chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said. i don't know where the vote will be. we started it in the budget committee. we conferced it with the senate. we then sent those reconciliation instructions out to the energy and commerce committee, the ed and labor committee, the ways a means committee, sent that work back to the budget committee. we then brought all that legislation together meerks -- -- together, mr. speaker. if you have a textbook case of how it's supposed to be done it's it. as a gentleman that's been disappointed in 4 1/2 years,o those that believe you get what you want every day of the week, it's not. the collective wisdom of the body, the collective wisdom from our committee structures and this bill does i there's only way to get to this

bill, though, mr. speaker. that's to pass this rule today, house resolution 483, and i encourage my colleagues to do that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. and i do so as somebody who comes from a state which unlike maybe the gentleman from georgia actually embraced this law. the governor set up an exchange right away and we have had what "forbes" magazine describes the highest functioning exchange in the country. our uninlshurd rate went down from 8% to 4%. we have more insurers in the marketplace today than we had before the a.c.a. was passed. labor day i was picnic with some friends, and there was a gentleman there the headf h.r. for the second largest employer in this counity i was at. -- s about 300 employee

employers there. th were concerned about the definition of full time and part time. f two years his rates have went down. and he yelled from the pool playing around with his friends and said, tell president obama thank you for the affordable care act because our rates he gone down for the 275 people that worked there. then, the question is, well, what does this ll do? and the fact of the matter is, by eliminating the individual mandate, by basically destroying the financing of tax subsidies, which is ecisely the way that you broaden the insurance markets so you can implement an eliminatioof pre-existing conditions, you in fact are totally capsizing the market. i know that because the state of connecticut insurance department and the exchange have lookedt what this bill is going to do to the invidual mandate and that's precisely what the outcome would be, it would send rates through the roof for all -- and

basically shatter the success th our state ha accomplished. what's so ironic about this, the design of this bill with an individual mandate and tax subsidies for insurance came from the heritage foundation. stewart butler was the -- stuart butler was the chair in the 1990's. i remember vividly that was the heritage foundation, the conservative point. that's not mentioned very much by the majority as we, again, you know, debate this ad nauseam. you know, what's sad is two weeks ago we passed a bill, h.r. 1624, sponsored by my good friend, mr. guthrie from kentucky, which amended the affordable care act. it changed the definition of small ployer, and it was done a bipartisan basis. completely unanimous. it sailed through the house. president obama sign it. and why did that work? surgically, did it

because brett was smart eugh to understand if you want to get it done you don't load it up with poison pills, that you actually present an idea with focus and with logic behind it. and guess what will happen? you'll actually get biptisan support. the complete opposite of the bill we have before us today. now, i would want to point out, though, there are some signs of intelligent life in this reconciliation bill. section 305 -- could i get anther -- ms. slaughter: i'd be happy to yield gentleman another minute or two. mr. courtney: section 305 does the exeyes test on high cost -- excise tax on high cost plans. it was the house members that pushed hard with the administration and we delayed thatax for five years. and h.r.050, which im the lead sponsor and proud to say we have 166 bipartisan co-sponsors, is verbatim the

language incorporated into the recociliation bill. so i point that ou because i do think it will in fact will basically sharply increase people's out--pocket deductibles because that's what actuaries telus that's the only way to respond to that kind of tax. it's true that 83 organizations, including organized labor, business groups, small business groups have said this is not a workable plan. and i mention that he, which is that, you know, there's an opportunity here to do what congressman guthrie did which is to take an individual component, an idea and not lo up with a l of othe baggagehich is going to capsize the insurance market which we know is going to happen if other provisis of the reconciliation bill are passed that we can actually get it done. you are giving the white house a perfect excuse to veto this bill and robbing us to actually address this real problem which section 305 does recognize and h.r. 2050 is out there and is on standby for us to move

forward on. so let's get rid of the blunt instruments, th baseball bats, the butering of this law and les focus on bipartisan surgical fixes to real problems. i yield backhe balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker. i yield myselsuch time as i may consume. i'd say to my friend from connecticut that the point he made was made ery well by the gentleman from oklahoma last night while we were in the ules committee. you do. you on get to use this procedure once. you get to use it three times, bufor a variety of different reasons is only going to come together for us once this year. and you have to choose how to do that. i' thrilled, thrilled that the story the gentleman from connecticut tells is a success for h constituents back home in connecticut. i think that's fabulous. i think that's fabulous. don't get to tell as many of those stories. i tell stories of folks who had plans that they liked and those

plans were outlawed b tir government. i tell stories abt folks who have doctors that they had relationships wi for decades who were promised if they like their doctor they could keep their doctor who lost access to their doctors because their government told them no more for you. i tell stories of the small businesses in the district that we're doing thright ing, providing heah care for their employees w' now been priced out of that marketplace. they're not required by law to do it. res have gone up so much they can't do it by themsees. not becausofur efforts to provide health care to people but because of our efforts to tell peoe what kind of health care is good for them and what kind isn't. mr. speaker, you may not know the chairman of the budget committee is georgia congressman dr. tom price. dr. tom price, h.r. 3200 has a replacent plan. dr. tom price wants to see

pre-existing conditions out of the marketpla. dr. tom price and h.r. 3200 want to see individuals able to move their policies from busine to business, om place to place. mr. spear, it's a ctor-patient relationship. it's not a federal government-patient relationship. it's not a federal h.h.s., heth and human rvices-patient relationship. it not an insurance company-doctor relationship. it's about me and my physiian. you and your physician. our families a our family physician, 320illion americans at a me. i believe i misspoke. it's h.r. 2300, not200 that dr. tom price has. we have it rightere in this institution. we have replacement options right here. do not let it be said that in he name of prying to bring sanity to our federal spending, in the name of trying to fix

the errors that were created in the affordable ca act, do not let it be said that any meer want trample on theealth care opportunitieshat famili have back home. r goal is to expand those opportities. not to contract the i celebate what's happened connectit. i only wish that fks in connecticut and new york and elsewhere would support us i georgia with the challenges that we're having and help us get back to that very personal door-patientelionship that we believe is the right of every member. with that i reserve the balance f my time. thepeaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time ms. slauger. spker, might i iuire if the gentleman hs any speakers. if not i ampared to close. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i am prepared to close. ms slaughter: mr. speaker, the budget reconciliation bill avoids the real problems before us, ining the debt limit, the export-import bank, the

hiway bill, looming shutdown and more. since instead of addressing urgent needs of the nation, the bill doubles down on attacking women's health and marks the 61st time that the house majority has voted to repeal, to defund or to undermine the affordable care act. mr. speaker, let's try to salvage something from the money we spent on this hour here and a time we've literally wasted, again, for the 61st time, let's salvage something from it by voting no on the previous question. we can actually accomplish something then. if the previous question is defeated, we will be able to vote to take care of the issue of debt limit. the full faith and credit of the united states of america. a simple vote no allows us to bring that up, vote for that, go home this weekend not having to be chewing everybody's nails and everybody in the country

wonders what the heck is going on here. why don't we change on this day, on this thursday, do something positive, do something that needs doing, doing something we know sooner or later we will do, do it today on a clean bill, no additives of any kind, just to do it? it's an opportunity that i certainly hope that people will take advantage of. i urge them to do that. and mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no so we can vote yes on a vote to deal with the debt limit issue and a no vote on the rule and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i firmly believe there is more

that units us than divides us not just in this chamber but in this nation as my colleague talk about the priorities. she is spot on. i'm missing votes in the transportation committee right now where we are moving that long-term transportation bill so i can be done here on the floor to move this reconciliation. there is a lot of rust in the gears. since the 1990's that congress, house and senate combined, have sent all the appropriation bills to the president before the end of the fiscal year. newt gingrich ran this institution and bill clinton was in the white house. there is a lot of the rust in the gears that has accumulated under both leadership in this place. but this year we passed more appropriation bills earlier in the fiscal year than at any point since 1974. this year, we're moving the

first long-term highway bill that we have seen in almost a decade. and this year, we have conferenced a balanced budget for america for the first time in a decade and a half. at's not just a notch to put on the belt of america to say that this is what we have done. this is an opportunity to move this budget reconciliation bill. mr. speaker, i do. i'm saddened that reconciliation is a word that folks have to go and look up and learn, but it is the only way, the only way in divided government that the people's voice can be heard. there is no other procedure in the united states congress that allows 51% of america to prevail. there is no other ability in the

united states congress for the majority of americans, who have lent their power to washington to express their views and change the law of the land, save this one. mr. speaker, budget deficits have gone down each and every year since speaker john boehner stood right there where you are standing there today and nancy .elosi handed him and we have an opportunity today to do more. i have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about those things that we can do together and i agree. i agree. i heard my colleagues on the other side talk about their priorities in terms of raising the debt limit and not seeing the government shut down. i agree. we voted a government shut down two weeks ago and i got a note,

and it said thank you for not letting the american museum history close down while my family was in washington. there are real impacts. the reason we are having the conversation is not because the people want to shut the government down, they want to borrow more money. we are going to go back and make t $19 trillion or $19.50 trillion. we aren't talking about a debt limit that came around today but in the spring and the government has been borrowing and borrowing beyond that debt limit and they are borrowing because we are spending too much. look at the tax rolls. as we are standing here today not only is america collecting more in constant dollars, not static dollars, but we are collecting more money than at any time in american history.

any time. per capita in this country, americans are paying more in taxes than they have ever paid in the history of the republic. not in inflated 2015 dollars, but in constant dollars adjusted for inflation. the real impact on american families greater today in taxes than ever before, mr. speaker. the problem isn't that we don't raise enough money, the problem is that we spend too much money. i can't count the number of good pieces of legislation that have gone to the senate and failed not on their merits, but because a democratic filibuster would not even allow the bill to be debated. with this rule and with this nderlying bill, we allow the people's voice to be heard. we allow the american majority's

voice to be heard. and we have an opportunity to put a bill that will make a difference for american families on the president's desk for the very first time. i encourage all of my colleagues strong support of the rule and upon passage of that rule, mr. speaker, i encourage their strong support for the underlying reconciliation measure. we have an opportunity today together to make a difference. >> friday night at 8:30 eastern on c-span, we are live from council bluffs i want, with a town hall meeting with senator ted cruz. on saturday night at 9:00 eastern, at the jefferson jackson dinner live from des moines iowa. vermont senator bernie sanders, former maryland governor martin

o'malley, former secretary of state hillary clinton, and former governor of rhode island lincoln chafee. republican presidential candidate carly fiorina will hold a town hall. live 11:30, c-span's book tv with a book festival from madison. sunday night at 9:00, former missouri senator and a fiscal billion priest on how he thinks religion cannot leave the country out of the bitter state of politics. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening at 6:00 eastern, cia historian on espionage and intelligence gathering during the civil war, and white so few historical documents exist. sunday morning at 10:00, on old histories, a civil rights leader who passed way in august in a

2002 interview on his civil rights career growing up in the segregated south and work on nonviolence coordinating committee. get our complete we can schedule on c-span.org. 's cps-- hillary clinton testifying before the house select committee on benghazi. sec. clinton: there was no credible, actionable threat known it to our intelligence community against our compound. >> appearing without commercials or commentary will air on its entirety noon eastern on c-span. >> today, president obama vetoed a $600 billion defense program bill. this was the fifth detail of his presidency. before signing the veto in the oval office, he explained his opposition to the bill. this is five minutes.

pres. obama: as president and commander-in-chief, my first import responsibilities keeping the american people think. that means making sure that our military is properly funded, and that our men and women in uniform get the support, the equipment, support for their families that they need and deserve when they protect our freedom and safety. the bill that is been presented --me authorizing our defense the bill that is before me authorizing our defense spending for this year does a number of good things. it makes sure that are military is funded. it has important provisions around reform in our military retirement system, which is necessary to make sure that it is stable and effective.

provisions that are necessary in increasing threats. unfortunately, it falls woefully short in three areas. number one, it keeps in place the sequester that is inadequate for us to properly fund our military in a stable, sustained way, and allows all of our armed forces to land properly. i have repeatedly called on congress to eliminate to sequester and make sure that we are providing certainty to our military and ensure military readiness, insure our troops are getting what they need. this bill instead resorts to gimmicks that does not number two. it prevents a wide range of reforms that are necessary for us to get our military modernized and able to deal with

the many threats presenting themselves in the 21st century. we have repeatedly put forward a series of reforms eliminating programs that the pentagon does not want. congress keeps on stuffing them back in. we keep on wasting money and end up diverting resources from things we do need to have the kind of equipment and training and readiness necessary for us to meet the potential threats. the third thing is the legislation specifically. it impedes us. repeatedly -- in a way that i have repeatedly us from ourimpedes tourism around the world. guantanamo is a mechanism for jihadist to recruit. it has been there for years and

we can do better in terms of keeping our people safe, while making short we are consistent with our values. so, i will be vetoing this authorization bill. i will be sending it back to congress and a message to them is simple. let's do this right. let's have a budget that our nationals security, as well as economic security. e we are able, in a constructive way, to reform our military spending and make it sustainable over the long term. and, let's make sure, in a responsible way, we can draw down the populations in guantanamo and make sure the american people are safe and that we are not providing recruitment tools to terrorist that are so dangerous. there you go. all good?

thank you. the defense authorization bill passed in both chambers of congress. critical ofain was the veto in remarks he made on the senate floor. this is 10 minutes. mccain: as i am speaking here on the floor of the united states senate, an act of spending partisan politics. president obama is the commander in chief of the united states arms versus. he decided he would veto the authorization act. he is choosing to hold the military hostage for a domestic,

political agenda. he is doing so at a time when the crises we face around the world have never been greater. when u.s. leadership has never been weaker. our men and women in uniform need vital resources to defend and secure the nation. said, in an act of stunning partisan politics, president obama the commander in chief, has decided to veto the national defense authorization bill. he is right now, in the act of doing so. he is holding the military hostage for his domestic, political agenda. i have been in the senate and house for a long time. i have never seen an act of blatant partisanship with complete disregard for the men likeomen in the military the president is doing as we speak. congress has

upheld its constitutional duty. for 53 consecutive years. years, i have never witnessed anything so misguided, cynical, and downright dangerous as he is vetoing the defense authorization. for reasons that have nothing to do with defense. nothing to do with defense. throughout history, republicans and democrats alike, have realized the importance of this bill to our national defense. the president of the united states has only ever vetoed the act four times. in each case, the president rejected a provision in the bill and congress was able to find the compromise that earned the

signature of the president. let's be clear. the president's veto is not over any of its politics. -- its policies. it is over politics. and the president's case, politics has taken president over policies. we are talking about the lives of the men and women who are serving this nation in uniform. disgraceful. for the first time in history, the commander-in-chief will sacrifice national security for his larger domestic, political agenda. this veto will not result the spending debate. it will not stop sequestration. that is something that can only be done through the appropriation process, not a defense authorization bill. sailors, airmen, and marines have answered the call to protect our nation. they don't care where the budget comes from. i would like to point up, we

authorized the exact amount of money the president requested. this is a washington gain. women serving in the military care about is that their mission is fully resourced. missions veto, their will not be fully resourced. we will put their lives in greater danger because of political gain that the president is holding the men and women hostage for his agenda, or to fund the irs adn the end thea this authorization is the overall amount the president requested. by making sure he will not fix defense without fixing nondefense spending. the president of the united states puts defense, and the men and women in the military, on the same level as the irs. the president is using the military as leverage to fight a

battle with the defense authorization bill -- a bat tle the bill cannot accomplish. it is disgraceful. the president will refuse to authorize our troops the resources they need to prepare for and engage in vital missions and deliverorld some of the most significant reforms. by vetoing this fledgling legislation, let's be clear for the president is saying no to. he is saying no to pay increases and more than 30 types of bonuses. saying you know to more portability of military health plans. enhanced, to protection across military sexual assaults. saying no to significant reforms

to a 70-year-old military retirement system that will extent retirement benefits to over 80% of service members. saying no, to the most sweeping reforms in more than 30 years. saying no, to a ban on torture once and for all. milliono, to the $300 in assistance to the ukrainians to defend themselves against russian aggression. and saying no, two other countless important provisions that are greatly needed to world threats around the today. most importantly, the president of the united states is refusing during aa bill time when our top security advisers have testified that the world ihas not seen greater turmoil since the end of world war ii. here's the context.

we now see a world in a state of turmoil, the likes of which we have not seen since the end of world war ii. and in a bipartisan basis, we passed a defense authorization bill that has monumental consequences to the future security of this nation, the president's security of this nation, and the welfare of the men and women serving this nation, and their ability to defend this nation. and the president, because he wants a increase in defense spending has vetoed it. never have i seen such irresponsibility on the part of a commander in chief. there have been presidents i have disagreed with. there have been presidents that i have had spirited debates with, but never in history has

president that a has ignored his constitutional responsibilities as commander-in-chief. this is a shameful day. the house will vote to override this veto on november 5. i strongly urge my colleagues to reverse this dangerous action and put the interests of our military and national security ahead of politics. men and women serving around the world, many still in harm's way, deserve nothing less. time with theof men and women serving in the military, including members of my own family. they are not uninformed. a are very intelligent. they watch what we do. they watch what we do. they interest in us to defend them. and to care for them. and to get them the weapons they

need and the benefits they need. and the care they need. when the wounded come back. they rely on us. they are going to see, as we watch vladimir putin on the march, as we watch the success of isis, as we watch ukraine being dismembered, as we watch china commit aggression in the south china sea. and now, this commander-in-chief decides this is a time to be till an authorization bill because he does not think there is enough domestic s pending. a very sad day. it is a sad day for america. most of all, mr. president, it is a very sad day for the men ourwomen who we entrust very lives and security. a very sad day. the newsunday night,

york times reporter shares her experiences from hillary clinton's presidential campaign and compares what it is like now , to back in 2008. >> i was a lot younger and a traveling person. i was not in a senior role. when you are traveling all the time, i got to know her pretty well. she came back on the plane and talked to us. at the same time, i did not have the same resources in the campaign, the same high-level people i have now. whether that is a function of the times, or a function of being in a more senior role. easterny night at 8:00 q&a."span's " >> james comey spoke at a hearing. use ofs about the fbi's

airplanes, cyber security, and the screening of refugees from syria. this is two hours and 45 minutes. >> welcome, director komi. we are happy to have you here with us today. commend your distinguished service and i am confident you will continue to serve honorably. today, the fbi continues to face the effects of one of the worst national security leaks in our

nation wash history by edward snowden two years ago. was aa freedom act bipartisan law that ended a controversial national security program. you provided transparency of the american intelligence gathering. the act in chores that federal law appropriately respects civil liberties, while providing the and meet ourls national security responsibilities. comey to thank director and the men and women of the fbi, for working closely with the members of this committee to ensure the passage of the freedom act. events of the past year have deeply violated the world's moral compass with scenes of theaginable brutality at hands of isis. in particular, the appalling and targeting of anyone refuse to abide by isis's isis stated

goals to establish a global caliphate has resulted in the shedding of innocent blood by the most revolting method. as a radical islamic terrorist organization, isis mandates conformity to an ideology which admits no dissent. as americans with a strong history of protecting religious liberty, we stand in total opposition to isis. america is not immune to isis up again. american teenagers have been radicalized part by isis inserted social media efforts promoting milk that's the -- promoting the killing of fellow americans. just this past week director only direct the forefront protecting our country from those who recently bought the car. i'm interested today about

hearing more of the efforts to combat isis. over three years ago diplomatic mission to benghazi was attacked terrorists. americans, including our ambassador, was killed. as of today, only one subject put on trial. i'm interested in hearing about the investigation. separately, it was revealed that former secretary of state hillary clinton used a private e-mail server to conduct her official business while serving as secretary of the. -- secretary of state. classified information was contained within her private e-mail. the matter has been referred to the justice department. apparent lack of transparency related to the use

of a private server to conduct the nation's diplomatic business is troubling, it raises significant questions. a homebrew setup may afford a foreign intelligence service day today elected official. on the technology front, the issue known as going dark has been a concern of the fbi for years. encryption technology is exciting and can effectively secure private communication. over 15 years ago, i led congressional efforts to ensure encryption technology. this enabled the u.s. encryption market to thrive and produce a legitimate encryption technologies for legitimate actors, rather than see the ead overseas.

however, it is true this technology can also be used by those who wish to do us harm. the adoption of new communications technologies i those intending to harm the american people is outpacing the law enforcement's capabilities to access those communications in legitimate criminal and terrorist investigations. in light of the administration's recent announcement that it is not currently seeking a legislative solution to its going dark challenges, i am interested to hear your perspective on whether the administration's newly announced approach to work in an ad hoc fashion is an adequate solution. violent crimes appears to be on the rise across the country. particularly, around our major metropolitan centers. it is disconcerting to watch the games of the past decade unravel

in an explosion of community violence. we have witnessed several incidents in the past year that have led to increased community tension with law enforcement. this tension will hopefully be resolved through improved communication, accountability, policing practices, and other initiatives. i hope to hear the fbi's perspective. the officers and the citizens they serve to coexist in a safe and respectful environment. i appreciate your efforts to keep us safe and the heroic actions consistently performed by the men and women of the fbi. i look forward to hearing your answers on all of this today, as well as on our other issues. at this time, i pleased to recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. connors for his opening statement.

connors: thank you, chairman. good morning director comey. for this second appearance before the house judiciary committee. since taking office on september fbi's mission is a complex undertaking to protect the united states from terrorism , to enforce our criminal laws, nation's lawhe enforcement community. seems, is this mission think nearly all of the discussion we will have today can be distilled into one word, trust. trust in the executive branch to respect and secure our privacy and our civil liberties. fbi as anhe

institution. saving local agencies that police our communities. think weespects, i agree on this point. for example, you have spoken truthslly about the hard we must keep in mind when we discuss race and policing. in particularly, when we discuss use of force by police officers. i am told that he require all new agencies to study the fbi interaction with dr. martin luther king junior. and to visit his memorial. keepalso advised that you on your desk a copy of robert kennedy's approval of j edgar request to place a

wiretap on dr. king. these are powerful reminders of a troubling and not too distant history. it is not difficult to draw a line from that era to recent events in ferguson, baltimore, new york, and cleveland. builds why your work to trust between police and our communities is so important. effort morehat apparent than in your call for better data on the use of force by police. although the fbi is the national statistics, crime that data is reported voluntarily and inconsistently. you have been honest in your assessment that official statistics in this area are so

incomplete as to be embarrassing and ridiculous. we need a better understanding of what drives the police's use of force. we cannot study the problem without reliable data. press you to continue to your state and local partners for consistent and accurate reporting through the national incident-based reporting system. trust ine must rebuild certain state and law enforcement units, we will look to your testimony today to reassure us about a number of programs and activities at the fbi. public this year, the noticed a small plane flying in a tight pattern directly over the site of unrest in west baltimore. from other parts

of the country, including my own district in detroit, raised questions about the presence of similar aircraft's. confirmed thence existence of its aerial surveillance program. on june 3, 15 members of this committee wrote you to ask for more information about this program. your team provided our staff with the briefing soon thereafter. still has many questions about aerial surveillance and you said that there is a great deal of misinformation about this program. i would like you to use your testimony and presence here today to explain, from your perspective, how this program works and why we should trust the bureau to operate it.

we would, i think benefit from a full or description of encryption and what you have called the going dark problem. over the past year, you have called for a congressional mandate to give the fbi special access to otherwise encrypted data. i have a difficult time understanding this proposal. every technical expert who has spoken on this issue has concluded it is technically impossible to provide this access without also compromising our security against bad actors. even if it were technically feasible, it would cost our technology sector perhaps, billions of dollars to implement the scheme. and perhaps ilion's more from

loss of business overseas where the united states government surveillance programs have already taken a toll on the industry. and even if it were technically feasible and easy to implement, a new rule for united states would not succeed in keeping that actors are amusing unbreakable encryption. which is open source, free, and from companiese based overseas. we had this debate in 1999. only by allowing the use of , not onlyryption an domestically, but internationally as well, can we hope to make the internet a safe

and secure environment. i agree with that sentiment and you have made similar public statements. i hope you can help us to whatcile that view with you you call special access. because rigorous oversight is necessary for public trust, i hope that he will commit today to full compliance with the the inspector general of the department of justice is to have timely access to every document he requires to carry out his duties. noncompliance has real consequences. this committee waited until february of this year to receive a report about the f.b.i.'s use of

section 215 orders from 2007-2009. the public waited until may for the unclassified version. in the middle of a national debate on government surveillance, we waited six years for critical information. this delay is unacceptable. i understand that there are other interpretations of the law. congress will soon clarify the the matter, likely it overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. but in the meantime, director comey, i hope that the bureau will step away from its

litigating position and give the office of the inspector general the access it requires and deserves. your job is a complex and demanding one, director. we appreciate you being here today and i look forward to your testimony. i thank the chairman and yield back. >> thank you, mr. conyers. without objection all other members' opening statements will be made a part of the record. we welcome our distinguished witness today. if you will please rise, we will begin by squaring you win. do you swear the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you. let the record reflect the witness has responded in the affirmative. on september 4, 2013, director comey was sworn in as the seventh director of the f.b.i. he began his career as an assistant united states attorney for both the southern district of new york and the eastern district of virginia. after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, director comey returned to new york to become the united

states attorney for the southern district of you ne new york. in 2003, he was appointed deputy attorney general under united states attorney general john ashcroft. director comey is a graduate of the college of william & mary and the university of chicago law school. we welcome you again today to your second appearance before the house committee. your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety and we ask you to summarize your testimony in five minutes. with that we welcome you again to the committee. >> thank you chairman. it's good to be back before you and the members of the committee for my second annual oversight hearing. i expect to be back for eight more during my 10 year term, which is look forward to very much. what i thought i would do is just explain to the committee, in very short form, how we at the fbi think about ourselves and a couple of the things that are prominent in our work today.

i think the fbi can best be described in a single sentence. we are a national security and law enforcement organization that uses, collects, and shares intelligence in everything that we do. that sentence captures us in two different ways. first the first half of that sentence, we are a national security and law enforcement organization. there is great strength for the american people and having our criminal responsibilities and our national security responsibilities in the same place. perhaps no more better example is the strength gained from that combination than the rule of law as the spine of the fbi. it is a great thing i think, for this country that the people responsible for counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and the criminal work all have as part of their being, the rule of law and the bill of rights. the second half of that sentence, we use, collect, and

share intelligence in everything that we do, is the description of what i think we've always been but what we've tried to get so much better at since 9/11. that is being thoughtful about what we know, what we need to know, and who needs to know what we know. so we can all be more effective in protecting this country. i want to start with national security. the threat posed to us from isil's crowd sourcing of terrorism using social media is a significant feature of our work. it was an especially taxing threat the f.b.i. dealt with earlier this summer when all over the country in hundreds of investigations we were trying to evaluate where people are from consuming isil's poison to acting on it. through the internet is the so-called islamic state has been pushing a twin-prong message to troubled souls all over the world and all over our country. the first prong is come to the so-called caliphate and live a life of glory and if you can't calm, the second prong says,

killed. kill where you are. kill anyone. if you can kill people in uniform, military or law enforcement, best of all. that message has gone out since the summer of 2014 aggressively in a very sophisticated way to thousands of consumers on twitter. and twitter works to sell books or movies or magazines. it works to crowd source terrorism. and so in every state we have investigations trying to understand where people are on the path from consuming to acting. and this is a very different paradigm from the traditional al qaeda paradigm because this is not about national landmarks and sophisticated, long surveilled events. this is about trying to motivate murder anywhere, by anyone. unfortunately, it is a message that resonates with troubled souls seeking meaning. earlier this summer especially in may, june, and july, we were faced with the prospect of a lot of people acting out on this inspiration or direction from isil. thanks to great work by the men and women of the fbi, and our

partners in state, local, and federal law enforcement, we disrupted a whole lot of efforts to murder innocent people in the united states. that work, though, continues, and it is made particularly difficult by an issue both you and mr. conyers touched upon. our mission is to find needles in a nationwide hay stack and we have hundreds of investigations aimed at doing that in all 50 states. but increasingly what isil does is move the real live ones who might be willing to kill on their behalf off of twitter to a mobile messaging app that is end-to-end encrypted. at that moment the needle we may have found becomes invisible to us even with court orders. which is how the f.b.i. does its business. so that's the challenge we face called going dark in real, living color. we are trying to interdict, trying to stop, trying to understand people on the cusp of acts of violence and increasingly a tool that the american people count on us to use is less and less effective. i don't know exactly what to do about that, frankly. but i think my job given the responsibility have is to tell

people there's a problem and we need to talk about it. so i look forward to a conversation about it with you. our law enforcement responsibilities, the second thing i want to touch very briefly obviously we do public corruption work. we protect children. we fight fraud. we do a lot of work with our partners around the country to address violent crime. something very disturbing is happening in this country right now in law enforcement and in violent crime. i imagine two lines. one being us and law enforcement and the other being communities we serve and protect , especially communities of color. those two lines over the last year or so have been arcing away from each other and that continues. each incident that involves police misconduct or perceived misconduct bends one line away. each time an officer is killed or attacked in the line of duty bends the other line farther away. and in the midst of the arcing away from each other, maybe because they're arcing away from

each other, we are seeing a dramatic spike in violent crime especially homicide in cities all across the country. in communities of color especially, especially young men are dying at a rate that dwarfs what we've seen in recent history. it's happening all over the country and it's happening all in the last 10 months. so a lot of us in law enforcement are talking and trying to understand what is happening in this country. what explains the map we see. what explains the calendar. why is it happening all over the country? why is it happening this year? i don't know the answer to that. i as i said like a lot of people in law enforcement are struggling with it. we simply must focus on this. because all lives matter. this is not a problem america should drive around. we should stair at it. as we stare at it we should all work for ways to bend those lines back toward each other because we need each other. we need each other to make sure our communities are safe. we have achieved in 2014 historically low violent crime in this country. we cannot let that slip away from us.

i am grateful for the hard work of the men and women of the f.b.i. on these challenges. i'm especially grateful for our partners in law enforcement around the country who help us address those. as you know, the f.b.i. doesn't have a lot of fancy stuff. we have people. and we have great people thank goodness, who are americans who care deeply about protecting all of their fellow citizens. i am honored to be in this job where i get to watch what they do and help them. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, director comey. we'll now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions for the director and i'll begin by recognizing myself. since the passage of the "usa , a law that struck a balance between privesy and national security, is the fbi experiencing any difficulty in complying with the new law? >> we have not, mr. chairman. we haven't yet gotten to the place where the system that --

the alternate system for telephone metadata has been built, but so far we have not seen adverse impact. >> you're getting very close to that i think the date when the metadata collection will be completely turned off. >> yes. end of next month i believe. >> even with a decade's worth of information on iraqi refugees didn't we still encounter cases of domestic terrorism conducted by those admitted as refugees with significantly less information on potential syrian refugees isn't it true that you , can't ensure the iraqi experience is not going to be replayed? >> thank you, mr. chairman. yes, you're correct that we did discover in people who had come in as refugees from iraq a number of people who were of serious concern including two that were charged when we found their fingerprints on improvised explosive devices from iraq and there is no doubt that was the product of a less than excellent vetting that had been done on iraqi refugees. there's good news and bad news. the good news is we have improved dramatically our ability as an inter-agency. all parts of the u.s. government

to query and check people. the bad news is, our ability to touch data, with respect to who come from syria, we may be limited. >> much less than we'd have access to when we were in iraq. >> i think that is fair. >> and had extensive networking aboutcess to information iraqi citizens that simply does not in any way compared to the lack of information we have today about syrian nationals who refugee status in the united states. >> i think that is a fair generality. the data we had available to us from iraq, from a decade of our folks of being there, encountering people is richer than the data that we have from syria. >> the director of the national security agency has said that former secretary of state clinton's private e-mail server would be a sought after target

for a foreign intelligence agency. do you also believe that a foreign intelligence agency particularly an adversary's could benefit from acquiring and exploiting sensitive and classified information of a top level u.s. government official? >> mr. chairman, i respectfully say that is one i am not going to comment on. as you know, the f.b.i. is working on a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with former secretary clinton's use of a private e-mail server. as you also know about the fbi, we don't talk about the investigations while we are doing them. this is one i'm following very closely and get briefed on regularly. i'm confident we have the people and the resources to do it in the way i believe we do all of our work which is promptly, professionally, independently. i don't want to do anything that would compromise my ability to do it that way. >> well how about answering my generic question not directed at any specifics of that case, but

rather, the question of whether you believe that if foreign intelligence agency, y'sticularly an adversar could benefit from acquiring and , exploiting sensitive and classified information of a top level u.s. government official? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope you'll understand why i don't think it is appropriate for me to answer that. i want to preserve my ability to oversee this investigation in a way that is both in reality independent and fair and is perceived that way. i believe the bureau is three things. we are competent, independent, and honest. and i want to make sure the american people have confidence that that's where we're doing our business. if i start answering questions like yours, which is a reasonable question i worry that , i could infringe upon that. >> you've said encryption represents the going dark problem in high definition. earlier this month you testified in front of the senate homeland security and government affairs committee that the obama administration has decided to no longer seek a legislative remedy to address

enforcement faces with encryption and going dark. what has changed, and do you agree with the concerns that i and the ranking member have expressed about some of the proposals that have proo previously been made with regard to addressing this problem? >> what the administration has decided, mr. chairman, is that it is not going to seek a legislative remedy now. then, we can continue the conversations we are having with the private sector, with their our allies around the world, and with the state and local law enforcement. i think that makes good sense. i don't think we are yet to a place where we know exactly how we would fix this legislatively. this is a hard problem.

two sets of values we all care about, safety and security on the internet, i am a big fan of strong encryption for the reasons you said. it helps us fight cyber security. it helps us protect all the .atters most dear to us andave to wrestle with it we continue to do that. we are having very good conversations about all the dimensions i just said. we will continue to do that, i hope. >> i just came from a meeting with bill gates who indicated that the progress being made in quantum computing is dramatic and that computers of that high be able towill soon crack any kind of encryption that anyone has. that i found to be very interesting information. i have both good and bad reviews of that because obviously, that can be seriously abuse and

of lawthe privacy abiding citizens. it will be a source of solving your problem when you encounter sncrypted materials by material from people who are suspected enemies of the united states. do you have any comments or the currentout state of quantum computing. nothing that would be useful to you. i only have eight years left on my term. i have a hard time imagining a police officer in uric city having access to quantum computing.

>> i know reference the ranking member for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome again, mr. director comey. you observed that the "the washington post" and "the guardian" are becoming the lead source of information about violent encounters between police and civilians. called the state of fbi statistics on these accounts embarrassing and ridiculous. that you have had some time to reflect on them, do you stand by this comment? >> i do, mr. conyers. i think it's embarrassing for those of us in government who care deeply about these issues, especially the use of force by law enforcement, that we can't have an informed discussion because we don't have the data. people have data about who went

or how manyast week books were sold, or how many cases of the flu walked into an emergency room. and i cannot tell you how many people were shot by police in the united states last month, last year, or anything about the demographics. that is a very bad place to be. >> what is the fbi have trouble collecting this information? >> the big challenge, mr. conyers, is it requires cooperation from 18,000 law enforcement organizations around the country. we are a big, diverse country of many different size organizations in the law enforcement space. we've never all sat together and said, let's change the way we do this. i am optimistic. >> you're working on the problem. >> very hard. the good news is chiefs and sheriffs get it and want to be we as a country can have informed conversations. what i've been asking for

resonates with them. i'm going to speak to them again at a huge conference in chicago next week. i am optimistic. >> i hope so. your written testimony takes a rather dim view of the so-called going dark problem. you want private companies to understand the public safety and national security risks that result from malicious factors. of their encrypted products and services. in the past, you have balanced comments like these with an honest assessment of the benefits of strong encryption. i want you to take some time to do that here. why is encryption important to the internet economy, to the cyber security, and in many cases, to our personal security?

>> encryption is vital to our personal security because all of our lives are now online. i like people locking their cars when they go into a store. i like people to lock their homes so people cannot break in and steal what matters to them. now what matters to us as people and as companies, and as a country, our online. it should be secured in a way people cannot steal our innovation, identities, information about our children. so encryption is a very good thing and the f.b.i. has long said that. the challenge we face is we never live in a world with locks that couldn't be open on a judge's order. now we face that world where all of our lives will be covered right strong encryption so judge 's orders under the fourth amendment will be unable to be compiled with that and there are significant costs to that. that's what i meant by the conflict of the values, public

safety on the internet, and that is what makes it a really hard problem. >> thank you. over the summer we receive reports that a single engine cessna operated by the fbi and mounted with surveillance equipment had flown multiple times over metro detroit, including two lengthy flights over dearborn, where many citizens feel reason to distrust the fbi because of their religious or ethnic background. you have been forthcoming to my staff about some of the details of this program. can you give the public a similar overview here? >> sure. i'd be happy to, mr. conyers. when we investigate criminals or spies, or terrorists, a key tool is surveillance. we follow them a lot in cars. we follow them on foot. there are plenty of circumstances where both of those options don't work.

and so since the wright brothers we have used airplanes to follow people in our investigations. if a spy comes out to meet somebody and it is an area where we cannot park cars, we will get a small plane up to get eyes on that meet with their contact. so it is a feature and i hope this does not shock the american people. i think i should be in trouble with them if we are not doing this. we use planes in our predicated investigations to conduct surveillance of people under investigation. we do not use planes for mass surveillance. so the good folks in michigan who saw the plane in the air, a lot of them had a chance to meet with my sac of their and explain to them. look, this is what we do in criminal cases. it should make sense if we understand how to use it in individual cases. we have a small number of airplanes. actually wish we had more that we use to follow people where it is hard to follow on foot or in a car. >> thank you for your response to my questions. >> thank you. the chair recognized the gentleman from virginia mr.

forbes for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you not just for being here but for your service. i also want to thank your staff for the dedication they put into serving the country. we appreciate your being here. if my friend were here he'd also commend you for your selection of william & mary as an under graduate and i will tell you if we couldn't convince you to go to the university of virginia law school chicago was probably a good second choice. but i have a question as i listen to the ranking member today talk about trust and he talked about the symbols that you have on your desk regarding police brutality and efforts by law enforcement. you mentioned it was important to have reality and perception, both of those, when you look at that trust. tell me the symbols, if you would. tell me the symbols on your desk or in your office that would give me comfort in knowing that

there was also a perception that he were equally looking at organized groups that were coming into areas like ferguson to firm that unrest. especially groups that were outside those communities and especially those groups who might be impacting violence against law enforcement. as you mentioned, there are two curves. not just one. >> thank you. first of all, to make sure the record is clear. , is i have on my desk to me a message of the importance of restraint and oversight within the government. it is a wire tap order that relates to martin luther king , not about law enforcement police misconduct. that is something we take very seriously. i devoted my whole life to law enforcement. i come from a law enforcement family. one of the things that's prominent in my office is a picture of my grandfather in 1929 is a dangerous felony to

jail. detectivether was a who rose up to lead a significant police department. i care an awful lot about making has theorcement confidence of the community, that we conduct ourselves well, but that we protect law enforcement from attacks. i call, this is my phone. whenever a police officer is called in the line of duty call the chief or sheriff of that slain officer to offer the condolences of the f.b.i. i make far too many phone calls. so we care about both making sure law-enforcement ask well, and that we investigate people who farm law enforcement. whether it is sophisticated groups, or individual actors. it is a feature of all the work we do. >> director, i would just ask that at some point in time, you could submit for the record, the data you have on these outside groups coming into these communities and we have situations like this, who might unrest, andup especially, activity against law enforcement. also, any data you have

regarding the impact, or even the number of gang members that might be currently being released by the government who might be here illegally. we asked it is questioned of homeland security, they cannot give us that data. the second question i have for you. you know the opm breach impacted over 22 million current, former, and respective federal employees and contractors. considering these individuals used personal e-mail accounts for their own personal communication and store private information relating to financial transactions, their children, and health care do you think the , breach made these individuals more vulnerable to social engineering tactics used by hackers and what ways could encryption enhance the security of personal information of those who have had their information compromised during the breach? breach is the omp breapm disastrous. it is a gold mine for foreign intelligence services that would allow them to use that material to conduct very sophisticated social engineering attacks to

penetrate people's systems. encryption is very important to protect people's information. i don't think encryption will directly blunt that particular vector. it will allow a nationstate to send an e-mail from my sister from my nephew with an attachment. it is highly likely i will open that e-mail and click on that attachment. i see those as two separate problems. both serious, however. >> thank you. with that, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and director comey for being here again. the national background check system was created as a result of the brady act of 1993 before i was in the congress and it requires that gun sales by licensed gun dealers are subject to background checks that allow transactions to proceed after three days, and less the fbi

stops a transaction based on criteria, such as felony record or domestic violence, convictions and the like. under the rule even if the fbi has not completed its check, the dealer has the discretion to complete the sale after three days had passed and the have not received a red light from the fbi. it is my understanding from news reports that the man who shot and killed nine people at the emmanuel methodist african-american episcopal church in charleston, s.c. south carolina on june 17 was sold the gun by a dealer who waited five days but did not receive a response from the examiner. now the shooter had a drug possession conviction that if it had been found by the examiner would have prevented the gun sale. due in part to the large case load and time constraints placed on the examiner the gun dealer

didn't receive the red light that would have prevented this gun sale and possibly prevented this massacre. i have a couple questions. first, what can be done to make sure that we have a timely response and we have the data available to prevent the sale of guns to those who are not eligible to buy them, number one? number two, should the lot require a green might from the fbi to prevent a firearms transfer to those prohibited by law from buying them, instead of the red light system that we have now? do you think we should examine the amount of time that we give for background checks, beyond three days, if we don't go to an affirmative green light system? >> thank you. with respect to the case of gives roof, the law dealers three days, three

business days, to give the fbi an opportunity to conduct the background check. in that circumstance, the gun dealer was notified it was in delayed pending status. at the end of the three days it is still in delayed pending, the gun dealer has the discretion to transfer her to wait. some large gun dealers wait. this gun dler transferred which was consistent with the law. there were a number of errors in the processing of his that allowed his drug possession arrest to be missed. the gun was transferred. we have stared very, very hard at that and tried to figure out what we can learn from that. there were some easy fixes to our proses but we're looking at bigger fixes to see whether we can surge resources, whether we can add innovation to make our processing faster. but the other key piece is going to be we must get better records from our state and local partners. so that when our examiners query a data base they have the disposition reported and have to go trackting down. we're having productive conversations with state and local law

enforcement who see in the wake of the pain of that tragedy that the importance of giving us those records. that is what we are doing to improve our processing. the policy questions are not for the fbi. we comply with the law. as it stands today, we have three days to get it done. we will do our best to get it done in three days. if congress were to change that we would get it done, obviously. back to encryption, i understand the concerns you have raised here today and in the past. the experts really say, trying to get the back door is a mistake. if you have the back door, the hackers will get it and china will get it and we will be less safe. that leads me to a question about the use of encryption by the fbi. are you encrypting all of your

your agents,l of and personnel, and payroll, and systems? data. we use encryption on a significant amount of data. >> i'd like to follow up with that because i was stunned that the office of personnel did not have that important data encrypted. the federal government should protect itself by encrypting this data. we know that we're being hacked constantly by state actors and the enemies of our country and i'm sure they would love to get data about the f.b.i. i look forward to hearing a greater details on them. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> recognize the gentleman from california mr. issa for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have so many questions and so little time. i'll try to touch on each and bear with me. on sting rays, i'm going to ask you to tell us now or for the

record how you control the access to these products when they're not being used. how you control them when they are being used not just at the fbi but to the extent that you are cooperating with nonfederal agencies around the country that have these devices and, specifically, i'm very concerned that since they're being used at times without warrant almost mostly, and there are at least some allegations they've been used to track policemen's girlfriends or wives' activities and so on that they are too powerful a tool not to have a series of controls. again, some of this you can answer for the record. on that i'd like a full understanding of federal policy and controls. in the case of encryption i'm only going to ask you, to be a long answer to provide for the record, any and all studies you

have to show the value of the encryption and the value of your access or ability to not go dark and if it is classified i'll look at it in the classified section but i'd like to fully understand the value of the studies related to that general direction of the administration. but i'd like to take up for today more, a question on some historic pieces. a few offices away they're dealing with secretary clinton and those, so i won't ask about those today. i think that is certainly an ongoing investigation as to her use of private e-mail for transmitting what turns out to be sensitive information. in the case long before your tenure, solyndra went bankrupt after accepting half a billion dollars in taxpayer money.

at that time, we began an investigation in the oversight committee and were told by the d.o.e. inspector general we could not talk, he could not talk to us because the fbi at that time had an ongoing investigation. it's now four years later and the department, the i.g. did release information but we have not received any indication from the f.b.i. so today i'd like to ask you who at the fbi made decisions not to bring any charges against solyndra executives and what the basis was to find no fault in that loss of $500 million in -- $500 million, and particularly since there was evidence provided publicly by our committee that there were emergency efforts to get some additional money to have their bankruptcy delayed and that was done by federal employees including a gentleman named jonathan silver. you might remember in may of 2013 the president stood beside the attorney general and

declared there would be serious investigation by the doj and fbi into the political targeting done by the irs. months later the president declared there wasn't a smidgeon of corruption related to the i.r.s. director, you know that in fact there was targeting. the evidence is convincing. where you stand on bringing accountability to those involved at all levels to targeting conservatives and pro israel groups by the i.r.s., including but not limited to lois lerner? director comey: thank you, congressman. with respect to the first two, the sting rays and encryption, we'll get you information on the record, for the record. with respect to solyndra, first of all the f.b.i. doesn't make decisions to prosecute. we investigate, bring the evidence to prosecutors -- >> i appreciate that. but there is either a decision to refer for prosecution or not. and to the extent that there was

one, i would like the evidence that it was referred but not prosecuted to the extent that there was a decision not to refer one or more that would be helpful. i appreciate the other part of justice handles the other part and we will have the attorney general here shortly. director comey: we worked the solyndra matter very, very hard and had it reviewed by two different u.s. attorneys offices , one in california, one in new york. they both made the same decision that there was insufficient evidence to bring prosecution. probably limited what i can say about the details because it was a grand jury investigation but that is the upshot of it. i had a lot of folks working very, very hard. one u.s. attorney's office looked at it. i asked it be brought to a second u.s. attorney's office. my alma mater in new york and they looked at it and decided there was insufficient basis to prosecute criminally. that's where the matter stands. with respect to the irs investigation, i think it is still pending as i sit here so

i'm not able to talk about it in any way. >> i just want to close with a very short comment. it was 2010 when we became aware the i.r.s. was targeting conservatives. it is now almost i really would 2016. would comeif the fbi up with a timeline that says an investigation is not ongoing and aggressively pursued if a certain period of time passes and nothing has happened. i would only ask that five years begin to become an amount of time in which the f.b.i. can say we can't say with a straight , face it is ongoing if it's five years later and nothing has happened. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. coen for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm a big fan of yours. at the same time, i would like to ask you a question. i understand you keep a copy of

the f.b.i. request to wire tap dr. martin luther king on your desk as a reminder of the f.b.i.'s capacity to do wrong is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i commend you for that. that occurred during j. edgar hoover's tenure as director. as you know, j edgar hoover did some awful, terrible things in his life and as f.b.i. director. tel-proted the coin program, that harassed civil rights workers, flc people, dr. king in particular, activists and homosexuals. he was abusive. he was the opposite of justice. his efforts to silence dr. king and out homosexuals by the -- it out homosexuals working for the federal government were a stain on the history of the f.b.i.

it is reported at one point he had a letter sent to dr. king threatening to expose all kinds of private information selected -- collected surreptitiously. the letter appeared to suggest dr. king should kill himself to save himself from embarrassment. king, there is only one thing left for you to do. you know what it is. you have just 34 days in which to do it. you are done. there is but one way out for you. you better take it before your fill become abnormal, fraudulent self is bared to the nation. this was the head of the f.b.i. treatment of homosexuals was no better. he called them sex deviants and ordered the f.b.i. to identify everyone in the bureau even suspected of being homosexual in the federal government. there is a documentary done on this on yahoo.com by michael isakoff called "uniquely nasty." i watched it and was shocked. it premiered at the newseum. it is sickening what the f.b.i. did. in 1951, hoover issued a memo to

top fbi officials saying each , supervisor will be held personally responsible to underline in green pencil the names of individuals who are alleged to be sex deviants. this was discovered through a foia two years ago. the f.b.i. eventually had more than 260,000 files on gays and lesbians. it is reported in 1952 he outed a young campaign aide and went awol -- and went on a war on him and senator vandenberg a , republican, eventually committed suicide in the senate office because of what they brought out about his son and what they were doing to destroy him. j. edgar hoover was a man that doesn't reflect the good people of the f.b.i. or reflect what you and the f.b.i. are trying to do today. the f.b.i.'s own website intel-pro program as rightly criticized by congress and the american people for first amendment rights and other reasons. would you agree his name is not

appropriate as a reflection to what the fine people at the fbi did today to bring about justice? director comey: i'm sorry, hoover's name? >> i'm saying, does it not reflect the quality that the fbi individuals and the f.b.i. today have in pursuing justice and being fair and not using tactics to attack minorities in this country? director comey: i see. thank you. i'm sorry. the f.b.i. today is vastly different than it was under its first director. in some of the ways you mentioned and lots of other ways. i keep that under the glass of my desk not to dump on hoover. i never knew the man. but to make sure people understand the danger in falling in love with your own view of things and the danger in the absence of constraints and oversight. i am somebody who believes people should be very skeptical of government power. i'm a nice person. i suppose you should trust me but oversee me and i should be checked and i should be balanced.

that is the way you constrained power. it is there to remind me. >> i agree and appreciate that but you agree his name does not reflective of what the fbi stands for and what fbi agents of today believe in and do? director comey: i think that's fair. hoover did a lot of good things for law enforcement in the united states. did a lot of things that through the lens of history we reject as improper. i am no historian, but i imagine a historian would say you have to take the total measure after -- total measure of the person to figure out what is good and bad and i am not equipped to do that. >> thank you sir. i would like to see his name taken off the building. i'm going to reintroduce that bill. i would hope as i mentioned the last time we have a new building sometime in the future named for somebody like you. director comey: i appreciate that. >> or congressman edwards or attorney general kennedy. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, gentlemen. recognize the gentleman from iowa mr. king for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, thanks for coming to testify. i just would comment that i appreciate your response when you used the reference the lens of history. that was a different set of values that applies today than back in those days. but i'm looking at our values today and watching as there is a fairly strong push here for sentencing reform in the united states. and i've watched as the president or the administration at least has directed that thousands be released on to the streets before they serve their terms. and that we've seen that some of them have been charged with homicide and found guilty. i think that number is around 121 or so. i thought i saw the number 36,007 felons released and a subsequent number. i'm actually blurred by the parade of releases we've seen and now i see a, what appears to be a group of legislators that believe we can save tax dollars by releasing more on to the streets. are you aware of any studies that would help quantify the impact of these releases in

terms of either prospective crimes that are likely to be committed or perhaps even quantifying it in terms of the dollar value that's suffered in great, huge, chopping chunks like crime victims? director comey: i'm not aware of any studies on that. it's not that i would be. that's sort of a policy question but i'm not aware of any. >> they are very hard to find. i've searched a long way back. i'm going from memory. it occurs to me that in 1992 there was a justice department study that did quantify numerically the cost of crime. but do you have any studies that show statistically whether there would be more crime or less crime that would take place because of the early releases? director comey: i am not aware of any studies on that. >> what would be your professional estimate? would we have more crime or less crime? director comey: i know we face as a country a significant challenge with recidivism.

high reoffend rate among people released. my whole career is dedicated to the proposition that law enforcement contributes to a drop in crime. it's not entirely responsible for the historic drop in crime we have seen over my lifetime but it a big part of it so that -- but it is a big part of it so that is the way i think about it. >> mandatory sentencing statistically shows to have had a positive impact on reducing the crime in the streets of america? director comey: i think so. mandatory minimums have been an important part of my work as a prosecutor. reasonable people can discuss whether it should be at this level or this level but some mandatory sentence, some fixed prospect of punishment is very, very valuable in incapacitating people and developing cooperaters. >> and sometime back i sat down with a very impressive chief of police in one of our major cities who remarked to me about the very high homicide rate in the inner city of his city and his response was that the black-on-black homicide rate in that city was roughly 98% of the homicides that took place.

i don't know that we discussed these kinds of statistics. i would be hopeful we could find a way to do this and alleviate this situation that we have. we have gone into a void on this for politically correct reasons, but are you aware of any data that would reflect what i've represented to you? director comey: i think there is a lot of data collected by criminologists and others on the demographics of homicide victims and perpetrators. i can't cite it off the top of my head but i know smart people have done that work. >> and that 98% number wouldn't be shocking to you? director comey: i don't think it would shock me in particular neighborhoods that are heavily concentrated with people of a certain demographic background but i don't know the number off the top of my head. >> is there a planned parenthood investigation currently taking place in the f.b.i.? director comey: i'm not able to

answer that question because i don't know enough. i know there have been letters written to the department of justice about it. i'll have to get back to you on that one because i don't know the status of matters within the fbi on that sitting here this morning. >> has anyone from the administration, to your knowledge, ever sought to influence you or any subordinates on whether to investigate a crime? director comey: never. >> specifically nonplanned parenthood would be included in that? director comey: that would be included. >> that would be consistent with your independent and honest characteristics of the fbi. you're implementing the "usa today" freedom act now. -- the usa freedom act now. do you have access to more or less information than you had before the usa freedom act was passed? director comey: it really hasn't

changed because we're still under the old telephone metadata system. as i said to the chairman i think the new one kicks in at the end of november, so currently our world is , unchanged. >> okay. you expect more or less? director comey: i expect more actually. >> it'll be interesting to follow up on if i had another minute. i'll yield back. >> the gentleman does not have another minute but the chair will recognize the gentle woman from california for five minutes. >> director comey, i want to discuss with you a series of very troubling federal investigations against chinese-american scientists who are treated as spies and have their lives turned upside down only to have the charges dropped. most recently, we have a case of an american citizen and well respected professor who was chair of the physics department at temple university. he led a normal and peaceful life as a scientist, professor, and researcher with two daughters and wife in quiet pennsylvania neighborhood. he had no criminal record, no history of violence. just an average american in academia. one day at the break of dawn

, about a dozen armed f.b.i. agents stormed into his house with their guns drawn. he was handcuffed in his own home and his two young daughters and wife in pajamaas and directed out of the house at gun point. the state in charge wire fraud. ,however, in the interrogation it was clear he was accused of , being a spy for china. his life has been turned upside down. he lost his title as chair of the physics department. his reputation was irrevocably damaged. his wife endures emotional trauma as does his whole family and himself. after all of this, the charges against dr. xi were dropped. my understanding of cases of wire fraud is that generally people aren't even handcuffed let alone arrested or paraded in front of their family and neighborhood as criminals at gun point. rather, they've been given an opportunity to self surrender and if someone is being investigated for wire fraud they are usually informed about such an investigation by target

letter. but we know that professor xi is not alone. sheri chen was also recently arrested, a u.s. citizen, employee of the national weather service in ohio. she was arrested at her place of work, led in handcuffs past her co-workers to a federal courthouse 40 miles away, where she was told she would face 25 years in prison and $1 million in fines. several months later, all the charges were dropped without any explanation. this is reminiscent of course of dr. wen ho lee, another u.s. citizen whose life was ruined when he was accused of being a spy for china only to have 58 of the 59 charges dropped. let's not forget that during world war ii, 120,000 japanese americans lost everything they had and were imprisoned in desolate camps because they were accused of being spies for japan. 3/4 of them were u.s. citizens.

70 years later, not a single case of espionage was proven. i am particularly concerned about this because there is a stereotype that asian americans are perpetual foreigners no matter how long they've lived in this country. my question to you is, is this common practice to have a dozen armed f.b.i. agents arrest someone for wire fraud, someone who is not a flight risk and poses no harm to law enforcement? or is there a presumption of guilt when it comes to chinese americans because they are viewed as spies for china? director comey: thank you, congresswoman. at the outset, the challenge i'm going to answer -- the challenge to me is i can't talk about the facts of something that is of an investigation, including ones that are pending. i guess i can say this. first of all, we operate with no presumption that anyone is guilty or any stereotype on any particular person.

we are a fact-based organization. we are required to gather facts and through a prosecutor present them to a judge to make a showing of probable cause before we can get a warrant to arrest anybody. a whole lot of people in this country are arrested on wire fraud charges. i've been involved in many cases where people are handcuffed and arrested from wire fraud is a very serious felony. the particulars of the case i wouldn't talk about but i cannot connect the dots in the manner that you have and that is probably all i can say about individual matters. >> we understand the threat of economic espionage is real and we don't take it lightly. however, we want to make sure in all cases there is due process and otherwise innocent americans do not become suspicious simply because the person taking those actions has an ethnic surname. yet in the case of professor xi his investigation came out of , the blue. he had no idea he was being investigated. primarily because he did nothing wrong, as evidenced by the dropped charges.

do you know how many chinese americans are being surveyed? director comey: i do not. >> i will personally follow up with you on this issue to figure out what is happening in cases like professor xi's and how we can make sure no other american regardless of their origin or , background, endures this kind of egregious humiliation and shame. with that, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentle woman and recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. i don't think i ever told you but back in the july, august timeframe of 2007 i was talking with a powerful democratic senator and we agreed you had a great reputation for justice, honorable man that would potentially be a good attorney

general. it ended up being mccasy but you were discussed very favorably by both sides of the aisle. we appreciate your work. i want to touch on something my friend steve cain brought up. -- steve king brought up. i know there is a lot of talk about how we need to have reform and people being released from prison, but as someone who has worked with the system, i've prosecuted, been a judge, been court appointed to defend, and isn't it true that some people that actually plead to nonviolent offenses, do so as part of a plea agreement where the prosecutor drops a gun charge or some charge of violence in order to get a plea in the case and a lesser sentence? haven't you seen that happen? director comey: i've seen that happen. >> so that's why for someone

like me, who is a former judge who saw those kind of plea agreements take place, even though i was in the state side, it's shocking to see people come from the outside and say this wasn't a fair sentence without really considering what could have been prosecuted, what could have been pursued, and what was a transaction, an agreement between a prosecutor and defense attorney that the judge considered all the circumstances and came down on the side of the agreement. well, i want to touch on something else you'd said about -- with iraq refugees, you had a database apparently of figure prints from ied's evidence that had been obtained , from iraq. did i understand that correctly? director comey: yes, sir. >> now, with regard to the masses of syrian refugees i'm not aware of a lot of ied's that

we've gotten, evidence from which you could get fingerprints. is there such a database? director comey: i think that's right. there may be some. and a variety of other intelligence sources that may help us try and understand who people are but the point i was trying to make is we had a whole lot more information about iraq because our soldiers had been there and run into people and collected information. >> right. and that goes to a concern of mine. i'm not the biggest fan of the u.n., but they had data i pulled from their website this morning that says, starting off, that more than 43 million people worldwide are now forcibly displaced as a result of the conflict and persecution and goes on to say that children constitute about 41% of the world's refugees. and, about half of all refugees are women. to it was very disturbing

pull this from the u.n. website in september that says of the 381,000 arrivals that came across the mediterranean sea , that 15% were children, 13% were women, and 72% were men. along withke that saying james clapper that this provides a prime opportunity for islamic state groups to attack western targets , he said a disaster of biblical proportions. then you take statements that have been made by isis leaders themselves that they have been able to place more than 4000 warriors in with the refugees. has that spike concern in the fbi along with what you testified before about isis

having people in every state? director comey: it is a risk that we are focused on and trying to do anything we can to mitigate. fingerprint database or good identification, how can you be sure that anyone is who they say they are if we don't have fingerprints to go against. when i watched people exchange identification information and decide to use the other ones. is there a good way to avoid ?hat director comey: the only thing we can query is information we have. if they have never been a ripple in the pond, then there will be no record and it will be challenging. >> the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome, director. i'm going to have a conversation about one area, and that is about god. -- about guns. 40-50hometown, there are shootings in a weekend. that is a whole classroom of kids. so, i know that you have a relationship with making sure we check who can and cannot -- it seems that whatever we do in chicago -- first, our laws and in weekend. it used to be pretty strong. inn i first got elected 1986, to give you a batch and you get a gun. badge orot to take the the gun.

i figured chicago police could do those things. here we have a majority in the congress of the united states who is really unwilling to take up the challenge. they're coming from indiana and mississippi and all over. they wind up in chicago. i guess, if you could just tell of how toe your ideas lie or people at a local level help curb gun violence. what things can we do to help curb legislation? the fbi business is not policymaking but enforcement of the law, so we spend a lot of time on enforcement. felon,llegal for a someone convicted of domestic violence.

i have devoted a lot of my career as a prosecutor to impose because the challenge we face in a lot of cities is the bad guy thinks it is just another piece of clothing. that leads to a lot more shootings based on people bumping into each other, frankly. our mission is to send a strong message of deterrence that you ought not to have that gun. that will make that corner safer. it requires tremendous effort by the law enforcement community. we are doing a lot of that though including in chicago where your characterio