a.m. 
in the D.C. Department of Corrections, Lieutenant Lancaster 
confronted Mr. McAbee at the medical cart for not wearing his 
face mask. We were in the height of COVID. I got it. Not having 
his face mask. As I understand it, Lieutenant Lancaster then 
deployed her hand-held OC spray, sprayed it all into his face 
at close range. It has been reported that Lieutenant Lancaster 
intentionally used these chemical agents several times against 
Mr. McAbee without any provocation. As a former sheriff, did it 
for a long, long time, 30 years, talk a little bit about the 
use of this chemical agent, the OC spray. In the use of force 
model, the use of force continuum, it would require that even 
if an inmate, his passivity, the restraint, he is not being 
physically assaultive, an officer would not be authorized to 
use these chemical munitions unless the inmate was assaulted. 
If video footage were to show that Mr. McAbee was not 
assaultive, would Lieutenant Lancaster have violated Colton's 
civil rights under the color of law?
    Mr. Davis. I am sorry, can you repeat the question, Mr. 
Chair?
    Mr. Nehls. Would Lieutenant Lancaster have violated Mr. 
Colton's civil rights under the color of law if he was not 
showing any type of assaultive behavior?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. I am not in a 
position to respond to or talk about any specific 
investigation.
    Mr. Nehls. OK, all right. Do you know--so you don't know 
this Lieutenant Lancaster, placed on administrative leave, like 
right away, placed on administrative leave, I placed deputies 
on--I had 600 or so, placed them on administrative leave when 
there was some type of investigation. Lieutenant Lancaster was 
on administrative leave which I learned she was placed on it 
immediately after this incident, but I don't know where she is 
now and apparently you wouldn't know either, where this 
individual would be today has been placed on administrative 
leave after the incident?
    Mr. Davis. I thank you again. I am just reminded that it is 
also--custodial facilities are run by--
    Mr. Nehls. Right.
    Mr. Davis. Not run by the Marshals Service.
    Mr. Nehls. January 2023, I had an opportunity to visit the 
D.C. Jail. Spent about an hour there, spoke with the Director 
Thomas Faust. Are you familiar with Thomas Faust?
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Mr. Nehls. OK, he is the director. He and I got along. He 
is a former sheriff. I am a former sheriff. We just connected 
right away. Great, great individual. The guys in the jail 
seemed to be pretty concerned. I went into the pod where these 
J6 detainees, we learned that the officers all wear body 
cameras. Everybody has a body camera in the D.C. Jail. Director 
Faust said the footage between Mr. McAbee and Lieutenant 
Lancaster existed because I was concerned about this incident. 
People complained about it. The wife reached out to me and 
said. ``hey, my husband was sprayed with foam.'' He is a former 
lawman. He just served seven years. In fact, he later told me 
that I could come down and view the footage. I said I got some 
complaints here, let me come down and view the footage of this 
Lancaster spraying and see if we have any issues.
    Later was retracted. You haven't seen the footage then, I 
am assuming.
    Mr. Davis. No, I have not.
    Mr. Nehls. OK. In January, my staff FOIA'd this camera 
footage from both the U.S. Marshals and the Department of 
Corrections. The U.S. Marshals, who you oversee, J6 detainees, 
denied our request and stated that it fell within the D.C. DOC. 
We accepted it. Thought it was OK. However, the DOC later 
denied our request and appeal because,

        A release of such footage would constitute as a clearly 
        unwanted invasion of personal privacy and is exempt from 
        disclosure.

I got a release here from the wife. It is all here. He signed 
it. Said I would like to see the video footage. Right? He 
signed this congressional privacy disclosure to release the 
footage. I have it here. Lieutenant Lancaster is a public 
employee. The D.C. Mayor's Office determined Mr. McAbee's 
privacy disclosure form was ambiguous since the D.C. DOC is not 
a Federal agency. Mr. McAbee is a detainee of the U.S. Marshals 
under you. I find this to be a severe departure from the truth 
and a blatant excuse not to release the footage.
    My point is that we have a problem here. I got complaints 
from the wife. I got complaints from the inmate under your 
custody inside the D.C. Jail, right? Now, we can't get this 
footage. It stinks. It seems like she is on administrative 
leave. We got a problem. We have a severe problem. My point is 
this, I am not really even asking you. I demand that you call 
the D.C. DOC to release the footage on one of your detainees. 
We should have a right to see this. If it is bad news, you 
don't like what it shows, we have to confess up to it. We have 
a problem here. In fact, I am going to make it my personal 
mission, my personal mission, to use every subpoena power that 
I can get from this Committee to get this footage. I apologize 
to this gentleman. I apologize to his wife, Sarah, for having 
to go through this with no answers or help.
    So, can I get a commitment from you and we are going to 
look into this. I have your assurance and we are going to look 
into this, and get this video footage because if not, we got to 
go to DOJ, I don't care. I have to go to whoever because I 
think we have a problem here and it seems like it is being 
covered up.
    Mr. Davis. If I could start by saying that I share your 
priority to make sure that those that are in our custody are 
treated humanely and within Federal standards. If there is 
misconduct, we are committed to investigating all allegations 
of misconduct. I will commit my team to work with yours to see 
how we can be responsive to your request, but as also 
mentioned, we have our 60,000 detainees in some 1,800 
facilities, so we also have to work with the local jurisdiction 
as well. I am committed to working within the team on that.
    Mr. Nehls. Very good. My team will get with one of you in 
the back of you before we leave this hearing. All right. I 
yield back. I now will recognize Ms. Jackson Lee for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Director, you have a lot of responsibility, and it is 
even increasing in light of the rising threats that we have 
against the Judiciary. Let me find out how you are trying to 
implement the President's Executive Order, both former 
President Obama and President Biden, on the private prisons.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. How many of you have remaining, and what 
are the firewalls that you are using to ensure the 
constitutional of our prisoners.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    As of now, we are in complete compliance, we believe in the 
Executive Order with regard to private prisons. With the 
tremendous work of my team, we have ended the use of seven 
private prisons. They reduced their population inside.
    Use of private prisons, if I may, we are still operating 
five, but we are moving forward in full compliance with this 
order.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you are operating in five, and they 
are located where?
    Mr. Davis. I would have to come back, Ranking Member, to 
give you the exact locations. We still have five.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you know what the guesstimate of the 
total detainees would be in those five?
    Mr. Davis. Right now, the total population of detainees we 
have in private prisons is about 6,400.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. OK, are you to affirm that you are doing 
everything you can for the safety and security but also, again, 
the constitutional protections that they should have?
    Mr. Davis. Yes, we are. We are still working with the 
districts to make sure that we inspections, that we are still 
taking full responsibility for the treatment of our detainees, 
whether in private prison or others. So, we would continue to 
work with the districts in the field to make sure that the 
standards are being met.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, my friend from Texas indicated an 
incident that it is not your facility, obviously, and you have 
inmates in other facilities. How do you manage that when there 
are potential complaints against inmates in other--detainees in 
facilities, you have jurisdiction over the detainees, that the 
facility is not yours?
    How do you respond? The safety and security and 
constitutional protection.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. We have a couple 
things. One, each district, as mentioned, we have 94 U.S. 
Marshals, one for each judicial district, that are 
Presidentially appointed. They are responsible for the 
facilities, and oversight of the facilities in their district.
    We also have thousands of career professionals who do a 
tremendous job in holding these facilities accountable. We have 
some over 1,800 facilities that we use. So, we have processes 
in our agreement with them that they are to meet Federal 
detention standards.
    We have processes in which we will conduct inspections, 
some announced, some unannounced, to make sure they live up to 
these standards.
    We also work very closely with the people that run our 
facilities. A large percent of them, about 50 percent, are run 
by our sheriffs around the country, who we work very closely 
with to make sure that we are always living up to the 
conditions of confinement.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Davis, do you consider full compliance 
with the Executive Order, even though you have five remaining 
facilities, private prisons, are you in dialog with the DOJ to 
say that this is in compliance or you have a certain deadline 
of moving forward?
    Mr. Davis. Yes, we are. Full compliance because we have 
ceased the use of seven and removed all our detainees from 
them. We have one that will be coming to an end, which we will 
not renew when it does end. We have not renewed any new 
additional private contracts.
    For the other four, they were waivers provided because of, 
it was mentioned earlier, issues of due process and logistics. 
We are continuing to make sure that we will comply with this 
order.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Obviously, there have been some--I would 
like you to sort wrap your questions, I am going to give it as 
a holistic question. Obviously, some earlier points were made 
about political speech, First Amendment protected speech, but 
dealing with the safety and security of Federal judges.
    I would like you to comment on that, even SCOTUS, to 
indicate whether you have in any way diminished your protection 
of those jurors.
    Then to respond to my concern on the continued threats and 
attacks on our judges act legislation we are proposing for 
dealing with the safety and security of State judges.
    So, if you can speak to the protection of judges from 
SCOTUS to the Federal, so that you can convince us that you 
have not diminished your service in any way. Then, the 
importance of looking at judges in other jurisdictions. Mr. 
Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Yes, thank you for that. Protection of our 
Federal judiciary is our top priority. We do that in many ways. 
One, we provide protective assessments, risk assessments. We 
monitor communications of concern when it is targeting our 
judges. We have created intelligence units to track that.
    We also have increased our ability to enhance, thanks to 
Congress, actually, with extra positions to enhance security to 
do home residence. We have a home intrusion detection system 
program, which I am glad to say over 70 percent of the judges 
have agreed to, have actually signed up with it.
    We still try to prosecute, to the extent that we can, those 
that are making threats or attempted assaults on our judiciary.
    So, we are fully committed that we believe strongly that 
the protecting of our judiciary is the protection of our 
democracy. That this independent judiciary must be able to 
operate without those threats of direct violence. So, we are 
responding, we are working with our other agencies to do so.
    With regard to your question about your legislation, the 
State and local, I have talked to you about the legislation. I 
have not yet seen the language.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
    Mr. Davis. So, I look forward to working with your team as 
you proceed forward. I would say some obviously recent cases in 
Maryland with the tragic assassination of a judge, and even one 
person witnessed in Las Vegas with the physical attack of a 
judge, makes the idea of judicial security is obviously just 
not Federal.
    So, in the way we can help as you move forward, we look 
forward to working with you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I hope to get my Chair and my fellow 
colleagues to join me on legislation that deals with the 
insight that the U.S. Marshals would have dealt with State and 
local judges.
    Let me finish this last point, Mr. Chair, if I might. Let 
me--you might answer this going forward, is the comings and 
goings of these Federal judges as they travel to home, a 
district home location, speaking engagements, and others.
    It came to my attention that a Supreme Court justice was 
traveling and was rightly placed in a first-class seat for the 
protection thereof, might have had someone traveling with them 
for their protection. Was subjected, I am not sure whether it 
was loud enough to be heard, to antagonistic comments.
    In this instance, why would this person have that authority 
to be in a first-class seat but intimidating. I want to raise 
this question, and I need you think about it as we go forward 
as to the travels and comings and goings. Our justices should 
not be subjected to that, absolutely not.
    We need to find a way to make sure there is complete 
protection of the comings and goings of our justices and 
judges.
    Mr. Biggs. [Presiding.] The gentlelady's time has expired. 
Thank you. I gave her, just so you know, I gave her a little 
bit of extra time because my surrogate took a little bit of 
time over his five minutes. So, we will go back to the five-
minute rule now.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Tiffany from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will honor that five-
minute limit.
    I want to do a followup, Director Davis, in regard to 
Representative Jackson Lee's question. Is it correct that you 
folks received guidance to avoid arresting protesters unless 
absolutely necessary from the Attorney General?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for that questions, Congressman. No, 
it is not.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you were not told, the U.S. Marshal 
Service was not given guidance to avoid arresting protesters 
unless absolutely necessary?
    Mr. Davis. The guidance from the Attorney General of the 
United States was to protect the Supreme Court justices' lives 
and that of their family while at their residence. That we 
retain full authority to enforce the law.
    Also, to make sure that we did not do anything that would 
place the Supreme Court justices' lives at risk--lives at risk, 
excuse me.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Director, we will be following up 
on that.
    In regard to transporting prisoners that are in Federal 
custody, how many of them are illegal aliens, on your watch?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. We do not track our 
detainees by that status, or by immigration status.
    Mr. Tiffany. Where can I find that information? Actually, 
Director, wouldn't that be germane? Wouldn't it be important to 
know that for the U.S. Marshal Service if someone is in the 
country illegally and you are having to transport them?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. Again, we don't 
track by immigration status. What we do factor in for 
transportation would be the offense itself, what they are being 
arrested and charged with.
    Mr. Tiffany. What do you say, Mr. Chair, maybe that is 
something we need followup in the future?
    Do you have staffing shortages in some of your offices 
around the country?
    Mr. Davis. I think my Marshals would say yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is it true you are dedicating half a dozen or 
more Deputy U.S. Marshals to provide armed personal protection 
for you?
    Mr. Davis. For me personally?
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, for you.
    Mr. Davis. I won't get to the extent of the security 
measures, but I do have a protective detail, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Does it include chauffeuring you to work each 
day?
    Mr. Davis. I am not going to get into the extent of the 
coverage. I hope you will understand, because all our details 
are risk-based or threat-based. As a result of that, I just 
don't want to do anything that would expose me to further risk 
or threat, if you don't mind.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the people that are on your security 
detail when you are at the office because your office in 
Crystal City is a secure facility, is that correct?
    Mr. Davis. Correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. What do they do all day, then, when they--if 
they have come in, escorted you in, will take you, escort you 
home, what do they do then all day?
    Mr. Davis. I appreciate the question, but again, I won't 
get into what my detail does or any detail. There is a lot of 
work that goes into protecting more than just what people may 
see. Once again, I don't want to give--expose our methods or 
talk about to what extent or the size of any protective detail, 
let alone mine.
    Mr. Tiffany. Was there a threat assessment conducted in 
regard to what your security detail should be?
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, there was?
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is that available to us?
    Mr. Davis. I will give it to your team to see if is to make 
sure it does not compromise:

    (1) I would ask that it not compromise safety or that of my 
family. Once again, because they are risk-based and threat-
based. I would prefer not to have risk and threat, but this is 
where we are at.
    (2) That it does not undermine or release any type of 
method. So, I do commit to working with your team to see how we 
can be responsive to that request.

    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, to be clear, the questions are done for 
the sake of accountability. I certainly understand your 
personal safety and your family's safety in regard to this.
    Mr. Chair, this I think would be another ask that I would 
make, is if we could get a copy or get an understanding of the 
threat assessment that this Committee could evaluate, if we 
would do that.
    Did your protection detail accompany, or a detail accompany 
you on recent travel abroad?
    Mr. Davis. Once again, I'm not going to get into the level 
of coverage. I want to know what travel you are referring to.
    Mr. Tiffany. Have you and your office explored dedicating 
an aircraft for your domestic travel? So, in other words, 
having an aircraft dedicated to the U.S. Marshal Service and 
specifically you as the Director?
    Mr. Davis. No, we have not.
    Mr. Tiffany. You have not explored that?
    Mr. Davis. We have explored--no, not for my personal 
travel. We are exploring aircraft for extraditions, for the 
transportation of our special operations group, for those 
operational missions in which commercial flight may not be 
prudent. Definitely not for my travel.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you have the numbers for what is the cost 
to the taxpayers for your personal protection detail?
    Mr. Davis. Like I said, I can followup with you. I am sure 
we can provide you with those numbers.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, Mr. Chair, if we could get that. I am 
going to honor the five-minutes here. I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 
the Ranking Member for the entire Committee, Mr. Nadler from 
New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank the gentleman.
    Director Davis, the order to phaseout private prisons was 
issued in January 2021, so it is three years ago. In three 
years, you phased out seven prisons. You have got five left. 
How long do you think it will take to phaseout the remaining 
five?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for that question. As a starter, we 
are definitely committed to full compliance with the order. It 
may be a little bit hard to answer that. We know at least one 
the time, the contract will end very soon, I would say within 
the next year.
    For others, there are still the issues of logistics and 
making sure we have alternatives where we can place our 
detainees. So, I think to give you a number, that would be hard 
to give you that number.
    Mr. Nadler. OK. Second, the Secret Service protects the 
Executive Branch, you protect the Judicial Branch. Many Members 
of Congress--there have been many threats to Congress recently. 
Senator Romney said that he spends personally $5,000, I forget 
whether he said a day or a week, for his personal protection.
    Do you think it for the Marshal Service to think about 
protecting threatened Members of Congress?
    Mr. Davis. I'm sorry, the last part of the question I 
didn't get.
    Mr. Nadler. Do you think it for your office to think about 
protecting threatened Members of Congress?
    Mr. Davis. I thank you for that question. The challenge 
with that would be our statute right now authorizes us to 
protect specific Members as far as the judicial process. So, we 
would not have the authority do so.
    Mr. Nadler. You need a statutory change.
    Mr. Davis. Statutory, yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Have current appropriations levels 
presented any issues or challenges in executing the Marshal 
Service's missions, and if so, what are they and how are you 
responding to these challenges?
    Mr. Davis. So, the current funding measures for Fiscal Year 
2023, I think we are responding to the threats that I 
mentioned. We are putting in an inordinate amount of resources 
now based on judicial security because of the threat 
environments.
    I am concerned about moving forward, and I think we have 
identified in the President's Fiscal Year 2024 budget the 
additional resources that we would need to increase protective 
operation in judicial security and other challenges that we are 
going to be facing.
    Mr. Nadler. What is the Marshal Service's current policy on 
housing detainees with respect to distance from court?
    Mr. Davis. We try to make--thank you for that question, 
Congressman. We try to keep our detainees close to where the 
hearings are going to be or the court case. As we move them 
around, and it does provide challenges with regard to some 
cases of due process, access to their counsel, and obviously 
increased resources and costs to transport them.
    So, there is not a specific policy, it has to be we can 
really accommodate their trial--their hearings, if you will.
    Mr. Nadler. Do you believe that the Federal justice would 
be better served by a statutory requirement that limits the 
distance that detainees can be housed?
    Mr. Davis. I don't think--I appreciate the question, 
Congressman. I don't think I can answer that. I would have to 
get more into the details, because there's a lot of variables. 
So, I really could not answer that.
    Mr. Nadler. OK. Following the President's Executive Order, 
which banned renewal of contracts with privately operated 
detention facilities, the Marshal Service has entered into 
several agreements with local government entities that in turn 
have contracted with these same private facilities.
    Essentially, this had enabled the Marshal Service to do an 
end-run around the Executive Order, continuing to house 
detainees in the same private facilities that they would 
otherwise be prohibited from contracting with directly.
    The White Counsel's Office has granted a number of 
exemptions from the Executive Order. Why has the Marshal 
Service chosen to enter into these passthrough, 
intergovernmental agreements, instead of simply requesting 
additional exemptions from the White House Counsel's Office?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for that question. From my 
understanding, there is one facility that you may be 
referencing in Northeast Ohio.
    From my understanding at that time, that was the best 
option that the agency as far as subcontracting with the local 
government, based on the time when the contract ended and based 
on the ability for us to maintain our detainees. So, that was 
the best option.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. What oversight does the agency 
engage in when it contracts with private facilities?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you again. As I mentioned earlier, our 
priority is still to make sure that all our detainees are 
basically held to the best standards. So, we will still conduct 
the inspections. We work with the facilities.
    We do the inspections; we do regular inspections. We make 
sure, and we have a process to make sure that we investigate 
all complaints that were mentioned and all allegations of 
misconduct.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I asked about the policy on housing 
detainees with respect to distance from court. What about the 
policy in housing distance with respect to loved ones and with 
respect to legal counsel?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you again. I think that is what I was 
mentioning. That is a critical part of the process. As you 
mentioned, it is why it is, as we are moving forward with the 
order, that we try to make sure we don't move them too far 
because of the access to counsel, access to family.
    If I just may say this, Congressman, that is really 
important because nearly all our detainees are pretrial. So, 
they should be afforded the presumption of innocence, which 
means they need to have the ability to be close to their 
counsel as they proceed through the process.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
    Thank you, Mr. Davis, Director Davis, for being here today.
    Over the last few years, left-wing activists have 
threatened our justices. After the unprecedented leak of the 
Dobbs opinion, Attorney General Garland directed around-the-
close security for all non-Supreme Court justices.
    Our independent justices' lives are at stake. After the 
Dobbs opinion was leaked, the left-wing activists attempted to 
harass and even harm members of the Supreme Court. One 
individual was arrested at the home of Justice Kavanaugh armed 
with a handgun, a knife, zip ties, and other weapons in his 
opposition to the Dobbs opinion.
    Just recently in December, a man was arrested for leaving a 
voice mail threatening to kill Chief Justice Roberts.
    Considering all the threats, the Attorney General Garland 
directed the United States Marshal Service to avoid arresting 
pro-choice protesters unless absolutely necessary.
    Director Davis, thank you for your leadership in protecting 
our Federal judges. What was your response to Attorney General 
Garland when he directed you to limit the arrest of protesters?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for your question. The Attorney 
General's order was very clear, it was actually crystal clear: 
Protect the lives of the justices. He made sure that we still 
had full authority to make arrests, but not to engage in any 
activity that would compromise their safety.
    I did not receive any orders from the Attorney General to 
avoid any specific arrest.
    Mr. Moore. So, would you have agreed with that directive if 
he gave it?
    Mr. Davis. I am sorry?
    Mr. Moore. Would you have agreed with the directive?
    Mr. Davis. I am not going to respond to a hypothetical.
    Mr. Moore. Let me ask you this: Any idea who leaked the 
Dobbs decision? I mean, we have got all these great arrests 
going around the country right now for certain activists, but 
any idea who leaked the Dobbs decision? Do we have any record 
of that?
    Mr. Davis. Once again, thank you for your question. I think 
probably as the Congressman knows that would be--I would refer 
you to the Supreme Court Marshal, which actually is not part of 
the Marshal Service. They were doing that investigation.
    Mr. Moore. Well, thank you, Director, I appreciate your 
efforts in terms of protecting the judges and protecting our 
system of justice.
    So, with that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. Yield to the 
Chair.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
    So, I want to cover your response that you sent yesterday, 
Director, to a letter sent not quite a year ago, about nine 
months ago, on May 3, 2023, by Chair Jordan.
    In that, he makes reference to Section 1507 of Title 18 and 
talks about the very things that Mr. Moore was talking about, 
which is why I wanted to dovetail with his comments.
    One of the things that he did is he noted that,

        The training materials provided strongly suggest that the 
        administration has continued to weaponize Federal law 
        enforcement agencies for partisan purposes.

Whether you agree with that or not, what he did ask 
specifically was for the production of documents. He gave four 
categories of documents. I will read to you what those are.

    (1) All documents, communications between the Marshal 
Service and the Department of Justice referring or relating to 
enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1507 for the period of May 2, 2022, to 
the present.
    (2) All documents, communications between the U.S. Marshal 
Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of 
Maryland referring or relating to the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 
1507 for the same period.
    (3) All documents, again, same time period, ``for the 
Eastern District of Virginia.''
    (4) Then all documents and communications between the U.S. 
Marshal Service and the Executive Office of the President 
referring or relating to the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1507 for 
the same period.

    The reason I raised that is because in your response, there 
were no documents included or produced or any communications. I 
am wondering if you can explain what your thought was in not 
including any of those documents or communications.
    Mr. Davis. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am aware of the 
response that we sent to the Chair. I look forward to working 
with the Committee, is there is additional information that you 
requested? We provided a response to the Chair.
    Mr. Biggs. You didn't provide the documents, and that is 
what he specifically asked, Mr. Director. He asked for the 
documents and communications.
    The reason that those are important is because it will 
either corroborate--it is going to corroborate somebody. 
Somebody's allegations or the position of the U.S. Marshal 
Service. Somebody is going to be corroborated, but we are going 
to get to the truth.
    As part of our oversight function, we are entitled to those 
documents and communications. That is why I am wondering when 
you might provide those to us. Or are you telling me 
categorically that you are not going to provide those to us?
    Mr. Davis. Once again, thank you. I would continue to work 
with my Office of Congressional Affairs, as well as the 
Department's Office of Legislative Affairs that I know has been 
in contact with the Chair's team to try to be responsive.
    We did send a response, as you mentioned, that the Chair 
should have received it yesterday. We will continue to work to 
see how we can be responsive.
    Mr. Biggs. So, that is really not responsive to my 
question. Are you going to provide the documents or not, I 
guess is the question?
    Mr. Davis. I would say I would work with the team to see 
how we can process the request.
    Mr. Biggs. All right. My time is up, or Mr. Moore's time is 
up, actually. So, I yield.
    I will recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. 
Dean.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Ranking 
Member for having this oversight hearing.
    Welcome, Director Davis. Thank you and your more than 
10,000 employees of the United States Marshal Service, USMS.
    In your written testimony, and you have said it here of 
course, you said, ``Safety is our top priority.'' Of course, 
you are charged with ensuring the safety of USMS detainees, the 
judiciary as well as officers.
    I would like to ask you a few questions about how you 
fulfill that mission and those important duties. I am thinking 
particularly of guns in courtrooms.
    As you noted, USMS is responsible for protecting the 
judiciary. Can you explain what are the procedures that exist 
to keep courtroom proceedings safe and peaceful? I am thinking, 
particularly, how do you make sure people intending to commit 
violence do not bring guns into courts and courtrooms?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. 
When you mentioned--I just want to correct one thing for the 
record, if I may. When you mentioned the 10,000 employees, it 
will be 5,700 employees.
    I was adding as part of the workforce would be the 5,800 
court security officers that I would now reference now. That 
part of the security that you are asking about is to make sure 
that, as you know, when you walk into a Federal courthouse, 
that we do have processes and magnetometers to try to prevent 
firearms from getting inside the courthouse.
    That would be staffed by those court security officers.
    Ms. Dean. Can you tell us about that? Is every one of these 
courthouses using magnetometers, and have you had any leakage 
of weapons in courtrooms?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. Every courthouse 
does have that. I cannot think of any, but I can double check 
and make sure that we have had any leakage, or as far as people 
have actually been able to breach that location with a firearm. 
I can definitely double check.
    Ms. Dean. OK. Or other weapons?
    Mr. Davis. Or other weapons, yes.
    Ms. Dean. Yes, if you would get back to us on that, that 
would be terrific.
    We are all alarmed to know the threats against judges have 
been rising steadily in recent years. Tragically, we have 
spoken about the two fatal shootings and the serious wounding, 
of course, of the husband of one judge.
    What are you observing in terms of these increased threats? 
Who is most likely to be targeted? Sadly, do you worry that 
deaths will increase if it becomes easier to bring guns into 
court?
    Mr. Davis. So, thank you for the question. I will start 
with the last part first, if you don't mind. I would definitely 
worry if there was a way to bring in firearms and weapons into 
the courtroom. So, that would increase our risk posture 
greatly.
    The kind of threats that we are seeing right now, it is--
the challenge that we have right now, Congresswoman, it would 
be hard to say who is more at risk. What we are seeing right 
now is that people--extreme views, usually opposite views of 
any decision, if they are extreme, we see increase in violent 
rhetoric, increase in threats.
    So, there is no leaning, it is just people that are, 
unfortunately, some are disagreeing with the opinions of the 
court or the actions of government officials. They are 
basically, they are resorting to either violence or threats of 
violence in response.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you. A very sad State of affairs for our 
country. Do you do assessments as to nondetectable firearms 
getting into court?
    Mr. Davis. My understanding, no, we do not.
    Ms. Dean. Maybe you should. I think it is time to begin 
thinking about that, because we know the technology is ever-
changing.
    I wanted to turn for my last minute and a half or so to the 
treatment for addicted persons in USMS custody or detention. 
What resources does USMS provide to addicted persons in your 
custody or care? Is there medical treatment like methadone 
available? Is there counseling? How long would somebody who is 
suffering symptoms of withdrawal need to wait before being 
treated, basically?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. I will start by 
saying that obviously we are responsible for providing medical 
and healthcare to all our detainees. That decision would be 
made by medical professionals after taking a look at what is 
the best response or course of action.
    I cannot speak specifically if there is specific treatment 
for addiction or different programs. I would have to get back 
to you on that one to identify what kind of programs in our 
various facilities across the country.
    Ms. Dean. Are you aware of instances of folks going into 
withdrawal, suffering from the disease of addiction, in your 
custody?
    Mr. Davis. I am not personally aware of it, but it would 
not surprise me.
    Ms. Dean. I would sk, if you would, to offer us a review of 
that.
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Ms. Dean. To see what kinds of attention and treatment, 
care is given to those suffering from a disease.
    I also would ask in followup to some of the very important 
questions here about the private prisons, privately run 
detentions, that you would offer us a review of those final 
five. What is the timeline to close the final five?
    Mr. Davis. I look forward to working with the Committee and 
the group about continuation of the compliance with the 
Executive Order. So, I can definitely work with your team on 
that.
    Ms. Dean. Terrific, and I thank you again for your service 
to our country.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director, thank you for 
being here.
    I want to go back to kind of a theme a little bit about the 
Supreme Court detail that you all have provided. In May 2022, 
Merrick Garland of course as you discuss issued or directed the 
Marshal Service to provide around-the-clock security for the 
judges.
    In light of, particularly, the leak of the Dobbs decision, 
Director, why do you think people protest? What is the point, 
not the reason why, or not the specific issue, but why do you 
think people generally protest in this country?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I 
don't think I am in a position to speak for why.
    Mr. Fry. It is to impact change. It is to impact policy. Is 
that correct? That is probably why people--they don't just go 
out there for nothing, they go out there to impact something, 
right? They go out there to make their voice heard and create 
change that they want, right? That is the point of the protest.
    Mr. Davis. I can't speak to that.
    Mr. Fry. That is fine. We can play this game. So, the 
question is, is Senator Katie Britt, back in March of last 
year, had a conversation with the Attorney General about some 
slides that were created for the Marshals in the training up to 
the protection of these justices.
    Are you aware of that? Are you aware of the slides, first 
of all?
    Mr. Davis. I am aware of the slides that the Senator 
brought forward, yes.
    Mr. Fry. OK. Did the Department of Justice create those 
slides, or was it the U.S. Marshals that created those slides?
    Mr. Davis. The training provided to the deputies on that 
assignment was provided by the Marshal Service at my direction 
and with my career professionals, who by the way I think did a 
tremendous job, as that mission has been met every day for 
about 400 days. They have been very successful.
    Mr. Fry. So, were there instructions not to arrest 
protesters given by you or someone else with the Marshals?
    Mr. Davis. The direction provided to the deputies, and if I 
can say, it has been 1,700 deputies have rotated through this 
assignment.
    The message to them was very clear, it is the same as the 
Attorney General gave me: Protect the lives of the justices and 
their families, retain full--the deputies always retain full 
authority to enforce the law, but take no action that would 
compromise their safety. That was the heart and soul of the 
training.
    Mr. Fry. Right, so here is the rub that I have and the 
problem that I have, Director, is that for a month, protests 
have been happening outside of justices' homes in a leak of a 
Dobbs decision that was not yet decided, presumably, right. So, 
are you aware of 18 U.S.C. 1507?
    Mr. Davis. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Fry. What does that say?
    Mr. Davis. I am going to paraphrase, if you all trust me to 
do that.
    Mr. Fry. That is fine, yes.
    Mr. Davis. Basically, anyone that pickets or parades with 
the intent to interfere, obstruct basically--it doesn't say 
just Supreme Court, any court official.
    Mr. Fry. Correct.
    Mr. Davis. Right, at their place where they are presiding 
or where they are residing or maybe at.
    Mr. Fry. Right, and so they could be arrested, presumably 
under that code section, correct?
    Mr. Davis. Yes, they could.
    Mr. Fry. They could be fined, according to that code 
section, right?
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Mr. Fry. So, why was that not done here?
    Mr. Davis. If I may go again, once again, the primary 
mission for the Marshal Service, given by the Attorney General, 
was the protection of the Supreme Court justices' lives and 
that of their family.
    Mr. Fry. Look, I don't dispute the mission, and thank you 
for what you have done to protect their lives. They have 
received death threats, have they not?
    Mr. Davis. I can't speak to the threats to the--
    Mr. Fry. That is in the media. So, they have received death 
threats. There have been arrests.
    The whole point is the code section is pretty cut and dry 
to me. There is no ambiguity within the code section. It says 
that if you protest or picket outside of a judge's or justice's 
homes, that they can be arrested.
    So, these justices, in fear for their lives, are like 
confined to their homes with these people outside that are 
threatening their lives, picketing outside. You all protected 
them.
    The question is why would we even issue guidance from the 
U.S. Marshals that is contrary to code that was passed by 
Congress in I think 1994?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you again. The guidance given to the 
deputies would be to protect the lives of the justices. It was 
a protective mission to protect the lives of the justices.
    As the Attorney General has said repeatedly and I will say 
again, retaining full authority to enforce the law as long as 
any action they take did not compromise the safety of the 
justices.
    That is, the Attorney General also mentioned, and I will 
say again, is the decision on whether to take action and 
whether that action compromises the safety has to be made by 
the deputy in the field at the time.
    Mr. Fry. Director, this is where I have a little bit of an 
issue, because the law is pretty clear. That law says that you 
will arrest people for picketing outside of a judge's or 
justice's home with the intent of influencing their decision.
    This was a leak of a decision that had not yet been 
decided, and you all made the--look, I am for protecting free 
speech. I encourage it.
    If you look at this statute, it is very clear, the 
directive is clear, that you shall arrest people who are doing 
these things outside of a judge's home with the intent to 
influence a decision. That was not done, and that is deeply 
concerning to me and the American people.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Davis, thank you for your testimony today, sir. I 
was particularly struck when you talked about the escalating 
volatility and severity of threats against public officials and 
judges.
    We need to ensure that judges and court personnel are kept 
safe, and your officers are crucial in that effort. I will 
fight for a budget that gives you sufficient funding so that 
you can do this very important work.
    I would be remiss if I were not to highlight the threat to 
your funding that exists from this MAGA House Republican 
Congress, or House of Representatives, actually, who proposed, 
in their drastic budget, a cut of 22 percent.
    That would be the effect of funding U.S. Marshal Service 
operations at 2022 levels. This is what they proposed in the 
Fiscal Year 2024 budget.
    How would a rollback or a defunding of your budget affect 
your operations in terms of protecting judges, apprehending 
fugitives, protecting courthouses, and all the other 
responsibilities that your department has?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. I will point to the 
President's 2024 budget that outlines what we have identified 
is what is needed to be able to maintain the security posture 
that talked about, to respond to this evolving threat.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You actually needed more money.
    Mr. Davis. Yes, that was in the request.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Not less. House MAGA Republicans 
are proposing to give you less money. How would that be 
devastating on your ability to carry out the responsibilities 
that you are charged with?
    Mr. Davis. Congressman, what I was saying is if we ask for 
additional protective operations to address the threats, if we 
were not to get additional resources or the budget or cuts in 
that, then we would make the decision that would have--that 
judicial security is still the no. 1 priority.
    Which means we would have to--this would have an impact on 
the other critical missions, as you alluded to, like fugitive 
apprehensions, recovery of missing endangered children. Because 
our primary mission is the protection of judiciary.
    So, we would have to then make sure that all the resources 
necessary to accomplish that. We cannot compromise the third 
branch of government under any circumstances. It would have 
been done. I think it would have an impact.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It would have a devastating impact, 
would it not?
    Mr. Davis. I won't use the word devastating, but it would 
definitely have an impact.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, thank you. Sir, in 2022, DOJ 
updated its use-of-force to generally limit the use of no-knock 
search warrants to only those situations where an agent has 
reasonable grounds to believe that knocking and announcing the 
agent's presence would create an imminent threat of physical 
violence to the agent and/or another person.
    Has that new policy resulted in a decrease in search 
warrant applications for no-knock warrants, no-knock search 
warrants?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Congressman. I would say for the 
Marshal Service, based on our primary mission with fugitives, 
that we embrace greatly the idea that the very loud 
announcement, we are going to make it very clear why we are 
there and who we are after.
    So, I can't think of a time and my staff can't think of the 
last few years in which we have ever used no-knock. So, this 
has not had, the policy, which we comply with, does not have 
any impact, negative impact on our ability to operate.
    Mr. Johnson. All right, thank you. Insofar, as the use of 
body cam videos by your Deputy Marshals on their arrests and 
executions of search warrants, are 100 percent of your deputies 
equipped with body cam video technology?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Congressman. Not yet. We are moving 
forward with that. Right now, I want to say we have some over 
1,700 deputies that are equipped. We are also--
    Mr. Johnson. Seventeen hundred out of about 5,500?
    Mr. Davis. About 4,000 deputies. So, about out of 4,038 
operational personnel, about 1,700 are equipped. We have 
identified, once again, I am going to point back to the 
President's Fiscal Year 2024, there would be sufficient 
resources to get to that 100 percent.
    So, we are moving forward. As you mentioned, it is a 
priority of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney 
General. So, we are definitely on target with the goals set by 
the Department. I think the team is doing very well. We 
definitely need to move forward and look at equipping the 
remaining deputies.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. I yield to myself five 
minutes to ask questions.
    So, Director Davis, again, thank you for being here. My 
questions now are going to go to Executive Order 14019, which 
is from March 2021. I am wondering how many inmates have been 
registered to vote under this Executive Order.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think we would 
have that number. We would not track how many inmates, how many 
detainees actually register.
    Mr. Biggs. So, if you are not tracking, how are you 
facilitating registration to vote and their ability to vote?
    Mr. Davis. So, I may just clarify a question, if I may, 
sir, you are referring to the Executive Order on voting access, 
14019?
    Mr. Biggs. That is correct.
    Mr. Davis. So, the Executive Order requires that we provide 
our detainees, and as I mentioned earlier just as a reminder, 
nearly all of them being pretrial--so, not yet convicted, 
presumed innocent--education materials at their facilities 
about their right to vote if appropriate.
    It is nothing--we do not, the Marshal Service does not 
register voters or track who does register.
    Mr. Biggs. So, that leaves me baffled, actually, a little 
bit. So, you don't know how many inmates are actually voting 
then, actually requesting ballots or registering to vote. You 
don't know that.
    Mr. Davis. We don't track that, that is correct.
    Mr. Biggs. So, you got a number of Secretary of States have 
a problem with that, with that Executive Order. So, I am 
interested in the compliance then. Do you feel like you are 
otherwise in compliance with that Executive Order?
    Mr. Davis. I do.
    Mr. Biggs. Inmates are allowed to register in States that 
typically require a specific amount of time to pass before an 
individual's voting rights are restored. So, even though they 
are presumed, many inmates are recidivists, is that not true?
    Mr. Davis. I couldn't answer that, not with any certainty.
    Mr. Biggs. Interesting. So, you don't get any criminal 
history on any of these inmates as you are just temporarily 
housing them? So, you are saying we don't need to know about 
their propensity to violence or anything else?
    Mr. Davis. No, I understand the question, Mr. Chair. I just 
am trying to provide accurate responses. I don't know the 
numbers or percentage of those that are in our custody or the 
80,000 or 100,000 we will process; how many have criminal 
histories?
    I am not suggesting that none of them do, I am just not--I 
can't answer the question.
    Mr. Biggs. OK, so I really want to try to get to the bottom 
of this, make sure I understand this. So, in Arizona, for 
instance, any term of supervised release has to be completed 
before voting rights of an inmate are restored, for instance, 
right.
    So, the language in the Executive Order I read as fairly 
broad to encourage and facilitate, that type of thing, 
registration and voting. I guess my question at this point 
becomes are you ensuring that the Executive Order is not 
contradictory to State law? How are you doing that?
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for that question. The implementation 
of the Executive Order for the United States Marshal Service is 
working with our facilities, and I think you identified there 
are facilities all over the entire country, is to provide them 
the educational materials about their access and right. We do 
not register them; we do not basically provide election 
guidance.
    It is about providing materials about their right to vote. 
I think the Executive Order goes further to say as applicable 
or as eligible. So, it is for our Executive Order, for our part 
of the order.
    Mr. Biggs. Right, right, that I get. So, when you said 
earlier that you didn't keep track, for instance, if somebody 
was illegally in the country or not, which would have influence 
of their ability to, and eligibility to vote, how do you 
determine then who you are going to facilitate and provide 
this?
    You just provide a blanket to it and say hey, you have got 
a right to vote, but you guys don't step in and say but not 
you, you are here illegally in the country?
    Mr. Davis. Right, I am not going to--the implementation 
requires the facilities to provide educational material. Then, 
it is up to the facilities how they do that. Once, I would just 
clarify that we do not process, we do facilitate and provide 
them the materials.
    Mr. Biggs. No, I got that. So, we may want to consider this 
conversation so much later. I am almost out of time, so I want 
to ask this question: On the protesters that were parading and 
whatever, trying to influence and intimidate with that 
particular Supreme Court decision, did the marshals, were they 
wearing body cams? Do you know?
    Mr. Davis. I do not. I can definitely find out.
    Mr. Biggs. You said 1,700 deputies went through, so I 
assume some of them had to have body cams and had a video. The 
reason I ask this question is because I am curious whether 
anyone went back.
    I get it, I get you were saying our first priority was to 
make sure that the lives of the justices were preserved, so we 
are going to protect them. You got people out here clearly 
violating the law.
    I am just wondering after that toned down and settled down, 
whether anybody went through, back through and looked at the 
body cam footage and started going after those people for 
violating clearly 18 U.S.C. 1507.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you for the question. I have to get back 
to you about the body-work camera, but I will add this, if I 
may, Mr. Chair. In addition to the instructions, they were also 
trained and instructed that they had the ability, that they 
were witnessing anything of concern or crime, to call our 
command center.
    Our command center stays in continued contact with law 
enforcement partners. So, if they saw something and made the 
determination I cannot engage because it would put the justice 
at risk, then they can pick up the phone and call the command 
center.
    Mr. Biggs. Right, I think I understood that. I am out of 
time. So, I appreciate that, but we need to continue that. I 
want to know more about the footage. I would certainly like the 
documents that Chair Jordan asked for earlier.
    Thanks for your time, thanks for being here today. With 
that, we are adjourned.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an unanimous consent for 
documents--
    Mr. Biggs. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, I will note that you have 
submissions for the record, and we will admit those.
    [Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    The record for this hearing by the Members of the 
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance is 
available at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?Event ID=116837.

                                 [all]