[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AND THE SECOND
AMENDMENT: EXAMINING ATF'S
RELATIONSHIP TO THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 14, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-746 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Elijah Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
Richard McCormick, Georgia
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Ryan Giachetti, Chief Counsel
Alex Rankin, Counsel
Emily Allen Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement
Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona Summer Lee, Pennsylvania, Ranking
Andy Biggs, Arizona Member
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Wesley Bell, Missouri
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Lateefah Simon, California
Brian Jack, Georgia Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Clay Higgins, U.S. Representative, Chairman................. 1
Hon. Summer Lee, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member............. 3
WITNESS
The Honorable Robert Cekada, Director, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Article, CNN, ``Gun Crime Cases Fall As Agents Shift to
Immigration Crackdown''; submitted by Rep. Ansari.
* Article, AZ Family, ``Arizonans Sheltering In Place After
Cartel Violence''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Breitbart, ``AZ Gun Dealer Facing Terrorism Charges
for Alleged Sales to Cartels''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Phoenix New Times, ``AZ Guns are Fueling A Drug
Cartel War in Mexico''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, USA Carry, ``Gun Owners of America Battles AFT `Gag
Order' ''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, AOL, ``Mexican National Sentenced in Major Middle
East-Mexico-AZ Smuggling Scheme''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Breitbart, ``RPG Launcher Tube, Rifles Hidden in
Lexus Headed to Mexico''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter to ATF, dated January 15, 2026; submitted by Rep.
Burlison.
* Letter to ATF, dated February 14, 2025; submitted by Rep.
Cloud.
* Letter from DOJ re Tiahrt, dated February 13, 2026; submitted
by Rep. Higgins.
* Letter to Dep Director Cekada, dated January 28, 2026;
submitted by Rep. Higgins.
* Letter to Dep Director Cekada re follow-up, dated April 6,
2026; submitted by Rep. Higgins.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
* Questions for the Record: Hon. Robert Cekada; submitted by
Rep. Crane.
These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AND THE SECOND
AMENDMENT: EXAMINING ATF'S
RELATIONSHIP TO THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2026
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clay Higgins
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Higgins, Gosar, Biggs, Perry,
Boebert, Jack, Lee, Ansari, Bell, and Pressley.
Also present: Representatives Cloud, Burlison, Crane,
Clyde, and Frost.
Mr. Higgins. The Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement
will come to order.
Welcome everyone. We welcome our audience. We ask that you
observe all principles of polite decorum today, but we are
happy to have you here.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CLAY HIGGINS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM LOUISIANA
Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement convenes
to conduct critical oversight of the Agency charged with
executing our Nation's firearms laws: the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or ATF. We are honored to be
joined by ATF's newly confirmed Director, Robert Cekada.
Director Cekada has decades of experience and distinguished
service within ATF and law enforcement. Director Cekada's deep
expertise and his respect for the law and constitutional rights
should give us optimism about ATF's future posture toward law-
abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Strong, principled leadership at ATF is all the more
important now given the Agency's troubling disregard of Second
Amendment rights over the past several years. One prominent
example has been ATF's repeated failure to abide by a Federal
law prohibiting the dissemination of firearms trace data known
popularly as the Tiahrt Amendment. Firearms trace data is
information about the chain of gun ownership and sale beginning
from point of manufacture, maintained by the ATF's National
Tracing Center, or NTC. Part of a 2003 Department of Justice
Appropriations bill, the Tiahrt Amendment precludes ATF from
sharing this data with anyone other than prosecutors or law
enforcement agencies in connection with criminal
investigations. The purpose of this law is clear. Failure to
abide by the Tiahrt Amendment exposes informants, undercover
officers, and lawful Federal firearm licensees, or FFLs, whose
safety could be endangered by revelations in violation of
Tiahrt.
Despite Tiahrt's obvious importance to police and public
safety, recent history has shown that ATF has sometimes
disregarded the law. Some violations of Tiahrt have seemed
unintentional, associated with accidental data disclosures
while responding to FOIA requests. However, other violations
clearly stem from the political and ideological opposition that
some ATF bureaucrats have for the Tiahrt Law. There are several
glaring recent examples, particularly during the Biden
Administration.
To begin, the Biden ATF assisted gun control groups in
creating a map of gun shops, including those owned by some
Members of Congress, by providing Tiahrt-protected data as part
of a FOIA request. That is how this map was created. ATF's
release of this data was a clear violation of Federal law and
seemed intended to help anti-Second Amendment groups.
Separately, the Biden ATF inadvertently disseminated Tiahrt-
protected data as part of a FOIA request from the group, Gun
Owners of America, also known as GOA. ATF subsequently secured
a gag order to prevent GOA from sharing the data. GOA,
supported by several First Amendment groups, sued to retain
access to the data by virtue of First Amendment press freedoms.
Dishearteningly, this disregard for the law has not been
limited to the Biden Administration. After the Biden ATF's
inadvertent disclosure of Tiahrt-protected trace data to GOA,
the DOJ under Pam Bondi re-released that same data, possibly
purposefully, to make moot GOA's ongoing litigation against the
ATF gag order. So, rather than protecting the public by
preventing sensitive firearms trace data from falling into the
wrong hands, the ATF has defied both the letter and the spirit
of the law.
ATF's approach to Tiahrt can serve as a window into the
Agency's successes and failures upholding the Second Amendment
and ensuring protections on sensitive law enforcement data. The
Biden Administration, in particular, took a variety of
troubling actions in this regard. Under President Biden, ATF's
``zero tolerance enforcement policy,'' which threatened to
close firearm businesses over even small, non-material
paperwork and clerical errors, increased reliance on inspection
records and compliance data to revoke firearms licenses. The
Biden Administration ATF used bureaucratic complexities to prey
upon legally operating firearms dealers and license holders.
Furthermore, Biden-era regulatory changes and enforcement
guidance expanded who is considered ``engaged in the business
of dealing firearms,'' potentially implicating unsuspecting,
everyday Americans as federally regulated gun dealers and
subjected them to severe penalties for noncompliance, including
criminal prosecution.
I have faith that the current Administration will continue
to roll back the Biden ATF's most destructive regulations. A
recently announced batch of ATF proposed rulemakings seem to do
just that, and I encourage that action. However, ATF's improper
treatment of Tiahrt-protected data demonstrates that rigorous,
ongoing congressional oversight of the Agency is necessary
regardless of which party controls the White House. I thank
you, my friend, Director Cekada, for joining us today to
discuss this crucial subject along with other Second Amendment
issues. I look forward to today's hearing.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms.
Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, for the purpose of making in an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER SUMMER LEE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I also look forward to
and am excited to have a hearing existing. I do have to wonder,
though, what it will take to actually get my Republican
colleagues to take action to prevent gun violence because
Columbine was not enough, and Sandy Hook was not enough, Las
Vegas was not enough, and Parkland was not enough, and Pulse
Nightclub was not enough. Even your President being shot at
multiple different times was not enough.
Last year, according to a tracker by Everytown, there were
38,368 incidents of gun violence in the United States,
resulting in 13,926 deaths, 21,686 injuries. Gun violence
remains the leading cause of death for children in the United
States of America. Mr. Chair, your home state of Louisiana had
the highest gun violence death rate. Just last month, there was
a mass shooting at a mall in Baton Rouge and another shooting
in Shreveport where eight children were killed, yet this
hearing with the new Director of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is not about reducing gun
violence. It is about privacy protections for gun dealers.
Trump and Republicans have shown again and again that they do
not care about this epidemic of gun violence. After a shooting,
they at most post online thoughts and prayers, and then they go
back to vehemently defending the Second Amendment. Sometimes
they even mock these tragedies by wearing little assault gun
rifle pins.
Eighteen days after he took office, President Trump signed
an executive order on protecting Second Amendment rights, which
seems to be the only constitutional right that they care about.
Falling in line with this executive order, Director Cekada
recently announced new rules, none of which do anything to
reduce gun violence. Among these proposed changes are a
narrowing of the ``engaged in business rule,'' which generally
ensures that for-profit gun sellers must obtain a Federal
firearms license. He has also moved to deregulate bump stocks
like the one used in a 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that led to
60 deaths.
Trump and Republicans are not just making sure gun dealers
and owners remain unregulated and unburdened. He has also
attacked efforts to get to the root causes of gun violence.
Trump closed the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which
helped hundreds of Americans and countless communities by
offering the first-ever Federal response to mass shootings and
gun violence. It responded to crises when they happened and
connected local governments and municipalities with resources
to help victims and survivors.
Last year, the DOJ also abruptly terminated about $50--
excuse me--$500 million in Federal grants to more than 200
organizations and local governments working on community safety
and justice issues. One of the things is these organizations do
is work to combat street violence and connect people with
mental health services, and they get results. Studies have
shown that community violence intervention programs reduce
violence in communities and have contributed to lowering
homicide rates. It is why I launched the Community Safety
Caucus to prioritize this work. Real community safety means
making holistic investments in people to root out the systemic
challenges that perpetuate this cycle of harm, yet due to
Trump's policies, many of these organizations doing this
crucial work have had to roll back services or have had to
close entirely.
So, under this Administration, you cannot regulate guns,
and you cannot have programs that address the violence in other
ways. You cannot say that the money is not there. Surely we can
take some of the $1 billion proposed for the Trump ballroom
bunker and put it toward some of these violence reduction
programs. Republicans want to control what books you read, what
history you learn, how you identify, who you can love, our
bodies. They want to control everything except the very thing
that could prevent deaths of children and students and
worshippers and shoppers in the only country on earth where
this is a problem. It seems that they think those thoughts and
prayers do enough, but that we, one of the most powerful body
in this country, can do no more. I thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields.
Without objection, Representatives Eric Burlison of
Missouri, Michael Cloud of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Eli
Crane of Arizona, and Maxwell Frost of Florida are waived on to
the Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witness at
today's hearings.
I am pleased to welcome today's witness. Robert Cekada is
the Director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives. Confirmed by the Senate on April 29, Director
Cekada brings with him over three decades of law enforcement
and public service experience. Mr. Cekada's law enforcement
career began with the New York City Police Department where he
served from 1992 to 2000. He joined ATF as a special agent in
2005 in the Baltimore Field Division. His successes in a
variety of field assignments led to his promotion to ATF
headquarters, where he has served in multiple senior leadership
positions prior to his appointment as Director. Most recently
he served as Deputy Director beginning in April 2025.
I personally welcome Director Cekada for being here, and I
would like to note that the gentleman made me a promise a few
months ago that he would appear before this Committee at his
first available day on his calendar after confirmation. He
called me immediately after confirmation, very quickly, and
advised me he intended to honor that promise, and here he sits
today. Thank you for honoring your word, Mr. Cekada.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witness will please
stand and raise your right hand, sir.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Cekada. I do.
Mr. Higgins. Let the record show that the witness answered
in the affirmative. Thank you, sir. You may take a seat.
We appreciate you being here today, and I look forward to
your testimony. We all do. Let me remind the witness that we
have read your written statement, and it will appear in full in
the hearing record. Please limit your oral statement to 5
minutes, sir. As a reminder, please press the button on the
microphone in front of you so that it is on and Members can
hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you
will turn green. After 4 minutes, it will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your 5 minutes has expired. We ask you to
please wrap up at that point.
I now recognize Director Cekada for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT CEKADA
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO,
FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
Mr. Cekada. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman Higgins,
Ranking Member Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for the invitation to appear before you to discuss privacy
protections and the Second Amendment.
ATF is the only Federal law enforcement Agency whose
primary mission is combating violent crime. We arrest violent
criminals, disrupt firearm trafficking networks that arm gangs
and cartels, investigate bombings and arson, and deliver world-
class forensic and intelligence services to state and local
partners, all while protecting the Second Amendment and all
rights of law-abiding Americans. We are a small Federal Agency
with roughly 4,600 employees, but we are mighty, and our
actions speak for themselves.
Since January 20, 2025, ATF has arrested just over 8,700
criminals and seized nearly 44,000 illegal firearms,
approximately 5,100 of which were being interdicted with the
intention to traffic them to Mexico, just over 2.7 million
rounds of ammunition, and more than 28,300 illegal explosives.
We have also made historic gains in eForm processing. By the
end of May, we will have processed many eForm 1 and 4
applications in 2026 as we did in the entirety of 2023. We have
done all of this while cutting eForm processing times from 47
days to 42 days, and cutting eForm processing times from 230
days in 2023 to just 12 days today.
Although I know this is not an appropriations hearing, I
would be remiss if I did not point out that ATF's budget has
suffered tremendously in the recent years. Congressional
support for the President's Fiscal Year 2027 budget is,
therefore, paramount to ensuring that ATF can continue to make
gains in all of these areas this Subcommittee cares about,
including tracing, ballistic evidence, and forensic laboratory
examinations involving firearms, arson, and explosives, and
reducing The National Firearms Act (NFA) eForms processing
times. Given the compounded ATF cuts ATF has already absorbed,
anything else would lead to catastrophic results in all of
these efforts.
The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional
guarantee, and ATF is committed to protecting and preserving
it. As I said during my confirmation hearing, effective law
enforcement and respect for civil liberties are inseparable
obligations, and that is why ATF has entered a new era of
reform to rebuild trust with the industry, the Federal firearms
licensees, lawful gun owners, and the public while still
prioritizing our efforts on public safety. Some of the specific
actions I have taken include establishing a Senior Industry
Partnership Advisor position to address industry concerns and
foster proactive engagement with the regulated community;
revoking the enhanced regulatory enforcement policy, sometimes
referred to as a zero tolerance policy, and replacing it with a
new policy that emphasizes fairness and transparency while
recognizing that FFLs are often the first line of defense
against gun crime; and I also implemented regulatory reforms
last month where ATF issued 34 notices of final and proposed
rulemaking following the comprehensive review that was
conducted in compliance with the executive order on protecting
the Second Amendment rights. The aim is simple: clearer
regulations that do not compromise public safety. I encourage
all of you and your constituents to submit comments on these
proposed rules. We want to make sure that we get these right.
ATF complies with all laws enacted by Congress. We do not
have an illegal firearms registry, and we are committed to
upholding the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens
and to protect their privacy, including and especially as it
relates to the Tiahrt Amendment, the Demand Letter 2 Program,
amongst others. Firearms trace data exists to support criminal
investigations, full stop. Any decision to share trace data
with anyone for any reason requires explicit legal
justification to my office for awareness. Under my leadership,
that standard is firmly in place. To the extent that Congress
wishes to strengthen these or any other privacy protections,
ATF and the Department stand ready to work with you.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
again for the opportunity to appear before you today. ATF is a
law enforcement Agency in the truest sense. We enforce the law,
we follow the law, and we protect the rights the law
guarantees. Through crime gun intelligence, forensic analysis,
and relentless investigation, we identify and arrest violent
offenders and gang members, dismantle trafficking networks, and
sever the supply chains arming cartels, prohibited persons, and
terrorist organizations, all while safeguarding lawful commerce
and upholding the Constitution of the United States. Thank you
again, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Higgins. I thank the gentlemen for his opening
statement, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Director Cekada, we are going to try to drill down in 5
minutes here regarding the Tiahrt violations that have been
well documented in modern history, driven for whatever purpose,
accidentally or purposefully, by ATF. And perhaps we can
concur, as you and I have discussed and others from your Agency
have discussed, the root cause of why this is happening, and
what Congress can do, driving more clarified, standalone
legislation that will enforce the understanding of the Tiahrt
policies that have been codified in appropriations riders for
many years. But I think we can have more robust congressional
action to more clearly lead not only your ATF, sir, but the ATF
of generations yet to come.
So, we are going to talk about this, but with an agreed
purpose that we are going to continue to work together to
address the Tiahrt concern and ultimately fix it between
Article I authorities and Article II concurrence. Is that
correct? Does that sort of summarize our----
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. So, we have established that the Tiahrt
Amendments are fundamentally a law protecting privacy. It is
meant to protect law enforcement officers and the citizenry. Is
that correct?
Mr. Cekada. That is correct.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. So, on multiple occasions in recent
years, protected firearms trace data was disseminated in
contravention of the Tiahrt Amendment. This sometimes was done
seemingly inadvertently, and other times it appeared to be
intentional. Do you think ATF has strategically utilized
Freedom of Information Act requests--FOIA requests--and
disclosure as a means of sidestepping Tiahrt?
Mr. Cekada. Sir, I do not believe that I am aware of any
incident that it was done intentionally. I can tell you that,
for certain, the one incident you mentioned that involved the
Gun Owners of America, that was an inadvertent mistake
attributed to two things, to be frank, nonetheless, a problem
and a big mistake. It was attributed, A, to a lack of staffing
and B, the software that we were using to redact information in
an effort to respond to FOIA. The folks in our FOIA office in
their review process selected the information set to be
redacted, and the system had a clunky way of finalizing those
redactions, and that was never done appropriately. No excuse.
It was wrong. It should not have been released.
The second release involving that same response did involve
the DOJ, and I will not speak on their behalf, but as far as
what ATF did after that, we did purchase new software----
Mr. Higgins. Right.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. To ensure that we actually do not
have any sort of human error in the future.
Mr. Higgins. So, you feel confident that, based upon the
existing culture of compliance with Tiahrt and the examples,
that under your leadership, ATF accepts responsibility for and
intends to learn from moving forward. You have been dealing
with Tiahrt as an appropriations rider, unknown if it would be
renewed year by year. It is expected to be renewed, but until
it is done, it is not done. So, for 20 years, that has been the
culture you have had to deal with, and we intend to pass
permanent Tiahrt legislation, standalone legislation. Would
that help, like, within the procedures and policies and
cultures of the ATF to be more solid in compliance with Tiahrt?
Mr. Cekada. If I may, sir, I think--I can tell you for
certain during my time and under my watch, ATF completely
respects Tiahrt. We will make sure there are no releases. Where
there is a challenge, and I look forward to working with this
Committee to help give Tiahrt the strength it needs to protect
the eTrace data that we use, in particular because that data,
as you stated, is used to protect our communities. Our law
enforcement officers, our undercover operations, we use that
information to identify and target violent criminals for our
criminal investigations. That data is misused at times through
different leadership in the local communities who compel our
state and local partners to turn over that data.
The only mechanism ATF has to hold them accountable is to
cut a particular law enforcement off of eTrace. That is not a
good solution for us. It is tough for us when that is the only
option because if I cut that law enforcement agency off of
eTrace, I am also, thereby, putting public safety at risk
because that same police department is now not able to conduct
their investigation.
Mr. Higgins. Well, we want to work with you to stabilize
that process and ATF policies. We are going to deliver you a
more permanent fix there, sir.
Without objection, I would like unanimous consent to enter
into the record a letter from our office to the ATF dated
January 28 of this year in reference to this topic; another
letter from my office to Director Cekada, Deputy Director at
the time, dated April 6, 2026; and a response from the
Department of Justice to letters that we directed to them on
this topic from just a couple of days ago.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Lee, for her
questioning.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to start by
acknowledging the eight children who were shot and killed
recently in the first of two horrific mass shootings in
Louisiana. One of them was only three years old. Children
should not face this kind of violence. They should not have to
learn active shooter drills at schools. They should not have to
worry about any of this. They should be living and playing and
just being kids.
I represent Western Pennsylvania, which includes
communities that are still healing from the Pittsburgh
Synagogue shooting, the deadliest antisemitic attack in
American history. In my district, gun violence is not abstract.
It is mass shootings, hate-fueled violence, and the daily
community violence that devastates families. One of the few
Agencies tasked with helping reduce gun violence is the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the ATF. So, I
want to start with debunking some myths about the basic tools
used by ATF central to all of this: gun tracing.
Director Cekada, could you briefly explain in simple terms
how gun tracing works?
Mr. Cekada. Sure. First of all, good morning. Thank you for
your question. So, the trace starts from the point of where the
firearm was manufactured, and in most cases, a firearm goes
from the manufacturer to a distributor and from a distributor
to a wholesaler or a retailer. ATF uses that trace data to
identify who the first purchaser was, and in some cases, the
first purchaser could have been just a few days prior. In many
cases, there is a period of time in between, and it varies from
firearm to firearm.
Basically, what our agents do is, when the trace is
conducted, if it turns out to be in our out-of-business records
at the National Tracing Center, we are able to query to see if
that serial number is in the out-of-business records. If it is
not in the out-of-business records and we have access through
the eTrace system to the manufacturer's systems, we can
identify, okay, which manufacturer was it. We contact them.
They are all very cooperative. They tell us when it was
manufactured, who it went to.
Ms. Lee. Right.
Mr. Cekada. And our investigators go out and interview
folks----
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. To determine where that firearm
first entered the public market.
Ms. Lee. Yes. Thank you so much for that. So, gun tracing
helps law enforcement figure out trafficking patterns, it helps
to determine how a gun got to the crime scene, and it gives us
viable information to stop the spread of illicit firearms.
Director Cekada, ATF's gun tracing database is not the same as
a searchable national registry of law-abiding gun owners,
correct?
Mr. Cekada. There is no searchable gun database for
American gun owners.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. So, because Federal law already
prohibits a national gun registry, these rules are not in place
to villainize gun owners. They are here to keep us safe. I
emphasize this because Republicans have convened this hearing
today around the Tiahrt Amendments, which are a cluster of
riders to spending bills that limit how ATF and the FBI can use
the data they collect to trace and track gun trafficking. These
riders do not even really protect gun owners. They protect the
gun industry.
Now, Director Cekada, I would also like to ask you about
the 34 rules you recently proposed either deregulating firearm
requirements or streamlining processes to ease the burden on
federally licensed firearm dealers. In announcing these rules,
you were surrounded by representatives of firearm industry
groups. Just yes or no, did you consult with gun industry-
affiliated groups, such as the National Rifle Association
(NRA), Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports
Foundation (NSSF), which is the Firearm Industry Trade
Association, in formulating and drafting the rulemakings?
Mr. Cekada. No, we did not.
Ms. Lee. Did you consult with any victims and survivors of
gun violence?
Mr. Cekada. No, we did not.
Ms. Lee. Did you consult with any gun violence prevention
organizations?
Mr. Cekada. We did not.
Ms. Lee. Are you familiar with the concept of industry
capture? What would you say to those who look at the
announcement and the process for crafting these rules and see
that ATF is, or might perceive ATF to be, influenced by the
very firearm industries it is meant to police?
Mr. Cekada. Did you say, ``industry capture?'' I am sorry,
I did not hear you properly.
Ms. Lee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cekada. Yes. Did you say----
Ms. Lee. I asked if you are familiar with the concept of
industry capture.
Mr. Cekada. Well, the first time I heard that was reading a
news article, I believe, today, this morning, and so, I can
tell you ATF is not captured by anyone. We are focused on doing
our job and following the law. I purposely did not meet with
anyone. We took the information that we have noticed over the
years. Again, I have been doing this 34 years and working in
the most violent cities in the United States and risking my
life, along with the lives of all of our partners around the
country, to try to make America's communities better. There is
ambiguity in the law, and I think it is important for people to
be able to follow the law, to understand the law, and when
Federal agents do not understand the law themselves, that
leaves all of us at risk. There should not be any room there.
So, no, and again, people were upset at me from both sides
because we did not include anyone, but in order to try and make
changes, we had to do it in the way we did so that we can now
discuss this through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
process. Everyone--your constituents, everyone's constituents--
in this room will have the opportunity to comment. We will take
those comments seriously.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you, and I look forward to that. And I
will be sending you a letter with additional concerns and
questions that I have around this rulemaking process, and I
urge you to consider these regulations and remember your
mission: to keep Americans safe. As it stands, Americans are
not safe, and there is a deep perception and reality that there
are certain lobbyists--the gun industry--that have influence
over our processes, they have influence over policymaking, and
it is important that we root that out and that we are honest
about that. I thank you for your time, and I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields. I recognize Mr. Gosar
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman Higgins. The Firearm Owners
Protection Act bans the Federal Government from creating a
national gun owner database, and the Tiahrt Amendment prevents
the ATF from sharing firearm records of law-abiding Americans.
My bill, H.R. 7678, the GRIP Act, goes further by blocking
Federal funds from helping states or local governments create
similar databases. I introduced the GRIP Act in response to
several unconstitutional disclosures of private information and
firearms.
In 2012, The Journal News published the names and addresses
of gun permit holders in New York. In 2022, the California
Department of Justice released the personal information of
nearly 192,000 concealed carry applicants. And in 2024, the ATF
released the firearm records to USA Today despite those records
being protected under the Tiahrt Amendment. Later that same
year, the ATF also released firearm data to the far-left
magazine known as The Trace in violation of Federal law. My
bill, the GRIP Act, makes sure that Federal tax dollars are
never used to support state recordkeeping systems that put
Americans' privacy at risk.
Director Cekada, does the Federal Government maintain any
Federal firearm databases?
Mr. Cekada. Sir, the closest thing to what I would call a
database is the National Firearms and Transfer Record, which
applies to NFA firearms. As it applies to any other firearms
that are under the Gun Control Act (GCA), there is no database.
Mr. Gosar. Okay. So, in 2021, a memo leaked by Gun Owners
of America revealed that the ATF does have a Federal firearm
database containing over 50 million out-of-business records of
gun dealers. Is this not a firearm database maintained by the
Federal Government?
Mr. Cekada. It is not a firearms database. Again, sir--I am
sorry--I will explain what the out-of-business records are, and
the out-of-business records are, under law, as well, once a
Federal firearms licensee goes out of business, they are
required to turn over their records to ATF within 30 days.
ATF's National Tracing Center ends up processing these records
that come in all shapes and forms--ripped, torn, old, moldy, et
cetera--and they scan these forms into our system there.
In the system, the only thing that is actually searchable
is a serial number, and most manufacturers' serial numbers are
repeated. Even when, for example, a police officer tries to
determine if a firearm is stolen, you have to include make,
model, and serial number to be able to determine which firearm
you are actually referring to. Those records are completely
separate from every active Federal firearms licensee that is
operating in the United States. So, if we try to conduct a
trace and we try those initial out-of-business records, which
we are required to maintain by law, and we strike out, we do
not have anything, we have to try to determine when it was
manufactured from the manufacturer, then we get to that Federal
firearms licensee, and then it is a phone call where they
actually have to go through all their files and find the
individual 4473 if they are using a paper system. A lot of the
FFLs today use a digital system that we do not have access to.
So, they are able to tell us in short order, if we call
them late at night that, Madam Proprietor, hey, there was a
shooting, we are trying to track down who may have had this
firearm, they have to go through their records to provide us
that information. We do not have access to it. And ultimately,
for court, we would go and obtain an original copy, provide
them with the receipt, and then return the original copy once
we were done with the case.
Mr. Gosar. So, has the ATF ever violated the Tiahrt
Amendment?
Mr. Cekada. As I said, we have, what I am aware of,
inadvertently. I am not aware of any intentional releases done
by anyone on my staff during my time that I have been in a
leadership position.
Mr. Gosar. So, you said that it has been violated, right?
Mr. Cekada. Say it again, sir?
Mr. Gosar. The Tiahrt Amendment was violated, right?
Mr. Cekada. It was, and as I answered Chairman Higgins,
that there was an inadvertent leak that I am aware of--not a
leak--an inadvertent failed attempt to redact information that
was responsive to GOA, and that resulted in information being
released that should not be released. So, you are correct.
Mr. Gosar. Okay. Well, I am strongly opposed to any gun
owners database. Congress must pass my bill to defund state
registries and eliminate all Federal gun owner registries.
Whether it lasts 60 years, 30 years, 20 years, and ten years, a
registry is still a registry. Congress has always rejected the
idea of government keeping a list of firearm owners. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields. Mr. Bell is recognized
for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, it is really good to
see the Moms Demand Action t-shirts in the crowd. I should have
expected that, but it is certainly a pleasant surprise to see
you all there. I say it all the time, if you want to know my
policies on commonsense gun safety laws, look at their website.
Mr. Cekada, unlike many of this Administration's
appointees, you actually have experience in this field, and so
that is actually refreshing to see. But as a former prosecutor,
which I am sure you have been involved in many of these
investigations like myself, I have learned a simple reality,
and that is most guns used in crimes started somewhere legal.
They are manufactured, sold by a licensed dealer and a
background check is completed, and that is where the paper
trail begins and, too often, where it ends. But what happens
next is the real problem, simple but yet profound, and that is
guns move. Guns move from licensed dealers into the secondary
market. They move through unlicensed sellers who are not
running background checks, are not keeping records, and are not
accountable to anyone, and they end up at crime scenes. And too
often I have shown up at crime scenes and seen not only people
being harmed, but children as well, both of which are tragic.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act addressed the loophole
law enforcement had raised concerns about for years. The
``engaged in the business'' rule created clear standards for
when repeated gun sales crossed the line into illegal,
unlicensed dealing. But on May 6, 2026, of this year,
obviously, ATF published proposed changes that would weaken
that rule. Weakening these standards makes it harder to ensure
repeat for-profit guns sellers get a Federal license, keep
records, and run background checks, and when you roll back
these standards, the behavior does not stop. The accountability
is what stops. Unlicensed sellers can operate more freely, sell
more guns, and do so knowing it will be harder for law
enforcement to stop them, and we know how this story ends.
Missouri already showed us.
In 2007, Missouri repealed its permit-to-purchase law, and
firearm homicides increased by 47 percent in our state. Law
enforcement also began recovering much newer guns at crime
scenes, a sign that illegal gun trafficking was increasing, but
here is what makes this moment especially troubling. We are not
just weakening an enforcement tool. We are doing so while this
Congress is further threatening our ability to track the impact
of these decisions through limits on gun trace data and
research.
Director Cekada, I have several questions about how the ATF
plans to explain that to the American people. So, how does
weakening the engaged in the business rule improve public
safety?
Mr. Cekada. First of all, good morning, and thank you for
your question. The ``engage in the business'' rule did not help
public safety at all, to be very frank, so this is not the
first attempt that was done in the history that I have been
working with ATF.
Mr. Bell. I am going to reclaim my time just because I am
short on time, and I want to get as many questions as I can.
Mr. Cekada. Sure.
Mr. Bell. In this proposal, ATF concedes that weakening
this rule may cause some previously deterred sellers to go back
to operating without a license. The resulting risk to public
safety is described as de minimis. Please explain that
characterization to this Committee because families impacted by
gun violence in my district and across the country might
describe those consequences very differently. How did ATF reach
that conclusion?
Mr. Cekada. ATF reached that conclusion because to become a
Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), you have to go through ATF to
get a Federal firearms license. We know how many come into
business each year and how many go out of business each year.
So, we specifically were looking at those numbers and saw a
minuscule increase in the number of people who became Federal
firearms licensees since the time that the ``engaged in the
business'' (EIB) rule came into effect, and for us, that showed
us nothing. It showed a zero impact in helping public safety,
but the negative result on ATF, when you compile some of the
other things that were put on the Agency, frankly, some of the
release of other information, some of the efforts as it was on
stabilizing brace and other things, all caused the Agency to
receive a negative result on our budget, which I can tell you
had a negative impact on public safety.
The ``engaged in the business'' rule, I can give you an
example. Every year, somewhere between 6,000 to 9,000 FFLs go
into business. Six thousand to 9,000 go out of business. Kind
of like the restaurant business, it is a tough business, and
there are folks that have been doing this for decades and they
have been following the rules, and those people interact with
ATF very much. I will make one comment because you mentioned
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). I would like----
Mr. Bell. Well, briefly, because I want to be respectful to
the time. The problem is that what we are seeing is the gun
violence increasing. You cannot weaken accountability, limit
the data used to measure the results, and still claim you are
protecting public safety. I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlemen yields. Representative Perry
from Pennsylvania is recognized 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cekada, thanks for
your service to our country and for the work that you do. I am
just curious generally about your professional and your
position/relationship with the Department of Justice and the
Attorney General.
Mr. Cekada. Well, first of all, good morning----
Mr. Perry. Good morning.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. And thank you again. So, I met the
current Acting Attorney General, I think it was February or
March of last year. The entire team at the Attorney General's
office is new, so I have only known them through a professional
work relationship since that time.
Mr. Perry. All right. I have got a lot of questions about
the DOJ, and I am trying to see how they might pertain to you.
So, when the DOJ does things that seem to be in your lane as
the Director of the ATF, do you weigh in? Do you have regular
meetings? Does your staff question? How does all that go, or is
there no conversation whatsoever, they do their thing, you
watch from afar, you might agree, disagree? So, I am just
wondering about that.
Mr. Cekada. I think that is a pretty broad question. So, I
think in the areas that--we have meetings on a regular basis.
We are in phone contact daily: if not once a day, multiple
times a day.
Mr. Perry. Okay.
Mr. Cekada. But there are things, for example, matters that
were in the courts in a legislative area that DOJ was handling.
I do not work with them on a daily matter at all. A civil
litigation that is being represented by DOJ, they will handle
it. They may consult with our Chief Counsel at ATF to ensure
that we are in the right lane. But for the most part, they will
deal with ATF when it involves, for example, the regulatory
package that just went out, any criminal enforcement operations
that we have targeting cities that are being impacted by
violent crime. I will present, not the minutia, as to what is
going on in the operation, but we will lay out the plan for a
surge in a number of cities to reduce violent crime.
Mr. Perry. Okay. Thank you, and I am wondering particularly
about actions that DOJ has taken, and I know that you may not
have been here as long as some of these things, but the
previous Administration accidentally sent GOA unredacted
information in a FOIA production. The ATF secured a gag order
against the GOA. Now, that was the ATF, secured the gag order
against the GOA, which, generally, gag orders are meant to
protect those that the government is prevailing upon, not
silence them. So, in that regard, what has been your input
regarding that particular instance? Are you familiar, or are
you not familiar?
Mr. Cekada. I am, and that is the same case that we were
talking about earlier, sir, the case that GOA was involved in,
and that did occur in the previous Administration, so I was not
personally involved in that, but I am familiar with it. And as
I stated, that particular case was an inadvertent release by
our employees in the FOIA section.
Mr. Perry. Right.
Mr. Cekada. So, as far as ATF's discussion at the time and
DOJ's input, I was not involved. I am not aware what the
conversations were about that matter.
Mr. Perry. And allegedly, the same program was used to spy
on so-called January 6 defendants and to enforce state so-
called assault weapons bans. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Cekada. I am not.
Mr. Perry. Do you know if anybody has been held accountable
at ATF for those actions?
Mr. Cekada. If you can be specific as to which actions you
are referring to?
Mr. Perry. The ones that were used to enforce state assault
weapons bans for the----
Mr. Cekada. I am not familiar with that, and just to be
clear, as to the GOA, the inadvertent release, no one has been
held accountable because we do not believe that anyone actually
did anything intentionally, but we have held ourselves
accountable by changing process and purchasing the appropriate
application to prevent and eliminate things like that again.
Mr. Perry. All right. Are you familiar with the DOJ's
interpretation of the reconciliation language that was passed
in the House and the Senate and signed by the President
regarding the zero taxation of short-barreled rifles and
suppressors? Are you familiar with the DOJ's interpretation,
and do you agree with it?
Mr. Cekada. I am not familiar with the specific verbiage. I
understand our responsibilities that came along with it.
Effective January 1, ATF has done everything we could do to the
best of our abilities to ensure we are in compliance with that.
Mr. Perry. If you have a disagreement with the DOJ
regarding their interpretation of that law or any other one,
how is that evidenced? Do you send a letter? Do you speak to
the Attorney General? How is it evidenced publicly so that we
as the elected officials and representatives each of 760,000
bosses--our citizens--how do we articulate any difference of
opinion that you might have with the DOJ?
Mr. Cekada. Sir, I apologize. I am not familiar with the
difference of opinion. I believe that ATF and DOJ are in line
with ensuring we are in compliance with the zero tax law, and I
was preparing from that from the moment it came into place, I
believe it was June or July of last summer. It became effective
in January, and to be clear, we did that with zero increase to
our base. We did that with our own employees looking at the
systems that we have, and looking at the process, and making
significant changes. All of the reductions in processing time
that I mentioned to you was not from us investing in new
systems. It was from our people looking at why are things done
a certain way and modernizing how we do it.
Prior to zero tax actually coming into effect, I tested the
system myself. I never purchased a suppressor before because I
could afford to buy one and I do not want to wait 14 months to
get one. So, in November when we made the changes, I was happy
to see--I did not tell any one of these folks, but I went out
and purchased one--I was happy to see within about 48 hours, I
was able to get an approval versus what was 14 months not too
long prior to that. Those numbers have increased a little bit
because on January 1, when it went into effect, the system took
a little bit of a shock, but in the meantime, we are still at
greatly reduced numbers from where we were in the years before.
Mr. Perry. My time has along expired. I yield, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlemen yields, and Ms. Pressley is
recognized for 5 minutes for questioning.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Director
Cekada.
Gun violence is a public health crisis, and this
Administration is failing to meet it with the urgency that it
demands. Across our country, including in my district, the
Massachusetts 7th, families are bearing the devastating
consequences of shootings, trafficking, domestic violence,
femicide, suicide, and community trauma. Just this past Monday,
a gunman armed with an assault rifle opened fire on random
drivers and pedestrians traveling along Memorial Drive in
Cambridge, terrorizing people in broad daylight. Constituents
in my district and communities across this country should not
have to live with the constant fear that their daily commute
could become a mass casualty event. Now, while Massachusetts
has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the Nation, more
than two-thirds of guns recovered from crimes in our
Commonwealth originate from out of state. At the same time,
communities are demanding accountability.
Director Cekada, your Agency has weakened oversight of gun
dealers by ending the zero tolerance policy for firearm dealers
who violate the law. Mr. Director, yes or no, should gun
dealers who willfully sell firearms to prohibited individuals
be allowed to continue operating? Yes or no.
Mr. Cekada. Your statement is a violation of the law, and
they should be put out of business if they willfully violate
the Gun Control Act.
Ms. Pressley. All right. That is right. These dealers are
breaking the law and previously would have had their licenses
to sell revoked, but your Agency repealed that policy.
Accountability should not be a radical concept here. Instead,
your Agency has chosen to weaken enforcement while
simultaneously defending policies that limit access to data
that communities need to combat gun violence. This is bad
public policy. This is bad for public safety. This is bad for
public health. Survivors of gun violence carry lifelong trauma,
especially our children. Increasingly so, a childhood is a
privilege instead of a right. Young people are growing up
internalizing trauma as a normal part of daily life: active
shooter drills, memorials outside of school, parents afraid to
allow their children to walk home alone. Now, all the data
supports that exposure to gun violence has profound and lasting
impacts on childhood development, mental and physical health,
and educational attainment.
In the full Oversight Committee, I convened the first ever
congressional hearing on childhood trauma. It was illuminating
and devastating. Children who witness gun violence are more
likely to experience anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) well into adulthood. These children and
their families are the people you should be centering in your
work, Director Cekada. I believe the people closest to the pain
should be the closest to the power, but let us look at who you
are instead holding close to the power: not the traumatized
children, not the grieving mothers, not the classroom educators
who every day wonder is today the day that I will have to
shield my student from a shooter.
Instead, this is a picture from your signing ceremony
announcing over 30 changes to end gun safety protections, and
standing directly behind you are the leaders of the gun lobby:
the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National
Association for Gun Rights, and others who have spent decades
obstructing commonsense gun safety measures. The gun lobby is
controlling the regulators while our communities are paying the
price, burying loved ones, and raising children in fear. The
shame and the sham of it all. I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields. The gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is recognized for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for
being here today, and shortly after you were sworn in, you did
announce some rulemaking that you were going to change, and a
few of these would do the following: end the Biden-era enhanced
regulatory enforcement policy that unfairly targeted lawful
firearms dealers unfairly; emphasize public safety while
deemphasizing punitive measures for clerical errors; restrict
the Agency's National Instant Criminal Background Check
System--the NICS system--alerts to Federal gun trafficking
violations; improve the Agency's response times to inquiries
from FFLs; and ended bans on the importation of dual-use
barrels and non-lethal training ammunition. How are you doing
in getting those rules passed and implemented, sir?
Mr. Cekada. Well, good morning, sir. Thank you for your
question. So, there are lot of things that you mentioned there
that I think people are reviewing now to see what their
thoughts are on their perspective. I will tell you that we have
heard some initial thoughts from both sides: the gun safety
community and from the Second Amendment community. Initially, I
think there was a lot of comments as I made the announcement,
and there was, I think, two sentences of text out on each reg.
I heard that the world was ending on one side, and on the other
side I did not do enough.
So, I think as the text is coming out, people are starting
to read and doing exactly what I was hoping they would do, is
starting to make comments into the process through the
rulemaking process. And we hope that they share with us their
concerns from the gun safety community and from the 2A
community as to, hey, did we hit it----
Mr. Biggs. Director----
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. Or did we miss something.
Mr. Biggs. The 2A community is also a gun safety community.
Mr. Cekada. I agree. I agree.
Mr. Biggs. That is important to distinguish that----
Mr. Cekada. I agree.
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. And always remember that----
Mr. Cekada. I agree.
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. As opposed to the anti-gun
community. So, what I want to know, is one of them was firearms
electronic recordkeeping, and tell me why is it better to store
records the way the rule proposes right now, it is proposed
1140-AA94.
Mr. Cekada. I am sorry, sir. I did not hear you well. I
apologize.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, I am sorry. The firearms electronic
recordkeeping and rulemaking proposal, why is it better to
store records that way?
Mr. Cekada. Well, first of all, it is much easier for us
when we work with the FFLs. If they are using an electronic
form, the number of errors that they make are greatly reduced
because the system helps them check through the processing of
the 4473s. In years past, the handwritten 4473s, the FFLs often
made a template, kind of like what we went through in school
where your teachers would grade your exams, and they were
rushing through to do things properly, would make, as you
stated, some administrative mistakes. So, that, combined with
the changes to the 4473 that we proposed, which would make
things simpler to be able to answer the important questions
without trying to trick anyone. I have had to pause numerous
times filling out a 4473 with no concern as to any criminal
record, but wanting to make sure that I did not make a mistake,
that somehow I was going to get in trouble.
So, we tried to make that a form that answers all the
concerns of government and public safety, but also to do it in
a way where some of these systems allow for a driver's license
to be swiped into the reader, and it fills out all of the
information into the electronic form, which, thereby, again,
reduces the amount of errors that can be in that form. So, for
us and for the consumer and the public, that was the best way
to proceed and would allow people to do so.
Mr. Biggs. One of the things then that I want to ask then,
and it kind of follows up with what Rep. Gosar was talking
about, is what safeguards and protections of data privacy,
protecting from intrusion by both the government and private
citizens, does this system have in place, or what you hope and
envision being in place?
Mr. Cekada. Yes. So, again, to be clear, we have zero
connection to the system that the Federal firearms licensees
use. It does make it much more efficient for a Federal firearms
licensee in receiving a phone call from ATF regarding following
up on a criminal investigation. Instead of sorting through
hundreds or thousands of paper records, they can go through an
electronic system, allow them to retrieve what they need, and
provide ATF with a specific answer to our questions.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. In the last seconds, I am going to
pose this question. I do not think you are going to have time
to respond to it, but right now in Maricopa County, we still
see, in Arizona, a massive amount of drug cartel and criminal
cartel activity, and one of the things that is going on is they
are sending guns and firearms south of the border. And so, you
got drugs coming up, guns going down, cash going down, and 62
percent of the U.S. guns recovered within the Sinaloa drug
cartel war have been traced right back and have been trafficked
out of Arizona. So, I guess my question is, and you do not have
time to answer it, but we will maybe get together afterwards,
but I would like to know what your position is on how to--what
operations you have taken, in place, to stop southbound
trafficking of weapons. And I think that is critical in our
relationship with Mexico, but also in the United States.
And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulgence,
and I yield.
Mr. Cekada. I would love to answer that question if I am
allowed to, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Cekada. I will keep it short.
Mr. Higgins. Go ahead and briefly answer the gentleman's
question.
Mr. Cekada. And we can go into further details in the
future, but so long story short, under the last Administration
under BSCA, there was authorities for firearms trafficking.
Sadly, my agents in Arizona specifically tried to present over
250 cases where about that many defendants were identified as
being involved in trafficking conspiracies to Mexican cartels,
specifically mainly in rifles and belt-fed firearms that were
being sourced on behalf of the cartels through straw purchasers
and traffickers that were actually cartel members. Sadly, the
U.S. Attorney at the time refused to take those charges
forward. So, I sat there gaining great concern not only for the
community in the United States, but also in Mexico, and living
in the past of our fears, I saw Operation Fast and Furious
developing again where ATF was tracking firearms that were
already sold and no one was doing anything about it, and we
were going to be held accountable.
I approached Todd Blanche, who, he and Emil Bove had just
started there, and I literally brought a stack to them and
said, ``Hey, although we had the BSCA, nobody was getting
charged. I need some help on this because ATF is not going to
sit back and take the blame for cases that should be charged by
a Federal prosecutor.'' They jumped on it. We started working
on the highest-priority cases. As a result of the work that my
folks are doing, we have charged the first conspiracies
involving dirty FFLs. One I will name because it is public,
Grips By Larry, who was involved in trafficking large amounts
of belt-fed firearms through a series of straws, but also
cartel members who recruited these straws. Those people are now
charged with providing material support to a terrorist
organization.
The goal of that is to serve significant deterrence, and as
we talked about, we do not prevent violent crime by threatening
gun owners and law-abiding citizens. We prevent violent crime
by holding criminals accountable and serving through the courts
a significant sentence that serves as a deterrence, and that is
what I have seen as the best measure of defense to the public.
Mr. Biggs. I look forward to more details and meeting with
you one-on-one, Director.
Mr. Higgins. We appreciate that answer, and I appreciate--
--
Mr. Biggs. I have some UCs.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. The indulgence of the Ranking
Member.
Mr. Biggs. Can I do UCs, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Higgins. The gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Frost.
Yes to unanimous consent?
Mr. Biggs. Yes, if you do not mind. ``RPG Launcher Tube,
Rifles Hidden in Lexus Headed to Mexico;'' ``Arizona Gun Dealer
Facing Terrorism Charges for Alleged Sales to Cartel;''
``Mexican National Sentenced in Major Mid-East Mexico-Arizona
Smuggling Scheme;'' ``Arizona Guns are Fueling a Drug Cartel
War in Mexico;'' ``Arizona Sheltering in Place After Cartel
Violence;'' and ``Gun Owners of American Battles ATF Gag Order
Over Secret Surveillance of Legal Guns.''
Mr. Higgins. Without objection, so ordered.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Frost, is recognized, and
thank you for your patience, Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. You are recognized.
Mr. Frost. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Cekada, you
were sworn in as Director of ATF on April 29. On the same day
that you were sworn in, you announced over 30 changes to
Federal firearm regulations with representatives of the gun
industry standing behind you, corporate interests, and then
published just a few days later on May 9. So, the average
person sees and says, well, the way this is supposed to work is
you get sworn into a job, you get into the work, you work with
your staff, and you figure out what changes you want to make,
but the fact that you announced over 30 changes in just a few
hours shows us that obviously there was some work done before
you were sworn in before you got the actual job, so I have some
questions around that, Director. Did you start developing these
regulations or these changes under the Biden Administration or
the Trump Administration?
Mr. Cekada. Well, good morning, sir, and thank you for your
question. To be clear, when the Biden Administration exited, I
was the Executive Assistant Director for Operations at ATF, and
I was shortly thereafter promoted to the Deputy Director where
I had complete oversight of our Agency's operations since April
2025. So, the work did not start on May 8 or May 1. We have
been working as an Agency together for over a year, as we were
supposed to under President Trump's Second Amendment Executive
Order, to review all policies, regulations, and other items----
Mr. Frost. So----
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. That may have----
Mr. Frost. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it.
So, you have been working on the slew of 30 different
deregulatory things. You have been working on it before you
were sworn in. You had these ideas before you were getting
ready to put them forth, I guess, hoping that one day you might
be nominated as a Director.
Mr. Cekada. No, that is not true. They were going to go
forward regardless because ATF was still tasked by the
President to proceed with this review, and we were going to
push them forward, frankly----
Mr. Frost. So, yes, sir----
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. Whether I got confirmed or not.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. And thank you. I am going to
reclaim my time. And so, I do not see a world where the
President would nominate you to this position without knowing
that you would actually move forward with putting forth these
30 regulations that you say you had been working on because of
the executive order. Were these regulations discussed in any
interview that you had for your promotion? Yes or no.
Mr. Cekada. I have never talked to the President about any
regulations.
Mr. Frost. Anyone in the Administration?
Mr. Cekada. The only people I have talked to about
regulations are at DOJ.
Mr. Frost. DOJ. So, did they discuss with you these
regulations before you were nominated for this position?
Mr. Cekada. No. ATF worked on these, and we developed the
initial drafts, and then there is a review process that
involved----
Mr. Frost. Yes, sir. I reclaim my time. Did you agree to
enact any of these regulations in your discussions?
Mr. Cekada. Say that again?
Mr. Frost. Did you agree to enact any of these regulations
in your discussions before you were nominated?
Mr. Cekada. Well, first off, these are proposed----
Mr. Frost. It just ``yes'' or ``no,'' sir, yes.
Mr. Cekada. Well, sir, sorry, that does not answer the
question.
Mr. Frost. It does answer the questions. Did you agree to
enact any of these regulations or put forth these rules or
proposals? I know how the process works, Director.
Mr. Cekada. Sir, you do not actually know.
Mr. Frost. Yes, I do.
Mr. Cekada. No, you do not.
Mr. Frost. Yes, I do. Did you agree to put forth these
proposals for rule changes while you were having discussions
about your possible promotion? Yes or no. That is it.
Mr. Cekada. The answer is not going to be ``yes'' or
``no.'' So, the answer is they are proposals, not enacted
rules, and, yes, I----
Mr. Frost. They are proposed rules, yes. Were they
discussed while you were talking about your promotion? Yes or
no.
Mr. Cekada. Sir, this has nothing to do with my promotion.
Mr. Frost. Sir, I answer the questions. You answer the
questions, sir. I am just asking. Why are you----
Mr. Cekada. I am not going to answer ``yes'' or ``no'' to a
question that cannot be answered ``yes'' or ``no.'' Sorry.
Mr. Frost. Why can't it be answered ``yes'' or ``no?''
Mr. Cekada. Because you are intentionally trying to argue
with me here about something that you are completely wrong on.
First of all, the regulations are not finalized. Those are----
Mr. Frost. I know. I am saying ``proposed rules.''
Mr. Cekada. No, you do not know because you keep telling
me----
Mr. Frost. So----
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. They are enacted, and they are not
enacted. Proposed.
Mr. Frost. Proposed rules.
Mr. Cekada. You keep mixing up the words to try to trap me.
Mr. Frost. Proposed rules. Were those discussed while you
were talking about the possible promotion? Yes or no.
Mr. Cekada. They were discussed with no guarantee of any
sort of promotion. As you know, the Senate does get to make a
decision that I am not involved in.
Mr. Frost. Yes. So, in your discussions with folks in the
Administration about your possible promotion, the proposed
rules were discussed with them. You are saying yes.
Mr. Cekada. Of course they were. I told you that multiple
times.
Mr. Frost. Okay. Thank you. That is all I wanted. Do you
believe you were promoted to do that, to put forth this package
of 30 different proposals?
Mr. Cekada. This is not going to be a ``yes'' or ``no''
answer either. So, sir, I could have retired in November. I did
not need a promotion.
Mr. Frost. I understand. I will take my time back. I know
you could have retired in November.
Mr. Cekada. Take all the time you want.
Mr. Frost. You have been at the ATF for a long time. You
have done great work. I am just concerned about the fact that
on the same day as your confirmation----
Mr. Cekada. I understand.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. You move forth with a package of
over 30 changes giving the public--how many days does the
public get?
Mr. Cekada. Ninety.
Mr. Frost. Ninety days for a huge package of 30 different
things that you, I know for a fact, helped work on. Did you do
not?
Mr. Cekada. I read every one of them. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frost. No, no, no. I am saying, you worked on--let me
be clear. You worked on a lot of these proposed rules that were
enacted by the ATF under the Biden Administration that helped
save lives, yes?
Mr. Cekada. So, a couple things. You are----
Mr. Frost. No, no, no. It is just ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Cekada. No, it is not ``yes''----
Mr. Frost. Did you work on some----
Mr. Cekada. Sorry. It is not ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Frost. It is ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Cekada. No.
Mr. Frost. Did you work on some of the rules----
Mr. Cekada. No, I did not.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. That the Biden Administration put
forth help save lives?
Mr. Cekada. No. No.
Mr. Frost. You did not?
Mr. Cekada. No.
Mr. Frost. You are saying you did not, under oath, that you
did not work any of them.
Mr. Cekada. I am telling you, I did not work on any of the
rules.
Mr. Frost. I am sorry?
Mr. Cekada. I did not work on any of the rules, not one.
Mr. Frost. I do not believe that is true.
Mr. Cekada. That is great.
Mr. Frost. I do not believe that is true. In fact, I know
for a fact that you worked on some of the rules under the Biden
Administration----
Mr. Cekada. Which one?
Mr. Frost [continuing]. That helped save lives. So, it is
unfortunate----
Mr. Cekada. Which one is that?
Mr. Frost. I ask the questions, sir. It is unfortunate that
now you have been put in a position with an Administration that
has done everything it can to undermine the agents and the work
of the ATF: budget cuts, firing. The ATF has not had political
appointees in any position except the Director in any
Administration except this Administration. Marvin Richardson,
Pamela Hicks, Jennifer Ambuehl forced out or fired, and now you
are put in here to put forth regulations--I want to show this--
--
[Poster]
Mr. Frost [continuing]. That are going to make our
communities less safe. The work that you were a part of doing
and many other people in the ATF were a part of doing helped
us, and I ask for a little more time here because we had 3
minutes to go over the last person.
Gun violence has been going down----
Mr. Higgins. Pardon.
Mr. Frost [continuing]. Because of the work that you helped
do, Director.
Mr. Higgins. Correct the gentleman. That was 3 minutes to
allow the witness to answer questions.
Mr. Frost. Well, if I can have 15 more seconds, Mr. Chair--
that you helped do to help end gun violence, and I know you are
upset. I would be upset, too. This works. What we have been
doing works, and the fact that you were sworn in, and the same
day you come forth standing with industry behind you, shows us,
I guess, where your allegiance are or where perhaps you were
told if you want this promotion, what you need to do, which is
undermine the Agency that you have done work in for a lot of
your life, and I think it is disgraceful. I yield back.
Mr. Cekada. Sir, may I respond to that?
Mr. Frost. The gentleman yields. We are going to give you
plenty of time to respond, but I recognize Mr. Cloud from
Texas.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Director,
for being here. I am absolutely shocked that the President
would nominate somebody to enact his agenda as the head of an
Agency that he oversees due to the authority granted to him by
the people under the Constitution of the United States. And so,
congratulations on your nomination to this post.
Congratulations on getting through the Senate confirmation
process and your robust getting to work on day one. I think
that is to be commended among the agencies.
I wanted to ask you, a lot has been covered on the gag
order that has come down and the leak that happened. I just
wanted to ask if any discipline action has been taken for the
person who had leaked the information.
Mr. Cekada. You are talking about the GOA?
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
Mr. Cekada. No. So, again, sir, no one was disciplined. We
looked into it, and if there was an intentional leak of any of
that information, we would have submitted that to our Internal
Affairs Division for review.
Mr. Cloud. How would you determine if it was intentional?
Mr. Cekada. It was not intentional because we actually had,
sadly, a significant reduction in folks in the FOIA staff----
Mr. Cloud. Okay.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. But also the software we used----
Mr. Cloud. Was not much.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. Was a horrible, clunky software
that, like many of our systems, was outdated.
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Mr. Cekada. It was not an intentional leak. I have to own
the mistake for the Agency and for our employees----
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. But we have taken steps to ensure
that does not happen by buying a new software to improve that
system.
Mr. Cloud. Okay. Thank you. As you know, on November 21,
our office led a letter to the ATF some time ago, found out
that there was the out-of-records database, almost a billion
gun records at the time. My guess is it is over that now.
During the Biden Administration, we sent a follow-up letter to
that and never got a response. In February of last year, we
sent the letter again under the new Trump Administration. We
still have not gotten a response to it. I realize at the time
you were Acting Director. I do not know if, you know, awaiting
confirmation and all that held it up, but I would like to
remind you of that and submit it into the record as well. If we
could get a response on that, that would help.
There are a number of questions in there that I think would
be helpful as we are looking in the public comment period on
these proposed rules in regards to how effective traces are and
the like, and to your point on enforcement, I thought that was
a good point. One of the things I think it is important for us
to recognize is traces do not actually stop a crime from
happening. It is after the crime has happened. It helps us
potentially to, you know, find the criminal or find out what
happened, but I wanted to ask you about, does the ATF purchase
data?
Mr. Cekada. I am not sure what data. I mean, we have----
Mr. Cloud. Like purchase records or credit card records or?
Mr. Cekada. Not that I am familiar with. We have----
Mr. Cloud. Okay. We found out recently that the FBI has
been doing that for a few years.
Mr. Cekada. So, I will tell you, we have recently purchased
a program. Geez, I cannot remember. It is an ad tech type
thing, for example, on your cellphones, my cellphone as well.
Based on the ads that go through your phone, you can get
geolocation data. We have purchased access to that system, but
we have not used it for a criminal case because we have not
established any sort of policies yet on how we would do it.
That system is one that is available to the general public as
well. It does not identify anyone by name, but it gives us
either an IP address if it is connected to a Wi-Fi or the
International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number on the
cellphone so that we would be able to conduct an investigation.
It is very new for us----
Mr. Cloud. Okay.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. So we have not used it and want to
make sure we establish clear guidelines before we use anything
like that.
Mr. Cloud. I only have about a minute left. That opens up a
whole new can of worms that we will probably have to get into
at another point.
During the Biden Administration, the ATF was doing knock-
and-talk visits where, basically, they would show up on
people's doorsteps, ask them, ``We have a record that you have
these firearms in your house. Do you have them?'' I imagine the
ATF has stopped that practice under the Trump Administration?
Mr. Cekada. Yes. The only time something like that should
happen is if we are following up on----
Mr. Cloud. Well----
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. A suspected firearms trafficking
investigation.
Mr. Cloud. Yes, but it was happening beyond that, you know,
and it was not related to trafficking under the Biden
Administration. You said that in the out-of-business data
records, all that is searchable is the serial number. I am
curious, what are the mechanics before an ATF agent is able to
pop up on somebody's doorstep with a list of what firearms are
allegedly in their house?
Mr. Cekada. We will not have that.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlemen's time has expired, but I am
going to allow Mr. Cekada----
Mr. Cekada. Yes.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. To answer that final question.
Mr. Cloud. Because that was happening----
Mr. Cekada. Yes. So, Representative----
Mr. Cloud [continuing]. Under the Biden Administration. So,
how did that happen?
Mr. Cekada. So, I do not know what you are referring to
specifically, but I can tell you, for example, I would get
calls when I was an agent and my folks get calls daily, people
either have their firearms lost or stolen and say, ``Hey, can
you please tell me what my make, model, and serial number is.''
We have no way of doing it. The only thing we do is tell folks,
``Hey, you should go back to the Federal firearms licensee that
you purchased your firearm, and if they are still in business,
they will be able to give you a copy of your 4473 so you could
report your firearm stolen.'' So, I am not familiar with how
that information----
Mr. Higgins. We thank the gentlemen for that answer.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. Ms. Ansari is recognized for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The epidemic of gun
violence in this country is a national emergency. You would
think that recent events, like the attempted assassination at
the White House Correspondence Dinner, would shake my
Republican colleagues into action, but sadly it did not. In
fact, Republicans responded with even less than their usual
thoughts and prayers. Instead, they offered a ballroom. A $400
million ballroom, which the Trump Administration is now
requesting $1 billion for from the American taxpayer, a
ballroom promoted by Donald Trump, echoed by Fox News, and
amplified by the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) influencer
machine quite literally within minutes.
It would be laughable if it were not so deeply offensive
because if a ballroom is your solution to gun violence, then
every student in America deserves one, or we could actually
pass policies that save lives. If you want a ballroom that
works, here is what it should stand for.
Ban on assault weapons, accountability for gun
manufacturers, licensing requirements for gun owners, limits on
high-capacity magazines, red flag laws to stop tragedies before
they happen, oversight of gun sales, our kids safe in schools
and public spaces, mental health support, and community
violence prevention. That is a ballroom worth building in this
country because the truth is I am rarely shocked anymore, still
outraged--outraged that instead of action, we get distractions,
and it is not normal and we should not accept it.
Before I came to Congress, I fought to keep confiscated and
forfeited guns from being sold back into the streets of
Phoenix. I did that because Phoenix families do not need more
guns cycling from evidence rooms back into neighborhoods. Since
then, I have seen the Federal Agency in charge of responding to
gun crime being pulled off mission in a way that I think is
shocking.
Director Cekada, yes or no, ATF's core public safety
mission is not mass deportation. It is reducing violent gun
crimes, tracing crime guns, and dismantling illegal firearms
and trafficking networks. Is that correct?
Mr. Cekada. To be clear, yes, ma'am, our focus is violent
crime.
Ms. Ansari. And reportedly, about 80 percent of ATF's
roughly 2,500 agents have been ordered to take on some sort of
immigration enforcement task. Yes or no, does that number sound
right to you, Director?
Mr. Cekada. It is wrong.
Ms. Ansari. It is wrong. Okay. During the failed Minnesota
immigration blitz that resulted in the murders of Alex Pretti
and Renee Good, new Federal gun and drug prosecution fell from
77 cases to eight cases compared with the same months a year
earlier, which is absolutely unacceptable. Yes or no, when ATF
special agents are assigned to immigration enforcement, this
replaces their otherwise full-time responsibilities to develop
crime gun leads, work trafficking cases, or support local
violent crime task forces.
Mr. Cekada. No, because we have no one reassigned to Title
8 enforcement.
Ms. Ansari. Not one person is reassigned.
Mr. Cekada. Not one person has been reassigned.
Ms. Ansari. So, the report of 80 percent is absolutely
false.
Mr. Cekada. That report is the Cato Institute, and not only
is it completely wrong, it has given multiple numbers--I do not
even have 2,500 agents, first of all, and that is number one,
including me. I am still an ATF agent. I know how many agents
are assigned to immigration enforcement. At max, we were asked
to have 300 people available per day from the inception of
Title 8 enforcement, and at max, when I testified at my
confirmation hearing, we were at approximately 75 people a day.
We are currently at 42 people a day. I keep track of that
through our field operations, and it is reported up to me
daily, so I know exactly how many people. Cato Institute does
not know anything about what ATF is doing.
Ms. Ansari. So, is this information that you can present to
us in writing or in some sort of formal documentation?
Mr. Cekada. I have done that, and I will do it again.
Ms. Ansari. Okay. I want to focus more on Arizona. This is
especially important. In a state like Arizona that is a border
state, how many ATF agents in the Phoenix Field Division have
been assigned to immigration enforcement in 2025 and 2026, and
how many total agent hours has that consumed?
Mr. Cekada. I do not have that number, but I could get back
to you on that.
Ms. Ansari. Okay, and I want for you to commit to providing
us the number of agents assigned to immigration enforcement,
the number of agent hours spent in any gun crime work delayed
or reduced. So, it sounds like you are willing to put that in
writing to us.
Mr. Cekada. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Ansari. Okay. Thank you. The record, I believe, is
absolutely clear that the Trump Administration has made
horrific choices. So, I look forward to seeing that in writing
because if any, even one agent, is misassigned or reassigned, I
think that is a massive problem given that this is a national
crisis in this country. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields. Mr. Burlison is
recognized for questioning for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Missouri's 7th
Congressional District, we are deeply appreciative of the
Second Amendment. It is widely exercised. Southwest Missouri is
home to what is estimated to be approximately 300,000 law-
abiding gun owners, and their families also cherish the rights,
that they know that they can rest safely in their home. I
assure you Southwest Missouri is one of the safest places you
could possibly visit, and I am honored that they elected me to
be the trustee, the custodian of these cherished rights, and as
their elected official, that is my responsibility.
I want to kind of stress to you that you have a new
responsibility. I know that you have worked your way through
the ATF. The role that you have today is a different role, and
I want to stress that to you. Your role is now to be the
watchdog over this Agency. It is not to be the cheerleader. It
is not to make apologies for any mistakes. It is to be that go-
between that I cannot be and my constituents cannot be, to be
the watchdog in the safeguard of those rights. And I wanted to
stress that to you because we have a lot of problems that I
have seen in this town since I have been up here. Most of the
problems are created by unelected people, people that have no
accountability to the taxpayers or the voters, and they simply
make rules that have significant impact on the lives of our
citizens. We face the heat, we get the emails, but sadly, the
unelecteds do not.
And in your Agency, we have had a lot of changes that have
impacted people's lives, all made by unelecteds, whether it was
the pistol brace rule, the frame and receiver rule, the
``engaged in business rule,'' the bump stock rule, the
gunsmithing changes, all made by unelected people that we then
have to respond to our constituents and try to address. And
some of the events that have happened that I think deserve
scrutiny and deserve oversight on your part, whether it was
Ruby Ridge, what happened at Waco, Fast and Furious, and the
recent sad event in Arkansas with Bryan Malinowski. And so,
Director, I want to give you an opportunity to address how you
will address this kind of protecting citizens' rights while
also making sure that we do not make the mistakes that we have
made in the past.
Mr. Cekada. Good morning, sir. Thank you again for this
opportunity. So, you are absolutely correct. It is hard for me
to not want to come here and tell you about the great things
that my folks do every day because I am proud of what they do,
and, you know, if I may for a few seconds tell you that, you
know, yesterday during a memorial at our building, I read 191
names of ATF agents who have had different titles over the
years who were killed in the line of duty. And I cannot forget
the three agents, two of them that are sitting paralyzed now
from the neck down from their injuries sustained during their
on-duty operations, and a third that has significant
debilitating injuries for the rest of his life from being shot
in the head from a 5.56 rifle.
So, I know about violent crime. I have seen many of my
partners shot and killed in New York City. I talked to a mother
this morning who lost her son who was a task force officer in
Newark, New Jersey last year. So, I stayed on with ATF when I
could have retired in November, as I started to say, not
because I was going to be the Director. I had no clue if that
was going to come together or not. I stayed on because I
believe in what we do as an Agency and the effort to combat
violent crime, and I have seen our Agency, in the last 18
months, turn it back around to where it should be, where we
keep that balance focused on protecting the public and also
protecting the rights of our citizens in this country.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Mr. Cekada. I am sick and tired of seeing people who did
not commit the crimes being held accountable for violent crime
that we did not commit. That board that was just posted, the
one thing it did not mention on there is holding the criminals
accountable. Not once. I get it, right? We all want to see
violent crime reduced, but we cannot reduce violent crime
without holding the people who commit violent crime
accountable.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
Mr. Cekada. And sir, I want to guarantee you that it is my
job that I want to keep this Agency around to hold them
accountable, and when we do something wrong, I want to make
sure we never do it wrong again and hold people accountable.
Mr. Burlison. With the limited seconds I have----
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burlison [continuing]. I sent a letter on January 15
trying to get to the bottom of and address the problem that we
have had after we passed, and Representative Clyde and myself
worked very hard to eliminate the tax and the process of the
registration of the tax stamps on suppressors and short
barrels, and we had a disaster happen on January where we were
not prepared. There was a flood of registrations. I sent a
letter. I have still not received a response. How long will it
take to receive a response?
And I would like to submit this to the record, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Higgins. Without objection.
Mr. Cekada. Mr. Burlison, if I may. So, it was not a
disaster, but, again, I want to be clear that, A, we were given
this mandate in July 2025 with zero funding, made significant
changes. We then went into a government shutdown where we were
not able to test any of the changes that we made and wanted to
stay on task to flip the switch, as we would call it, on
January 1. We did so, and I will tell you, since January 1, if
I may review my notes, as of yesterday, we received 1,258,539
forms, and we have successfully processed 1,149,192 forms. So,
there is a backlog but not a significant backlog----
Mr. Burlison. Okay.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. And we are trying our best to
knock that down.
Mr. Burlison. It is our intention that the process should
just go away altogether, but I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Cekada. I understand.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlemen yields. You are going to get him
an answer to his letter----
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Correct?
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir. I guarantee you.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
Ms. Ansari. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Higgins. Representative Crane from Arizona. The
gentleman is recognized.
Ms. Ansari. I would just like to enter an article for the
record if that is possible.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Ansari. The article is entitled, ``Gun Crime Cases Fall
as Agents Shift to Immigration Crackdown.'' It is very
comprehensive, and I am very deeply concerned that our witness
is not being honest with his answers today.
Mr. Higgins. Without objection, it is entered into the
record.
Mr. Crane is recognized for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say thank
you, Director Cekada, for coming to testify before the
Oversight Committee. You are the new Director of the ATF, is
that correct?
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crane. Not to put you on the spot, but this is
obviously important, Director. What does the Second Amendment
say?
Mr. Cekada. Sir, I would not be able to----
Mr. Crane. Okay.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. I would not be able to recite.
Mr. Crane. I will read it----
Mr. Cekada. Please.
Mr. Crane [continuing]. Because I feel like it is lacking
in this Committee room right now: ``A well-regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' What
does that mean to you, Director?
Mr. Cekada. Well, sir, I think I am going to be careful
with this one because I tried during my hearing to tell you
that I--not you, but the Members of the Senate--to tell you how
much ATF and myself respect the Second Amendment, the
Constitution, and doing so, making sure we maintain that
balance. There are portions of the Gun Control Act that
obviously prohibit certain individuals who have been convicted
of certain crimes from possessing firearms, and I think ATF
makes sure that we keep our focus on any infringements that
would come out of the Gun Control Act, that it stays focused on
those persons, the law, things should be prohibited.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. Do you find it notable that our
Founders put that right after the First Amendment?
Mr. Cekada. Sir, I apologize. My hearing is bad.
Mr. Crane. It is okay. Do you find it notable that our
Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment right after the First
Amendment?
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crane. Why do you believe that our Founders wanted to
give the citizens the right to defend themselves?
Mr. Cekada. I think at the time, in particular, the
citizenry did not have a guarantee that the government would
protect them, and they wanted to have the opportunity to
protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
Mr. Crane. Bingo. I am glad you said that because a lot of
people, when they think about the Second Amendment, they really
do not look at the context of when it was written and the fact
that our Founders had just fought against a government. Is that
correct?
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. I just want to make sure that, you
know, we are on the same page on that. Have you noticed that my
Democrat colleagues today have focused on the influence and
allegiances of yourself and the ATF to the NRA, Gun Owners of
America, and firearms manufacturers have on you guys? Have you
noticed that?
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crane. Did you notice, though, that none of them asked
you about your allegiance and the influence that the
Constitution has on you and other members of the ATF?
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crane. Why do you think that is, Director?
Mr. Cekada. Well, sir, I will give you my opinion. Well,
sir, I think that the folks that--well, the one gentleman that
had the discussion with me, in particular, did not want to look
back at the last Administration when that Administration
carried out verbatim exactly what the President asked of them.
And I worked with both some of the members that are sitting
here behind me and the members from the NRA, NSSF, GOA, whoever
would talk to me in the last Administration as well. And I was
not demonized then, but I am being demonized now because I am
not falling in line with what was perceived to be good today.
I think that is part of the problem that we have here. We
should be focusing on the criminals, not each other. We are not
the people that are killing folks in our streets, and we are
very close to solving that problem when we want to. I see it
being done over and over, and I have seen it for the last 30
years. When we hold the criminals accountable, crime goes down,
and I will tell you the last Administration, one of the first
steps that I saw come out of DOJ was a letter that went out to
all law enforcement personnel telling us to not charge anyone
with any statute that carries a minimum mandatory sentence
because they did not want to see anyone put in prison for a
long time. That is not the way to solve violent crime. I am
sorry.
Mr. Crane. I want to bring up a specific case to you. This
one involved a gentleman named Patrick Tate Adamiak. He was a
Navy vet. He was honorably discharged. Mr. Tate is a nonviolent
offender, and the items involved in his case were incapable of
firing and historically treated as exempt from the Federal
firearm regulation under 27 C.F.R. and 478.11. He has been
incarcerated since October 21, 2022, serving a 20-year Federal
sentence, and I and many of my colleagues believe are
disproportionately severe for a case centered on regulatory
interpretation rather than harmful conduct. Will you commit to
having your Agency look into this case and see if anything can
be done to address this miscarriage of justice?
Mr. Cekada. Sir, I just would like to let you know we have
been in contact with Mr. Adamiak's attorney, we have looked at
some of the evidence, and we are working with DOJ. I will tell
you, I understand DOJ is looking at the case as well for re-
sentencing scheduled in June. I do not know the specific facts
on the DOJ side, but we are working on that as well.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlemen yields. Mr. Clyde from Georgia
is recognized for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director
Cekada, for appearing before us today. First, congratulations
on your Senate confirmation. I consider your leadership to be a
new era of respect for the Second Amendment, and I have greatly
appreciated our interactions to date, and I look forward to a
continuing relationship with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms and the Department of Justice as well.
I will try and keep my comments pretty tailored to the
Tiahrt Amendments because that is what this hearing is about.
The Tiahrt Amendments are a series of appropriation riders, and
I am on the Appropriations Committee, to the annual ATF and FBI
budgets, included in some form since 2003, that prohibit the
ATF from disclosing the contents of the National Trace Center
or records collected from Federal firearms licensees, except
for legitimate law enforcement purposes. This trace data
includes the chain of ownership and the sale from point of
manufacture. Public release of such data risks exposing
undercover officers or other law enforcement personnel to
criminal reprisal. One reason the Tiahrt Amendment has long
been supported by the Fraternal Order of Police is that exact
reason. Its release can also expose the identities and
locations of law-abiding firearms retailers, subjecting small
businesses to name-and-shame campaigns by anti-Second Amendment
advocacy groups.
Unfortunately, in the past, ATF has violated this important
protection on numerous occasions. Most recently in 2024, the
Biden Administration's release--or excuse me, ATF released
sensitive trace data in response to a FOIA request by gun
control organizations despite the Tiahrt Amendment's
superseding FOIA having been enacted after it. For the first
time ever, this release included the names of Federal firearms
licensees, including my own business, making me, my business,
its employees, a victim of this illegal activity. So,
thankfully under your leadership, Director, the Trump
Administration has ended its unjust war on unlawful gun owners
and firearms businesses, but now it is the time for
accountability, sir.
Director Cekada, does ATF believe that the Tiahrt protects
firearm trace information from disclosure under FOIA?
Mr. Cekada. I think that is what the intention is. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Clyde. Okay. Does the unlawful disclosure of sensitive
trace data in violation of the Tiahrt Amendment pose a risk to
legitimate law enforcement investigations?
Mr. Cekada. It can. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clyde. All right. What policies or guidance, if any,
does ATF have now in place to ensure that Tiahrt material is
not disclosed to the public?
Mr. Cekada. The current policy would ensure that any
material protected by Tiahrt to include that request that would
come under FOIA is not released and protected. Again, sir, as I
mentioned earlier, my apologies on behalf of ATF for the
inadvertent mistakes we made, but moving forward, you know,
barring a mistake that truly is a mistake, people would be held
accountable. There is obviously a process that we undergo
conducting an investigation, but I will give you an example. I
have had a leak from an agent that came out during the Charlie
Kirk case. That person is being recommended for termination. We
are not playing around with anyone that would follow a path on
their own versus one that is the legal path that ATF follows
every day. So, if anyone is proven to actually intentionally
and willfully leaked anything that they should not have given
to someone under Tiahrt, they will be held accountable.
Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you. Now, we have already talked
about the GOA FOIA release being accidental, but this other
release back in 2023 that talked about Federal firearms
licensees, has anyone been held accountable for that?
Mr. Cekada. So, that one, sir, I think that is the one that
your business was under as well.
Mr. Clyde. It is.
Mr. Cekada. That one was done under Director Dettelbach,
under his leadership and time, so none of his team is here. His
team either left with him or some were terminated by this
Administration. Everyone else here at ATF was not part of those
decisions, and in, I believe it was August 2025, we paused the
DL2 program, which, frankly, the intention of the DL2 program
was not to put out those names publicly. What that was supposed
to be was letters to a Federal firearms licensee that were
supposed to be kept private to let the Federal firearms
licensee know that, hey, your business resulted in X number of
transactions, and some of those transactions had a very short
time to crime.
None of that means that the Federal firearms licensee or
their business were in some part of a conspiracy with a straw
purchaser or a trafficker. It means that, hey, you may have
been targeted by someone who could be a straw purchaser and
they purchased a firearm. It was meant to engage interaction
between ATF and the Federal firearms licensee to prevent them
from being victimized by traffickers.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. I have one more quick question for
you, and this has to do with the out-of-business records. In
the Firearm Owners Protection Act, under amendments to Section
926, help me understand. I understand that the OBR right now is
recording transactions, 4473s, through optical scanning, about
four per second, et cetera, when I went to visit ATF. But yet
in the Firearm Owners Protection Act, it says, ``No such rule
or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the
Firearm Owners Protection Act may require that records required
to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the
contents of such records be recorded or transferred to a
facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or
any state or political subdivision thereof.''
Help me understand the optical recording of these 4473s.
Now, you can have the 4473s. You can search them. All right.
Help me understand how that is not violating this section right
here.
Mr. Cekada. Yes. Again, sir, from our perspective, and it
is something that I have been dealing with for years, and if,
you know, Congress, the House and the Senate, decide that this
is something that cannot be done, then we would have to change,
but the bottom line is we do not have the space for it. I think
we are receiving somewhere in the area of a million records.
Mr. Clyde. You do receive a lot.
Mr. Cekada. Yes. So, this program was initiated before Rob
Cekada was any sort of supervisor at ATF, and this is the way
we have dealt with it. Even with the optical scanning, again,
which only gives us very limited access to the serial number,
that still leaves us with massive amounts of paper records that
we have to sort through and try to find a way to be able to
search through in a rapid manner when we do get those trace
requests from our state and local law enforcement partners in
connection with the violent crime they are investigating.
Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you, Director. I appreciate you
being here. I look forward to your leadership in ATF and your
team as well, and with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlemen yields. Ms. Boebert is
recognized for 5 minutes for questioning.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Cekada, for being here.
Mr. Director, the DOJ and ATF announced sweeping proposed
rulemakings immediately following your confirmation--
congratulations, by the way--and if finalized, how do you
expect these new rules to improve the landscape for lawful gun
owners?
Mr. Cekada. Good morning, ma'am. Thank you for your
question. I think in a nutshell, the goal was to modernize the
rules to provide for clarity, to remove ambiguity, and also to
be in line with the law. The stabilizing brace rule, in
particular, through litigation in numerous courts, basically
was vacated in numerous areas, and ultimately our rule was not
in line with the law. So, some of the rules that we pushed
forward were to get in line with the law because, again, ATF
regulations should not say one thing and the law or the courts
say another, so that was some of our intention.
For example, one of the regulations mentioned, I believe,
by Representative Clyde, was the dual-use barrels. So, for many
years, that was an unwritten rule that ATF allowed for the
industry to utilize or repurpose barrels from firearms that
were demilitarized and may have been marked as full auto or
rated for full auto. Because a barrel is made of a heavier
gauge metal does not make that barrel a full auto firearm----
Ms. Boebert. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. Just because you put a heavier
gauge barrel on a semiautomatic firearm. So, there were things
like that that were inconsistent for America's gun owners and
the industry, and ATF, again, should not be taking sides in
this. We should just provide that clarity on the regulatory
side so that everybody understands what the law states.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Director, and you answered some of
my other questions in there. So, moving on, can you explain why
the ATF has in the past repeatedly violated the Tiahrt
Amendment, including instances of improper disclosure of trace
data through FOIA responses and other means?
Mr. Cekada. Yes, ma'am. So, I will speak to the instances
that I have been discussing this morning. Most specifically, in
2024 under the last Administration, there was an inadvertent
release, and we determined it was inadvertent through our own
investigation and determined we had, frankly, an inadequate
program that was used to redact information when we were
responding to FOIA. Our FOIA staff was understaffed, and that
release was completely marked for redaction and required a
person to hit that last command to fully redact. They never did
it.
Ms. Boebert. And what disciplinary actions were taken
against the employees that were responsible----
Mr. Cekada. There----
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. For these breaches?
Mr. Cekada. I am sorry, ma'am. For those specific employees
as to the incident I just referred to, it was determined that
there was no malicious intent or intention to do that, so there
was no disciplinary action. It was actually action against the
Agency to go out and buy a better program that would prevent
any of our employees from inadvertently not completing that
redaction attempt.
Ms. Boebert. Yes. So, Director, the Tiahrt Amendment, as
you know, was enacted to protect the privacy of law-abiding gun
owners and Federal firearms licenses from harassment, name-and-
shame campaigns, and frivolous lawsuits. How does the ATF
justify actions that appear to circumvent this congressional
protection?
Mr. Cekada. So, ma'am, we have discussed some of these, and
some of these were conducted under the last Administration----
Ms. Boebert. Correct.
Mr. Cekada [continuing]. Specifically under Director
Dettelbach and his team. Those folks are no longer here,
neither is the Director, and obviously, we have taken steps to
make sure that we keep our folks in compliance. I have been in
full command of ATF basically since April of last year, so
since that timeline and under the President Trump's Second
Amendment Executive Order, we have done everything in our power
to look at every internal policy, every regulation, any
proposed rule, current or in the past, to ensure that we keep
public safety paramount, but we maintain that balance of
protecting and upholding the Second Amendment as well.
Ms. Boebert. And do you see the Tiahrt Amendment as an
inconvenient restriction or a vital congressional legislation
that protects both privacy and public safety?
Mr. Cekada. No, I see Tiahrt as a critical amendment that
protects public safety and law enforcement, and for ATF, Tiahrt
protects one of our most vital tools in our Agency to be able
to focus our efforts on violent crime and firearms trafficking.
Ms. Boebert. Director, again, thank you, and
congratulations on your confirmation. I look forward to talking
to you in the future. I yield.
Mr. Cekada. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields. Mr. Jack is recognized
for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Jack. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I deeply
appreciate you convening this hearing. I think it is an
important subject, and I appreciate your testimony, Director.
Just for the record, in 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATF, inadvertently sent Gun
Owners of America a Freedom of Information Act production
containing the unredacted personal information of gun owners.
As we know, we have discussed this today, the subject matter of
the FOIA request, scandalous enough, ATF's use of FBI's
warrantless and unaccountable gun purchaser surveillance scheme
known as NICS monitoring system, but ATF's conduct following
its inadvertent disclosures is just as alarming. We have
discussed that at length today. So, one of the first questions
I have for you, Director, is under your leadership, you are
turning a new page at ATF. Does ATF believe that Tiahrt
protects firearm trace information from disclosure under FOIA?
Mr. Cekada. I believe it does protect that under FOIA as
well.
Mr. Jack. And what do you believe Congress' purpose was in
enacting that provision?
Mr. Cekada. I think the intent was to protect the American
citizenry, but also to protect law enforcement, confidential
informants that we would be using in our investigations. And
again, for someone that has been doing law enforcement criminal
investigative work for 34 years, I understand how critical the
witness is, whether they are confidential informants, law
enforcement, or the public, are. And if they are exposed
inadvertently in any one of these cases, especially in a
violent crime case, they are likely to be killed in those
matters, so we want to protect everyone in these cases.
Mr. Jack. Has your Agency done any investigation into other
prior releases of Tiahrt information in addition to the GOA
matter?
Mr. Cekada. Sir, I have not gone back any further. The only
thing I have been able to do in my time is, frankly, work on
putting our Agency in the right direction. We have put in
further restrictions as to how we handle ourselves as it
relates to not only trace data, but also, the NICS system that
you mentioned, the NICS alert system. I put out a memorandum in
April 2025 where we completely revamped how we work that
process. That is another critical tool that we use for violent
crime and firearms trafficking investigation. That is an FBI
tool, and that is one that is protected by law. And just as
important to us as Tiahrt, we do not want any of that
information released either because it contains a lot of the
similar information, and we want to make sure that a critical
tool like that remains in the hands of ATF agents for the
purposes that we were given that access in the first place.
Mr. Jack. With respect to potential other releases of that
information, do you mind providing follow-up to Congress--I
know you said you would look back--to this Committee
specifically?
Mr. Cekada. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jack. Thank you. And just so I understand, has ATF
produced Tiahrt-protected trace information to any Agency or
entity other than GOA, and if so, what and to whom?
Mr. Cekada. We have not that I am aware of, but if there is
any instance, I will get back to you in writing. There have
been releases. Mr. Biggs is not here anymore, but there was a
release that Mr. Biggs and I spoke about, not by ATF, but one
of the law enforcement account holders from an international
account in Colombia, and Mr. Biggs was very upset as was his
constituent, and we spoke in depth about that and some of the
challenges we have in holding folks accountable. That was a law
enforcement agency that received the information but
transferred it to a political entity within their country, who
then put it right out in the news. In both ATF and the State
Department, we are in a bit of a conundrum as to what we can do
based on the limitations of holding them accountable through
Tiahrt.
Mr. Jack. I just want to note for the record, too, to your
point, the Biden administration of ATF, the Biden ATF released
firearm trace data naming over 1,300 firearm businesses across
the country in response to a FOIA request, something that
Chairman Higgins' bill, which I am proud to support, would
address. As the regulator of the firearm industry, can you
please speak to the impact that publicly releasing firearm
trace data has on law-abiding members of the firearm and Second
Amendment community?
Mr. Cekada. Yes. I think trace data is critical to law
enforcement operations, state and local and Federal law
enforcement every day, but at the same note, I think it is
equally critical that we maintain the integrity of that
information and keep it for law enforcement purposes. I think
there are numerous folks that want to assemble data from those
reports, and, frankly, data is great, right? The only problem
with data that I have seen over 30 years, data can be
manipulated to tell different stories with the same data. And I
do not think it is fair to the public who have been victims of
crimes or those members of the public who are not criminals to
manipulate our minds with what something is saying when it is
not actually saying that.
I think that there are a lot of good people that have
suffered as a result of violent crimes, and there are a lot of
great people that put their life at risk every day trying to
prevent further crimes, and it is wrong of data to be used in
that manner by either side, to be frank. We should be holding
people accountable, and we should be truthful with what that
data says. Those DL2 lists were not designed by me or anyone
else to use as a name-and-shame campaign, but that is exactly
what they were used as, and that is not what the intention was.
It is very easy to identify an FFL that has a very large
business and say, well, you are responsible for violent crime
in a community. That is just not the case. When we go into
these FFLs, their inventories are in order. Their books are in
order. They are always cooperative with us. As a matter of
fact, without naming any of them, more often than not, if there
is anything suspicious that comes to their attention, they are
calling one of our local agents because of the relationship
that they have developed over the years.
Mr. Jack. Well, I appreciate your testimony. I appreciate
you working with GOA to resolve that matter. Aiden and JP are
great guys.
I also, Mr. Chairman, want to close by applauding my
colleague in the front dais, Mr. Clyde. I do not think there is
a greater, and I want everyone from Georgia watching to know, a
greater advocate for the Second Amendment than Mr. Clyde. I
have learned a lot from him in my first term, so I am proud to
serve alongside you, my friend, and, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply
appreciative of you convening this hearing. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlemen, yields.
In closing, I want to thank our witness for your testimony
today. And does the Ranking Member have closing comments or
statements?
Ms. Lee. No, sir.
Mr. Higgins. The Ranking Member declines. I recognize
myself for a couple of closing remarks.
I thank Director Cekada very much, sincerely, for appearing
before us today. You had an incredibly busy schedule running
the Agency for nine or ten months, and then being nominated as
Director and going through a prolonged confirmation process
that we anticipated would be a month or so. It turned into
three or four months, and you were a gentleman throughout, and
appearing before this Committee today, honored your promise to
do so. And let me close by saying that the task that you are
set to perform is crucial for our country, for the maintenance
of our protected Second Amendment rights, and for the
protection of the citizenry that we are sworn to serve.
Firearms in America are arguably the most heavily regulated
item in the country, and the laws are incredibly complex, and I
feel confident that you and your team are up to the task. I do
look forward to working with your office, sir, on H.R. 1698,
the Law Enforcement Protection and Privacy Act, which we have
discussed. I look forward to adding any sections that can
enhance the effectiveness of that legislation as we attempt to
move it through Congress.
With that, and without objection, all Members are reminded
they have five legislative days within which to submit
materials and additional written questions for the witness,
which will be forwarded to the witness.
If there is no further business, and without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]