canada but do not come to games because the traffic traveled to buffalo through our entry on game days. in other words, normal sunday, not much traffic. but when the bills games -- there is a huge amount of traffic. yet, the staffing levels at the border do not take that into account. we have huge back locks and people stop coming because they miss the game. you have done a great job adding new agents to the ports of entry in western new york. we talked about it. you have acted on it. i thank you for that. the question is now whether with these new agents and resources, can we make it's easier for canadians to attend bills games on the eight sundays of the year in and the games are in buffalo? it would be a huge boost to western new york's economy. specifically can we do things like making sure we have premium staffing on the lanes on -- on the bridge during the three hours before the game on game days? and having created -- having dhs create a setup at the stadium during the bills games so fans can sign up and conduct next us

interviews so they can use the nexus lanes for future games, which would speed up things for everybody and -- the only way we know who is a bills fan is who is at the games. it is often hard to do these interviews because they are in remote locations. bringing them to bills games would make it's easier for thousands of fans to get the card. next thing, finally, would you agree to meet with whomever the next owner is we are looking for a new owner of the bills. we are all working very hard, myself, congressional delegation, and the governor, county executive, and the mayor, to make sure the bills stay in buffalo. so we are going to have a new owner. one of the things had a would be helpful is if you would i a degree to meet with the next owner to develop a comprehensive plan to employee the speed of traffic over the board other game day. >> my answer concerning getting bills pans to bills games depends entirely on who they are

playing. just kidding. >> they don't win that much. we wish they won more. >> senator, i think you know that i have spent a lot of sometime working on expediting travel across the northern border. the peace bridge, i have been to detroit. i have been to port huron. looking at the backlog over the bridge and in mill areas district. i want to -- i appreciate the importance of expediting travel across the few bridges we have on the northern border. i want to help out the situation there. whether it is meeting the bills owner or not, i mean -- i would be happy to meet the bills owner at some point. but i want to work with you on this. >> right. would you like into these two things? aside from the meeting, premium staffing on game day and not city hall day it doesn't have to be but just for the hours before the game. and the possibility of having dhs do a nexus setup at the bills stadium during -- >> i will look into it to see whether it is feasible. as you know, we have limited numbers of people. >> i do.

but because of our increase in the budget and because you were good enough to put some of them on the niagara frontier we have more than what we had before which makes it possible to do these things. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator schumer. i have a number of questions for you. and then i think senator flake has a few questions. that will probably end our hearing. thank you for your patience and most importantly, thank you for your service. in march of this year, you may or may not recall i wrote to you about the detention policies and practices of your agencies and i expressed a number of concerns regarding they detention of literally hundreds of thousands of people, i.c.e. broke a record in 2012 by detaining 477,000 people. that's about five times the number detained 20 years ago. and i know that -- you are

hearing from both sides of this issue. the contention we heard this morning -- emphasizes the importance of passing immigration reform so we can address many of these questions. my concerns expressed in march essentially dealt with the excessive detention of long-time lawful permanent residents and asylum seekers who are kept in detention without nip opportunity appear before a judge or who -- constitution requires bond hearings to protect detainees' rights as you well know. so the lack of bond hearings for thousands of immigrants is a real concern for many of us, including myself. so -- let me reiterate the -- the question that i asked. i is this a way for the department of homeland security had a worked with the department of justice to provide for immigration, bond hearings, to all individuals, detained by the department after no more than

six months of detention, the time the united states supreme court has held presumptively reasonable? >> senator, we -- i remember your letter. i hope spoynded to it by now. if i haven't i apologize. >> you responded to it, mr. secretary. but -- or i should correct myself, you did not personally. the agency did in the person of thomas winkowski. who in effect said -- i may not be doing full justice to the letter. that you -- that these -- issues raised in my letter, this was one of them. require consultation with our

partners at doj, including the executive office for immigration review. that was back in mid april. >> okay. there is a case in the ninth circuit, rodriguez, that was decided last year and it is under review right now in doj and dhs where we are considering whether to petition for cert in the case. it directly implicates this issue. there is a mandatory detention statute for certain categories of individuals and my understanding of the rodriguez case is that it says that after a six-month period, there should be a bond hearing in certain circumstances. ask so the case is under review right now. my general view is that we need to enforce statutes and listen million they are declared

unconstitutional but the case sunday review right now. it is something we are actively looking at. >> in my view, mr. secretary, you had that discretion now. the statute does not require that you deny bond hearings. in fact, the better view of the policy here, i would suggest respectsfully is that i did in my letter is that you grant the bond hearings and let me also say that this is -- the other question raised in my letter is whether the definition of custody can be expanded to include alternatives to detention. alternatives that would prevent flight where the detainees are not in any way a risk to public safety. those are two proposals that i have advanced, not original to me, that would comply with the statute and wouldn't require a court decision, wouldn't implicate a necessity for you to

wait for a court decision. >> i'm aware of that question about the definition of custody. i recall that you asked that question. i know it is under review right now. >> i'm -- >> this type of issue i can't do anything without lawyers. >> and i am not going to press you because i can sense from your response that you are -- let me put it this way. i hope that you will get back to me about these issues in a timely way. let me dash ask you, finally, i have heard from a great many connecticut constituents who have mixed status family. parts of their families are here legally. sometimes their children have been born here. sometimes they have children who are brought here and as infants or very young children have been

granted status. they live in fear of having parents or siblings or children deported. i would like to ask you the question that has been asked and in a slightly different terms. maybe with a different viewpoint. are you considering expanding this to include more young people who were brought here as children and who have deep ties to our communities but may not meet all of the present requirements? i'm thinking about young people who are pursuing their education and narrowly miss being eligible for this because they passed their 31st birthday or because they had to leave the country at some point after is 2007 due to extraordinary circumstances. >> the president asked me to undertake a review in march of our enforcement priorities. i'm still undertaking that review. it encompassed a number of things. i haven't reached conclusions

yet. as you know, i'm sure from public accounts, press accounts, he's asked me to wait to see what congress does with comprehensive immigration reform and before i report results of my review but i'm reviewing a number of different things and haven't reached any firm conclusions at this time. >> i appreciate that answer. and i would just urge having listened and met and come to know many of the connecticut young people who unfortunately are excluded from this deferred action status, who have lived here and studied in connecticut and -- whose lives are here, that you would expand the status, deferred action status, if the congress fails to act. my hope is that congress will act. >> my hope is, too.

>> i know we share that view. if it fails to do so, i would strongly urge that the deferred action be expanded. senator make? >> thank you. >> just a couple of other specific questions. before do i, that you mentioned when we talked about motivations for people coming here, that you believe the primary motivation is the situation in these countries. i just have to say that that conflicts with -- an internal unreleased documented that i believe you have a copy of now and it has been cited by the media where interviews were done in n the rio grande valley by the secretary intelligence

analyst and others interviewing 230 family units that have come across. this was in may. may 28 of 2014 is when this report was released. asking the main purpose of it was to quote the report was to determine the factors compelling the otms to migrate to be the united states in addition to other migration issues. it says that of those 230, it said that the information -- high percentage of the subjects interviewed stated their family members in the u.s. urged them to travel immediately because the united states government was only issuing i am congratulation permits until tend of 2014. obviously it is bad information but it -- they believe that --

that there is -- lax enforcement or some new program that needs to be addressed you about this administration to let people know that that is not the case. the issue was the main reason provided by 95% of the interviewed subjects. 95% seems more of a primary reason than the economic or security situation in their country. the second reason was related to increased gang related violence in central america. 95% listed as the primary reason some expectations of a program that would allow them to stay. i would plead with the administration, the president needs to state unequivalent cably those that will not be able to stay and will not qualify under any other program and any deportation poll is review will not contemplate

allowing them to stay. that would be, i would think, incredibly helpful and if you could relay message back to the president, we are trying to do so as well. with regard to arizona, you mentioned that people were being pulled off the line. think in arizona, i had staff down at the facility. they mentioned that as many as 200 officers, border patrol offices, were being utilized to process these families and unaccompanied children. that obviously is going to pull people off the line. what are we doing in terms of additional resources for arizona? the tucson sector. >> i believe a number of things, senator. including reassigning people from within the interior. i can get back to you with a more detailed breakdown of work allocations and so forth. you know, it is possible that a border parole officer or agent could be involved in the proper

processing of a migrant near the border even in regular circumstances. but -- no doubt this surge has required that we reallocate that we ask people to do things that they normally don't do in addition to their normal responsibilities and we are working to try to restore the equilibrium because i agree with you our border security personnel need to focus onboarder security. i -- i'm the first one to acknowledge that. the document -- everyone -- a number of people here referred to it. i have not seen it. i keep hearing about a draft document. i don't know how reliable this survey is. i'm sure five minutes after i walk in -- ten seconds after i walk out somebody will put it in my hands and i get to read it. gist don't know how reliable that various is. i tend to agree with senator durbin a 10-year-old or 7-year-old, principle motivation are the circumstances they are leaving and they want to be with their mother and father. >> certainly. i don't think any of us deny that. not many 10-year-old and

7-year-olds are actually climbing on a bus or train alone from guatemala. it is usually kids older than that or smugglers taking them in. also, one other question. i.c.e. is responsible to take a -- family unit, i guess, put hem in a bus stop and i guess some of that was going on in arizona. is that happening anymore? >> my understanding is that with regard to -- the people that we are -- the vuds we are now sending there are the uacs, unaccompanied children who under the law have to go to hhs. whether it is possible that we need to send more family units for processing, i wouldn't say and i can't rule that out. my understanding is that since about june 1, we have been sending principally, if not exclusively, the unaccompanied children there for processing. >> then i.c.e. takes a family

unit to a bus stop and drops them off there. with an order to you a pier at someplace and time. what care is being taken to ensure that's actually a family unit? we hear anecdotal evidence that 16-year-old will say, well, i belong to that family and they get to the bus stop and say see you later. is i.c.e. required to do due diligence to make sure that's -- >> i'm sure -- i'm sure there is some type of protocol in place to ensure that a group of people who claim to be family unit are, in fact, a family unit but i am sitting here don't know what that is. >> thank you. thanks for your indulgence. i appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i'm going to close this hearing. the record will be kept open for one week. we thank you very much for your service and for your helpful and forthright testimony today.

thank you. this week c-span is covering a number of hearings on capitol hill. the confirmation hearing for julian castro. he will testify before the committee live tomorrow morning here an c-span 3 at 10:00 eastern. and on wednesday mary barra testifies about gm's internal investigation into the company's faulty ignition switch. she wanted to wait for the internal investigations report. that report was released earlier this month. it cleared her and her team of any wrong doing, but it criticized the bureaucracy in which managers sherked responsibility and lower level engineers concealed or overlooked final information. you can watch the hearing live

here on c-span 3. last week the director of the fbi testified in an oversight hearing answering questions about the investigation of the irs for targeting conservative groups, the attack on the consulate in benghazi and other issues. this was the director's first time testifying before the house judiciary committee since he became the fbi director last september. >> good morning. the judiciary committee will come to order and without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to this morning's oversight hearing on the united states federal bureau of investigation and i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. welcome, director comey, to your first appearance before the

house judiciary committee since your confirmation as the seventh director of the fbi. we are happy to have you here with us today and i commend your distinguished service to our nation and am confident you will continue to serve honorably at the helm of the fbi. as we all know, last week marked the one-year anniversary of the first leak of classified material by edward snowden, a criminal betrayal of his country and arguably the most significant leak in u.s. history. over the past year, the house judiciary committee conducted aggressive oversight of the nsa bulk collection program and spearheaded house passage of the usa freedom act. this bipartisan legislation reforms controversial national security programs and provides expanded oversight and transparency of america's intelligence gathering. although the leaks by edward snowden may have been the impetus for congressional reforms, the passage of this bipartisan legislation in no way condones or excuses his actions. the detrimental consequences of what he did may not yet be fully realized.

but i want to thank director comey and the men and women of the fbi for working closely with the members of this committee, house intelligence, and leadership to craft the usa freedom act reforms in such a way as to preserve vital intelligence gathering capabilities while simultaneously achieving the goal of ending bulk data collection. today we also note another dark day in american history. exactly one year and nine months ago, our diplomatic mission in benghazi, libya, was attacked by terrorists. four americans, including our ambassador, were killed. the obama administration initially attempted to blame the attack on a video critical of islam. we all now know that that was not the case and that the attack was premeditated and carried out by islamist militants. in august 2013 we learned that the justice department had filed criminal charges against several

individuals for their alleged involvement in the attacks. however, as of today, no one has been apprehended. i am interested in hearing more from director comey about the status of the fbi's investigation. i know you may be reticent to comment on what is an ongoing investigation, but the american people deserve to know whether we can expect the fbi to bring to justice the terrorist killers who murdered four of our citizens. i am also interested in hearing more about the fbi's investigation into the internal revenue services targeting of conservative groups. last year your predecessor, robert mueller, informed the committee that the fbi was investigating this matter and, in fact, was hesitant to answer questions because there was an ongoing criminal investigation, but earlier this year unnamed officials leaked to "the wall street journal" that no criminal

charges were expected in the irs matter. and on super bowl sunday, president obama stated that there was, quote, not even a smidgen of corruption, end quote, in connection with the irs targeting. but then on april 8th of this year before this committee, attorney general holder claimed that the investigation is still ongoing, an investigation led by long-time obama and democratic national committee donor. on may 21st before the senate judiciary committee, you also declined to answer questions about the matter e planing that the investigation is ongoing. frustration is mounting over this scandal and basic facts are unknown or contradicted by this administration. is there an investigation? has there been any progress? what is its status? why do the justice department and fbi continue to assert that an investigation is ongoing despite the president's assertion that no crime was committed? do you disagree with him?

the facts and circumstances surrounding this investigation led the house to approve a resolution calling on the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. how can we trust that a dispassionate investigation is being carried out when the president claims that no corruption occurred? i hope you will be able to shed some light on that for us today. the american people certainly deserve no less. finally, i wish to discuss general holder's re-establishment of the domestic terrorism executive committee or dtec. it was first established by attorney general janet reno in the aftermath of the oklahoma city bombing to disrupt home grown terrorism threats. in reforming the unit, attorney general holder said, quote, tragic incidents like the boston marathon bombing and active shooter situations like ft. hood

provide clear examples that we must disrupt lone wolf-style actors aimed to harm our nation, end quote. and that the unit was necessary to respond to the changing terrorist threat, notably the reduced risk posed by al qaeda's core leadership. while i agree that the disruption of domestic terror threats is a worthy goal, i take serious issue with the notion that america faces a reduced risk from al qaeda. ironically the incident cited by general holder, the ft. hood shooting and boston bombing, belie the claim that al qaeda and other foreign terrorist extremism is on the decline. the question then is what and whom does the attorney general really intend to target via the dtec. he appears to answer that question by stating, quote, we must also concern ourselves with the continuing danger we face

from individuals within our own borders who may be motivated by a variety of other causes including anti-government animus, end quote. would a group advocating strenuously for smaller government and lower taxes be included in the attorney general's definition of a group with anti-government animus? given that the administration appears to have used the irs to intimidate its political opponents, the re-establishment of the dtec should cause us all to sit up and take notice. director comey, i look forward to hearing your answers to these and other important topics today as well as on other issues of significance to the fbi and the country. at this time it's my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from michigan mr. conyers, for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte. we welcome you, director comey,

for your first appearance before the house judiciary committee since taking office on september 4th, 2013. i have great confidence personally in your commitment to fairness and to the rule of law, and in 1996 as assistant united states attorney for the eastern district of virginia, you were appointed lead prosecutor in the bombing case in saudi arabia. in 2002 as united states attorney for southern district of new york, you handled a wide variety of complex, high-profile cases while helping the district return to some measure of normalcy in the aftermath of the attacks of september 11th. in 2004 serving as deputy attorney general of the united states, you refused to certify the bush administration's lawless dragnet surveillance program, and then confronted senior white house personnel at the hospital when the administration sought to gain approval from mr. ashcroft

directly. so time and time again, you have demonstrated your basic commitment to the rule of law even in exigent and dramatic circumstances. so that's why i'm pleased you're here and at the helm of the fbi on this, the first anniversary of our public discussion of the government's domestic surveillance programs. last month the house passed hr 3361, the usa freedom act, which i had a significant role in bringing forward. this legislation designed to end domestic bulk collection across the board. it applies to section 215 of the patriot act, the fisa pen register authorities, and national security letter statutes. i am proud to have voted in

favor of the only measure to pass the house that rolls back any aspect of government surveillance since the passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978. but bulk collection is only one aspect of the problem with government surveillance. over the past few years, our early difficulties with national security letters notwithstanding the new fbi has proven a responsible custodian of the new legal authorities granted to the bureau after september 11th. for the most part, it uses the tools congress has provided in the manner intended for them to be used, but the fbi is an end user of massive amounts of data acquired under fisa and other authorities without a warrant or individualized suspicion. this raises, of course, serious privacy and civil liberty concerns. director comey, you are a standard bearer in the struggle to rein in unlawful surveillance, and i hope that you will continue to work with

this committee to help us restore a measure of public trust in this area. although we have spent much of the last decade focused on counterterrorism, it's critically important that the bureau balance its national security function with its traditional law enforcement mission and in this vein, mr. director, i'd like to discuss

with you the scourge of gun violence in this country. yesterday's shooting at reynolds high school in oregon is at least the 74th school shooting since the tragedy in newtown, connecticut, in late 2012. the fbi maintains the national instant background check system, and the bureau is often called upon to participate in the investigation of high profile shootings. because i believe that a more complete background check system would help stem the tide of violence, i look forward to your views in this matter, and similarly we face many threats from overseas. the fbi plays a fundamental role in confronting extremist

violence here at home as well. the bureau has called a so-called sovereign citizen movement a growing domestic threat. according to the defamation league, between 2009 and 2013 there were 43 violent incidents between law enforcement officials and anti-government extremists. 30 police officers have been shot, 14 have been killed. to these numbers we must now add the two officers shot and killed this past sunday in las vegas. these are not isolated incidents. director comey, congress has empowered the federal bureau of investigation with considerable authority, including federal hate crimes legislation, to root out this extremism. i'd like to hear more about how the bureau puts these laws and resources to use and would like also to have you discuss the topic of overcriminalization. the united states represents 5%

of the world's population but incarcerates more than 25% of the world's prisoners. the bureau of prisons is strained to the breaking point. i'd like to know why then the fbi often recommends federal prosecutions in cases that are already being prosecuted in the state court so that an offender faces trial on the same facts in two separate jurisdictions. the fbi plays a critical role in protecting our nation's computer networks from cyber criminals. we must do more to prevent the infiltration of our cyber systems from economic and

financial criminals, and i'd like to hear about the challenges presented by the international aspect of these crimes. and, finally, i applaud deputy attorney general cole's recent announcement on the recording of federal custodial interviews and your support of this new policy. this new presumption, and i conclude here, that all federal bureau of investigation custodial interviews will be recorded, and it helps all sides of the case. prosecutors will finally be able to share recorded confessions with the jury. and suspects who feel they've been treated unfairly will be able to fall back on recorded evidence. there are few exceptions to the

official rule that give me pause, but i want to see this new policy in action, and i look forward to learning more about the fbi priorities today. i am going to use my communications with you after this hearing to fill in any questions that may not be able to be covered within the questioning period. i thank you, and i thank the chairman of the committee and yield back any balance of time. >> thank you, mr. conyers. and without objection all other members' opening statements will be made a part of the record. we thank our only witness, the director for joining us today. if you will please rise, we'll begin by swearing you in. >> do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you very much and let

the record reflect that director comey responded in the affirmative. on september 4th, 2013, james b. comey was sworn in as the seventh director of the federal bureau of investigation. director comey began his career in the united states attorney's office for the southern district of new york as an assistant united states attorney. later he became an assistant united states attorney in the eastern district of virginia. director comey returned to new york city after the 9/11 terror attacks and became the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. in late 2003, he is appointed to be the deputy attorney general under u.s. attorney general john ashcroft. director comey is a graduate of the college of william and mary and the university of chicago law school. director comey, we welcome you to your first appearance as fbi director before the house judiciary committee and look forward to your testimony. your written statement will be entered into the record in its

entirety and we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes, and you may begin. thank you and welcome. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. conyers. it's good to be back before you after an eight-year break. it is -- i am here representing and expressing the gratitude of the people of the fbi. you have long supported them in a bipartisan basis. one of the challenges i discovered when i became director was the impact of the so-called sequestration on my troops. heard about it everywhere i went. and we now have been adequately funded thanks to the support of the people in this room and we're very grateful for it because we have much to do. we are a national security and law enforcement organization. i'm going to say a few words about counterterrorism but actually want to start and say a few words about cyber. as mr. conyers and yourself, mr. chairman, have mentioned, cyber touches everything the fbi is responsible for. for reasons that make sense,

cyber is not a thing, it's a vector. we as americans have connected our entire lives to the internet. it's where our children play, our health care information is, where our finances are, where our social lives are, our government secrets, our infrastructure, almost everything that matters is connected to the internet, and soon our refrigerators will be and our sneakers and the rest of our lives. because of that, it's where the people who would do us harm, hurt our kids, steal our identities, steal our information, steal our secrets, or damage our infrastructure come to do those bad things. so it touches everything the fbi is responsible for and in way that is are difficult to imagine. i thought of a way to explain it to the american people when i was in indiana recently. a sheriff was showing me a bullet that had been fired from john dillinger's thompson submachine gun and it occurred to me that dillinger and his ilk had given birth to the modern fbi in the '20s and '30s because

they heralded the arrival of a totally new kind of crime. the combination of asphalt and the automobile allowed criminal to commit crimes with shocking speed all across the country and we needed a national force to respond to that, and that was the fbi. this cyber vector is that times a million. john dillinger could not do 1,000 robberies in the same day in all 50 states from his pajamas in belarus. that's the challenge we now face with cyber. it blows away normal concepts of time and space and venue. the criminals, the spies, the terrorists have shrunk the world because they can move at the speed of light through the internet. we have to shrink that world as well. so i know sitting here only nine months in that my tenure of ten years will be dominated by making sure we equip, deploy, and train to respond to that threat that we shrink the world and respond across counterterrorism, criminal, counterintelligence, and we are well on the way thanks to the work of my predecessor to do that. i hope you saw some of the good work we've done with respect to the chinese, with respect to botnets and massive criminal

enterprises over the last couple weeks. this stuff is no different than someone kicking in your front door and stealing things that matter to you or stealing a company's most precious property by kicking in the front door. we have to treat it that way and send a message that we will find you and touch you significantly wherever you are in the world because we're not going to put up with this just because it happened in cyberspace. so i thank you for your support, your attention to that issue. it's going to dominate what i do over the next ten years. briefly, counterterrorism, you, mr. chairman, mentioned the threat from al qaeda. i do see the threat from core al qaeda diminished thanks to the good work especially of our men and women in uniform. but at the same time i see the progeny of al qaeda, these virulent franchises of al qaeda thriving in the poorly governed or ungoverned spaces around the gulf, in north africa, around the mediterranean. this remains a huge diverse and significant threat to us through al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and many others. we wake up every morning worry being it and go to bed every night worry being it. i'm particularly worried about

the confluence of that virulence among these progeny of al qaeda with syria. syria has become the breeding ground, the training ground for thousands of jihadists from around the world including dozens and dozens from the united states. all of us know history can draw a line from afghanistan in the 1980s to 9/11. we are determined not to allow a line from today's syria to be drawn to future 9/11s. we are determined to anticipate the terrorist that's going to happen at some point out of syria and respond to it aggressively in advance. we also face a challenge from these people we call home grown violent extremists. some call them lone wolves. i don't like the term. it conveys dignity they don't deserve but these are people who are not directed by al qaeda but are inspired and trained again through the information available on the internet to then emerge from their basement

or their bedroom and do something terrible. something we spend a great deal of time worrying about. domestic terrorism, mr. chairman, i think as the members of this committee knows, is something the fbi has long worked. we have been busy for the last 20 years. nothing has changed for us in this regard. it's something we spend a lot of time worrying about and apply resources to make sure we anticipate and address. as i say, we are a national security organization. counterterrorism is part of that. counterintelligence is a big part of that. something we can't talk about in open session because most of that work is done in the shadows. but it is an important part of our work done extremely well all around the world by my folks. and we are also a law enforcement organization. we're out there every day trying to lock up violent criminals, people who would harm your kids, corrupt public officials, and

all manner of bad guy that is touch our criminal investigative responsibilities that remain combined with our national security responsibilities in ways that make sense to me. and i'll close just by saying as you and mr. conyers have alluded to, lots of folks are asking good questions these days about government power, and that's a great thing. people should be skeptical of government power. i am. i think the country was founded by people who were very skeptical of government power so they divided it among three branches to balance it. i think it's great that people ask questions. one of my jobs is, to the extent i can, to answer those questions. i hope folks will give me the space and time in american public life to listen to the answers because there's an angel in the details of my work. there's a reason why it matters that i be able to get lawful process to search and get content of some bad guy who is e-mailing about a terrorist plot or a criminal enterprise. there's a reason i need to be

able to track with lawful process the location through a cell phone of someone who has kidnapped a child or is fleeing from justice. all those things matter a great deal. those details matter and i believe those details reflect our government working as a should. hard for me to find that space and time in the windstorm i live in right now. and last, thank you again on behalf of the people of the fbi. we don't have a lot of stuff. we don't have aircraft carriers, we don't have satellites. i got amazing people. that's the magic of the fbi. thank you for the resources for me to be able to hire those folks. it was a thrill for me to see new agents at quantico last week and new intelligence analysts. that is the life blood of this great institution and it's what makes it a thrill and an honor for me to be the director. so i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, director. we will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions and i will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. as i indicated in my opening

statements, we have questions about the irs targeting investigation. so my first question is, is there an ongoing investigation into the irs targeting of conservative groups? >> yes, sir, very active investigation. >> can you explain why there's an investigation given that the president said there was not even a smidgen of corruption? >> i mean to disrespect to the president or anybody else who has expressed a view about the matter but i don't care about anyone's characterization of it. i care and my troops care only about the facts. there's an investigation because there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes may have been committed and so we're conducting that investigation. >> so he was simply wrong about that. >> i don't know what he meant or in what context he said it. as i said, i don't mean any disrespect to the president of the united states. i have tremendous respect for the person and the office but it doesn't matter to me what someone says about it. >> can you give us any indication of the conduct of that investigation, who is heading it up and who we might expect in terms of information being made available to these groups and to the congress and the public to assure them that this type of activity is being addressed and that someone will be held accountable if corruption is, indeed, found to

lay at any one person's doorstep? >> i can only say a little because as you know, mr. chairman, by law and policy and long tradition, i can't comment on an open investigation. i think for good reason. we don't want the bad guys to know where we're going. we don't want to smear good people we might have to investigate. so that's true of everything we do, not just this case. the matter is in my washington field office. the accountable executive is the head of the washington field office named valerie parlay. it's active. it's something i get briefed on on a regular basis. but i can't say more about where we are or what we've done for the reasons that i said. >> the department of justice office of inspector general has indicated that beginning in 2010 the fbi reversed course on a long-standing policy providing, among other things, office of inspector general access to grand jury information in furtherance of their reviews. i am aware that you were asked about this recently before the senate judiciary committee and you pledged to avoid

stonewalling the oig and to find out more about this. this committee relies heavily on the work of the office of the inspector general in order to fulfill our oversight duties. can you assure us that you will resolve this dispute in an expeditious manner and allow the oig to effectively carry out its mission? >> i agree with you, mr. chairman. i think the inspector general is essential. i have a great deal of respect for the person who holds that office now who i have known for a long time as a colleague. i have told him, look, the inspector general is a pain in the rear but it's a vital pain in the rear. it's kind of like the dentist. it makes me better to have the inspector general robust and fully informed. this is an issue that is a legal issue as to what we are allowed to share with respect to grand jury material and what are called title three wiretaps ordered by a federal judge. i want to share fully and completely with him, but i also don't want to violate the law. i think where we are, we've

asked the justice department's office of legal counsel just tell us what we can do and if it's okay under the law, we'll make sure we'll give it to him and if not, we'll talk about whether we should change the law. >> in your testimony to the senate judiciary committee, you said you would find out more about this. have you found out more about this since that testimony? >> yes, sir. i left that hearing and immediately went back and talked to my new general counsel about it and dove into the legal issue and found out there was a difference of view as to what the law permitted here. and at the core of our being is we want to follow the law. we're going to ask for the guidance from the justice department. tell us what the law is and we'll follow it. if it needs to be changed, obviously the department will approach you. >> and is that something that you can share with us as well when you receive that determination from the department of justice? >> yes. >> we would be very interested in knowing what their position is on this and whether any action is necessary on our part. a number of companies have recently announced that they intend to start notifying customers when law enforcement

requests data through a subpoena unless the request is accompanied by a court ordered gag order and despite the fact that this disclosure is expressly prohibited on the face of the subpoena. is this a change in practice and how do you expect it to impact your investigations? >> this is a trend that i'm seeing and worried about across not just the fbi but federal law enforcement and state and local law enforcement that part of the windstorm that we're all in with respect to government authorities is leading more and more providers to say, where the past they would have decided not to tell someone, a potential pedophile or drug dealer that we had asked with lawful process for their records, now they're inclined more and more to tell that person. that's a real problem for reasons that are obvious, and something we have to grapple with. >> and have you seen significant instances of prominent companies actually notifying targets of investigations like for child

abuse, sexual assault, or drug trafficking, that this information has been requested by subpoena? >> yes. examples have been reported to me where to avoid letting the bad guy know the process was withdrawn and then the investigators had to figure out some other way to track this guy where we don't alert him. as i said, we also don't want to smear the innocent by having -- >> so the lack of cooperation impeded the ability to go after some suspected criminals. >> that's what i've been told. >> we would be very interested in your apprising us of the continued problems this causes for the agency and way that is helpful in that regard as well. thank you, mr. director. it is now my privilege to yield to the gentleman from michigan,

mr. conyers, for his questions for five minutes. >> director comey, yesterday's shooting in a high school in oregon is the 74th school shooting since the attack on sandy hook elementary school in 2012. can you tell me what your agency is doing to address gun violence and what ways can the judiciary committee here be of help to you? >> thank you, mr. conyers. in a bunch of different ways. first, i'll mention that my behavioral analysis unit, who are the big brains at quantico who think about crime every day, made famous in "the silence of the lambs" movie.

we have a group of people there who are thinking about nothing but what are the markers of this behavior, these mass shooting events, what are the indicators, what are the clues and then pushing that information out to state and local law enforcement to help educate folks on what they might spot. so they're studying and looking for discriminators we can help people with. we're also doing training around the country with state and local law enforcement to help them learn to respond to these kinds of incidents. one of the key things we've been training on is it's a terrible thing we have to think about this, but to make sure that you always leave a lane open to the school so that an ambulance can get through all the police cars because what normally happens is first responders come up, jump out of their cars, and the way is blocked. we had a mass stabbing event in pittsburgh about a month ago and the chief had gotten that training, kept the lane open,

and kids were saved because hospitals -- kids were able to get out right away and go to the hospital. we're doing a lot of that kind of training. and then in terms of our work, we do a tremendous amount of violent gang work in an effort to try to reduce violence in cities like detroit, chicago, and many other places. >> well, we have a problem it seems to me with the background check requirement because there's general feeling that it ought to be expanded. do you have a view that you can discuss with us on that this morning? >> i don't in general or in particular. we run the national instant background check system, as you know. one of the key elements of that system has been mental health records that's been much in the news, especially since sandy hook. i know it's something that across the country state governments are trying to get better at, figuring out what records they can push to us so that when someone is buying a weapon, that that is checked in a way that produces a result that is useful.

beyond that the policy of questions are really for the department of justice. >> well, there are a number of people in the legislature here that feel that the background check requirement should be expanded and be made more exclusive, and we are trying desperately to get that examined here in the legislature, and we may be calling on you or someone in the fbi to give us their considered judgment on which direction to go. now, it's true we've ended bulk collection in the general sense through the usa freedom act, but i remain concerned about large collections, and there are some

privacy advocates that are concerned about it. under the law as it exists today, can you describe how much information the fbi could collect within a single section 215 order? >> i don't know that sitting here i can quantify. the legislation that the house passed that you have mentioned makes good sense to me and bans the use of 215 or national security letters or pen registered trap and traces to collect in bulk, and so i don't think there's a particular number except we couldn't collect an amount of records that was untethered to a particular selection term as defined in the legislation. >> now, the section 702 of fisa

is focused on non united states persons outside the united states, but the government does obtain large amounts of information about united states persons through this authority. does the federal bureau of investigation use information obtained under section 702 in criminal investigations? >> the time of the gentleman has expired but director comey should answer the question. >> can i use -- because i'm new i want to make sure i'm not talking about something that's classified. let me just check. the answer is we do have contact with information collected under 702. i think to talk about the details we'd need to be in a classified setting. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. comey, good to have you with us. mr. comey, last year i asked your predecessor, director mueller, about the benghazi investigation. of course, the chairman touched on it in his opening statement as well. i said to him then, i say to you now, that the entire scenario continues to stick in the craw. i think it's been done -- i'm not suggesting you're guilty of this, but someone has not done a good job in my opinion. let me refer to a "huffington post" article which states on october 18th, 2012, "new york times" reporter david kirkpatrick spent two hours with a guy named amal katula in a hotel sipping a strawberry frap.

do you share my frustration, mr. director, in the media can gain access to this guy and we can't lay a glove on him? >> i'm not sure i would express it >> assuming we haven't laid a glove on him. thank you. >> i wouldn't express it as frustration because i've been in this business a long time and i know journalists can get access to people that we in law enforcement can't. so, frankly, it doesn't surprise me. >> i recall mrs. clinton appeared before a senate hearing in response to the questions by the senators. she said what difference does it make? it is my belief, mr. coble, that any issue, be it obscure, indirect, or directly involved with benghazi does, indeed, make some difference. do you concur >> i take the benghazi matter very, very seriously. it is one that i am very close to, briefed on on a regular basis.

one we are putting a lot of work into and we made progress on, but, again, the details of which i can't talk about for the reason i mentioned earlier. >> i can appreciate that. >> it's something i take very, very seriously. >> i can understand how you cannot go into great detail with us. i'm glad to hear you say that. i have the fear with the passage of each day, we're one step further removed from resolving benghazi thing and that would not be pleases at all to any american, i don't think. >> to me as well, sir. one thing you've got to know about the fbi, we never give up. so sometimes things take longer than we'd like them to, but they never go into an inactive bin. >> even though i'm expressing some criticism, i'm very high on the fbi, so put me down as one of your cheerleaders. >> thank you, sir. >> let me talk about the attorney general for a minute. he's issued directives in the area of marijuana enforcement

including the division of assets for the investigation and prosecution of persons, businesses, and financial institutions in states where marijuana has obtained some legal status. i presume that would include colorado and the state of washington. does this policy affect fbi investigations involving violent crime and drug trafficking which oftentimes spills over state and international borders? >> i don't think so. i'm not familiar with the policy sitting here which i think means doesn't have much of an impact. my troops haven't mentioned to me, but my answer is i don't think so, sir. >> thank you, sir. i yield back, mr. chairman. recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, national security letters permit the fbi to obtain among other things telephone records, e-mail,

subscriber information, basically all the stuff you could get under section 215 order under fisa. the president's review group was unabe to identify a principled reason why nso should be issued by fbi officials. must be issued by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. recommended that all statutes should be amended to require the use of the same oversight minimization, dissemination that currently govern the use of section 215 orders. now, we've done that in the house version of the usa freedom act. given the overlap with section 215, are nsos necessary? why does the fbi choose to use an nso instead of section 215? >> thank you, mr. nadler. nsos are essential to the basic building blocks of our national security investigation work. just as grand jury subpoenas are the basic building blocks in criminal work. they're very different than 215.

subscriber information, isp identification, no content. >> metadata. >> credit records. some financial records. >> metadata. >> metadata? >> metadata. >> sure. not in any kind of bulk fashion like you said. basic building blocks. i had a great discussion with the with president's review group about this. they are well intended but dead wrong. i said it to them respectfully. i don't see there is a reason. they asked for a reason. i said, why on earth would we make it harder to get a national security letter which i need in my most important matters involving spies and terrorists than to get a grand jury subpoena in a bank fraud investigation? that doesn't make sense to me. they need to be overseen. they are overseen by tremendous layers -- >> but you -- so you think that the -- or do you think the

restrictions in national security letters that were included in the usa freedom act version passed by the house to make sure that nsos could not be used as an end run-around of section 215 restrictions, they're okay? >> yes, makes total sense to me. we didn't use it that way, anyway. >> now in the hr-3361 the usa freedom act bill that the house passed, the fbi will be required to base its use as will the nsa be required to base the use of section 215 on a specific selection term. unquote. how does the definition of specific selection term limb the government's ability to obtain information? some critics, for example, have said under the ways defined in the bill, you could ask for every call detail record in a given area code or given zip code. do you regard that as true? >> no. i think given the language and clear legislative intent you all have demonstrated that that would not be permitted under that. but a lot of thoughtful people

said they would like to have different language defining selector term. i'm happy to discuss it. what i want to do is just make sure we don't accidentally in defining selection term bar some of the things that i think everybody would want me to be able to do with the national security letter. >> do you think if the senate tightened that definition, as long as it didn't do what you just said, that would be okay? >> so long as it didn't accidentally preclude things that make total sense. if a terrorist is in a hotel and i don't know what room he's in, i need to use lawful process to find out who's in every room? okay, he's now in 712. i have to be able to do that. i wouldn't want to accidentally forbid that kind of thing. i have no interest in using it to collect in bulk. if there's other language, i'm happy to discuss it. >> can you give us an idea of how many nsos are issued in a given year and how can we supervise them? >> i think the number,s it's in the thousands.

i think it's, like, 17,000 a year because of the basic building blocks of nearly all of our national security investigations. probably not nearly as many as grand jury subpoenas. thousands of them. >> thank you. my last question since i see the yellow light is on. on may 30th of this year the house passed an amendment to the state appropriations bill to prohibit the use of funds to compel a journalist to testify about confidential sources. on june 2 the supreme court declined to hear -- james reisen could face jail time for refusing. 48 states have are protection to reporters who refuse to testify about sources. can you give us your opinion of a proposed federal shield law and how do we protect freedom of the press and allow sources -- much of our reporting, much of our knowledge of what's happened the last 0 years wouldn't be there without confidential sources. yet this administrations has

clamped down on those confidential sources. what do you think of a federal shield? how can we assure the secrecy requirements we still get the information we need. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the director will be permitted to answer the question. >> i'm a enormous fan of a robust press. it is appropriate to balance my need to investigate serious offenses in the ice united states and the need for a robust press. i'm not up to speed enough on the shield law and it's not really a view the fbi should offer anyway. that's for the department of justice. there's got to be a way to accommodate that. shouldn't be a situation where we can't ever investigate the most important cases and touch the media but we've got to protect the news gathering function. other than that principle, i don't have a view on the law, itself. >> thank you. i yield back. the time has been -- >> thanks the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from california, mr. issa for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, as you know in the news there's been a lot of coverage of the fact that the fbi had and has had since 2010 a

database of 1.1 million records or pages of records on non-profit organizations and that those records were sent based on communication that included lois lerner and individuals working for you. before we began today, i understand from you that you said you returned the records. >> yes, sir. >> the fbi no longer has records? >> that's correct. we returned them within the last few days or week. >> is it true those records included 6103 taxpayer i.d. information? >> i don't know if it was determined but that's an issue i heard about and read quite a bit about. >> the department of justice sent information asking for us to return the information we received under subpoena. said the basis was it contained 6103 information. do you believe that to be true? >> i think that's right, yes, sir. >> for the irs to release 6103 information to your

organization, you're not authorized to use it as a database to be used. so wouldn't that be a violation of the law under 6103? >> my recollection from my days as a prosecutor is 6103, something we were very careful about to protect private taxpayer information and there's a number of legal hurdles that have to be jumped over including a judicial order to share 6103 information. >> so the fact is under the guise of giving information that was publicly available under guide star, lois lerner sent a database that included 6103 information to the fbi in 2010. isn't that true? >> i don't know who sent it. >> the department of justice gave us e-mails. have you seen the e-mails that were back and forth? those e-mails included lois lerner as an author. let me go through quick questions that are important to the fbi. did the fbi request this database from the irs. >> no. >> since you've returned it, does that mean the fbi never had a valid reason to have it and you do not have a reason to have a database of taxpayer

individual information on non-profits? >> my understanding is, again, this was four years ago, is that there was a valid basis for them to send public information. >> if public information is available through the guide star website, why would you need the database? >> i don't know sitting here. >> okay. would you answer that one for the record? i'd appreciate it. on what basis internal memos are available that would show there was a reason to have in searchable format this information rather than if it was publicly available? obviously the 6103 was not publicly available. if it was publicly available, why would you need a database, searchable database rather than in fact two to the same place the public goes? do you know today of any reason that the fbi on an ongoing basis would need any nonpublic information from taxpayers

including the information from non-profits or not for profits? >> in that particular context, i don't. we use it in lots and lots of investigations unrelated to that and get court orders to get it. >> of course, we get court orders then you have a reason specifically stated in the court order. >> right. >> at this time do you have ongoing investigations that were begun in 2009, '10 or '11 that concerned referrals from the irs for non-profits to the fbi? >> i don't know any from '09, 10, th1 ' '10, that period of time. i'm not saying there aren't any. i'm not aware of any. >> to the best of your knowledge have you relinquished pursuant to the subpoena all e-mails and documents related to lois lerner and transfers from the irs which was the subject of the subpoena? >> i don't know the status of

it. a subpoena to the fbi you're asking about? i don't know the status of it. i'm sure if we comply, we'll do our absolute best to be fully kplin compliant. >> do you believe that the american people should inherently be suspicious or concerned when taxpayer identifiable information is transferred from the irs to the fbi without a warrant? >> the american people should always want to know their taxpayer information, private information is protected according to the law. that's why as a prosecutor i remember taking it so very seriously. >> to your knowledge, what did the fbi do with the database in the last more than three years it had it in its possession? >> yeah, i've asked -- my understanding is an analyst in our criminal investigation division looked at an index of it to see what it was and parked it to see if doj was going to ask us to do anything with it. it never did. it sat in her desk or her file

for the last four years. >> so in closing, mr. chairman, then would it be safe to sassum if the fbi did not ask for it, had no purpose and lois lerner and the irs encouraged the fbi to take it that it was part of an effort to try to produce an investigation that never materialized? >> i don't know enough to answer that. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. scott for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome. when employers try to get background information for perspective employee, we've heard complaints that the information is incomplete. people lose the opportunity for jobs because of the information that's not complete. what is the fbi doing to upgrade the information? >> this is information in our databases? >> some of it is in your database. some in the state's. a lot of times the disposition

of a case is not included. so it looks like it may have been a conviction, but you don't know. if you can get back to me -- >> i don't know enough to answer right here. >> okay. sex trafficking. if a 40-year-old has sex with a 14-year-old, that's rape. is the crime diminished because it's paid for? >> is it diminished because it's paid for? >> right. >> the child is still violated. >> is the fbi now recognizing such encounters as rape and investigating and bringing prosecutions for cases as rape? >> i think so. >> does the fbi have a process for dealing with the child victims? >> yes, sir. >> and what is that process? >> our office of victim crimes spends a great deal of time working with our sex trafficking investigations to make sure the kids are treated like the victims that they are and they

are their gateway into services provided by whatever the locality is in which we rescue the child. >> thank you. there's a term called organized retail theft where gangs go up and down the interstate, drop in at a retail outlet, clean out a couple of shelves and run. what is the fbi doing to address organized retail theft? >> i don't know enough to answer, mr. scott. it's not something i'm familiar with. >> individual i.d. theft is -- we have these breaches of data that are actually valuable because usually if you only steal about a couple thousand dollars from each account, nobody investigates it. what is the fbi doing to deal with i.d. theft where they grab a credit card in your name, milk it for a couple of thousand dollars and keep going?

>> excuse me, sir. probably it's not a focus of a lot of our work unless it's connected to an organized criminal group. we try to triage our resources and spend most of our resources on the more complicated and offer training to state and local law enforcement so they can respond to climbs that involve digital evidence or the internet. >> a lot of the i.d. theft crosses state lines. certainly jurisdictional lines so the local police would be virtually incapable of dealing with it. are you making sure it's a national investigation when you have breaches and people use the credit card information? >> with respect to the large scale intrusions and massive in the news a lot. with respect to the smaller individual cases, if we don't connect it to a sophisticated ring, we try to hand it to the state and local partners and give them the training and

expertise they need to work it. >> the gentleman from california and a couple others asked about the targeting of conservative groups by the internal revenue service. i'm aware from lawyers that some liberal groups have also been allegedly targeted. are you investigating these too? >> with respect to -- i don't want to say -- i want to be careful what i say about the investigation we're doing with respect to irs. >> let me just make the -- i'll just use that as a statement. >> okay. >> and not a question. medicaid and medicare fraud, what's the fbi doing to reduce medicaid and medicare fraud? >> that's a -- unfortunately, it's a big part of our work across the country, especially in pockets where we have a significant amount of medicare fraud. i was just in tampa visiting my troops. they do a lot of that work there. it's a major focus of our

criminal investigative work around the country. >> thank you. finally, there are challenges in dealing with -- you don't like the term lone wolf. how do you prevent crimes from happening before they happen if it's only one person involved? >> very difficult. there, again, the very bright people in my behavioral analysis unit are trying to push out to local police departments markers because as we look back at the history of these cases, you can almost always find something that somebody saw. either they saw in person or saw on internet in social media. some marker that this person was r radicalizing. so we try to alert our partners so they can focus on that. we try to maintain a are robust presence in the online world where some of the people will go to get the training that they are looking for to do these terrible things. >> thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for your testimony. i would recommend that your staff clip that five or six minutes of your opening statement and put it on the internet and perhaps use it as a training for other members that might come before the judiciary committee. it was an excellent opening statement. >> thank you, sir. >> i recall your testimony -- >> i married a woman from iowa. that made all the difference. >> made a difference to me as well then. i recall your testimony from back in 2005. it's received in a positive fashion, too. i would reiterate this that i lifted out. june 8th, 2005. you say you want to catch a terrorist with his hands on the check instead of his hands on the bomb. you want to be as many steps ahead of the devastating event as possible through preventative and disruptive measures, investigating using investigative tools to learn as much as we can as quickly as we can, and then incapacitating the target at the right moment and then these words, tools such as enhanced information sharing

mechanisms and surveillance. pen registers, requests for the production of business records, and delayed notification search warrants allow us to do just that. i take it that you stand on that statement today, from what i have heard. >> yes, sir. >> and from the actions you followed through on in that period of time. i'm thinking about the usa freedom act. and i'd ask you, could you describe whether you believe that it makes us safer, and if so, how? >> i think it makes -- well, as a country, in a way -- well, let me stay with your question. it doesn't make us safer. i don't believe it makes us less safe and there are corresponding benefits to it. offering assurance to people who have legitimate questions about their privacy. i think it leaves us no less safe than we were. >> do you have more confidence in the private sector holding meta swrn data as opposed to the

government? >> i don't have more confidence in them if they're holding it in bulk, but the phone companies are pretty good at holding their records because they want to hit us all for bills. they're pretty good at keeping that record. i have confidence they'll keep those in the way they always have. >> what would be the most dated metadata you know of that was used to help resolve a crime or prevent one? >> that's a good question. i don't know in particular. under the original 215 program, data was kept for 5 years so the experts, it was critical to have that. the critical period was within 18 months. >> we can't pinpoint whether that additional 3 1/2 years was valuable or not? >> i can't sitting here. >> would you see -- the 18 month period of time -- let me tgo bak to this. would you have merit being able to negotiate with the private sector to go into that data beyond 18 months?

can you foresee that? >> it could happen and could be cases where it's useful where you discovered something that's older and need to go check it. >> but freedom act, usa freedom act fore closes that opportunity. >> for -- for the purposes of that particular metadata program, yes, it does. >> so it is possible that there's data beyond the 18 months that could be critical to an investigation and it would be things that weren't considered by the people you referred to as experts who asked for five years of data? >> it's possible. yeah. >> uh-huh. which most everything is. southern border. persons of interest from nations of interest. what can you tell us about how that situation might have changed over the last four or five years? are we getting more or less and from what country should we be most concerned about? >> i don't know enough nine months in to give you an assessment of the numbers. it's a big focus of ours, but i'd have to get back to you on the particulars of it.

>> would you have a sense that the numbers are increasing or decreasing? >> i have a sense that it is increasing. it's a particular worry with me with respect to syria. i can no fly a bad guy to keep them from going to syria. he may look to cross to mexico to get out and come back the same way, across the land border. that's one of the ways in which i worry about it. >> do you have a number of what percentage of the illegal drugs consumed in america come through mexico? >> it's very high. north of 80% i would estimate sitting here. >> when dea says 80% to 90%, would that be consistent? >> that sounds right. >> do you have data that might indicate the violence south of the united states from there on down into central america? the violence rates within those societies and how that might affect our society as we see

masses of people coming in here? >> i don't. other than i have a sense even after nine months that a significant issue, especially in some of the countries in central america. >> americans will become victims. thank you for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair thanks gentleman. recognizes the gentlewoman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey. i am heartened by your statement and i appreciate your service to our country and your commitment to the rule of law. it's great to hear you. i think, you know, we are in an interesting time where obviously we want to pursue people who would do us harm, people who would violate the law. a at the same time, in a digital age, our expectations of privacy

are shifting, and getting it right in terms of legislation is not an easy task. so i have some questions for you about databases. it's my understanding, but this is a question, not a statement, that the fbi's next generation identification database is going to include pictures for facial recognition. is that correct? >> yes. mugshots. we're trying, piloting the use of mugshots along with our fingerprint database to see if we can find bad guys by matching pictures with mugshots. >> now, i further understand, but again, this is a question, not a statement, that in addition to mugshots, there would be civilian pictures as well in this database, is that correct? >> that's not my understanding.

as i understand it, it's we're using mugshots, arrest photos. >> so there would not be pictures included from state dmvs in the database? >> i don't think so. i think we -- yeah, the next gen identification as i understand it is about mugshots. i think there's some circumstances in which where states send us records, they'll send us pictures of people who are getting special driving licenses to transport children or explosive materials or something. but as i understand it, those are not part of the searchable next generation identification database. if i'm wrong about that, someone will whisper to me or i'll fix it later. >> if that's not correct, please do let me know. >> okay. >> and do we have an idea of what kind of false positive we would have in terms of matches using these photo recognition technology software? >> we don't yet. that's why we are piloting it. to see how good is it and is it

useful to law enforcement across the country? i don't know the answer to that. >> now, it's been reported, and, again, i don't know if this is accurate. that the database when fully -- i mean, obviously there's a pilot, but there's a plan if it works to fully expand it. that there would be approximately 52 million faces by the year 2015 in the database. do you know whether that figure is accurate? >> i don't. >> could you check and find out? >> sure. >> because what's been reported, and, again, this is not -- this is contrary to what your reporting was, that there would be, you know, several million pictures that would not be mugshots that would be coming from civilian sources which is something i'm greatly interested in. >> i saw some of the same media. that led me to ask my folks, so what's the deal with this and the explanation to me was the

pilot is mugshots. those are repeatable. we can count on the quality of them and they're tied to criminal conduct. there was not a plan are and there isn't a present where we are going to add other non mugshot photos. >> okay. >> if i have it wrong, i'll fix it with you. >> i appreciate that. it's my understanding that the contractor who is building this next generation identification database is a company that also built the state department facial recognition database which contains 244 million faces. will your next generation identification system be capable of importing the state department records or searching the state department records, do you know? >> i don't know. i have not heard of that as either a current capability or intended capability. i'll get back to you on that. >> would you? i would appreciate that very much. the reason why, you know --

yesterday we had a vote on the appropriations bill that passed to prohibit the collection of, and retention of driver's license plates on cars. that's in plain sight, but i think one of the issues we need to get right and we would welcome your input on this is that things that are in plain sight we know are not private take on a different quality when they become part of a massive database that can be searched. and so if you walk outside your front door, you're in plain sight, you know your neighbor can see you, but you don't really expect that that would be photographed and be part of a massive database so that the government could know where you are at any given time. and so the pictures, the identifiers on vehicles, useful to law enforcement, but where do we draw that line of privacy for the american people? so i'd be very interested in

your thoughts on that. obviously we're out of time now, but if you could provide your best judgment on where that line should be drawn, i would be greatly appreciative. >> thank you. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. charirman, thank you, director, for being here. we appreciate you taking the job you've taking on which includes such unpleasant tasks of having to come talk to us, but thank you for being here. you mentioned in your opening statement about syria being a breeding ground for terrorism. i met with some libyans who had originally been rebels in the so-called asian, or arab spring, rather. and they were telling me that there are terrorist camps springing up all over eastern libya.

that that's an area that came through to meet with me in egypt. are you aware of terrorist training camps springing up in libya these days? >> it's not something i know a lot about. it's probably not something i want to talk about in open session, even the little i do know. >> well, since you mentioned syria, i wanted to see if you knew anything about libya because these are people that were -- they said before the radicals took so much in charge of their rebel efforts that they were quite active, but anyway, we know that on the border, particularly texas with mexico, there is this mass influx of particularly children, and i keep hearing from people that have been there, that have been working with them, articles that are being published, the information is pretty basic. even though a spokesman for the administration says they don't

know why there's this huge influx. they keep saying they are hearing that amnesty is coming. they will not be sent home. apparently as i'm hearing from border patrolmen, they're not allowed to do their job and secure our border. got a report from some border patrol that are from october 2008 to april of 2014, texas identified a total of 177,588 unique criminal alien defendants booked into texas county jails and that those 177,000 have been identified through the secure communities initiative with 611,234 individual criminal charges. and so i'm wondering even though apparently what i'm hearing prosecute from the border patrol, they are not allowed to do their job and protect america's borders.

is the fbi stepping in and picking up the slack and at least of the tens of thousands that are pouring in being able to check to see their criminal backgrounds? >> given our -- it's something i've read about in the media. given our responsibilities and authorities, it's not something i've focused on or i believe we're focused on significantly. lots of other agencies i think are, but not the fbi. >> department of homeland security is supposed to be, but they're not letting their border patrolmen do their jobs. they are told don't turn them away. let them come in. this is what i'm hearing from border patrol. let them come in. then, of course, it's in the media, they're being shipped around the country to be cared for, but i would suggest, director, since you are in charge of the federal bureau of investigation and we know this massive hundreds of thousands of crimes have been committed by

people coming in illegally, just in texas. that it is something the fbi has got to pick up the slack on. if the border is not going to be protected by homeland security, then it's going to fall directly on doj. i know it may not be wanted, but it's happening. let me ask you, shifting gears. your predecessor was not aware that the mosque in cambridge, boston, area, were founded the islamic society of boston, founded, signed the papers, by a guy named alimudi that the fbi did a great job proving out the case where he's now doing 23 years for supporting terrorism. looking back at the tsarnaev

heads up that russia gave us, what questions do you think would be appropriate to ask if the mosque that fbi agens never did? they went there in the outreach program, according to director muller, but not to question about whether or not tsarnaev had been radicalized. what questions do you think would be appropriate in a mosque if you think they are appropriate when you get notice of somebody being radicalized? >> well, the particular one i don't know well enough to answer. but in general we want to ask whatever questions are logical leads for us to follow, no matter where it is, whether a mosque, a church, or a grocery store. if we have a reason to ask a question we want to ask it. >> that mosque has ties to radicalism. and it hadn't been followed up, i can tell you, by the fbi, and i would urge you to do that. it is a radical hotbed and i appreciate your time here today, director. i yield back. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from georgia mr.

johnson is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sir, thank you for your service to the nation. we are living during a time where we encounter threats to our national security on a daily basis, and we are fortunate to have agencies like the fbi protecting us. recently, however, the question has come up as to whether the relationship between the government's interest in prosecuting the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and the public's interest in a free press. and that has been knocked off balance. has the fbi ever used journalists as a cover for their agents? and if so, can we get a commitment that that won't happen again? >> not to my knowledge. >> thank you. journalists continue to find themselves in the cross hairs of

programs s designed to catch terrorists. what measures has the fbi taken to ensure journalists are not targeted and they remain free to do their work without fear? >> well, we have an extensive set of rules that govern how we interact with the media during any investigation whether it's national security or criminal contained within our investigation guide. we have a set above that of department of justice regulations that the attorney generals promulgated, so we follow that very, very carefully. >> thank you. since the attorney general released revised guidelines regarding the gathering of information from journalists, has the fbi been involved in surveillance of journalists, and does it coordinate with nsa on these issues? >> to my knowledge, no, we have not been involved in surveillance of journalists and same with respect to the nsa. >> all righty. on another note, in many revers

stings, fbi agents using confidential informants decide on the amount of drugs, including ones that trigger harsh mandatory minimum penalties. research demonstrates that these triggering amounts impact minorities disproportionately. given the possibility of that bias, unconscious or not, whether or not it plays a role in the decisions of what to charge a target with, isn't it prudent to instruct your agents in terms of this issue how to avoid the consequences of any

bias in that regard? >> buy whereias is think we havo worry about with human affairs. especially with the law enforcement power we exercise. it's something we talk a lot about inside the fbi to make sure our culture is one rooted to every possible extent throughout the organization. in being blind to color, to orientation, to origin, and following the facts. the charging decisions in drug cases you mentioned aren't made by the fbi. those are made by federal prosecutors. so that's not something the fbi agent is going to drive. >> well, recognizing the power of prosecutors to decide on the charges to indict upon if there is still a lot of discretion with agents when it comes down to persons whom they are

investigating and decide to arrest, what to charge them with. and those decisions need to be subject to some care and some oversight by superiors in that department. >> i agree very much. >> all right. thank you. i yield back. >> chair thanks gentleman. recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. gordon for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. thank you for what you do. i appreciate your opening statement. one of the best i have heard. appreciate what you and your agents do every day. do you believe that the attorney general should name a special prosecutor in the investigation of the targeting of conservative groups by the internal revenue service? >> i don't think that's something for the fbi director to comment on. >> every single republican in the house said we should. 26 democrats in the house said

we should. overwhelming bipartisan majority said that we in fact should do that based on what we've heard and learned about this investigation over the last year. you don't believe we should do that? >> i said i don't believe it's something the fbi director should be opining on. >> okay. let me go back to where mr. issa was just a few minutes ago. we learned from freedom of information requests from judicial watch that the department of justice attorney richard pilgrim met with lois lerner in october of 2010. we interviewed him and discovered in the interview that disks of information were given to the fbi from the internal revenue service. in fact, we got a letter on june 2nd, just a little over a week ago from the department of justice telling us there were 21 disks provided by the internal revenue service to the federal bureau of investigation containing 1.2 million pages of information. two days later we got another letter where basically the same

mr. kazik of the department of jus sis said, oops, we forgot to tell you something. 1.2 million pages of information. some of the information included confidential information protected by internal revenue code section 6103. so we got a database you've had for four years, not according to us, but according to department of justice lawyer, mr. kadzik, and the irs contained information that's confidential against the law. you've had this database, illegal database, for four years. did you use that database for any time of that four-year timespan? >> no. >> not at all? >> my understanding is the only thing was done, analysts looked at the table of contents to see what was on it. >> you're sure about that? >> sure as i can be. i read the same thing you read. so i've asked -- >> 1.2 million -- remember, we got the e-mail from mr. pilger the to lois lerner that says the fbi thanks lois, the fbi says

raw format is best because they can put it into their systems like excel. this is direct communication from mr. pilger and lois lerner, the lady at the center of this scandal. you got it the in the format you wanted it in and you're saying you didn't use it and you have had it for your years and didn't use it? >> that's my understanding, yep. >> we know things like catherine englebrecht who had six visits from the fbi, two in person, four over the phone, while her application for status was pending. you're saying none of this information was used to target people? >> that's what i'm telling you. >> when did you turn the information back? >> some time within the last few days i think. >> when did you first learn you had this database that was never used, an illegal database of 1.2 million pages. when did you learn you had the information? >> me, personally? >> yes. >> what's today, wednesday? monday. >> the fbi had it. the new director didn't know you had it for four years? you learned a week ago. >> i don't think anything was done with it. it was with the intelligence analyst. >> was there a court order used

to obtain this database which contained illegal personal taxpayer information? do you know if a court order was used to get it? >> the disks were sent by the irs. >> so you just -- the justice department would just say, irs sent us the information, the irs sent over illegal taxpayer information, no quarter involved at all? >> my understanding is they sent the disk which represented us to be publically available information. >> what conclusion do you think the american people will reach when they now understand that the federal bureau of investigation had 1.2 million pages of information which contained confidential taxpayer information, you have had it for four years and they were supposed to believe this was never used to target people when we have examples like catherine englebrecht who got six visits from the fbi while her application was pending? they are supposed to believe, we just had it. we didn't know about it. >> they should believe it because i'm saying it and what

they know about the fbi. >> let me go back to the first question. 26 democrats. every single republican in the house said we need a special prosecutor. as the chairman said in his opening statement, your organization on january 13th at least according to "wall street journal," your organization leaked to the "wall street journal" saying no one was going to be prosecuted. >> i don't know if they said an fbi person leaked that. >> that's what the "wall street journal" said. no one is going to be prosecuted. the president said there's no corruption, not even a smidgen. the person heading the investigation, miss bosserman is a maxed out contributor to the president's campaign. now we know 1.2 million pages of confidential tax information has been many the hands of the fbi given by lois lerner in the format the fbi wanted. you're saying the head of the fbi, director of the fbi, shouldn't comment on whether we need a special prosecutor or not? >> i think that's right. i don't think the fbi director should be offering a view on that. do i care -- >> i think the american people would like a special prosecutor. >> i'm sorry? >> i think the american people

would like a special prosecutor. as evidenced by the fact we had 26 democrats join every single republican say that very thing. >> that may be so. i'm not arguing one way or the other. i'm just telling you i don't think given my role it's something i should be offering my view on. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, welcome to the committee. i commend you on your demeanor and responsiveness of this hearing up to now. as i did when the dhs secretary appeared before the committee last month, i would like to outline a narrative then ask you to comment. puerto rico is home to fewer than 4 million american citizens. in 2009, there were about 900 homicides on the island. in 2010 there were nearly 1,000 homicides. in 2011, there were over 1,100 homicides. an average of more than three a

day. the most violent year in the territory's history. in each year, our homicide rate was twice as high as any state. most murders in puerto rico are linked to the drug trade. puerto rico is within the u.s. customs zones and it's used by organizations transporting narcotics from south america to the u.s. mainland. given the crisis, i examined the level of resources that doj and dhs were dedicating to combat drug-related violence in puerto rico and came away discouraged because the federal law enforcement footprint on the island was inadequate. i have done everything possible to impress upon officials the need for improved federal response to drug-related violence in puerto rico both for its own sake and for the sake of communities in the u.s. mainland.

along the eastern board r and so on. starting in 2012 my message finally began to register. particularly at dhs. the agency created a task force charged with taking steps to reduce puerto rico's murder rate. the coast guard has substantially increased the amount of time its ships and patrol aircraft spent conducting counterdrug operations off puerto rico. last year i.c.e. searched 30 agents to the island where they made hundreds of arrests and seized mass quantities of drugs and firearms and cbp once it assumed control of the counterdrug t.a.r.s. program earlier this year repaired the radar in southern puerto rico that had been rendered inoperable since 2011. i know doj agencies have also enhanced their efforts as the u.s. attorney confirmed this week when i met with her. i have been particularly impressed with illegal firearms

and violent initiative. the joint effort now in place throughout much of puerto rico. i have been impressed by other initiatives in which the fbi plays an important role like the anti-car jacking initiative and the creation of seven strike forces consisting of local vetted officers that target criminals in high crime areas including public housing. as a result of the enhanced federal efforts the number of homicides this year is on pace to be 40% lower than in 2011. nevertheless puerto rico's murder rate is the highest many the country, averaging two homicides a day. now is the time for the federal government to build upon its recent success to redouble its efforts and not to relent. by the way, congress has been clear on this point, that 2015 doj funding bill directs the attorney general to assess the adequacy of current law enforcement personnel and resources assigned to puerto

rico and to identify resources necessary to close enforcement gaps in future budget submissions. i'm told, though, by reputable sources, while the fbi does great work in puerto rico, there are not nearly enough agents given the severity of the public safety crisis we're facing on the island. would you comment on my narrative and tell me if the fbi will either increase or at least search on a temporary basis the number of agents it has in puerto rico? >> thank you, sir. my first comment is your passion is justified. >> thanks. >> there is a significant problem with violent crime, drug related violent crime in puerto rico. it was something i didn't know much about before taking this job and i'm worried a lot of folks don't understand the nature of the problem. my second day as fbi director i went down to our command center to watch as my hostage rescue team and a bunch of my s.w.a. tvm teams participated in a huge

takedown at one of the housing projects. the problem is centered in the housing projects so it is something we spend a lot of time on. not knowing you and i were going to meet today, last week i sent a i sent a note to the whole office in san juan thanking them for the work that they've been doing. so it's something that we are very focused on. whether they're going to put more ajents on, i can't tell you sitting right here. as you might notice, every six months, we do a review of our threats. that process right now, i don't know the answer sitting here. it's something we are very focused on. we've got some things going on right now that i can't talk about. more effort for us to lock up some of these bad guys. >> i look forward to it. >> thank you. >> mr. poe, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. the tenure of my questions has to do with federal government agencies intimidation

against citizens, whether it's legal or illegal and whether agencies working together to intimidate citizens. specifically, i want to talk about one of my constituents. she and her husband run a manufacturing small business. they started king street patriots and two different organizations. they filed a non-profit status. since they did that, and i know you don't have this information in front of you, but let me read to you what happened to them after that was filed. the f.b.i. domestic terrorism unit first filed the organization. what is the f.b.i. terrorism unit? it sounds terrible. what is it? >> it's not terrible. it's men and women -- >> it sounds very serious.

>> it's our domestic terrorism operation unit. we've had it for a long time who want to investigate people who want the engage in acts of violence. >> and i appreciate what you said. i don't mean it's a terrible unit. it sounds serious. that was in 2010, 2011, they are acquired by the f.b.i. domestic terrorism unit again. the f.b.i., general inquiry, king street patriots. october. nonprofit application. 2011, june, december and, also, in november, f.b.i. inquired tree more times with the king street patriots. in february, 2012, the irs

questions them again. the irs questions their application and asked them questions about where they have been. who has she spoken to and who attended all of these meetings. once again, february, king street patriots, same situation. and then the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms investigates. they audit the business. they file a letter of inquiry from the freedom of information act with the justice department and says do they run a criminal investigation. quick response, no, they're not under criminal investigation.

july, osha audits them. irs, december, questions them again. in march, 2013, irs asked them four questions and then finally, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms second, unscheduled audit. waysed on that information, is it illegal for different government agencies to work together to intimidate some individual or business? >> without legitimate investigative purpose? >> sure. as the justice department said, they're not under investigation. >> my problem is i don't know enough about the situation to comment. i don't know whether those dots are all connected. i hope my folks were pleasant and professional. >> i understand. but does that raise any suspicion to you? it's interesting, all of these

different government agencies, right after a certain period of time, they all just suddenly are starting to investigate an organization that the justice department says is not under criminal investigation. does this look a little suspicio suspicious? >> i can imagine them wondering about it, but based on what you said, i just can't say. >> okay. just a general hypothetical. it just seems, to me, that it looks like there might be a coordinated effort here by different departments. if there is a coordinated effort, hypothetically, is that some violation of federal law for different agencies to work -- >> as you said, without proper investigative purpose, it's terrible. and i suspect it's unlawful in some respect. but, again, you don't know.

i know the f.b.i. i can't imagine that we would be part of some effort to intimidate them without so much investigative purpose. i just can't see it. >> i thank the chairman. the gentlemen were unable to do so under the rules of the committee. >> thank you, mr. chair. first of all, it's very good to see you here. i was pleased with your appointment. last time i saw you, i think it was when you were here with the hearings in the justice department and the unusual circumstances in which you were heroic and your unusual duties to the constitution and the justice. we have had the last few days of congress, moments of silence. a moment of silence has almost become a regular ritual for killings. we had one yesterday for the school shooting in oregon.

we lost a child. we had one the day before for the killing of law enforcement folks in nevada. the student who was killed in seattle pacific, about three, four, five days earlier didn't get a moment of silence because we weren't here. but they're constantly happening. since newtown, there have been 74 shootings in schools. what can congress do to provide the f.b.i. and law enforcement in general tools to produce gun violence in these type of tragic deaths. do you have any recommendations for us? or something that we can get accomplished that law enforcement wouldn't find an important element?

we're applying those resources to train to try to push out clues, indicators, what might indicate someone to go do one of these things. there's a lot 06 different things that we're doing. one of the things i'm told is getting good, mental health records from the states. but i can't sit here and suggest a particular legislative fix at this point. but i agree with you. we lost two great people with families to a brutal execution in las vegas. so i share your pain in that. >> do you agree that there's certain guns that may not be

allowed or are unnecessary that might be used in sport or for mass killings. >> that's something i'm not expert enough to answer. >> in 2010, the supreme court found, on the as you were false a statute unconstitutional. i'm concerned about public trust and public authority in government. do you have any thoughts about how we can or should pass a new honest services statute and/or other? would that be an important tool for you? it's long been an important tool. we're still making these cases unfortunately and fortunately, i guess. the reason it's such a high priority, it's something that we're good at and need to do

everywhere in the country. >> you haven't studied the statute in the supreme court? >> i used to use the stay chut when i was a line prosecutor in virginia and new york. but, beyond that, i don't know enough to comment on particular legislation. >> thank you. >> you're building a new building, having a building built. >> i hope so. >> when do you expect that to be finished? >> they told me five to seven years, i hope it will be. we so badly need it. but it's sometime in my tenure. >> i would hope you're acting in such a way to name that building that reflects the modern f.b.i. and somebody that the american public would have faith