criticized, with some justification for working our inbox. something that came in or call that came in, we responded to it and investigated it, to stepping back and havinglets of thoughtful people say, what are the bad things going on here that might happen, and how do we find out more about them so we can address it before it happens? and that's the intelligence transformation. we have always been -- director of the fbi, i say this with pride, i think we're the best in the world at finding stuff out. what we're getting much better at is being thoughtful about, so what stuff do we need to find out. and who else needs to know this stuff that we found out. and what might we not know? what stuff are we missing and being much more thoughtful about that. that's the -- taking the intelligence talent and connecting it to great talent resident in my special agents. >> well, and the current world war, frankly, the world -- the terrorism violence is a

worldwide event. so we're in a world war. and we're up against a very sophisticated, capable enemy. the recruiting of foreign fighters, into syria and iraq, we have not found a way yet in my opinion to effectively stop or even slow it down. and it is more than a law enforcement, it is more than an fbi mission, but it certainly is an -- and an fbi mission. but just last week, we learned about a 47-year-old air force veteran, who tried to join isis, and before his apprehension, tarod pugh worked for a number of american firms overseas

including a u.s. defense firm in iraq for whom pugh performed of avionics on u.s. aircraft. we had several stories like that that appeared. is there a magic bullet to try to get at that kind of problem? that fbi can do? >> there isn't a magic bullet. it is, to us, it is about a full court press making sure that we are -- that we have sources where we need them to be, that we have the capability, both the know how and technical capability to play in the online space where they're meeting and recruiting and radicalizing and we're closely connected to state and local partners. they're far more likely to hear about a guy leaving a community

and going to syria and we're connected with our intelligence partners and foreign partners who are trip wires for us. what happened with that guy is the egyptians spotted him when he was sent back from turkey, alerted us, then were able to lay hands on him. >> let me switch completely to the prescription drug problem. which has been devastating in my part of the state and the country. particularly oxycontin. but now that we're beginning to make a dent in the pill mills, closing them down in florida, and georgia and other places, and finally getting fda to change the formulation of drugs like oxycontin, to make them nonabused, a lot of the country is shifting to heroin. and the drug cartels in mexico, i'm hearing, are now getting into the pill business because of the enormous profits there. what can you tell us about that? >> i think you've identified something that doesn't get the attention it deserves. we have seen -- dea has the lead here, but we do a lot to support them. i know a fair bit about this.

we see the mexican traffickers increasingly shifting to heroin. white heroin. used to be brown heroin was coming out of mexico. white heroin, highly pure and pushing it into the united states to gain market share and so what is happening is as you said, mr. chairman, it is supplanting pill abuse because it is cheaper, easier to get and it is extraordinarily deadly because the people using it, sounds like an odd thing to say, but don't know how to use heroin. don't realize it is 93, 97% pure so kids and adults and people of all walks of life are dying all over the country. i see it sweeping south and west. i became fbi director, 18 months

ago, heard about it in the northeast, sort of the north central. now i'm hearing about it everywhere i go for economic reasons. it is cheap and the traffickers are pushing it in. so we're spending a lot of time trying to work, again, with dea and local partners to disrupt the traffickers to impose costs on them so we can shorten the supply and drive the price up so we don't have all -- i think there were 6,000 deaths from heroin overdose or more in the united states last year. so we can push those number of tragedies down. >> still, more people are dying from prescription pill abuse than car wrecks. so even though part of the country is switching to heroin, it is still -- the pills are still a big problem. and in a good part of the country. mr. chairman, i've abused my time. >> not at all. >> quickly, and finally, cyberthreats. where are we?

>> cyber is a feature of every threat that the fbi is responsible for. we see -- i describe it as an evil layer cake. at the top level, you have nation state actors who are looking to break into our corporate systems, our government systems to steal all kinds of information for their economic advantage or for intelligence advantage. and then we have organized criminal groups, very sophisticated hackers, looking to steal americans' information for criminal purposes. then we have got all manner of thugs and criminals and pedophiles down below. and the reason is obvious. our lives are there. my kids play on the internet. it is where we bank. it is where health care is. it is where our critical infrastructure is. those who do harm to children or money or credit card information or banks or critical infrastructure, that's where they come. so there isn't a single cyberthreat it is a feature of everything that the fbi is

responsible for. and it is the bad guys have shrunk the world, right, because belarus is next door to birmingham on the internet. so we're working very hard to shrink it back. so i can forward deploy my cyberexperts to make the globe smaller, so we can impose some costs. right now, everybody thinks it is a freebie to steal americans' information. we have to impose costs on these people. even though they're in their pajamas halfway around the world, they're afraid to break into an american's life and steal what matters to us. >> do we have absolute evidence, absolute proof that these attacks, many of these attacks are from states? countrys? >> yes. >> governments? >> yes. >> military? >> military intelligence. >> russia? >> russia is a significant player in cyberintrusions as is china, obviously. two huge operators in that world. >> we have proof that russia and china and other governments are attacking our country's cyberinformation databases. >> yes. >> what are we doing about it?

>> well, a lot of different things. only some of which i can talk about here. one of the things we're trying to do is name it and shame it. we did it last year by indicting five members of the people's liberation army and publicizing them on posters who were stealing information from american companies, stealing our ideas and innovation. and people say indicting them won't do any good, you won't catch them. we have many flaws at the fbi because we're humaned, but we're dogged and never say never. people like to travel, like to have their children educated in the united states or europe, never say never. we're trying to impose costs and part of the cost is the naming, calling it out, the chinese are stealing our innovation, our ideas, our creativity, our jobs. >> in fact, it was this subcommittee, frank wolf, the chairman, many years ago, first brought attention to foreign governments hacking into his files and he sort of led the way. but, boy, it has come a long way and i'm not satisfied at all we're doing what we need to do

to try to stop it. or counteract it. thank you, mr. director. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it is a top priority for us on this subcommittee, keen interest to all of us in the congress, but particular interest to me and work that you've done. i've had a chance to come out here, some of the work in a classified setting, it is very impressive. and to the -- what advice could you, before we move on, very quickly, if you could, tell the american public out there listening just some good basic rules to protect themselves good hygiene practices to -- against cyberattack on their own computers or smartphones. >> folks should exercise the prudence wandering around the electronic neighborhood as they would any other neighborhood. i say people tried to train my children on this. they cross the parking lot at night, they're alert. they lock their care. people should behave the same way on the internet. it is a bigger neighborhood, a bigger parking lot.

and in some ways more dangerous. what i tell folks is very simple. an e-mail is a knock on your front door. opening the attachment so an e-mail is opening your front door. you would never open your front door without looking through your peephole and seeing what's there. all the time, folks get an e-mail and they open the attachment and their whole life can be stolen in that moment. also, know where your children are. you know where your children go to play. at least i do. and folks need to know what are other kids doing on the internet. where are they going? who are they interacting with? it is parenting and common sense we exercise in all aspects of our lives except when we sit at a keyboard which makes no sense

at all because we just made the entire world our neighbors when you sit behind the keyboard. >> and in a hearing in a classified setting with some of your cyberfolks that 80% of protecting yourself against a cyberattack is good hygiene. like washing your hands after a meal or some of the basic things you have just mentioned to us. thank you, director. mr. honda? >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, thank you for coming here today to testify before the subcommittee. as you know, a key toll in combatting crime is the use of combined dna system or codous. codous blends forensic science with computer technology to accurately identify suspects and assist. it is successful prosecution of criminals. last year's budget hearing i brought up the nationwide backlog of untested sexual assault kits, around 500,000. shortly after that hearing, nancy o'malley and your office began discussions about the backlog that occurs prior to upload of codous. and i'm pleased that the fbi laboratory staff met with the da several times regarding the pilot project that made facility to codous upload of dnc profiles linked to suspects of accused sexual assault crimes.

and having said that, i just want to add also my thanks to the past chairman, frank wolf, who really carried us and helped us see it entirely through. fbi fiscal year 2016 budget began discussions about the backlog that occurs prior to upload of codis. and i'm pleased that the fbi laboratory staff met with the da several times regarding the project that may -- and having said that, i just want to add, also, my thanks to the past chairman frank wolf who really carried us and helped us see this entirely through. the fy '15 appropriation bill included $41 million. the first point of the bag log in police evidence rooms. and i'm hopeful that we'll continue to program an fy 16. i'm aware that this is out of your purview but i wanted you to know we're committed to this

issue. i encourage you and your staff to continue to work with them on the pilot project that will focus on another point of the backlog that is the technical review of government labs by private labs. mainly the implementation of rapid dna instruments in the police booking stations. i'm a firm believer in having an arrestee, while he's still in the environment, that will reduce the burden on the government labs. i hope that you'll be able to continue. i raised this issue last year as well. i know that the fbi is supportive of rapid dna technology, but can you tell me what progress has been made to amend the law, protocols and policies to allow the use of rapid dna instruments in police bookings stations and once the relative requirements have been amended, what is your approximate time line for implementing the rapid dna.

>> thank you, mr. honda and thank you for your continued focus on the rape kit backlog. there are rapists out there who will victimize more woman and the key to stopping them sits on a lot of shelves in a police departments. with respect to rapid dna we're big fans of the capability of being in booking rooms, that a sample with be taken when someone is taken into custody and uploaded immediately. the experts have continued to work with the companies -- the private company enterprise making the device to give them guidance on what will be needed to make it able to connect to our database in a way that preserves the sterling reputation of the database. my folks tell me there's all

kind of challenges making sure that we have the right software and hardware. but good progress is being made. they think we're two to three years away of being in a place where this is a common feature. understand it does require legislative authorization. i don't know where that sits in the executive branch, i think being looked at for privacy issues. but that is -- both are ming along at the same time, the technical fix and the legislative fix. that's my understanding today. >> because we have to understand that there's 500,000 kits, 500,000 cases that's being left without the great evidence that dna will provide. so victims and arrest tees are at bay in order to get justice. the quicker we move to implement

this, then we can reduce the backlogs and have people really enjoy the benefits of our technology but also our rapid response to justice. mr. chairman, if i may just indulge with one quick question. i just wanted to thank you very much for adding to the fbi training manual, which will include the guidance to assist law enforcement identify in reporting hate crimes directed at six arabs and hindus. and i think that's going to be able to, you know, produce a great deal of information. i do have a concern, though, about the comment that you had made last month on race and policing. you said that it's ridiculous that i can't tell you how many people were shot by the police last week, last month, last

year. and may be taken out of context. but that is a quote. police departments can on a voluntary basis report incidents to the data that the fbi keeps on justifiable homicide. this however is problematic. according to one justice department statistician quoted, arrested from deaths. both have limitation in regards to coverage and liability that is due to agency issues. can you discuss what the situation is currently with voluntarily reporting and what approaches -- what i meant was i think it was ridiculous that i can tell you how many books were sold on amazon and how many people went to the hospital with the flu last week but we don't have data. every encounter is uninformed in this country and that's a crazy place to be. it's a voluntary system.

it requires the support of local and state law enforcement. and so i'm working with the sheriffs and the chiefs who all agree with me to give us this data. what do you need for us to be able to help you give the data. we're going to be talking to congress more down the road on are there incentives that congress can offer to give us the data. but we're not in a good place now. and it's one of the things i'm trying to do after the speech i gave to try to improve the

records. >> perhaps through our good chairman that we might be able to look at this and see if we could be of assistance to help the fbi to acquire the information because voluntary reporting of police shootings it just doesn't seem to be acceptable especially in today's environment and the kind of things that we know, what's going on or what's not going on in our country right now. >> we'll explore that and also the level of, you know, violence of course police officers encounter every day in their difficult and dangerous work on our behalf. let me recognize the state of mississippi and our newest member, mr. palazzo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i get into questions, i would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the appropriations committee and

members of congress, or conference, for allowing me to serve in the seat our friend and colleague alan nunnelee held. i know everyone who knew him is heartbroken of his passing. although i do not believe his shoes can be filled, i hope to serve the committee with the best interest of the united states in mind just as our good friend alan did for four years. with that said, director comey, i appreciate you being here and appreciate the sacrifices that your people, the magic in your agency as yaw so eloquently said provides for, you know, our security and protection here at home. and i'm sorry for you loss, too, as well as the three fbi agents you mentioned. we too have lost a u.s. marshal in josie wells in the past month and he's from south mississippi. it was in the line of duty and he left a wife and unborn child to carry on his legacy. so we know what y'all sacrifice day in and day out and some of

the best people in the world serve in our law enforcement. i would like to follow up real quick on, you know, chairman rogers mentioned, he brought up china. and china is in from armed services and homeland security, my former committees always piqued my curiosity. they seem to be aggressively building up their military and their space capabilities. and it sounded -- i don't want to put words in your mouth -- that we know china, the government of china is involved in cyberattacks on american -- on the american government and american enterprise. and so knowing that and just indicting five individuals to expose them and shame them, i don't think it really works with china, since they have the consent of their government. so with that, how do we counter the -- what would you recommend to us on how we counter the cyber threats both certainly and externally.

you can focus on china or an unnamed country if you don't quantity to pound on them. i would just like to hear your thoughts. >> i may have misspoken. the three lives that were lost were police officers, one state trooper and two local police officers. it doesn't make any difference. it's still great people lost in the line of duty. the question about what can be done more broadly about them is that even if it was the fbi's lane, we wouldn't discuss it in open forum. we're trying to make sure that our responsibility is to investigate cyber intrusions to the united states to make sure that our government has a full understanding of who's doing what so we can figure out as a country what to do about it. one of the things that we have

been involved in is bring criminal charges against some of those actors as part of a toolbox approach to try to change behavior with the chinese. there are a lot of things that are beyond the fbi that i know has gone on, diplomatic, for example, and as part of a lot of international forums. our government is trying to adopt some norms to get the chinese to go along with them. but it is my function, the fbi's to understand what they're doing, develop the facts and then show our government here's what we see. >> i understand, you know, that the cyber threat is real and i think congress and the american people are recognizing that it's real and it's clear and present danger. i hope we're doing everything that we can as members of congress to provide your agency as well as others with the resources to counter this

threat. because not just illegally downloading music, but it's of huge fear that if they engage in some form of cyber attack that it could cripple our critical infrastructure. the last thing i would want to see the the lights go out and your atm doesn't work, your navigation on your car and phone. i think it would cause a huge amount of panic in our country. you also mentioned something about the siren song of the radical islamist. and these people that you mentioned, we don't really see them. they're not obvious to us to a large extent because they were in their basements consuming this form of poison. can you, i guess lack of a better word, profile what this person would be? is there a certain something about their demographics that make me vulnerable to this poison? i agree, it is a poison and we don't need our young -- we don't need anybody in america

consuming it. >> yeah. in a way i wish i could. that's one of the challenge of this threat, is when we talk about travelers, the people that we know who have gone to syria to hook up with isil range from 18 to 62. they're from any part of the country, any background. they were either raised in islamic faith or are converts who then -- but they may have all different kinds of background, be all different places in the state, consume this and develop the view that this is how they find meaning in the life. the one come on characteristic they have is they are people who are troubled souls seeking meaning in life. there's not a poverty marker, right? some of them have jobs. they just have a misguided sense that they node to participate in the apocalyptic battle. some are losers who have had trouble with petty crimes. but there's not a pattern. we've studied it very closely in

search of the pattern but so far i can't offer you one. >> thank you. >> briefly on the point about china, the back door, a trojan horse can be created into a computer system with a piece of software that you might be able to detect or it can be hard wired into a computer device, a computer chip as a piece of hardware and it's invisible and you can't see it. the problem is so bad with the chinese general and these chinese owned companies in australia, the australian government prohibited recently the purchase of any telecommunications equipment by any governmental entity in australia. let me recognize at this time mr. aderholt and the state of alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to be here today and for this hearing. thank you for mentioning what we do down in alabama. we appreciate the -- huntsville

and also in birmingham. i met with some of the folks from the birmingham facility just recently. and one of the things that we talked about whereby they had mentioned to me was that the new iphone, new iphone 6s have an encryption in it that you can't get into the -- they're encrypted and there's no back door key. and just wanted to know what -- and of course this is different from their predecessors. the other phones they were able to get into. what is the fbi position on apple and google's decision to encrypt these smartphones? >> we have a huge problem where we in law enforcement, when we have court processes, judges issue search warrants, we're unable to execute on those orders. and because the device is locked or the communications are encrypted. and so we're drifting to a place where a whole of of people are

going to look at us with tears in their eyes and say what do you mean you cant? my daughter is missing. what do you mean you can't tell me who she was texting with before she disappeared. maybe that's where we want to go but i think we have to have a conversation in this country about where we're going. i don't want back doors. i want with court process the ability to gather evidence after i've shown probable cause to believe on that device is evidence of a crime, the fourth amendment is clearly in play and i follow it and get authority. we need to discuss if we're going to a place where we can't get access. we're discussing it. these are important in domestic violence cases, child exploitation, car wrecks and i don't know what the answer is. but it's something we have to

talk about. >> so, you know, you mentioned about the mother shows you the phone and say you can't get into it. what programs has it affected and can you just let us know the damage that it's done to the fbi? >> yeah. it's a feature of -- we've encountered it in drug cases. all of our work we've encountered it. i'm not in a position to offer percentage or a number. but sit a feature now, an obstacle in a huge number of our criminal investigations. i've heard tech investigators say privacy should be a virtue. try to examine what that world looks like. pedophiles can't be seen, drug dealers can't be seen. i hear it as you heard from the folks in birmingham, i hear it

all over the country, we're drifting to a place and not talking about it. >> do you need additional resources to work on this? what can we as this committee do or congress do to help you with this? >> i think one of the things that the administration is working on right now is what would a legislative response look like that would allow us again, not in a sneaky way but with court process, to get access to the evidence. it's complicated because it involves communications carriers and device makers. but ultimately it's going to require a legislative fix that if you want to do business in the country, we're about the rule of law, but we don't want to create spaces that are beyond the reach of the law. we're getting to a place where these huge spaces are beyond the reach of court authority, and i think it's going to take a legislative fix. >> it's not a matter of resources, it's really a

legislative fix overall that this needs to be dealt with? >> i think we as a democracy need to figure out what are the trade offs associated with the private cities and how do we reconcile them. it's really hard, but it's not splitting the atom. we do hard stuff and i think it's a conversation we have to have. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the chairman asked a great question. i would like for you to talk to us about that court case that came out of the supreme court recently where the phone was seized as part of a routine police arrest, and the police picked up the phone and looked at it and the guy said, you can't look at it. the talk to us a little bit about that case and what can we do. can't apple see what's on here under a court order? couldn't you get it from apple? >> no. iphone 6 is designed so apple is unable to unlock it. so it becomes the safe-deposit box with no second key. the bank can't get into it.

the judge can't order access to it. so it's very, very -- >> let me add there, if i understand, was apple voluntarily made this decision to fix it so the user is able to lock it and they're not able? >> that's correct. and apple, i'm not trying to pick on the folks at apple or google. they're responding to competitive pressures. people want to have a zone of privacy. and so do i. but to have a zone of privacy that's outside the reach of the law is concerning. but mr. chairman with respect to the court case, the fbi, our practice has been to get search warrants for devices. that makes good sense to me especially given that i don't have a phone with me. all of our lives are there. it's a suitcase carrying your kids' pictures and your documents. there was good sense to me in the supreme court's reasons that this is difference than it used to be, so it should have fourth amendment implications. if i want to look at your phone

without your consent, i will go to the judge, make a showing of probable cause and take a look at it. the challenges are our inability to access it even with a court order. >> if i could follow up with one more question. have you heard of there's a rumor that apple has made an agreement with china about this as a precondition to selling their phones there. >> i don't know anything about that. >> thank you. >> judge carter has dealt with this quite a bit as a district court judge. i recognize the colleague from texas, chairman carter. >> there is a way forward, right? so if life or liberty is in jeopardy and my daughter is missing, i want you to get into the phone. if it's a matter that doesn't involve life or liberty, i'm interested in the right to

privacy and the protection for people's personal papers and so on. we can find our way forward and i think that the director is correct that there may need to be legislative activity that kind of -- because the people that we represent have some interest in privacy. and which is why these companies are trying to produce a product that gives them that privacy. but we also need to protect public safety. if there's a terrorist that has a bomb and you need to track where they have via their cell phone, we want to be able to do it. we have to find the wisdom of solomon, which is good why the judge is up next. >> you're not going to get away from me that way. i'm chairman of homeland security appropriations. i serve on defense subcommittees. we have all of the national defense issues with cyber. and now, sir, cyber is pounding

me from every direction. and every time i hear something, something pops into my head -- because i don't know anything about this stuff. if they can do that to a cell phone, why can't they do that to every computer in the country and nobody can get into it. if that's the case, isn't there a solution to the invaders from around the world that are trying to get in here. and then if that gets, the wall, and even the law can't penetrate it, then aren't we creating an instrument as the perfect tool for lawlessness? this is a very interesting conundrum that's developing in the law. at their own will at microsoft, can put something -- or at apple put something in that computer which is what it is to where nobody but that owner can open it, then why can't they put it in the big giant super computers that nobody but that owner can open it and everything gets

locked away secretly. and that sounds like a solution to this great cyber attack problem we've got. but in turn, it allows those who would do harm to have a great tool to do harm where law enforcement can't reach it. this is a problem that's got to be solved. and if you're following the bill of rights, you have every right to be able to go before a judge, present your probable cause and if he sees that that's right, get a warrant and get into that machine. and i don't think there's a right of privacy issue in the world that prevents you following the law to do that. and so if that's what they've created, they've created a monster that will harm law enforcement, national security and everything else in this country. and this really needs to be addressed. and i wasn't going to talk about that, but that upsets the heck out of me. i don't think that's right. >> judge, if i could ask you about, and director coleman, if

you had a case in front of you where you had evidence that there was evidence in a crime in a safe that was locked and only the owner had the combination to the safe, how would you handle that that? if they bring in an affidavit with probable cause and i find that they've got probable cause, we're going to give them the right to make the search. and if he's made it search proof and even the guy that created the monster can't get in there, that's bad policy. >> there's no safe like that in the world. >> you can crack a safe, right? you get a court order and go crack the safe. >> that's right. but if you can't crack the safe, which is what they've created here, that's a real crisis. >> the analogy seems valid. it's like a safe that's locked up holding evidence of a crime. >> those issues of privacy are protected by that bill of rights. >> yeah. >> i knew we would find wisdom from the judge. >> the question i would ask them

is, the distinction i would ask to the chair to the administrator is this, that, get a court order, the court order would be a court order for hardline. you could get a court order for tapping the line. we can now get a court order to tap into information that's used with a digital phone. accessing information in a digital phone that has what we might want to call our intelligence also, accessing that would be like accessing a person under oath, any information that they may have inside of them. so we may have to look at the kind of legislation that equates our intelligence in trying to access our own privacy. so there would be a sanction if

we lie under oath. and if we have a choice now of opening up our own phone and even the company can't do that, yeah, i would just try to make a distinction -- >> i am yielding my time. let him talk. he's a nice guy. >> thank you. i'm trying to make a distinction between the kinds of laws that we write and author, in one set of technology, when we're looking at artificial intelligence and we're looking at another kind of technology where we can make safe our own information, accessing that is going to have to have another kind of -- another level of thought like we had to do with the accessing and tapping into technology. let safe is still the old

technology. i think -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> if you have access to a phone that the individual who bought it can open up, that you can have certain kinds of force of law that would require them to be able to testify -- >> it's an interesting question. forgive us, judge. >> i just wanted to raise that. >> thank you, judge. >> it really is a really interesting conversation that we started here and i'm glad to get the judge's wisdom on this. >> the other question i wanted to ask you, last time we were here you said one of the things you were concerned about is am i going to be able to get in the workforce the quality of people that i need in this cyber war that we're facing. how are you doing on being able to recruit the intelligent workforce that it takes to go off in the special area of national security and crime? how effective have you been since our last conversation? one of the things you expressed last time you were here and i wanted to give you a chance to say how effective you've been and what can we do to make you more effective? >> thanks, judge.

pretty good. but it's too early for me to give you a high confidence read. i've, crawling out of my hole from sequestration. we've been hiring lots of people. so far so good and they're staying. once you get to do public service, it becomes addictive, even if a lot of other companies are throwing a lot of dough at you. so my cyber attrition rates are very low. folks are getting in and realizing it's fun to do good for living. it's early. we should talk again in a year when i have a full two years of data on my side. >> this is not only the issue you've got, but homeland security is looking at this issue too. one of the question has come up for us to discuss is what are the opportunities to contract with these people who have these firms that all they do is this kind of work and maybe is that something that government can do effectively and safely, protecting government's

interest, subcontract some of the work to the great computer wizards of our world. that's something we need to be thinking about and we're looking at it right now in homeland security, as to whether or not that is a safe and appropriate thing to do, to subcontract. that's something you might think about. i was in a room full of smart people yesterday morning for breakfast and i understood about every fifth word. thank you. >> thank you, judge. >> it's complicated. it's an incredibly complex universe of computer out there. i'll recognize the state of washington, ms. butler. >> i have three pieces here and i'm going to make them as brief as possible. i appreciate your time. i'm going to start with -- i'm going to start on a different track and come back to cyber. why not mix it up. actually this does have a relation.

in your submitted testimony you mentioned the internet facilitated sexual exploitation of children as an evolving threat that your agency is facing. there are thousands of children every year through sites like backpage.com and other internet sites that are sold. backpage and other sites have acknowledged the existence of prostitution and sexual exploitation and of minors on their sites and these sites are a accomplices of basically promoting prostitution and exploitation of minors. i want to know where the fbi -- has the fbi prosecuted any of these companies for knowingly permitting the exploitation of girls and young women on their sites? >> it's a great question and a really important question because you're right. we're seeing an explosion of the abuse of kids through the internet and the sell of kids through the internet. the answer is yes.

we've prosecuted the people behind an outfit i think called redbook that was in california. we locked up the proprior to be of it one of these back-door outfits running it. and we shut down the site. so yes, we have. >> follow up. since the online facilitated sexual exploitation of children is a prioritized threat, help me understand your allocation to that area of investigations and how does the internet against crimes program fund fit into that? >> we have task forces that focus on this -- i'm going to forget the number, but it's more than my number of field offices. we have two in some places. we do this in every field office, we do an operation called operation cross country where we work with state and local partners because it connects to the cyber stuff.

a lot of the ways in which we find the people that are going to exploit kids are through the advertisements where we try to take down in a swoop a bunch of these people, rescue the kids and lock up -- i hate the word pimp because it sounds like a '70s comedy thing. these are slavers. we lock up the slavers. to try and send a powerful message. i don't know the second part. i'll have to get back to you on the second part of your question where the internet crimes against children fits in. >> i'm glad you mentioned that piece on operation cross country because i think the demand side -- you know, a lot of the work we've been trying to do even at a state level is changing the perception. first of all, we've been much more successful here federally. these are victims, young children who have been brought into this slavery, form of slavery, trafficked and exploited. and what we have -- now we're turning our eyes to how do we beat the demand. how are these people prosecuted?

there's nothing more frustrating than knowing a 17 or 16-year-old girl who has been prostituted is the one that faces the criminal penalty and a john walks free. it makes me -- it is infuriating to me. so your focus on the demand side, both these portals that these criminals are using -- and i agree pimp has almost been romanticized in some areas, which is pathetic, but these johns, these slaifrvers, need to be the focus. you said name and shame. that's another area and a place -- i mean some of the people who are buying these children are people that at times are amongst us. switching -- and we're going to continue to focus. so we may continue and follow up with your staff and your team. cyber, this is my last question. premera blue cross in washington state had a real serious

cyberattack last may, but the company did not discover the branch until january of this year. an upon the advice of the fbi and a cybersecurity firm, the company waited until march 17th to provide notification of the attack. about 11 million customers nationwide and about 6 million in washington state, including my constituents may have been compromised. so i guess i want to hear why did the -- why would the fbi recommend they wait to make that information public when we're talking about names, addresses, telephone number, social security numbers and in some cases medical history, banking data, so on and so forth. >> thank you for that. i don't know the facts enough to know if it was january to march. but we do sometimes ask companies to hold off for a little while so we don't alert the bad guys. as soon as it becomes public, whoever is doing it goes to ground. >> i would assume that's a 24-hour or two-day -- from the previous briefings that we've had with the cybersecurity

division, that's not a two-month window. if it is, we're not doing something right. >> the two-month window seems odd to me, but it's more than a 24 hour. it's a search for the ground zero computer to see if we can find the digital dust is from where the bad guys entered. and in a huge company sometimes that takes more than just a 24-hour period. two month i don't really understand. >> i would love a follow-up on that. that greatly concerns me. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you for being here today and sitting here listening to these discussions all over the place. i have an almost 10-year-old and 6-year-old. the thought of one of my children going missing and you not being able to do anything about it because of what we already discussed is terrifying.

but i can say this. thank you for the work that you do for our country, and i appreciate the challenges that you have. i'm new to the subcommittee. so i, too, am not an expert in cybersecurity by any stretch. it's like going to school every day to learn more about what you do and the challenges you face. i was in huntsville, i know you touched on birmingham and i know you mentioned huntsville. when i wasn't here. but it was great to be at the new tdak facility. they're like delivering furniture. it was not completed. there's no bodies there yet and even some of the equipment. but it was fascinating for me to learn about what they're doing. this is the terrorists explosive device analytical center. and i also had the chance to stop by the hazardous devices

school while i was there, which is great as well where they train local law enforcement. so i guess what i wanted to talk to you about, some of the things that they mentioned as a challenge was personnel challenge was personnel recruitment. just nationally it's difficult to find individuals that have the expertise to be able to do this type of analysis on ieds. i wanted to talk about your budget request and where you see any shortfalls in personnel for this new facility. and you know, what -- how we can make this vital center a reality. >> thank you so much for that. i too visited there in the last eight weeks. and they were just -- i could smell the fresh paint. very exciting. because it will make a big difference. it will save lives. that place will literally save lives.

the answer is i think we're doing okay in terms of recruiting and hiring back. we were down many, many, many vacancy slots in the fbi as a result of sequestration. we hired about 2400 people last year. i'm trying to hire 3,000 this year. and then my budget request this year is simply about being able to sustain that. to hire those folks and keep them on the job. i don't think i'm going to have a problem staffing tdak. i'm going to transfer people and i actually went down and met with the staff at quantico and said, wait until you visit huntsville. you'll think i don't want to be sent to huntsville. wait until i try to get you out of huntsville. i don't think we're going to have a problem. i think the committee supported us well enough. it sounds like a corny thing to say. i'm lucky enough that the fbi has justifiably a very strong identity in american life. people want to work for the fbi and they want to do the kind of work we're doing in huntsville. folks are banging down the door. i advertise for special agents

and i get 20,000 applications in two weeks. i think we're going to be okay there. >> and that's great to hear. talking about the hazardous devices school, i forget what they call it, but the staging areas. >> the villages. >> yeah. >> we blow stuff up in the villages. >> they're wanting to expand that. it's an expensive, expensive school to operate because of what they're doing. but and the equipment that they use. so if you could talk about that a little bit. >> there's such a demand for that. again, that is as you said, where we, the fbi train all state and local bomb techs in the united states. there are thousands of bomb technicians in the united states. they're all certified and trained at the hazardous devices school. but to be trained effectively you need to work with buildings that have a real feel to them. that's what the villages are. there is a church, a supermarket, things like that that you can practice in. >> they put the church next to

the liquor store. >> they just showed me the church. they didn't show me the liquor store. >> well they try to say it was like alabama. i wasn't going to accept that. >> thanks to the support of this committee and on the senate side, we've gotten the funding to build additional number of villages. six additional villages and people shouldn't think that's a whole new town. it's a little cluster of buildings. that will enable us to meet the demand. the military as it's downsizing is shrinking its commitment to the hazardous devices school. we're using the support we've gotten from congress to try to make sure that we staff up to make sure that we stay the same. i think we're going to be okay there was the verdict i got when i was there. >> again, thank you for the important work that you do and everybody that's with you on your team. we appreciate your commitment to our country and our safety. thank you. >> thank you.

i wanted if i could to follow up on one of the questions that chairman rogers brought up about foreign fighters. director comey, we have seen estimates as many as 20,000 have traveled from 90 countries to travel and fight to syria, about 150 americans who have traveled to syria and iraq to fight with isis and other terrorists groups. could you talk to the committee -- and this i recognize is an unclassified set -- about your ability to be able to identify and keep track of these folks and the americans that may be traveling over there and what can this subcommittee do to help you deal with the threat? >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a big feature of the work and enormously challenging. the number of 150 is the approximate number of americans who have travelled to syria in connection with the conflict. some have gone for humanitarian reasons, some have gone due to

associate with isil or other groups. so one of our challenges is, even with those we've identified, try to understand so what are they doing there? not everybody who is going there went there to be a terrorist but we treat them all like they are and we cover them like a blanket when they come back until we understand it. our challenge is trying to make sure that with our partners in the intelligence community and our foreign partners, we have the trip wires in place to spot americans who might be going not just toward that area of the world, but heading toward syria. there are thousands of americans every day that fly towards, right, the mediterranean, fly towards turkey for all manner of good reasons. we need the help of our partners to spot those who might be transiting turkey. the turks have been a big help to us there and that relationship has gotten increasingly good.

but then here at home to challenge to come back to state and local law enforcement is i'm not highly confident that 150 is 150 is 175, so i'm only missing 25 or 150 of 300. i just don't know. because again it's so difficult in a wonderful free country like ours to know who might be traveling with bad purpose. that's where it comes into the research we do online to spot them and our relationship with state and local law enforcement. >> we have the benefit of judge carter being here talking to us, how are tsa and homeland security doing? how are they working with you? what recommendations would you make to the chairman that anything homeland needs to be doing. >> i think we're in a goods place with respect to cvp. they're on the joint terrorist task force and the national terrorist task force. we all recognize they have the eyes at the border, outbound and inbound.

we're lashed up with them very closely. one of the lessons of the boston marathon bombing was we need to make sure we're even more effective to working with them. the key partner turns out to be cvp and i don't have a recommendation for improvement on that right now. >> my understanding judge, and direct, is that the united states didn't have the ability to track visas. if they overstay on visa, we're not doing a good job of tracking these guys. once they're in the country, we don't have a -- >> we don't have an exit policy right now. if they overstay a visa, they can know they're overstaying it but they don't know if they've left or not. that's a real problem. >> that's why i was asking the question. >> but that's not really where he's coming from. working together, i think there's a good, good working

relationship between the agencies and the fbi and others. our guys are doing a pretty decent job on the law enforcement side of it. we need an exit policy but it's going to cost them, start counting in billions of dollars when we start doing it and that's one of the problems we've got in this particular environment we're living in right now. >> but you can spot them when they leave the country if you've flagged their visa, you think they might be a problem, they leave the country, homeland security is able to share that information. >> we don't have an exit policy right now. we don't know. >> but if we have an interest with someone, we share that with cvp. >> then we track the individual. we do that every day. but just the average joe that flies over here on a plane for a vacation, if he stays -- >> or overstays. >> we don't know that he didn't leave. he could have left. we don't necessarily know whether he left or didn't leave. >> yeah.

we have -- i know also the patriot act coming up for renewal at the end of may. it will expire. and our constituents, or rightly, all of us have an interest in protecting the privacy of law abiding americans as i know you do well. remembering benjamin franklin's, those who trade a little liberty for a little safety will soon wind up with neither. one of your -- probably lived in your district at some time in the past. that's an important lesson for us to remember. can you talk to us, and also the americans watching today, the protections that the patriot act builds into the privacy of making sure that the privacy of law abiding americans is protected and the thresholds that you've got to cross in order to get a court order or access to people's phone records or their conversations. and that suitcase that we all have with us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> and how important the patriot act is to you. >> i tell a lot of folks when you talk about this in public, americans should be skeptical about government power. can country was built by people

who were. i tell my british friends it's because of you people that we built it the way we built it. you can't trust people in power. i tell folks, look i'm a nice person, i'm an honest person, you should not trust me. >> texans can relate to that. >> yeah. you should want to know how is it design of the founders alive in my life. the patriot act is a great example. if we want to get someone's business records using our authority under section 215 we have to go to a federal judge and get that authority and then make a report to congress about how we're using section 215 and we discuss it in oversight hearings. the executive branch, the judicial branch -- excuse me, the legislative judicial and executive are working together. and then my work on 215 and all of our patriot act authorities are audited by the inspector general. i mean these great. it's burdensome but that's the way it should be. there are judges, there is oversight in every piece of the work that we do. the reason that the patriot act authorities matter so much, especially two that i'll

mention, section 215 is the authority that allows us to go to judges and get authority to get documents or tangible things or records. if that expires and we lose that authority, we will have a gap in our ability to respond to spies and terrorists that i cannot fill with grand jury subpoenas or some other manner of process. that's very worrisome. and the second i mention is roving wire taps. in criminal cases if a drug dealer is swapping phones, as they frequently do, a judge can issues an order that allows us to follow the person so we don't lose him when he switches phone. the patriot act gave us that authority when we're fighting spies and terrorist. i think i people would want us to have the same authority in spy and terrorist cases. so i think those are sensible things. the challenges, it just took me

two minutes to explain it and often people nod and say it's terrible what the patriot act as done. i hope folks don't do that. >> also for people to know that mr. snowden is no hero. can you talk in an open setting why people should not think of that, what he did, of him as a hero? >> i don't want to say too much because i hope mr. snowden will realize that the greatest country in the world has the fullest and freest criminal system no the world and he'll avail himself for the rights and opportunities of being able to defend himself in our criminal justice system if he'll leave russia and come back here. i want him to get a fair trial. i don't want to dump on him too much. those who want to describe someone like that as a hero need to take the corpus of his work and hug the whole thing. >> remember he carried out how many laptops? >> a lot of records. and so you need to look at the entire damage to our ability to track terrorists to track spies,

all of the work -- the whole corpus of work has to be looked at together. >> thank you for the extra time, members. mr. fattah. >> thank you, mr. chairman. your budget is inside of a bill. the bill has got a number on it. but the doj portion thereof, you're seeking $8 billion. we have another part of the budget that's been growing. it's grew from $1 billion to $7 billion. it's the federal prison budget. and it's a big concern because the federal prison system is gobbling up this budget that this committee has discretion over. and there's a sense that the country incarcerates people that don't need to be incarcerated. we incarcerate more people than any other country in the world.

and so we set up a commission that's got two former members leading it, j.c. watts out of oklahoma and alan mollohan out of west virginia. we put some experts on it, including the head of corrections from the state of pennsylvania which i think was a very wise choice. and they are looking at what it is that we might be doing about something that we kind of call justice reinvestment. what can we do to move away with things that are not working, the overemphasis on incarceration. and to move it some other direction. and there are some states that have been at the very forefront actually looking at some very aggressive activities, particularly in terms of the juvenile system. i'd be very interested in your view about who the country, you know -- somebody said here, i can't remember who, people done something we don't like, we

shouldn't people in jail, the people we fear we should put in jail. i would be interested in the lead law enforcement official in the country, what is you view about this problem in the country and what we should do about it? >> it's something i've spent a lot of my life thinking about. and i'm still not sure i'm expert enough to be useful to you. here's my take on it. i think we can always be smarter about how we incarcerate and use the course of aspects of the criminal justice system. i think we can be a whole lot better in preparing people to re-enter society. that's something we as a country have done a very poor job of. i want to make sure that if i'm involved in an effort like that that i'm thoughtful about what connection if any is there between the incarceration rate and the fact that we have low levels of crime. i wouldn't want to do anything where we say 20 years from now we say geez, we really got that wrong because we achieved a

level of reduction that was unprecedented. a lot of people smarter than i should think about that. and the second thing, i want to be data driven. who are the people who are in jail in federal prison and why are they there and what are the risks associated with them. the reason i say that is oftentimes i hear people talk about the low level, nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison. i've never put anyone there by that description. and i can't find a lot of federal prosecutors who say, yeah, i prosecute a low level nonviolent drug offender. there may be a lot of folks like that but i want to make sure that the data is scrubbed. other than that, i'm agnostic. i want to be effective. >> this is almost an equal part to our budget of what your request is now. and at one point it was at $1 billion. and the number of inmates actually has, as the crime rate nationwide, number of inmates has gone down, the crime rate is going down. a lot of that action is at the state level though, not

necessarily where we are. let me move on to a different subject. the committee would be interested in your thoughts as we go through this process and as the recommendations from the group comes back. i'm sure the chairman would be interested in your thoughts. so sandy hook took place a little while ago. but it was a tragedy. and there are, you know, every year not just the loss of police officers, there are literally, i mean, thousands and thousands of americans just being shot and killed. and the access to firearms which the supreme court has said people have a constitutional right to, and that's the law of our land, as a law enforcement official, how do you, you know and ty jones is leaving as the head of one of your sister agencies. what's your thought about what we should be doing or thinking about as a nation, vis-a-vis the question of firearms?

>> another big hard question. probably all aspects of that are beyond my expertise and my authority except for one piece. i've spent a lot of my life as a prosecutor trying to make sure that criminals were deathly afraid of getting caught with a gun. and that if a criminal is caught, obviously committing a crime with a gun or just possessing it, there are severe consequences. i've long believed that most homicides are happenstance homicides. what would otherwise be a fistfight or a rock fight becomes a shootout because the gun is an article of clothing. it's there in the waistband. the felon has it there. the drug dealer has it there. and that if we can make the criminal -- criminals are very good at rational confrontations. fear that as an article of clothing maybe there will be fewer shootings. we did in richmond, virginia an effort to drive into the criminal mind that you should be

afraid -- you should think more about your gun than about your socks and shoes when you get dressed to go out and deal drugs. and i think that's very effective. i am a big supporter, not a big part of the fbi's work, of maniacal enforcement of felony possession, drug dealer possession. crimes like that. but there's no excuse for a criminal to have one. none. >> one last question, mr. chairman. there has been a lot of debate here on the hill about prosecution of people you've locked up as terrorists. in article iii courts. as best i can tell there have been in incidents, no issues. these prosecutions have proceeded during the normal course and justice has been served. is that your sense of this? is there something -- i mean we have this debate, the administration wants to close guantanamo and get out of the business of incarcerating people without a trial, just incarcerating without having any

due process because they think it's a problem for our country internationally. is there any concern you have about the ability of our court systems to handle these cases? >> distinguishing between foreign nationals captured on the battlefield overseas versus an american citizen. >> it is just about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system own my experience? >> i'm not trying to get you in the middle of this. whether or not there should be any concern from our standpoint as a country that our court system is capable of prosecuting -- >> no. none. that doesn't mean that ends the policy conversation. but in my experience our courts are very good at offering people a fair trial and then incapacitating them for the rest of their lives in a safe way. >> thank you. >> expertly done. i'll be sure to recognize mr. palazzo.

[ inaudible ] mr. honda. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your flexibility and the judge's flexibility too. i have a real quick question. in 2016 my area will be hosting the super bowl. and in the past three, four years probably, we've been tracking the super bowl activities in terms of human trafficking. in that light you have the transnational organized crime addressing trafficking of women and children internationally, you also have a discussion around the child sex tourism initiative and addressing child -- instead of saying prostitution, i just said child sex slavery. prostitution has another connotation in my mind.

is there staff that we can collaborate with and speak with to anticipate the 2016? we're already working on cyber systems with our local entities in terms of light rail, high speed rail and those kinds of activities in airports. it would be great if we can work with some of your staff to check and double-check the kinds of things that we're doing and see if there is anything else that we can do to collaborate -- >> i'm sure we can, mr. honda. this is something we have a lot of expertise and practice in. all aspects of the threats around the super bowl but we do -- we can equip you with that. we do a lot of work around super bowl events. in fact i would tell people come to the super bowl for all kinds of good reasons. if you're coming to try an pick up kids or engage in prostitution involving children, we will be there and we'll be looking to lock you up.

so we'll get you what you need on that. >> we like to look at public education, and engaging the other agencies to be aware and train on a visual kind of surveillance. so would be greatly appreciated. thank you, mr. chairman. >> judge carter. >> thank you mr. chairman. let's have a little judge/prosecutor discussion here. i'm not a law professor. this is the kind of thing we have to think about. we're telling our industry okay, the cyberattacks are real they're coming, home depot got attacked, sony got attacked, just heard about blue cross getting attacked. you got to build your fort. part of our plan for cybersecurity is to tell industry protect yourself be prepared, we're helping you, assisting you, be prepared.

now whether this attack is a criminal act or act of war is an interesting debate to have. i'll ask everybody in the cyberfield what is your opinion of when a cyberattack escalates above a criminal activity and becomes an attack of -- an act of war. most people say it is a policy decision. that's a good copout. as a discussion, it is an interesting discussion. there is even more interesting thing because what you have ultimately is almost we're going back to the middle ages. building a bunch of little forts around our industry. some of these forts will be very powerful. i would bet the fort around microsoft is going to be extremely powerful. fort around apple is going to be extremely powerful. not only powerful in defending themselves from an attack outside, but they will actually have the ability to

counterattack. and when they counterattack, they can start an international incident. they can start -- we don't know what -- that's a question we have to ponder because quite honestly, we are as a government promoting them to build that fort. and that fort is nothing more than build your own castle and protect your castle. there are some that will be always -- able to be in the defensive posture. but those are the offensive capability may go offensive. and from a criminal justice system we have to decide has that person gone too far, just like the security guard that protects -- uses his gun in the protection of the bank or so forth. some of it is going to be self-defense. maybe some of it is not. we have to make that -- we have to make that determination. we may have to make that determination in the cyberworld at some time in the future if a private entity protecting its own property decides to

counterattack and cyberattack, which we -- we certainly have the ability to do, at least we presume we do as a government then you to presume some of these big monster tech industries have the abilities to counterattack. how is that going to affect us in the criminal -- the world of criminal justice or have you ever thought about that? >> i thought about it from a private sector where i was before coming back to this great job and on the government side. the answer is we as a country, can't allow it. it is against the law. and in my view as it should remain against the law. it is great to build a fort, but if you start throwing rocks off the parapet or throwing barrels of oil down it can have effects that are very hard to predict and drag us into a place we don't want to be. so it is unlawful for a private entity to hack back and it makes good sense to me. but i also agree that there is a

crying need for a lot of private enterprise, for our government then, to fill that space. and that is a harder policy question. but we can't have each of these castles start throwing stuff out into the square that public space is a place where the government ought to be operating. >> and i'll agree to you. but if you look at the dark ages, that's exactly what happened. the france couldn't control the individual castles. england couldn't control the individual castles all kinds of social turmoil in the middle ages and arguably we could be going to the cybermiddle ages of everybody defending their own because the government is pretty much saying right now, we're taking care of the government, and in some instances taking care of our body politic of commerce. but the individual person with the ownership is going to

protect their own. and i think that on the horizon we have got real issues because the government has got to come in and say how far can this person go to protect their own? if they develop an ability, for instance, i'm not making this up, because i don't know anything about cyber that where the minute you act and it fries everything, every commuter you are attached to all over the world, somebody comes up with that, that's going to be a very large offensive tool that somebody could use. it is a question that the government has got to start thinking about because this say big deal and at some point, that's an act of war. the government has to go to defend the individual's property. if they bombed microsoft or bombed exxonmobil building in dallas, i think we would be -- the flyover airplane dropped a bomb, we would call it an act of war. the question is will we get to the point where it is an act of

war by basically destroying that business? that's a tough question. >> yes, it is. >> and we in the criminal justice system have to think about it. and our professors back in lieu school have to think about it. we have to come up with the solution. >> in the old west, if the marshal doesn't provide safety for the folks living in those communities, in those towns, well, then, they're going to defend themselves to protect their families from the bad guys. so the government has to fill that public space and defend the citizens. >> i think you're probably right. and that's a huge task. thank you. >> and a great question. a good analogy if the government is unable to defend that public space and provide protection, if the marshal can't be there, for the little -- for the little homestead outside of town out in the indian country, how -- to what extent does an individual or business have the right of self-defense, for example, in a cyberworld?

there is no clear answer i guess. >> hard question. >> it is a really interesting question. >> it is a question where i think we're literally creating the castles today no doubt about that. >> sure. and to follow up on the analogy earlier, the conversation about the apple 6, in the case of a safe where you ordered -- you got a court order to go in and get the contents of a safe you have probable cause to believe contains evidence of a crime if the safe is uncrackable, and either the owner cannot or will not open it as a general rule, does the company that built the safe have the ability to open the safe? is there any requirement with a physical safe that they be -- the company that built the safe open it? they have the ability to open it. is there any legal requirement? how does that work judge and director? >> i don't know about a legal requirement. we could -- with a court order, we could almost always get information from the manufacturer or just blow the

door off. >> but the manufacturer could tell you. >> i've got to go. i want to thank you fori what you do and we're very proud of the fbi and all the good work you do. thank you. >> thank you, judge. that's absolutely true. i won't keep you too much longer. but if you can blow the safe or in your experience, the manufacturer always had the ability to open it -- >> yeah. >> -- in some way shape or form. >> i don't know we have seen a circumstance where we used lawful process to compel a manufacturer to give us assistance. i don't know enough. >> drill it or blow it. >> yeah. >> yeah. okay. because that's another problem we're going to have to -- again, protecting people's individual privacy, but recognize and if you have evidence of a crime locked up in that suitcase how in the world do you get at it? let me ask about -- before i wrap up and i'll follow up with other questions for the record the importance of information sharing with the inspector general. it is a question that is ongoing

with every agency under our jurisdiction. inspector generals have a vital role inyqux notifying us of that they do audits and if the -- if the inspector general is denied access to information, they have to notify the committee and we have gotten several notices from the inspector general. we mentioned this before about fbi's failure to comply with the access to information requirement. and i know that the fbi has disagreement on what the law requires. and mr. fattah and i have both written a letter to the attorney general asking the office of legal council to help resolve a matter, to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. could i just -- i would like to ask you, sir what steps are you taking to ensure the inspector general gets the information they need in a timely manner and what if any, conflict of interest may there be in the agency being investigated by the

inspector general being in a position to decide what information the inspector general needs. particularly since the inspector general has, as you did, as a prosecutor, the ability to review things in a confidential manner and in camera so to speak as a judge would, since the inspector general has criminal investigative authority and can maintain the confidentiality of that information. shouldn't the ig be the one? are you able to work with him in a confidential behind closed door manner to decide which information they need? what are you doing to help them get what they need in this case, for example? >> it is an important issue. i love my ig as he knows. the only thing i clearly love more is the rule of law. and so i'm in a situation where the fbi, office of general council, has given us legal advice over several general counsels about what the wiretap act and the grand jury secrecy act provides with respect to our ability to give information to the inspector general. we have to solve that problem,

which should be fairly easy. as you know, office of legal counsel is looking at the question. i think the new deputy attorney general is moving towards resolving this question. i just need someone at a high level in department of justice say it is okay. you don't have to go to a judge before you can turn over wiretap information or grand jury information to the ig. and problem solved. but i have no interest in obstructing the ig. i don't want to -- i don't want to be -- us just willy-nilly turning over stuff that may be protected under the statute and somebody says how do you do that, you're told by the general counsel that the law required this. i need clarity there. and the other thing i'm doing in the meantime is just trying to speed up our business processes so we just do whatever we would -- we think we have to do out of law much more quickly. >> particularly interested in getting it done in a timely fashion. what are you doing to help expedite the process so the inspector general can get the information that they need to do their job? >> i think that is literally a question of building better business processes to quickly review and copy and produce and

search for information. i won't go into all the boring details. i have an internal consultant shop that are geniuses. i put them to work on that saying figure out how to do this faster. it is like making cars. figure out how to do that much more effectively. i think he'll see dramatic improvement there. that won't solve this legal question. but i think i can solve the business process and get the leadership of the department of justice to solve the legal question and it will all be -- won't all be love but in a much better place. >> i also on behalf of the subcommittee, the people of texas and proud to represent want to express our deep gratitude to you and for your service and the men and women of the fbi for all you do to help keep us safe while protecting our privacy and our very precious constitutional rights as law abiding americans. we're your best backup. there is no better backup for law enforcement officer than an american using their own common sense, own good judgment and good hearts.

and, by the way, you mentioned earlier about criminals with guns, i doubt you had a problem with a concealed carry permit holder who is licensed with a background check using good judgment. i'm not aware of any problems with texans that are licensed. could you comment on that as a law enforcement officer? >> i haven't had situations where there has been problems with that. >> conceal carry permit holder. >> no, not that i can remember. >> law enforcement officer's best backup, particularly if he's a texan. thank you very much, sir, for your service to the country and we'll submit any further questions for the record and the hearing is adjourned. thank you.

congress is busy today trying to wrap up legislative work before heading out for a two-week spring recess. the house earlier passed a bipartisan bill known as the doc fix. that changes the medicare payment formula to doctors. members had passed 17 temporary measures before today. the legislation also reauthorizes the children's health insurance program known as chip for two years. yesterday the house approved the 2016 republican budget plan, and

today the senate continues working on its version of the budget plan with votes on more than 60 amendments possible throughout the day and overnight. they'll also work on that doc fix legislation that the house passed. a reminder that you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span, and the senate on c-span2. this sunday on q&a, eric larsson on his new book "dead wake:the last crossing of the lusitania". >> the story gets complicated when the question -- when the question arises as to, you know what ultimately happened to the lusitania, why was the lusitania allowed to enter the iris sea without escort, without the kind of detailed warning that could have been provided to captain william thomas turner but was not. and this has led to some very interesting speculation about

was the ship essentially set up for attack by churchill or someone in the admirality. and it is interesting. i found no smoking memo and i would have found a smoking memo if it existed. that is to say there was nothing from churchill to jackie fisher or someone else saying let's let the lusitania go into the iris sea because we wanted to get something. nothing like that exists. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. the senate judiciary committee held a hearing tuesday on the nomination of sally quillian yates as the next deputy attorney general. during the hearing miss yates was asked about mandatory minimum sentencing. the president's immigration executive order, human sex trafficking, and countering violent extremism. sally yates previously served as the u.s. attorney for the

northern district of georgia. representative john louis and senator johnny isakson of georgia provided electro edd introductory remarks. >> -- and i think we're going to let start with congressman louis. normally we would make opening statements. but because of your time schedule, i think we'll start with you to introduce congressman louis and then go to senator isakson and then to senator purdue and then have our opening statements. so -- >> we're honored you're here, congressman. thank you for joining us. [ inaudible ] >> thank you for your statement on how important the senate is but the constitution -- the constitution -- >> we're upper only in our own minds. >> the constitution recognizes as equal but i was going to

call on you first because you are the senior member here today. and you've been a respected member of the house of representatives. and you know ms. yates and so i have chosen, right or wrong, to start with you. and i hope you'll start. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i'm delighted and forever pleased to be here. i'm honored to be here with my friend from the georgia delegation, senator isakson and senator purdue to introduce the united states attorney for the northern district of georgia, sally yates, who has been nominated to serve as deputy attorney general of the united states.

you might say sally yates' dedication to public service and the law is in her blood. because both her father and grandfather served in a georgia -- on the georgia state court of appeals, her father was one of the great lawyers in the state of georgia, and in our nation. she is principled, tough for the rule of law, but has used her commitment to equal justice to strengthen law enforcement ties with the community. she graduated with honor from the university of georgia and began her career in private practice at duquesne and spalding law firm in atlanta, which is located in the heart of my congressional district. there she tried 15 cases as the sole lead counsel. in one of her first noble -- notable pro bono victories, she recovered property wrongly taken from the first african-american

land owner in barrett county, georgia. in 1989, she began her storied career in the united nations attorney's office. over the next two decades she was known for her aggressive work, fighting violent crime, combat human trafficking, cyber crime and gang activities. it was on her watch, mr. chairman, that the u.s. attorney captured and prosecuted the infamous terrorist who bombed in 1996 olympics in atlanta. five years ago, miss yates was unanimously confirmed as the first woman u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. she took a unique approach to leadership. her first action was to go on a listen tour to hear from the people she would serve.

she made it clear, she made it crystal clear, she made it plain, she made it simple, that her mandate was simple, evenhanded justice has served the highest interests of the people. her leadership was tough. but fair. and in this time the link between law enforcement and the community has become so strained. sally yates made an effort to reach out, and she continued to reach out. under her leadership u.s. attorney office organized a youth justice summit at georgia state university. a straight talk student forum initiative with community and schools in georgia.

a youth advocate advisory council to meet with high school student leaders. and a street law and mock trial program with atlanta john marshall law school. she hosted public discussion with georgia's governor and the chamber of commerce on the barriers facing formerly incarcerated individuals. she worked with the urban league, moore high school of medicine and the state board of pardon and paroles to establish a 12-week program to provide job training counseling and interview advice for parolees returning to the community. in the last year, citizens across the country have let the nation know they believe law enforcement is not fair and reports are now verifying that some of their concerns are valid. long before these problems came to light, sally yates led her office to build community

relationships. and she's still doing it every day. she knew it was important, very important, not only to seek out and prosecute crime whenever she found it, but to create an understanding of higher justice to serve us all. mr. chairman and ranking members i introduce in this committee a true champion of justice. a true champion of what is right. what is fair, and what is just. a leader who is a woman of principle, compassion, and faith. a daughter of atlanta. a citizen of georgia. miss sally yates, who i believe will make an outstanding deputy attorney general of the united states, and i support her nomination. thank you.

>> thank you, congressman lewis. now, senator isakson. >> thank you very much, chairman grassley. and i am pleased to share the dais with john lewis, a georgia hero and his own legend of civil rights in our country. it's a pleasure to be with him. and i'm happy to wish him his 75th birthday which is this saturday night. happy birthday, john. >> thank you very much. >> i hope you have 75 more. >> i hope so, too. >> i hope i do, too. you know i've had the chance in 37 years of elected office to introduce a lot of georgians in a lot of different venues. i've never had one i looked forward to more than today in introducing sally quillian yates as the president's nominee for the deputy attorney general of the united states of america. i have known sally yates, her husband comber for a long long time. he is here with her today as well as her children kelly and quill. they're behind me. i'm sure she'll introduce them more fully. sally is a great hero for the state of georgia. for 25 years she's been in the office of northern georgia, prosecuting criminals on public integrity, all kinds of things like the olympic park bombing.

for five years she's been the chief attorney and proven herself over and over again to be effective, to be fair, to be diligent and to be the kind of person you'd want representing you in the u.s. attorney's office. sally is a graduate of the university of georgia school of journalism, and later a graduate of the university of georgia school of law. she's what we lovingly refer to as a double dog. bulldogs are the mascot of the university of georgia, and she has her two degrees from that school. when she graduated from law school she graduated magna cum laude in her class, one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on anyone. she's been referred to by many as tough and tenacious but to introduce her i thought i would quote from mark twain whose famous quote said when confronted with a difficult decision, always do what's right. you'll surprise a few and you'll astonish the rest. sally yates is going to astonish the united states of america. she is exactly what this country needs in the u.s. attorney's office in washington, d.c. she will be a hero of the american people, a hero of what's right. she'll call them like she sees them and she will be fair and just. she is a lady of impeccable taste, integrity and record and

i am very proud to second her nomination today and defer now to david purdue of the committee for his remarks. >> thank you, senator. thank you, mr. chairman. it's my distinct honor this morning, mr. chairman, to join senator isakson and congressman lewis to welcome sally yates and her family to the judiciary committee this morning. i want to echo their words and my colleagues this morning regarding miss yates' qualifications and her distinguished career in federal service. for years she has prosecuted the most violent criminal organizations in georgia. ms-13. and other notorious gangs. drug cartels, human smuggling, sex traffickers. the department and the people of georgia are fortunate to have benefited from ms. yates' work in the service of justice for so many years. so today i join my colleagues in welcoming her to the judiciary committee, and in congratulating her on the honor of this nomination. it's my privilege this morning, mr. chairman, that as a yellow jacket to welcome this bulldog to this committee.

thank you. >> thank you both senators. and you're free to go if you want to go. otherwise we'd be glad to have you listen to us, as well. ms. yates, i welcome you to the senate judiciary committee. it's been a big day for you and your family. congratulations on your nomination. today we will consider the nomination of sally yates to be deputy attorney general i would start by noting that she's already doing the job. she's been nominated for. she's been serving as acting deputy since the beginning of the year. so she already has some experience with leading the department. and has been exposed to some of the challenges the department faces. before her service, as acting deputy attorney general she served in the u.s. attorney's office for northern district of georgia for over 25 years. including five as the u.s. attorney, so she also has

experience in running an office, and important experience as a prosecutor. too often when nominees appear before our committee they avoid answering questions by claiming that they aren't yet on the job, so they aren't in a position to provide responsive answers. however, because ms. yates has already been on the job for a few months, i assume she'll be able to answer questions about the department for us. i won't repeat all of my concerns with the way the department of justice has been run in the past six years because i outlined those concerns very thoroughly in miss lynch's hearing. but my concerns remain. so i'll be interested in discussing these important matters with ms. yates today. she obviously has a lot of impressive experience as a prosecutor throughout her career. she's been involved in a number of discussions on criminal law issues, one thing that i'm going to discuss with ms. yates about today is the position she's taken regarding mandatory

minimum sentences. for example, in testimony before the sentencing commission she said, quote, mandatory minimum sentences increase deterrence, and cooperation by those involved in the crime. end of quote. she also called mandatory minimums as, quote, essential -- quote, essential law enforcement tools. end of quote. and argued that mandatory minimum sentences have helped reduce crime rates. finally, let me say just as i'm hoping the next attorney general provides an independent voice, and works to depoliticize the department, i have the same hope for the deputy attorney general so i'm looking forward to hearing ms. yates' perspective on the current state of the department as she provides her testimony, and answers to our questions. i'll be listening in that case for changes that she would make to the department, and improvements she'd implement to make it more transparent. the department of justice

remains deeply politicized, and i'm hopeful that the next deputy attorney general will have what it takes to make some changes badly needed. with that, i now turn to our distinguished ranking member for today, senator blumenthal. >> thanks, mr. chairman. and thanks for conducting this hearing in such a bipartisan and gracious way. first of all, i hope at some point we're going to clarify all this stuff about bulldogs and yellow jackets, and, i come from a state where we have a school that has a bulldog as a mascot but i don't think you're from that school. we welcome you anyway and today is a very proud one for me as a former united states attorney, and as a former attorney general of my state and one who like a number of us on this committee has a background in law enforcement, because i think you really epitomize the best of a public interest lawyer, and a

law enforcer, fair, just, honest, as mr. lewis referred to you. and i also think that you have gained the respect of the people who are maybe the most critical judges, the folks who are on the streets, fbi agents, and dea enforcers, and postal inspectors, and secret service who have contacted our committee and who have spoken through others to say how much they have respected your work and admired your tenacity, and your toughness. but also your essential fairness in enforcing the law. and those qualities, as you and i have discussed in our private meeting, will be critically important because the role of a prosecutor is not only to obtain convictions, but to achieve justice. in the words of justice jackson, and i am paraphrasing, not

quoting, the department of justice faces enormous challenges ahead. and new leadership will be important to that direction. but i want to to say how much i appreciate the leadership that we've seen from attorney general holder. i think he deserves gratitude from our nation for his leadership during a very tough time. and i'm hopeful that we will confirm his replacement very shortly. loretta lynch is eminently well qualified and i'm hopeful that we will move quickly to your confirmation, as well. i look forward to supporting you and i want to just say finally my thanks to your family, who are here today. comer, kelly and quinn. i know that your son and daughter may not have always believed that your edicts were to quote congressman lewis

right, fair and just. there were perhaps moments when your directions were questioned by them, but i know that you're proud of them, as they are extremely proud of you, and i want to thank your husband for his public service, as well as yourself. thank you very much for being here. and thanks for answering our questions today. >> before you speak, i would like to swear you, please. do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> okay. you're free now to make any opening statement you want to make, and also to introduce family, friends, and anybody else that's proud of your nomination that you want to introduce to the committee. >> well, thanks very much -- it is an honor to appear before you today. i'm very grateful for this opportunity, and grateful for president obama's nomination. i'd also like to thank senator

isaac son and senator per due and congressman lewis for their kind and generous introductions. i am truly humbled by their confidence in me and am grateful to them for their remarkable lives of service to our state, and to our country. it's particularly meaningful for me to appear today surrounded by my family. my husband comer and daughter kelly and son quill. i'm not only grateful to them for their love and support but i'm also incredibly proud of each one of them. my husband comer, a lawyer by training, followed his heart and now runs a school for children with learning disabilities and children who are deaf and hard of hearing. my daughter kelly is in her first year as a special education teacher in north carolina. and my son quill is a sophomore in college, where he is studying political science and environmental policy. my only regret is that my parents, both of whom have passed away, are not here today. they instilled in me a love of

the law, and a call to public service. i come from a long line of lawyers. lawyers and methodist preachers. even my grandmother was a lawyer. in fact, she was one of the earliest women admitted to the georgia law -- to the georgia bar. but law firms weren't hiring many women to practice law back then, so she served as a legal secretary instead. my father and his father before him were state appellate court judges. and they demonstrated by example that the law is an instrument for ensuring that right is done in the world. my father died shortly before i graduated from law school. i vividly recall him counseling me then to think about the job that i was going to pursue when i graduated from law school. and to make sure that the work that i chose when i graduated was more than just a job or a way to earn a living. rather, he believed that we have

an obligation to use our legal education for the greater good. and he encouraged me to find a path where i could make a real difference in the world. that path took me to the department of justice. i joined the u.s. attorney's office in atlanta in the fall of 1989, and the department of justice has been my home ever since. when i joined the u.s. attorney's office i certainly didn't expect that i would still be with the department of justice 25 years later. but once i experienced the privilege of representing the people of the united states, of getting to do what i believe is right and fair and just in every case, anything else would have been just a job. bob barr, then the u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia, entrusted me with my first position in the department, and that was that of a line prosecutor. i began the way all young prosecutors do. investigating and trying cases, working with agents and witnesses, to ensure that those who violated the law in the northern district of georgia

were held accountable and that our community was made safe. over time, my cases became more complex. and i assume leadership positions within the office. chief of the fraud and public corruption section. and first female u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. i carried with me the values that were instilled by my family. that the law can be an instrument for good but only when it's applied fairly and thoughtfully and objectively. i believe that it's a credit to the institution that i love that i have held leadership positions in both democratic and republican administrations, and that i've witnessed career men and women of the department consistently following the facts and the law with great distinction, and without regard to politics. over the years i've seen the department from a variety of vantage points. i personally prosecuted public corruption, regardless of party, and led our team to holding accountable the olympic bomber eric rudolph.

as a supervisor i've ensured that our office had the expert resources and focus to go after the worst of the worst. whether they were international gangs, human trafficking rings, or cyber criminals. and as a united states attorney i was vice chair of the attorney general's advisory committee where i gained additional insight about the challenges that each u.s. attorney's office faces across the country. challenges that i expect that you all hear about from your constituents every day. when the president nominated me, a career prosecutor, to serve as the deputy attorney general of the united states, it was the greatest honor that i could imagine. i'm proud to say that in the brief period during which i've served as acting deputy attorney general, i've seen on a national scale the same skill and care and dedication in our attorneys that i knew back in the northern district of georgia. in taking on the day-to-day operations of the department, its $27 billion budget, and

114,000 employees, i also understand that we face critical national security and criminal justice challenges. i believe that we can work together to face these challenges. and in my role as the chief operating officer of the department, i'll be committed to ensuring that the resources that congress provides to the department of justice are used as effectively as possible to protect the public that we all serve. i know that several of you have served previously in the department and share my love of this great institution. as you all know, the department of justice is unique among cabinet agencies. it is and must be independent and nonpartisan. we don't represent an ordinary client. and as the representatives of the people we must always be governed by doing what is just. this has been my life's work. and if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, i can promise you that i will spend each and every

moment guided solely by the department's singular mission to seek justice. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> do you want to introduce family and friends? >> yes, certainly. this is my husband comer yates. my son quill yates. and my daughter kelly yates. >> and any friends and family you have here you want their name in the record we'd be glad to include it if you give us that information. >> thank you, senator. >> we'll have seven minute round questions. first round, second round will be five minutes. i will start. in the last year i have asked the attorney general four times to disclose the office of legal counsel's opinions regarding the lawfulness of the president's various controversial executive actions. in response to my first letter the department refused to

provide all olc opinions, but said if i had any concerns about a particular executive action, i could follow up. less than two weeks the president then released five senior taliban commanders. those so-called taliban five, without notifying congress, as he was required to do by statute. so i took the department up on its suggestion and asked for the legal advice doj provided before the decision was made to release the taliban five. six months later, the department responded to me and instead of providing olc advice, it provided a document that the department of defense gave the government accountability office in an after-the-fact effort to defend its actions. of course we all remember the government accountability office had concluded that the administration had acted unlawfully when it released the taliban five.

now, that document isn't good enough. it's especially disappointing considering that the attorney general sat before this committee last year and assured me he would look for ways to get this information to congress. so my question on this subject, would you provide this committee with the opinion of the office of legal counsel that had authored on this matter, and whether, in memorandum or less than formal format the information before the senior taliban commanders were released without congressional notification as the law requires? >> thank you, senator, for the question. and your question touches on a critically important issue. and that is the issue of transparency. it certainly is important that the people of the united states, and this body, and that congress, understand the basis for actions by various departments of the united states government.

and we're committed to getting you the information that you need to understand the basis for those actions. i think traditionally the actual olc, office of legal counsel, opinions themselves have traditionally not been disclosed. and that's for good reason. we want to encourage the agencies and the executive branch to come to the department of justice, and to seek counsel, and for there to be a full and frank exchange of information and ideas. and just like a standard attorney/client relationship, don't want to have a chilling effect on that. and so while we are absolutely committed to getting you the information about the underlying rationale, i think we generally follow the position that has been followed throughout the department of justice, and many administrations, to decline to provide the actual olc opinions themselves. >> then i assume that you would not give me the opinion as i requested? >> i'd certainly be happy to work with you and your staff about making sure that you have the information that you need.

and that you would like. >> but not the opinion. >> i'd be happy to talk with you about the underlying rationale. >> i won't get the opinion? >> i don't at this point believe that there's a reason to revisit the decision about the opinion itself, senator. >> in other words the decision has been made that congress can't have the opinion, and so we won't get the opinion, is that what you just said? >> i don't have any present intention to revisit that decision now. but would be delighted to work with you and your staff to try to get you all the information about the underlying rationale behind that. >> then let me follow up with this statement. because the administration has released other olc opinions. so i don't accept the idea that the administration can pick and choose which of these opinions it might release and which it won't based on perceived political interests. the department of justice explained the legal reasoning that it used to justify executive amnesty.

we've seen that that's very flimsy argument. it seems to me the department owes the american people an explanation as to why it advised that the president could reach the taliban five without notifying congress as the law requires. so i intend to follow up and ask you about this in my written questions, and citing some sort of vague privilege is not -- is not good enough for me. but, you and i had discussions of how important oversight is for me. and so, just so you know, it doesn't -- it isn't reasonable that some olc opinions can be released, and others can't. and you can't -- you don't want to revisit that. now i want to go to another point, because i just have two minutes left, this will probably be the last question i can ask you at this point. your testimony before the sentencing commission in 2010 stated that as a result, in

part, of mandatory minimum sentences, and abolition of parole, crime rates were dramatically reduced. you related that the experience of law enforcement is that, quote there are tangible benefits to law enforcement and public safety from mandatory minimum sentences, sentencing laws, mandatory minimum sentences increase deterrence, and cooperation by those involved in crime, end of quote. you called mandatory minimums then a quote/unquote central law enforcement tool. additionally you stated that judges were exhibiting quote, undue leniency for some white collared offenses, and some child exploitation offenses. end of quote. and you recommended that it might be appropriate to create some new mandatory minimum sentences. but at some later time you gave a speech saying we, quote, we

can't jail everybody, end of quote. that prison spending was reducing other doj spending and that we can't afford to have so many people in prison. so question, you served as federal prosecutor for over 25 years. do you stand by your 2010 testimony that mandatory minimum sentences are, quote, an essential law enforcement tool, end of quote, and that they quote, increase deterrence and cooperation by those involved in crime, end of quote? >> senator, i believe that mandatory minimum sentences are an important tool for prosecutors. but i also think that we have an obligation to use that tool as effectively and as efficiently as possible. i'm a career prosecutor, as i've made clear this morning. and i certainly wouldn't support anything that i believe would undermine public safety. but i also know that we have a serious fiscal reality that we are facing now. and that is that our prison population is exploding. and as a result of that,