dismissed impeachment articles against them. you can watch our live coverage on the c-span now video apps or online, c-span.org. >> don lemon would say that -- >> watch c-span's coverage of the annual white house correspondents dinner live saturday, april 27th with saturday night live weekend update cohost as featured entertainer as well as president biden who is expected to give remarks. our coverage begins at 6:00 pm eastern on c-span.org and c-span now is journalist and celebrity's walk the red carpet into the event and 8:00 pm eastern on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom before step festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents dinner live saturday, april 27th on the c-span networks.

while testifying on president biden's 2025 budget request fbi director christopher wray warned of several elevated threats to us national security including foreign terrorism, drug cartels and ran somewhere attacks. he also advocated congress to reauthorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which monitors foreign nationals overseas and is set to expire on april 19th. the house appropriations committee hearing is just under 2 hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the subcommittee will be in order. without objection the chairs authorized to declare recess at any time. welcome to the first fiscal year 2025 hearing, or the subcommittee on commerce, justice, science, and related agencies. before i start, i want to thank chairwoman granger for her years of dedication to this committee, and formerly, chairman call becoming the new chairman of the committee. we look forward to continuing to work with both of them. i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. we want to welcome our witness,

the honorable christopher wray, director of the federal bureau of investigation, back to this subcommittee. director wray, who has nearly 30 years of fbi experience dating back to the late 1990s has served in his current role since august 2017. in his capacity as director, he oversees an agency of 35,000 people, including special agents, intelligence analysts, language specialists, scientists, and information technology specialists. the 25 budget request for fbi salaries and expenses is $11.3 billion, $6.7 billion of that at 60% designated as defense spending. the request amounts to a 6%

increase above the fiscal 24 enacted level for salaries and expenses. overall, the fbi budget request includes $119 million in program increases, approximately 700 million in other adjustments, representing substantial increase costs of continuing the fbi's current activities. in particular, the largest program increase request is for what the fbi has labeled restoration of 2023 national security and law enforcement personnel. this request is aided by 4. 4 billion in games to fund 270 headquarters positions of which only 60 would be actual agents. the bureau claims these resources are necessary to

limit reductions in function areas. let's be crystal clear. cartels continues to flood our streets with fentanyl and poison. americans are being hurt in record numbers. they are exploiting our southern border and devastating families and communities, violent crime levels, murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, all too high. there is no question the fbi's mission is more critical than ever. the requested increases in fiscal 25 budget are significant and it is my hope that they are fully discussed at today's hearing. however, it is no secret that the nation's federal debt

stands at $34 trillion. let me repeat that number, $34 trillion. hard-working americans continue to face elevated costs for everyday items. congress and this committee in particular cannot ignore the unsustainable path that we are on. it's essential that we ensure every dollar appropriated to agencies who spent effectively, efficiently, and appropriately. anything less would be ignoring our constitutional duty. to that end, our fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill makes difficult of necessary funding reductions from many agencies including the fbi. as with all appropriations

bills fiscal 24 was the product of careful consideration and collaboration within congress. we reviewed budget submissions, call hearings, analyze program increase requests, engage with the agencies, have countless debates, and make final judgment calls. not everyone will be satisfied with the final appropriated levels, increasing debt levels require tough decisions. director wray, we look forward to the opportunity to discuss with you the president's budget submission for the fbi, looking forward to a full conversation on the major cost drivers within this budget request. beyond the funding implications of the budget request i am also interested in the ongoing

issues at the fbi that include but are not limited to the erosion of public trust. this included the fbi's overly aggressive tactics, questionable investigative standards, and the overall politicization of the bureau. importantly, i also want to ensure that we fully explore a grave crisis at our southern border, the fbi's responsibility when it comes to combating the wide range of illegal activities happening at the border, not only impacts the nation's southern states but the entire country as a whole. i believe the 24 appropriations bill achieved the right balance and represented a step in the right direction with targeted cuts aimed at pushing the bureau to refocus on its core

mission. mission creep in federal agencies beyond required duties is a real problem and must be corrected. i believe in the fbi's mission to protect the american people and uphold the constitution of our great country. i recognized the challenging and critical work the agency performs daily, defending the us against terrorists and espionage, combating deadly fentanyl, protecting the nation's children from becoming victims, and more. fbi agents are our nation's defenders. it is not lost on members of congress, the sacrifices they make to protect our country. to be clear, the fbi's mission is critical to the health of our entire nation. mr. wray, we appreciate you being

here to answer questions. we appreciate your hard work on behalf of the american people. let me recognize ranking member of the subcommittee for any remarks you wish to make. >> thank you and good afternoon, mister chairman. i joined chairman rogers in thinking our overall appropriations chair kate granger for her years of dedication and service to this appropriations committee, and congratulate chairman call as he takes over that very important role. i also joined chairman rogers in welcoming christopher wray to testify today as we all know the fbi does an enormous amount of work to protect the american people. there is a primary law enforcement agency for the us

government, the fbi employs roughly 36,000 people in 56 field offices, 350 resident agencies and several specialized facilities and analytical centers across the country as well as an over 60 legal attaché offices in 80 countries around the world. the fbi works to investigate and disrupt crime including everything from violent gang networks, cybercriminal, white-collar crime, human trafficking, domestic, and international terrorism and i could not agree more with chairman rogers as he talks about fbi's mission including combating opioid, the opioid epidemic, including fentanyl poisonings that are killing north of one hundred thousand people, american citizens, every year. in addition, since russia's brutal and unprovoked invasion of ukraine, the fbi also

successfully worked to disrupt criminal, cyber, and hostile intelligence activities from russia that endanger ukraine, our partners and american citizens. the biden administration is requesting funding for several fbi initiatives in fiscal year 25 including investments to restore and enhance the fbi's efforts to combat violent crime and cybercrime and to enhance the fbi's counterintelligence and counterterrorism capabilities among other initiatives. i look forward to hearing more from you about these and other priorities surrounding the fbi's budget request. thank you very much, mr. chairman and i yield back to you. >> i want to witness our witness, director wray first opening 7, his written

statement will be entered into the record. i would ask him, that we would like to see him confine his rocks to 5 minutes or less so we can have additional time for questions, director wray. >> thank you, good afternoon members of the committee. i am proud to be here today representing the roughly 38,000 men and women who make up the fbi. every day, our people are working relentlessly to outpace our adversaries and stay at of complex and evolving threats so i would like to start out by thanking you and the rest of the committee for your support over the years for our efforts to achieve our mission of protecting the american people and upholding the constitution. at the same time i also realize the reality of the environment we are in today where so many agencies are dealing with tightening budgets, and this

year the fbi is one of those agencies. with our fiscal year 2,024 budget having come in almost $500 million below what the fbi needs just to sustain our 2023 efforts, candidly, this could not have come at a worse time. when i sat here last year i walked through how we are already in a heightened threat environment. since then we have seen the threat from foreign terrorists rise to a whole other level after october 7th. we continue to see the cartels push fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into every corner of the country, claiming countless american lives. we've seen a spate of ransom where another cyberat tax impacting part of our critical infrastructure and businesses both large and small.

violent crime, violent crime which reached alarming levels coming out of the pandemic remains too high and impacting too many communities, china continues its relentless effort to steal our intellectual property and most valuable information, and that is just scratching the surface. as i look back over my career in law enforcement i would be hard-pressed to think of a time where so many threats to public safety and national security were so elevated all at once. but that is the case as i sit here today. and while we've always found ways that the fbi to innovate, make the most of what we have, this is by no means a time to let up or dial back. this is a time when we need your support the most. we need all the tools, all the

people, all the resources required to tackle these threats to keep americans safe. to take each of those in turn, the tools, the people in the resources, first, and absolutely indispensable tool that congress can give us in our fight against foreign adversaries is the reauthorization of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. it is critical in securing our nation and we are in crunch time with our 702 authority set to expire next week. let me be clear, failure to reauthorize 702, or gutting it with some new kind of warrant requirement would be dangerous, and put americans lives at risk. second, we need people. i will stack the fbi's workforce against anyone anywhere, anytime, they are innovative, they are efficient, they are relentless, they are

professionals, patriots, we have been fortunate at the fbi in recent years that our recruiting has gone through the roof. americans are applying in droves to devote their lives to a career with us protecting others but we need more physicians to bring all the good people we can to the fight, not fewer. now is not the time to cut back, it's time to lean forward. third, we need resources which you will see in the 25 budget request that we are here today to discuss. we need funding to protect america from terrorism. i touched on this earlier, but there was already a heightened risk of violence in the united states before october 7th. since then, sine rd. galleria foreign terrorist organization call for attacks against americans and our

allies. given those calls for action, our most immediate concern has been that individuals or small groups will draw twisted inspiration from the events in the middle east to carry out attacks here at home. but now, increasingly concerning, is the potential for a coordinated attack here in the homeland akin to the isis k attack we start the concert hall a few weeks ago. we also counter the threats in the people's republic of china, a government sparing no expense in its quest to hack, lie, cheat and steal its way to the top as a global superpower and to undermine our democracy and economic success. we need funding to counter cyberthreats, certainly those from china but also from a

crowded field of sophisticated hostile nationstates and criminals like russia, iran, north korea. we need funding to mitigate the range of threats from the border. fentanyl, gangs like ms 13, human trafficking. we need funding to address the violent crime that remains at levels in this country that are still too high and we need funding to keep going after child predators, to rescue young victims from their tormentors. all those areas i just mentioned, we are working closely with our partners at all levels of government to achieve our shared goal of keeping our communities safe. every day fbi agents, analysts and professional staff are working shoulder to shoulder with thousands of task force officers from hundreds of different police department, sheriff's offices all over the country on our fbi led task forces.

on top of that we provide technology and expertise, valuable investigative leads like dna matches and cutting edge training to law enforcement nationwide, to help them protect americans from harm. so cuts to us are cuts to our partners, local law enforcement agencies and officers who are on the ground putting themselves in line of fire, often quite literally. that is just one way those cuts are going to have real impacts on the american people. so yes, we took a hit in the 2024 budget, but the 2025 budget is a chance to get back on track to provide the fbi's men and women the tools and resources the american people need us to have to keep them safe, so thank you again for having me here today and i look forward to our discussion.

>> thank you, director wray. we will now proceed under the 5 minute rule with questions for the witness. i will begin by recognizing myself. director, has the bureau observed any improvements in our efforts to dismantle fentanyl pipeline? what role can the bureau play here? >> it is a mixed bag. certainly the scourge of fentanyl is claiming too many lives. i will tell you from the fbi's perspective, one of the things we have been observing is in our takedown of violent games, something we are doing all over the country all the time, we are noticing almost without exception now that those takedowns of violent gang

members also include seizures of fentanyl. the fentanyl that's looks coming from the cartels built on precursors from china, ending up all over the united states is often being distributed by these violent street gangs. that's one of the things we are observing. we are trying to do our part that goes beyond any agency and beyond law enforcement. i know a lot of your efforts recognize. some of the things the fbi are doing to do our part, i will mention a few, safe street taskforces are going after gangs that are distributing so much of this poison, organized crime taskforces are going after the cartels, we have close to 400 investigations that go just after cartels leadership, we also have things like j code which is an initiative where we bring together 12 agencies focused on

the dark web trafficking of fentanyl and other dangerous substances, dismantling dark net marketplaces when we do that. we have a prescription drug initiative in certain parts of the country, pill mills, and prescribers of opioids are a driver of much of this epidemic so we are using healthcare prod expertise to go after those folks. we are working with partners on the other side of the border and there i would say it is very uneven. some key instances with extradition, key operation, we are working with vetted teams which is an effort in the right direction but we need much much more than we are getting from the mexican government. i would summarize my answer to your question by saying a lot

of things to be encouraged by in terms of the effort and work across multiple agencies people are making, a lot of things to be concerned about. last two years in a row of this point, the fbi seized enough fentanyl to kill 270 million american people. that gives you a sense of the scale of what we are up against. >> what is the level of cooperation between law enforcement agencies especially when it comes to drug trafficking? are they working with the next bill? >> absolutely. one of the bright spots that i see when i compared to earlier in my career is how close the partnerships are across all levels of law enforcement, the federal agencies, state and local law enforcement is so

intertwined with today's fbi, foreign law enforcement in a lot of instances, the intelligence community working with law enforcement, so partnerships are stronger than ever and that's one of the things keeping this from becoming an even worse problem. we work with safety on everything from strike forces, dea task force officers on a lot of our taskforces and vice versa, we work at their sod where there is intelligence sharing so there's a whole range of ways in which we all work together. obviously always room for improvement, always looking for ways to innovate and take that to the next level but if there's one bright spot i can leave the committee with is the partnerships among law enforcement are in my career the best i've ever seen. >> is mexico honoring our law enforcement efforts to bring the cartel leaders to justice?

>> as i think i said earlier, uneven. we've had instances, individual instances of successes including events significant cartel figures and extradition's but then the reality is the two major cartels are the drivers of the vast majority of what we are dealing with here and we need more from the mexican government. there are instances to be pleased about calvi had a top 10 fugitive of ours that they helped us arrest and sent back recently, there are individual instances that are bright spots but this is such a big problem, we need consistent, sustained, scaleable assistance. >> that border is so open and unchecked, we are letting in the cartels, not only do drugs that they do human trafficking

and everything else in the book, and my observation is we are not getting enough cooperation out of the mexican government on seeking out the cartels. would you agree or disagree with that? >> we certainly need more from the mexican government. i am pleased with what we have gotten but we need a lot more. >> thank you. i want to follow up chairman rogers's line of questioning, we are getting some cooperation from the mexican authorities but we need more, what they are giving us is incomplete, is inconsistent. question, what can we do, what

are we doing to encourage their cooperation? what more can we get out of them and what's the best way to approach that? >> much of this goes beyond the fbi's lane in other parts of the government. mindful of trying to stay in my lane but i would say we need their help cracking down on the cartels harder, we need help rooting out labs where the poison is being produced, we need help stopping the purchase and influx of precursor chemicals from the chinese, from the prc, those are a few things. as far as what more can we do specifically, i would say at the lower law enforcement working level, there are any number of operations that show us what success could look like at scale, we've started doing, something i'm pleased with, with the mexicans, we have

vetted law enforcement teams much like we used to do and still doing colombia, going back to efforts we've had with colombia government over the years, that's a step in the right direction but it's extradition's, sharing of information, and the key is having it at of scales, consistent, sustained level, not that there aren't a bright spots but we need a lot more of it. >> you after cartels, 400 separate investigations at the fbi involving them. what about what you just mentioned, interrupting the flow of precursor chemicals from china to mexico. how many of those investigations center on that effort and how much more help do you need from the mexican government on that effort? >> we need more help from the mexican government on that part of it, we also frankly need the chinese government to do a lot

more than they are doing, then you have this dangerous intersection of increasingly sophisticated mexican cartels with malicious and unscrupulous actors in the prc who are happy to be supplying the chemicals that fuel the cartels's production. we are trying to tackle it on a bunch of levels. our focus going back over decades is to try to look for ways to dismantle the enterprise, trying to go after the leadership whether we are charging them or someone else is charging them, trying to go after their money. a big part of this is going after, this is a profit business for them so the more we go after their assets and go after their money launderers, doesn't work for them if they don't have the people or

institutions to launder their money so we are tackling infrastructure around them as opposed to one and two in terms of arrest. that's the approach we are trying to take. it has to be a team effort. >> do you need more money to do that or less money? >> we need more money. >> you mentioned violent gangs, seizures of massive amounts of fentanyl. am i correct in that? >> absolutely right. something like 75% of the fentanyl we are seizing is coming in gang takedowns, something of that magnitude. >> tell me about these gangs. are these american citizens? >> most of the gangs themselves are neighborhood gangs. there are gangs that come from the northern triangle like ms 13 but a lot of the ones i'm describing that we are dismantling our neighborhood gangs who are than the ones

peddling the fentanyl on the streets not just in the border states but all over. >> how are they getting, how are they getting the fentanyl and opioids from mexico? >> much of that is a question better directed to dhs. i can tell you because most of our seizures are happening not at ports of entry but after the stuff is already here in the united states. we had a big takedown in new england, as far from the southern border as you could get, the biggest takedown in new england history involving mountains of fentanyl. that is where we are seeing it but the actual traffic across the border and ports of entry is dhs's lane. they got a heck of a challenge on their hand to put it mildly. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> mr. klein. >> thank you, mister chairman,

thank you, director, for being here. i wanted to ask about continue to ask about the border. and your involvement at the border in assisting with identification of individuals, you agree that it is a national security risk to allow individuals into the country who are not properly identified, correct? >> that does raise national security concerns, yes. >> the fbi has been engaged in dna testing for several years of individuals crossing the border. dhs recently or in the past few years mandated that identification occur, correct? >> yes. >> when dhs rolled out that program, authorities found a about 19% of family units

crossing were fraudulent. does that sound about right? >> that part, i don't have reason to dispute it but i can't remember that specific piece. but failure to properly identify individuals, across the border engaged in human trafficking, sex trafficking, are attempting to evade identification. >> right. the whole identification piece of this, rightly putting the finger on is such an important part of it and that is why for example we have as trying to be good partners with dhs, been providing them with dna kits that our lab is the one who would then test and it has proven to be critical in identifying murderers, rapists and all sorts of dangerous individuals. we have a backlog and that backlog because of the sheer

volume at the border with the volume of people coming across, the volume of the need for samples has skyrocketed as well so there is a backlog and the backlog should be a concern to all of us. >> do you think it would be appropriate or would address the national security risk as you say if we were to ensure, if we were to ensure that these individuals would not be released until their identification is complete? >> it is something we should be taking a look at. i'm a little reluctant given the share number of things on our plate before i start weighing in on what's on someone else's plate but i will tell you that we have any number of instances where somebody who is of concern

where there wasn't adequate biometrics or other identification information at the time they came across, then later information is found that highlights why they are concerned and it is the fbi and our partners who take what action we can to disrupt the threat that person poses so rather than ask if it should be mandated let me ask it this way. would it improve security at our border to ensure that only those who have been properly identified are released into the country? >> i don't see how that would help. >> thank you. >> i want to ask, you touched on it in section 702, you said a warrant requirement would got, your term, compliance with

the fourth amendment, is that essentially -- >> i stand by it. i would say a couple things, compliance of the fourth amendment, no court, a warrant required under the fourth amendment to run queries of information already lawfully holding, the only court to address the issue that isn't the other way. that isn't that information the intent of the law designed to provide information of foreign nationals, not american citizens who are would not be a end run around the statute, as you say, to lawfully obtain this information? >> i appreciate the question. the purpose of section 702 is to identify foreign threats to

us, to americans. i will give you an example to illustrate the point. it is critical for our ability to identify foreign terrorist organizations communicating with, inspiring or working with people here in the us and that is how i identify and stop attacks. we had an example last year where we had an individual, foreign terrorist overseas who had some kind of contact, not sure what it was, with some person we believe to be in the united states so we did aquaria. we ran a us person clariion net, us individuals identified. at the time we ran the query, we didn't know what we had. the equivalent of a wrong number or innocuous chit chat or something that was concerning? because we were able to run the query again, information already lawfully in our holdings. >> that is when we discovered wait a minute, we've got a live one here. this is serious, this is

urgent. investigation kicked in quickly and in less then a month, from that first query, we were able to arrest the person who by that time had weapons, bombmaking a quick, targets circled and everything else. the point i tried to make his we had to get a warrant. >> to run that initial wary, it doesn't work that way. someone had to get warrants. >> if we had to get a warrant from that initial query, there's no judge on the planet that would give us a warrant based on what we knew at the time. we knew at the time was foreign terrorist overseas, some kind of contact with the person in the us, no idea. >> i've gone way over, i yield back. >> you mentioned earlier dna testing. as i understand it, in 2020, the department of homeland security mandated an expansion of dna collections. ..with some person in the u.s., no idea what it is about. sorry, mr. chairman.

i have gone way over. i yield back. >> you mentioned earlier, dna testing of what i understand it, in 2020, the department of homeland security, mandated that an expansion of dna collections -- essentially everyone can cross the border. is that correct? a >> that is my understanding. >> >> i think the are multiple purposes. one of them which goes to the question congressman kline was asking about is sometimes your people who would find a lot of time someone then tries to reenter the country, third reported as a show to bed but then try to reenter and because we have, that may come across in some other way and turn up somewhere else. >> assumedly, by doing dna testing are all people entering the country at the border, is to be able to find criminals among the lot. it's comparing the dna test sample of that person against the national criminal records,

has that been ineffective? have caught criminals that we? >> absolutely. it is two-pronged. the people who try to illegally reenter are also committing a crime but a think the point getting it is a very important one which is that this authority and the funding that the subcommittee hasan given us over the years on this has enabled us to identify rapists, murderers, any number of other day just criminals and crimes around the country. the dna collection and the testing and the timely testing is critical to solving sometimes very famous crimes here in the united states. >> in the 24 budget we included $53 million that you had requested to address the increase in numbers in samples.

the border has become more open since that time with much more, much more people coming across. and yet you made no request for money in fiscal 25. what's going on? >> well, , part of what we've de is to try to prioritize that collection effort with the funds that the subcommittee has already given us. they key to our 2025 request is to try to restore the roughly 1000 1000 position cut that theee net effect of the 24 budget would have. that's what in our judgment because we had to make hard choices, very consistent with the spirit ofpo your opening remarks, mr. chairman, so that we did want to take away money from the dna collection but in a budget request we are trying to restore the positions they go to everything from ransomware to

violent crime to fentanyl interdiction to counter espionage against the chinese. i could go on and on. >> now there's a 15 month backlog on dna testing. so by the time these people are tested and counted, they are going to be long gone because you got that backlog. >> you'll get no argument from me, sir, that the backlog is a negative development and that if the subcommittee were to give us morere resources for more dna testing we could bring down that backlog even further. you mentioned hard choices. we got good funding from the subcommittee before for this particular effort and we have taken money away from it but we've had to prioritize the significant hit that we took in

terms of the impacts on our personnel in the '24 budget and that's what you see. but if you would see fit to give us more money for, i can assure you it will help and the effort the dna collection is designed to accomplish, it something i think you and i agree is extremely important. >> well, you make the request, will take it up. ms. meng. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director wray. i along with several of my colleagues and house and senate have previous he communicated with the doj and fbi about the importance of the fbi's uniform crime reporting programs reports on hate crimes statistics. i am concerned about the trend of a decrease in the number of local law enforcement agencies providing the fbi with incident data. this is the fifth year in a row the number of local agencies providing data to the fbi has

declined. wanted to ask how your agency may be working with local law enforcement agencies to increase participation in this reporting system? >> so i think you're right to ask about the issue, because one of the things we know about hate crime reporting just in general as a starting point is it is chronically underreported. for quite sometime now we've been trying to engage in different forms of outreach to our law enforcement partners to make it easier for them to understand what to report and how to report it and so forth. so that effort is continuing and we're always trying to find new and better ways to improve their responsiveness, if you will. the second thing that i think that contributes cou are describing is the conversion to my purse, the national incident-based reporting system.

that affects statistics not just on hate crimes but all sorts of other crime reporting as well. that transition is something that has been in the works for years and years and years. i mean getting back well before i became fbi director and we've been repeatedly telling state and local law enforcement this is coming, this is coming, and once it gets to the point where we have shifted over to that, that's the only way you will be able to report. but there are a lot of departments that haven't yet made the conversion to nibrs reporting. every year it's beenth going upo quit getting closer and closer were we need to be on that and i should add that the nibrs reporting system is something that all the major law enforcement associations wanted us to switch to. it said something we came up with on her own. but so in the meantime we can work with them to supplement that reporting to make sure that any gaps in the completeness of

this statistical picture are compensated for during this kino of transition area. neck. these are some of things where do know that. >> appreciate that. in recent years there was a rise in hate crimes committed against people of asian descent. in fiscal year 2021 2021 id to partner with the doj to bolster federal data collection and response to hate crimes. i'm concerned about language,, obstacles and what the fbi can maybe be doing more to reach those who may have limited english proficiency, and also to make sure that we are increasingly building trust with local underrepresented communities. i don't want the doj and fbi to lose the momentum of all the efforts that have been happening to reach communities like the asian american community.

>> so we agree with you that outreach and communities this incredibly important part of the effort here. we havej been doing i think ovr the last few years hundreds of training and liaison efforts with the aai p can be specific about locally and nationally. with some and materials that we produced that help people understand how to recognize hate crimes and what it is and what it isn't an outer part and so forth that would actually had translated into multiple in which including all the major, the most common aapi languages and we can't have our people out in the committee. one additional piece to this that doesn't alwaysof get connected up withth the so-call, sort of hate crimes piece of it is a legal transnational repression, which is efforts by the chinese government,

specifically the chinese communist party, to harass,n' stalk, blackmail, or worst, chinese americans and people of chinese descent here. and so we've been trying to reach out to the same communities on that as well so that they understand that we are there for them, and to try to help protectt them against the common enemy, frankly, that we both have, or the common adversary i should say, namely the chinese communist party. >> on that note i will end with i does one make sure law enforcement agencies are utilizing culturally competent training with their agents. thank you. >> mr. garcia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank thank you, director w. i'll be honestg wi with you, and this pains me to say this, but i don't trust you. i don't think that this is necessarily a funding problem that we have for your agency as much as a leadership problem.

between the lack of transparency in hearings like this and intel hearings your weaponization and politicization of issues and instruments of national security against innocent americans and against institutions like churches and the fact you've held no one truly accountable for prior fisa abuses that we've all seen recognize, i think you yourself have knowledge there have been abuses. because of the fact that as the fbi director that used a relatively silent and passive about the biggest national security threat to our nation, that being are very open the southern border as are chairman has been discussing, i give very little credence in eitherd your ability to do this job or frankly be the brave agents below you. i don't trust you to protect us, and that is very difficult thing for me to say. it pains me to say that because your job is critically important to the safety of this nation and american lives. and i think because of your

inability to lead and also shape the policies of the doj and at the white house we are now any more precarious position that wa were i would submit than we were on september 10 of 2001. you yourself say in your written testimony over the past year the threat facing our nation have escalated, the breadth of these threats and challenges are as complex any time for history and consequences of not responding and countering the threats have never been greater. these are your words. we don't only pay you to warn us of the threat which so eloquently done you, although that's important and appreciated of your warning us but we also pay you to prevent and protect us from the threats. an agency and i'm on committees were i in your authorizer of intel committee and i'm your appropriate here on the cgs subcommittee on appropriations and i find it difficult to trust you to protect us and any data orfr budget request you bring to us as a result of that is a mike

pence suspect. in your nearly 20 pages of written testimony humectant the southern border only approximately four four tid even then you kind of gloss over it. you now have seven 70 peoa country, 350 on the fbi terror watchlist who have been apprehended, plus another 1.7 million known gotaways here within her borders as a result of your leaderships border policies. i say your leadership and not her bosses because your bosses are the american people, right? your customers are the american people. you work for them. you work for the people to protect them. so your leadership, the president of the united states, ag garland and director homan security mayorkas are literally intentionally putting the people you work for the average clearan citizen into a and present danger situation that you yourself have knowledge in your written testimony. you testify before the intel

committee with worldwide threats and of the committee is there a giant threat warning lights and warning signs and lots of flashing signs from the threat and terrorism assessment perspective. you know and it's evident you know and agree with this notion we should all be concerned, yet despite this you've been unable to change the policy driven by yourm leadership, by the president, the ag, secretary mayorkas. so it's difficult but in addition to being untrustworthy are also ineffective at a very important part of the job which is shaping the policies that do affect national security. that should be the open border should be the biggest challenge that your administration is recognize right now, and, unfortunately, it is not. and i think your biggest problem personally, it's not just me that doesn't trust you, it's the

american people that don't trust you right now as result of that. get us up a yes or no in response to this question? does he open border policy make your job easier or harder? are we safer or less safe as a result of the open border policy? >> i have been consistent over the years frankly inciting my concerns about the threats that emanate from the border. and as to the long narrative that you would threat the beginning, needless to say, i disagree very strongly with the number of aspects of it but i recognize -- >> it's my tie. what you do knowledge the open border policy makes us more insecure and strong, so i want to know what have your discussion open with the president? have you been able to go into his office and say, boss, is openve border policy is a a sd policy, national security perspective? have you had the conversation? if so, what did that look like? would've been the response and how are we shaping this to make

us more secure in the future? >> i'm not going to get into specific conversation with people. i've been consistent in my message externally and internally about my concerns about the threats that from the fbi's perspective that emanate from the border. >> i am out of time, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. morelle? fbi's perspective, that emanate from the border. >> i am out of time, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. morales? >> thank you, mr. chairman. always, for your leadership, and thanks to the ranking member. director, i want to say that i do trust you, and i, for one, and very, very, very grateful for your service on behalf of this entire country and the people that put their faith in you come up and frankly i find it somewhat astonishing that in

this day and age that we live, that the american leadership here at times questions the role of the fbi. i don't question it. i know you have a tough job and i appreciate all the incredible work that you do. if i may, i just want to -- i think you mentioned in your testimony, decreasing rates of homicide, nonfatal shootings in my community of rochester, new york, upstate new york, we remain in a gun violence state of emergency. as you know, the passage of the 2022 bipartisan safer communities act implemented changes in the national criminal background check system, including a comprehensive background check on gun buyers under the age of 21 years old. in this fiscal year, you are requesting $43 million to sustain implementation of that act. as well as a $.4 million to support the background checks, which includes funding to address provisions, such as the under 21 background checks. i just would ask, considering

the critical role that nix plays in preventing firearms from reaching the wrong hands, can you just share with me, how the budget request will allow the fbi to address these what i expect and assume are labor intensive operations, as these transactions continue to grow? >> so, i appreciate the question. the bipartisan safer communities act added a number of additional checks that nix was responsible for conducting, specifically focused on, as we would call it, the u21 group population. this committee -- and we are very grateful for that help to get us, at the time of the passage of the act, funding to bring on board positions and make certain systems changes. but, the problem is, it was one time funding.

so, if we are going to sustain the work, then we need funding to continue, and that is what you see reflected in the request here. it is both to continue those positions because it is, as you say, very labor intensive. but, also for system enhancements, to have the human workforce, have them be even more efficient in their work. i have been out there myself and sat with the operators who are doing the checks on a couple of occasions, to see. that is how i can see how labor- intensive it is. i am very pleased with the fact that they are already getting much, much faster at them. i think that is going to improve, but we still do need the funding, again. a way to remember it is, the funding was there, but it was one time funding. we just need the funding to sustain it. otherwise, it sort of loses its effectiveness. >> and that is obviously going to be an annual request, then, to continue to maintain this, and even require additional dollars in future years, to deal with the growing number of

challenges that we in my community, the fbi leads the roxbury major crimes task force. this includes the joint terrorism task force. participating in the rochester safe streets task force. considering your successful, nationwide efforts alongside state, local, and law enforcement records, can you propose that the strength and information sharing, and coordination among not only the capitol, but your local partners? >> biggest part of our budget request, is to restore essentially the cuts that we were looking at in the 2024 budget. there is no way to sustain it

without having an impact on our efforts on violet crime or child exportation. this is on the whole range of threats that we are responsible for protect the american people from. the request will allow us to continue that is being done in upstate new york and elsewhere, on gang violence and child exportation. cyber attacks. the cartels and organized crime. as i said before, it is not just a border problem that affects all 50 states. we are seizing huge amounts of fat in the will of the country. all of these things are incredibly important. violent crimes, for example, just last year, we were arresting through the task forces. 50 violent criminals and child predators per day, every day, all year long.

this means more bad guys on the street. this means more gangs terrorizing neighborhoods. more kids are at risk. et cetera. >> i see that my time has expired. thank you for your continued service. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman rogers. as i am sure you know this week, they have been reconsidering the option -- of section 7 action. i have deeply been troubled with the abuse of this section. your testimony today is very well-timed. thank you. director, that the fbi currently compliant in every way with the current section? >> my understanding, is that we

are in compliance. >> you think you do. >> how do you respond to the unsealed document surveillance court on may 1920 23 which states the fbi illegally misused this tool lacks this is more than 278,000 times between 2020 and early 2021. is this number accurate? >> i appreciate the question. i'm glad to have the opportunity to clarify that. first off, i would say that that opinion covers activity. this is occurring all before all these reforms that have been in place. >> when did you start putting those reforms in place? >> amid 2022. somewhere in that range. >> they started in 2022. it rolled into 2023. the second thing i would say,

these judges are evaluating the compliance. this is after all of those reforms have been put in place. consistently, compliance rates are well into the high percentage range. the court is actually commending the fbi for the improvement that they have seen because of the reform. the third point that i would make, because you asked, is that the clearing that your talk about, the opinion that covers overactivity, it is something like 99.7% of it. this was all prevented by the reforms that have been put in place. on top of that, a vast majority of those, 200 and -- 280,000, is not part of it. >> this report from early 2021,

you started mid 2022. that would be an entire year. during that timeframe, how many times that the fbi abuse this authority? do you know? >> i don't have any period of noncompliance that i can report here. i can tell you this. >> this is from the more recent period. >> this is what they want before they can access american citizens phones, calls, text messages, or emails. this is part of the end run from the fourth amendment. my colleague, the representative from arizona, has the current authorization, requiring the government to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a u.s. citizen query of information already collected from the 702 pfizer program.

he previously stated in a senate hearing, that it would be on work will to require them to get a warrant for collecting private communications. former nsa owners, looking at the warrant requirements. getting three warrants per day. more than 30,000 employees work for the fbi. are you seriously saying that three warrants a day is too much of a burden for the fbi to protect the fourth amendment rights? >> that is not what i am saying. no court has found the fourth amendment requires us to use a warrant to look at information, to query information that is already in the two holdings. number two, the problem goes beyond any kind of burden or delay. this is not going to come with it. a big heart of the problem, it is only part of the query. we are getting to see the inflation that tells us whether or not we need a warrant

required in the first place. >> this is before my time runs out. working on the breakdown of the fbi budget, almost 60% of the budget is categorized as defense spending. i was reading your mission priorities. i didn't see any reference. this is not part of the public defense. why is the fbi's budget categorized to 60% often spending? >> i believe the answer to your question, is not part of the appropriation section. this is the so-called funding improved. this is been overseen by the office of the national intelligence agency. a significant chunk of the budget, is considered with defense spending. this is part of the intelligence community budget as well. this gets a little bit more complicated than that.

>> my time has expired. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> your questions are important. a lot of people who have been involved in law enforcement, are not sure what the 702 is. i was a former investigative prosecutor within the strikeforce. i know that i have been working within the intel committee. i think you answered the questions. i think those questions are right. we have cleaned up 702. not happy with the comments. he's not here anymore. personally, i have been working at all of these fbi agents. you are respected by her peers. we are in a serious situation in this country right now.

with respect to what is happening with china and russia. i'm really worried about where we are going to go. they are fighting each other all the time. this is as far as what is going on in the country. what i would like you to do, is talk about what pfizer 702 is, and why it is so important. i think the fbi is being caught up right now. really, donald trump, people who are supporting him, that is fine. i don't want to interfere with that. don't mess with the united states of america around national security. that is what you are doing. this is a serious as anything. i worked with them also in that

regard. this issue is one of the most important issues. why is it so important that we pass this? he is mad. he authorized as president, the law. let's not play. could you tell the public at this point where we are? why is it so important? >> section 702 is indispensable in keeping americans safe from a whole barrage of fast-moving, foreign threats. it is crucial to identify terrors in the homeland, working with, inspired foreign terrorist organizations. they have publicly called for attacks against our country. it helps us find out who these terrorists are working with, and what they are targeting. this is what we need to stop them before they kill americans. this is crucial for one

countries like china arrived. we are looking at the case for things that are kidnapping and assassination wise. this helps us know who to warn, and help us disrupt. 702 is crucial to our ability, protect the critical infrastructure from hackers. this is china and russia. including threats to the electricity, water, and hospitals. congress, is letting 702 laps. this is set to do from last week. this will massively increase the risk of missing crucial intelligence during a time of heightened national security threats across the hall multiple affronts. we are seeing what our adversaries are doing. we know who they're working with. it is most definitely going to have consequences to protect

the american people. i can assure you that none of our adversaries are tying their own hands. now is not the time for us to hang up our gloves. do not take away tools that we need to punch back. failing to reauthorize 702, or cutting it with some type of requirement. it would be dangerous, and would put american lives right here. >> i don't know anyone who knows the law. they do not feel strongly about this issue, with respect to 702. >> this is a pattern across multiple administrations. looking at professionals who dealt with this authority, from a working level, to the presidential appointed level, we are looking at crossing ministrations. this is from the last administration. overall, i was nominated by donald trump. overwhelmingly, we were

confirmed without a single republican senator. whether nominated by bush or donald trump. every single one of them support the importance of 702. i think that should help. >> i thank you for what you are doing for our country. i yield back. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, director, for your service to this great nation. i want to acknowledge the fbi's joint terrorist task force that was recently able to apprehend an individual. this was in idaho. this is exactly the type of thing that we need to do to keep americans safe. thank you for your men and women for that. this is going to be part of the southern border. is it more or less secure? >> if pfizer were going to expire, it would add one more challenge to our ability to secure us from border related

threats. >> a lot of people talk about the border. we are on the border every single day. throwing rocks from afar, the other ones you have to live it. are there any cases with the doj prosecutors chose not to prosecute a case that your agency, the inter-bureau, are identifying as a significant threat to the homeland? >> i can't think of a specific case as i am sitting here right now. i will certainly tell you, disagreements between agents and prosecutors at the working level, is something that happens. it is a healthy discussion that happens all the time. the prosecutor doesn't think we have enough. i have been a prosecutor too. i don't have any specific things that i can think of. >> this is what i worry about. we have a team that is thinking about identifying security threats in your homeland.

if it doesn't go prosecuted, something bad happens. you know something is going to happen. i don't want us to be going and playing armchair quarterback. they are looking at the agencies on the ground. >> i have seen a big change in the fbi. looking at headquarters on 9/11. i was very familiar with a lot of the stuff. today's fbi, also works very closely with the state and local prosecutors. if there is ever another instance where another charge in the states system is a better way to quickly look at an attack, or we are not shy about working with local prosecutors, -- >> my next question. what are they doing to combat national organizations specifically, these gangs?

>> we are certainly tracking that particular gang. we have safe streets. this is the violent gang task force. this is within all six of the field offices. these are focus specifically on gangs and other similar violent criminal enterprises. that is the vehicle with which we are looking at the leaders, members, associates, or not. we have an ongoing engagement with partners, local law enforcement. in some cases, foreign partners. you are looking at whether it is drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, ransom, different kinds of violent crime. even things like organized retail theft. it is a real menu of different criminal actions. >> i asked that you take a hard look at this. nobody is talking about that in a couple of years.

no different than we are talking about ms-13. it is the communities that get away -- ahead of it. to utilize these resources to combat these gangs. we are in year four of this. the people that are coming over are different people. i was just out in west texas. i am seeing a significant increase in oil production. all of my shares are asking for help. are there any opportunities to expand the oilfield fbi task force? >> this is the permian basin offices. this was created due to the fact of something like 40% of the oil in the u.s. comes from the west texas region. that task force not only has state and local law enforcement

participation, but we also have, which is a little bit innovative, clear security personnel. they are typically part of the law enforcement as well. this is a way to track oilfield crime. they are ensuring the investigations look at things that are possible. it is a complex form. it is a form of infrastructure. >> director, this is a threat that i am seeing. it is correlated directly to the open border. i'm seeing more and more foreign nationals. particularly, cubans that are here illegally, operating in this space. this space. >> i want to know recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. ohr. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and ranking member cartwright. my apologies for dashing in and

dashing out. there are several hearings some trying to make as many as i can. director, the present budget for 25 increases funding to hire additional fbi personnel. helping to bolster their capacity to deter cybercrime. combat foreign intelligence activity against the u.s., per the national criminal background check system and i know my colleague mr. morelle discuss that issue. first of all i should say thank you to you for making a visit to new haven, connecticut, just a few weeks ago. really delighted to have you there,an an opportunity to be ia field office, if you will. and to talk about the fbi's work in my state. what i wanted to do was address the work with taskforces.

i view what you are doing with regard to state and local government is overall infrastructure. like, we have a public health infrastructure. we rely on state laboratories, et cetera. and when youat look at funding those efforts, you look at the collapse of the bill to move forward with regard, the cdc has inability to move forward. i think sometimes some of my colleagues are unaware just how frequently the fbi works in very close partnership with state and local law enforcement, to be able to deal with crime. if you could talk about what are the lessons learned by both the fbi and state and local law enforcement about ways in which the task force that were mentioned maximize that affect this infighting a crime? i don't know if there's any stories that arelo specially woh highlighting that i would finally ask what happened?

because there are many as you know would love to defund the fbi. a lot of discussion about that. cutback on the resources. what does that mean to the support of that national infrastructure, if you will, that you rely on and they rely on you in order to deal with violent crime and other things in the u.s.? if you could comment on. >> wonder the things a lot of people don't fully appreciate is how integrated today's fbi is with state and local law enforcement and how dependent frankly state and local enforcement is on us when it comes to fulfilling our shared mission of keeping americans safe. he mentioned the taskforces. through our safe streets and violent crime taskforces we've got thousands of police officers and sheriffs deputies from hundreds of different departments and agencies that serve on our taskforces, taking

as a set i think earlier last year we took together 55 the criminals child predators off the street per day every single day all year long, 3065 days the year when you average it out. i cut to our budget means i cut to our efforts to do that work which means more of the burden then gets shifted on this date and local law enforcement to handle those threatst alone. i could go the same thing for multiple of this is because with taskforces on terrorism, sievert, child exportation center. it's not just arrest. if you talk to chiefs and sheriffs like i do every week you will hear constantly a refrain about how much they depend on the fbi for things like our technology and our expertise. it's dna testing, it's cellular analysis, it's all sorts of complex, forensic expertise that small departments in this country don't have but a lien on

as to provide that and that's one of the first things that the site. you talk about our sieges division in west virginia which is the one that is responsible for ncic background checks and someme officer stopping somebody on the streets. that's how the know whether the person is dangerous or not, or fingerprint identification. or thes threat reporting that comes international threat operating system school should come whatever else happens to be that we've been pushing out to state and local law enforcement. cuts to those programs means all those ways state and local law enforcement is flying blind. then you things like training, right? people don't know this, the fbi is for example, responsible for training all the civilian bomb tax, for every police department in the country that have bomb tax are trained by the fbi in a facility in huntsville. and comfortably provide the

training means impacts on ability to train bomb techs personal. it's all sorts of other trade and. with all sorts of turning state and local law enforcement at quantico. as a set of talking to chiefs and shares in one way or another pretty much every week and is only two ways the conversation goes. thank you director vought the great things the fbi is doing for us. we need even more. and, just director, we need even more. i've yet to meet a chief usher wants the fbi to give them less. people need to understand that cuts to our budget don't just turkey fbi. they heard all the state and local law enforcement partners, many of whom unlike the fbi are recruiting challenges of retention challenges come all down in terms of their headcount. they have their own budget challenges. hurting us compounds their challenges, makes it harder for them to protect the neighbors and communities we're all working together to try to

protect. >> a finalal comment. i think it would be critically important from what you've just said and for members to understand and maybe talk with, to hear from their local law enforcement folks and understand what the connection is between state and local law enforcement and the fbi. i think we see a lot less movement in the direction of saying let's defund, let's eliminate, let's do all of these things when we look at the overall law enforcement infrastructure of the united states which is part of our national security. and defending the homeland and doing whatever we want in that direction. thank you so much for your service.al >> mr. aderholt. >> thank you, directornd wray. it doesn't quite get a lot of media coverage but there's been a lot of hostility against

churches and religious organizations at alarming rates over the last few years. there was a report that was published back in february of this year that show that more then, there's been 430 incidents as hostility or violence againt churches across the united states. that's 100% increase from 2022 and 800% increase from 2018. i guess my question to you is, is what is. the bureau resourcs are being dedicated to explore and address disconcerting trend we are seeing? >> so it's a really good question, and i would say the threats to houses of worship that we're seeing cut across a variety of settings. i said that with the perspective of somebody who when i was a line prosecutor, what a my most

significant cases was against a guy who is a serial church arsonist, went all over the country burning down churches including right up in our mutual neck of the woods in georgia where he killed in banks county he killed a firefighter animals killed another one. so i've always taken those cases particularly seriously. i was it his is couple of t. wishing terrorist attacks against churches. just in time i been fbi dreck we have thwarted multiple attacks against churches and synagogues or i can think of and isis inspired plot against a church in pittsburgh. i can think of synagogues in colorado and las vegas area, just as a few examples. there's also i would say a range of threats from a perspective of

abortion related violence. a lot of people historically focused on abortion related violence when it comes to pro-choice facilities but, in fact, if you look at our work post dobbs opinion, it's been a while since a look at our numbers, but i think something like 70% of our abortion related violence cases were after the dobbs decision were against what i would call houses of worship or pro-life facilities. in fact,g just yesterday we haa case like i got seven and a half years, a great case against a guy who firebombed a facility up in the madison, wisconsin, area. we are tackling it depends on what the motivation or the threat is can sometimes there might be some isis inspired type attack comes in case might be some domestic ideology. inin some cases it might be something altogether. in addition to investigate

report state and local law enforcement on thatof we're also and every field office i find that there's a whole lot of outreach and engagement with houses of worship in that area. so that the folks in those houses of worship know who to contact, what to be on the lookout for, that kind of thing. >> let me just say, thank you for that but targeting threatening religious organization something i cannot go unnoticed and i would just employ that you would make sure that you do investigate and you try to make sure this is a focus of the bureau. the names phoenix, holly, harriet, christopher, names have given to the d.c. five.

those with a five unborn children that remain, whose remains were salvaged by whistleblower after the lights were brutally ended by late-term abortionist here in washington, d.c. area. there's evidence that suggests federal crimes may have been committed in their deaths through violations of the abortion ban and born alive protections. as you know this is the law of the land administration has a duty to enforceco the law withot prejudice to political philosophy or those in violation of the law. instead of seeking justice for these babies or answering to whether federal crimes were committed, i am concerned some of administration have decided weaponized the fbi and its resources against pro-life americans by investigating and arresting individuals for the face act violations. isisco the bureau aware of the . five case? and if so, is the bureau

investigating the d.c. five case? >> as i sit here on the way with the specific case. i can follow up with our folks on that. i will to you when it comes to face act enforcement more generally, we have used that authority and kind of both directions. in fact, i know we had a case not that long ago when we secured face act conspiracy indictments against four individuals who were invoking the genes revenge movement and are targeted pro-life the subtleties in their areas. we don't care which side of the abortion issue you are on. there's a right way and a wrong way to express your passionate views, but violence and threats against the subtleties is not it, and we will go after it no matter which side. >> i would like to get your

commitment to use funds to investigate this d.c. five case. >> i'm happy to find it where we are with that. like a set i'm not familiar with the specific case but we obviously want to make sure if there's any properly predicated investigation we can conduct. >> if you get back to us to let us know what you all are doing on that. thank you. yield back. >> let me do a little polling here. do we need a second round? anyone here -- [inaudible] i want to keep it as short as again because we want the children back at work. so you were on. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. director wray, pages 16 of your budget request toad talk about civil rights and the fbi is a primary sponsor do this get all of its violations of federal

civil rights laws. you talk about color of law violations in there. which is any person using the authority given to them by a government agency to willfully deprive someone of the right. so you talk about the face act and voter suppression, et cetera. have you ever investigated a second amendment rights violation? i mean, you've got bruin decision which struck on a new york law which to quit peoples second amendment rights, and i've never seen anyone in government ever prosecuted for violating citizens second amendment rights. can you think of any time when the fbi has actually use color of law to prosecute someone for violating someone's second amendment rights? >> well, not as i sit of it obviously we are a when that a 15-year-old organization with 30,000 employees in something like 300 offices hundred offices all over the united states. no doubt there could be any

number of investigations that ii wouldn't be aware of. >> okay, all right. you have a request in your budget for $204,000. for official reception fund. that is almost extent of the united states attorney himself receives. i mean, his is $50,000. the atf $36,000. $586,000. the das 90,000. u.s. attorneys 19,600. 19,600. but the fbi's $284,000. why? why is the fbi's literally six times what attorney general merrick garland reception funds are? >> i don't know i could tell you as a to do right now. i know we have a lot of engagement with foreign partners, and that could be big driver but i can't as a center now give you the specifics.you the specifics. i'm happy to my staff follow-up. >> i would appreciate that very much.

lastly, the department of justice is asking for 1.25% increase, told the $4677 millio. the fbi is asking for 6% increase totaling $629 million. the fbi is asking for literally a 350% increase in funding more than the overall department of justice is pick a fact if the total spin for the doj is going up 467 million and the fbi's asking for 629 million, and the doj hasa to take a cut some ofn order for the fbi to get their increase in funding of the least $160 million. so what on earth, what justifies that kind of increase for the fbi? >> so what i would tell you is an resort appreciate the department's work including attorney generals work for a budget request, you know, the effect of the fiscal year 20 '24 budget that was appropriated to us is about 1000 position cut,

about about $500 million cut in our ability to get our job done. so when you look across a range of threats were responsible for protecting americans from, violent crime, 50 back as per day everyday, ransomware, 100 different ransomware variants that we're investigating, the chinese, 1300% increase in chinese economic espionage, the chinese hacking program which outnumbers us by well over 50 to one. fentanyl, we seized 270 million persons worth of fatal fentanyl in the last two years. so the range of threats that the fbi is statutorily responsible for protecting americans from the is significant. and the impact of the '24 budget is such that most of what our budget request that you talked about calls for is to put us back on track so we can keep doing the hard work and keeping

the bad guys away from us. >> to what other technical adjustment 192 my dog for tactical adjustments. $286 million in adjustments to base. what is that? >> i think the adjustment to base is for appropriation speak for the point i was just making about getting us back on track in terms of the positions that potentially we would lose because of the impact on our cost of operations. of the 24 the '24 budget. >> and the technical adjustment? >> that part, i get i would hae to go back and look but i can telllo you that most of our budt is to get us back on track. we have a few enhancements specifically on cyber, counterintelligence but that's essentially this year that's essentially our budget. >> thank you. my time is expired. yield back. >> yield to myself for five minutes. mr. director, let me askse about these global terror networks

that you mentioned. you recently testified that the threats, quote, have gone to a whole other level, and that foreign terrorists, including isis, and al-qaeda, have renewed calls for attacks here in thehe u.s. did you expand on that? >> yes, sir. so first off i would say even for october 7 i would've told you and i was telling other committees that we were at a high-end threat level because across a range of different terrorist vectors we were at like a heightened threat level. after october 7 is what went to a whole nother level. part of that is that we've seen a road gallery of four nation calling for attacks on us. you've got hezbollah expressing support and praise for hamas the

threatening to attack u.s.en interests in the region.re you cut al-qaeda issuing its most specific call for an attack against us, against the u.s. in the last five years. you've got aqap, al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, callingal for jihadists to attack americans and jewish communities in u.s. you cut isis attacking jewish committees in u.s. and the irony is that if anybody u.s. study terrorism knows, these are terrorist organizations that don't typically see eye to eye but they seem to be united in one thing, which is calling for attacks on us. so you add on top of that my concern which i've repeatedly flagged, which is when you look around the world at foreign terrorist organizations, you could see in afghanistan the concern about whether it's al-qaeda isis-k growing strength and reconstituting and, of course, we've lost some of

our ability to gather intelligence on the threat there. you can lookti at africa. look at isis and al-shabaab and the growth of those organizations of there. in fact, al-shabaab is not the best funded branch of al-qaeda you could look at syria, and isis repeated efforts to free some very dangerous fighters that are in the presence of there. so thenan look at things like te attack we just had in moscow, the attack and iran before that, isis attacks. and so when organizations like al-qaeda, like isis expressed an intent to conduct attacks against us is something we need to take very seriously. so that's part of why i've highlighted this as a heightened threat. this is not the time for panic. it is a time for heightened vigilance. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director wray, the topic of

anti-fbi rhetoric raised its head today. .. chairman. >> director christopher whay, anti-rhetoric has raised its head today. i wish to associate myself with comments of this man. i am dismayed about it. particularly, it found its way into >> law enforcement agency. the top law enforcement agency in this country protects us from all manner of mayhem, from child predators, cyber threats, drug trafficking, gang violence, international terrorism, hezbollah, hamas, al-qaeda, isis, al-shabaab. these are men and women that have dedicated their lives to the protection of american citizens. they don't deserve to have

threats leveled against them with anti-fbi rhetoric ginning them up. last week a man crashed into the security gate at the fbi's atlanta field building and resisted efforts by fbi agents to bring him into custody. although this investigation is still underway, i am concerned about threats to fbi agents and fbi facilities in the field, particularly in light of anti-fbi rhetoric from far too many public officials and i'd like you to comment on that. to what extent are you seeing an uptick in threats against the fbi and what does that do to morale within the agency? >> well, you have a couple different questions there. let me start with the threats because that's ultimately what matter the most. you know, rhetoric is rhetoric and there's a lot of heated rhetoric in this country across a range of issues.

but when it comes to threats and threats of violence, that's something that we take extremely seriously and we've seen a substantial jump in threats towards fbi personnel and facilities from fiscal year '22 to fiscal year '23, in fact, created a dedicated unit to try to deal with those issues. you mentioned the atlanta field office. i won't discuss that specific case, but just last year in our senate field office, we had an individual wearing a tactical vest and armed with an ar rifle and a nail gun tried to forcibly attack our personnel after he was thwarted in reviewing his devices and his postings. he was calling on people to fight federal law officers and fight, in his own words, a civil war. and unfortunately this is a broader phenomenon we see in the country, which is an uptick in violence against law enforcement, not just fbi, but

state and local law enforcement and we've had breathtaking paces of violence against law enforcement. having a badge is dangerous enough as it is. it shouldn't make somebody a target. and some of these threats target law enforcement's family members, which is despicable. like i said, these are dangerous jobs and i talk every week. one of the things to state and local law enforcement going through a lot of the same thing in their own way. i call-- one of the things i started doing when i started in job, every time an officer or a sheriff's deputy is killed anywhere in the country, in the line of duty call the chief or the sheriff myself to express my condolences on behalf of the fbi and we talk about the individual's family and career and everything else. and i have made 381 of those

calls since i started as fbi director. 14 just so far this year. we've lost in 2021, we lost three of our own, two agents killed in miami and a task force officer ambushed right outside of our office in tara haute, indiana. it's real, appalling and when you talk about moral, which is -- morale, no one likes to see what you've dedicated your life to criticized. but we're focussed on the people at work and i don't think our people get hung up on rhetoric. the focus is, our people, do they want to work for us?

you bet they do. it's gone up since i've been director. do they want to work with task forces, state and local police departments, are sending more and more task force officers to work on our task forces. it sure isn't because they don't have enough to work in their home department. people want to turn to us for help? you bet they do. i see business leaders more and more turning to us with cyber attacks and chinese economic espionage and the public calling our public access line in west virginia more and more turning to us for all manner of tips and threats. it's almost like we sort of defaulted into becoming a national 911 center. do people want to work for us? more and more. do people want to turn to us for help? more and more. would we prefer not to be criticized, yes. >> director wray, thank you for your comments and your work. yield back.

the gentleman yields back. do you desire time? >> yes. >> recognized for the time. >> and i want to thank the large number of law abiding agents within your agency who work hard for the american people every day, but we can't ignore the violations that have occurred within the fbi by some individuals and the policy changes that were necessitated by those abuses and for some on the other side to talk about anti-law enforcement rhetoric, when morale is at an all-time low in local law enforcement offices because of the defund the police movement on the left, it is rich, it is rich to hear this come from the other side. so, my colleague, who spoke critically about the performance of some in your

agency, mr. wray, was doing so with a love for country, a love for the constitution and a desire to see the confidence of the american people in their institutions restored after it has been so eroded by the performance of some within your agency acting in violation of the law and in violation of policies. so i'm happy to take up what amounts to a large chunk of my time to stand up for my colleagues who have left and who are under criticism from members of this very subcommittee. and to restate that there is a first amendment. we have a right to criticize when there is evidence of

wrongdoing. we have a responsible to the taxpayers of this country when there are individuals within your agency who violate the rights of american citizens. and so i needed to stand up for my colleague and i do want to-- but i do want to ask, as part of fisa, i have an amendment that would codify a policy of the bureau related to abouts collection. abouts. so, the fbi has decided not to engage in what amounts to collection of upstream communication from companies that operate, internet cables that connect to ip's communications about a target.

why did you all stop abouts collection? >> well, i will confess to you it's been a little while since i looked at that issue. it was very much on our mind back around the time of the last reauthorization, as i recall. ng, agaiagain-- i think, again, my memory is not perfect on this, but i think it was a judgment that the benefits from having that were outweighed by, in our view, the potential that the authority could result in a compliance violation of some sort. >> again, my memory is a little fuzzy on that, but with that big caveat. do you have any intention of resuming abouts collection at this time? >> no. >> i'd since declassified sense of fisa reports from 2011 shed

a light on the pervasiveness of the collection at the time and noted that it resulted in tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications collected each year, due to what was described as technical limitations of abouts collection. so, would it in any way interfere with department policy or activities to codify the practices the fbi and their suspension of abouts collection? >> well, again, without-- i have to review any specific legislative proposal. we have tried to put in place a whole range of policies and system enhancements and i think the effort in a number of the legislative reform proposeals that are swirling around up in congress right now are intended to-- similar language to what you're using to sort of lock in reforms that we've put in place and i think as a general

matter, that is something that we're in favor of. but the specific issue, i'd have to take a closer look, but we're happy to do that. >> i appreciate that. yield back. >> does mr. --. >> yes, i would respond to a couple of comments. >> i respect everybody on this board. you have in this hearing. we all have different points of view, we look at things differently, but i also look at the big picture, too. my specialty throughout my life, most of it, of it in being an account executive or something, has been law enforcement. when you're in law enforcement, you're trained, you develop relationships and you learn a lot and one of the most important things is for federal, state and local, we work together and i think that the comments that were made, and i respect that individual and i said that before, and i do respect him because he's a hard worker, he served in the naval academy and i was just shocked that his whole--

the whole five minutes or whatever he had, it was in criticizing someone who i happen to respect and i think a lot of other people respect has one of the hardest jobs in america. what bothers me, we're in probably one of the worst situations for national security and he's a major part of dealing with those issues and i would hope that someone with his expertise and smarts and he's very smart -- and i will talk to him personally because i know him personally -- would spend doing this and not talking about what are we going to do with this issue, which everyone else has talked to him about and i just was shocked and, but believe it, i get probably more heat from my left than i get from you all, but that's my politics and that's the way each one of us has our point of view. mr. clyde, in the beginning when he started, he asked good questions, he didn't have the experience that some of us have in law enforcement or dealing

with you all and that type of thing, but at least you try, you wanted to know and you asked good questions, i respect that whatever your conclusion it, i respect it, i might not like it, but i respect it. but i just wanted to respond a little on why i felt it was really important to stand up for somebody who i think is qualified, he's doing a good job, and the fbi has really, in my opinion, grown. and i love the fact that they are now working with federal, state and local as a team and makes them a lot better. >> the gentleman will yield back? >> yes, i do. >> that concludes today's hearing and we want to thank the witness, director wray, for being here. without objection, members may have seven days to submit additional questions for the record. the subcommittee now stands adjourned. >> okay. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ♪♪ >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies debated and decide, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> today homeland securit secretary alejandro mayorkas will testify on the president's 25 budget request and take questions on immigration policy in the southern border. one day after the senate voted to dismiss articles of impeachment against him. we'll have liveoverage at 10

a.m. eastern on c-span 3, on our free mobile app, c-span now and online at c-span.org. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 5:10 p.m. eastern, martin luther king iii commemorates the 56th anniversary of his father's april 4th assassination at the civil rights museum. and the series congress investigates looking at investigations that changed policy and law. this weekend we'll look back at the mccarthy era hearing that explored whether commune anythingses that infiltrated the state department, the army and other federal agencies. at 8 p.m. eastern lectures on history, north carolina history professor jasmine howard