marketing to kids the tobacco industry tripled its advertising and marketing budget between 1998-five years later, investing some 70% of its $15 billion a year on price discounts for customers who can't afford our products meaning children. the industry continuously creates new products not yet regulated by fda to attract children. this is one of many examples. so far cigars are not under the purview of fda and the industry is developing cigars and cigarettes was in wonderful flavors attractive to children. strawberry, white, gray, apple, etc.. the alcohol industry does the same thing, each day almost 5,000 kids under age 16 have their first drink of alcohol. ..

there is huge just shows a availabilittest showsavailabilis availability increases, so especially by the youth will addiction and school failures, although crashes, mental illness and other public health and safety problems. this by the way is a marijuana

infused chocolate chip cookie for sale at some of the marijuana stores. we think there are three marijuana policy options. jolly ranchers and ice cream bars. by replacing incarceration of the marijuana users with assessment, treatment and social services to use the law to help people. why is this important? first it charts the middle road between incarceration and legalization that it's the best way that we have of holding down the number of kids who engage in marijuana use. the medical marijuana issue is one of enormous confusion that has taken us back to the pre- fdr days where anyone can make a

medicine and claim that it has cured -- that it can cure any kind of disease even though there is no scientific evidence to show that. colorado will not begin testing marijuana for contaminants until later this year and there is a group at the university of new haven trying to develop ways to track the contaminants in marijuana. finding such things as mold, mildew, pesticides and other contaminants. many of these kind of products are being infused into food and there are no controls over whether this is good for you or not, at this point at least. it's become a recreational arrow on a wiki leave the national families in action believe we shouldn't do that to cause we cannot think of a single way that would've prevented the youth from increasing particularly among children. however if the congress were to go there we would call for a

legalization model based on the model for the tobacco industry. he said after eight years as the head of fda to try to gain control of regulating tobacco and losing that battle, he said my understanding of the industry's power finally forced me to see that the solution to the problem rests with the bottom line prohibiting the tobacco companies from continuing to profit from the sale of a deadly and addictive drug. they are inevitably used to promote that same product and to generate more sales. he was trying to provide a powerful 150-year-old commercial addictive drug industry. he was trying to bring it to an end. if we apply his model we could prevent another one from starting. so what would the model looks like clicks it would make public health the centerpiece of

control. it would charter a tightly regulated nonprofit corporation, and by nonprofit, public health becomes key. by state and georgia i'm sorry to tell you that we have just passed the most extreme gun rights bill in the nation. and it was lobbied for by the national rifle association, a nonprofit organization whose budget is $256 million that buys a lot of votes in state legislatures so it would have to be governed by a public health model and the board of public health mission. use the money to underwrite only manufacturing and distribution costs. all other revenues that fund enforcement, medical research, programs to prevent and measure what is happening.

it would be tested based on federal standards for these research grade marijuana and mao the standard trace thc levels. we would abandon all forms of edibles and other processed forms such as hand motions, soft drinks, orioles and waxes at 75% or higher and people are beginning to overdose on those higher levels, not died but overdose, showing up in emergency rooms. all advertising marketing i think that would be sensible. package marijuana in childproof containers displaying a health warning. controlled distribution to children and adolescence and finally comin, and i think thatt importantly include an exit strategy to repeal the legalization if problems become unsustainable. thank you. i'm sorry. i have one more. allowing a corporate takeover no

matter how it's done well result in unnecessary increases, unnecessary school failures, unnecessary deaths for marijuana related to driving, unnecessary rises in mental illness and additional unnecessary public health and safety problems. now i'm done. thank you. >> thank you everybody. it's great to be here. i am jonathan rauch of the brookings institution. i'm not an expert on marijuana policy. i am new to this debate having coming out of the marriage debate and years of studying the public policy.

although that brings disadvantages in terms of the depth of expertise, it also brings advantages in terms of seeing the debate with fresh eyes and i have to tell you among the policy debates that i have explored, this is not one of the better managed. there is a lot of hype and a lot of certainty about what is going to happen. i think the best advice is from my niece with the time was 3-years-old who said everybody please calm down. i think the news is pretty good. i think the moderate outcomes very reasonable thing to expect. let me just pull the camera back before i dared him specifically on the topic of the commercial issues. there is actually a lot of good news in the marijuana debate right now. a lot of reasons.

one is there is a growing consensus for change after 40 years of failure and that is a very good thing. another is that it is extremely easy to improve on the policy. almost anything you do is better than the present policy. eisenhower was once asked what nixon had done to contribute, vice presidents nixon to the administration. what his accomplishments had been. and he famously replied if you give me a week, i might think of something. he said give me a week, and i might think of something good we have but i might not. good news number three, getting implementation right on this is difficult. but the good news, getting the process right is very, very easy as public policy debates go. what you need to do is try some

different things and some different places and different ways and experiment with them and try to learn those things and improve policy as you go along. that appears to be exactly what we are going to do. in the natural course of political events i think that is the only way. finally, something else that makes this a bit easier is that there are two credible alternatives that we can do right now. and they are both pretty well understood at this point. actually, there are three. i think probably the most interesting model may be the best of th theater government my on the distribution of marijuana. mark kleiman proposed that. unfortunately in the united states because of the federal law and treaty obligations, that is out of the question right now. so we've already heard about the one of decriminalization, which

maryland is in the process of doing if i understand correctly. and the second is regulated legalization which is what colorado and washington state are doing. these two things are not polar opposites. they involve very large regulatory regimes. a lot of controls on the market with criminal tension for people who break the rules. criminal sanctions don't go away after any of these in fact under some respects, they become more important. the main difference between the decriminalization and regulated legalization is who does the distribution and marijuana. is that the done it legally in the black market by criminals or is it done legally by commercial enterprises? those are indeed two very different paths forward. that is not the worlds easiest

choice. but i would argue in fact i'm less scared of commercializati commercialization. i'm certainly concerned about it. but i would like to point out what's not forget commercial is has significant advantages. one of those is that when big companies market to start you know who to write to and who to legislate about if they start messing it up and that's important to have an addressed responsible entity by and large. big corporations are pretty responsible when it comes to following the law. that isn't to say we like what they do all the time or feel like they're lobbying operations and everything else. but we know where to find and that isn't true in the marijuana underground right now. i would also remind us that the illegal system is also pretty darn good at marketing especially to children. children tried this stuf stuff r time. we know that.

in fact not only does the illegal system market to children, but something that even anheuser-busch doesn't do. so there is no shortage of illegal commercialization that goes on. finally, i would argue that with commercialization you do have an alternative that you don't have any illegal marketing and that its regulation. here again in my opinion there is good news which is we have models for that. i would argue those models are relatively successful in the real world. there are two or three depending how you count. one is industry self-regulation, which is what the industry does. one is a hybrid. which is what goes on in the alcohol industry which is in fact regulated in terms of marketing. and the third is tobacco which is the most interesting and is

worth thinking the hardest about. in the gambling market, 1999 congress struck down a federal down on gambling act. since then the industry said that ithat it's athat ithat it'f regulatory guidelines and a voluntary code of conduct on the provision that the band, for example, touting financial or personal success from gambling, using symbols or celebrities designed to appeal to minors, placing ads in the media with an audience barely minors featuring college athletes. this isn't perfect but it's true that you don't turn on the tv or look at the newspaper and see tons of ads go out and gamble, unless they are by the government. what's interesting about.com ist come isn't that. so, that isn't wholly unsuccessful. alcohol, alcohol is a huge

market. the idea that you can repress marketing to anybody else it seems it is just not going to happen. but alcohol is regulated. labels are regulated by the alcohol and tobacco tax and trade bureau. they can't put hope claims on their label and that is why they tend to look so stark. the industry otherwise itself is regulated by the beer institute and the spirits council, the wine institute. they have guidelines and we can argue about how well that works. they restrict advertising to the markets that are 70% adults or more. in 2,008 the ftc did a report and found that more than 90% of the ad impressions and alcohol marketing worried that meeting the 7% standard. the sponsorships also the clydesdale ad and the super bo

bowl. one example i think we would say that it's actually a pretty good outcome. then you have to back out creative tobacco is applicable to marijuana. tobacco is a drug. cannabis obviously is a drug. in 2009 which is recent history in that so we don't have to talk to much about good luck and congress being been a phenomenon since then. congress passed the tobacco control act and this is a robust regulation on the commercialization and marketing of tobacco. the fda reviews all new products and it's interesting the product marketing to children were not mainstream products under the control so that is the loophole but that is not the main

regulatory issue. there are nine of warning messages that must be displayed on packages to cover at least half of the package, no claims of cigarettes or harm without prior fda approval. only sales are allowed with a few limited exemptions from a limit on color and design of packaging and advertisements. there is a lawsuit now on an as applied basis but it's narrow. the sponsorship of sporting or entertainment events is banned from the claims of reduced harm our band and stock colors are limited to black and white and d ingredients must be disclosed. the fda has a center for tobacco product that is in charge of implementing this. i could go on and on. this is a regulatory system that has done as much as is humanly

possible. when you legalize marijuana there is no stopping the first amendment and there is no way you can stop them from advertising. tobacco is here to prove otherwise. the other nice thing is the supreme court has upheld it was the exception o extension of and challenge going on. so all of these models exist and one of them is indisputably accessible and one of them is in the states right now. i think we have some pretty robust options for dealing with the commercialization. it isn't to say that we will get it right, that is to say it isn't necessarily true that we are going to get this wrong. [applause] spinet i would like to invite you all up to sit with us and we will have a little discussion among ourselves. a moderated discussion about what we've heard and then we are

going to open up to you i see some faces i know and i want to make sure everybody can ask some questions of the staff, of the panel. are we good here? i'm going to move over. let me just say that i'm delighted at the level of detail and expertise in this discourse. i'm more confused now than i was when i started which is always a good sign. let me pose the first question and that is that i think we have among three if not for the panelists an agreement that in theory if we are going to have

liberalization at all the best way forward would be a government monopoly. i know alice doesn't agree, but i sense that is something that the three of you would agree with. we live in the era where the public can't imagine the government doing anything right. yet if i go to buy in maryland or pennsylvania or utah or any number of state i have to go to an abc store. and alcohol beverages control. so it's a government store. only montgomery county. that's right and even montgomery county has loopholes where the kids by the week or two to get alcohol. this is something that we had in america for 70, 80 years since the end of prohibition.

what is wrong with and why can't we have marijuana sold by the government stores ltd. in the type of products it sells, no fruit flavored drinks and waxes and hand motions with a price that is set at least at the current price and limited no marketing. why wouldn't that solve the problem of making sure that marijuana is available for adults that want it and restrict, why wouldn't that be the best way to restrict the inevitable increase of use? and i will start. >> as pointed out we do have an obligation in the way of that i

would say with reservation. i don't take that one very seriously. other than that i don't see a downside of letting this be operated. >> how do you make that happen? in your piece the federal government should somehow make that happen. so mechanically how do you do that? spinnakespinnaker would only dia little bit of that we are on a track at the moment. a lot of the stuff like the government monopoly cannot be done by the states as long as the controlled substance act is in place because the state of maryland couldn't tell its employees to commit a federal for felony which selling marijuana is so the option isn't available under the controlled substances act. once california legalizes which it almost certainly will, and we have a multibillion-dollar commercial cannabis industry. the prospect of rolling over the

industry to the public monopoly it seems to me are very slim. any state that wants to legalize canned and it's legal not just kind of tolerated by the federal government. but only if it has the sources. i can imagine advocates saying it's not what i really want but it's better than we've got now. and i thought i could imagine people on the drug side saying it's not what we want but it's better than we are going to get. but at the moment there is no such movement that is what i propose is the bill that says you can legalize any state that wants to legalize under the following conditions. have to congress dictate whatever the state may do in the

current system of having the cannabis in some states is not a very good system so the treasury department issued guidance to say it is a felony to handle an account for a marijuana business but we probably won't get you if you do that. really this is not satisfactory. if we are going to do it legally then we have to do it legally. the system that is issuing the state licenses to commit federal felonies is at best a transitional mechanism and not something we should be happy with. remember everybody in that business is completely at rest. the attorney general of an guiding theandguiding them in 2f they are doing now the current justice department guidelines says it is a crazy system.

>> as the resident questioner of this government stores idea, i would like your thoughts about it. >> first we need to define the terms of the government monopoly are we talking about. we had a state operated stores but we were not a government monopoly for the product in the stores. so if you have private entities producing the product, they are going to be marketing the product. >> that's my proposal to get away from the commercial free-speech doctrine. they have to be a vendor to the state you could write the research and. >> we could have an argument of the jurisprudence. so we all know there is no first amendment protection write-down

because it is an illegal product in the federal law. there is some debate about whether the corollary state and free-speech protections would apply as long as one is under the federal law. studying that as a policy goal if you're talking about having the government produced the marijuana that is going to be sold then you should be looking at the places where that is happening right now i could united states which is a government monopoly on the medical marijuana produced for medical and scientific research. it's not going to have an impact on the black market and that is true with cannabis experiment and the government being involved, you have to eat into consideration whether or not consumers are going to be satisfied.

if you look at the stores and the government monopoly you talk about what are the impacts of retail. when the government monopoly is in place and whether the clerks are responsible for ensuring they are not selling to underage people, where they are located, how important it is worth it is going to be in a separate building that you have to travel to or if you are taking away some of the accessibility. the stores are to be stand-alone stores and the regulatory agency with specific mandates to decide where they should be and we rode into the wal law the considerats that have to animate the choices were that there has to be adequate availability to meet the market but not promote the market. so, i just think that when we imagine the government control

is going to achieve something that we can't achieve in the law we are not necessarily basing that on any idea. >> let me pick up on that and go to something my friend jonathan talked about which is his sense that things are happening in a beneficial way in the states approach and most people would agree the way that washington has regulated it marijuana markets is as good as anyone has fought right now. thought right now. it's a very tight regulatory system but what assurance do we have that it would be as responsible as washington? let me give you an example. in the state to the south of you in oregon there was a referendum on the ballot to legalize marijuana and it would be controlled by the group that

would be a self controlled by marijuana producers. it didn't pass though it came close and what you had with the voters almost did was build what they called regulatory capture. except they didn't. they are both fairly responsible if you are looking for assurances that states the legislatures and the public will always do the right thing, you are in the wrong city. you try stuff and eventually count on the good sense of the public but make decent choices. i don't think that we actually know which is going to be better between regulating the market place and the government monopoly. i wish the congress would pass a bill allowing the monopoly to be

tried. the maintained possession of being against legalization as a matter of policy. is it your sense that the supporters of the position can -- you have also said if we are going to have legalization in a tightly regulated system is it your sense that that is where the public is? that the public knows once it is carefully regulated and kept out of the hands of children is that where the public is and do you have some states going forward? >> that is a difficult question. i think that there are a number

of people in the country that do not want to see legalization of what we are seeing is the excitement in the press that has picked up. we are seeing polls that say that more than half what legalization but i'm not sure that they are asking all the right questions. i would like to ask more ike do you want a marijuana shop in your community where your kids can go? i think that the inevitability is not as strong as we might suspect. and i will give you two examples. two states that the project concentrated on to legalize the question have rejected the legalization meme and yesterday new hampshire. they voted down the legalization after having approved the legalization bill earlier in the session. so i don't think it is such a done deal that we suspect. it maye more than i'm

comfortable with, but i am not so sure that it is inevitable. >> unless somebody doesn't like the idea of the full-scale commercial legalization is prepared to propose something short of that, if the opponents of legalization keep saying noti have to agree all the bells and whistles don't change the fact that it's close to zero and even the taxes on a percentage basis as they have in washington let alone the tax that they have in colorado but even a 40% or 50% is nothing into place is pennies. i don't see anything that's going to keep us from getting the super chief cannabis and that fight, to back.

>> many states are much too low but i don't understand why it's given to the model and not the tobacco model. the question is pulling on whether the public does advertising 80 percent do not want to see an open advertisement. so there is a very strong consensus against marketing. and for those reasons i just don't accept the notion that once you realize you are suddenly going to be in the world where it is like a lego market. >> they have the highest taxes somewhere between a third and a half of cigarettes sold are smuggled. it's going to look at the lowest tax state because cannabis is much more smuggled than tobacco because it is more compact.

it is about an ounce and collecting $8 a pack. so the notion that we can take the commodity is zero and with a patchwork of state regulations to keep it near its current $10 i think that is a far-fetched anindigos to $3 a gram and we ae going to see a substantial increase over and above what you get. and i don't see anything on the agenda that is going to stop that. as enthusiastic when they told a higher taxes are bad, in colorado republican legislature all of whom were against the legalization when it came time to vote on the taxation the taxes were bad. if i were running the state system i wouldn't do it as

taxation i would do it as quantity limitation and option on production rights. it's not a tax. it gets you to the same place. i don't see any reason to think that we are not currently on the track that has very cheap cannabis and it almost doesn't matter. >> i want to open up to the folks in the audience. we have a microphone so please this gentleman right here we can start. state your name and affiliation. >> i must stop the drug war -- i am with stopthedrugwar.com. marijuana could be a use like alcohol.

we don't really know based on the evidence, maybe it is a substitute for some demographics and others. suppose that is in the better data that we are going to have. including in the groups that are most vulnerable there are commercialized industries. in the direct means of reducing the alcohol abuse with its greater public health consequences. >> anybody? stanek absolutely. >> the big wild card in the debate turns out to be a strong substitute, then more availability is a good thing. it's been pointed out to me, and i haven't thought about this,

that whether there are subsidies as a questio the question of the pharmacological and sociological fact so for example on the impaired driving question i would like to see the law that says if you test for cannabis you have zero for driving. i encourage to think of them as cannabis and alcohol as things separately but not together. but you are correct. let me flip it over. if it turns out there are in fact complement either simultaneously or overtime to me you are getting any cannabis use that leads you to be a heavy drinker later in life. are you prepared to reconsider? >> the lady in the very back.

>> thank you. good morning. i'm from the open society foundation. i have appreciated the panel this morning but one thing that has been missing is the conversation around the cost, the human cost of the marijuana prohibition into the folding enough african-american and latino entrepreneurs into the new marijuana industry. so i wonder if you can talk about that, any of the panelis panelists. one of the places with a lot of people into the data is there is a lot of single entry bookkeeping when you look at one half of the equation but not the other and it's true darrell on the consumption is bad for children but it's also very bad for children to have your dad in jail when you're growing up and up in not being able to get a job so there are a lot of costs on both sides. >> i don't disagree creative >> on the issue of innovation

disproportionately and significantly by the marijuana law enforcement is an opportunity to now actually be a part of this new marketplace. he worked very hard in the rulemaking process to try to engage the community in the rule making progress so they could have an impact on what the market would look like and also to provide public education about how they could get involved in the market. it was a challenge. my personal take is that we did a good job during the 1980s and what a thin would think aboo this business. and they wound up being the face of the war on drugs did in 1980 even in this level of shame and embarrassment to think now i'm actually going to -- the bill is a stereotype that we used to perpetuate the war on drugs but

it's very difficult. we have started to make some inroads and are engaged in the community. so don't let this opportunity go by. those that suffered the most should have the opportunity to participate. and that is from the standpoint that another reason i might be reluctant in the government monopoly. the people in the community that have been infected most by the marijuana law enforcement have an opportunity to benefit from the new accusatory market. >> i think the best advice i could give to the minority entrepreneurs is to stay the hell away. everybody thinks they are going to get rich in this business. i think the people running the venture funds are going to get rich facing the investors and they are going to lose. everybody assumes it is going to be a legal market and $10 a gram. that's $3 a gram they are putting $2 million into setting up a store are going to go

broke. and so i would hate to see them get trapped into this. >> i have a response on that because somebody is going to make money. and right now frankly young white men. yes a lot of them are going to lose their shirts but some of them are going to make money. they should have dared members running the product. they shouldn't have the kids in the neighborhood schooling into the communities and selling them the substance. i completely disagree that the minority entrepreneurs we need to be shaping it. it doesn't look like alcohol and tobacco. we can't shape unless we have

everything at the table. >> if we are completely honest with ourselves, the drug problem isn't why we have unequal enforcement of the law. it is much broader than that and until we are willing to deal with that and recognize and change it, i don't think -- i think we are missing the mark to say that it is only the drug problem and shame on us. we need to change that. >> is it possible that the people that make money at this ultimately will be anheuser-busch and roll them up into one giant marijuana company and they are the ones that start advertising on the super bowl and so forth, or the tobacco industry. that's right. >> there is already a venture fund out there but the truth is we don't know. it's like the wine market.

the question is what is going to be marketed. [inaudible] i guess i'm the only one that doesn't think that the tobacco company -- i think they have negative brand equity for consumers and i think involvement would damage their equity on existing products and would have substantial outfit. it depends whether the regulatory barriers to entry were branding barriers to entry. this could wind up being like t., a commodity product not very expensive or glamorous and not terribly profitable. unless somehow the regular david gregory barriers to entry it's

hard for me to see how you can make big profits growing this stuff. >> right here this gentleman. >> the national cannabis industry association. we are disappointed there isn't corporate representation to talk about what we are actually doing. also as the co-author of amendment 64 in colorado and involved in the implementation i would quibble with the idea that colorado is sloppy. things are pretty tightly regulated, restrictions on labeling, taxes coming in, everything going very well. my question follows up on what david asked earlier and for professor kleiman. you even said if it turns out the other way would you change your mind about legalization. so the question is why shouldn't

the industry be able to advertise freely and market marijuana as a substitute for alcohol so that we can diminish alcohol use in the country and have people be encouraged instead and have a positive health impact. >> if it were true that it were a substitute for alcohol, there would be an argument for having lower taxes in the regulations on cannabis. at the moment there is zero evidence of that. if they want to start running anti-booze ads, my understanding there has been discussions about what's will be anti-prohibitionists together. i expect the industry to do whatever makes the most money and i expect it's not the consistent with public interest. >> i would also like to address one thing that you said and that

is that colorado isn't a tightly regulated market. it's trying to be that, but colorado legalized medical marijuana in the year 2,000 state reports that came out at the end of last year suggested that the regulatory system is awful. so i'm going to have to follow you around when you go to congress. the regulatory system right now in the beatles date is also extremely bad as in muc a much e than colorado and washington i don't have any particular affiliation and i would like to pose a question to the panel mr. kleiman in particular. on the assumption of the legal market is to diminish the size and consequences of the near

legal market and i wonder if the extent some of you suggested the government would directly regulate the monopoly business wouldn't that create multiple incentives to be a black market running to the federal market for people who might want to circumvent the registration that you suggest. >> they are distinguished between the short run and the long run. the regulatory system in washington has to compete in the unregulated medical market and that puts an up or down on how tight regulations can be. also it seems to me it puts a premium on the law enforcement.

the day before you legalize cannabis if you arrest marijuana people argue creating a niche for the marijuana dealer not really reducing the supply of marijuana at all. the day after you legalized you can push the customers towards the legal market so paradoxically the benefits of the cannabis law enforcement against illegal production and sales go up with legalization. they don't go up for very long because after a couple of years there won't be a an an illegal t such as the moonshine whiskey market. none of them have big moonshine problems because on allison's point, people want the legal product. it's better and cheaper and labeled and you don't have to sneak around to get it so unless it has big advantages that legal market is going to wipe it out but require help from the law enforcement to get their.

once you wipe out the market and you can be aggressive on the taxation and regulation. the idea that we should ban the concentration in the legal market at the moment the only thing we have to admit into this goes along with steve's point is not very much we can do to keep something that's available two adults away from kids. we can keep the state licensed stores to selling from kids and we did a good job of that alcohol. that doesn't do very much to keep them from getting alcohol. if minors are going to smoke cannabis which they are, i would rather have them get tested and processed and labeled cannabis diverted from the state system than strictly illegal cannabis. so i work hard to keep them from biting frobuying from the stated admit the market is going to happen. there is paperwork that could be

very important on this. the gentleman back here. >> i am eric sterling. i wear a lot of different marijuana related tags and i want to say with a turkic panel this has been and how much i have learned from everybody. my question is what are your suggestions about what kind of conversations families should have about marijuana use to discourage young people from using marijuana in the current national discourse in favoring it and then in the post-legalization environment. i'm on the montgomery county council and i think we are struggling to figure out what should families be saying if the

old bs is no longer valid. >> that sounds like a question coming to me. [laughter] i think it's important to understand as the country accepts marijuana first as a medicine and more recently as a pro- recreational use in the two states that message that is coming to children is that it is a safe drug. it's medicine. why can't i use it? i'm going to use it anyway. so the question on alcohol and tobacco is the same on marijuana whether it is legal or not and any other addictive drug. you have to be honest with your children and you have to be certain. the research shows this you have to be certain that you make a protective cocoon around your children and to set guidelines for which there are consequences if they are broken.

that is the most effective way family can protect her children. the second most effective way is to get together with the other families, the other parents of your child's closest friends and make a larger cocoon for those children. we don't tolerate alcohol use and marijuana. whether it is legal or not we don't tolerate tobacco use for kids who are under age because it's not good for you. it will hurt your brain. it'll hurt your development. and as long as you can get a group to reinforce that message with children, you have your best chance of protecting them. make no mistake legalizing marijuana gives the wrong message to kids and what we are seeing is increases in marijuana use since the discussion about that began in the early 1990s. >> to say that the reason the

drug war failed since the '90s is that too many people criticized it and that we should all be quiet and more accepting doesn't make sense. that's the status quo. it's failing. i would love if more folks would just recognize that in terms of what you say i am not a parent so i don't really know that. i've come from a different tradition in which the zero-tolerance method is also counterproductive because it teaches kids this stuff must be magic. to make. magic. i come from the tradition where we had alcohol in a very bad tasting alcohol. every friday night as part of the family ritual and one thing that does is familiarize you and make this a routine part of your life to the other kids i must be grown-up if i can do this. i'm not really sold on this zero tolerance don't discuss it. spec i would like to add to that

because i agree about the aspect of building around the children and expanding that, but the method is important. not only is zero tolerance creating the dynamic that it is if we lose credibility with our system than we've lost because parents are the ones that children are looking up to. then they proactively push back that he would tell that relationship of trust and not a bs and also expectations for the expectation should be one that respects the child's intelligence. the expectation should be i want you to wait and here's why. but then other people want to add to what you were saying. we want to look at what has been

affected but it's focusing on what the teenagers care about. but to spend some money on what actually works regardless of whether it is scientifically accurate. have the science. >> it is really quite a difference that rrw from what kids face today where they are exposed to it by their friends, by the parents that allow it to happen and allow other children to come to their home and serve alcohol to them even though they are under age, that is the pressure that you are fighting. it will be at the same with marijuana and any addictive drug. you have to set standards and guidelines and until you've grown up it igrown-up it is a ge

into the science supports that. you are new to the field. the american jewish population has a program. everybody that is even ethnically jewish has used alcohol very early and the prevalence of oklahoma abuse disorder is relatively small in the population with much higher rates and much higher rates of alcohol abuse. so i think that we should be focusing not on which substances can choose but whether they lose control of their behavior and i think modern prevention science is all around soft demand, not around a specific risk. so if they want to say no alcohol for you until you are 21 come of it is a reasonable guideline. i don't think it is the only

one. we have about five more minutes and i want to get some questions but stupid questions, sort of a lightning round. please keep your questions sho short. >> with the organization there are two things i didn't hear in the panel that could focus on the cannabis industry homegrown market integration obviously colorado and washington have different views on that to include so i want to see what your opinion was in terms of the cost and benefit of the pros and cons. >> the young man on the far le left. >> a follow-up to the question over there. >> price and availability are only part of the equation. cigarettes for example are cheaper and more available than marijuana and get fewer kids actually use the direct than marijuana and sort of related to

that, a lot of the concern over the corporate takeover seems to be just disdained towards the idea of people getting rich selling marijuana. so rather than artificially inflating the price of marijuana and focusing on the supply reduction of the natural cost is zero then let it be zero. there is every reason to be the based on our experience with it is a much more effective approach. >> this gentleman right here. >> a few weeks ago they got into how the banks could provide thinking services to the marijuana business and i was curious where you see that going and if that would have any material impact of moving away from the business on the legalization. >> we have got homegrown, the possibility that lowering the prices won't be a bad thing, and we have the banking issue.

we want to take those -- you are wrong about tobacco. in fact the single most effective prevention technique is to raise the price so they can't afford it and all of the research shows that wit for thee expensive it is, the fewer children start use. >> [inaudible] >> that's correct but that has nothing to do with the price of the taxes. >> homegrown would have been an interesting alternative altogether. you could have said nobody can produce it for sale but anybody can give it away like tomatoes. i think we are past that. the problem with homegrown in the world where it is legal only in some states is that homegrown can be a cover for the commercial production and i think it is hard to get that under control.

washington doesn't allow homegrown, colorado does and we see it turns out to be a problem. if it doesn't, -- democracy, there we go. >> the reason we didn't have homegrown in washington is because it didn't grow well. it was a restricted hard alcohol model. ..

and i agree with mark. once a credit union says it's a problem. >> folks, thank you very, very much. what a great panel. show your appreciation. thank you all for coming. thank you new america for hosting this. thank you to the c-span audience. we really appreciate it. goodbye, now. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> a reminder that if you missed any of this program you can see

it anytime in our video library at c-span.org. and more live coverage still to come today on c-span2. air force secretary deborah lee james will be a guest of the women and international security group today. she will be speaking about women in positions related to america's national security. we will have that live at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. also today, the brookings institution is hosting a discussion on u.s.-china relations including looking at sports and cultural diplomacy. former nba player yao ming and former nba commissioner david stern are among the panelist. that will be live beginning at 2 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. supreme court justices are weighing whether corporations have religious rights that exempt them from part of the new health care law that requires coverage of birth control for employees at no extra charge.

two cases than an were combinedd argued at the supreme court tuesday. it involves family-owned companies that provide health insurance to their employees but objected to covering certain methods of birth control that they say can work after conception in violation of their religious beliefs. you can hear the oral argument from earlier this week tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. also c-span radio will air the argument today at 4 p.m. easte eastern. >> probably when you look at the threats we faced, when you look at things like improvise nuclear devices, we know that no one jurisdiction would ever have the capability to respond. we'll have to bring resources from across the nation. and looking at various threats, several which are tears of days, some of which are natural hazards, we started adding up the numbers, casualties,

fatalities, injuries, search and rescue, immediate recovery needs. and looking at that we begin identifying critical capabilities and gaps. so part of this was to address the funding not only hoping that by jurisdiction by jurisdiction it adds up to national capability, but driving some of the risks and threats as an overall national response. and how do you build that capability and direct the funding? grant funding based upon the division between the states. the other has to be competitive so we can see in some areas of this country where maybe sponsorship of one state or one committee to provide resources to an area versus each jurisdiction trying to build that capability. i know there's lot of concerns about that distribution of funds. either there's concerns about our jurisdiction getting what we need. there's not a lot of trust out there. that also concerns me because in these types of large-scale events, if we can't agree on our

response was to work together as a team, how does that work when a real disaster that exceeds that jurisdictions capability and requires all of our capabilities, not just the local jurisdiction, the state of impact or federal resources, but multiple states in multiple jurisdictions responding to these types of events? >> this weekend on c-span craig fugate on his agencies 2015 budget request saturday morning at 10 a.m. eastern. and of the tv from arizona at tucson festival of books. saturday starting at noon on c-span2. on american history tv the origins of the cell phone with a motorola researcher who led the team that invented the first cell phone in 1973. sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> fbi director james comey testified wednesday about his

agencies reforms post-september 11th attacks. mr. conn we pointed to cybercrime and homegrown terrorism as major areas of concern to get also spoke about the missing malaysia airlines flight. frank wolf chairs this hearing. spent pleased to welcome fbi director james comey in his first appearance before the committee. and also, pleased to thank the men and women of the fbi for the great job that they have done. they really did an incredible job and on behalf of the american people, congress, i just want to thank and if you address and think and also to give my best to former director mueller. he really did, i met with him when he first came in and watched that he did an incredible job so if you just pass on my regards to him i would appreciate it. let me add that any of the following the director's

testimony, the committee will hear from the three commissioners leading the congressionally directed review of the fbi's implementation of the 9/11 commission recommendations. director comey is the seventh director, is a good man, good choice to lead the bureau. following a very distinguished government and private career. as assistant u.s. attorney getting and prosecutions of the gambino crime family and in tears responsible for the 1996 khobar towers bombings. following 9/11 attack he became u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, then served as deputy u.s. attorney general, during the challenge in early wars of terrorism. gaining express critically relevant in his job. he will do what's right no matter what people tell him to do. in the private sector, director comey served as senior vice president and general counsel of lockheed martin, general counsel of bridgewater associates, and on the faculty at columbia law

school where he was a fellow in national security law. director comey, today we want to but your 2015 budget request and in particular how it will support rebuilding and retooling the fbi's undergoing as it recovers from sequestration and a long, hiring freeze together inherited a very proud and very extended organization with its noxious commission in charge to defend the nation from terrorist attacks. the fbi need a sophisticated and global presence. we want to hear about how the fbi is leading efforts to protect the international terrorism, whether from overseas or from efforts operating on our shores, and to pursue domestic terrorists including those who are becoming radicalized or inciting criminal and terrorist activity. the fbi must operate in the aftermath of the snowden lakes, which may i think will require new approaches and new resources, different operational models and in general may demand

a great committee and new resources to a more constrained approach than some of your traditional security missions. in addition to dealing with the security missions, you are facing an ever-growing workload associated with investigating major fraud cases, growing intellectual property crime, and continued priorities dealing with violent games which seem to be increasing, and major crime organizations. the growing problem of cyber threats either from a criminal or a national security perspective requires the fbi to exercise leadership in the field that demands a sophisticated and professional workforce. look for doing have the fbi is juggling all these critical efforts will keeping a streamlined as management efficiency will permit to be ready for the next generation of challenges to a national and homeland security, and to sustain its role as the premier federal investigative lead agency. after you've given your statement will open to hearing

up for members questions but first would like to recognize mr. fattah for any comments you may wish to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, director. welcome to the committee and congratulations for an extraordinary career to date, and we wish you well. we are at a point in which you have made public comments about the sequestration process that congress went through. we have, somewhat to a better result from that process, and in the attorney general holder thank chairman wolf and myself in an agencywide ceo. but more important than it out on the back i think the issue really is we want to make sure that we are funding a needed priorities. you say that the fbi is now a threat driven intelligence focused agency, and the country faces a great deal of threats.

you kind of stand in the breach, so we want to make sure you have the resources that you need. now that the hiring freezes been lifted. we're interested today in the appropriations request, and there is a mention in there about some unspecified reductions well over 160 million. i would be interested in how you see that. because as the chairman mentioned we are in, i think in sync in the way we view these threats. obviously, terrorism is important. we are interested in human trafficking issues, sex trafficking issues, and intellectual property which really steals american jobs in many respects when people steal our intellectual property. so there are a lot of issues and what to make sure that the one issue that we are not focused on is money. our job is to appropriate the money. we need to hear from you today

about what it is that you see that you need so that we can find a way to provide it. so thank you and come to the committee. >> thank you, mr. fattah. pursuant to the authority granted in section 191 of title ii of the united states code and clause two of house rule 11, today's witnesses as we have for every government witness will be sworn in before testifying. please rise -- please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the test when you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> let the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative and director comey, you may proceed. you can summarize your remarks or you can proceed as you see fit appropriate. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. fattah, members of the committee. it's an honor to be here for my first time representing the great people of the fbi. i have an amazing job because i represent an amazing workforce.

i spent the last seven months traveling around the country in the world to mee my folks into their concerns and to learn about the work. and i have learned that they are indeed a remarkable group of people. when i started, as mr. fattah alluded to, i discovered a workforce that was extremely stressed by the impact of the sequestration reductions on them. when a colleague left the position wasn't they were facing the rationing of gas money and had to decide who to go interview, hutu surveilled and triaged, things they shouldn't have been triaging. but thanks to you, turn to mr. fattah, members of this committee the fbi is now in a different place today. where in the process of turning back on our training facility at quantico. and my goal is to hire about 1000 people between now and october 1, hundreds of special agents, hundreds of intelligence analysts to begin to fill the gaps that were greeted by the impact of sequestration and we were again funding is critical

operations but we are investing in training, in technology, and people are no longer have to make choices about how far they can drive to conduct an essential interview or surveillance. i thank you so much for that on behalf of the men and women of the fbi. we are hiring those people because we need those people. what is on our plate is enormous and challenging, most importantly counterterrorism. it remains our number one priority. in eight years out of government i discovered as he came back that the threat from terrorism have metastasized anyways i had not understood and kelly took this job. what i mean by must test this is is we've had great success against or al-qaeda, the primary tumor in this challenge and reduced it thanks in large part to the work of the men and women in uniform and in our intelligence service. at the same time the poorly governed or lightly governed spaces around the world have allowed a growth of a metastasizing tumor in places

like the raving peninsula and around north africa and places around the mediterranean. so we face a threat that is weaker in the core but disparate and virulent in a lot of different places. we also face a new threat that was not on the front of my screen when i was deputy attorney general eight years ago, and that if the people we call homegrown violent extremists. i don't like the term lone wolf because it conveys a dignity that these characters don't deserve. these are the people who, thanks to the ready editability of information on the internet, can be inspired even if not directed by al-qaeda. they can be in the basement convincing themselves they need to engage in some jihad and kill americans. and then merge in that basement with very little time for us to find them and to stop them. so counterterrorism in those many different ways remains at number one priority for reasons that make good sense to me. second, counterintelligence remains a top priority of the fbi because the enemies of this

country are every bit as aggressive at trying to steal our secrets as they were when i last left government and have many more ways to do it. again, thanks to the proliferation of the internet and the vulnerabilities we face in cyberspace. and i mentioned cyber. it touches everything that i do. everything the fbi is responsible for. for reasons that make sense to me. we as a country and as individuals have connected our entire lives to the internet. it's where our secrets are, where our infrastructure is, where our children play. it's where our money is. it's where our health care is. so that's where bad people, for our children, for our for our private information, for our state secrets, for our key infrastructure. it cuts across everything i'm responsible for. was the fbi's mission is to make sure our workforce is trained, deployed and equipped to respond to the threat which touches our counterterrorism, our counterintelligence and all of our criminal responsibilities. and with respect to criminals,

there's about is terrific news over the last decade, and that is that crime is dropping in the united states but the remains far too much abuse of children, human trafficking, gains dominating neighborhoods. far too much in the way of fraudsters and tricksters the money of all sorts. far too much public corruption remains throughout our country. those fingers on the fbi's play a we're still waking up every morning worrying about themm and trying to make a difference in those areas. a couple other things i mentioned before closing, we still have i think an important responsibly to her brothers and sisters in law enforcement around the country and around the world in our allied nations to offer them training, which we do now thanks to the funding that you've given us, and to offer them our world-class laboratory and our technical support to help them get the job done. and i mentioned our partners around the world a couple different times. the other thing i'm struck by coming back to government is the internationalization of the

challenges we face. there's almost nothing the fbi does that doesn't have some international component to it, whether it's some attractive traffic human beings, to exploit children, steel zippers, attack our nation. it all requires an effective response outside the united states which is why i'm so proud of the offices that my predecessors, the great bob miller and my friend louis freeh build over the last 20 years in over 60 different countries. that's something i'm looking to increase to make sure is effective and is meeting the challenges we face at home where they start in many instances which is overseas. so we have a full plate. i'm extraordinarily grateful and i'm here to thank you on behalf of the people of the fbi for the support you've given us. my goal is to obtain the resources the loss to continue that progress to recover thousands of positions that were emptied and to give my folks the ability to a published the job they're out there every day a coalition. so thick you very much. i look forward to our

conversations. >> thank you, mr. director. how many people spots were not filled? i mean you say you're going to try to bring 1000 on october 1. so what did the country lives during this period of time? >> i think we lost over 2000 positions. i think 2300. i may have a number off by a little bit but not much. so we were over 2000 positions down close to 2500. >> even if you at this 1000 you're still going to be down? >> we are still going to be down at least another thousand and more which is why i said i hope for the next you to be able to continue the momentum to hire talent. mr. chairman, as you know better than anyone the fbi is people. my talent is the essence and the magic of the fbi. said getting great people in to fill those slots is what i hope to do this year and next. >> is the interest still high? years ago everyone was applying to is there a lot of interest,

quality of applicants very high? >> very, very high. great young people of all sorts. don't have to be done. great people of all sorts want to be part of the nation that this great group is dedicated to achieving. >> i had once would be an fbi agent but when i went down, i lived next to an fbi agent, a guy named bob franks. they are congressional relations guy. he said you can't put a bumper sticker on the back of your car. i had a goldwater bumper sticker on the back of my car, so i took a different approach. in your february speech at the cyber conference, you underscored the seriousness of the cyber threat from state-sponsored hackers and hackers for hire, organize cyber syndicated. and i know that director of national intelligence clap and think director mueller said the same thing, has placed them above the global threats of terrorism and espionage, weapons of mass destruction.

what resources will the fbi devote -- what percentage of your billion dollars budget and 35,000 employees are applied in this effort? >> mr. chairman, as you said this is something my predecessor bob mueller predicted would come to dominate my term of 10 yours the way counterterrorism at his, and i can see already after just half a year or so that that's going to be true. because it touches everything i'm responsible for, almost you could fairly say everybody in the fbi has to be educated in cybercom be effective at respond to cyber. i have a cyber division which is made up of hundreds of people that focuses on this everyday. i have cyber squads in all pars field offices. so i can get you the exact number but there hundreds of people who are designated as cyber folks, intelligence analysts and agents but i don't want to miss the fact that everybody needs to be because this evil layer cake from

organized state actors and terrace at the top all the way down to the individual fraudsters touches everything i'm responsible for. so cyber is everything. >> what is the solution been? is there something that maybe you could do? is there a new structure we need? is there anything unique that people know that we have to do? is there anything special or any ideas that you have that we could do better with regard to cyber from the committee pointed to? >> yes, mr. chairman. two things. one you've already been which is to support us like an high that talent, those people who are digitally literate that can help you address this attack, these attacks. the second thing is we need clear rules, lanes and the road to explain to the private sector how to cooperate with the government. that's the key to this. the internet is almost entirely in private hands. so without the ability to

cooperate effectively with private companies and private individuals, i'm left almost like potomac history with 40-foot high solid walls on either side. i can say that the street look safe if i can't speak to the folks in the neighborhoods i can't help but make the neighborhood safer. we have to find a way to to more effectively and efficiently have private players of companies and people be able to tell us what's happening on their systems and for us to tell them that we see and do it at machine speed in a way that addresses the concerns of the private sector. i was the general counsel of two different companies, and private companies want to understand it would cooperate with the government, and we have liability issues? are there privacy issues? what are the rules that govern that sharing? we could use some guidance from congress for the private sector on how to work better with us. >> industry leaders such as ceo of visa have adopted baby and the embedded microchip standard for euros credit card, p.i.n. and chip by securing compromised

magnetic -- we all know about the target case. expect a second would provide a different and result in a more consistent and real-time reporting. what is the fbi doing to address the current security gaps to make credit card crime so easy to commit and yet so difficult to prosecute or to prevent? >> i don't know enough, mr. chairman, about that particular technology to comment. it's from your brief description from it sounds like a smart thing to do. we work closely as does our partners in the secret service with private enterprise and especially the credit card companies to try to come up with better ways, especially to share information when you see attacks coming from the outside and so they can tell us about the bad things they're seeing in a way that allows us to respond. >> do we need a cyber summit? do we need like universities you have contracts with, i won't mention the university, different universes are looking

at -- is a arpa working with you quick sometimes you can get so involved in doing the day-to-day task and so overwhelming that it's hard to step aside and see is there some research being done qwikster we need to bring all of the top minds together on cyber and we need to have arpa do something. do we need have mit, x., y., some of the labs website working with them to see if there's something you and different that we can be doing? >> is a lot of good thinking going on but a lot of different people on the cyber threat and that would bite evolve the technology to deal with it. a lot of people smart and i, i know are working and talking to my smart folks. really on the law enforcement side and intelligence are the most important thing we've done in the last couple of years was to set up the national investigative cyber task force, the nci gtf to bring together everybody who cares about these issues on the government decide to make sure we're all according

with each other well. because an absence of that wind up what looks like a four year old soccer gang. everybody chasing the ball and a clunker of a bunch of children as i know you do, and if you watch the soccer gang, very inefficient. we evolve through placer we're spreadinspread out on the fieldd passing to each other and decide who can take th their best shot. that's a great thing. the missing piece is ability to cooperate effectively and at machine speed that is very, very quickly with the private sector who sees things we don't see. we're worried about things they may not be able to tell us about because of their concerns about who should they share with you what are their liabilities but that's why think it's so important to give them a clear description of what are the rules of the road for cooperative with the government. >> i understood, but do we need to bring in an mit and darpa to see? is there something, sometimes you can get so bogged down doing what your doing that there may be something out there, or do you have the ability to go to

mit or darpa or rand to say here's what we're thinking? is there some formal structure that brings in the best minds on a constant basis, not on an investigative cases, but like a resource? like darfur for the dod, d. have something like that in this area of? >> i guess i can't say specifically as i said you. it's always a good idea to have smart people poking you and looking from a different vantage point. i know my folks who focus on cyber intelligence communicate a lot with great lines in this private sector but i'll have to get back to to the one who we are working with particularly. but more is always good. people see things that we may not be able to see. >> maybe the committee could do something to put together, and i know director mueller brought in people from outside, some of the best minds, bring in come and again when i -- mandy a, with

regard to china and different groups like that. they be a select handful of 10 come see what you're saying, the problem is can you see so as you are enforcing a security and tracking down, there in the process, if we can maybe get your cyber people to come up to the committee, we can sit down. >> we will. >> i'm going to then go to mr. fattah, but let me cover just one or two. in fy '14 common of the appropriations, it includes safe streets and task forces and also maintains funding for the national gang intelligence center, notwithstanding the president's proposal to terminate a bit when i saw the wanted to terminate that i could not understand. i'm pleased the fy '15 request funds that the task force, it's important tracking and

developing intelligence by gains in operations. what is the latest fbi assessment of again for in the u.s.? with fbi resources to games and colonel activities are included in fy '15? you can be in the neighborhood and there are gangs that control the neighborhood. that can be as bad for the people that live there as if an organized crime, or if it's there is, ma al-qaeda from outside. so can you sort of layout again effort in the country and what you see taking place, mexican gangs and things like that? >> you mentioned the national gang intelligence center, a very important resource for us and for our partners in state and local law enforcement because what the intelligence effort focus on gangs does is collect information from all police departments around the country, aggregated so they can then be shared. they run something, databases

which is an encyclopedia of something that seems a ordinary as gang symbols and signs, so that a police officer in upstate new york encountered something he can query the database and see that this is actually a gang symbol from the southwest and has been some sort of migration. very important work. i hear about violent street gangs, everywhere i've traveled. i would have been to almost 30 of our field offices. the local sheriffs and she's tell me crime is down across the country, but the remain, pockets come as a public most people can just drive around but the people who live in that neighborhood can't drive around. they are dominated by these characters. so we have straight -- gangs task force and over field offices adequate something like 100 different task forces that are focused on just that, addressing these gangs that are dominating particular neighborhood. as you said can we also focus on international gangs, sponsor those are struggling the

mexican-american border. so the a lot of resources we devote to it, hundreds of agents already. i would have to get the particular number in the proposal, in the proposed budget for 2015 but this is something we're going to continue to try and make a contribution on. >> your material indicates gangs are quote becoming more violent and the something stronger alliance for drug trafficking organizations. ida was your last year. they said all of the marijuana and cocaine has often operated throughout the country can even around here, everywhere, northern virginia by james coming out of mexico. we also have human trafficking which i want to ask you a little bit about. do we need the same effort that the bureau did? on the, you prosecuted the gambino family. do we need the same effort when the bureau went after under louis freeh and before that, others after organized crime?

do we need a major effort? not we have a major task force year, we this year, congress puts language and we set this up. do we need a major, major effort? i come from an inner-city neighborhood, i mean, imam or dad in kids that are in the neighborhood, that's like al-qaeda to them, the fact that they are afraid to send the kids to school. they are afraid of ms-13. they are flayed of the bloods and crips. do we need a major and, of course, with your background community unique perspective, do we need a major effort, almost like we do on the war of terror? this is a care for the person lives in an inner-city. do we need a major, one person, working under you to real deal -- to do with the gang, coordinate just for the two, three, four years of what the bureau did under louis freeh and others on organized crime, it

really broke the back and some of these places. do we need the same type of effort for gangs? >> it's a great question. there is any know was amount going on right now. i think as i know you do, you talk to chiefs and sheriffs. they will tell you they see it exactly that way and are devoting those kind of resources to it and whether we could even give it more prominence to the fbi is a good question. maybe it's my answer. >> when you look at it and get back to his? we had a major problem of ms-13 in northern virginia. you had a hacking off of hands, machetes, the killing down in the shenandoah valley where nothing but violence takes place. now you're finding ms-13 games in the shenandoah valley. so i believe, and we talk to our local law enforcement there is a gang task force that you people run, based out of prince william

county at your place. with fbi, dea, atf, marshall services database a broken back in northern virginia. we had gangs in mclean, gangs in arlington. and so i think personally it would be helpful to have basically someone, particularly again with your background company, you are unique. we will have one person focusing solely on the games. so if you look at and maybe get back to us. we don't want to go off on a tangent that you don't really think it's that great, but with that i will just say the rest and i will go to mr. fattah. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i won't because the ranking member of the full committee this year, i'm going to yield to nita lowey at this time, mr. chairman spent thank you much and welcome. and thank you, mr. chairman, mr. akin and become we are

trying to expedite the process so the about three hearings at the same time. thank you for your consideration. as we all know when the chairman stressed the fbi is in the midst of a sea change, for much of the 20th century the fbi was the world's best law enforcement agency. now it's cyberattacks which we've been discussing become more frequent, the global war on terrorism continues. the fbi's leading the charge on cybersecurity and counterterrorism. and i certainly wish you the best of luck, and as the chairman and ranking member have made clear, we really want to work with you because we know the challenge. we want to make sure that you have the tools, the resources, and the staffing to ensure that the job is done. following up on this cyber issue, cybercriminals, including hackers for profit, seem to be finding vulnerabilities in cybersecurity faster than we can protect against a.

i can remember a very in depth briefing i had in new york city with ray kelly's team, and it seems to me that at every briefing an event happen and they were figuring out how to do it. and then he cybercriminals were way ahead and they were trying to catch up. they seem to be finding vulnerabilities in cybersecurity faster than we can protect against it. so in terms of personnel, how has the fbi prioritized the hiring of individuals for cybersecurity backgrounds? and how does the fbi compete for the best and the brightest in the field with the financial benefit of the private sector? >> it's a great question. thank you for that. a great question, what i worry about an awful lot, as did bob mueller. director mueller started

something called the next-generation cyber initiative at the fbi, a key part of which is to hire some were close to 100 computer scientists who are ph.d level types, the big brains in the cyber world, and also to hire and train the bright people who were digitally literate. you press on and is dressed in challenge. i came from the private sector under the about the money the private sector offers to these bright young people to help them with their cyber protection. so i see two answers to that. one is, i offer a mission and, frankly, moral content to the work that the private sector can't offer. so my pitch to these bright young men and women is come here and make a difference. maybe you won't make much of a living but you make a remarkable life for yourselves and the people you protect. so that's my pitch to the people of america, and it resonates. as the chairman said, i've got thousands want to come work for the fbi because they care about public service the way all of us

do. but the second piece is this. we are smarter in aggregate than the bad guys. it's just getting the aggregate right. so there are brilliant people in the private sector. i worked with him at the companies i worked at. being able to latch their brains of yours is the key to addressing this problem. i come back to the information sharing. they are worrying about zero day exploit. i am worrying about zero day exploits. they are worrying about sophisticate malware and my. we've got to build a share information at machine speeds like an art the great brains in the private sector and connecting into that attitude that makes us smarter. >> i appreciate that answer. and one of the comment if you would like to respond is the salaries of federal employees have not kept up with inflation in recent years. do you worry that recurring theme freezes will make it more difficult for the fbi to recruit in the future quick do you have a message want to deliver to us with regard to pay freezes

because i worry very much about that on here that from a folks all over the country. they say we did it, you're right. we didn't join the fbi for the money but we have spouses and partners and families, although more asking what are we doing any job where our pay is flat for years? we can speak to them about the moral content of the work a lot but it doesn't quite deliver the bacon. and so my people aren't in it for the money but they need the money to live. so they do care about the modest pay increases that they otherwise would've gotten. >> one of the question. as you noted the internet can serve as a recruitment tool to do is pick this past december as women, and avionics technician from wichita was arrested as he took steps to detonate explosives at the wichita mid continental airport. luckily the fbi was on the case without of undercover agents, were able to arrest him before he could harm the public.

how does a middle-aged westerner with no history of ties to terrorism end up trying to detonate bombs and kill americans? and what trends are you seeing in cases of homegrown terrorism? what tools can congress give you to monitor and prevent these kinds of plans from becoming reality? >> a great question, and this touches on the homegrown violent extremist threat that i talked about earlier, and it's part of the growing and changing threat that i see as i started this job. there are, i guess it don't want to talk about this case and get to because he still been posted but i'll talk generally. there are troubled people looking for some source of meaning in their lives all over the world. we have been here in united states and what's happening is these folks are finding the literature that al-qaeda and arabian peninsula puts out or

al-qaeda court puts out and convincing themselves that this is the source of meaning in their life, that if i go on a jihad and i kill people, i won't be somebody. so they're not directed. they are inspired. so how do we deal with that? in a lot of different ways but most of it is devoting the people which i'm trying to do, to watching those spaces. we catch a lot of them when we see an online form some asking hey, how do you figure out how to blow up a car? and receive that which i won it and try to respond. the other way is by connecting to state and local law enforcement. one of the things i've done is him speaking to copts and chairs and saying, you are likely to know more than a federal agent about the troubled person and hear about them before i will. that's why we have to say closely connected. and also asking neighbors and friends, if you see something or hear something, just tell somebody. it may be nothing but if we check it out when they stop the next person to blow up a car bomb in an airport. >> thank you very much.

we appreciate your service and i look forward to continuing to work with you as partners. thank you. >> i think ms. lowey used to represent yonkers. i want to second, i want to second was ms. lowey said and i think you should speak out about this. we cannot continue to freeze the pay of these people. we can't bring the bureau out. we can ask the doctor to find a cure and say we will freeze your salary. when a wealthy guy down in boca raton is using his cost-of-livinhiscost-of-living m his cost-of-living adjustment for missiles is 32 by phishing tackle offers boat dock. we really cannot, i wan would jt say, to all congress, both sides, you can do this anymore. i have a large number of agents. these guys are getting up at 4:30, 5 a.m. you have agents living in the pocono mountains in pennsylvania

and so we can't freeze. i think it's important for you to because you are not a political person in the sense that we just can't freeze this anymore. we cannot freeze three years straight, can't do it. you're going to draw a dash a a a guy gets out of college. pretty soon you have -- i have five kids. you've got come you're going to drive people out because they have to go center to take care -- congress ought not be freezing the federal salaries. they had given three years straight but i think for that at the fbi to say we cannot afford, and would be very, very helpful, to say to both sides of the, no more pay freezes. you're going to drive these people out to you want to help al-qaeda? drive the best people out of the bureau. you want to stop cancer cures? then drive the best people out of nih. but you speak i think would send a message.

dr. harrison. >> thank you very much and thank you for appearing before the committee today. first i just want to thank the fbi for doing the job. i know i asked mr. mueller about this last you. with unique background -- this is a question what was the number background checks conducted last year? i know was increase over the year before. do you have any idea speak with i don't but i could get it very quickly. spent my understanding it has come back down now a little. but images want to congratulate you because in maryland we had a tremendous problem with our state police who ran our state background checks who had a six-month backlog, six months. you guys can do it in, frequent, one minute. >> the governor called me about the problem men was having and i think we help them spend if you help them it wasn't much help because they're just claim backlogs now from october.

but i just want to congratulate it is one of the smooth things the federal government does. the other thing, i want to spend some time on is the ig report about the organized crime drug enforcement task force fusion center that was released this month. are you aware of the report? >> generally spent one of the most disturbing things because i think the inspectors general have to become, their job is angrily important and can never be interfered with by the agency they are investigating. one of troubling parts of the report was their description of two fbi detailee's to the fusion center who spoke with, the ig interviewed and then claimed retaliatory measures taken against them for speaking candidly to the ig's which the ig said have basis. so wasn't just the reclaim retaliation to ever basis for the claims of retaliation.

i've got to ask since one of the deputy directors at the time to investigate was an fbi detailee, the drug was not. it was a dea director. fbfbi deputy director alone someone from ice as deputy director, the fbi had someone high up in the oversight management of this fusion center. have you determined whether that person was involved in the decision to retaliate against two people who, frankly, and honestly discuss problems with an inspector general this is very worrisome to me. a claim of retaliation that the inspector general found that basis should worry every member of congress that depends upon the inspector general's to go into the departments and get an objective view. so i just want to know, did you detailee was deputy director at the time know about the retaliation, or participate in the retaliation in any way? at the only person you're responsible for, your detailees, however many have over in the

fusion center. >> the answer is i don't know. but i will find out. i know the reports. i read and i don't think of the reporters of the i read a summary. to are focusing their retaliate against which is very worrisome by don't know the rest of the story, and i showed. if i can get back to you -- >> as soon as possible. specifically with the question whether one of the people in your organization, the deputy director, i'm going to send the deputy director should know what goes on, at least at the equivalent level to the director. this is not a big operation. it's only a few hundred people, not a huge operation. and i find hard to believe that retaliatory efforts could be taken against an individual about a deputy director known. i find hard to i find hard hardo believe that i'm going to ask you to think. one is, was the person involved. number two, what discipline action we take against that person. the third thing is a would ask you to comment because the

report was a little bit scathing, the ig report because again this fusion center is set up exactly on the lines the we suggest. we had to share information, intelligence and deal with international drug syndicates, particularly this is the organized crime enforcement. arare you worried that infect ts is where the federal government is conducting business within a center that it's supposed to of cooperation among -- itself like this was cast and dogfights dogs women. if there is any people in clinton we're not getting as much progress as we getting into it's a we are not going, we want everything detailed tour people and the ig report, the allegation is true, fbi has been shut out of the data access for six weeks while despite continued. is this really going on? do you know this? were your detailees shutout for access for six weeks because they were claiming they weren't getting enough back and this commune, not a personal

retaliation but of retaliation at the agency? is that true? >> i don't know enough to say whether that's true or not. the two parts that are worrisome. one is the most worrisome to me, when an ig finds problems in an operation, that is concerning to me but that's what and i just posted and that's what makes us better. the retaliation bit concerned that a great deal for the reasons you said. the ig's make us better and the people can't talk to them in a way that helps them do their job, that's a disaster but i do know sitting here but i'll get back to you on that. that. >> i would ask if her deputy director a sign, what knowledge and every drug ads about shutting off of six weeks for access for fbi detailees to the fusion center, to the database of the fusion center. that's extremely worrisome to me. we send a lot of money in two agencies and it sounds like we put this group together, they fight like cats and dogs. to counter purposes. for six week fbi agents to not

have access to data, shut out. i hope you can shed a little more light. but again i want to thank for the agency in the work he does and the men and women who put their lives on the line to do things that to be honest with you a lot of us are very happy so what else is to do. so thank you very much. yield back. >> i thank mr. harris. the fusion center, i've been out there. the ig report, i was just out there this morning. i agree with them. everything you said i completely absolutely agree. and so let me know when they come back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. director, i'm going to take a winding road here, but ron noble instead of the great law enforcement careers from the states, a friend doing a great job. you mentioned in your opening statement how almost everything you do now has an international connection.

i was in brussels a few years back when meeting all the law enforcement, your counterparts in the european union. they have arranged for circumstances where no matter which country one is arrested and, you have to go through an extradition process. just a seamless system they set up between now from 28 nations. we don't have that cooperation state to state and attorney. so i was wondering if you see international parallels, you don't have to answer no, but sort about what we can do to improve our systems here. but the real question underneath all of this is, the chairman mentioned target. target is one of my favorite operations. they have done a billion dollars of library refurbishment. mr. chairman mentioned a number of them but they've done a number of them. doing great work in our schools and they were the victims of a

criminal attack around the holidays. this outfit that has been involved was from ukraine. we are not getting the cooperation we need from the government of ukraine. i know that senator warner from virginia came out a couple days ago and said we're going to do an aid package, this loan guarantee joe that we should get some assurances from the new government that we will get assistance on cyber criminal activities out of ukraine. so i'm interested in the cyber issue and how it relates internationally and whether there are ways in which as the congress is considering other items, like aid packages or loan guarantees for ukraine, whether or not there are ways we can improve upon your leverage and the level of cooperation you get from other nations in cyber

activities? >> that's a great question, mr. fattah. there is no doubt that we see a lot of the hacker activity, people building the botnets and engaged in these huge financial skimming and theft activities, are based in russia and the former soviet bloc countries, some of which we have great cooperation with, some of them less so. i can think off the top of my head ways in which congress might assist in a pink leverage but i will think about that and get back to you. i'm always interested in creative ways to do that. one of the ways we've tried to do is embed our folks in those countries. the purpose of those offices is to build relationships with the local law enforcement, maybe get them to come to the united states. we went on the gulf the national academy at quantico and we train people on how to do great law enforcement, send them back.

and by doing those investments in people, build relationships where we will get cooperation. i will give thought to other ways in which we might improve it. >> my next question, and my last one for this series is, is related, and dr. harris raise this about the ig. i support the ig's work but i have some concerns at times when we create circumstances on which we get less support from the public for public government of activities because we point out problems, right? so in today's news we've got three secret service agents who had an incident overseas with drinking. much of the country's attention will be focused on that rather than the secret service who risk their lives. they won't get much attention. so i know that there have been issues inside the bureau over the years. i'm not asking you to go to that at this point, but i'm

interested in as you formulate your budget and your appropriations request there are things that you need additional help to make sure that the bureau itself is policing itself versus the ig. we want to make sure that you have those resources spent i appreciate it, mr. fattah. there's no doubt that our problems get your headlines, all of us in government, that our successes. that comes with the territory. iowa city people i run and workstation of human beings. human beings as am i our flawed and they're going to be problems. i agree with you. the key is that we root them out and tried to put in place remedies we don't repeat the same problem over and over again but i think i should be doing the intro and but i like the ig as an extra set of eyes on me. i told them you're a pain in the rear but you are my pain in the rear, and no i like that very m. >> thank you mr. director. >> i want to just follow up with what mr. fattah said. i appreciate dr. harris.

the fusion center management took actions and i'm quoting from the ig, during this review that created difficulties for the office of inspector general in updating information directly from the fusion center employs in ensuring that interview responses were candid and complete. we have issues and obtain documents directly from the fusion center personnel. furthermore, a great concern to fbi employs detailed to fusion center report to us they were subjected to retaliation by the directorate after they had met with oiwith a white sheet inspes during this review to describe their concerns about the fusion center operations. oig recently completed its review of these retaliation allocations and concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that personal actions were taken against these employs in reprisal for their protected disclosure.

so i mean, to whom much is given, much is required. and, of course, with the reputation of the bureau, if that's the case then think what dr. harris said, and by disciplining here you keep it from actually happening again later on. did dr. carter leave? next mr. culberson spent thank you very much, director comey, for your service to the country and all the men and women who work with you. we are truly proud. it is a privilege for us find on this subcommittee can you got a whole group of fans who love you into a budget want to support you and help you. anyway that we can. and i want to reiterate as i know the chairman and other members have said that any, the question for conscience that we have whether it be about the fusion center, retaliation against, concerned about retaliation against the inspector general, the work that the chairman has initiated with the review of the 9/11

recommendations to make sure the fbi isn't lamenting those. all of these are not as you -- intended as criticisms or no one is picking on you. it's almost as though, i felt about the fbi as i do about taxes. it's genetic to defend and love texas without question, but you always do your best to improve her and always are looking, if there's a problem you always take -- aztecs and, as all of us do whether it be virginia and california, pennsylvania, maryland. dr. harris who just left. we all love, we love you dearly and i just want you to know, that's right, california. i said california. my good friend, and mr. honda, we are all devoted to you. all of these questions are concerns we raise are not intended as criticisms or intended in any way to be hostile to it is truly as though i sort of feel, i got an

appropriation so i could be on the subcommittee. it's the only reason i accepted the assignment to be on appropriations so i could be here to support law enforcement community to the scientific everyone on this committee knows how passionate i am about the sciences and nasa and the fbi. so the questions we raise, the work that you do, we want to help you pursue that and i do want to encourage and all of the folks who work with you to do everything we can to work with chairman wolf's commission to review the 9/11 recommendations to see how you all are implement in those, and to be as forthright as you can and do your best to encourage your folks internally to overcome the instinctive reaction they have, that is, don't criticize the bureau. don't be negative. it really is a lot like don't mess with texas. don't mess with the fbi. we do it out of love, support. i hope none of you would ever take any of this the wrong way.

but there are things that were used to judge john carter gradually to represent central texas has always are across the country but particularly in texas deeply concerned about what happened at fort hood. and judge carter who is chairing a theme the subcommittee hearing that homeland security at 10:00 asked me if i could to ask you about hassan was brought initially to the fbi's attention in 2008. ..