the subcommittee will be in order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. welcome to the first fiscal year 2025 hearing for the subcommittee on commerce, science, justice, and related agencies. before we get started, i want to think -- thank chairwoman granger for her years of dedication to this committee and formally congratulate chairman cole on 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 doj and fbi experience, dating back to the late 1990s, has served in his current role since august of 2017. in his capacity as director, the overseas agency of about 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. with $6.7 billion of that amount, about 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, and approximately $700 million in other adjustments. representing the substantial increase cost of continuing the fbi's current activities. in particular, the largest program increase request is what the fbi has labeled "restoration of 2023 national security and law enforcement personnel." this request is for $85.4 billion, and aims to fund 270 headquarter positions, of which only 60 would be actual agents. the bureau claims these

resources are necessary to limit reductions and function areas. let's be crystal clear. cartels continue 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 rebels, murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, all too high. there is no question. the fbi's mission is more critical than ever. the request to increases in the fiscal '25 budget are significant, and it is my hope that they are fully discussed in today's hearing, in relation to many of the issues this country is facing. however, it is no secret that

the nation's federal debt stands at approximately $34 trillion. let me repeat that number. $34 trillion. and 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 is essential that we ensure every dollar appropriate to agencies is spent effectively, efficiently, and appropriately. anything less would be ignoring our constitutional duty. to that end, our fiscal year 2024 appropriations bill made some difficult and necessary funding reductions, for many agencies, including the fbi. as with all appropriations

bills, the fiscal '24 bill was the product of careful consideration and collaboration within congress. we review budget submissions, call hearings, analyze program increase requests, engage with the agencies, have catalyst debates, and make final judgment calls. not everyone will be satisfied with the final appropriate levels. whatever increasing debt levels require tough decisions. director wray, we look forward to the opportunity to discuss with you today, the president's fiscal year of 2025 budget submission for the fbi. we are 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 fda that include but are not limited to, the erosion of public trust of the bureau. this includes the fbi's overly aggressive tactics, questionable investigative standards, and the overall politicalization of the bureau. importantly, i also want to ensure we fully explore the grave crisis at our southern border. and the fbi's responsibility, when it comes to combating the wide range of illegal activities happening at the border. that not only impacts the nation's southern states, but the entire country, as a whole. i believe the fiscal year 2024 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. federal agencies expanding beyond the required duties is a real problem, and it must be corrected. i believe in the fbi's mission, to protect the american people and uphold the constitution of our great country. i recognize the challenging, yet critical work the agency performs daily, defending the u.s. 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, once again, we appreciate you being here to answer our questions. we appreciate your hard work. on behalf of the american people, let me now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, for any remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i joined chairman rogers in thanking our overall appropriations chair, kay granger, for her years of dedication and service to this appropriations committee. and congratulate chairman cole as he takes over that very important role. and i also joined chairman rogers in welcoming director christopher wray to testify today. as we all know, the fbi does an enormous amount of work to help

protect the american people as a primary law enforcement agency for the u.s. 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 in over 60 legal attachi offices in 80 countries around the world. the fbi works to investigate and disrupt crime including everything from violent gang networks, cyber criminals, white-collar crime, human trafficking, and domestic and international terrorism. i could not agree more with chairman rogers as he talks about fbi's mission including combating opioid entity opioid epidemic, including fentanyl poisonings that are killing well north of 100,000 people, american citizens, every year. in addition, since russia was

brutal and unprovoked invasion of ukraine last year, the fbi has also successfully worked to disrupt criminal, cyber, and hostile intelligence activities from russia that endanger ukraine, our partners in american citizens. the biden administration is requesting funding for several fbi initiatives in fiscal year 2025, including investments to restore and enhance the fbi's efforts to combat violent crime and cybercrime and to enhance the fbi's counterintelligence and counter terrorism capabilities, among other initiatives. director wray, i look forward to hearing more from you about these and other priorities surrounding the fbi's budget request. again, i thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i yield back to you. >> we want now to recognize our witness, director wray, for an

opening statement. without objection, his written statement will be entered into the record, and i would ask him that we would like to see him keep his remarks to five minutes or less, so we can have additional time for questions. director wray? >> thank you, and good afternoon, chairman rogers, ranking member cartwright, members of the committee. i'm 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 to stay ahead 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. this year, the fbi is one of those agencies. with our fiscal year 2024 budget having now come in at almost $500 million below what the fbi needs just to sustain our 2023 efforts, and candidly, this could not have come at a worse time. when i sat here last year, i sat through how we were already in a heightened threat environment. since then, we have seen the threat from foreign terrorist raised to a whole other level since october 7th. we continue to see the cartels pushed fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into every corner of the country, claiming countless american lives. we have seen a spate of ransomware and other attacks, impacting parts of our critical

infrastructure and businesses, both large and small. violent crime, which reached alarming levels coming out of the pandemic, remains far too high, and is impacting far 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 when so many threats to our public safety and national security were so elevated, all at once. but, that is the case as i sit here today. and while we have always found ways at the fbi to innovate and make the most with 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, and all the resources required to tackle these threats and to keep americans safe. so, to take the each of those into turn, the people, and resources. first, an 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 authorities, set to expire next week. so, let me be clear. failure to reauthorize 702 -- or gutting it with some kind of warrant requirement -- would be dangerous, and would put americans' lives at risk. second, we need people, and i will stack the fbi's workforce up against anyone, anywhere,

anytime. they are innovative, they are efficient, they are relentless, they are professionals, they are patriots. and 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 positions to be able to bring all the good people we can to the fight. certainly not fewer. now is not the time to cut back. it is time to lean forward. third, we need resources, which you will see in the 2025 budget request that we are here today to discuss. so, 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, we have seen a

rogues gallery of foreign terrorist organizations call for attacks against americans and our allies. given those calls for action, or most immediate concern has been that individuals or small groups will draw some kind of 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 isys attack we saw at the russian concert hall just a couple years ago. we also need funding to counter the threat from the people's republic of china. a government is 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 our economic success. we need funding to counter cyber threats, certainly those from china, but also from a

crowded field of sophisticated hostile nationstates and criminals, nationstates 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 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 and to rescue young victims from their torment. out of all those areas i just mentioned, we are working closely with our partners and 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 departments and 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 our cuts to our partners, state and local law enforcement agencies and officers who are on the ground, putting themselves in the line of fire, often quite literally. and 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 five 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 the fentanyl pipeline, and what role can the bureau play here? >> so, i would say it is a mixed bag. certainly, the scourge of fentanyl is still claiming way, way, way too many lives, and i will tell you that from the fbi's perspective, one of the things that we have been observing is in our takedown of violent gangs -- which is, of course, something we are doing all around the country, all the time -- as we are noticing,

almost without exception now, that those takedown is of violent gang members also include seizures of fentanyl. so, the fentanyl that is coming from the cartels, built on precursors from china, ending up all over the united states, is often being distributed, of course, by these violent street gangs. so, that is one of the things we are observing. we are trying to do our part of this, and this goes beyond anyone agency, and frankly, beyond law enforcement, as i know a lot of your efforts are recognized. but, some of the things that we, at the fbi, are trying to do our part -- i will mention a few. our safe streets task force is going after the gangs that are distributing so much of this poison. our organized crime, transnational organized crime task forces are going after the cartels. we have, i think, close to 400 investigations that go just after cartel leadership.

we also have things like j code, which is an initiative where we bring together 12 agencies that are focused on the dark web trafficking of fentanyl and other dangerous substances, dismantling darknet marketplaces, when we do that. we have a prescription drug initiative because, of course, especially in certain parts of the country, pill mills and irresponsible prescribers of opioids are a driver of much of this epidemic. so, we are using our healthcare fraud, expertise, for example, to go after some of those folks. we are working with our partners on the other side of the border. there, i would say, it is very uneven. we have had some instances where we have had a key arrest, an extradition, a key operation, we are starting to work with vetted teams down there, which is an important effort from the right direction.

but, we need much, much more than we are getting from the mexican government. so, i guess i would summarize my answer to your question by saying, a lot of things to be encouraged by in terms of the effort and the work across multiple agencies that people are making. but, a lot of things to be very, very concerned about. last year -- i guess, the last two years in a row, i will just leave it with this point, the fbi seized enough fentanyl to kill 270 million american people. and that gives you a sense of the scale of what we are up against. >> when it comes to mexico, what is the level of cooperation between our law enforcement agencies? especially when it comes to drug trafficking. are they working with you, in mexico? >> absolutely, i think one of the really bright spots that i see, especially when i compare to earlier in my career, is how close the partnerships are, across all levels of law

enforcement. all the federal agencies, state and local law enforcement is so entwined with today's fbi. for in law enforcement, in a lot of instances, the intelligence community working with law enforcement. so, partnerships are, in many ways, stronger than ever. that is one of the things that is keeping us from becoming an even worse problem. we work with state dea on everything from strike forces, we have dea task force officers on a lot of our task forces. and vice versa. where work out at the sod where there is intelligence sharing, so there is a whole range of ways in which we can all work together. obviously, always room for improvement, we are always looking for ways to innovate and take that to the next level, but if there is one bright spot i can leave the committee with, it is that the partnerships among law enforcement are, in my career, the best i have ever seen. >> well, is mexico honoring our law enforcement efforts, to

bring the cartel leaders to justice? >> as i think i said earlier, uneven. so, we have had instances, individual instances of success, including significant cartel figures and extraditions. but, the reality is -- especially with the two major cartels, cedillo and cng, are the drivers of the most of what we are dealing with here and we need more from the mexican government. there are instances to be pleased about. we have had a top 10 fugitive all of ours, for example, that they helped arrest and send back recently. so, there are individual instances that are bright spots, but this is such a big problem, we need consistent, sustained, scalable assistance from them. >> well, that border is so open and unchecked, and we are letting in the cartels.

they don't only do drugs, they do human trafficking and everything else in the book. my observation is, we are not getting enough cooperation out of the mexican government on seeking out the cartels. can you agree or disagree with that? >> the way i would put it is, we certainly need more from the mexican government. i am pleased with what we have gotten, but we need a lot more. >> i'm sorry? mr. cartwright? >> thank you, chairman rogers. i want to follow-up chairman rogers' line of questioning, director wray. we are getting some cooperation from the mexican authorities, but we need more, and it is what they are giving us, it is incomplete, it is inconsistent.

the question is, what can we do? what are we doing to encourage their cooperation? what more can we get out of them, and what is the best way to approach that? >> so, i think that much of this goes beyond sort of the fbi's lane, of course, and other parts of the government. >> your opinion matters. >> i am mindful to stay in my lane, but what i will say is, 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 prc. so, those are a few things. as far as, what more can we do, specifically, i would say, again, at the lower law enforcement working level, there are any number of operations that show us what success could look like, at scale.

we have now started doing -- which is something i am pleased with, with the mexicans -- we now have vetted law enforcement teams. much like we used to do, and still do in columbia. you know, kind of going back to the efforts that we have had with the colombian government over the years, i think that is a step in the right direction. but, it is extraditions, it is sharing of information, and it is, like i said, the key is having it at a scaled, consistent, sustained level. it is not that there aren't bright spots, but we just need a lot more of it. >> you mentioned going after the cartels, and 400 separate investigations with the fbi involving them. what about 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? >> well, we certainly need more

help from the mexican government on that part of it. we also, of course, frankly, need the chinese government to do a heck of a lot more than they are doing. i mean, you have this dangerous intersection of increasingly sophisticated mexican cartels, with malicious and unscrupulous actors in the prc, who are all too happy to be supplying the chemicals that then fuel the cartels production. we are trying to tackle it on a whole bunch of different levels. our focus, going back over decades, toward the fbi's approach to organized crime, is looking for ways to dismantle the enterprise. and so, that means trying to go after the leadership. whether we are charging them, whether somebody else is charging them, that means trying to go after their money. a big part of this is going after -- after all, this is a for-profit business for them,

so the more we can go after their assets, asset forfeiture and things like that, go after their money launderers, it doesn't work for them if they don't have the people -- and institutions to -- launder their money. so, we are trying to tackle the infrastructure around them, too, as opposed to just onesie to see in terms of arrest. that is the approach we are trying to take but it very much has to be a team effort. >> and do you need more money to do that, or less money? >> we need more money to do that. >> now, you mentioned takedowns of violent gangs and you mentioned it so often includes seizures of massive amounts of fentanyl. am i correct in that? >> i am absolutely right. i think something like 75% of the fentanyl we are seizing is coming in gang takedowns, something in that magnitude. >> now, tell me about these gangs. are these american citizens? >> most of the gangs, themselves, are neighborhood gangs. i mean, there are gangs that come from the northern triangle like ms-13, and so forth, as well.

but, a lot of the takedowns i am describing, that we are dismantling are, frankly, neighborhood gangs, who are then the ones peddling the fentanyl on the streets. not just in the border states, but all over the country. >> and how are they getting the fentanyl, and the opioids from mexico? >> i think much of that is probably a question better directed to dhs. i can tell you because most of our seizures are not happening at the ports of entry, they are happening after the stuff is already here somewhere inside the united states. we had a big takedown in new england, about as far away from the southern border as you can get, the biggest takedowns i think in new england history involving mountains of fentanyl. so, that is really where we are seeing it. but, the actual traffic across the border and the ports of entry is, you know, dhs' lane. i know they have a heck of a challenge on their hands, to put it calmly. >> thank you, director. i yield back. >> mr. klein? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you, director, for being here. i wanted to continue to ask about the border. and your involvement at the border, in assisting with identification of individuals. you would 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. in fact, dhs recently, or within the past few years, mandated that this identification occur, correct? >> yes. >> and when dhs ruled out that program, authorities found that

about 19% of family units crossing were fraudulent. does that sound about right? >> that part, i don't -- i don't have any reason to dispute it, but as i sit here right now, i can't remember that specific piece. yeah. >> okay. but, failure to properly identify individuals coming across the border engaged in human trafficking, sex trafficking, child sex trafficking, are attempting to evade identification, correct? >> right. i mean, the whole identification piece of this, i think you are ready put your finger on it, is such an important part of it. that is why, for example, we have -- as we are trying to be good partners with dhs -- we have been providing them with dna kits that then our lab is the one who would then test, and it has proven to be critical in identifying murderers, , and all sorts of

dangerous individuals point >> you have a shortfall, a backlog? >> 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 gone skyrocketing, as well. so, there is a backlog and the backlog should be of concern to all of us. >> do you think it would be appropriate, or address this national security risk, as you say, if we were to -- if we were to ensure that these individuals would not be released until there identification is complete? >> well, certainly, that is something we should be taking a look at. that sort of gets into dhs' authority, so i am a little reluctant -- given the sheer number of things that are on our plate before i start weighing in on what should be on somebody else's plate. but, i will tell you that we

have any number of incidences 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 of concern, and then it is the fbi and our partners who then have to go try to find the person, take whatever action we can to disrupt the threat that this person poses. >> okay, rather than asking you should it 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? >> at least as i sit here right now, i don't see how that couldn't help. >> okay, thank you. i want to also ask about -- you touched on it in your testimony, section 702. you have said that a warrant requirement would "gut" i think

was your term, compliance with the fourth amendment -- that would "gut" a tool that you have. is that essentially what you said? >> i did use the word "god," and i stand by it. i will say, compliance with the fourth amendment, let's be clear, no court -- as in, none -- has ever held that a warrant is required under the fourth amendment for the fbi to run queries of information that is already lawfully under our holdings, under section 702. the only course to address the issue -- >> but, isn't that information the intent of the law designed to provide the information for foreign nationals, not for american citizens who are, and would be an end run around the statute, as you say, to lawfully attain this information? >> no, no. i appreciate the question.

i think the purpose of section 702 is to identify foreign threats to us, to americans. and so, when you have -- i will give you an example to illustrate the point. it is critical for our ability to identify foreign terrorist organizations communicating with, conspiring with, or working with people here, in the u.s. and that is how we identify and stop attacks. we had an example just last year, where we had an individual, foreign terrorist overseas, who had some kind of contact -- not sure what it was at that point -- with some person we believed to be in the united states. so, we did a query. we ran a u.s. person query on that you was individuals identifiers. but at the time we ran that query, we didn't know what we had. it was the equivalent of a wrong number, was it just an innocuous chitchat? or, was it something that was concerning? well, because we were able to run the query -- again,

information already lawfully in our holdings -- that is when we discovered, whoa, wait a minute, we have a live one here. this is serious. this is urgent. investigation kicked in very quickly and within less than a month, within less than a month from that first query, we were able to arrest a person who had, by that time, weapons, bomb making equipment, targets circled, and everything else. the point i would try to make here, is that if we had to get a warrant -- >> in a day -- >> to run that initial query, no, no, sir, it doesn't work that way. somebody has to get a warrant. if we had to get a warrant for that initial query, there is no judge on the planet that would have given us a warrant based on what we knew at the time. all we knew at the time was foreign terrorist overseas, some kind of contact 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. >> and what is the purpose of taking dna samples of all migrants? >> well, i think there are multiple purposes. i think one of them -- which goes to the question congressman cline was asking about -- is sometimes, you have people who, a lot of times, we find somebody tries to re-enter the country. they are deported, as they should have been, but then they try to re-enter. and because we have the dna -- and they may come across in some other way and turn up somewhere else. but, because we have the dna sample -- >> so, essentially, doing dna testing on all people entering the country at the border, is to be able to find criminals among the lot? it is comparing the dna test

sample of that person against the national criminal records? has that been effective? have we caught criminals that way? >> absolutely. it is two prong, and of course, the people who try to re-enter the country illegally are also committing a crime, but the point you are getting at is a very important one, which is this authority and the funding that this subcommittee has given us over the years on this, has enabled us to identify, you know, rapists, murderers, and any other number of dangerous criminals, whose crimes are around the country. so, the dna collection and the testing, and the timely testing is critical to solving sometimes very heinous crimes here in the united states. >> well, and in the '24 budget, we included the $53 million that you had requested to address the increase in numbers

of dna samples. and the border has become more open since that time, with many more people coming across than before. and yet, you made no request for money in fiscal year '25? what is going on? >> well, partly, what we have done is tried to prioritize that collection effort with the funds that the subcommittee has already given us, key to our 2025 request is to try to restore the roughly 1000 positions cut that the net effect of the '24 budget would have. that is, in our judgment -- because we have had to make hard choices very consistent with the spirit of your opening remarks, mr. chairman. so, we didn't want to take away money from the dna collection.

but, in our budget request, we were trying to restore the positions that go to everything from ransomware, to violent crime, to fentanyl interdiction, to counterespionage against the chinese, i could go on and on, but -- >> well, now there is 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 have that backlog. >> you will get no argument from me, sir, that the backlog is a negative development, and that if this subcommittee were to give us more 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 haven't taken money away from it, but we have had to prioritize the significant hit that we took, in terms of the impact on our personnel. in the '24 budget, that is what you see. but, if you would see fit to give us more money for it, i can assure that it would help in the effort that the dna effort is designed to accomplish. something that you and i both agree is extremely important. >> well, you make the request, we will take it up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director wray. i, along with several of my quality in the house and senate have previously communicated with the doj and fbi about the importance of the fbi's uniform crime reporting programs, reports on hate crime 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 that the number of local agencies providing data to the fbi has declined. i 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 are right to ask about the issue, because one of the things we know about hate crime reporting in general just as a starting point, is that it is chronically underreported. and so, for quite some time now, we have 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, how to report it, so forth. and so, that effort is continuing and we are always trying to find new and better ways to improve their responsiveness, if you will. the second thing that i think contributes to the trend that you are describing is the

conversion to divers, the national institute reversed reporting base system, that affects statistics not just on hate crimes, but on all sorts of other crime reporting, as well. this nivers transition is something that had been in the works for years, and years, and years, dating back to well before i became fbi director and we had been repeatedly telling state and local law enforcement that, this is coming, this is coming. and once it gets to the point that we have shifted over to that, that is the only way you will be able to report. but, there are a lot of departments that haven't yet made the conversion to nivers reporting. every year has been going up, we are getting closer and closer to where we need to be on that, and i should add that the nivers reporting system is something that all the major law-enforcement associations wanted us to switch to. it is not something that we just came up with on our own.

but so, in the meantime, we are trying to work with them to supplement that reporting, to make sure that, you know, any gaps in the completeness of this statistical picture are compensated for during this kind of transition area.. so, those are some of the things we are building on that. >> i appreciate that. now, you know in recent years, there was a rise in hate crimes committed against people of asian descent in fiscal year 2021, i was proud to partner with the doj to bolster federal data collection in response to hate crimes. i am 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 community. >> so, we agree with you that outreach to the community is an incredibly important part of the effort here. we have been doing, i think, over the last few years, you know, hundreds of training and liaison efforts with the aapi community, specifically, locally, and some nationally. we have some of the materials that we have produced that help people understand, you know, how to recognize hate crimes, what it is, what it isn't and how to report it, so forth. we have actually had translated into multiple languages, including all of the major -- the most common aapi languages, and we have tried to have our people out in the community. i think one additional piece to this that doesn't always get connected up with the hate crimes piece of it is what we call transnational repression,

which is efforts by the chinese government, specifically the chinese communist party, to harass, stalk, blackmail, or worse, chinese americans, and people of chinese descent here. so, we have 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 protect them against the common enemy, frankly, that we both have, or common adversary, i should have, namely the chinese communist party. >> on that note, i will end with, i just want to make sure that law-enforcement agencies are also utilizing culturally competent trainings with their agents. thank you. >> mr. garcia? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director wray. i will be honest 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 in intel hearings, your weaponization and politicization of issues and instruments of national security against innocent americans and against institutions like churches, and the fact that you have held no one truly accountable for prior abuses that we have all seen and recognized, i think you, yourself, has recognized that there has been abuses and because of the fact that as the fbi director that you stood relatively silent and passive about the biggest national security threat to our nation, that being our very open southern border, as the chairman has been discussing. i give very little credence in either your ability to do this job, or frankly, the brave agents below you. i don't trust you to protect us, and that is a 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 and the doj and at the white house, we are now in a more precarious position than we were, i would submit, then we were on september 10th, 2001. you yourself stay in her written testimony that the threats facing our nation have escalated, the breath of these challenges are as complex as any time in our history and the consequences of not responding and countering these threats have never been greater. these are your words. we don't only pay you to one us of a threat -- what you have eloquently done here -- although, that is important and appreciated that you are wanting us. but, we also pay you to prevent and protect us from the threats. you are in an agency, and i am on a committee, your authorizer on the intel committee, and your appropriate are on the cjs subcommittee on appropriations. i find it difficult to trust

you to protect us, and any data or budget request you bring to us as a result of that is, in my opinion, suspect. in your nearly 20 pages of written testimony, you have mentioned the southern border only approximately four times, and even then, you kind of glossed over it. we now have 7 million people in our country, 350 people on the fbi terror watch list, who has been apprehended. plus, another 1.7 million known got a ways within our borders as a result of your leadership supporter policies. i see your leadership and not your 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 of homeland security mayorkas are literally intentionally putting the people you work for, the average american citizen, into

a clear and present danger situation that you, yourself, have acknowledged in your written testimony. so, you have testified before the intel committee with the worldwide threats briefs and other committees that there are giant, red warning lines and warning signs, and, you know, lots of flashing signs from a threat and terrorism from an assessment perspective. you know, and it is evident that you know and agree with this notion and we should all be concerned. yet, despite this, you have been unable to change the policies driven by your leadership, driven by the president, by the ag, secretary mayorkas. so, it is difficult, but it is in addition to being untrustworthy, you are also ineffective at a very important part of your job, which is shaping the policies that affect national security. that should be -- the open border should be the biggest challenge that your administration is recognizing right now, and unfortunately, it is not.

i think your biggest problem, personally -- it is not just me that doesn't trust you, it is the american people that don't trust you right now, as a result of that. can i just get a simple yes or no in response to this question, does the 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, in citing my concerns about the threats that emanate from the border. >> okay. >> and as to the long narrative that you went through at the beginning, needless to say, i disagree very strongly point >> i understand. >> i understand certain aspects of it. >> in the interest of time, i want you to knowledge that the open border policy makes us more insecure than strong. so, i want to know, what have your discussions been with the president? have you been able to go into his office and say, boss, this open border policy is a

collectively stupid policy from a national security perspective. have you had that conversation? if so, what does that look like? what has been the response? and how are we shaping this to make us more secure in the future? >> well, i am not going to get into specific conversations with people. i have been consistent in my message, externally and internally about my concerns of the threats, from the 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. we need to get ahead of this. i asked that you consider taking a hard look at the oilfield, and with that, i yield back. >> i am recognizing the ranking member of the members. >> thank you so much, chairman.

my apologies for dashing in, and eventually dashing out. there are several hearings. i'm trying to make as many as i can. the presidents budget for 2025, increasing spending and funding to hire personnel. we are looking at the capacity to deter cybercrime. this is the intelligence activity against the u.s. assuming a criminal background system, i know they discussed that issue. i should say thank you for making a is -- visit to new haven, connecticut just a few weeks ago. really delighted to have you there with an opportunity, being in another field office, if you will. talking about the fbi's work. this is back from my colleagues. i wanted to address the work

with the task forces. i am viewing what you are doing with regard to state and local government, with overall infrastructure. we have a public health infrastructure. we rely on the state laboratories, et cetera. when you look at defunding those efforts, you look at the collapse of the ability to move forward with regard at the cdc. i think sometimes, some of my colleagues are unaware with how frequently the fbi works in very close partnership with state and local law enforcement. this is to be able to do with crime. could you talk about the lessons learned by both the fbi, and state and local law enforcement, about ways in which the task enforcement is maximized? what is this for the effecting body of affecting crime?

do you have any stories that are specifically worth highlighting? what happens? many of them are looking to defund the fbi. we have a lot of discussions about that. what does that mean to the support of the national infrastructure? they rely on you in order to deal with violent crime, and other things in the u.s. >> one of the things that a lot of people don't appreciate, is how integrated today's fbi is with today's local law enforcement. how dependent it is on us, when it comes to fulfilling our shared mission of keeping america safe. you mentioned the task forces through the safe streets. we've got thousands of police

officers and sheriff's deputies. from hundreds of different departments and agencies, they are serving on a different task forces. earlier, we took together 50 violent criminals and child predators. this is off the streets per day. every single day. 365 days per year. this is a cut to the budget. this is a cut to the efforts to do that work. this gets shifted on the state and local law enforcement to handle those threats alone. i can look at the same thing through multiple threats. we are looking at child exportation, et cetera. if you talk to chiefs and sheriff like i do every week, you will constantly hear a refrain about how much they depend on the fbi for things like our technology and expertise. dna testing. cellular analysis. all sorts of complex, forensic

expertise. small departments in this country don't have it. they lean on us to provide that. one of the first things that they cite. you talk about the sea just division in west virginia, which is the one that was responsible for background checks. some of this is stopping somebody on the speed -- streets. they have fingerprint identification. this includes the threat reporting that comes into threats, school shootings, wherever else. state and local law enforcement, or cutting those programs. it means all of those ways that state and local law enforcement are flying by, we have things like trading. the fbi, for example, is responsible for training the civilian tex. for every police department in the country that have one, are trained by the fbi.

this is our facility in huntsville. to provide the training, it means impacts on the ability to do your mom -- job. as i said, in one way or another, ready much every week, only two ways the conversation goes. thank you, for all the great things the fbi is doing for us. director, we need even more. they don't want the fbi to give even less. people need to understand, cuts to the budget don't hurt the fbi. they have all of the state and local law enforcement, many like the fbi. they have retention challenges. they are all down in terms of headcount. they have their own budget challenge. hurting us, compounds their

challenges. it makes it harder for them to protect the neighborhoods and communities that we are all working together to protect. >> it is critically important from what you just said, and for members to understand, and maybe talk with and hear from their local law enforcement. they are trying to understand what the connection is between state and local law enforcement. i think we would see a lot less movement in the direction that is saying that we are going to defund and eliminate. we are going to do all of these things when we look at the overall law enforcement infrastructure of the united dates. this is part of our national security. directing and defending the homeland. thank you so much for your service. >> thank you, director ray.

>> it doesn't always get a lot of media coverage. there's been a lot of hostility against churches and religious organizations. this is at alarming rates over the last few years. there was a report that was published back in february of this year's. there has been more than 400 incidents, a year of violence. this is from the united states. this is a 100% raise from 2022. my question to you, is part of the bureau. resources are being dedicated. this is a concerning trend that we are seeing. it is a really good question. i would say, the threat to the houses of worship that we are seeing cut across a variety of settings, i say that with the

respective somebody that i was looking at the line prosecutor with. this was against the guy that was a serial church artist. going all over the country burning churches. right up in our mutual neck of the woods in georgia. he killed a firefighter. he almost killed another one. i have always taken those cases particularly seriously. i would say there are a couple of things. we are seeing terrorist attacks against churches. this is the time that we have seen the director. we have thwarted multiple attacks. this is against churches and synagogues. i can think of another inspired plot against the church in pittsburgh. colorado and las vegas area, just as a few examples. there is also a range of

threats from a perspective of abortion related violence. a lot of people historically, have focused on abortion related violence when it comes to pro-choice facilities. if you look at our work from the menu, it has been a while since you look at the members. this is something like 70% of the abortion rate violence cases. this is against what i would call houses of worship, or a pro-life facility. just yesterday, a guy got 7.5 years. this is what our folks did. this guy firebombed the facility up in the wisconsin area. we are tackling it depending on what the motivation for the threat is. we could have some inspired type of attack. we have domestic ideology.

they have something else altogether. in addition to the investigative work, we are in every field office. i find that there is a whole lot of outreach and engagement with houses of worship in that area. the folks in those houses of worship, know who to contact. they know what to be on the lookout for. that kind of thing. >> let me just say, thank you for that. we are looking at these religious organizations. this is not something that i can notice. you would make sure that you do investigate. you are trying to make sure that you have the focus of the bureau. >> the names, these are names

that were given to the d.c. five. these were the five unborn children whose remains were salvaged by a whistleblower, after their lives were brutally ended. this was here in the washington, d.c. area. there is evidence that suggests federal crimes may have been committed. this is through violations including the protections. this is the law of the land. the administration has the duty to enforce the law without prejudice for political philosophy, or those in violation. instead of seeking justice for those babies, we have answers whether federal crimes were committed. i'm concerned that some of the administration decided to weapon denies all of these resources against, investigating and arresting individuals from the face act

violations. is the bureau aware of the case? if so, is the bureau investigating these cases? >> as i said here, i'm not with this specific case. i'm following with the folks on that. this is when it comes to a face act. the enforcement generally, we have used that with in both directions. i know that we had a case not that long ago, where we secured a face act from the conspiracy indictments against four individuals that are invoking change individuals. they were targeting pro-life facilities in that area. we don't care which side of the abortion issue you are on. there is a right and wrong way to express your passionate views. this includes the threats against facilities. this is not it.

we'll go after it no matter which side. >> we are using funds to investigate this case. >> i'm happy to find out where we are with that. this is a specific case. we want to make sure that the there are any properly predicated actions, you can get back and let us know what we are doing on that. >> let me do a little polling. within the second round, what should we do with that? we are doing it right here. i want to keep it as short as we can. we want this gentleman back at work. glad you are on. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. page 16 from the budget request, you are talking about the civil rights.

the primary responsibility to investigate all of the civil rights losses. you are talking about the color of law violations. this is the authority given to them by the agency to willfully deprive someone of the right. you talk about the face act, voter suppression, et cetera. have you ever investigated a second amendment rights violation? you have the decision that struck down the new york law. it took away people second amendment rights. i have never seen anyone in government ever prosecuted for violating a citizens second amendment rights. can you think of any time with the fbi has actually used the color of law to prosecute someone for violating the second amendment rights? >> not as i sit here. we are obviously a 115-year-old

organization with 30,000 employees, and 300 offices all over the united states. no doubt that there are a number of investigations that i was not aware of. >> you have repressed your budget for $284,000. this is for official things. this is $50,000. u.s. attorneys, 19,600. the fbi, $284,000. why? why is the fbi six times with the attorney general merrick garland reception funds are looking at? >> i don't know that i could tell you as i sit here right now. i know that we have a lot of engagement with foreign partners. this would be a big driver. i'm happy to have the stuff

right here. >> i appreciate that very much. >> leslie, the department of justice is asking for a 1.25% increase. the fbi is asking for a 6% increase, totaling $629 million. the fbi is literally asking for a 350% increase in funding more than the overall department of justice. the total spending for the doj is going up 467 million. the fbi is asking for 629 million. the doj has to take a cut somewhere in order for the fbi to get there increase in funding. what on earth -- what justifies that increase for the fbi? >> what i would tell you, and we certainly appreciate the departments word, or the attorney general support for the budget requests. the effect of the fiscal year

2024 budget, which was appropriated to us, is equivalent to a 1000 position cut. $500 million cut in our ability to get our job done. when you look across the range of threats that we are responsible for, protecting americans from, 50 bad guys per day every day. ransomware, 100 variance that we are investigating. the chinese. 1300% increase in chinese economic espionage. the chinese hacking program. this outnumbers us by well over 50:1. fentanyl. we seized 270 million persons worth of a fatal fentanyl in the last two years. the range of threats that the fbi is statutorily responsible for protecting americans from, is significant. the significance of the 2024 budget, is looking at most of what the budgets are talking

about. it is coming to put us back on track so that we can do the hard work that we need to, to keep the bad guys away. >> what are the technical adjustments? $286 million in adjustments to base. what is that? >> i think this is the appropriation speak for the point that i was just making. getting us back on track, in terms of the positions that potentially we would lose because of the impact on the cost of operations. this includes the 2024 budget. >> the technical adjustments? >> i can tell you, most of the budget is to get back on track. there are a few specifically on cyber, counterintelligence, and others. this is essentially our budget. >> thank you. my time has expired.

>> mr. director, let me ask you about the global experts that we are looking at. you recently are looking at the threats. quote, they have gone to a whole other level. foreign terrorists, including isis, have looked at the calls or text that have arrived here. could you expand on that? >> yes sir. first off, i would say even before october 7th, i would have told you. i was telling other committees, that we were on a heightened threat level. across a range of different vectors, it was heightened. we went to a whole other level. part of it, we have seen a rogue gallery of foreign terrorist organizations calling for attacks on ice.

you have hezbollah, threatening to attack u.s. regions. you have al qaeda, issuing its most specific call for an attack against us. against the u.s. in the last five years. you have al qaeda peninsula groups: for the jihad to attack americans in jewish communities in the u.s. you have isis merging the followers repeatedly to attack jewish communities in the u.s. the irony is that as anyone will study terrorism, knows that these are terrorist organizations that don't typically see eye to eye. they seem to be united in one thing. it is calling for attacks on us. if you add on top of that my concern, which i have repeatedly flagged, which when you look around the world at foreign terrorist organizations, you can see in afghanistan, the concern. they have growing strength.

this is reconstituted. of course, we have lost some of our ability to gather intelligence. you can look at africa. you have the growth of those organizations. in fact, this is not the best funded branch of al qaeda. we have repeated efforts to free some very dangerous fighters that are in prisons right there. you are looking at things like the attack. organizations are expressing intent to have attacks against us. this is something we need to take very seriously. this is part of why i have highlighted this as a heightened threat. this is not a time for panic. it is a time for heightened

vigilance. >> thank you, mr. 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 today's hearing. i regret that it has become fashionable in some corners to attack the fbi. this is an elite law enforcement agency. the top law enforcement agency in this country. it is protecting us from all manners of mayhem. child predators, cyber threats, drug trafficking, gang violence, international terrorism, hezbollah, isis,

hamas, they have dedicated their lives to the protection of america and citizens. they don't deserve to have threats leveled against them with anti-fbi rhetoric jamming them up. last week, a man crashed an suv into the security gate at the fbi's atlanta field division building. he 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 fbi rhetoric from far too many public officials. i would like you to comment on that. to what extent are you seeing the uptick in threats against the fbi? what's that due to morale within the agency? >> u.s. a couple of different questions. let me start with the threats. that is ultimately what matters most. rhetoric is rhetoric.

there is a lot of heated rhetoric in this country across a range of issues. when it comes to threats, and threats of violence, that is something that we take extremely serious. we have seen it within threats. this is from the fbi facilities. we have created a dedicated unit, to try to deal with those issues. you mentioned the atlanta field office. just last year, and the cincinnati field office, wearing a tactical vest, armed with in elgin. trying to forcibly enter and attack our personnel. after, he was thwarted in reviewing his devices and postings. he was calling on people to kill federal law enforcement. fighting in his own words, a civil war. unfortunately, this is part of a broad phenomenon that we see

in the country right now. this is the uptick in violence against law enforcement. not just fbi, but local law enforcement. we have had breathtaking cases of violence against law enforcement. having a badge is dangerous enough as it is. this should not make someone a target. some of these threats, target law enforcement faring -- family members. these are dangerous jobs. every week, i look at the state and local law enforcement to look at the same thing in their own way. i started this job. every time another officer or sheriff's deputy is killed anywhere in the country, within the line of duty, i call the chief and the sheriff myself, to express my condolences on behalf of the fbi. talking about the individual's

family, career, and everything else. i have made 381 of those calls. this has been since i started as the fbi director. 2021, we lost three of our own. two agents killed in miami. a task force officer, ambushed us right outside of our office. violence against law enforcement israel. it is appalling. it is something that we could take very seriously. morale is another part of the question. obviously, no one likes to see the organization that you have dedicated your lives too. this is them unfairly precise. our people are more focused on the people that we do the work with. the people would do the work for, and itself. i don't get too hung up. we don't get too hung up on rhetoric. we are trying to focus on the

people that work with us. they are applying in droves. going up significantly. do they want to work with us on these task forces? the state and local police departments are all down. they are sending more and more task force officers to sure as heck work with it. they don't have enough in their own department. these people want to turn to us for help read i see business leaders learn more and more chinese espionage numbers. the public is calling the public access line. this is within west virginia more and more. turning to us in all manner of credits. it is almost like we have defaulted to become a national 911 center. do people want to work for us? more and more. do people want to work with us? more and more. we would prefer not to be criticized.

of course. >> i thank you for your comments and work. i yelled back. >> you are looking at the desired time. >> i want to thank the large number of law-abiding agents within your agency. they are working hard for the american people every day. we can't ignore the violations that have occurred within the fbi by some individuals. the policy changes that had been necessitated by those abuses. for some on that side to talk about anti-law-enforcement rhetoric, this is when morale was at an all-time low with local law enforcement. this is because of the defund the police movement on the left. it is rich to hear this come from the other side.

my colleague, who spoke critically about the performance of some people in your agency, was doing so with a love for country, and the constitution. we have a desire to see the confidence of the american people in their institutions. it is being restored after it has been so eroded. this is provided by some within your agency. acting in violation of the law. acting in violation of the policies. i am happy to take up what amounts to a large chunk of my time, to stand up for my colleagues. this is all about the criticism from members of this committee. this is to restate that there

is a first amendment. we have the right to criticize when there is evidence of wrongdoing. we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this country. this is when we have individuals with rage. this is them violating american citizens. i need to stand up for my colleagues. i do want to ask, i have another amendment that would codify the policy of the bureau. this is a different bounce collection. the fbi has decided not to engage. this is what amounts to the collection of upstream communication from companies that operate internet cable

companies. they are including the collections of companies about targets. why did you all stop another collection? >> this is very much around this time. this is from the last reauthorization. my memory is not perfect on this. i'm looking at the perfect judgment that the benefits had from having that. this was outweighed by our interview. this is part of the authority that could result in the compliance. >> my memories were a little bit fuzzy. >> do you have any intention of resuming another bounce collection?

>> this is a declassified set of support from 20,011. showings and pervasiveness from the collection at the time. it resulted in tens of thousands of domestic communications collected each year. this is what was described as technical implementations. this is from a bounce collection. in any way, would it interfere with the department? is this a different policy activity to codify the purposes from the fbi? is this part of their collection? >> i would have to review the legislative proposals. we have tried to put in place a whole range of policies, and system enhancements. this is another effort. this is all of the legislative reform proposals that have been swarming around. this is part of it right now. this is similar to what we are

trying to lock in. these are the reforms that we have put in place. this is something that we are in favor of. i would have to take a closer look. >> i appreciate that. >> i yield back. >> we are responding with a couple of comments. i respect everybody on this board. i respect everybody in his hearing. we are looking at these things differently. i also look at the big feature too. my specialty throughout most of my life, looking at the account executive, is when you are in law enforcement. you are praying to develop relationships. one of the most important things, is for the federal, state, and local levels to work together. the comments that were made, i respect that. i have said that before. i do respect him. you are a hard worker.

>> this is the whole five minutes. it was criticizing someone who i have to respect. a lot of other people are looking at other shops in america. we are probably in one of the worst situations with national security, and the history of our country. this is a major part of dealing with these issues. i would hope that someone with his expertise is very smart. i know they would do this, and not talk about it. what are we going to do with this issue? everyone is talking about it. i was shocked. i probably get more heat from my left, then i get from you all. that is just my politics. that is the way that each one of us have our point of view.

he asked good questions. he didn't have any good experiences that we were looking at with law enforcement. dealing with you all, and that type of thing. you asked good questions. this is whatever your conclusion is. i respect it. i just wanted to respond a little bit on why i felt it was really important to stand up for something that i think is qualified. he is doing a good job. the fbi has in my opinion, groomed them. i love the fact that they are working with state and local levels as a team. that makes it a lot better. >> that concludes today's hearing. we want to thank our witness, director christopher whay, for being here. without objection, you have seven days to submit revision questions for the record the subcommittee is now adjourned.