[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]