previews the possible contempt of congress vote tomorrow. is among the pence speakers at the event hosted by the state department. christopher ray testified. he said he was unaware of any engaged ine f vi unauthorized surveillance. the 1.5 hearing -- our hearing hour hearing included hillary clinton's use of a unauthorized email server.

>> our subcommittee hearing on commerce justice science and related agencies will come to order. we welcome the director of the fbi christopher a. wray. andk you for your presence, mr. shaheen and i will forgo our opening statements in order to enhance the chances that we can get questions of all of our members answered and we also have a closed session that follows this public hearing. director, you and i had a conversation with senator shaheen about blue mass. it is the reason for your need to depart and i would take this moment on behalf of the senate and my colleagues today to express our condolences and

gratitude for those who serve our country in all forms of law enforcement and we appreciate your service, as well. unless senator shaheen wants to say anything, we will go directly to your opening statement and please proceed. , ranking: thank you member and members of the subcommittee carried i am honored to be here representing the men and women of the fbi, our people, nearly 37,000 of them are the heart of the bureau and every day, i see them tackling their jobs with perseverance, professionalism, and with integrity and have had 56 opportunity to visit all of our fbi field offices over the past year and half and not just meeting with our folks but also meeting with state and local law enforcement partners for every state represented on this subcommittee. people in your communities, and to hear about the issues that

matter most to them and i am thankful for their support and work together to keep 325 million americans safe and make our communities stronger. i want to thank this subcommittee for the funding you have provided in the -- in the past. without your support, we couldn't do all the work that we do. we face unprecedented threats from homegrown violent extremists to domestic terrorists, foreign terrorist organizations, hostile foreign criminals,e, cyber violent gangs, white collar criminals, child predators and the list goes on and on. all of these threats are ever changing. we've got to be even more agile and predictive and help our law enforcement partners in your districts across the country and around the world. we can't do any of that without your support. there are lots of areas where we

need help. there are four areas in particular. where i'm particularly interested in working with this subcommittee to ensure we have sufficient resources. first, cyber and analytics. second, transactional organized crime. third, counterintelligence and fourth technology investments. given the extensive threats we face, the expectations for the fbi have never been higher. the men and women of the fbi in my experience continue to meet and exceed those expectations him and exceed those expectations every day. so thank you for this opportunity to discuss their is work. >> thank you very much. let me begin with follow-up on the hearing we had last week with attorney general barr. a few weeks ago in that budget hearing, he indicated that he believes spying on the trump campaign did occur in the 2016 election.

and the question was whether that spying was legal. the attorney general stated he intended to look into the legality of these actions, and i believe that's of value. have you initiated any internal reviews in the 2016 election. dir. wray: there are a couple things going on. first, the ongoing inspector general's investigation that's being conducted by the independent office of inspector general. and our folks are assisting them with their efforts. and then second, as you alluded to, now that the special counsel investigation is completed and having only recently returned to the department, the attorney general is seeking to understand better the circumstances at the department and the fbi relating to how this investigation started, and we're working to help him get that understanding. i think that's part of his job

and part of my mine. sen. moran: the mueller report, as you indicated, has been released. could you elaborate on it and it did find that the russians did interfere with the 2016 election. could you please elaborate on the fbi's role in election security and actions taken by the bureau during the 2016 election to mitigate foreign interference? dir. wray: as to the 2016 election, i think i'll let the special counsel's report speak for itself. it's 450 pages long, represents a lot of hard work by a large team of professionals over almost two years. but one of the things that i set in motion after almost immediately starting in this role was to create a foreign task force. a measure of not just how much seriously i take and we take the foreign malign influence threat but also i think a recognition

of the need for better coordination. this is a multidisciplinary problem requiring a multidisciplinary solution. the foreign influence task force brings together our cyber resource rs, counterintelligence resources, criminal resources, and counterterrorism resources. there is a little bit of a domestic terrorist wrinkle to some of this. and acts as sort of the hub with the spokes going out to our field offices and coordinating with department of homeland security, odni, nsa and in particular working much more closely with state and local election officials along with department of homeland security and the tech sector in silicon valley. on the foreign influence threat in particular, i think it's very important for americans to understand that this is a threat that is not just a government threat. we need to have the partnership with the social media companies in particular and we've had

really significant progress in that regard going into the midterms and there are a lot of successes in the 2018 midterms through that kind of team effort. sen. moran: is the election interference broader than just -- when we talk about foreign interference in elections, is it broader than just russia? dir. wray: there's different kinds of malign foreign influence. certainly other countries are engaged in other foreign malign influence. the specific form of it divisiveness and discord through the bullhorn that social media provides, you know, the trolls, bots, et cetera, that is something that's really fairly unique to the russians. but certainly, we know that other countries have been eyeing those efforts and entertaining whether or not to take a page out of that book. sen. moran: director, when you appeared before this subcommittee last year, i asked you about issues related to the

nassar investigation, dr. nassar and the olympics last year. you indicated an answer was difficult to give because of an oig investigation. since that time, the fbi has conducted an internal investigation that led to that review by the inspector general. we await that conclusion. i guess at this point, unless you're willing to share more information than you were a year ago in this regard, which i would welcome hearing from you, beyond that, i would ask you to assure me that the fbi will prioritize and take the oig's results and recommendations seriously. dir. wray: certainly, mr. chairman. first, i should say that a heart breaks and aches for that particular matter. as you said, there's an inspector general, independent inspector general investigation going on into the handling of that matter. i expect to take very seriously the recommendations that we get out of the office of the inspector general. that's very much still an

ongoing review. thank you, sir. senator shaheen. sen. shaheen: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much director wray for being here this morning. i'd like to follow-up on senator moran's question about the hearing with attorney general bar. i was very concerned by his use of the word spying, which i think is a loaded word. it conjures a criminal connotation. i want to ask you -- i'd appreciate a yes or no answer if possible. when fbi agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe they're engaging in spying when they're following fbi investigative policies and procedures? dir. wray: that's not the term i would use. sen. shaheen: thank you, so i would say that's a no to that will question. dir. wray: well, i mean, look, there are a lot of people who have different colloquial phrases.

i believe the fbi is engaged in investigative activity. part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes. the key is making sure it's done by the book, consistent with our lawful authorities. that's a key question. different people use different colloquial phrases. sen. shaheen: as part of the investigative process, do fbi agents secure warrants for relevant evidence? dir. wray: i'm sorry, could you repeat the question? sen. shaheen: as part of an investigative process, like the investigative process into the 2016 presidential campaign, do fbi agents secure warrants for relevant evidence? dir. wray: certainly securing warrants is a very important step that we take every day in the fbi in lots and lots of investigations. sen. shaheen: i would take that as a yes. did fbi agents get warrants for information as part of their counter surveillance investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election?

dir. wray: well, i want to be a little bit careful about what i can discuss here, but i think it's been publicly disclosed that there were a number of relevant mortgage secured. sen. shaheen: thank you. do you believe, director wray, that they spied into the 2016 presidential election -- dir. wray: again, i want to be careful how i answer that question here. there's an ongoing inspector general investigation. i have my own thoughts based on the limited information i've seen so far. i don't think it would be right or appropriate for me to share those at this stage. i do think it's important for everybody to respect the independent inspector general's investigation which i think this question start -- line of questioning starts to implicate. i think it's very important for everybody to have full confidence in his review. sen. shaheen: at this time, do you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the

campaigns or individuals associated with the campaigns by the fbi occurred? dir. wray: i don't think i personally have any evidence of that sort. sen. shaheen: thank you. now, again, the attorney general stated that he was assembling a team to look into the situation of illegal surveillance into the trump presidential campaign and stated that he expected to work closely with you on this. has the attorney general asked you to look into or review the actions undertaken by the fbi regarding the counterintelligence dir. wray: -- counterintelligence investigation? show less text dir. wray: well, as i said, he's trying to get a better understanding of the circumstances at the department and the fbi surrounding the

initiation of this particular investigation. we are trying to work together to get him the understanding he needs on that subject and i think that is appropriate. sen. shaheen: as you pointed out, the evidence in the mueller report is very clear that the russians ber interfered in our 2016 election. there have been a variety of news reports suggesting they plan to do that again. we had testimony in the armed services committee about their interest in interfering in the 2020 election. can you talk about what the fbi is doing to coordinate with other branches within government a response to ensure that does not happen in the 2020 election? appreciate the question. i agree with you this is a particularly important issue. one of these people out here would benefit from understanding this is not just an election cycle threat.

the maligned foreign interest threat, which is different from some effort to interfere with election infrastructure is something that continues pretty much 365 days a year and we have seen it continue since 2016. we expect it to continue going into 2020. the foreign influence task force i set up -- set up at the f yarn works with a similar vehicle at homelandtment of security and similar structures at the office of the director of national intelligence and nsa. those four agencies in particular are kind of the key ones, kind of at the center of this but then, we work closely on thelicon valley foreign influence side and dhs works with state and local election officials on some of the election infrastructure ofce, so there is a lot activity, better coordination than what i found when i first walked in the door. mistake, the threat keeps escalating and we are

going to have to keep upping our game. i am out of time but can you tell me who was in charge of that effort. is there one person who has been designated to coordinate all those efforts? i think each of us has our piece of it. we cordon eight much as we do on counterterrorism or any other national security threats. sen. shaheen: does that mean there is not currently one person designated as the leader of that effort? sen. shaheen: well, the fbi has -- dir. wray: well, the fbi has the lead on foreign influence, the department of homeland security takes the lead on election infrastructure hardening and so forth. the office of the director of national intelligence takes the lead in terms of information intelligence analysis. but like i said, in my experience, not unlike other threats facing this country, we all work together and each of us has our piece of the pie, which is the way it should be i think. sen. shaheen: thank you.

sen. moran: senator collins. thank you, mr.: chairman. director wray, i want to follow-up on the point that was just made by my two colleagues. here are the facts as i see them. we know that the russians were relentless in their efforts to influence the 2016 campaign and to further divide and polarize our society. we know that this effort did not end with the 2016 campaign. it both preceded it and continues to this very day. third, we know that it's not just the russians, that other foreign states and other malicious actors are targeting our democratic society. there are 17 intelligence agencies and each of them seems to have a piece of this.

you talked about that just now. it concerns me that there is not one agency that is in charge of the overall strategy. should that be the fbi? dir. wray: well, senator collins let me say i agree with your framing of a predicament we face in terms of the threat itself. in terms of coordination, i think the fbi has a lead role to play in aspects of that. i think the nsc plays a -- i have not found a significant impediment to our coordination with our homeland security, nsa in particular and odni. i have found that to be similar to the way we deal with counter terrorism and a number of other national security threats. at the moment that hasn't struck me as one of the biggest barriers we face. i think the bigger issues are making sure that we continue to lean in and are working on the

-- with silicon valley and the tech sector on the foreign influence side and with the state and local election officials. that part of it is where we need to keep upping our game as we anticipate 2020, the threat being even more challenging than it has been. sen. collins: so let me ask you what key lessons has the fbi learned to date that we should be implementing right now? dir. wray: well, certainly -- i'll speak to the foreign influence piece in particular. i think that there is enormous value to be had in our cooperation with the tech sector and social media. malign foreign influence is not unique to this moment in time. particularto this

foreign adversary, but what is unique is the incredible amplification that our adversaries get through social media. so one of the things that changed dramatically from 16 to 18 was our ordinary nation with -- coordination with social media in terms of blunting and mitigating that effect. what we saw in 2018, which we will need to do more in 2020 in terms of lessons, is when we supply leads and information to the social media companies, there's all kinds of ways they can leverage their own tools and kick some of these accounts off of their platforms very quickly in a way that would be hard for any agency of government to do. there were a lot of success stories in that regard in 2018. in return, what we were able to learn is they were then able to provide us lead information about accounts that we might not have known about or techniques we might not have seen. so you start creating this sort of virtuous cycle.

now having figured that out with midterms, we need to see even more of that for 2020. sen. collins: that cooperation is essential with the private sector. last, let me turn to a different issue very quickly. last week in maine, the fbi and maine law enforcement charged 25 individuals with drug trafficking crimes, and particularly alarming to me is the quantity of fentanyl that was discovered. one man was found to have more than 265 grams of fentanyl. a fraction of that amount, just 3 milligrams, is sufficient to kill someone. how is the fbi targeting resources specifically toward fentanyl crimes? show less text --

fentanyl crimes? show less text -- that no crimes? dir. wray: i think you've put your finger on what i think we would all agree is a deadly epidemic plaguing communities all over the country. it has grown to a point where it's a multidisciplinary problem. the fbi's role is trying to focus on where do we uniquely add value. there's a number of things we're doing. first, we have a prescription drug initiative that's geared toward medical professionals -- pharmacists, pill mills, doctors et cetera, who are overprescribing which is a big part of the spinning up of this problem. and we tap into our health care fraud expertise and resources there. safe streetsve task force is all over the country which focus on dismantling the games that distribute opioids and fentanyl related substances all over the country. third, we have something called code, which features

prominently in our budget request, which is focused on the dark net because a lot of the opioid trafficking happens on the dark net more and more so. and we've had a number of successful operations. we just had a couple in the last few months that really are aimed at detecting, disrupting and dismantling both the enterprises that are dependent on the dark net to traffic in opioids and fentanyl and break down their supply chains. fourth, through our transnational organized crime program, we focus on the transnational supply into the u.s. we did a documentary with dea called "chasing the dragon," which we've pushed out to schools all over the country to try to raise awareness that way. there's a lot of different things we're trying to do. but make no mistake, this is a problem that's mushroomed to a degree where it's going to require all hands on deck. sen. collins: thank you.

sen. moran: are recognize the vice-chairman of the full committee, senator leahy. sen. leahy: thank you. good to see you again. it's interesting listening to the evolution of the fbi. as a young prosecutor i was on the executive board of the national d.a.'s association having a meeting with j. edgar hoover. he told us there was no such thing as organized crime, our biggest problems were hippies and communists and the "new york times" was close to being a communist paper and he was preparing to investigate it as such. it was an interesting conversation for many reasons. he passed away shortly thereafter. now, one of my concerns on last

week's hearing with the attorney general is a reluctance on the part of the administration starting at the top to acknowledge what russia did was wrong and american campaign knowingly benefitting from or encouraging a foreign adderer -- adversary's attack on our elections is quite wrong, i think we all agree. friday the president had a long conversation with russian president putin. he didn't even bring up future election interference. he refers to the last investigation as treasonous, claims the fbi was leading a coup. i suspect that you probably have a different view of this. i think those who are going to enforce our laws have to be crystal clear about the threats. i'm going to ask you this. if a foreign government officer

offers a campaign information , what would you do if you discovered that? dir. wray: as i think i said even back to my confirmation hearing -- sen. leahy: that's why i asked the question. dir. wray: when senator graham asked me a similar question then, i think my view is if any public official or member of any campaign is contacted by any nation state or anybody acting on behalf of a nation state about influencing our -- or interfering with our election, that's something the fbi would want to know about. sen. leahy: if they did not make such things available to the fbi and you found out about it later, would that trouble you? dir. wray: as i said, we'd like to make sure people tell us information promptly so we can take appropriate steps to protect the american people. sen. leahy: the president said he would like to use the justice

department as a political weapon targeting his opponent. i know the attorney general's been asked about this. has the white house ever communicated to you, directly or indirectly, any desire or interest in having the fbi initiate an investigation of anyone? dir. wray: not that i can think of. certainly there's all kind of public commentary but we base our investigations on the facts, the evidence, and proper predication, and that's been my practice since the day i walked in the door. sen. leahy: i ask the question only because i like to think it's a different fbi than the first time i sat down with an fbi director, with j. edgar hoover and heard his discussions of obviously being interested in political investigations.

is it your position you would not be willing to have the fbi initiate the investigation if done for political purpose not for a criminal purpose? dir. wray: my strong view and my commitment is to making sure that the fbi under my leadership does things by the book and that includes making sure we base our investigations on proper predication, the facts, the evidence, and adherence to the rule of law and nothing else. sen. leahy: thank you. the hate crimes statistics act requires hate crimes to be reported to the fbi but we find that in 2017, 16,000 law enforcement agencies in the country, 14,000 did not report hate crimes to you. the crime victimization survey estimates more than a quarter of a million hate crimes but you

were able only to report 7,185 based on what was reported to you. are you concerned that these hate crimes are not being reported to you? and if you are concerned about it, how do we improve them? dir. wray: so it is a good question. i do think that historically hate crimes have gone underreported. i think that is probably still true to a certain extent. i do think it's getting better so some of the uptick in numbers reported may reflect on closing the gap between what's happening and what's being reported. we have done a number of things to try to raise awareness out with state and local law enforcement, with community groups and so forth to try to increase the likelihood that hate crimes will be reported. i'm a big believer in the idea that everybody benefits, law

enforcement, the community, et cetera when discussions about these things are based on facts and real data as opposed to relying on media commentary which i have found to be much less reliable. sen. leahy: on a personal matter, mr. chairman, i have to applaud the video you put out talking about the shutdown when you talked to the men and women of the fbi, the shutdown mind bogglely short sited and unfair. senator shelby and i and our two counterparts in the house met in my office to broker a deal -- , you hadhe shutdown most republicans and democrats applauding. thank you. sen. moran: in order for us to have plenty of time for the executive session, now that senator leahy and senator shaheen have completed their question, i'm going to try to hold everybody to their five

minutes better than i have so far to date. senator bozeman. chairman and mr. thank you, director for being here. as you know, we in arkansas as well as every other state in the union -- our communities are struggling with violent crime and the substance abuse epidemic that we have going on. in your testimony you mentioned state, local, tribal law enforcement partnership is crucial to the fbi to better understand a community and their needs. can you elaborate on the partnerships and task forces created within these communities? how does the bureau work across jurisdictions and communities to do this very important work in fighting against these things? dir. wray: i think you have rightly identified a really significant problem facing this country. i've had the country to visit

the little rock field office and meet with state and local law enforcement there to talk about this very issue and there's some very good work being done on the violent crime problem in the little rock area. i think the keys to the violent crime problem from my perspective are, number one, partnership and, number two, intelligence. by that, meaning intelligence driving prioritization. one of the things we have found is that in almost every community around the country and it's true in little rock, but it's true in every community in this nation is that there's almost always some tale oril or tails that are wagging the dog, meaning some particular gang that's disproportionately accounting for the homicide rate or some particular neighborhood

or some particular corridor on the key highways. it varies from community to community. using good intelligence to prioritize and be disciplined about where we're going to maximize our impact and staking the partnership with state and local law enforcement to not just getting two plus two to make four but making two plus two to get five or six. by finding synergies, and that's what happening in the little rock area and in a number of communities represented on this subcommittee and that's where you start to see very promising reductions in the violent crime rate, the assault rate, the homicide rate, sometimes in a very short period of time. that translates to kids who can go out in the front yard and play after dark and people who can walk home and people who don't have to be afraid in their own neighborhoods. that's the impact we're after. sen. boozman: one of the things that seems to be at play right now in a very, very significant way is the mail. our postal inspectors do a great

job. they don't have a lot of resources. is that something that we do have coordination with people like you and the rest of the agencies? dir. wray: i'm sorry, coordination between us and -- sen. boozman: and the postal inspectors. so much of this is mail. as i visit with my county sheriff send others -- really everyplace, but it seems like that's an area that not because our postal inspectors are not doing a good job, they just haven't had a lot of resources. our record making to somehow try to bring that under control? dir. wray: we are. we've actually -- and i go back to my earliest days as a baby prosecutor working with postal inspection agents. they are an incredibly great partner. i would just give one good example. the cesar sayoc investigation

from back in the fall, the sort of package ied cases that got so much attention around the country, we worked incredibly closely with postal there to help each other to get that two plus two to get five or six effect. there was a lot of great work done there not just by the fbi's folks but by postal. sen. boozman: your budget is fairly modest. how can we help you? dir. wray: well, there are a number of places where we really need significant help. i mentioned a few in my opening statement. on the cyber side, i would say that the threat has grown exponentially in terms of actors, methods, targets. we need personnel and tools there in a big, big way. just to give you some frame of reference in terms of the data context, the entire library of congress has about 7 pedabytes of data.

las vegas shooting -- which everyone on this subcommittee is familiar with -- just that one investigation generated 1 pedibyte byte of data. one out of the thousands of investigations we do. you are need of cyber tools and analytic tools. we are facing foreign investment, foreign influence -- china, north korea, iran. i could go on and on there. we have resources we're asking for there. we really need help. transnational organized crime is something that's diversifying every time we turn around, affects americans every day. codentioned the j initiative in response to collins' question. i mentioned the dark net. so we need help there. and then modernizing our i.t. it's not glamorous, but in today's world technology is at the heart of every threat we're all concerned about and we need to be able to stay ahead of it, because if we start falling behind, people are less safe.

>> senator reid? you.reid: thank the special counsel report on the the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election concluded russia would benefit from a trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. the report detailed two primary information warfare operations. a russian entity that carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate donald trump and disparaged presidential candidate hillary clinton. director, based on your intelligence at the moment, do you conclude that the russians still have the same goal and intention to support president trump in next year's election as the special counsel's report indicated? and i think that requires a yes or no. dir. wray: i don't know that i think we have the answer to that at the moment. i think i would say the special counsel's report speaks for itself in terms of what it found and we continue to assess that the russians are intent on

sowing decisiveness and discord in this country. hitting us against each other and that part, i think we see alive and well. sen. reed: but you have no further indication of a preference for a candidate at this point? dir. wray: i don't think there's anything that i could share at this particular point in time. sen. reed: would you commit to making public at a point that you have sufficient information and intelligence that there is a preference by the russians that is guiding their information operations? i think that would be critical to the american public. dir. wray: well, certainly, we want to make sure that both the congress and the american public get the information they need to have. anytime you start raising hypotheticals involving counter intelligence efforts, i want to be really careful about what i commit to give in my commitment to protecting sources and methods and to protecting ongoing investigations and

relationships with sources. sen. reed: i this there's been a lot of criticism recently that president obama didn't do enough to alert the american public that there was a concerted effort directed at supporting president trump as was established very clearly in the mueller report. also, when it was -- again, the intelligence communities, their report in january 2017, "when it appears to moscow that secretary clinton was likely to win the presidency, the russian influence campaign focused more on undercutting secretary clinton's legitimacy including by impugning the fairness of the election." in fact, there was an indictment last october in the eastern district of virginia of the criminally-linked internet research agency posing as americans, deployed messaging about voter fraud through social media throughout the united states. are you looking at the 2020 election, anticipating another

attempt to discredit the credibility and legitimacy of the election? dir. wray: we are keenly focused on preparing for the 2020 election in terms of malign foreign influence threat. we expect to see efforts to, as i said, sow divisiveness and discord and likely efforts to use fake news propaganda, fake personas, et cetera which might be done in a way that would be geared toward affecting particular races but might also be done to generate chaos. either way, we're keenly focused on that. sen. reed: undermine the legitimacy of the election, undermine the legitimacy of the election, which is interesting because president trump on the campaign trail in 2016 talked about the only way we can lose is if cheating goes on. that was conscious parallelism perhaps or unconscious parallelism. i don't know which. but we are in a position right now where particularly if their

favorite candidate does not prevail, where the russians will do what they were going to do deliberately in 2016 and suggest that machines have been tampered with, that immigrants have voted illegally. ed and legitimate office of the united states -- collaborating with the states because they run these elections to immediately communicate with the american public on the facts, ie, there was no machine tampering, there were no illegal immigrants or if there are, the specifics of those facts? without that, we could face a crisis and a constitutional crisis of immense dimensions. who's going to do that? dir. wray: the principal interface is the department of home land security. sen. reed: and we don't have a director. dir. wray: i'm sorry? sen. reed: we don't have a director.

dir. wray: we have an acting secretary. i think in terms of putting out information, what i've experienced during my 20 months on the job when it comes to putting out information about election influence or election interference is that we, the office of the director of national intelligence and the department of homeland security all work together -- sen. reed: has the president directed you or anyone else to be prepared to do this? because given what we've observed already, it's highly unlikely that he would be in a position, particularly if he was on the other end of the election, the wrong end, to be objective and factual and trying to calm the american public rather than too aggravate the situation? has he directed you to do that? dir. wray: we, the group that i described a minute ago, meaning

fbi, odni, nsa, dhs and others have had a number of meetings, some of which included the president himself chairing them that have been focused on our efforts on how we can up our game to protect our elections and our democracy. thank you. sen. reed: thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator kennedy? thank you, mr.: chairman. thank you, mr. director. i want to thank you personally and your entire team for your help in catching the punk that burned three of our churches in louisiana. the perpetrator was caught very quickly and i don't think we could have done that without the assistance of the fbi. we in louisiana are grateful for that. i want to talk to you for a second about 2016. i think we can agree that -- at least this is my opinion -- that

the fbi is the premier law enforcement agency in all of human history, and i think most americans and most of our friends across the world believe that, as well. unfortunately, there's been created a perception that given the two investigations of presidential candidates in 2016, that some members of the fbi allegedly acted on their political beliefs. and i think it's important that we get rid of that perception. we've forgotten also that there were two investigations. there was an investigation of president trump but also an investigation of secretary clinton.

i know the inspector general has weighed in on the clinton investigation and he is weighing in on the trump investigation. but aside from that, can you tell me what the factual predicate was for the investigation of secretary clinton and her alleged e-mail scandal? show less text -- scandal? dir. wray: i don't know that i can say sitting here today what the predicate is. as you mentioned, the independent inspector general did a fairly intense and rigorous and thorough investigation of that investigation and provided a pretty long report and testified in front of multiple committees of congress about it. there were a lot of important lessons learned from that and i think we the fbi and i at the helm took those lessons very much to heart immediately. sen. kennedy: excuse me for interrupting but i'm going to run out of time. can you tell me what the factual predicate was for the investigation of president trump? dir. wray: well, the special

counsel's report goes through a fair amount of detail about the predication for its investigation. i think beyond that, as i mentioned to the chairman, i've had a number of conversations and am working to help the attorney general get to the bottom of an understanding of what the circumstances surrounding the initiation of that investigation were at the department and the fbi back in 2016. sen. kennedy: why don't you just -- i know you can't do this on your own, but the president can. the president could declassify with proper redaction all of the documents that the fbi pertaining to the 2016 investigation of secretary clinton and president trump and then let the american people see them and draw their own conclusions. why don't we do that?

dir. wray: well, without weighing in on the legal question of authority, i would tell you when we redact information or when we classify information, there are a number of very important principles at stake there, protection of sources and methods, which out -- without which, americans are less safe, protection of ongoing criminal investigations or other investigations, without which the american people are less safe, and there are various other legal issues implicated that go beyond just the power to declassify. so while i think it's important that we be as transparent as we can be with the american people and certainly with the congress, i also think it's important to protect those kinds of information that are the life blood of our ability to fulfill our mission. sen. kennedy: what are we going to do then, mr. director?

how do we remove this perception that there were a handful of people at the fbi and the justice department in 2016 that acted on their political beliefs and tried to influence the election? how are we going to lance that boyle? -- boil? and i'm talking about both with respect to the investigations of mrs. clinton and mr. trump. dir. wray: so as to both matters, one case already completed, the other case still underway, there have been independent, outside the fbi inspector general investigations that are professional, apolitical, that are rigorous, that are sometimes quite painful for the agency in question. we've taken a number of steps to learn those lessons from the clinton e-mail investigation. there have been personnel moves, training improvements, policy improvements, all sorts of things that i laid out in great

depth last summer in response to that investigation. and i would expect we will take to heart in a very similar way whatever lessons are conveyed through the other inspector general investigation which is pending. but as to the perception, i think it is important for the american people to understand and you alluded to it in the beginning, that we're talking about two investigations, two investigations over about a 15-month period, as opposed to the thousands and thousands of investigations that is the fbis -- fbi does to keep americans safe that are conducted by 37,000 men and women that are brave, professional, that are rigorous, thoughtful and i think deserve better than some of the commentary that has been out there. so i appreciate your comments about the efforts in order -- new orleans where there have been remarkable efforts made.

i think it would be good for everyone to take a deep breath and remember that we've had more than two investigations over the last two years. >> thank you, director wray. i want to start by thanking you in the 37,000 men and women of the fbi for their service and devotion to our country and constitution, and the way they work every day to keep americans safe regardless of race, creed or political leanings. this work is often dangerous and difficult, and underappreciated and it saves lives. they've recently made a real difference in my home community of wilmington, delaware. in just the last two months, the fbi in delaware has worked with prosecutors and law enforcement to bring criminal convictions on fraud, bribery, cyber stalking, and narcotics cases. i'm from one of those small towns like little rock where violence was spiraling out of

control and real and effective engagement by our fbi office has made a difference in combatting that. i look forward to talking more -- buthat that first, on on election interference, i've been encouraged by the clarity with which you've said that foreign interference efforts continue, that you have no doubt that russia will attempt to interfere again in our next election, that a campaign should immediately contact the fbi if offered dirt on an opponent by a foreign power and that you've been in meetings with the dni and dhs about how to protect our next election. in your remarks both written and spoken for today's hearing, you highlighted the foreign influence task force you've created. what more resources do you need to bolster efforts like that task force to better protect our society from foreign interference and specifically our upcoming elections from foreign

interference. dir. wray: i appreciate the question. on the foreign influence side, the foreign influence task force that i described, we basically put that together through existing resources with no additional help from congress. significantas a success. viewing our adversary, russia in particular, as upping its game and we're expanding our efforts to look at other nation states as well. so we need and the budget request we've submitted asks for additional personnel and additional tools to help us get through the volumes and volumes of data. in that sense, this threat is not unlike a lot of the other threats i've been describing through my testimony where the mountains of information that come in -- you always hear about the big data problem, we all hear about that phrase. we've got the big data problem just like everybody else and the need for speed as matched up

against the volume of data is a real concern that i have. so i think over the next few years and certainly with this budget, the more that this subcommittee can help us get the personnel and tools and data analytics tools that we need, cyber tools that we need, that's the best way to get ahead of this threat. sen. coons: i look forward to supporting the request because i think you are hearing widespread concern that we do everything we can to ensure the integrity of election systems so we do not face widespread detriment. nics is a key in protecting our country from those who would do us harm. you said that in your written remarks and i agree. senator toomey and i have introduced a bipartisan bill, notification act

that would notify law enforcement when a person prohibited by law tryies to buy -- tries to buy a gun and was denied. there are about 103,000 nics denials that prohibited people from buying guns that shouldn't have had that. could you do that without legislation? a simple matter of a decision about partnership decide to notify state law enforcement every time someone tries to buy a gun who is a person prohibited? and if not, could i have your support for this legislation which i think is better enforcement of laws on the books that helps state and local law enforcement that we ought to be able to do on a bipartisan basis? dir. wray: certainly, i share your concern about trying to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of people who are legally prohibited from having them. i do know that as to the legal

question -- whether we would need legislation to share information, i'm enjoying the role of not being a lawyer right now for the first time in my career, so i will defer to the lawyers on the legal question. knowl say that i anecdotally -- because i see it come up in the investigations we have, that there are plenty of times we do share denial information with partners, federal, state, and local out on the ground in the context of existing investigations and sometimes, it's very useful information. i would be a little bit concerned about thinking through the resource burden. and this would of course resonate i would think in particular for you given the challenges in delaware, what that would mean for state and local law enforcement if they were suddenly bombarded with all that information whether they would have the resources necessary to handle that flow. sen. coons: i'll just say in meetings with the police chiefs

of my smaller cities and towns, they would welcome knowing when a resident of their community who is prohibited from buying a weapon has gone in to try and buy a weapon because that's an excellent predictor that they're going to try and collect a weapon some other way, probably for maligned purposes. i'm just trying to fix a small communication piece that i think -- there are states where it goes from the federally licensed firearms dealer to the nics system. i'm just trying to fix a small communication piece that i think could really help keep people safer. i know i am over my time. i would welcome hearing more from you, director, about the partnership program you referenced and how we can strengthen resources for state and local law enforcement to better help the fbi. >> take you, director, for your service. i want to talk to you about domestic terrorism.

i'd like for us to get a better understanding of how the statistics are evolving. i understand -- it seems to me we're getting better at reporting white nationalists, white extremists, both hate crimes and also terrorist events. i'm wondering whether you think, a, do we have an increasing domestic terrorism problem related to white extremism or whatever word you would choose to use? dir. wray: i think we assess that domestic terrorism -- let me put the hate crime category to the side for a moment though you're exactly right that there's a lot of blurring between them, sometimes for good reason. on the domestic terrorism side, what i would say is that we assess that domestic terrorism including domestic terrorism conducted by people subscribing to some sort of white supremacist ideology is a serious persistent threat. i don't know that we've seen a

noted increase in the threat, but it is a -- make no mistake it is a real serious threat and it's persistent. we have a lot of investigations, somewhere short of a thousand, that go to domestic terrorism. not just that particular type of domestic terrorism, but all domestic terrorism. >> the question i have has to do with the allocation of resources, the way you organize your desks, the way agents are assigned. i just want to be reassured that the resources are allocated according to the risk. and it seems to me that the way the congress has appropriated money, the way the political ecosystem has evolved since 9/11 that the focus has been on external threats, jihad inspired terrorism. but to the extent the data demonstrates that white nationalism is something approaching about half of the

terrorist events, depending whether you count individual incidents or total number of deaths, can i be confident the way you organize your desks and the way you allocate resources are proportional to the data as it comes in and if the data indicates something new that you can reallocate the resources. dir. wray: certainly, we have a threat review process that lets us do the calibration you are talking about. i would say that we very aggressively treat domestic terrorism as a priority through our joint terrorism task forces. in fact, i think last year just as one imperfect measure of it, i think we had more domestic terrorism arrests than we did international terrorism arrests. in addition to what we do for the terrorism side, there's the hate crime side which we do through our criminal programs. there's a lot of time where is -- some of the same kinds of activity can be tackled from the resources on that side too.

sen. schatz: thank you. let me get to facial recognition. i think it has lots of potential but the gao had a study that recommend that is the director conduct tests and take steps to determine whether systems used by external partners are valid. there was a recent study by the "new york times" that says women of color have an error rate -- a 35% increase in the error rate in terms of these facial recognitions. i think there's great potential for you to catch bad guys but only if the software works. i have two worries. first, if the software's not ready ready ready, that's one thing. second, if you use third party contractors and the algorithm is proprietary and you don't know who's a risk and who's not, i think if fbi has an obligation to take a breath and figure out how reliable this facial

recognition software is. can you speak to facial recognition generally and the worry that sort of garbage in, garbage out, that these approaches are enhance existing uneven enforcement of the law. >> with the caveat up front that i have not had the chance to review the newspaper article that you described or the gao report that it summarizes, i would say the facial recognition i view it, like you, as an exiting technology with a lot of promise that we have to approach thoughtfully to make sure it's not misused. with all of the technology that's out there right now that's changing so fast i usually have two reactions. i think wow, we can do that?

and then i think oh no, somebody else can do that. this is one of those tools in that regard. i think there's a lot of promise to the technology in terms of what it can do to help solve crimes and keep people safe. we'd be happy to arrange a briefing for you in a little more detail. >> i do want to understand your response to both the "new york times" article and the gao report. >> senator rubio? >> thank you for being here. i'm not going to ask you to comment about any specific cases. but i do want to point to things that are in the public record. may of last year the senate committee as part of our review of the 2016 election stated that there has been a number of counties across the country in which foreign actors had been in a position had they wanted to the change and influence voter databases.

they didn't do so but by were in a position to do so. that was disclosed. a few weeks ago when the mueller report came out, it had a brief but obviously significant mention that at least one florida county had been impacted by an intrusion. and it has elicited across our 67 counties a tremendous amount of attention, to say the least. and i know that you've heard from both my colleague senator scott and from governor desantis. on the one hand i explained to people we are always trying to protect our methods and sources. on the other hand, you can imagine if you're a county election official anywhere in america and you hear that you may have been potentially one of those impacted and no one's told you that directly, it puts them in a very difficult position.

so just thinking through how can we handle a matter -- these are just hard things and sometimes it's not entirely the fbi's decision to make or any other agency for that matter. writ large, that's a tough spot to be in other than to tell people you should be fined . is there any thought being given how to confront this in the future, the balance between notifying a county or a victim on this sort of intrusion and the ability to protect sources and methods? it is something we in the intelligence community struggle with quite a bit. we have tried to put in place a fairly specific protocol for when we notify victims of a

cyber attack whether it's in the election context or anything else. it goes through a lot of the conversations that would apply. so things ranging from -- and you anticipated some of them in your question. sometimes the information is a particularly sensitive source or method. and if we lose or jeopardize that source or method, then we huz the lose the ability to even better protect sometimes the same victim. some of the information comes from a trusted foreign liaison partner and it's not our decision to make about whether to share the investigation. sometimes it affects an ongoing criminal investigation. we also look at how actionable is the information, is the information a form where

somebody could even do something with it. sometimes those come to attention and we try to wrestle them as best we can. sometimes we strike a middle ground which is express more general information to help people take appropriate cyber hygiene steps. it's not a perfect solution but it's a solution that intends to have it a little bit both ways. this is an issue that we all in the intelligence community this is an issue that we all in the intelligence community struggle with not just in election settings. >> 15 months ago the tragedy took place in parkland. as you've acknowledged, the fbi had some mistakes and there was a commitment to the review of

policies and procedures but so far there hasn't been anything public. so what is the status of that review? so we have done not one but two fairly in-depth reviews out at our call center which is where the key activity occurred. we've changed training, we've changed policies out there. we've increased significantly the amount of resources that are out there. we've increased the amount of josefa sight. oversight. we've put redundancyies in the process to make sure the right kinds of things are caught. in addition i've met with some of the families of some of the victims as has the deputy director. we're committed to try to get this right. this is very recent information

but i've now put in charge of that whole division out there in west virginia one of our senior most executives to run that division, somebody that we personally enlisted to really bring the right level of maturity and sophistication to running that whole division. i think that's a measure of how important this is to us. >> the only thing that separates us from other countries in the world is the rule of law. people must beliefve they're going to be treated fair. > after mr. barr's appearance last week, there were still some unanswered questions. but he was asked if he had a

problem with mr. mueller appearing and he said he didn't have a problem with that at all. would you have a problem with that? well, i won't purport to speak for special counsel mueller. i've had nothing but good experiences working for him over the years and nothing but good experiences with the current attorney general. well, i won'to speak for special counsel that's really a decision between the special counsel, the department and the congress. >> also on redaction, the report was 448 pages. when these reports come out what would you consider an average percentage of that being redacted that yoouz usually because of on going investigations things that might still with pending? >> i'm not sure that i've ever heard of a sort of average percentage of redaction.

>> this one was 44 pages. does that seem high? i think the special counsel report does identify that there have been a number of referrals and there are a number of ongoing investigations that grew out of that. the figure 10%, i don't know if that's the right figure but i'll take your word for it. certainly i've seen lots of documents submitted to congressional that have been much more heavily redacted than that. >> i'm going to switch to opioids right now. the state of west virginia has been extremely hard hit, as you know. we lead the nation in deaths per thousand. it's a hover horrendous situation. we have one little town kermit, west virginia, where over 9

million pills were shipped in. there's 392 people that live in that town. that's thousands per person. makes no sense as all. when there is a deal made and they have an agreed upon amount that they're going to pay restitution, we're not able to get and especially if they don't admit to guilt toward wrongdoing, we can't get the information. at that time the courts say that belongs back to the company or we'll destroy them and we have no public records. we know the intent cannot be for a health outcome when you're sending 9 million pills to a town of 392 people. is there anyway we can resource that so we can goatet some more information about the intent of what they're doing and how to stop that? >> i'm not familiar with the specific impediment that you're describing. >> basically they sent 5

million pills to this little town. i'm trying to get the information. i cannot get it. if you could help me with that, i would be most appreciative. >> i'd be happy to take a look at it. i do know we have done a big surge on the opioid issue and specifically on the provider part of it in your region. and we just had a huge takedown. my last question is going to be on siphius.

we have a lot of assets that are not required to go through siphius, propane, ethane. should filings remain an voluntary process? basically we can't go to china and own the assets that they own in america. so i do think that the process is not only indispensable where it applies but the congress recently expanded and approved the effectives. but i think you're also exactly right that the ability to channel foreign investment into

this country with an improper motive is something that is a real challenge for this country and so while a number of loopholes were closed with the recent reform that occurred i think we're going to have to keep looking for more ways to close more loopholes because i think this is going to be a bigger and bigger problem for us as a nation. >> senator capito. we need to be done here by 11:00 so we can have a classified briefing. so again if we can shorten our questions and answered. >> i wanted to begin by thanking you for something that's not in the budget. the men and women in our clarksburg facility in clarksburg, west virginia. there is a 4 million dollar increase for additional positions in clarksburg.

can you describe what kinds of works they're going to be doing? certainly we feel both excited about the growth that we're trying to have there and concerned about the need to address all the different functions that occur out there. the impact -- i think it's one of those divisions that problem has the most impact on the american people that people know the least about. between the 10 million times a day that we're providing criminal justice information to state and local law enforcement between the 26 million gun checks that nics did last year, between the 190 something thousand fingerprints they process every day. through the call center, which i think had over a million tips between calls and e-mails last year. so we need to kind of keep pace.

the volume just keeps growing so the positions and the other allocations in the budget i think will be important to helping us do that. >> let me ask a follow-up on that. i know i went to a ribbon cutting out there which was an agreement between the department of justice and the department of defense to sort of merge some of their -- not merge but to use resources together out there. how has that been progressing from your standpoint, that partnership? i think it's been working pretty well but i will confess i haven't gotten an update recently on that. >> we did pass the fix nics gap. i think we get better all the time in terms of our ability to keep pace with the volume of gun

checks that we have to do. i do think it's the reality. i think we almost the highest number of checks we had to run in history last year, maybe the second highest in history. so i've actually gone out ap visited the folks there and have sat down and put the headset on so i could listen to experience what it's like to be doing those gun checks as a nics operator. it's incredibly important work they're doing. >> i would like to follow up on senator manchin's question. both of us being from west virginia, on the fentanyl and they're doing. >> heroin, i know that you've put a lot of resources into this. i know that you've worked on chosing up the prescription loopholes and going after providers. the situation at the southern border is such that i feel that there's still a proliferation of illegal drugs coming through our ports of entry.

do you work with the border patrol to try to -- i know you get into transcontinental or transcountry cartels and all of that. how do you information share so we can prevent this? because this is killing people. >> we have a number of task forces where we work closely with border patrol agents, certainly this is a problem that requires both skill sets an both agencies' expertise. i come back to my two plus two to get five or six paradigm. we focus on dismantling the enterprises, but they have e-new hampshire muss eyes and ears on the ground and we have a great relationship with the border patrol and we're grateful for the very hard job they do. >> are you able to stay ahead of them, though? it seems like they're, obviously, very creative and wealthy on the other side, i'm

talking about the cartels. what kinds of resources are you lacking that you think you can break this up so we can stop this illegal trafficking? we always need more bodies and more tools. the transnational criminal activity that we see now is not just a drug trafficking, it's diversified into all different kinds of activity. there, like in the other threat areas i've described, there's a data analytics piece of it. for us to be more agile we need to work in closer partnership with the countries that are south of us in order to try to make sure they take their share of the responsibility. we've had some great successes in that regard in central america in particular, you know, in the el salvador and guatemala and honduras. >> thank you. >> senator van holle, the most patient. >> thank you.

thank you the men and women of the fbi for all you do for our country. we've had a lot of talk this morning about russian interference in our elections. you and the intelligence community have been very clear. the mueller report emphatically puts the exclamation point on it that the russians interfered in 2016. you said recently that russian interference in the previous elections was, quote, just a kind of dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020. it seems to me if we know that, we should be doing everything in our power to best about prepare for it, but also try to deter it and we should try to harden our systems and deal with malign influence and try to, you know, prevent the cyber hacking, but would you agree that the best defense would be an ability to deter that kind of interference in the first place? understood that the costs of interfering in our election outweigh the relatively low cost he's facing right now should we explore that option? >> certainly, i think the best

part of a defense against a foreign intelligence threat like malign foreign influence includes an offensive capability, you know, sometimes people say the best defense is a good offense. there's a degree to which that applies in this setting. a lot of what would be appropriate there is not the kind of thing we would be discussing in an open hearing, but certainly we work jointly with others and i will say that i appreciate you reminding me of my recent comments on this topic, we have significantly increased, again, just based on resources we already have, not new resources, our own footprint on the foreign influence. far from sort of stepping back after the midterms and saying thank goodness that's over, we've stepped it up a notch and tried to figure out okay, how do we learn the things that worked well in 2018 and kind of get ready for 2020. >> i got it.

so i think -- and you hinted at, my personal views we should be very proactive when it comes to cyber offense, but i'm also talking about a piece of legislation senator rubio and i have introduced called the deter act, which lay out -- lays out front, very big penalties, sticks, that russian economy would face if we catch them interfering in our elections going forward. you know up front if you're putten, if you interfere and we catch you, you're going to see these penalties. secretary pompeo was in front of one of the appropriations subcommittees recently, i asked him if he would support something like that going forward, his answer, quote, i would, i know the outlines of the act and conceptually i think it makes sense. do you agree and can you work with us on refining that legislation? >> we would be happy to work with you on the legislation and see if there's operational impact information we can share that would be useful to you as you tweak or move forward. certainly sanctions are a very

important tool in the toolbox that can and should be and has been in some instances applied in this particular space that we're talking about right now. i'm happy to work with you. >> the idea is instead of acting after the fact, right, trying to apply sanctions after the fact you make it clear up front what sanctions will automatically come down to try to influence behavior. you know, the fbi was helpful in maryland last year on a number of fronts but specifically identified that one of the vendors that oversaw some of our elections infrastructure was actually controlled by a company where a putin oligarch was -- had a controlling interest. the good news is because we monitored that with your help, there was no interference in maryland's specific election, but senator collins and i and others have introduced legislation making it clear that no part of u.s. elections infrastructure, including at the

state level, should be controlled in whole or in part by a foreign adversary. does that sound like common sense to you? >> i think you've put your finger on what we sometimes -- it's a permeation of what we call sometimes the supply chain threat which applies not just to russians but other foreign adversaries and is a real concern for this country. i appreciate your comments about the good work in baltimore. i've been out to visit that office twice just in my short time on the job, met with the employees and met with our partners there, community partners there as well. there's really, really exciting great work being done by that office that i'm very proud of. >> just in conclusion, do you agree that we should prohibit foreign adversaries from owning or controlling any rts of our elections infrastructure? >> certainly as framed that makes pretty good sense to me. i would have to look at the particulars of any legislation, certainly. >> senator graham.

>> director wray, i think you're doing a great job. tell everybody in your organization we appreciate what they do for the country. sequestration, if it kicks back in, what kind of effect would it have on the fbi? >> senator, if sequestration were to kick back in, in short it would be devastating. >> less safe as a nation? >> i think we would be -- we would have a negative impact on the safety of the american people. >> all the things that we've been talking about here would be undermined in terms of the role you play? >> virtually all of them, yes. >> when it comes to deterring russian interference in the american election, is it working? or should we do more? >> well, i tend to be dissatisfied by nature, so i always think we can do more and should do more on pretty much every threat we described here i think. >> do you think they've gotten

the message or more messages to be sent? >> i think there's still more messages to be sent. >> other than russia, what nation state should we be worried about in 2020? >> well, i think there are a number of our, china, iran, north korea, who have different ideas about foreign influence and all pursue different nools their toolbox, but i think all of those adversaries, just as you and i have discussed in the past r things we need to be worried about across the foreign influence front. >> sequestration would be devastating, we need to send more messages to russia about what they've done and will do, not less, a list of other countries to worry about. are you familiar with the two triftsz called the beetles that are in custody by the syrian democratic forces. show less text 01:27:10 i am. -- >> i am. not every detail about it. >> these are two of the four described as the beetles because they were british, working with

isis, two have been captured, accused of being involved in the beheading of mr. foley, an american citizen, and some others. could you give this committee a status on those cases, what the plan is in terms of bringing them to justice? you don't have to do it in an opening hearing but let us know. i think all of us want to make sure these people do not break out and they're brought to justice. >> well, i think as you anticipated probably not a whole lot i can say in this setting on that. this is a very important case to us and to me personally. i've met with a number of the family members of some of the victims. i think we are -- i think this part is public. we certainly are in appropriate coordination with our british counterparts about whether or not there's a way to ensure that these folks can be brought to justice, but if there's one thing that the fbi is known for, it's not giving up.

>> yeah. i appreciate that and please, i know you won't give up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator graham, thank you for joining us. director wray, anything you would like to add in this open setting to any of the questions, to expand any of your answers or we've missed you would like to highlight for us? >> not that i can think of. we covered a lot of ground. >> thank you. on friday of this week, i will give a graduation address at the kansas law enforcement training center. would you care to share any thoughts you have about what should be said to 60 new men and women who are becoming members of the law enforcement community? >> i think i would tell them that they're undertaking not an ordinary job but a calling, that it takes a very, very special kind of person who is willing to put his or her life on the line to protect complete strangers and that whole country is grateful for their service. >> i'll try to deliver that

message with those kind words. if there are no further questions in this morning's hearing, the open portion of our hearing, senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's record. we request the fbi respond within 30 days. the subcommittee now stands in recess and we will reconvene momentarily in a closed and classified session to hear from direct wray in 217. thank you. [inaudible]

>> >> the c-span bus is stopping at high schools around the country to meet award winners were studentcam video conversation. we were recently in sacramento and met with the second prize middle school winners. >> [inaudible] the needs to be more laws protecting lgbt individuals. there's always room for improvement. we met with many different interviewees who really gave us

different opinions on this matter. there is just one definition to being american. individuals with different backgrounds make us our country. >> to watch all the winning entries from this year studentcam contest, go to studentcam.org. ♪ , notedan's newest book historians rank america's best and worst chief executives. provide insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. true stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders. challenges they faced. the legacies they have left hind. order your copy today. it is now available as a hardcover or e-book.

>> tomorrow, the house judiciary committee meets at 10:00 eastern for debate on a resolution to hold attorney general william barr in contempt of congress for not complying with a subpoena for the unredacted mueller report. the democratic-controlled committee is expected to approve the resolution which would go through the house rules committee before consideration by the full house. for more on what to expect tomorrow, we spoke with molly reynolds from the brookings institution on washington journal. e story to watch today. host: molly reynolds from the brookings institution joins us to talk about this idea of contempt of congress, use of contempt by congress. good morning. guest: good morning. host: if no agreement happens today, what is the hurdle if they pull that trigger? guest: if the house judiciary