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






                          


 
 OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-81

                               __________

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


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                                  ______
    
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 55-811                     WASHINGTON : 2024             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

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

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Thursday, May 23, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Ohio.........................................     1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     3

                               WITNESSES

The Hon. Steven Dettelbach, Director, The Bureau of Alcohol, 
  Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     8

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the 
  Judiciary are listed below.....................................    76

Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
  York, for the record
    A letter to the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of 
        the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
        York, May, 22, 2024, from the Carlos Felipe Uriarte, 
        Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 
        Office of Legislative Affairs, for the record
    An article entitled, ``House Republicans want to defund the 
        police,'' Mar. 7, 2024, The Washington Post
    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization from the State of Ohio, 
        and the Honorable Stacey E. Plaskett, Ranking Member of 
        the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization, May 23, 
        2024, from the National Fraternal Order of Police
An article entitled, ``Are Guns the Leading Cause of Death for 
  Children in the U.S.?'' Apr. 3, 2023, Snopes, submitted by the 
  Honorable Troy Nehls, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the record
A letter regarding Bryan Malinowski, to the Honorable Jim Jordan, 
  Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, 
  May 21, 2024, from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of 
  Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, submitted by the 
  Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Becca Balint, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Vermont, for 
  the record
    An article entitled, ``Milwaukee sees decline in homicides in 
        2023, but numbers still not back to pre-pandemic 
        levels,'' Jan. 3, 2024, WPR
    Crime statistics from the Milwaukee Police Department, May 
        22, 2024
Materials submitted by the Honorable Madeleine Dean, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, 
  for the record
    A list of fallen ATF agents entitled, ``Fallen Agents.''
    An article entitled, ``US stats show violent crime 
        dramatically falling, so why is there a rising clash with 
        perception?'' Mar. 22, 2024, ABC News
    An article entitled, ``Germantown shooting: 3-year-old shoots 
        herself in the eye with father's gun in Philadelphia 
        home, police say,'' Apr. 6, 2024, 6ABC
A copy of the search warrant for Bryan Malinowski, the United 
  States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, submitted 
  by the Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Lucy McBath, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georgia, for the 
  record
    An article entitled, ``Firearms overtook auto accidents as 
        the leading cause of death in children,'' Apr. 22, 2022, 
        NPR
    An article entitled, ``Firearms Now No. 1 Cause Of Death For 
        U.S. Children--While Drug Poisoning Enters Top 5,'' Oct. 
        5, 2023, Forbes
A letter in support of HR 3269, to the Honorable Scott 
  Fitzgerald, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of Wisconsin, Apr. 17, 2024, from Earl Griffith, ELG 
  Consultants, LLC, submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, 
  a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Wisconsin, for the record

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions to the Hon. Steven Dettelbach, Director, The Bureau of 
  Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, submitted the 
  Honorable by Ben Cline from the State of Virginia, the 
  Honorable Lance Gooden from the State of Texas, and the 
  Honorable Troy Nehls from the State of Texas, Members of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary, for the record
  No response at the time of publication


 OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 23, 2024

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Gaetz, 
Biggs, McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Bishop, Spartz, 
Fitzgerald, Bentz, Cline, Armstrong, Van Drew, Nehls, Moore, 
Hageman, Lee, Hunt, Fry, Nadler, Johnson, Swalwell, Jayapal, 
Correa, Scanlon, Neguse, McBath, Dean, Ross, Bush, Ivey, and 
Balint.
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time.
    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Oversight of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona to lead 
us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Chair Jordan. We will begin the hearing with opening 
statements. The Chair recognizes himself.
    The government is not supposed to change the rules without 
a vote of Congress. The Executive Branch executes the laws; the 
Legislative Branch passes the laws, but when you bypass that 
format, which is exactly what the ATF has done, you get all 
kinds of bad things.
    First, it was the pistol brace rule. November 26, 2012, the 
ATF told the inventor of the pistol brace, quote, ``he would 
not be subject to the National Firearms Act,'' but last year 
they changed the rule. After 12 years changed the rule. By the 
way, the pistol brace was put together to help disabled 
veterans be able to shoot, be able to practice and shoot at the 
range. Now, with the rule change if you don't turn it in, get 
rid of it, you become a felon.
    Then, there was a policy change that the ATF enacted. The 
ATF now says if a Federal firearms licensee makes a mistake on 
the form, even if it is a clerical mistake, well, that now 
equals a, quote, ``willful falsifying of records'' and they 
could lose their license. In fact, 157 FFLs lost their license 
last year in this gotcha game that the ATF is playing with 
people who are in the business of selling firearms.
    The pressure to deal with what--the ATF comes out and finds 
you made some mistake on a form, many people just voluntarily 
giving up their FFL: 24 in 2021, 69 in 2022. Eighty people last 
year gave up their license versus dealing with the hassle from 
the agency that is supposed to help them comply, not put them 
out of business.
    Finally, there is the new definition of who actually needs 
a Federal firearms license. Since 1968, the definition said it 
had to be your principal livelihood, your principal livelihood 
in the business of selling firearms. You needed that. If you 
were doing that, you needed an FFL. This past Monday a new 
definition was put in place. It said, ``if you are earning a 
profit.'' The ATF can't really define what that means. You sell 
one gun to your cousin, made $10, made $50 on the sale of a 
gun, two guns to someone, or 10 guns. In fact, they couldn't 
even tell the court how it works, this new definition.
    When you make up the rules as you go, bad things happen. 
You lose your livelihood for a clerical error, you become a 
felon for a pistol brace they told you was legal for 12 years, 
and you might even get shot. That is what happened to Bryan 
Malinowski just two months ago. We have Bryan's widow with us 
today. She was here with us yesterday. Heard some powerful 
testimony from U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins who represents the 
Malinowski family. In fact, I am going to read from Mr. 
Cummins' testimony that he gave in this room yesterday.

          It is legal to buy, trade, and sell guns without a Federal 
        firearms license if you are a collector or hobbyist, but at 
        some point the ATF decided that Bryan Malinowski had crossed a 
        murky line and he was no longer a hobbyist. Because of that, 
        the ATF concluded he was required to purchase a $200 Federal 
        firearms license before he sold anymore guns.

          I call it murky because there is no bright line test. It is 
        truly subjective. One thing seems certain: Bryan Malinowski 
        received no warning. His family, his friends, and his work 
        colleagues would all guarantee you he loved his career and he 
        would have never knowingly jeopardized it over a weekend hobby.

          His real job, his main job, and his only job was he ran the 
        Bill and Hillary Clinton Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas, 
        highest paid official in the municipal government, made 
        $260,000 a year. On March 19th at 6:01 a.m., over one hour 
        before sunup 10 carloads of the ATF agents and Little Rock 
        Police Department officers came to the Malinowski home to 
        execute their search warrant. Not an arrest warrant. Search 
        warrant.

          At 6:02:46 a.m., the ATF agents in full SWAT gear approached 
        the front door. They had a piece of tape ready to cover the 
        camera lens of the doorbell camera, which they did. Next, Ms. 
        Malinowski heard only a loud crash as her front door caved in. 
        Her husband Bryan woke up to the sound of the crush, found a 
        pistol, loaded a magazine, and left the bedroom to investigate.

          Bryan warned his wife to stay behind in the bedroom, but Maer 
        stubbornly followed him down the hallway. The ATF apparently 
        killed electricity to the home. The front room was usually well 
        lit at night, but Ms. Malinowski saw only darkness as she 
        peered down toward the front entryway. She could only see 
        shadowy outlines of presumed home invaders standing in her 
        front hallway. That is what Bryan saw too.

          Bryan fired a few shots at the intruders' feet to drive them 
        back out of the front door. The ATF shot Bryan in the head. His 
        wife was standing inches away from him. A mere 57 seconds. 
        Fifty-seven seconds elapsed from the time agents covered the 
        doorbell camera until gunshots erupted and Bryan was fatally 
        wounded. 6:02:46 to 6:03:43 a.m.

          Agents immediately dragged Ms. Malinowski into the front 
        yard. She was barefoot wearing minimal night clothing and the 
        temperature was 34 degrees. They locked her in the back seat of 
        a car and detained her there for four hours, refusing her many 
        requests to check on her husband, her husband she had just seen 
        shot, wouldn't allow her to get clothes, or even use the 
        neighbor's bathroom.

          Even though policies have been in place at both the ATF and 
        the Little Rock Police Department for the past three years 
        requiring the use of body-worn cameras when executing any 
        search warrant, the Department of Justice tells us that no body 
        cameras were used.

    If this isn't the weaponization of government, I don't know 
what is. I don't know what is.
    Mr. Dettelbach, we are going to have questions about this 
and a host of other things the ATF has done under your watch. A 
host of other things. We appreciate you being here today. We 
appreciate you taking our questions, but there are going to be 
tough questions from folks on our side. We have a video I would 
like to show which--just so--it is a minute-and-a-half, but it 
first shows the ATF agents assembling in the Walmart parking 
lot a week before March 19th when they were going to execute 
this search warrant, again pre-dawn hours a week before, but 
decided not to because they realized Mr. Malinowski wasn't 
home. Then, it shows what happened a week later as they 
approached the Malinowski home. So, let's run the video.
    [Video played.]
    Chair Jordan. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member 
for an opening statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we last 
conducted an oversight hearing of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or the ATF, just over one 
year ago. Since that time a few things have changed, and a 
great many things have stayed the same. Let's begin with what 
has changed.
    Last month the Attorney General signed an ATF final rule 
clarifying who was, quote, ``engaged in the business,'' of 
selling firearms and who must therefore obtain a license to 
sell firearms and conduct the necessary background checks. This 
rule implements a change in this definition made by Congress 
when we passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first 
significant piece of gun violence prevention legislation in 
nearly 30 years.
    Prior to the passage of the BSCA a person was, quote, 
``engaged in the business,'' of selling firearms if they did 
so, quote, ``with the principal objective of livelihood and 
profit.'' Under the new law a person is engaged in the business 
of selling firearms if they do so, quote, ``to predominantly 
earn a profit.''
    In finalizing this new rule ATF has adhered to its 
directive from Congress and has ensured that the ATF 
regulations are consistent with the definitions we updated 
through this historic legislation that makes Americans safer.
    Importantly, the new definition and the new rule ensure 
that more gun sales, including those at gun shows or through 
the internet, include a background check, a life-saving tool 
that keeps guns out of dangerous hands. These changes are the 
only significant expansion of the Federal background check 
system since it was established in the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act in 1993.
    The Department of Justice estimates that there are over 
20,000 unlicensed sellers who were taking advantage of 
ambiguity in the law and who will now have to obtain a license 
and conduct background checks.
    Yesterday, in a related hearing Republicans argued that 
this new rule is being used to target individuals who are 
merely selling a gun from their personal collection or who 
occasionally buy and sell guns as part of a hobby. This is 
false. The rule, quote,

        Expressly recognizes that individuals who purchase firearms for 
        the enhancement of a personal collection or a legitimate lobby 
        are permitted by the Gun Control Act to occasionally buy and 
        sell firearms for those purposes or occasionally resell to a 
        licensee or to a family member for lawful purposes without the 
        need to obtain a license.

The final rule also states that, quote,

        Nothing in this rule shall be construed as precluding a person 
        from lawfully acquiring a firearm for self-protection or other 
        lawful personal use.

The law and the rule do not impose any new requirements on 
those who are merely selling a firearm to a neighbor, a friend, 
or a family member, or those who collect and occasionally sell 
firearms as part of their hobby.
    Rather than targeting innocent lobbyist sellers this rule 
will permit--I am sorry, will prevent illegal gun sellers from 
profiting off gun trafficking. This comes at a critical time 
given that the ATF's National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking 
Assessment revealed that unlicensed gun sales were contributing 
more and more to the flow of firearms into the black market and 
unsurprisingly becoming a leading source of crime guns.
    The second new development since we last heard from the ATF 
Director Dettelbach is that Republicans used their control of 
the House to enact significant cuts to several critical law 
enforcement agencies including the Department of Justice, the 
FBI, and the ATF. We knew this was coming because Republicans 
have been forthright in their determination to defund, 
intimidate, and hamstring the agency so that it can no longer 
effectively do its job and protect Americans from violent 
crime.
    Republicans' own messaging documents actually celebrate the 
seven-percent cut to the ATF, the law enforcement agency 
responsible for protecting communities from gun violence, 
stopping gun trafficking, and ensuring lawful and responsible 
gun ownership.
    This brings me to what is still as true today as it was 
over a year ago when we last conducted an oversight hearing of 
the ATF. The ATF is still the primary Federal agency tasked 
with keeping guns out of the wrong hands and it is still doing 
that important work even with the budget cuts forced through by 
House Republicans. The ATF is still providing vital resources 
that help State and local law enforcements solve crimes and 
prevent gun violence.
    The ATF is still the only agency in the country that is 
able to trace crime guns helping law enforcement determine how 
a gun came to be owned and used in a violent crime.
    The ATF is also still the only agency that provides local, 
State, Tribal, and Federal law enforcement with ballistic 
imaging analysis, a critical tool that could help solve crime 
and prevent further gun violence. It provides this assistance 
at no cost to its law enforcement partners.
    Despite the significant value that the ATF provides to 
State and local law enforcement, Republicans have defunded the 
agency and they repeatedly seek to unravel its regulations 
through litigation, Congressional Review Act resolutions, and 
frivolous investigations, even when the ATF is merely following 
the law as directed by Congress. Some Republicans have even 
introduced a bill to abolish the ATF altogether.
    The majority says that it stands with law enforcement, so 
why does it seek to abolish the only law enforcement agency 
with the capability of tracing crime guns? The majority says 
that they support State and local police, so why do they 
attempt to starve the agency that provides State and local 
police officers with so many critical resources to solving 
crime including homicides, gun trafficking, and organized 
crime? Why do they oppose commonsense protections like 
background checks and red flag laws favored by State and local 
police agencies nationwide?
    The answer lies in another part of the ATF's 
responsibilities: Making sure that gun dealers follow the law 
by conducting background checks, refusing to sell to those who 
are not allowed to have firearms, and keeping records so that 
crime guns can be traced. The overwhelming majority of gun 
sellers have no problem following these laws, but when gun 
dealers willfully refuse to follow them, it is the ATF's 
responsibility to revoke their license to sell.
    Republicans' priorities are clear: They would prefer to 
keep every gun store in the country open, even those that 
willfully violate the law, rather than to let the ATF save 
lives simply by enforcing the law.
    This brings me to the final thing that is still the same 
since our last oversight hearing. It is still the case that we 
are losing more than 100 Americans to gun violence every single 
day. Even without counting suicides we have already lost more 
6,000 Americans to shooting so far this year. That includes 88 
young children, 454 teens, and 30 law enforcement officers who 
were killed by gunfire just this year.
    Democrats have put forth a range of solutions to prevent 
gun violence, to support law enforcement, and to solve crimes, 
but since they took control of the House our Republican 
colleagues have not advanced a single bill that would make 
Americans safer from gun violence. Instead, they have continued 
to push for unfettered access to assault weapons, concealable 
rifles, and ghost guns, and to abolish the very agency tasked 
with preventing gun crimes.
    As Republicans continue to seek freedom from gun 
regulations, we will continue to seek communities free from gun 
violence.
    Director Dettelbach, thank you for appearing here today to 
talk about the important work that the ATF does to keep 
Americans safe. I look forward to your testimony and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The 1.4 billion in 2022, 1.6 billion in 2023, and 1.75 
billion 2024. Hardly a cut to their budget.
    Without objections, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    We will now introduce today's witness. Mr. Dettelbach is 
the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives. He was sworn in on July 13, 2022. We welcome our 
witness and thank him for appearing today.
    We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and 
raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true, correct to the best of 
your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I do.
    Chair Jordan. Let the record reflect that the witness has 
answered in the affirmative.
    Thank you. You can be seated.
    Please know your written testimony will be entered into the 
record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize 
your testimony. Director Dettelbach, you may begin.

            STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVEN DETTELBACH

    Mr. Dettelbach. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler, the 
Members of the Committee, when I testified last year I said it 
was my great honor to lead the dedicated employees of the ATF. 
This year I'll repeat that statement and add that agents run 
toward gunfire to protect strangers, and our staff works day 
and night to support our mission. Their work in the last year 
has been nothing short of spectacular.
    As I stated last year, the level of violent crime in 
America is unacceptable, however due to the hard work of these 
heroes and our partners we have made significant progress in 
making communities safer. Last year our Nation had one of the 
steepest single year declines in violent crime in its history. 
Murders down nearly 13 percent across 175 cities. This doesn't 
happen by accident. It is the result of hard and very dangerous 
work.
    In 2022, Federal weapons convictions hit a record high 
according to recent reporting. In 2023, the ATF's criminal 
enforcement efforts were up again. We indicted even more cases 
and increased convictions by 8.5 percent and the cases that we 
do make an impact because we focus on removing the most violent 
offenders from our streets. This progress tells us the 
strategies are working. It is not the time to let up now.
    The ATF's data-driven support helps law enforcement lock up 
the trigger pullers and stop the flow of illegal guns to them 
from trafficking. We must go after both the shooters and the 
criminals. Both. That is the only way we will continue to drive 
down firearms crime.
    Firearms trafficking is not a victimless crime. Those who 
illegally arm violent people: Gang members and drug dealers, 
they are responsible for the violence that follows. A recent 
ATF report shows that 60 percent of trafficked firearms go to 
convicted felons, prohibited people, and thousands of these 
trafficked guns are used in murders and shootings. Further, the 
most common type of firearms trafficking now is dealing 
firearms for profit without a license.
    In Midland-Odessa, Texas, for example, in 2019 a man who 
couldn't pass a background check from a licensed dealer instead 
went and got a gun from an illegally unlicensed firearm dealer. 
The result, a deal in a parking lot, a mass shooting. Seven 
dead, twenty-five shot, three police officers, and a seventeen-
month-old child.
    These types of crimes prompted Congress to pass the 
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act two years ago. The law 
provided new tools to hold firearms traffickers accountable. 
Since then, the Department of Justice led by the ATF and 
prosecutors has charged nearly 500 defendants under those new 
provisions.
    Motivated by cases like the murders in Midland-Odessa 
Congress also included a specific provision expanding who must 
obtain a Federal license to deal firearms and therefore 
crucially who must conduct background checks before selling 
those guns.
    Last month, the ATF used the authority Congress delegated 
to it to issue a final rule on being, quote, ``engaged in the 
business of firearms dealing.'' This rule helps to identify 
those who must be licensed under Congress' law and is designed 
to raise compliance with the statute Congress wrote.
    Even with our progress the toll of gun violence remains 
crushing. More than 40,000 people died from gun violence last 
year. Another 36,000 suffered grievous wounds or wounds from 
gun violence. Those are not just numbers. We all know--we agree 
those are really people. They're parents, they're brothers, 
they're sisters, and they're children. In fact, the leading 
cause of death for American children is gun violence. Not cars, 
not cancer, and Guns. That is unacceptable.
    We're reminded too often. It was two years ago tomorrow, in 
fact, that a shooter opened fire at Robb Elementary School in 
Uvalde, Texas murdering 19 kids, two teachers, and shooting 17 
others. We know there's been so many other tragedies like this.
    Last, but not certainly least, as we commemorated Police 
Week last week, we're reminded that all too often victims of 
firearms violence carry the badge. Last year, 49 brave officers 
were killed in the line of duty by gunfire. This year, that 
number is already at 22 including four officers in North 
Carolina--went to the funeral--gunned down while executing a 
warrant at the home of a firearms violator.
    We have to support law enforcement together including 
giving law enforcement the resources we need to protect 
Americans. Again, now is not the time to let up. We know what 
works. The data are supporting it. It's time to double and 
triple down together on our efforts to save more lives.
    Mr. Chair, Mr. Ranking Member, and the Members of the 
Committee, I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Dettelbach follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
   
    Chair Jordan. I will now proceed under the five-minute 
rule. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will yield to the 
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Dettelbach, in February, Chair Biggs and I sent you a 
letter concerning the pipe bombs that were discovered in 
January 6th--these were pipe bombs from over three years ago--
and the investigation surrounding it. After months without a 
response, a day before yesterday, your department finally gave 
us a nonresponse. To be clear, the response was wholly 
inadequate and borders or showing contempt for Congress.
    To quote from the letter,

        This investigation remains ongoing. Accordingly, pursuant to 
        long-standing Department of Justice policy, ATF cannot provide 
        details.

It goes on.
    This is about the safety of Congress. These bombs were a 
couple blocks from here, yet you refuse to answer questions 
about them. If you don't have contempt for us, I will give you 
an opportunity to respond to some of my questions here today. 
Are you willing to answer those questions today?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm going to try within the rules which 
long-standing rules--I've been in five administrations at the 
Department of Justice, Democrat and Republican, and long-
standing policy of the Department of Justice in both types of 
the Administration, on both sides, has been we do not comment 
on pending investigations.
    Mr. Massie. Right. That is a policy. That has not been 
through some kind of rulemaking. That is a policy. You can say 
that to the media, but you can't say it to Congress. We created 
your department.
    How many of the ATF personnel were on the Capitol premises 
on January 6, 2021?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I don't believe I can answer 
specific questions about the investigation. I know that this 
may not relate to the investigation. So, I know that there 
were--I wasn't here during that period. That predated my time 
on January 6th, the January 6th attacks. So, I know there were 
some of the ATF agents who were called to help protect the 
Members of Congress. I don't know how many.
    Mr. Massie. Well, that is not an acceptable answer. We have 
asked you this months ago and you just send us a letter saying 
you can't answer that, yet according to a FOIA report obtained 
by Judicial Watch there were 19 people here. So, for you to say 
you don't know or you can't tell us is ludicrous. These are 
subject to FOIA reports.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress, I am happy to also get back to 
you with information. If I don't remember all the numbers at 
the tip of my fingers, I'm sorry about that.
    Mr. Massie. Are you willing to confirm that the pipe bombs 
planted at the Capitol Hill Club and the DNC on January 6th 
couldn't have gone off with a 60-minute kitchen timer if they 
were placed the day before?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, Congressman, I do believe 
that this does go into the area of the investigation, which 
is--the ATF is supporting. The FBI is leading that 
investigation and I cannot comment on that.
    Mr. Massie. We are three years into it. Who was the on-
scene Incident Commander for the ATF on January 6th?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, if you're asking about the scene of 
the investigation at the headquarters, again--
    Mr. Massie. You are not going to tell us who the Incident 
Commander was?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know. I'm telling you if that 
relates to the scene not here at the Capitol Building where we 
were protecting Congresspeople from attack, but to the other 
investigation scene, we can try to get back to you. I will tell 
you if it relates to a pending investigation, we won't be able 
to comment.
    Mr. Massie. Does the ATF provide training to U.S. Capitol 
Police on explosive detection, detonation, disarming, or 
simulation training exercises with U.S. Capitol Police?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We provide the National Center for 
Explosives Training and Research in Huntsville, Alabama--
provides training to numerous different law enforcement 
agencies. I would not be surprised if Capitol Police were one 
of them. I don't know the training regimen. People are going 
down there all the time to get training.
    Mr. Massie. Were the two pipe bombs on January 6th part of 
a training exercise?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I cannot comment on a pending 
investigation, but if--
    Mr. Massie. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. In general, I would say--
    Mr. Massie. Well, then [inaudible]--
    Mr. Dettelbach. In general, I would say to that I think if 
law enforcement knows if something is part of some sort of a 
law enforcement exercise, they wouldn't be conducting that long 
of an investigation, in general, but I don't--
    Mr. Massie. In my last remaining seconds, I want to show 
you a video of something that you said on 60 Minutes.
    [Video played.]
    Mr. Massie. Are you aware it is illegal for you to create a 
registry of gun owners in the United States?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am.
    Mr. Massie. Are you insinuating here that somebody can't 
buy a firearm with cash?
    Mr. Dettelbach. No.
    Mr. Massie. So, why would a dealer--why should a dealer 
call you if somebody is going through a background check and 
tell you that somebody is using cash?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We run a program called ``Don't Lie For the 
Other Guy,'' along with the National Shooting Sports 
Foundation. There are indicia of straw purchasing matters where 
there are warning signs where people can contact us. Firearms 
dealers who are law-abiding business owners, and the majority 
are--I want to say that again here--they frequently contact us, 
especially on the Southwest border because cartels are using 
straw purchases to arm themselves with the kind of weaponry 
that results in death and destruction, and danger to Americans 
and law enforcement.
    Mr. Massie. We are concerned because banks are keeping 
these records and giving them to the government without a legal 
process, and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If Republicans were to 
succeed in their effort to abolish the ATF, how would that 
affect public safety, particularly gun violence in this 
country?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Protecting Americans from violent crime, 
including firearms violence, was, is, and will always continue 
to be the ATF's top priority, and we work in partnership with 
State and local law enforcement officials to do that. We 
investigate the most dangerous, worst of the worst, the people 
who are out there, trigger pullers, and terrorizing our 
communities. As I said in my opening statement, the results 
speak for themselves. Working with our State and local partners 
we do a dangerous job, we do it well, and we catch a lot of 
very violent people.
    The tools we make available to local law enforcement, the 
crime gun intelligence which enables them to identify who those 
people are better than ever before so we can focus limited law 
enforcement resources on catching them is working. It is 
driving down violent crime in our cities. That's why everywhere 
I go in the country, Congressman, everywhere I go: Red State, 
Blue State, city, and rural, they ask for more of the ATF 
resources.
    Mr. Nadler. If the Republicans were to succeed in their 
effort to abolish the ATF, how would that affect public safety?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, all of that would go away.
    Mr. Nadler. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. All of that would go away. Our State and 
local partners who are asking for more the ATF, they would be 
robbed of any of the ATF. All the cases that we do, all the 
gangs we prosecute, the RICOs, the VICARs, and the cartel 
cases, all the things we do would disappear.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. While some House Republicans have 
sought to abolish the ATF, others have sought to defund it or 
to reduce its effectiveness through dramatic budget cuts. In 
fact, House Republicans have actually bragged about cutting the 
ATF by seven percent this year. I understand that the ATF has 
done an admirable job despite these budget cuts. For example, 
the agency has been able to dramatically reduced, processing 
times of certain firearm transfer applications under the 
National Firearms Act. Can you describe the impact these cuts 
have had on the agency and how slashing funding for the ATF 
reduces your ability to protect Americans from gun violence?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes. So, the ATF is an agency that is not a 
large agency with an outsized mission protecting people from 
violent crime, and we have a very focused effective strategy to 
do that, but you--sometimes less is more. In law enforcement 
less is not more. You can't get public safety on the cheap. The 
fact of the matter is that, pursuant to the cuts passed by 
Congress, we have canceled already two classes of special 
agents this year. Those are each 24-agent classes. I fear there 
will be more cancellations moving forward.
    We have obviously cut people in all job categories. Lab 
technicians who run DNA tests to try to catch mass killers like 
happened in Goshen, California. We are doing our best with what 
you give us. We will continue to work to do that, but there's 
no doubt that the cuts that have been imposed will have a 
direct impact on public safety and the ATF's mission to fight 
violent crime. No doubt.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Last week we heard a great deal from 
Republicans about the need to support State and local law 
enforcement. Can you tell us how the ATF works with and 
supports State and local law enforcement?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There is no better partner in Federal law 
enforcement for State and local police, sheriffs, State police 
than the ATF. We stand shoulder to shoulder with local law 
enforcement doing the most violent cases that they do.
    Everywhere I go, as I said, Congressman, every Chief I talk 
to, every sheriff I talk to, it doesn't matter, urban, rural, 
North, South, Midwest, and East Coast, they all say the same 
thing.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Dettelbach. You guys are doing great. Please send more 
agents.
    Mr. Nadler. Can you explain what a ghost gun or personally 
manufactured firearm is, and why such firearms pose a danger to 
the American public?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The ATF's legal responsibility is to 
implement the laws that Congress passes. Congress passed the 
Gun Control Act. The Gun Control Act talks about the need for 
those engaged in the business of selling firearms to have a 
license. It also talks about anything that is, quote, ``readily 
convertible to being an operable firearm'' falling under the 
definition of firearm.
    So, people who are producing kits that they send out so 
that people can--then you're engaged in the business of doing 
it. I'm not talking about an individual hobbyist making a 
firearm for himself at home. That's allowed. The people who are 
selling these kits for money and saying, ``oh, this is not 
readily convertible to being a firearm because it's not put 
together.'' We evaluate those and the rule that we promulgated 
on privately made firearms addresses that.
    Congressman, the number of privately made firearms, which 
are untraceable, un-serialized firearms that are used in crimes 
in a five-year period went up 1,000--I'm going to say 1,000 
percent, 10 times, by a multiple of 10, year over year. There's 
a reason for that. The reason for that is felons and violent 
people. They know they're going to do something bad. They don't 
want the firearm to be traced to them. It's a cold weapon. It's 
untraceable and it's very dangerous in the wrong hands.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
a May 22nd letter from Assistant Attorney General Carlos 
Uriarte to me that explains the risk that un-serialized 
firearms or ghost guns pose to the public, their proliferation 
among guns found at crime scenes, and the numerous efforts of 
the Department of Justice to reduce violence caused by ghost 
guns and other firearms and to promote public safety.
    I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
March 7th Washington Post article titled, ``House Republicans 
want to Defund the Police,'' which outlines how Republican cuts 
to the FBI and ATF will harm the important work of State and 
local law enforcement.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Dettelbach, what were you trying to hide? 
When the raid on March 19th on Mr. Malinowski's house disabled 
the doorbell camera, cut electricity to the house, and you 
didn't wear body cameras what were you guys trying to hide?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Mr. Chair, we're not trying to hide things. 
In fact, after--
    Chair Jordan. Sure, seems like it.
    Mr. Dettelbach. After the--
    Chair Jordan. You guys cut electricity to the house?
    Mr. Dettelbach. After the--
    Chair Jordan. Well, that is not the question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm trying to answer. After the--OK. If 
there's no question, that's fine. I'm sorry.
    Chair Jordan. No, that is a question. Did you?
    Mr. Dettelbach. After the incident we, along with the 
Little Rock Police, called for an independent investigation to 
be done by the Arkansas State Police and the local prosecutor.
    Chair Jordan. Oh, I asked--
    Mr. Dettelbach. That's not trying to hide anything.
    Chair Jordan. I asked three questions. Why did you put the 
tape on the doorbell camera? Why did you cut the lights? Why 
didn't you wear the body cams? What are you trying to hide?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Mr. Chair, the reason that we called for 
the investigation is we're not trying to hide anything. The 
reason I'm not going to talk about what's going on in that 
investigation is to respect its independence and out of 
fairness. There's a reason for the Department of Justice policy 
that's existed for so many decades about not commenting on 
pending matters. It's not fair to people and it risks the 
perception that people are trying to influence--
    Chair Jordan. Well, how about this one? Why did you ignore 
the rules? Because don't the rules say you should only use a 
no-knock entrance into a property if it is the only way--if it 
is the absolute best way to do it? I could read from Ms. 
Monaco's directive,

        Limit the circumstances in which agents may seek to enter a 
        dwelling pursuant to a warrant without complying with the knock 
        and announce rule because of the risks posed to both law 
        enforcement and civilians.

So, you want to limit this. Why did you guys do it all in 57 
seconds?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, with respect to what I said 
before is that we are not trying to hide anything. An 
independent agency is investigating it and we, pursuant to 
long-standing policy, are not going to comment.
    Chair Jordan. Director, the Department of Justice has 
already told us you guys weren't wearing cameras. I am just 
asking, why?
    Mr. Dettelbach. For the cameras, our body-worn camera 
policy--I can talk about that, even--I think I can answer the 
question without talking about this case.
    Chair Jordan. You can talk about some things relative to 
the investigation, but not others. We want all the answers to 
what is going on here.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I will tell you with respect to the body-
worn camera policy the Department of Justice announced that 
policy. When it was announced, as we have communicated to your 
staff and you, it was announced that it would be phased 
implementation. The ATF is implementing that policy. We've 
implemented it in just under a third of our field divisions. We 
have not received three separate requests for program funding 
from Congress to do so, but we are still doing it.
    I watched a hearing a couple of weeks ago where your fellow 
Chair--
    Chair Jordan. Did the Little Rock police officers who 
accompanied you on this raid--did they wear body cams?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, not commenting on this specific 
case, but in general the Department of Justice written policy 
allows local law enforcement on these types of operations, 
short-term operations to follow their own guidelines and 
policies, if they wish in body-worn cameras. What I wanted to 
say is--
    Chair Jordan. Well, the policy was to wear them. They 
weren't wearing them that day. We want to know, why? Did you 
tell them not to wear them?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Mr. Chair, again, it is simply unfair at 
this point while there's a pending investigation--
    Chair Jordan. It is a simple question. We just want to know 
why they weren't following the rules. Their rules say wear body 
cameras. Your rules say wear body cameras. You weren't wearing 
body cameras. I go back to my original question: What were you 
trying to hide? We saw the video where you walked up, you put 
the tape on the doorbell, we know there were no lights on the 
foyer, and we have Ms. Malinowski who can testify to that, and 
we know you weren't wearing body cameras. What were you hiding?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, Mr. Chair, we're not hiding 
anything. With respect to the body-worn camera policy, the 
people there--
    Chair Jordan. Why, on the 12th, did you not go and search 
the home? You were all circled up ready to go, but you--a week 
before on the 12th of March you don't go. You went on the 19th. 
Why did you decide not to go on the 12th?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Mr. Chair, these operations--and by the 
way, we do about 11,000 operations each year. They're very 
dangerous operations. The ATF doesn't do anything that is not 
dangerous. Well, that's not quite true, but many of them are 
very, very dangerous. Those operations are handled by people 
with decades of law enforcement experience. They plan them--
    Chair Jordan. You have got to admit--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --they look at things, and--
    Chair Jordan. Director, you have got to admit this is a 
little unique. You got a citizen, the highest paid official in 
the municipal government, Little Rock, Arkansas, making 
$260,000 a year running the airport, no criminal background 
history, nothing, and he is dead at a pre-dawn raid when it 
sure looks like you could have served this search warrant when 
he wasn't there, but you decided not to. You decided to wait 
until he was home when you did it on March 19th. As a result, 
Mr. Malinowski is no longer with us.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, first, let me just say this, Mr. 
Chair. Obviously, any time that there's a loss of life that is 
a profound incident. Of course, on behalf of just myself, the 
ATF, and all law enforcement we are very sorry when those 
things happen. Also, an agent was shot that day. I'm sure you 
are sorry that occurred also.
    Chair Jordan. Of course.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Of course.
    Chair Jordan. All the more reason to follow the no-knock 
warrant--not to have a no-knock warrant take place and follow 
the rules.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Mr. Chair, as somebody who has worked with 
law enforcement for decades there's a great temptation when a 
horrible incident happens to prejudge. Sometimes people even 
try to use it to advance agendas. The cops who are in the field 
and the family whose--
    Chair Jordan. I just want the answers. My time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
Johnson, for five minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Dettelbach, thank you for your service. Many of my 
colleagues and I have been strong proponents and supporters of 
the use of body cameras and funding for those cameras. So, in 
some ways it's rather surprising to read that Chair Jordan 
recently criticized you; he just did it today, about body 
cameras and what happened to them, and why they were not being 
worn. Meanwhile, House Republican Appropriations Committee 
Chair Hal Rogers just last month criticized your budget request 
for its department-wide emphasis on equipping Federal agents 
with body cameras.
    Is there anything in response that you would like to say to 
Chair Jordan who supports the use of body cameras versus Chair 
Rogers, who want to defund the use of body cameras?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, it's not my position to get in the 
middle of two Chairs, but I will say this: Anybody, Chair 
Jordan or anybody--we've been implementing this policy for 
several years. Anybody who wants to support it I welcome to the 
effort and--
    Mr. Johnson. We need to fund it. Let me just move on 
because there has been allegations that this gentleman who we--
the Chair just discussed, Mr. Malinowski, suggesting that he 
was just a hobbyist. We call him an unlicensed gun dealer, but 
they say he was a hobbyist and a firearms enthusiast. In your 
opinion, is someone who buys and then almost immediately 
resells at least 150 firearms over a three-year period a 
hobbyist or an unlicensed gun dealer? Are they a hobbyist or an 
unlicensed gun dealer?
    Mr. Dettelbach. My opinion, your opinion, and others' 
opinions are not what counts. What counts is the Federal 
judge's opinion who reviewed the search warrant affidavit here 
and found probable cause that two separate Federal laws had 
been violated relating to unlawful firearms acquisition and 
dealing.
    In that affidavit, which is public, some of the things that 
are set forth are that Mr. Malinowski had not obtained a 
license, that he obtained about 150 firearms in the period 
prior to this incident, that he sold a good number of them, 
some one day after he had obtained them, that one of those 
firearms was found on the person of a 15-year-old Norteno gang 
member in California. Another was sold in the back seat of a 
car in Little Rock to a convicted robber. Others were found on 
a drug dealer in California, a kilo of marijuana, other drugs 
in the back, baggie, and scales consistent with distribution.
    So, respectfully, these are not victimless crimes and it is 
up to Congress and the judge to make that determination. Those 
agents were present pursuant to the terms of a Federally 
judicially approved warrant. The time they were there was 
approved.
    Mr. Johnson. Let me ask you this--
    Mr. Dettelbach. The day they were there was approved.
    Mr. Johnson. Let me ask you this: Do you have any idea how 
many unlicensed gun dealers just like Mr. Malinowski are 
operating in this country selling multiple, tens of hundreds of 
firearms yearly?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't.
    Mr. Johnson. Any idea?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We can get back to you with--we recently 
published a National Firearms Trafficking Report that talked 
about the fact that the percentage of people who are 
trafficking in this manner has now grown to be the number one 
way that people are unlawfully dealing firearms. So, 40 percent 
of all our criminal trafficking cases deal with the notion of 
people dealing--engaged in the business of dealing without a 
license. That has grown over time. It's growing.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Let me get this question in. Prior to your 
confirmation in 2022, there had been a seven-year lapse between 
confirmed ATF directors to the time when you were confirmed. 
During that seven-year period the crime rate and violent crime 
rate in the country went up and was going up. Then COVID hit 
which caused it to recede for a second. Then you were 
appointed. It is not a mere coincidence, that your appointment 
and confirmation has resulted in a decrease in crime and 
violent crime?
    Mr. Dettelbach. To me it's the men and women out in the 
field who are doing the work. I have the privilege to lead 
them, and I give all the credit to the brave ATF agents and 
police officers who are risking their lives. Thank you. Thank 
you for saying this, but it really is them who's doing the 
work.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, without leadership it is hard to get 
things done, and I thank you for your leadership.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I believe with us today--Ms. Malinowski, if you are out 
there, would you please stand? I would like to recognize you, 
Ms. Malinowski. First, name is Maer.
    Director, would you like to stand up and look at her and 
apologize?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I've already said, of course, whenever 
these things happen, it's a tragedy.
    Mr. Nehls. Yes.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Of course, we're sorry. Everybody is sorry 
that this occurred.
    Mr. Nehls. Yes, look at her. Don't look at me.
    Mr. Dettelbach. It doesn't mean that--I'm trying to also 
speak into the microphone. It doesn't mean that we can 
adjudicate this here today. There's an investigation going on. 
Of course, everybody feels bad. I'm sure that a Federal agent 
was shot, not shot at, shot that day. Those things are hard 
facts for all of us.
    Mr. Nehls. OK. All right. Thank you, Maer.
    First, I want to enter something into the record. Your 
testimony, you say guns are the leading cause of death for 
children in the U.S. Not according to Snopes. It is a far-left 
publication. It is traffic crashes.
    Could I have that entered into the record?
    Mr. Issa. [Presiding] Without objection.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you so very much.
    I was a sheriff, eight years, in law enforcement 30, 
conducted a lot of search warrants. My agency and I would not 
allow for no-knocks. Just didn't allow it, because what we have 
seen over the past several years. When you have these SWAT 
teams looking like ninjas coming to doors at 6:00 in the 
morning, it just could cause some problems. You stated in your 
testimony just a few minutes ago 11,000 of these a year. Very 
dangerous. Very dangerous. Done with very experienced agents, 
right? What policies do you have when you are going to execute 
search warrants, arrest warrants to mitigate risk? Mitigate 
risk.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes, so, Congressman, first, we do a very, 
very thorough job of training, which is of course, as you know 
as a Chair, very important. Second, we have operations 
planning. We have review of--
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you. Executing a search warrant pre-dawn, 
early in the morning, knowing people are going to be in bed, 
how does that mitigate risk, especially when you do it and it 
is a no-knock?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, Congressman, as a former sworn sheriff, 
I assume you would agree with me that police are entitled to 
due process also.
    Mr. Nehls. Well, I tell you what it appears to me is what I 
have seen from the Federal Government, whether it is the ATF or 
the FBI doing search warrants or arrest warrants on J6ers, 
going in there with flash-bangs, with the big BearCats--I had a 
BearCat; I know what it is--and having agents come out looking 
like they are ninja turtles for combat, I think not only are 
you scaring the hell out of the entire neighborhood, but when 
you kick down or break down a door, and you don't even announce 
who you are, what do you think is going to happen? This was Mr. 
Malinowski there trying to protect his family. He didn't know. 
If you had called him, sir, had a casual conversation--were you 
aware that he had no criminal history?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sheriff--
    Mr. Nehls. I just want to ask a question. Are you aware, 
did you know the gentleman had no criminal history, no prior--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Am I aware sitting here?
    Mr. Nehls. Yes, were you aware of it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. In firearms trafficking cases and people 
who are dealing without a license and buying 150 firearms--
    Mr. Nehls. I am sure there are a lot of bad hombres out 
there.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --they would not have a criminal--
    Mr. Nehls. I am trying to focus on Mr. Malinowski. Were you 
personally aware that he didn't have a criminal history?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I'm trying to answer the question 
directly.
    Mr. Nehls. Well, obviously it is quite clear you weren't. 
It is quite clear you weren't. I want to talk about mitigating 
risk. Were you aware--were your agents wearing body cameras 
that day?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I've tried to say this. I'd like the 
chance to answer this. The entire field division that covers 
Arkansas had not yet been phased in--
    Mr. Nehls. You have a budget. Try to convince the American 
people you don't have the do-re-mi to put body cameras on your 
agents that are conducting 11,000 warrants? These dangerous 
by--you have got 11,000 of them out there and you had a budget 
last year of $1.672 billion with a ``B.'' You are telling me 
``I am sorry, folks, I can't provide this transparency to 
American people. I can't because I don't have the budget to do 
so.'' The American people--there is a problem right now with 
law enforcement out there. I have the picture and the image of 
every law enforcement officer that has been killed in the past 
3\1/2\ years and there are way too many. There are way too many 
on my wall.
    Mr. Dettelbach. We agree.
    Mr. Nehls. So, we have body-worn cameras. Why do we do 
that? Because there is a lack of trust between the police and 
the communities they serve. So, when you provide these cameras 
there is no ``he said, she said.'' It is all on record. You 
didn't have your body cameras on that day? I am telling you it 
stinks to high heaven. I highly, highly recommend you cooperate 
with this Committee and you try to explain, other than this I 
don't have the money to do so and I am phasing it in. Buddy, 
you got to get your priorities--reshuffle your priorities and 
get your priorities in order. I highly recommend you get body 
cameras on every one of those individuals that are serving 
these warrants, because it seems like there is a cover up here. 
I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding] The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Correa, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding 
this most important hearing.
    Director Dettelbach, thank you for being here today.
    Ms. Malinowski, I just want to say prayers are with you, 
with your family in this very difficult moment. I hope beyond 
the heated debate that we are having here today we actually 
come up with better public policies to minimize the loss of 
life in these public safety enforcement actions.
    I also, Mr. Dettelbach, would like to know what it is going 
to take to get those body cameras out in the field? How fast 
can we do it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We have them across a third of the United 
States having received no program increase at all. We take 
them--we take that money, and we balance it with stopping gangs 
that are killing people, stopping cartels, as Chair Rogers 
point out with, that are the most dangerous organizations in 
the world, going after trigger pullers, homicide cases, and 
carjackings. So, we have made programmatic requests that are 
open to the public; 13 in 2023, 37.8 million--
    Mr. Correa. How fast can we get them out to the other two-
thirds that don't have body cameras?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Right. I'm saying we have a pending request 
for a programmatic increase of $37.8 million. It's the same 
request we made last year that was not given--
    Mr. Correa. How long do you think it is going to take to 
implement? How long will this take to implement?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Currently, with what we have now, without 
anything else, we will be implemented across the country by end 
of 2026. If there's more resources, we can try to speed that 
up. It's not just--
    Mr. Correa. I, as a Member of Congress, hope I am speaking 
for a few folks here, hope that we can expedite body cams being 
worn by our agents out there. This is an important issue. Love 
to work with you, however, we can make sure that happens.
    If I may, I am going to ask you my first question, which is 
how do you guys work with State, local, international agencies 
to protect your public?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman--
    Mr. Correa. You were out in Orange County recently, my part 
of the town.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I was. We have to recognize--worked with 
the Orange County Violent Crime Task Force, which is a great 
example of how we work shoulder to shoulder with a variety of 
local police departments. What we do is target the worst of the 
worst. There was a case out there I remember hearing about. It 
was a series of Hobbs Act robberies that resulted in the death 
and murder of clerks at 7-Elevens, I believe. That's a case 
where we partner with local law enforcement.
    The ATF has a little bit of a different way of doing this. 
If the most appropriate punishment is in the State court and 
it's murder, that's fine with us. We're not looking for 
necessarily only Federal cases. We look to do the case--
    Mr. Correa. Director, let me interrupt you. I have got a 
couple more questions here.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sure. Of course.
    Mr. Correa. August 22nd, I sent you a letter requesting 
your help, your partnership specifically on a gun buyback 
program, voluntary gun buyback program that we implemented in 
my district. Didn't get the support there. It is important 
because this is a program where citizens voluntarily show up, 
free market. Here is 200 bucks. Here is a weapon I had at home 
that I haven't touched in 40 years. Have you been working on 
those or what is it that we can do to get you to work with us 
on those very successful programs?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, with those programs--and I think of 
course, we value public safety, and we value State and local 
agencies' determinations of what protects them.
    With respect to gun buyback programs, that's usually a 
decision and a program run by the State and local agencies, not 
the Federal agencies.
    Mr. Correa. They need your help in executing those.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, sometimes agencies can and do apply 
for Byrne grant money that can support their comprehensive 
plans, but the ATF does not get involved in the actual 
operation of gun buyback programs. That is done by State and 
local authorities.
    Mr. Correa. We will talk some more later, but I do think 
these are important programs. You get guns off the street, guns 
that people don't want anymore. They would rather have $100-
$200 in their hand as opposed to a weapon. Cost-effective. 
Nobody gets hurt. We do need your help. It is local, but we 
need the ATF's database to make sure when those guns are 
brought back, we can run them through a database to see if they 
have been involved in any crimes, to make sure that those are 
guns that we can take off the street without destroying 
evidence. Go ahead, sir. I have got a few seconds.
    Mr. Dettelbach. No, Congressman, thank you. We will work 
with you. I commit to you that we will get back to you and your 
staff on that.
    Mr. Correa. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield the rest of my time.
    Mr. Issa. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman. I recognize 
myself now.
    Director, you accused a dead man of a crime of illegally 
selling in the backseat a weapon. Would I hear that correctly?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, what I did was talked about 
the public search warrant affidavit that was filed and approved 
by the judge.
    Mr. Issa. No, no, I understand, you are standing by your 
search warrant. You are standing by the fact that in the search 
warrant, you are alleging that he had committed a crime. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Chair, respectfully, I was making the point 
that a Federal magistrate--
    Mr. Issa. No, no, you are not being respectful. Answer the 
question. The question is, did you allege that he had committed 
a Felony, a crime, in your affidavit?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The judge did find that.
    Mr. Issa. OK, I will take that as the judge found it 
because you alleged it. So, you alleged a crime, but you didn't 
seek to arrest him, did you?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again?
    Mr. Issa. Did you have an arrest warrant for Mr. 
Malinowski--
    Mr. Dettelbach. My understanding--
    Mr. Issa. That is a yes or no, Director.
    Mr. Dettelbach. My understanding is that there was not an 
arrest warrant. I don't have the full investigative file, but 
that is my understanding.
    Mr. Issa. You came here, you knew we were going to ask, you 
saw yesterday. Now, you are playing one of the games that the 
Chair and I didn't like during Fast and Furious, we don't like 
it now. If you want to be back here again because you can't 
seem to know what you should know, what Ms. Malinowski deserves 
to know.
    If some group of ten carloads of people showed up and 
kicked in a door in the dark of night, and somebody came and 
shot at them, we wouldn't be talking about somebody getting 
shot in the toe, we would be talking exclusively about a 
planned murder of somebody, who may or may not be armed, but 
who had every right to have weapons in their home, an 
expectation they had weapons in their home, an expectation that 
they might use it.
    All of that you don't have to be ATF to know. So, let's get 
back on track here again. If you had a belief that he had 
committed a crime, and if your intent was to arrest him, then 
that would explain why a week earlier, you have called off an 
already authorized search because you were only going to search 
for the weapons, you weren't going to search for him. Isn't 
that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, Mr. Chair, I am not able and 
will not, it is not fair to do this during the pendency of a 
criminal investigation.
    Mr. Issa. No, no, look, it is always--I am sorry, but the 
DOJ and you guys, it is always, you can go on forever. Hunter 
Biden is over, why didn't you do a no-knock on him at his home 
with the Vice President?
    Mr. Dettelbach. To be clear, this isn't our investigation. 
We and the Little Rock Police asked for an outside 
investigation be conducted by the Arkansas State Police. It is 
their investigation. The District Attorney is going to review 
that.
    Mr. Issa. I hope they appropriately find that in spite of 
qualified immunity, that you blew it badly enough that, in 
fact, criminal charges should be considered.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I hope they just find whatever the truth 
is.
    Mr. Issa. What is the--what is the penalty for the crime 
alleged on the affidavit, for selling a weapon not as a 
licensed dealer? What is the penalty?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Oh, my Lord, Mr. Chair, I believe it is a 
10-year felony. There are two different crimes. Those might be 
a five-year and a 10-year felony.
    Mr. Issa. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I want to get back to you to make sure. 
There is a series of statutes that run all in a row there. I 
want to make sure I am not mixing up the statutes.
    Mr. Issa. It is five years, or it is 10 years. It is not a 
death penalty, is that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There is not a death penalty for that 
statute, no.
    Mr. Issa. OK, so Mr. Malinowski was not in any danger of 
being executed for what he is alleged to have done and no 
longer can defend himself because he is dead. He was killed 
doing what any normal citizen does when people enter their home 
in the dark of night and they don't know who they are.
    If you had body cameras, maybe Ms. Malinowski didn't hear 
right. Maybe you said ``Police,'' and identified yourself. 
Maybe he said, ``I don't care,'' and maybe he fired the shots. 
I don't believe that, and I don't think you do either.
    I believe he had every real belief that he was defending 
his wife and family. He fired warning shots. A ricochet hit a 
police officer or an ATF agent, and you killed him. Those are 
the facts.
    I have been investigating ATF for many years, and the ATF 
agents have, rightfully so, and with great trepidation I am 
sure, come forth and been our whistleblowers.
    We have consistently seen there are two ATFs: The one we 
need and want and deserve, and the one that plays fast and 
loose, like ten cars going in deliberately with a warrant that 
did not entitle an arrest. When in fact if you wanted to arrest 
him, it would have been reasonable to arrest him at work and 
simultaneously go into his home.
    If you had done that, he would be alive today and we would 
be talking about other things, including whether you acted 
legally.
    With that, I yield back and recognize Ms. Scanlon for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director, for 
your testimony here today.
    The Ranking Member mentioned that every single day 120 
Americans are shot and killed, and more than 200 are wounded 
with gunfire. Those numbers are statistics; everyone is an 
American with a family, neighbors, and friends.
    Yesterday morning at 8:30 a.m., a gunman killed two people 
and injured three others are a small, family owned business in 
Chester, Pennsylvania, right down the street from my office. 
Five people were shot, their coworkers and community were 
traumatized, just for showing up at work in the morning.
    This unrelenting, unnecessary daily toll of gun violence is 
hitting families in every corner of every community across our 
country. Yesterday, it happened in Chester, a post-industrial 
city that straddles Interstate 95, which is known in law 
enforcement as the Iron Pipeline because it is the route that 
gun traffickers regularly use to smuggle weapons from States 
with weak gun laws to States with stricter ones.
    The senseless violence is outrageous, but it is not 
inevitable. There are things we can do. This violence is 
enabled by lawmakers who choose to do nothing, who block 
legislation in the wake of tragedy after tragedy, while the 
American people are crying out for real action.
    Whenever Democrats try to explore how Congress can act to 
stem this uniquely American carnage, our Republican colleagues 
say the solution is to enforce the laws that are already on the 
books. Here we are once again in a hearing in which Republicans 
are attacking the ATF, the law enforcement agency charged with 
primary responsibility for enforcing gun safety laws across our 
country.
    It comes while our Republican colleagues have bills to 
abolish the ATF and have succeeded in getting cuts to its 
budget.
    So, Director Dettelbach, I want to turn our focus to what 
might be real solutions and your agency's role in helping to 
implement them. You spoke in your testimony about a 1,000 
percent increase in ghost guns linked to crimes over the past 
five years.
    Whenever I speak to our local law enforcement, including 
last night, they talk to me about how worried they are about 
the rapid proliferation of ghost guns. Ghost gun recoveries 
increased by over 400 percent in Philadelphia between 2019-
2021.
    Our Delaware County Police busted a gun trafficker who was 
building and testing ghost guns in an apartment across the 
street from our county courthouse. Our Montgomery County Police 
recently busted a whole ghost gun trafficking ring.
    These fully functioning, untraceable firearms can be bought 
without a background check. They can be ordered online, and in 
less than an hour become a firearm as deadly as any sold by a 
gun dealer. That is why they have become, as you noted, the 
weapon of choice for people who might be otherwise barred from 
purchasing a gun for criminals.
    So, am I correct that ghost guns look like regular guns and 
shoot like regular guns and kill like regular guns?
    Mr. Dettelbach. You are.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. Now, can you explain why they are posing 
such a danger to the American public, and why the ATF 
determined it was necessary to issue a rule amending the 
definition of frame or receiver to ensure that ghost guns are 
treated like other equally lethal firearms under our laws?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congresswoman, the reason is as you said, 
under our laws. Under the Gun Control Act, Congress 
specifically provided that items that were readily convertible 
to being operable firearms should be treated as firearms. The 
market was out there producing items that were readily 
convertible, and they were being sold without background 
checks.
    I actually, I did myself, I took one of these kits and put 
the gun together. My spouse will tell you I don't--I am not 
that handy around the house. It was very easy for me to make a 
firearm, take it to the range, and fire it.
    These are firearms that shoot and would kill, like firearms 
that are sold in the traditional manner. Congress anticipated 
that problem. The market changed, and we issued a rule to make 
sure that Congress's statute was appropriately enforced.
    Ms. Scanlon. We appreciate that, given the constant 
innovation that we see from gun manufacturers and those who 
seek to evade the existing laws. If we were to wait for 
Congress to catch up all the time, we would be in a lot of 
trouble.
    Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a letter from the ATF's Acting Deputy Assistant Director 
for Public and Governmental Affairs, in which he responded to 
your letter regarding the execution of the search warrant on 
Mr. Malinowski's residence and about the ATF's compliance with 
DOJ's body-worn camera policy.
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding] Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. Just so you are aware of which letter it 
is, it is the one from May 21st, that responded to your 
request, which you referenced earlier.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. It discusses the funding necessary.
    Chair Jordan. Got it.
    Ms. Scanlon. Got it. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman 
from Florida is recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So, the ATF has a final rule. I think the comments and the 
rule itself accumulate to about 466 pages that define who is 
engaged in the business of firearms dealing.
    So, how many firearms does someone have to see to be 
engaged in the business of firearm dealing?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, as you know, that matter is 
being litigated in several courts. So, sticking to what is 
already in the public record, the rule itself is 16 pages, 
skipping lines. There is about, as you say, over 400 pages of 
explanation.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes.
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, there are factors that are conduct-
based, not numerical-based but conduct-based. There is also, we 
received many comments. One of the comments that we received 
was from I think Senator Cornyn, who expressed a view that 
there was no numerical threshold. Others had a different view.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, yes, in the House Judiciary Committee we 
probably won't look to Senator Cornyn as the oracle of all 
things gun rights. So, you are saying there really is no 
number.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am saying that Congress--our job is to 
implement the statute that Congress writes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, yes, no, but just like for a regular 
person--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress didn't put--
    Mr. Gaetz. For a regular person that one or another 
acquires guns, and they are trying to figure out how many of 
these guns do I sell before I have to register as a dealer. 
What you are saying is there is no bright line there.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am saying that there is now more 
information than ever in the form of that rule for specific 
conduct-based--
    Mr. Gaetz. No, just for a regular person, more information 
than ever is probably less helpful than if you sell three guns, 
you are not a dealer, and if you sell four guns, then you are a 
dealer, right. This rule that you guys have drafted, it is 
currently enjoined, right? It has no effect?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There are three cases that I know of, maybe 
more going on now. One of the judges has issued equitable 
relief.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, in Texas, a judge has stopped the 
implementation of this law for three reasons.
    First, that there is no minimum requirement. The court has 
found, this court in Texas, that you are just giving effect and 
life to Congress' statutes.
    Second, you have in fact exceeded your authority. Because 
Congress would have never allowed some sort of sliding scale 
where 16 pages of single spaced whatever determines whether or 
not you are a firearm dealer, not how many guns you sell.
    Third, that the court in Texas said that this would not 
have an effect, and it is that actual profit is not a 
requirement of the statute, only the predominant intent for 
profit.
    How do you understand that ruling?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, that is in litigation. The 
Department of Justice's position on each and every one of these 
matters is public, it is laid out in many, many pages of 
briefing. So, I would ask people to look at our briefs that we 
filed in the court. I would commend your attention to that.
    Mr. Gaetz. If just someone is just trying to figure out 
whether or not they have to get a Federal license or be subject 
to your guys breaking their doors down and potentially killing 
them, you would think that you would want that to be easily 
understandable.
    Here, even if someone isn't turning a profit but they might 
want to turn a profit, they could be subject to this 
regulation, and the court found that troubling.
    The third reason the court identified is that your rule 
doesn't just give meaning to Congress' statute, but that 
``arbitrarily eviscerates the safe harbor provision.'' So, 
there is a safe harbor provision in this law that says if you 
are just engaged in the occasional sale or exchange or purchase 
of a firearm for a personal collection or a hobby, that this 
wouldn't, this regulatory structure wouldn't affect you.
    What the court is saying here in blocking your rule is that 
you have eviscerated the safe harbor that exists for the 
hobbyist. Do you have a reaction to that ruling?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, yes. Our position is not that, but 
it is under litigation. We have filed extensively--
    Mr. Gaetz. Here we are; make your argument. They are 
sitting here in court trying to figure out what Congress means. 
What we are saying is there should definitely be a bright line 
in terms of guns. You shouldn't have to have this pondering 
question about profit motive, and you shouldn't eviscerate the 
safe harbor. That is what we are saying.
    So, what is your argument as to why the safe harbor should 
be eviscerated?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Our argument is to look at the statute that 
Congress wrote. The statute that Congress wrote, and I just 
want to make clear that people understand this, there was an 
earlier comment about the word ``livelihood.'' That is not in 
the law anymore that Congress wrote. Congress took that out of 
the law, it doesn't exist anymore.
    So, we start with that statute. That is where things always 
begin and end--
    Mr. Gaetz. I know you started with the statute, but what 
this court is saying is that you have exceeded the statute. You 
have done it in a way that eviscerates the safe harbor, that 
blurs the lines, and that creates no discernable way for people 
to comply with law.
    The reason I think you guys are doing that is you want to 
make it more difficult for people to engage in the legal, 
lawful, and constitutionally contemplated manner to transfer 
firearms. You are trying to criminalize an entire enterprise. 
That is why you see us trying to curtail some of your funding 
and your authority.
    I see my time is expired, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Georgia is recognized.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair.
    Thank you, Director Dettelbach, thank you for coming before 
the Judiciary Committee again. I really appreciate it. I know 
that the work that you do really saves lives, I know that. It 
protects our communities and helps many of us sleep a little 
bit better at night, and me in particular.
    I for one, as well as many of my colleagues here, we do 
truly understand that the ATF plays a pivotal role in 
preventing gun violence by removing gun traffickers from our 
neighborhoods, ensuring that only lawful and abiding gun owners 
can purchase firearms, and assisting law enforcement at every 
level in solving gun crimes.
    This Committee has many field hearings on victims of 
violent crimes. Well, it is the ATF's job to do so, to do that 
very thing, to bring our perpetrators to--that are violent 
crimes, to bring them to justice.
    The most logical thing for us to do today is find ways to 
support you, to support the ATF's mission to reduce violent gun 
crimes. We should not defund, or we should not abolish the ATF, 
the very agency that is actually eliminating any semblance of 
need for a victims of violent crime hearing anywhere in this 
country.
    Today, we need to hear from you, Director, if you can just 
tell us, and we need to find out from you, how we can actually 
assist you and support the ATF and its mission to reduce 
illegal firearm use and purchases, eliminate firearm threats, 
and protect our families, friends, and fellow Americans.
    Director Dettelbach, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, 
the most significant gun safety legislation that we have had in 
almost 30 years, has made tremendous progress. I have been 
monitoring the progress of this package of work in eliminating 
gun violence as a public health crisis.
    The initiatives that have been set forth in this law 
include parts of my plan for the implementation of extreme risk 
protection orders, those programs. Also, laws that ensure that 
firearms are not in the hands of those in court who have been 
found through the due process to be a danger to themselves or 
to the community.
    Then, also, funding for community violence interventions in 
that package of work as well, and working to close the gun show 
loophole.
    My colleagues, Director Dettelbach, have touched on how the 
ATF cuts have affected State and local law enforcement. Would 
you like to expand on that for us? Because this is really 
important, critical information that the country really needs 
to hear.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Protecting Americans from violent crime is 
at the core of everything we do at the ATF. That means that so 
many of our strategies and resources depend on supporting local 
law enforcement. Sheriffs' departments, police departments, and 
State police, I go and meet with those folks everywhere I go 
all the time.
    The things that we do help them to close homicide cases, 
arrest gang members, get carjackers in Philadelphia off the 
street. Stop the outhbound flow of firearms through our nine 
trafficking strike forces on the border to the cartels that 
present a danger to public safety in all those towns for all 
those sheriffs across the border.
    We do all those things every day. On top of it, our CGICs 
and our Crime Gun Intelligence Centers, which are being put up 
all over the country, are places where local, State, and 
Federal agents sit together, often with prosecutors, and 
evaluate violent crime cases in real time, so that the next 
morning we can be out on the streets investigating the most 
violent people.
    Budget cuts make all that less and harder. Everybody wants 
a CGIC. We can't give everybody a CGIC because we don't have 
enough money for that. If we cut more money, we are cutting 
those Crime Gun Intelligence Centers that lead to operations 
that day, the next day, or the next week that get violent 
criminals off the street.
    Ms. McBath. So, am I correct in understanding that you need 
full support and funding of the ATF?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes, not just me, the agents who are out 
there risking their lives need and deserve that support.
    Ms. McBath. Might I say, being a mother who lost her son to 
gun violence, I will tell you that law enforcement worked very 
hard on our behalf. I know they do this work every single day. 
I am just really grateful for the ATF. I am grateful for the 
law enforcement.
    I am grateful for those that are on the front lines every 
single day doing everything that you express. Because it is 
vital, it is necessary, and this is a public health crisis. 
Thank you for the work that you are doing and all the agents 
and people that work with you to keep our communities safe.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman 
from Arizona is recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Director, have you ever been a cop?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Excuse me?
    Mr. Biggs. Have you ever been a cop?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I have not been a police officer. I was a 
prosecutor.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, so you don't have decades of law 
enforcement experience, but you said you worked with law 
enforcement, right? That is fair to say, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I was a prosecutor for over 20 years in 
five different offices.
    Mr. Biggs. You worked with law enforcement, you weren't law 
enforcement. So, is it common for the ATF to turn off the power 
to a location prior to executing a search warrant?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Is it common for us to do that?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I do not believe it is a common thing that 
we do.
    Mr. Biggs. You are the Director. You either know it is 
common or you don't know whether it is common.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I thought I answered the question, I am 
sorry.
    Mr. Biggs. Is it common?
    Mr. Dettelbach. My understanding is it is not common. I 
want to be very careful to say I am not commenting on any case. 
Because I am not sure, until the facts come in--
    Mr. Biggs. Did I ask you about a specific case, sir? I did 
not, did I? I asked you about policy. You just said it is not 
common.
    Next, does the ATF use RF frequency jamming technology to 
prevent the internet and cellphones from working--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sir, sir, I am sorry.
    Mr. Biggs. Does the ATF use RF frequency jamming technology 
to prevent the internet and cellphones from working during the 
execution of a search warrant?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I am not going to sit here, and I 
guess I maybe should have said this before, and comment on that 
tactics that we use when we go into dangerous places, because 
it provides a blueprint for criminals to hurt us.
    Mr. Biggs. So, let's get this straight then. You told us 
you won't answer anything specifically about a case. Now, you 
are saying you are not going to tell us generically.
    Mr. Dettelbach. We could--maybe we can contact your staff 
in a private setting and have a conversation instead of 
broadcasting for all the criminals what--
    Mr. Biggs. Does the ATF use dynamic entry as their means 
for entry during the execution of a search warrant?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again--
    Mr. Biggs. Does the ATF still use dynamic entry as their 
means for entry during the execution of a search warrant?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I don't think it is appropriate. We 
can communicate with you on these kinds of training issues. I 
just don't want to give a public blueprint for people tomorrow 
and the next day who are going to be facing law enforcement 
through the door to know how we are coming, what we are doing.
    Mr. Biggs. Do you assess pattern of life as part of risk 
assessment conducted prior to executing a search warrant? Can 
you answer that one?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think that is far enough afield that I 
could say depending on the case, we can assess pattern of life 
at times, of course. Depends on the case, right? Some cases it 
is appropriate, some cases it is not.
    These are careers--I don't do this, right. The career law 
enforcement people, as you pointed out, do this with decades of 
experience. I don't armchair quarterback them either.
    Mr. Biggs. Here is the deal: You are the Director, and I 
would expect that you would know what the policy is. It looks 
to me, you have convinced me that maybe Mr. Nehls was right. I 
am not sure that I thought he was right.
    You didn't want to tell us specifically about the 
Malinowski case. I got that. I think it is wrong, I think it is 
a false narrative. Then when we start asking you, I start 
asking you about policies, generic policies, now all of the 
sudden you don't want to answer those.
    So, when you coordinate with local law enforcement prior--
you do coordinate with local law enforcement prior to the 
execution of a search warrant.
    Mr. Dettelbach. In most cases, yes. Certainly, most of our 
cases we are doing shoulder to shoulder with law enforcement 
and local--
    Mr. Biggs. These are yes-or-no questions. Thank you for 
answering yes. Is it the ATF's practice to instruct law 
enforcement partners to turn off their body cameras when 
participating in search warrants with the ATF?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The ATF's written policies that are in our 
MOUs is that if a local law enforcement agency has a body-worn 
camera policy and we are going on one of these short-term 
operations, they are entitled to follow their own policy if 
they wish. That is in black and white.
    Mr. Biggs. Can you tell us the difference on how the ATF 
would handle a search warrant on a violent felon versus an 
individual who allegedly sold a few firearms without a license? 
Is there a distinction in your mind? Is that in your ATF's 
approach?
    Mr. Dettelbach. In every case, we do risk assessment, and 
it is dependent on all the facts and circumstances of any 
particular matter. So, in every case we do it, but you can't 
boil it down to one or two things. It is a risk assessment that 
experts who are risking their lives conduct.
    Mr. Biggs. How does the ATF balance the need for 
operational security and the need for safety to the public?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We have to do--you are asking about 
balancing. I think you said operational security. We have to 
keep the public safe, that is obviously paramount. Police 
officers are entitled to go home alive at the end of their 
shift also. We also have to make sure that we are doing that as 
well, you have to do both.
    Mr. Biggs. So, you didn't answer the question. The question 
presupposed exactly what you just said. We know that you have 
to balance it. How do you balance it? That is the question, how 
do you balance it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The answer is both are paramount, and we 
have to do both in each operation. I will tell you this: There 
is no such thing for a police officer as no risk. They sign up, 
we sign up, and the agents sign up to risk their lives. They 
often go into very dangerous situations to do that.
    So, there is no way to mitigate all their risk, sometimes 
very dangerous risk, from any operation.
    Mr. Biggs. We understand that, and we appreciate that. Now, 
I have to say that you didn't Mr. Massie's and my letter, our 
letters to you. I am hoping that you said you are going to give 
us additional responses to the questions I have asked you 
today. I would anticipate that you would give more fulsome 
answers than you gave us regarding the bomb, pipe bombing 
issue.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Washington is recognized.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Dettelbach, thank you for being here. One major 
cause of migration into the United States is instability and 
violence in parts of Central America, which is partly fueled by 
the flow of firearms from the United States into Mexico, 
Central America, and the Caribbean.
    The ATF reported than more than half of crime guns 
recovered in Central America, 70 percent of crime guns in 
Mexico, and 80 percent of crime guns in Caribbean countries are 
sourced from the United States, fueling instability and 
migration.
    My Republican colleagues have refused to support 
commonsense gun safety legislation that would fight the flow of 
American guns across the Southern border and help address the 
root causes of migration. Instead, House Republicans have 
continued to criticize the Bureau, undermine resources to allow 
officers to do their jobs, and oppose commonsense gun safety 
legislation at almost every turn.
    Could you describe any recent or current trends that the 
ATF has found regarding the flow of firearms from the United 
States into Mexico and Central America?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, the ATF's job obviously includes 
firearms trafficking. One of the types of firearms we are 
seeing, right, there is domestic firearms trafficking that goes 
to California, New York, and places all over the country. There 
is also Southbound firearms trafficking.
    It is accurate to say, and we shouldn't be reticent to say 
it, it is the truth, that our firearms that are going across 
the border Southbound are helping to arm the cartels.
    Ms. Jayapal. That is right.
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, what do see? We have nine task forces 
that are Southbound task forces set up along the border. They 
work with State and local law enforcement, they work with the 
DHS.
    We have the opposite problem, right. Other people are 
trying to stop things from coming North, we are focused on 
stopping firearms trafficking going South. They are related 
sometimes.
    Congresswoman, what we see is that criminal organizations, 
including the cartels, are using our freedoms against us.
    So, they are developing straw purchasing networks, for 
instance, where they are going into firearms stores and sending 
somebody in there without a record, paying them a small amount 
of money, and getting them to buy large, military-grade 
weapons, 1950s that can be easily converted to machine guns 
down South. Paying in cash and doing it over and over and over 
again.
    So, what are we doing? We are working with firearms 
licensees across the Southwest border and now increasingly 
elsewhere. Because the cartels adapt, right? One of the things 
you asked about trends, they are going elsewhere now, not just 
on the Southwest border. They are going to other States to try 
to arm themselves.
    So, these are disturbing trends. These are very 
sophisticated and vicious organizations. The ATF and our 
partners are doing everything we can. Interdictions, Southbound 
interdictions, are up in double digits year over year. We are 
very proud of that.
    We should not fool ourselves that the problem is solved. 
These are very wealthy, aggressive, and violent entities.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. When you were here last year, we 
discussed your partnership with State and local law enforcement 
to implement the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, 
which Congress included in the 2022 Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act.
    You have spoken about some elements, but could you provide 
any other additional update on your extensive efforts to 
implement that legislation?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes. So, there were two separate criminal 
statutes that Congress created. One of them was a straw 
purchasing statute, first ever. The other is a trafficking 
statute. Both have been exceedingly useful, both in individual 
cases of firearms trafficking, and in larger organizational 
efforts with respect to cartels and criminal organizations all 
over the country.
    So, these are tools that we continue to use. We continue to 
work with the U.S. Attorneys community in appropriate cases to 
get appropriate punishments in those matters. There are new 
statutes.
    Again, as I said, what I explain to everybody and what we 
explain to judges is that firearms trafficking is not a 
victimless crime. We don't see the victim in front of us, but 
so often the firearms, 60 percent of those trafficked firearms 
are going to felons and prohibited people. They are using to 
hurt innocent, law-abiding Americans.
    That is what we have to do to implement, we have to make 
people understand that the distributors are also responsible if 
they are breaking the law.
    Ms. Jayapal. Just quickly, many of the guns recovered from 
crime scenes South of the border are bought legally in the 
United States. How can we stop that from happening, and what 
resources do you need from Congress?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, when a firearm is purchased legally 
in the United States and it crosses the border, that is a 
little bit different, right. That is a situation where those 
whose full-time job it is to police the border are probably the 
lead. At the ATF, what we do is try to focus on illegal 
activity, the black market in firearms.
    Now, it is a little bit ambiguous, Congresswoman, because 
of course something can look like a legal sale, but it is 
really a straw purchaser.
    Ms. Jayapal. Right.
    Mr. Dettelbach. This why when somebody walks into a store 
who doesn't even know really what to ask for, plunks down 
$12,552 in cash and they are 20 miles from the border, and 
there is somebody waiting outside in the parking lot for them 
that dropped them off, that we depend on so many firearms 
dealers to figure out a way to pick up the phone and help us. 
They do quite often.
    Then what happens is the cartels look for the one that 
won't do that, right. So, we have to get the word out to a 
minority of dealers, the majority are trying to do the right 
thing. The minority of dealers, because the enemy, the cartels, 
are seeking them out to try to find weak links.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman 
from California is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Dettelbach, I am just curious, have you 
expressed remorse to Mr. Malinowski's widow and family?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am sorry?
    Mr. McClintock. Have you expressed remorse to Mr. Malinow-
ski's widow--
    Mr. Dettelbach. I will now, and I have before this morning, 
yes.
    Mr. McClintock. What have you said to them?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, I said it here in open forum, but 
what I said was of course--
    Mr. McClintock. What have you said to them personally? Have 
you talked to them personally?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am sorry?
    Mr. McClintock. Have you talked to them personally, have 
you expressed your sympathy to them personally?
    Mr. Ivey. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. McClintock. Do you just make public statements and 
issue press releases?
    Mr. Ivey. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. McClintock. No. Answer the question, please.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes.
    Mr. Ivey. He just did it.
    Mr. McClintock. All right, thank you. Did you know about 
this raid in advance?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We do 11,000 operations a year, and I 
believe--
    Mr. McClintock. Did you know about this one?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That--and it would be--
    Mr. McClintock. Did you know about this one, Mr. 
Dettelbach, yes or no?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe the first when I heard about this 
matter was after the fact.
    Mr. McClintock. Who have you disciplined, what have you 
done?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sorry? What have we done--
    Mr. McClintock. What have you done in response to this?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We went together with the Little Rock 
Police, who were also present, we went, and we requested an 
outside agency to do an independent investigation. We fully 
cooperated with that investigation. That investigation, my 
understanding is the file has now been turned over.
    Mr. McClintock. I think this Committee is going to want to 
look into this matter in much greater detail. I need to press 
on.
    Let me just ask you a general question: What do you think 
is the purpose of the Second Amendment?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Like all the amendments, the purpose of the 
Second Amendment is to protect fundamental rights of Americans.
    Mr. McClintock. You believe that a fundamental right of 
America includes the right to bear arms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe that all the rights in the Bill 
of Rights are important and fundamental rights, including the 
Second Amendment.
    Mr. McClintock. Right. In the second half of 2021, only 34 
inspections lead to a firearms dealer having their license 
revoked. However, the number of qualifying violations 
dramatically increased to 252 in 2022, and jumped again to 407 
in 2023.
    Now, either there has been an exponential increase in 
crooked firearms dealers since Biden took over, or there has 
been an exponential increase in zealotry by your agency. I 
assume you would say it is the latter.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The laws that Congress has passed and have 
been in effect say that willful violators of the Gun Control 
Act are subject to, they may have their licenses revoked.
    Mr. McClintock. We have seen an exponential increase, I 
mean just off the charts, since you took office. That seems to 
coincide with a dramatic reduction in people willing to legally 
expose themselves to predawn raids on their homes. The number 
of voluntary business closures post-inspection has risen 
sharply, from 24 in 2021, to 69 in 2022, and to 80 in 2023.
    Now, this tells me that this is a deliberate policy to 
drive firearms dealers out of the business, not only with a 
reign of legal terror, but in the case of Mr. Malinowski, the 
actual reign of physical terror as well.
    Now, I know you are not going to agree with that, but can 
you at least see how that appears to others?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, I disagree. The enhanced 
enforcement policy, which is publicly available, the terms of 
it, State very clearly that we are not talking about paperwork 
violations. We are talking about willful violations that impact 
on public safety, like refusing to run a background check, 
selling to a felon, not responding--
    Mr. McClintock. That is not--what we are seeing--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sorry.
    Mr. McClintock. Is an exponential increase in actions 
against dealers, followed by an exponential increase in dealers 
just saying this isn't worth the legal exposure, I am out of 
here. What is involved in getting a Federal firearms license?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There is a process to get a license, right. 
You fill out an application. You pay a $200 fee. There is a 
compliance inspection, or not a compliance inspection, an 
application inspection that goes on.
    Like, just like inspections in the process, for a 
revocation for a compliance matter, there is ample due process. 
There are hearings that go on--
    Mr. McClintock. OK, no, I understand--
    Mr. Dettelbach. In our own hearings--sorry.
    Mr. McClintock. It is a fairly lengthy process. Now, your 
agency's rule says, ``that even a single transaction or offer 
to engage in a transaction''--or offer to engage in a 
transaction--``with combined with other evidence may be 
sufficient to require a license as a FFL.'' What does that 
mean?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That is, that is one sentence out of a 16-
page rule.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, what does that say?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The rule says--this is a matter before the 
courts. Our positions on all these things are, and pages and 
pages of briefs that it would take far too long and I know you 
have time limits. I refer to those briefs. That is not a 
secret.
    What I would say to you is it says in black and white, 
things that might lead to a determination under the totality of 
circumstances that somebody is engaged in the business, and 
things that don't.
    Mr. McClintock. So, if somebody admires my gun collection 
and I say you want to buy it, would that require an FFL?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There is a specific provision that Congress 
has passed that says that people who are bona fide collectors 
can liquidate their collections without becoming a licensee.
    Mr. McClintock. That is not what this rule--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Of course, you would have--and I think that 
is what you described. You would have to look at, obviously, 
the whole--
    Mr. McClintock. That is not what your new rule says.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, I disagree. It says in black 
and white that this is allowed.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    Director, you have been at it, we have been at it an hour 
and 45 minutes. It is just, recognize that if you need a break, 
just let us know and we will be happy to take a break. If not, 
if you are willing, we will keep going.
    Before I recognize the gentleman from California, you were 
getting ready to say you had an outside investigation and you 
turned it over to, and you didn't say who that it has been 
turned over to.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Oh, they, I believe they publicly 
announced, the Arkansas State Police, that they turned over 
their investigative file to the 6th District Prosecutor's 
Office. It is Pulaski County, Arkansas, the State prosecutors.
    I believe this is all public. I haven't had contact with 
them because I want to make sure that it is independent, right?
    Chair Jordan. Yes.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe that they are reviewing it.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. That part, I think we know they are 
reviewing it.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Swalwell. Director, welcome. I want to thank you and 
the brave men and women in law enforcement who serve your 
agency every day. I have got some questions for you in a 
moment.
    There is something that is imminent and I am concerned 
about, because it just put a target on the back of everybody in 
law enforcement at the Federal level and the local level. That 
is a statement that one of our colleagues made earlier this 
week.
    We have jurisdiction over the FBI, as well as the ATF. 
Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said, ``The Biden DOJ and FBI 
were planning to assassinate Pres Trump and gave the green 
light.'' Does everyone get it yet? What are Republicans going 
to do about it?
    This is quite a concerning statement from an elected Member 
of Congress, because this false statement creates the pretext 
for violence.
    It suggests to Americans, who by the way are armed to the 
teeth, we are the country where the most dangerous people have 
access to the most dangerous weapons, and it suggests to them 
that their own government and the people who wear the badge are 
out to assassinate the former President.
    I just want to first clear up this falsity. The FBI this 
week has issued a statement to do that.
    First and foremost, the search at Mar-a-Lago, the former 
President was not there. That was intentional. So, if there was 
an effort to assassinate the former President, they went at a 
time when he was not there.
    Second, the former President was actually treated better 
than most people during a raid because the FBI didn't go in 
with their raid jackets, they wore polo shirts to show a little 
bit of respect for the former President and not make it a raid-
like environment.
    Third, standard use-of-force procedures were followed 
during that search, as they were followed in every search.
    Fourth, the same search procedures and use-of-force policy 
that was used to retrieve documents at President Biden's 
Delaware residence.
    This is a pretext for violence. I will yield to any of my 
colleagues who will join me in condemning it. I will yield to 
any colleague who will condemn the suggestion by Marjorie 
Taylor Greene that the FBI was out to assassinate former 
President Trump. Please, condemn it. Because if you don't, you 
are encouraging it.
    Mr. McClintock. Of course--
    Mr. Swalwell. You are consigning it. Mr. McClintock, 
please.
    Mr. McClintock. Of course we do. What a ridiculous 
question.
    Mr. Swalwell. What a ridiculous statement that she made.
    Mr. McClintock. I agree with you.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    Mr. McClintock. I don't think there is anyone here who 
agrees with it.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    Mr. McClintock. Both sides have a lunatic fringe in their 
movement, ours and yours. Frankly, I find yours far more 
frightening because--
    Mr. Swalwell. I have never heard somebody suggest that we 
were trying to--that the FBI was trying to assassinate a former 
President. I do appreciate, Mr. McClintock, that you will be 
condemning it. I would welcome anyone else who would condemn 
that. We will make this clear when the Attorney General 
testifies.
    Mr. McClintock. I would also, however, condemn the 
instructions--
    Mr. Swalwell. Reclaiming my time--reclaiming my time--
    Mr. McClintock. In such an operation--
    Mr. Swalwell. Reclaiming my time--
    Mr. McClintock. On conducting such an operation at all.
    Mr. Swalwell. Director--reclaiming my time. Director, the 
former President stated last week at an NRA convention that 
every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will 
be terminated on my first week in office, perhaps my first day.
    I have a seven-year-old, a five-year-old, and a two-year-
old. What does this mean for parents in America as it relates 
to whether our kids are going to be sheltering in place and 
hiding under their desks for the rest of their time at school, 
if this was to happen?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, I can't and won't get involved 
in electoral politics. What I said in my opening statement, 
though, I think hopefully people from all sides of questions 
can agree on, which is we see progress being made. We see 
violent crime going down.
    We have a strategy that appears to be working. My hope is 
that we can all come together, and maybe there are policy 
disagreements on different things. We can all come together, 
though, on the fact that we are driving down violent crime all 
over this country and double down on the strategies that are 
working.
    That is my hope. The things that are working, let's stick 
with. Because the numbers show that real lives are being saved.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin is recognized.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Is violent crime going down?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Excuse me?
    Mr. Tiffany. Is violent crime going down?
    Mr. Dettelbach. According to the data I have seen, violent 
crime is going down, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. That is not what Director Wray told us a 
number of months ago when he was here before us.
    Mr. Dettelbach. What I have seen in recent numbers, violent 
crime is going down. There is in the 175 cities covered by the 
major city chiefs, there are double-digit reductions in violent 
crime. I was in Baltimore at the turn of the year, a 19 percent 
reduction in homicides, LA down 13 percent.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, when we had a hearing up in New York City 
just, what is that, about a year ago, we heard from city 
counselors and others that they said that the police are not 
charging crime now because a district attorney would not 
prosecute that crime.
    Here, let me give you an example from a city in our State. 
Here was a statement from the District Attorney in Milwaukee 
County. This is a number of years ago, but he still continues 
to be the District Attorney.

        Is there going to be an individual I divert or I put into a 
        treatment program who is going to go out and kill somebody? You 
        bet.

    This the same guy who let off the Waukesha Christmas 
killer, who drove a vehicle through, killing six people just a 
couple years ago in a Christmas parade up in Wisconsin.
    Are you sure violent crime is going down?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe the numbers bear out that violent 
crime is going down. I think last year saw the most precipitous 
drop in violent crime--
    Mr. Tiffany. You cited Minneapolis here in your testimony, 
whether it is indicting 45 Minneapolis gang members involved in 
murder and drug trafficking. We just had a--they have a 
district attorney in Minneapolis also that does not prosecute 
crime.
    She will go after the cops, as she is doing right now with 
a cop who was doing his job and she is going after him now. Are 
you sure those indicted 45 Minneapolis gang members are 
actually going to be charged with a crime? Are you sure of 
that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I was there to announce the indictment 
myself, along with the U.S. Attorney, along with the Chief of 
Police, along with the Sheriff. They are already indicted, and 
I hope they go to jail for a long time.
    Mr. Tiffany. I think you said that there is more activity 
with the cartels. You said, you commented about this Sinaloa 
Cartel. Is there more activity going on down by the Southern 
border as--
    Mr. Dettelbach. What we see is the flow of firearms. Our 
job is, right, to stop firearms trafficking, which goes from 
the United States to Mexico. We have seen an increase in our 
number of seizures.
    Now, that increase could be due to the fact that we are 
spending a lot of time and resources trying to stop that. Yes, 
we see a continuing problem.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Director Wray would echo that a number of 
months ago, or I should say you are echoing what he said. He 
said, ``we are seeing a significant increase going on related 
to the Southern border.'' So, you would basically agree with 
his comment, his general comment, in regard to that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes, with Southbound traffic, it is a 
continuing threat.
    Mr. Tiffany. You think the open border contributes to this?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, I am not in charge of the agency that 
controls the border. With respect to Southbound traffic, that 
is things going--
    Mr. Tiffany. So, have you shared that with the Attorney 
General?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, I think everybody under--go ahead, I 
am sorry.
    Mr. Tiffany. Have you shared it with the Department of 
Homeland Security?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We work together on all these task forces 
with the Department of Homeland Security, these Southbound task 
forces. They have agents and officers sitting with us, doing 
that interdiction for Southbound firearms trafficking.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, they know this problem is getting worse.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, they are--part of the fact of why the 
seizures are up, that we are interdicting more weapons than 
ever, double-digit increases last year in terms of Southbound 
seizures.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, Mr. Chair, besides human trafficking, 
besides the terrorists that are coming across the border, we 
see another example here where the open Southern border is 
making it potentially more deadly for Americans.
    We see these guns that are continuing to flow both ways 
across the border. Plus, you have a border patrol that can no 
longer do their job as babysitters.
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is very rare--I am sorry.
    Mr. Tiffany. I am going to close up here.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sure.
    Mr. Tiffany. If you have a--what would be your 
recommendation if somebody lied on their 4473 form, they dumped 
their pistol in a garbage can and it was in a school zone, what 
would be your recommendation for charging that person?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think that echoes the fact of a publicly 
reported case, so I am not going to comment on a pending 
matter. I think that question is aimed at that.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is an example of somebody that did 
something like that, and I am sure it has happened before. What 
would you recommend they be charged with?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If a person out there intentionally lies on 
a 4473 form--
    Mr. Tiffany. Yup.
    Mr. Dettelbach. They can be charged with the crime of lying 
on a 4473 form.
    Mr. Tiffany. Dumped a pistol in a garbage can. So, those 
are the facts of the case.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I am not going to comment on 
specific facts. If somebody lies on a 4473, that was part of 
the charges in the case that we discussed earlier that was a 
subject of so much discussion. That is public.
    Not commenting on the specifics, that is a crime.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, I am going to close real quickly. A 
dual system of justice in America. Hunter Biden vs. the Bryan 
Mali-
nowski. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
Colorado is recognized.
    Ms. Balint. Mr. Chair?
    Chair Jordan. I am sorry, the gentlelady from Vermont has 
unanimous consent?
    Ms. Balint. Yes. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record ``Milwaukee Sees Decline in Homicides in 2023.'' This is 
WPR.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from 
Colorado is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chair. I also want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Vermont for providing this Committee and 
obviously those who are watching it with some sense of a real 
semblance of the actual facts on the ground with respect to the 
comments made by my colleague from Wisconsin.
    Director, I first want to say thank you for your service to 
our country. You have spent your career in law enforcement, 
obviously a former Federal prosecutor. I am grateful for the 
work that you and your agency does each and every day to keep 
communities across my district in Colorado, Rocky Mountain 
West, and the entire country safe.
    You have more patience than I. I think it is awfully rich, 
and I am not asking you to opine on this or to respond, but it 
is awfully rich for some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to lecture you, who have spent your career in law 
enforcement leading one of the premier domestic law enforcement 
agencies now. To lecture you about crime and gun trafficking, 
when they have worked vociferously over the last 17 months to 
defund the very agency that you lead that is charged with 
addressing gun trafficking. With its--charged with keeping us 
safe. I think it is shameful.
    How much did President Biden's Fiscal Year 2024 budget 
request identify for the ATF? What was the total sum?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe that the number that I am very 
familiar with is the amount of the cut, which was $47.5 
million, which was the real salary and expenses cut, which is 
causing us not to hire agents, which is causing us not to be 
able to be out there with our State and local partners 
arresting carjackers and violent criminals.
    The request is three or four steps, it was a significant 
increase for the ATF funding. Not only was the increase not 
granted, but the ATF's budget was cut, and that is having these 
kinds of effects on our ability to fight violent crime that I 
am talking about.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, you beat me to it, and thank you, Mr. 
Director, because I think you have provided the requisite 
clarity. Forty-seven-million-dollar cut. Three billion dollars 
less than what the President ultimately requested, $1.9 billion 
was the President's request in terms of funding for the ATF. 
Ultimately it was about $1.6 billion, which meant in real 
dollars a $47 million cut.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Went from 1.675 to about 1.625.
    Mr. Neguse. Correct.
    Mr. Dettelbach. By the way, that happened halfway through 
the year because Congress hadn't passed the budget. So, we had 
to effectuate the entire $47 million cut in six months.
    Which was also, if Congress delays in passing these 
measures, I understand they are difficult. They are, for people 
running organizations, and many of you have run businesses, 
that is very, very difficult to effectuate a whole cut after 
somebody is giving you the higher budget for half the year and 
says he would make it all up in a half year.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, I would like to hear any of my colleagues 
defend the propriety of pursuing that kind of cut to one of our 
Nation's lead law enforcement agencies. The cognitive 
dissonance is astounding to me.
    I have listened for years to my colleagues on the other 
side claim that folks in our party don't support law 
enforcement, which of course couldn't be further from the 
truth. Yet, simultaneously they now pursue significant a cut to 
the operations of the ATF.
    I am grateful, by the way, Director, this is outside of 
your bailiwick, so to speak, but they just released a budget a 
month ago that proposes severe cuts to local law enforcement as 
well, rural sheriffs, rural police departments in my district. 
COPS grant program, which I am sure you are familiar with, 
given your time as a prosecutor years ago. A program that is 
integral to enabling local law enforcement to do their jobs, to 
hire more officers. I think it is shameful.
    I am grateful for what, as I said, you are doing, and I 
wish I had more time to be able to spend or perhaps engage in a 
colloquy here around some of the regulations that the ATF has 
promulgated, which I support, to address some of the mass 
violence, mass shootings that we have tragically had in 
communities across the country, including in my community in 
Boulder, Colorado.
    I would just say that the sum of my remarks is that I am 
grateful for the work that you do. I am grateful for the work 
that the law enforcement officers in your agency do each and 
every day. You certainly will have our support. I would hope 
that it would be on a bipartisan basis. Hope springs eternal. 
We will keep working toward that.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    What is your budget this year?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The budget, I believe, is $1.625 billion, 
was the most recent budget that was passed.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the Chair.
    Now, I am troubled here by your new rule defining what a 
firearms dealer is, or engaged in the business of selling 
firearms. Isn't the purpose of it or won't the result be that 
more people will be defined as being engaged in the business of 
selling firearms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The purpose of the rules is to effectuate 
Congress' definition. Congress expanded the definition two 
years ago in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. So, and--
    Mr. Massie. What is the result going to be?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The result is going to be, I hope, 
increased compliance with Congress' statute.
    Mr. Massie. The result is going to be subjecting more 
American citizens to the treatment that Mr. Malinowski, 
unfortunately, received from our Federal Government, which is 
you want to get more warrants to serve these no-knock regs on 
people who have not been convicted of anything, yet may be 
convicted on their doorstep today.
    I want to address something in your rule here. I did find 
one thing that I think is sort of helpful. I hope the other 
side of the aisle will read this. I want to give you time to 
look at this. I want to give you time to look at this.
    The Department, that would be the ATF, correct, in your 
rule?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know what you are--is this from 
the--
    Mr. Massie. Yes. This is from the rule.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The Department refers to the Department of 
Justice.
    Mr. Massie. OK.

        The Department also notes that the term ``gun show loophole'' 
        is a misnomer and that there is no statutory exemption under 
        the Gun Control Act for unlicensed persons to engage in the 
        business of dealing in firearms at a gun show, or at any other 
        venue.

I hope the other side of the aisle, this is the one useful 
thing that I found in a 16-page rule and hundreds of pages of 
explanation is to show people that there is no gun show 
loophole.
    Do you agree with the Department and with your own rule 
here?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I agree that Congress never said, and has 
never said, and hasn't said now, didn't say before this, ``that 
somebody who is engaged in the business''--those are the words 
there--``can do that without a license depending on where they 
sit.''
    People have encouraged the perception, and we have seen an 
increased level of noncompliance among people who are either 
intentionally or otherwise breaking Congress' statute.
    Mr. Massie. The only people encouraging this perception are 
the left side of the aisle and the media. There is no gun show 
loophole. I am glad you finally admitted that.
    Now, I want to get to something else.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I have said that publicly. There never was.
    Mr. Massie. OK. Thank you. I want to get to something else 
in your opening statement. Maybe you would want to read it back 
because it is written down.
    Can you tell me the fact that you were expressing or 
claimed that there are more--that firearms are the leading 
cause of death for children? What were your specific words in 
your testimony?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I would have to look at my testimony. It is 
children and youth.
    Mr. Massie. Can you look at it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is in my longer statement that is in the 
record.
    Mr. Massie. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Obviously, I am summarizing the statement, 
as the Chair asked me to do. So, it is in my longer statement 
which has been entered into the record. I don't have it in 
front of me.
    Mr. Massie. Can you define a child and youth?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Child and youth, there is a statistical 
study that is the source of that. We can get that to you. I 
don't know the specific cite sitting here. We will be glad to 
get that to you.
    Mr. Massie. Yes. The statistical study according to news 
reports and Snopes, as Mr. Nehls referred to, excludes infants 
under the age of one and includes 18- and 19-year-olds.
    Is that true?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know. Honestly--
    Mr. Massie. You don't know your own statistics?
    Mr. Dettelbach. No, I don't know. Honestly--
    Mr. Massie. Why was that in your testimony to Congress?
    Mr. Dettelbach. --any killing of children is unacceptable.
    Mr. Massie. Any killing of any person is unacceptable 
except in self-defense. Are you including if a 17-, 18-, or 19-
year-old gang member came to a person's door and tried to 
attack them that this was self-defense? Are you including that 
in your statistics?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, firearms violence is a huge 
ender of lives of children.
    Mr. Massie. Yes, yes. No, I am going--I am not going to let 
you make your public service statement. I want you to defend 
your sworn testimony. Are you claiming that 18- and 19-year-
olds are children in your statistics?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, you have my statement, Congressman.
    Mr. Massie. Yes, I have it. I am asking you to explain it.
    Here is my other question. How many 18-year-olds who have 
committed a gun crime have you suggested to be prosecuted as a 
minor?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We are a law enforcement agency. We are not 
the prosecutors.
    Mr. Massie. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. In the Federal system--
    Mr. Massie. How many have you gone after, OK, 18-year-olds?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, we investigate crimes 
shoulder-to-shoulder with both the law enforcement--
    Mr. Massie. OK. Are 18-year-olds children or are they 
adults?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Each State has its, own under the gun laws 
as to when juveniles are prosecuted, Federal gun laws.
    Mr. Massie. Rules. Federal laws.
    Mr. Dettelbach. As you may know, Federal laws with respect 
to the prosecution of juveniles are exceedingly difficult. You 
are correct that prosecution of juveniles, if you are applying 
this as adults, is rare in the Federal system.
    Mr. Massie. Here is the reality.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Juvenile crime--
    Mr. Massie. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Juvenile crime is an increasing problem.
    Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Massie. Reclaiming my time, look, you are including in 
your statistics, whether you know it or not, 18- and 19-year-
olds. You would never claim that those are minors in the 
context of gun prosecutions.
    The only way you can get the number of deaths attributable 
to firearms above other causes is by excluding under the age of 
one, and including 18- and 19-year-olds, particularly gang 
members, and including self-defense.
    So, with that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Dettelbach, thank you for being here. Thank you, 
and I believe about 5,000 of your members, full-time employees 
of the ATF. Just to put that number into some perspective. 
There are more than 6,500 sworn police officers serving just 
the city of Philadelphia, my home city. Would it be fair to 
call the ATF a relatively small but mighty law enforcement 
agency, Director?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The people, those 5,000-plus people who 
work at the ATF are incredible people. They are doing a mammoth 
job with very few resources. It is a dangerous job. Every 
single day it is a dangerous job for them out there because of 
the types of cases that we often see. They are doing a great 
job at it.
    Ms. Dean. I agree with you. As you note in your testimony, 
the ATF is, in fact, the only Federal law enforcement agency 
with the sole focus of working with police and partners in 
State and local law enforcement to protect Americans from 
violent crime. Correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We are the Federal agency with the sole 
focus on violent crime.
    Ms. Dean. I want to say to those of you in the room or who 
are watching on TV, if you are experiencing whiplash, I am sure 
it is not lost on anyone in this room, anyone who cares about 
the issues around the police and law enforcement.
    We are just one week removed from National Police Week. I 
sat over on the regal Senate side as we honored the fallen 
police officers. It is whiplash in this hearing. One week we 
honor fallen police officers, the next we want to defund law 
enforcement like you.
    From rooting out cartels fueling the fentanyl crisis to 
curbing gun violence, the number one killer of American 
children: Gun violence. That is what people on the other side 
of the aisle ought to be outraged about. The number one killer 
of our children in this country: Gun violence. Progress has 
been made even though our Republican colleagues attempt to 
discredit and defund you.
    I want to turn to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. I 
am so proud that we were finally able to do something, some 
small things around gun violence.
    We are weeks away from the second anniversary of this great 
act: June 25th. I was heartened to see that last month the ATF 
finalized a rule implementing the landmark legislation.
    Part of the rule overlaps with my bill, the Fire Sale 
Loophole Closing Act, which would prevent FFLs who have had 
their licenses revoked or denied from selling old business 
inventory guns without background checks.
    Some Republican lawmakers have raised concern that the 
final rule goes too far.
    Could you tell us, why is this rule necessary? Why do we 
need to know what happens to those inventoried guns?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, again, of course as you know, the rule 
is under litigation. So, I am limited to the public record and 
what I can say.
    The text of the rule speaks for itself and should be looked 
at, and, also, the explanation, the hundreds of pages of 
explanation and the response to comments.
    With respect to that one part of the law that Congress 
passed as part of the Gun Control Act, if a dealer who is a 
licensed firearms dealer loses their license, right, the notion 
that this somehow, for the person who loses their license can 
then not follow the Gun Control Act, right, is inconsistent 
with the structure of the Gun Control Act in many cases.
    Ms. Dean. Inconceivable.
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, that is the idea that everybody is 
playing by the same set of rules.
    There are so many dealers and collectors who are following 
the law out there. Part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act 
and part of our enforcement is to make sure that those who obey 
the law aren't being treated at a competitive disadvantage to 
people who are out there ignoring the law. Right? It is only 
fair.
    There are so many people who are obeying the Gun Control 
Act, who are obeying the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. 
Those who are out there ignoring it, just from a plain old 
business perspective we have to have a fair marketplace where 
everybody obeys Congress' statutes.
    Ms. Dean. I couldn't agree more. It is also common sense 
that if you lost your license you can't just get rid of your 
inventory without following the law.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Including background checks.
    Ms. Dean. Exactly. What challenges have you had, how had 
the ATF faced implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities 
Act? Litigation is clearly part of it, but what else?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think when Congress gave us our new 
tools, which we are very grateful for, Congress didn't 
appropriate extra moneys for us to enforce those particular new 
tools.
    We did get a million dollars a year to work with the 
National Shooting Sports Foundation on the ``Don't Lie for the 
Other Guy'' campaign, which is an important collaborative 
effort we have with the industry. The 500 cases, defendants 
that we charged under the new statutes with our prosecutors and 
our partners, right, that is taking away from other priorities 
that we also still want to service.
    So, again, when we at the ATF are choosing what to do, 
Congresswoman, we are choosing between very important things. 
We are choosing between body-worn cameras and cartels. We are 
choosing between gangs and carjackers. Those are very important 
things that we are trying to balance.
    Ms. Dean. I couldn't agree more. I honor all your agents.
    I have a unanimous request, consent request, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. OK.
    Ms. Dean. (1) You spoke about the fallen ATF officers. What 
I would like to enter into the record is a listing, multiple 
page listing of the fallen ATF officers, Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives fallen agents over the years.
    (2) I also have a unanimous consent request to enter this 
article from March of this year, ABC News, ``U.S. stats show 
violent crime dramatically falling.''
    (3) I would like to also enter into the record an article 
around a child in Philadelphia just last month, a three-year-
old child sadly picked up a firearm and died from a shot.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    I thank the Director because the Director knows I was a 
prosecutor under project Safe Neighborhoods in the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, worked closely with the ATF in the Dallas--
Ft. Worth metro area.
    I share your sentiment about the patriotic Americans 
serving the ATF trying to stop violent criminals from moving 
drugs and using firearms against the law in ways that are 
undermining safety and security of the American people. I want 
to thank those men and women for what they do every day in that 
service.
    Would the Director agree that there have been times where 
the ATF have not gotten it right? I realize that with respect 
to the case we have already discussed with respect to Mr. 
Malinowski that you say is an investigation. What about 
something like Fast and Furious?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Of course, like any agency, there are times 
where we don't get things right and can improve.
    Mr. Roy. So, a couple of questions for you along these 
lines. I think it is really important for the American people 
to understand.
    Do you, as the Director of the ATF, do you believe that the 
American people have a constitutional right, an individual 
right to keep and bear arms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The Supreme Court has made it clear and I, 
yes, the American--the Second Amendment has been interpreted 
numerous times by the Supreme Court just as--there is more to 
it but yes. What you have said, yes.
    Mr. Roy. OK. Director, you do believe that you interpret 
the Constitution that way?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I interpret all the laws the way that the 
Supreme Court says they are to be interpreted. When the Supreme 
Court speaks on something--
    Mr. Roy. Would you have said that about Plessy?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, I work for a law enforcement 
agency. I am not a judge.
    Mr. Roy. I know. I am just asking you--
    Mr. Dettelbach. I accept the rulings of the Court, 
including that one. I am not dodging your question.
    Mr. Roy. You, as the Director of the ATF, believe there is 
an individual constitutional right to bear arms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes. There is one. The Supreme Court has 
said it.
    Mr. Roy. Along, and so, along those lines do you, as the 
Director of the ATF believe that the Federal Government should 
maintain a registry or otherwise track, catalog, keep records 
of the transactions of firearms conducted by the American 
people such that you would know what firearms I possess?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress has explicitly forbidden the ATF 
from keeping a registry. We do not.
    Again, we obey the law. I don't make the law, we obey it.
    Mr. Roy. Do you, as the Director, believe that the Federal 
Government should track ownership of firearms among the 
American people?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, we follow the law as you put 
it, as you pass it. You have said we cannot have a registry. We 
follow that provision and will continue to as long as it is the 
law.
    Mr. Roy. As the Director of the ATF do you have a position 
on that? Should we track ownership of firearms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I, as Director of the ATF, my position is 
if it is in the law, we follow it.
    Mr. Roy. If I want to sell a gun that I currently own to a 
friend in Texas, do I need a license?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, getting into the specifics of the rule, 
which is in litigation, so first,
    Mr. Roy. This ought to be a really simple question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I understand.
    Well, so you look at the totality of the circumstances. If 
we are talking about an isolated sale from somebody who is not 
engaged in the business of dealing firearms, you don't need a 
license.
    Mr. Roy. OK. All right. If I, a citizen of this country and 
I live in Texas, I have a weapon and I want to sell it to a 
fellow Texan on an isolated basis, do I need a license?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, if you are not engaged in the 
business of selling firearms, those are Congress' words--
    Mr. Roy. If I, if I closed a sale for a firearm last year, 
OK, and I do that on some relevant website like 
texasguntrader.com, and I sell that weapon. I sell it for $500.
    Then, I inherit a gun from my dad or from my uncle. I 
inherited it last month. It is, like, six months later. I sell 
it. I am selling it for another profit, I sell it for $500.
    Then, less than a year later I have another weapon that I 
inherit or I have got, and I decide I don't need it anymore, 
and I sell it. Is that engaging in the business? Is that 
engaging in activity that means I need a license?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think pursuant to the clear language of 
Congress in doing this, and to the things we have said in the 
rule, we have specifically mentioned inheritance as one of the 
things that is not indicative of engaging in the business.
    Mr. Roy. What if I have just 12; I have 12, 15, or 20 
weapons and I sell three over the course off a year?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, each--I am sorry. I am sorry, 
I didn't mean to interrupt.
    Mr. Roy. No, I am just saying. If I have, I have about 15, 
let's assume I had 15 or 20 weapons and I wanted to sell three 
over the course of a year?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think what I,--
    Mr. Roy. I would like to make money from them.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --to what you are saying is that you look 
at the--it is very clear that you look at the totality of the 
circumstances. We can go through an endless series of 
hypotheticals. Hypotheticals aren't the way we address cases.
    Mr. Roy. You understand--and I realize I am over my time--
do you understand why the average citizen is sitting out there 
saying I have got 400 pages of rulemaking, might not understand 
what they are allowed to do under the law when the Director of 
the ATF can't look at a Member of Congress and tell me yes or 
no emphatically whether if I sell a weapon, or two weapons, or 
three weapons, or five, whether or not I need a license?
    Do you think that is the way the law ought to be, the 
rules?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, I believe that the rule that 
we have promulgated provides way more information and clarity 
than just the one or two sentences that Congress provided. We 
were seeing massive noncompliance.
    Mr. Roy. In 400 pages? You can't even answer it. How can 
the average American know it?
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Dettelbach. We are in the business of knowing. We have 
looked at the whole case.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from--
    Mr. Dettelbach. We would determine based on it--I am sorry, 
Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from North Carolina is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Director Dettelbach for being here the second 
time in over a year, and for your commitment to keeping our 
communities safe.
    As requested by the Department of Justice, the ATF recently 
reported that over a five-year period from 2017-2021, 68,000 
illegally trafficked firearms were distributed across the 
United States by unlicensed dealers.
    The Iron Pipeline, which we discussed earlier, specifically 
refers to guns smuggled up the I-95 corridor from the Southern 
States to the Mid-Atlantic and New England. It runs directly 
through my home State of North Carolina, which is one of the 
top destinations for gun traffickers.
    Now, we wouldn't know this information, which directly 
impacts public safety in my State, without the ATF's dedicated 
work to make data available to the public and to all of our law 
enforcement agencies. This data is a critical tool for local 
law enforcement to address gun trafficking.
    I also want to highlight the implementation of the 
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act which, as we have heard, is 
one of the most significant steps Congress has taken to reduce 
gun violence in decades, giving law enforcement and prosecutors 
new means to hold gun traffickers accountable.
    I also want to note that both of North Carolina's 
Republican Senators voted for the Bipartisan Safer Communities 
Act in the last Congress.
    Building off this legislation is imperative. It will take 
continued bipartisan consensus to do so.
    We have talked a little bit about the gun trafficking 
provisions in the Safe Communities Act, but I want to broaden 
that a little bit and ask you how gun trafficking intersects 
with drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl trafficking, and 
what the ATF is doing to reduce not just gun trafficking and 
gun violence, but the menace of fentanyl and other dangerous 
drugs?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I have been involved with prosecution since 
1991. One thing that has stayed the same and, unfortunately, I 
am sure will stay the same, is that guns and drugs, illicit 
guns and drugs go together. Gangs, cartels, and individual 
dealers, they are armed often as a means of enforcing their 
business practices, their unlawful criminal conduct, and 
punishing individuals who challenge them, intimidating 
witnesses, you name it.
    So, these things go together.
    With respect to fentanyl, that is also, as was true with 
crack, it is true with powder cocaine, true with heroin, true 
with opioids, and it is true with fentanyl. We work alone and 
together with our partners on cases that involve narcotics 
trafficking all the time for that reason. Armed drug 
trafficking organizations are part of what the ATF does.
    Just earlier this month the ATF made a case that resulted 
in members of the Sinaloa Cartel going to jail for literally 
decades, I think one for life. We are routinely seeing fentanyl 
dealers and organizations that are armed to the teeth and that 
are threatening people's lives.
    Ms. Ross. So, do you believe that the more we support 
efforts to stop gun trafficking, that will also help in our 
efforts to stop drug trafficking?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I know it.
    Ms. Ross. I am going to ask you a fun question since I know 
it has been kind of a rough day.
    If it was Christmas and you could be fully funded in the 
ways that you have requested, what would be your top three 
priorities? How would that make our communities safer?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Since it is Christmas, can I get an extra 
one or two?
    Mr. Ross. Absolutely. You have 36 seconds.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, we are the violent crime agency, so I 
think what I would start with is we know a strategy that is 
working. The crime gun intelligence strategy working with State 
and local law enforcement is working. We have to scale it, 
right?
    So, we have 60 crime gun intelligence centers or so. We 
have put out an extra ten in the last year. I would put our 
crime gun intelligence centers I would try to stand them up in 
numerous other places.
    Second, would be, to support them we need better intel. 
Crime gun intelligence is driven by a couple things: The 
National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, or NIBIN; 
and crime gun tracing.
    I would start, I would continue and ramp up our campaign to 
get sheriffs, to get chiefs, to get law enforcement officers 
all around the country to fully participate in the NIBIN and 
tracing, three tools that we provide them.
    Gosh, it is so hard--and the third I would say I would 
double and triple down on our RICO/VCAR gang strategy. It is a 
very effective legal tool that puts into effect the crime gun 
intelligence.
    The Minneapolis case is a great example. So, they have 15-
20 shootings all around town. They look totally unconnected. 
Through the crime gun intelligence tools we provide, we are 
able to connect them together and show that it is the Highs, 
that is the name of the gang, one group that is responsible for 
all this. So, then we put together a RICO case which has extra 
teeth to make sure we are taking down the whole organization.
    So, I think that would be my third.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you for your service.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. I think it is interesting, too, that the 
Director didn't mention body cameras, even though he told us 
that they weren't wearing those because of budget cuts. That 
didn't make his Christmas list.
    The time is now the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I did ask for extra [inaudible].
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    In the Malinowski killing, did you say you are deferring to 
and waiting for this investigation from the Arkansas State 
Police?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The Arkansas State Police has referred the 
matter to the District Attorney's Office. It is my 
understanding from public--
    Mr. Bishop. You have been deferring until that to do, take 
any action yourself; is that right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That would be our normal course of action 
if there is a pending criminal investigation. To make sure that 
we preserve the integrity of that investigation, we let it 
proceed, yes.
    Mr. Bishop. That is a criminal investigation only?
    Mr. Dettelbach. They will decide the scope. My 
understanding is they're investigating to see--
    Mr. Bishop. That is a criminal--that is a criminal--let's 
stay on my question. That is a criminal investigation?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is an investigation to see whether 
Arkansas law was violated, is my understanding.
    Mr. Bishop. That is called a criminal investigation, right? 
You are a criminal law enforcement agency. Don't filibuster me. 
It's straightforward.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am not filibustering. You know that State 
prosecutors have a variety of different--
    Mr. Bishop. All right, let me--stop. It is my time. The 
Arkansas State Police, in their press release on April 24-22 
said,

        We do not have the authority to address methods and tactics 
        used or whether agency protocols and policies were followed.

Have you seen that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I have seen the press release that--
    Mr. Bishop. You have seen that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Correct.
    Mr. Bishop. So, you are deferring action on questions of 
methods of tactics until you see what Arkansas does with the 
criminal investigation?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That is the normal, standard thing that we 
do. Because if you start interviewing witnesses, if you start 
talking to people in the middle of a criminal investigation, 
very quickly people start talking about the fact that the 
integrity of that investigation it is very important to respect 
the ongoing investigation.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Dettelbach, in the Breonna Taylor--did you 
watch yesterday's hearing by any chance?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I did not have a chance to watch all of 
yesterday's hearing. I watched a little bit.
    Mr. Bishop. Did you watch some of it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I watched some of it.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, in the Louisville situation with Breonna 
Taylor, the Metropolitan Police Department there fired its 
first officer within 90 days of the incident. They were doing 
that as a matter of their management responsibility.
    By the way, the Justice Department, of which your agency is 
a component, has conducted a pattern and practice investigation 
and is pursuing enforcement action against the Louisville 
Police Department.
    What is your excuse for not taking managerial action about 
the appropriateness of the tactics used in the Malinowski 
killing?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think you would agree with me that police 
officers and agents are entitled to due process just like 
everybody else.
    Mr. Bishop. There is no doubt about that. That doesn't 
answer my question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well--
    Mr. Bishop. Don't you have management responsibility with 
respect to the way the agency is conducting such matters?
    Mr. Dettelbach. When we can, based on the review--and I 
don't think--I don't expect it to be a lengthy period of time--
we would conduct abuse of force review, as we do in every 
matter like this that occurs. We will do that in this case as 
we do in every matter.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, what is soon enough? They acted in 
Louisville within three months. What is soon enough?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, we will see that the 
investigation will end, and then we will commence our internal 
review, as we always do.
    Mr. Bishop. Concerning bodycams, you testified that the 
rollout within the ATF was incomplete.
    Is it your testimony that the rollout has not extended to 
the ATF personnel in Arkansas, and that is the reason they 
didn't have bodycams?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The field division that covers Arkansas has 
not yet been implemented. That is correct.
    Mr. Bishop. What did you say the cost was of your, of your 
item there, something in the tens of millions? Was it 40 
million, 45 million?
    Mr. Dettelbach. This isn't the downstream cost because 
there are huge data costs, as you know, with this. The initial 
implementation the request in the budget is $37.5 million.
    Mr. Bishop. Putting bodycams in. So, I understand your 
budget is--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Thirty-seven million.
    Mr. Bishop. So, I understand your budget--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Thirty-seven point eight.
    Mr. Bishop. Your budget is about 1.7 billion. So, if my 
calculator is right, that is about 2.6 percent of your budget. 
You couldn't find 2.6 percent of your budget to catch up with 
common practice among also resource-constrained city police 
departments all over the country?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, our budget is not 1.7 
billion, it is 1.625 billion.
    Mr. Bishop. Whatever.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The reason I know that is because that $45 
million cut has resulted in not being able to hire agents.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, but you are talking about something else.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Also, cutting--
    Mr. Bishop. I am talking about bodycams that are in common 
use among metropolitan police departments across this country. 
You are saying something that involves two or three percent of 
your budget prevented you from getting it done?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am saying that we are in the process, as 
we said from the beginning, of implementing the policy in 
phases.
    Mr. Bishop. Let me ask you just for the record--
    Mr. Dettelbach. We continue--
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Director, let me ask you this question. I 
understand there could be justifications for lots of things, 
about putting tape on, jamming signals, things like that in a 
certain set of circumstances. What can possibly justify 
deferring, as that video showed, deferring the execution of 
that search warrant until the person who justifies the use of 
such tactics, if there is a question of a risk of violence, was 
present in the home?
    Mr. Dettelbach. These are career law enforcement agents and 
police.
    Mr. Bishop. I didn't ask that. I asked you--
    Mr. Dettelbach. They make determinations--
    Mr. Bishop. I asked you what could possibly justify that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. In my experience, when an agent decides, 
when a cop decides to go through a door, when a cop decides to 
execute an operation, they are entitled, if they are correct, 
the warrant allowed that warrant to be executed on the day it 
was executed. We will see what the investigation says.
    Congressman, armchair quarterbacking police officers who 
are risking their lives without evidence yet is not the way to 
go here.
    Mr. Bishop. That is about 5,000 words, and not one 
justification uttered, not one possible justification.
    My time has expired.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Welcome, Director. Good to see you again.
    I just want to run through a few things. Some would strike 
me as surprising, and some are just hypocritical. I will ask 
you some questions at the end, but I do want to deal with a 
couple of these at the time.
    In comparison to the Breonna Taylor case, it struck me as 
quite a surprise. Breonna Taylor was a scenario where no shots 
were fired at the officers. I think one of the officers 
actually made a false statement. Well, Breonna Taylor, 
certainly, didn't fire any shots at any of the officers. It was 
the officer who was fired who lied in the affidavit. I think 
that was found pretty quickly.
    In any event, the no knock issue I think is a pretty 
significant one. I believe that what is going to happen later 
today is that there will be a bill offered, the George Floyd 
Criminal Justice Act, that will help to address one of these 
issues.
    So, I hear a lot of concern from my Republican colleagues 
about the no knock warrant being executed here. I would note 
that it is pretty routine the way this warrant was executed. 
Hopefully, you will be willing to support that provision when 
it is offered today.
    Mr. Director, do you want to comment on that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I just wanted to say that I just wanted to 
repeat again that because this is an ongoing investigation I am 
not commenting. There are numerous different things that I 
believe are out there that may not be shown to be the facts 
when the investigation happened.
    So, I would just hope that we could all agree to wait until 
the facts come out and assess those facts, because I hear 
things that may well not even be correct as a factual matter as 
things that Members are talking about.
    So, that is one of my hopes here today is just to try and 
get the facts out.
    Chair Jordan. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Ivey. That is a fair point. I will say this: I know an 
officer was shot in the execution--
    Chair Jordan. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Ivey. I don't have time; I am sorry--in the execution 
of the Malinowski warrant. How is that officer doing?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Thank you for asking.
    My understanding is that he is recovering.
    I can take a lot, and I understand that, but one thing I 
want to say is at one point during--people are heated--somebody 
said something about somebody got shot in the toe. When a 
police officer or an agent is shot at, it is a serious matter. 
When a police officer or an agent is actually shot, it is a 
serious matter.
    I know that nobody here would try to minimize an officer 
being shot as not being a serious matter. I just want to make 
sure; I understand people are heated, maybe I got a little 
heated just now, but that is one thing that I just want to make 
sure that I know we all agree on that.
    Mr. Ivey. I appreciate that.
    Also, the funding issue which Mr. Neguse addressed with 
respect to paying for body cameras. I know we had; it was a 
very expensive thing when we did it in Prince George's County. 
It was one of the barriers to getting it done as quickly as we 
wanted.
    I hope that is another one of those where my Republican 
colleagues, since you have expressed such strong desire and 
concern about body cameras not being present here, I hope you 
will be willing to step up now and provide the additional 
funding in the ATF budget so they can move forward with that 
expeditiously.
    I also wanted to say this, too. We had another debate a few 
minutes ago about whether firearms are the leading cause of 
death for children. The issue, I guess, was do you count 
infants or 18- or 19-year-olds, or whatever.
    I just want to reiterate that is not the first time we have 
done that one. My view then and now is that I think it is a 
ridiculous point to focus on from the standpoint of, whether it 
is first or second as a leading cause of death, isn't that 
enough? Why should we be OK with it?
    Let's say it is the second leading cause of death if you 
include infants or something, why would that be OK? Why 
wouldn't we be concerned and want to try and find ways to bring 
those numbers down?
    So, I appreciate the work that you are going on that front, 
and support the effort, but, yes, we have to find ways to 
protect our kids from these kinds of gun violence incidents.
    With respect to the search warrant affidavit, I wanted to 
offer that in the record. I ask unanimous consent that this be 
offered.
    Also, the search warrant return, I want to make sure that 
is in the record, too.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Mr. Ivey. So, it is clear what was, in addition to an 
officer being shot, which did not happen in the Breonna Taylor 
case, the weapons that were recovered, but also the other types 
of conduct that supported the probable cause finding by the 
judge in that case and supported the entry.
    Then, the last point I want to make, too. The execution of 
a search warrant while the people are in the house in the 
morning, my experience was that was standard operating 
procedure. It is actually unusual to do it any other way.
    The reason for that is, it is safer for the officers to try 
and catch them by surprise, and also leads to better 
opportunities to seize weapons.
    So, in this case there were many, many, many. Because they 
thought there were 150 weapons in the house, certainly security 
and protection for the officers would be a prime consideration.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you.
    Director Dettelbach, I wanted to followup on the subject 
that Representative Massie was asking about, January 6th type 
investigation. It has been over three years since it happened. 
What are you still investigating?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We are not the lead investigative agency. 
It is the FBI. My understanding is from a public report that 
there has been over a thousand interviews conducted.
    They are investigating the incident--
    Ms. Spartz. It seems like you have a roadmap in the FBI not 
to answer questions. Everyone can hear it. Every question that 
is ever on the investigation. It is very clever.
    You guys are brilliant not to answer Congress because 
everything on the investigation, and then when the 
investigation ends, statute of limitations is over, no one gets 
punished, and you continue with this. This is happening all the 
time.
    It seems like your agency should do better than that, 
investigate something over three years. It seems like you 
should come to some conclusion.
    My question is related to these changes in your rule, and 
definition of what is engaged in business rule.
    Do you think criminals just want to do something criminal? 
Are they going to read your 500 pages of definitions? Are they 
going to read your 500 pages of definition explanations?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think that I don't know who will read it. 
I think that--
    Ms. Spartz. Do you think criminals will be doing that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think that it will also, as I said at the 
beginning, hopefully increase compliance with the law among 
people who are--
    Ms. Spartz. You understand that criminals are not going to 
be reading this. OK?
    What is it going to do to law abiding citizens, like Brian 
Malinowski that potentially was just selling these guns? I 
don't know the whole circumstances, but he is dead because he 
was probably not realizing what you were doing in changes of 
this rule.
    So, my question for you is going to be, do you understand 
how dangerous your definitions have become?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, our definitions are based on 
the law that Congress passed.
    Ms. Spartz. Do you understand that--
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is based on our observation and 
experience in the field.
    Ms. Spartz. Your interpretation?
    So, let's just go to your definitions. As a normal 
American,--
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is based on, its implementation--
    Ms. Spartz. --I understand your definition--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Let me, it is implementing Congress' law.
    Ms. Spartz. OK. OK, how are you going to implement it? I 
want to understand.
    I am a gun owner, and I am going to decide occasionally, 
yes, occasionally, I can do maybe 100 times, maybe five times. 
I am not engaged predominantly for a profit. You know that I 
don't even have time to do a profit.
    So, at which point as a regular American citizen, so I 
understand that you are not going to cutoff my electricity my 
house and try to storm the house with bunch of people that you 
don't even realize what is going on. So, I can be in situation 
like a lot of other Americans that don't even realize that now 
you are redefining who the dealer is.
    So, I want to get understanding. Summarize me understanding 
how I can explain to my constituents what it means now and how 
I am predominantly to earn a profit in this? What is the 
definition of this?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The statute that Congress passed says that 
if you are engaged in the business of dealing firearms 
``predominantly for profit,'' right, that requires a license.
    There are some exceptions then that Congress has asked. 
Respectfully, people may not read the statutes either. They 
should, though, if they are, if they are selling firearms. 
These aren't possessors, these are people who are reselling 
firearms repetitively for profit.
    I don't think it is too much to ask for somebody who is 
selling firearms repetitively for profit to read the law.
    Mrs. Spartz. What does ``repetitively'' mean.
    What is ``occasionally'' or ``repetitively''? If I 
understand, I have lots of guns and I decided I want to replace 
with something else. I have 50 guns I am going to sell this 
year. I just decided that I am, I don't know, maybe they will 
be for profit. Definitely, no one is going to sell it at a 
loss, right? With your rules, probably price they keep 
increasing.
    So, like, I am going to become a dealer now? I have to 
register for that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I have tried to explain. I will 
continue to.
    Ms. Spartz. I'm trying to explain. So, what do you do? What 
is really going to be your new definition, because it is so 
broad?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is not a new definition. It implements 
Congress' definition. Congress changed the definition.
    Ms. Spartz. Yes. You put 500 pages of explanation. So, can 
you summarize this normal plain language an American can 
understand?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe that our positions are, they are 
not secret, they are in court, and they are filed. The rules--
    Ms. Spartz. Yes, but explain without reading 500 pages that 
are confusing.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The rule seeks by providing practical 
conduct-based things that normal people could,--
    Ms. Spartz. Yes. With the claim--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --for instance, you, one of the things that 
can result in people, depending on all the circumstances, is 
you take credit cards for payment. That could be one of the 
signs that somebody is in business.
    You read, one of the things that might be on the other 
side--
    Ms. Spartz. Well, if I use a little ad and then I sell a 
gun and take a credit card I potentially will be a dealer?
    Mr. Dettelbach. One of the things that might be on the 
other side is if you are occasionally giving or gifting to 
family members. Right? We try to say things on both sides.
    Ms. Spartz. My time has expired.
    I shall tell you, you put American lives in danger in your 
ATF, life in danger by doing this because you are doing gun 
control and is a very clever way to make everyone a dealer and 
have a zero tolerance, and exercise gun control and Second 
Amendment rights.
    You put your people in danger and American people.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized for a unanimous 
consent.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The followup on the discussions that we have had on the 
leading causes of death for children that have been spoken 
about by our colleague from Pennsylvania, and also Mr. Ivey, I 
would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an 
article from April 2022, entitled, ``Firearms were the leading 
cause of death in children in 2020.''
    Also, a second one will be unanimous consent to enter into 
the record an article from October titled, ``Firearms now the 
number one cause of death for U.S. children, while drug 
poisoning enters top five.''
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Director, for being here. I know it has been a 
long day. Thank you for your time.
    So, as I sit here and I am really struck by what I feel we 
should be talking about here is that we have a fairly simple 
mandate from the American people, which is to do all we can to 
stop gun violence. As my colleagues have said, we have this 
horrible situation in this country, parents, teachers having to 
see children being killed every day by gun violence.
    The country is awash in illegal firearms. We have heard 
that. We have accidental shootings by and of children. We have 
increasing suicide rates. Of course, mass shootings continue 
across our Nation.
    Public poll after public poll tells us the same thing: 
People want us in Congress to do something, to take action. 
More than half of Americans consistently support stricter gun 
laws.
    Listening to some of my colleagues you would think that we 
were on a different planet. The majority is not evening 
approaching or discussing new public protections or stricter 
gun laws.
    The ATF doesn't have the resources to expect firearms 
dealers, as directed by Congress right now, over 2,000 firearms 
dealers have not undergone any inspection in over 10 years. 
There are laws already on the books to help us stem the tide of 
this violence, but they aren't being enforced because 
oftentimes Republicans won't give them the money to do so.
    Now, Director, I appreciate very much that you are here 
today. I would like to talk a little bit more specifically 
about the work that the ATF does.
    You have got a big job. How does your agency carry out its 
mission with just over 5,000 employees?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is very difficult.
    Ms. Balint. It is shockingly low given the charge.
    Mr. Dettelbach. First, the way we do it is, we have an 
incredible workforce. The people that, the career people, I am 
the only political appointee at the ATF. I am a single Schedule 
C person, just me. The people who are the career people get the 
credit here. These are agents. These are investigators, lab 
technicians, analysts, and staff. They do incredible and 
dangerous work every day.
    The only way to make any progress on this is partnership 
with our State and local partners, which we are better than 
anybody else with respect to others.
    Second, being smart about how we use the intelligence that 
we provided to identify the worst of the worst, to make sure 
that we are actually taking steps to do two things:
    (1) Identify the worst of the worst, the trigger pullers 
and the shooters, and get them out of the community, put them 
where they belong, incarcerated mainly.
    (2) Also, at the same time to do something to enforce the 
existing laws to cutoff the supply of guns to those same 
people. It is far too easy for killers, felons, gang members, 
rapists, domestic violence people to get firearms, even though 
the law, and everybody agrees, they shouldn't have them.
    So, you have to do both of those two things. It is a two-
part strategy. There are people who only want me to do one. 
There are other people who only want me to do the other one. 
The fact of the matter is you are not going to make progress 
unless you have a reasonable approach on both.
    Ms. Balint. So, to followup on that, how do you go about 
making those decisions about priorities?
    Are there functions that you, unfortunately, have to de-
prioritize due to the resource constraints that you have? What 
are those?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, you make the decisions based on data as 
best the data, that you can find in real time. It is not always 
perfect.
    There are, bluntly, there are areas of this country where I 
wish that we would have more agents. New York City is an 
example.
    So, in New York City the New York City Police Department is 
36,000 strong. I have about 30 people in New York City. It is, 
it is absolutely--and we punch way above our weight. That is 
the case everywhere.
    So, we are making decisions about where the crime threat 
is. When I make an investment on the Southwest border, as we, 
as we have, not I, we have at the ATF, that means at the ATF 
that we can't startup a whole new division. That means we are 
pulling agents from some other place that we really care about.
    So, we are constantly struggling to balance resources in 
the best way we can to face a lot of threats.
    Ms. Balint. Director, I am just about out of time. I think 
it is clear that without substantial funding we are not going 
to improve our statistics on gun violence, and we are not going 
to improve our public safety outcomes. We should be putting the 
money to work to help protect our kids.
    I say that as a Member of Congress. I also say that as a 
former teacher and as a parent of two teenagers. We have to do 
something about this and not just talk about it.
    Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back?
    Ms. Balint. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from North Dakota is 
recognized.
    Mr. Armstrong. We are conflating two issues here. A man is 
dead, and an officer was shot not because of rank-and-file law 
enforcement doing their job, but because somebody made a 
leadership decision to execute a warrant in the most dangerous 
way possible given the circumstances of that case.
    We can sell 6:00 a.m., as and standard operating procedure. 
You can do that everywhere else.
    I have represented three officers in officers-involved 
shootings. I spent 10 years dealing with search warrants. I 
know the facts of this case. I know where the guy works. I know 
that he was surveilled. I know that they chose to implement a 
warrant in a way that absolutely maximized the risk of harm 
both to the person being served the warrant on and to the 
officers serving the warrant.
    I am going to move on. I am going to move on to something 
else.
    Federal gun charges are what we call strict liability 
crimes, right? If you have a gun and you are a prohibited 
person, that is the crime. There doesn't need to be intent. 
There doesn't need to be any of those things. Right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Disagree.
    Mr. Armstrong. So, if you are a felon in possession of a 
firearm you can intend, you can say I didn't know I was a 
felon?
    Mr. Dettelbach. No. There is an intent requirement in 
Congress' statute. You can read 922(g)(1). It is in the 
statute, Congressman.
    Mr. Armstrong. You said earlier that the ATF's 
responsibility is to implement the laws that Congress passed. 
Right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Correct.
    Mr. Armstrong. When did the U.S. House pass a rule 
classifying a pistol brace as a short-barreled rifle?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That rulemaking is based on the National 
Firearms Act 1934.
    Mr. Armstrong. When did Congress pass a law? They didn't.
    Mr. Dettelbach. In 1934, Congress passed the National 
Firearms Act, which said that short-barrel rifles were 
unusually dangerous.
    Mr. Armstrong. I am not asking you about--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress' words.
    Mr. Armstrong. I am not asking you about short-barreled 
rifles. I know what short-barreled rifles are called by the 
National Firearms Act.
    When did Congress pass a law saying pistol braces qualify? 
When did Congress pass that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress passed; they are covered by the 
National--
    Mr. Armstrong. They did not pass the law. They didn't.
    When did the President sign the law? He didn't.
    The first pistol brace was sold in 2012. A guy walked into 
a gun store, bought it legally, walked out of the gun store 
with a pistol brace, with a pistol brace rifle. No need for 
$200, no need for a stamp.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Are you saying that there is a new brand of 
gun that didn't exist in 1968, but the Gun Control Act doesn't 
apply to it?
    Mr. Armstrong. I am saying in 2012, a guy in Dickinson, 
North Dakota walked into a firearms store and bought a gun 
legally. Correct? With a pistol brace. Didn't need to do a 
stamp, didn't need to do a $200, and didn't need to do a $200 
registration.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, we look at--
    Mr. Armstrong. No. This is a factual question.
    The first pistol brace was sold in 2012. Didn't the person 
who purchased it need stamp, and did he need the Federal 
Government's permission to buy that gun?
    That is in 2012. That is not a hard question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, the 2012, the thing that has 
been talked about in this Committee previously, was never 
brought to market.
    Mr. Armstrong. OK. So, 2015?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It would depend on the actual design of the 
individual item. There were numerous different items being 
manufactured. It changed over time.
    Mr. Armstrong. You spent 20 years as a prosecutor. Twenty 
years as a prosecutor. You know the answers to these questions.
    I am done asking them. I am just going to go with the 
numbers. From 2012-2023, the ATF estimates that there are 3-7 
million pistol braces sold on the civilian market not requiring 
the $200 stamp from the NFA for a short-barreled rifle.
    Now, the congressional Research Service says three are 10-
40 million of those things purchased in the same period of 
time. Manufacturer sales estimates are significantly higher 
than the ATF's estimate, and those estimates exclude 2020-2022.
    Now, the Deputy Chief of the ATF has stated that prior to 
June 1, 2023, the 250,162 registrations on retroactive 
purchases were received by the ATF.
    Does that sound accurate?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know who that person, I don't have 
a title like that. The number sounds like the number of people 
that during a certain period of time sought registration. The 
number does sound familiar, but I don't know the quote that you 
are making.
    Mr. Armstrong. Well, I have got a rancher in Southwest 
North Dakota who is hunting snow geese through a Federal 
wildlife refuge. The U.S. Forest and a U.S. agent comes out. He 
purchased that rifle legally in 2015. He is out shooting, 
shooting geese with a shotgun. U.S. Fish and Wildlife comes in 
his car and sees a gun in there with a pistol brace.
    What is the penalty for him now? He bought the gun legally, 
2015?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, again, it is--
    Mr. Armstrong. It's 5-10 years and a maximum $250,000 fine.
    You talk about costs; you talk about budget cuts. So, let's 
just assume the low-end number of the ATF number is on 3-7 
million. Three million licenses, thre million guns that were 
purchased legally without any extra requirement, the ATF has 
got 255,000 of those registered.
    So, you are roughly saying 2.7 million people are now 
felons in possession of firearms for something they purchased 
legally?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I respectfully disagree with a lot of the 
characterizations in your question. The last Administration, 
Attorney General Barr issued guidance on this before the ATF 
even got to this. People were on notice for years and years and 
years that you can't take something and break it into two and 
then put it together and treat it differently than the person 
who buys it in one piece.
    Mr. Armstrong. I don't care--they bought a gun legally and 
you guys retroactively made it illegal in a different 
qualification.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, I disagree. That is not what 
the facts reflect.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentlelady from Missouri is recognized.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First, I want to start by offering my condolences to Ms. 
Mali-
nowski, who I believe was here earlier.
    St. Louis and I are here today seeking accountability for 
the gun violence epidemic in our country, and for all instances 
of potential law enforcement misconduct.
    Director Dettelbach, thank you for being here today. Let me 
say that I support several of the ATF's recent efforts, 
including the Both Guns Rule, the Stabilizing Brace Rule, and 
the efforts to stop gun trafficking.
    As gun violence continues to shatter families and 
communities, thanks in part to weak gun laws in Republican-
controlled States like mine, in Missouri, equitable and 
effective enforcement of our existing laws must be a top 
priority. There is a difference between the way the law is 
written and the way it is enforced, as communities like St. 
Louis know all too well.
    So, taking on the gun violence epidemic requires asking 
hard questions about enforcement.
    That is why the last time you were before this Committee I 
asked you about the good old boys' roundup. In the 1980s and 
1990s the ATF agents organized shameful Whites only events 
which the former ATF Director John Magaw characterized as being 
racist in nature, anti-Black, and having discrimination, almost 
every year.
    It may seem like old history, but there are legitimate and 
recent concerns about racial bias in the agency's enforcement 
operations, specifically in its use of sting operations.
    For example, an USA Today investigation from 2014 found 
that 91 percent of people arrested in the ATF sting operations 
were Black or Latino.
    When you were U.S. Attorney your office prosecuted these 
kinds of cases. Are you aware of these concerns regarding sting 
operations? If any, what steps have you taken to address?
    Mr. Dettelbach. At the ATF, we are very clear that we don't 
look at any of those kinds of factors and it is absolutely a 
necessity, Congressman, that law enforcement does not look at 
these kinds of factors. I would say there are comments that 
were made earlier that I thought somebody was perhaps implying 
that because somebody is wealthy or lives in a nice 
neighborhood, they should be treated differently than other 
people.
    I know there are lots of people who are in communities 
where they economically struggle who are law-abiding citizens. 
We don't assume that because of where you live or how much you 
make, that you are any more or less likely to be a law-abiding 
citizen. That is a core value at the ATF, and it is very 
important for you to ask that question and it is very important 
for me to answer it.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. I will say that sometimes looking at 
it, what you just said though, looking at it and seeing that we 
do understand that folks in marginalized communities are often 
over criminalized or criminalized period is an issue that we 
must also address and fight. I think you started to allude to 
that and so thank you.
    These questions are essential because for the ATF to be 
effective today, it needs to fix the problems of yesterday 
including its troubled history of racist behavior and 
enforcement. My concern about enforcement does not extend only 
to questions of racism.
    There needs to be accountability for all instances of 
potential misconduct by the ATF agents, and that is why I do 
support my Republican colleagues' efforts to get more 
information from the Federal and local law enforcement about 
the death of Bryan Malinowski.
    I know there is evidence that Mr. Malinowski fired first on 
the agents, but the circumstances warrant more information 
about what happened that day. I say this because of my 
solidarity, I want to be clear, my solidarity, my pursuit for 
accountability, and my pursuit of accountability are not 
conditional.
    I will say that I have been surprised to hear my Republican 
colleagues expressing concern about law enforcement shootings, 
lack of body cameras, and no-knock warrants. I am surprised 
because I, and many of my Democratic colleagues, have pushed 
for law enforcement accountability for years and Republicans 
have mocked us and fought against us at every step.
    I am surprised because 2023 set another record for law 
enforcement killings in this country. Police have killed an 
average of three people per day. Police disproportionately kill 
Black people and there have only been nine days this year where 
police didn't kill someone. Yet, Republicans have refused to 
hold hearings about any of those deaths. My question is where 
have you been? Where have you been? Travon Martin and Mike 
Brown, we have been protesting for 10 years. We have been 
protesting. We were shot with rubber bullets. We have had dogs 
unleashed. We were hit with tear gas and rubber bullets.
    George Floyd, we were out there for three months. Mike 
Brown, we were out there for 400 days. Where were you? Why 
didn't you care then because they are Black? I don't 
understand. All of a sudden, now we want to talk, but see the 
thing of this, when we took a knee, folks were mad and 
criticized us. When we were nonviolent, people still criticized 
us. All of a sudden, now the difference is it color? I say 
this. My solidarity is not conditional.
    So, I ask them for the record that their solidarity is not 
conditional, that they are willing to support oversight and 
accountability for all deaths by law enforcement officers 
regardless of race, ethnicity, faith, location, or anything 
else that they will vote for real policy solutions that prevent 
police brutality--
    Chair Jordan. The time--
    Ms. Bush. --as well as programs that keep our communities 
safe including gun violence. Yes, I went over because someone 
else went over, too. I just want to hear that come from my 
Republican colleagues who care about police brutality, and it 
affects every person.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, the time of the gentlelady has 
expired.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director, as you may 
know, I am the co-lead, alongside Congressman Stanton of 
Arizona on the bill exempting certain less than lethal 
projectile devices on the Gun Control Act definition of a 
firearm, tasers.
    The ATF provided some comments on an earlier draft of the 
bill noting some concerns with the legislation. I am sure you 
are aware of the bill. Does the ATF still have the same 
concerns that we had on the earlier version?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, can I get back to you on that? 
I don't want to answer precipitously. I know this is an 
important issue for a lot of people, including some in law 
enforcement who have expressed views on it. So, can we get back 
to you on that because I don't know whether any changes in the 
bill have affected anything.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. OK, so let me just--bear with me then and I 
will explain some of the arguments. Hopefully, as the Director, 
your understanding of the Gun Control Act will be strong enough 
to provide some context. The proposed definition of less than 
lethal device would be unworkable in the field I think is the 
issue.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Because officers and agents cannot measure 
the projectile, velocity, field stops, and searches and 
seizures.
    Mr. Dettelbach. As opposed to centrally, but you are 
talking about out in the field. I understand.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, the ATF doesn't currently task any of 
the firearm velocity in the field on any of the search and 
seizure stuff. Is that right or not?
    Mr. Dettelbach. To the best of my knowledge, that is 
correct. It is always hard because some of our operations 
aren't in Washington. We have operations, field operations that 
are centralized in other places. So, I want to be careful, but 
we have--I think you are right as a general matter, yes. I will 
check though and get back to you. If that is not correct, I 
will get back to you.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. OK, OK. So, to be clear, the ATF right now 
though the concerns that this change would be unworkable in the 
field hinges on the idea that officers and agents would 
suddenly need to start measuring velocity and checking the 
internal workings, right? I am trying to get to the bottom 
because I think Congress is way beyond the ATF on this. I think 
there is a bipartisan group that certainly is starting to grow 
when it comes to this technology. The ATF still seems stuck in 
where we were 3-5 years ago.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I understand.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Obviously, you are getting the same 
feedback that we are because law enforcement wants more--
    Mr. Dettelbach. There are exceptions in the current law for 
law enforcement, but I understand your concern and we will get 
back to you, Congressman. I will commit to you that we will get 
back to you.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. OK, very good. Very good. So, with the time 
that I have left, I just also wanted to submit for the record a 
letter from Mr. Earl Griffith who served in the ATF for more 
than 20 years retiring as a Division Chief of the ATF's Firearm 
and Ammunition Technology Division.
    Mr. Griffith's letter, dated March 6, 2024, is in support 
of the bill, H.R. 3269, and suggests that the ATF already has 
the existing authority to revisit classification determinations 
if the manufacturer decides to modify a less lethal projectile 
device into a lethal configuration. That is what the 
manufacturers are doing. They are changing the technology to 
kind of match up with where the ATF is at and I think that is 
unnecessary. I think this thing could be cleaned up if we would 
just have somebody pay attention to where Congress is moving on 
this, how quickly we are moving on this.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, my understanding is that the 
statutory language that is at issue in a lot of these is to 
expel a projectile by means of an explosion. That is causing 
some of these classifications. Now, Mr. Griffith, obviously, is 
a well-respected, long-time ATF employee. We will look at the 
letter and try to get back to your office of where things 
stand.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. I am just telling Congress is way ahead of 
is where the ATF is on this, and that is why I wish it would 
take a deeper, longer look at where we are at, because 
otherwise, the input that you would have is simply not going to 
be taken seriously if the statute is written or if the changes 
are already made. So, I would encourage you to do that. I yield 
back.
    Chair Jordan. Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds? Will 
the gentleman yield? Thank you.
    Really quick, you mentioned earlier that we need to be 
focused on the facts, particularly relative to the Malinowski 
case. I just want to understand. Are you disputing that the ATF 
was not in Little Rock, Arkansas ready to execute a raid on the 
week before, on March 12, 2024?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am neither disputing nor--
    Chair Jordan. We saw the video. We saw the video. Right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There is a lot of--again, this is a 
slippery slope. I have to abide by our Department of Justice 
policy.
    Chair Jordan. Are you saying the ATF wasn't in Little Rock?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am not saying any of that. I am saying 
until the investigation is completed, I am not disputing that 
fact or any other fact. I am trying to counsel because I hear a 
lot of things out there--
    Chair Jordan. You said earlier things were stated that were 
not fact.
    Mr. Dettelbach. There has been a lot of things said, 
Congressman--Mr. Chair, I am sorry.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
    Mr. Cline. The death of Bryan Malinowski is a tragedy, but 
unfortunately, it is not a surprise, given the cavalier 
attitude of the ATF over the years and the way that they play 
fast and loose with the law, with the facts, and with the lives 
of American citizens.
    I want to ask you about the latest area in which the ATF is 
playing fast and loose and really taking actions that are going 
to endanger more lives in the future, if we don't see changes 
and that is the new attempts to have a universal registration 
check rule.
    As you know, the Gun Control Act makes it unlawful for any 
person, say a licensed dealer, to engage in the business of 
dealing in firearms until he has filed an application with the 
ATF and received a license. The 1986 Act modified the DCA, 
adding a statutory definition of engaging in the business and 
then in 2022, Biden signed into law the BSCA which broadened 
the definition by eliminating principal objective and replacing 
it with a requirement to predominantly earn a profit.
    I want to ask you because people who make occasional sales, 
exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a 
personal collection or a hobby, or who sells all or part of his 
personal collection of firearms, that was a portion of OPA 
altered by the 1922 Act with the exclusion--
    Mr. Dettelbach. That language, I believe, this isn't 
litigation. Our position--and the rule speaks for itself. I 
believe you will find in black and white in the rule that 
language that you just said. In black and white in the rule, 
that language is there.
    Mr. Cline. Yes, that language remains, that exclusion 
remains, unaltered by the BSCA. So, these people who make 
occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the 
enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby or who sell 
all or part of their personal collection of firearms are exempt 
from this 1922 Act modification. Yet, what we see--
    Mr. Dettelbach. For those activities.
    Mr. Cline. Right, for those activities.
    Mr. Dettelbach. They are doing a whole bunch of other 
things.
    Mr. Cline. Do you believe that a personal collection of 
firearms can be for self-defense?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, I think again the provisions of the 
rules speak for itself. In this format, it is hard to get into 
a deep debate on this. We also have filed significant legal 
papers in courts that are hearing this and because it is 
pending litigation, nothing I say can or should contradict any 
of those things. The rule sets forth conduct-based factors 
which under the totality of circumstances, right, could give 
rise to somebody being engaged in the business or not. It gives 
examples. It gives examples.
    Mr. Cline. I am glad you said conduct because where did 
Congress make it a crime to merely intend to earn a profit off 
selling a privately owned firearm? Because that is what you are 
attempting to--
    Mr. Dettelbach. There clearly is an intent element of the 
statute that Congress--
    Mr. Cline. Solely intent? There is no action?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, as in many criminal statutes and 
many statutes that are regulatory, there is both an act and an 
intent. Sometimes those things differ from statute and 
regulation to other statutes and regulations. The text of the 
law and the text of the rule are always what controls.
    Mr. Cline. Didn't change and so your efforts to become mind 
readers over at the ATF and somehow determine intent based on 
no activity whatsoever on the part of our gun owner to earn a 
profit--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman--
    Mr. Cline. It is playing fast and loose with the statute.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, not even talking about this 
statute, but in many, many, many regulatory functions and many 
administrative proceedings, many civil proceedings, people's 
intent is part of the determination that finders of fact make. 
They look at their words. They look at various different things 
that they are doing, and they can infer intent. I think the 
standard jury instruction in many cases talks about these 
things.
    Mr. Cline. Well, I just want to know when Congress 
authorized the ATF to require Americans who offer to sell one 
firearm to another family member, to get a Federal license, 
submit fingerprints, maintain gun registration paperwork, 
register as a business, and keep regular business hours open 
for the ATF inspections.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman--
    Mr. Cline. You never did that.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Let me be clear. This is not--the rule 
cannot and is not and does not create a universal background 
check. We could not do that. Only Congress could do that, and I 
want to be very clear here that the rule does not do that.
    Mr. Cline. I get what you are doing. The ATF is playing too 
cute by half. The American people see it. We see it, and we are 
not going to allow you to do that. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Wyoming is recognized.
    Ms. Hageman. A December 2021 ATF memo alerted the America 
people that the ATF was maintaining a digital, searchable, 
centralized registry of guns and gun owners in violation of 
various Federal prohibitions and contrary to what you testified 
to under oath today.
    In response, Representative Michael Cloud and 52 House 
Members sent the ATF a letter dated November 22, 2021. The ATF 
responded to that letter stating that it had 920,664,765 
records, 865,787,086 of which are in a digitalized format which 
Gun Owners of America has proved to be searchable. This was 
discovered shortly after the ATF was revealed to have processed 
over 54 million records in a single year.
    What is the latest record count for the ATF's illegal 
digital, searchable, national gun registry?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Zero. We obey the law. None of our 
records--
    Ms. Hageman. According to your letter, you have over 865 
million of these records are in digitalized format. You have 
admitted it.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, we are--I think the ATF is 
the only customer of Adobe Acrobat that pays money to remove 
search functions--
    Ms. Hageman. Before the Commerce Justice Science 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee in April of last 
year, you testified that the ATF pays Adobe Acrobat extra to 
have certain search functionality eliminated.
    Mr. Dettelbach. That is not correct.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, is the ATF's digital database of gun 
owner records capable of being opened by normal Adobe Acrobat 
and search by name?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, we pay--
    Ms. Hageman. This is a yes or no question. Is it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We pay to have search functions limited. We 
don't pay Adobe Acrobat. I believe we pay somebody else.
    Ms. Hageman. If the ATF asked, could Adobe Acrobat re-
enable name search functionality on the ATF's illegal gun 
registry?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is not an illegal registry. We do not--
    Ms. Hageman. If the ATF asked--
    Mr. Dettelbach. We do not search in the method that you are 
suggesting. We cannot. These are records that are--we pay a 
public safety cost, which Congress balanced for this decision, 
which is--
    Ms. Hageman. If the ATF asked, could Adobe Acrobat re-
enable name search functionality on the ATF's illegal gun 
registry?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am not an expert in Adobe Acrobat coding. 
I do know that we do not keep a gun registry. I also know 
that--
    Ms. Hageman. You have records. You have admitted that you 
have over 920 million records, over 865 million of which are in 
digitalized format, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If your answer is they somehow scanned in 
so that we literally don't have to have 950 million pieces of 
paper, that is a lot different from what you are implying with 
respect to having a gun registry. It is also true, Congressman, 
that we don't have any records of firearms purchases for people 
who are still in business, which is the vast majority of 
currently sold firearms. We have zero.
    Ms. Hageman. You also testified before that Subcommittee 
that the ATF's digital database of gun and gun owners is not 
capable of being searched by a personal identifier. Can the 
ATF's gun registry be searched by make, model, and serial 
number, enough searchability to create a list of say all AR-15 
owners?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The answer to your question is we do not 
create, use search and around the registry--
    Ms. Hageman. You are not answering my question. You are not 
answering my question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Your question had--respectfully, it was a 
technical question with five or six different parts, and I am 
trying not to erroneously, as you said I am under oath, I am 
trying not to erroneously misstate things of a technical 
nature. We do not keep a registry. We use these things for 
pending homicide investigations. It takes us a lot longer to 
find the name of the killer--
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Dettelbach, you have mentioned gun running 
and gun violence associated with Mexican cartels and the crime 
association with that. In fact, you refer to the cartels as 
``the most dangerous organizations in the world.''
    How many conversations have you had with President Biden or 
Secretary Mayorkas demanding that they close the Southern 
border?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We do not--
    Ms. Hageman. How many discussions have you had with 
President Biden or Mayorkas about closing the Southern border?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The answer to your question is--
    Ms. Hageman. It's zero.
    Mr. Dettelbach. We work with DHS on border-related--
    Ms. Hageman. How many conversations have you had with them 
demanding that they close the Southern border? It is a simple 
question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, may I answer?
    Ms. Hageman. How many conversations have you had 
demanding--
    Mr. Dettelbach. We discuss our border-related security 
issues with the DHS frequently.
    Ms. Hageman. Have you demanded that they close the Southern 
border?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I have had conversations with Secretary 
Mayorkas about our efforts--
    Ms. Hageman. Have you demanded that they close the Southern 
border?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am in the ATF. It is not our jurisdiction 
to police the Southern border. That is for the DHS, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. You don't care about crime in this country if 
you are not trying to address what is going on at the Southern 
border.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, I deeply disagree. I think it 
is very unfair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Chair. Director, here is what I find 
troubling. In 2021, there were five FFL licenses that were 
revoked, but in 2023, that number has jumped to 157, I believe. 
It is a dramatic increase, in my opinion, and I think we have 
echoed this on this side, a very stark indicator of the Biden 
Administration's aggressive overreach against FFLs. Here is 
what is worse, an increasing number of firearms dealers faced 
with severe and often disproportionate consequences for minor 
clerical errors have elected to shut down their operations 
rather than endure the extensive and costly process of 
defending their practice. This is like David versus Goliath 
except that Goliath, the U.S. Government, wins because all the 
resources are there, and you have a small business trying to 
defend themselves against the insurmountable resources of a 
Federal Government.
    Let's take a look at the number of voluntary business 
closures, post-inspection, over the last couple of years. In 
2021, there were 24; 2022, 69; and 2023, there were 80. This is 
the result of the ATF's zero tolerance policy and quite 
frankly, a very concerning trajectory of the ATF. This is all 
occurring under the guise of public safety, but the ATF is 
essentially working to dismantle a very lawful firearm 
industry.
    Let me ask you something, and this was talked about 
earlier. Where can I find authorization from Congress that you 
would revoke somebody's FFL for a minor clerical error? Where 
is that in the statute?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The statute and the policy and our 
implementation deals with willful violations. By the way, it 
limits them further to violations that endanger public safety. 
The vast majority--one thing I think we agree on which I want 
to say because it is important. The vast majority of firearms 
licensees out there are following the law and following the 
rules.
    Mr. Fry. Correct.
    Mr. Dettelbach. They are law-abiding businesses. That is 
why over 98, almost 99 percent of our inspections do not result 
in revocation. There is due process. People can request a 
hearing. In the hearings, Congressman, that we conduct, these 
are administrative hearings at the ATF. Half the time, we 
decide not to revoke because of something that the FFL presents 
to us. People have lawyers at some of those. They don't have 
lawyers at others. In many cases, we work with FFLs to try and 
cure any defects, if they are clerical defects, to make the FFL 
stronger in terms of a target for people who--not the FFL is 
doing some illegal, but others are taking advantage of weak 
controls. That can be a public safety threat as well, as you 
know. Even a law-abiding FFL, if they are not careful, can be 
taken advantage of by straw purchaser--
    Mr. Fry. Director, here is my concern and I know we have 
got limited time, and I am very respectful of yours. The BSCA 
was passed in 2022. Based on that, there has been a slight 
modification to the rule, but

        Even a single transaction or offer to engage in a transaction 
        when combined with other evidence may be sufficient to require 
        a license as an FFL.

    So, you are inferring from that and again, I think this is 
where the minor clerical errors come in, Congress has made no 
law to this. There is a 2022 amendment, but I think you have 
largely ignored another statute, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21). Are you 
familiar with that statute?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am familiar with all the code--
    Mr. Fry. What does that say? Director, what does that 
statute say?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe it is the provision you are 
talking about for importers, which is the provision that you 
are referring to?
    Mr. Dettelbach. OK, so the engaged--
    Mr. Fry. That term:

        Engaged in business shall not include a person that makes 
        occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the 
        enhancement of a personal collection or a hobby or who sells 
        all or part of their personal collection or firearm.

    Mr. Dettelbach. That is quoted in the rule.
    Mr. Fry. Right. The concern that I have though is that not 
the application of the ATF because you are taking a very heavy-
handed approach. Again, you have to look at the 
disproportionality of this is that you have the heavy hand of 
government. You have the enforcement. You are creating these 
rules, which are beyond the scope of what Congress has implied 
or directed. You are using this to target people. Again, I am 
not talking about the bad actors. I am talking about lawful 
businesses who are trying to do the right thing and have minor 
clerical errors.
    Let me ask you something really quick. I want to shift 
gears. Can you describe Spartan? What is Spartan?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Spartan is the name of the general case 
management system that exists at the ATF. It replaced an older 
system. The system had been in service for many, many years. It 
was no longer supported anymore by the technology out there, so 
we replaced it with a new case management system.
    Mr. Fry. Now, the ATF administrative investigators are 
tasked with determining whether or not willfully did anything 
and according to a recent ATF revocation hearing, whether ``in 
preparing the report of violations is the issue of willfulness, 
even a factor?'' The ATF Director responded ``I input data and 
Spartan does the figuring.''
    Are we allowing AI to determine whether or not something is 
willful or not?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am so glad you asked--absolutely not. We, 
people, human beings review all these things at supervisory 
levels. You cannot revoke somebody without several levels of 
approval.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are almost done, sir. 
Thank you for being here for a second time. Thank you for your 
time. I really appreciate it.
    Basic question, sir. You are an attorney, correct? It is my 
understanding.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes, I am, sir.
    Mr. Hunt. Well, I am going to give you the benefit of the 
doubt knowing that you understand the Constitution, including 
our Bill of Rights, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I hope so, sir.
    Mr. Hunt. So, what is your interpretation of our Second 
Amendment? Do you think Americans have the right to bear arms, 
yes or no. Just give me your brief overall view of it.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes, and I think what we do is we look to 
what the Supreme Court has decided on this. The Supreme Court, 
Congressman, has been very clear on this. The law, the Second 
Amendment jurisprudence is lengthy and changing. As a lawyer, I 
don't get to decide this. The courts decided it and the courts 
have said, yes, is the answer to your question.
    Mr. Hunt. OK, so we have these Second Amendment rights 
because we know how important it is for us to maintain our 
constitutional republic and a functioning republic because, 
again, as a gun owner myself, as a lawful gun owner myself, it 
is very important to me to be able to protect my home and also 
prevent tyrannical governments from infringing on our rights as 
human beings bestowed to us in our Constitution.
    So, it is my humble opinion, sir, that the ATF is certainly 
infringing on a lot of these rules for law-abiding citizens and 
infringing on our Second Amendment rights for law-abiding 
citizens. I am not talking about trying to catch bad guys that 
have guns. I am talking about implementing a level of pain on 
people like me that, quite frankly, was not given--was not 
bestowed to us--that is bestowed to us via the Second 
Amendment.
    Unfortunately, as bureaucrats attempting to infringe on our 
Second Amendment rights that some lawmakers of Congress, they 
see gun owner tragedies as an opportunity to slowly chip away 
at these rights. So, recently lawmakers used the heartbreaking 
Uvalde tragedy as an opportunity to pass red flag legislation. 
That is a fact.
    I remember a time we were told that red flag laws were 
simply a conspiracy theory. I am old enough to remember that. 
They are not a conspiracy theory anymore, sir. Red flag laws 
are in bills, and they are in Biden's Executive Orders. If you 
don't know what red flags are, in short, red flag laws are a 
type of precrime enforcement where courts grant orders allowing 
for the seizure of firearms from someone who hasn't committed 
an actual crime.
    When I think of red flag laws, I see the Safer Communities 
Act which President Biden signed into law in 2022. The Safer 
Communities Act includes a $750 million in funding for States 
to implement and improve red flag laws. Again, that is going 
after the good guys, not the bad guys. It hasn't stopped there, 
sir. Biden in 2023 announced an Executive Order on gun control 
with the goal of ``increasing the effective use of red flag 
laws.''
    Biden also opened the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, 
led by Kamala Harris, which has further encouraged and 
entrenched red flag laws across the Nation. These are all the 
facts. I am still waiting for her to tell us what the root 
causes are of the border crisis, and you are going to try to 
tell me that Kamala Harris is going to tell us the root causes 
of gun violence. Good luck with that.
    Finally, the ATF has expanded on its Safer Communities Act 
by issuing a new ruling that in practice will implement 
universal background checks. I am going to say the quiet part 
out loud because we are almost done. Whenever a gun tragedy 
occurs in this country, we always hear the left say we have to 
do something. We have to do more. Then once legislation is 
passed, my colleagues on the left then say we have to always do 
more and more and more.
    I am going to warn the American people that we have to do 
more, what we have to do more really, really means. First, they 
come after the AR-15s. Then, they come after the sporting 
rifles. Then they come after your long guns. When homicides 
have not decreased because you take away all those weapons, and 
keep in mind, the AR-15 is responsible for six percent of 
homicides in this country, they are going to come after your 
hand guns and disarm our country, and disarm our rights and 
take away our Second Amendment rights that have been given to 
us by our Founding Fathers.
    Rather than take away guns from law-abiding citizens, 
instead, we should be going after criminals, specifically 
criminals. The reason why I am talking about red flag laws is 
because the American public understands that we are going to 
start having mission creep here. You go after one thing, you go 
after another thing, and then there is always more. There is 
always going to be a fight. We are using tragedies to infringe 
on rights that have been to us by our Second Amendment. It is 
you, being head of the ATF, I need you to be cognizant and very 
aware of that because most of the people in Texas that are 
ranch owners, AR-15 owners like myself, combat veterans like 
myself, we don't need more laws. We implement the laws that we 
have on the books and go after the bad guys that have guns, not 
the good guys, and that is your job. Thanks for being here, 
sir. I yield back the rest of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Director, thank 
you for being here. I apologize. We have got to run to votes 
and so we are going to sprint out of here. We appreciate you 
being here for 3\1/2\ hours and answering our questions. 
Thanks, again, sir.
    That concludes today's hearing. Without objection, all 
Members will have five legislative days for additional written 
questions for the witness or additional materials for the 
record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117349.