U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–400 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 113–888 

OVERSIGHT OF THE 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 21, 2014 

Serial No. J–113–61 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

KRISTINE LUCIUS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 21, 2014, 10:03 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 2 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

WITNESS 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 35 

Comey, Hon. James B., Jr., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ................................................... 5 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Hon. James B. Comey, Jr., by: 

Senator Blumenthal ......................................................................................... 69 

Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 63 

Senator Flake .................................................................................................... 85 

Senator Franken ............................................................................................... 68 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 73 

Senator Leahy ................................................................................................... 59 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Hon. James B. Comey, Jr., to questions submitted by: 

Senator Blumenthal ......................................................................................... 115 

Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 100 

Senator Flake .................................................................................................... 150 

Senator Franken ............................................................................................... 112 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 121 

Senator Leahy ................................................................................................... 87 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Acosta, Sergio, Former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, 

et al., December 9, 2013, letter ........................................................................... 161 

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA), Washington, DC, November 25, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 159 

Barr, William P., Former U.S. Attorney General, et al., May 12, 2014, letter .. 257 

Horowitz, Michael E., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, May 13, 2014, letter and documents—redacted ............................ 199 

International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO (IUPA), Sarasota, Florida, December 9, 2013, letter .............................................................................. 171 

Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC, December 19, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 172 

United States Sentencing Commission, Washington, DC, November 26, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 184 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, 

Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Graham, 

Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, and Flake. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everybody. Today the Judiciary 

Committee welcomes James Comey for his first appearance before 

this panel as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Director Comey, it is good to have you here. You have had a very 

busy time since your confirmation last year. And I remember you 

said last year at your confirmation hearing that your wife told you 

she did not think you were going to be chosen for this job. But now 

you are 8 months into the job, and I hope both you and she are 

happy with the choice. 

One of the challenges I have long observed is the FBI’s need to 

balance its focus on counterterrorism with its commitment to longstanding law enforcement functions—the kind of law enforcement 

functions most of us grew up knowing. And, Director Comey, I urge 

you to make sure that the investigations and prosecutions are targeted and fair, and that respect for civil rights and civil liberties 

is upheld. 

A critical tool in successful and fair prosecutions is forensic evidence. Now, we see on reruns of ‘‘Law and Order’’ that the DNA 

is automatically there and that solves the case. Well, as you know 

from your own experience in law enforcement, DNA analysis is not 

widely available, and its application does not solve the crime within the 60 minutes allotted to a television program. 

There are two bipartisan bills, the Justice for All Reauthorization 

Act and the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act, 

that would help prosecutors identify and prosecute the guilty. 

While advanced technology presents the FBI with new opportunities to bring criminals to justice, it can also raise significant civil 

liberties challenges. Drones, for example, offer new capabilities as 
2 

a domestic investigative tool, but they also raise some serious privacy concerns. And Vermonters remind me every day, especially on 

weekends like this past one when I was home, of my responsibility 

to ensure that we protect our national security and our civil liberties. I think, Director, from having known you for years, you believe in both—protecting our national security and our civil liberties. 

You are no stranger to this struggle. It was before this very Committee, in 2007, that you described a hospital bedside confrontation 

with senior White House officials who were urging an ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize an NSA surveillance program that the Justice Department had concluded was illegal. As 

Deputy Attorney General, you showed independence by standing 

firm against this attempt to circumvent the law. 

Right now Congress is still dealing with the surveillance programs begun during the last administration, including a bulk collection program that acquires Americans’ phone records on an unprecedented scale. I am glad the House of Representatives is poised 

to act on a revised version of the USA FREEDOM Act. But I remain concerned that some important reforms in that Act were removed, and I hope you will work with me as the Senate takes up 

this important issue and also as we look at ways to address the 

critical cybersecurity concerns facing our Nation. 

Although we face many threats from abroad, the FBI has a key 

role in preventing and punishing extremist violence here at home. 

In 2009, I was proud to offer the Matthew Shepard and James 

Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. The FBI’s implementation of that law has 

involved collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League to train 

State and local law enforcement agencies to protect the civil rights 

of all Americans, and I applaud the FBI for doing that. 

So I look forward to learning more about those efforts and other 

priorities of the Bureau during today’s hearing. I thank Director 

Comey for joining us for his first oversight hearing. I thank the 

men and women who work hard every day to keep us safe. 

We can talk later, but you are also about to have in your training 

program one of the Capitol Police whom I have gotten to know because he has been part of the President Pro Tem protective detail, 

an excellent person. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

With that, I will yield to Senator Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Welcome to your first oversight hearing, and 

I know you have been in office 10 months, and obviously a lot of 

things I talk about precede your takeover, and my hope is that you 

can help us get to the bottom of some of these things. 

But, first of all, I thank you and your organization for helping 

us and protecting the American people from so many different 

threats. 
3 

Unfortunately, I must start, as I often do when the FBI Director 

is before this body, by pointing out that it was only on Monday that 

we received answers to our questions for the record from our last 

FBI oversight hearing 11 months ago. In addition, the answers we 

received are marked current as of August 26, 2013, so that means 

they have been laying around the big black hole of the Justice Department after the FBI forwarded them, I presume for approval. 

And I do not know why it takes so long when the FBI had gotten 

them there on August 26th that we just now received them. 

I told the Attorney General in January when he appeared for 

oversight without having responses to the previous year’s hearing 

questions that that is not acceptable. 

In addition, when we met before Director Comey’s confirmation, 

I provided the Director, the new Director, with a binder of all the 

letters and questions for the record still pending with his predecessor. The FBI has a pretty dismal record of responding to questions. 

I wish I could say that all of those unanswered issues have been 

fully dealt with, but they have not. However, I would like to commend Director Comey for recently beginning to make an effort to 

improve the FBI’s level of communication with my office and, for 

that matter, I hope all offices that contact you. Ignoring my questions does not make them go away. They need to be answered fully 

and completely, and in good faith. 

Now, as we turn to FBI priorities, counterterrorism rightfully remains at the top. Since the September 11 attacks, the wall between 

intelligence and criminal cases has come down, and I think it is 

fair to say our country is safer as a result. Does more need to be 

done? I am not prepared to discuss that, but I assume that there 

can be improvement. 

I am glad Congress is now in the process of considering reforms 

to some of the national security legal authorities, even as the President keeps changing his view about what is needed to keep us safe. 

However, Director Comey pointed out in the press a few months 

ago that some of these reforms would actually make it harder for 

the FBI to do terrorism investigations than even bank fraud investigations. I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss that topic 

today. At least those types of reforms seem unwise. 

Of course, the threats to our Nation are broader than just terrorism. Cybercrime of all types is on the rise, as last week’s events 

illustrate. I applaud the FBI’s efforts to hold the Chinese Government accountable for stealing the trade secrets of U.S. companies 

and, consequently, American jobs. 

I also congratulate the FBI on its work to hold the developers of 

Blackshades accountable for unleashing a computer program that 

can steal users’ passwords and files, as well as activate their 

webcams, all without that person’s knowledge. Crimes are increasingly high-tech, and the tools available to the FBI to combat them 

must be as high-tech as well. In many cases, these tools have at 

least the potential for misuse that could jeopardize the privacy of 

innocent Americans. 

I hope to discuss the Department of Justice Inspector General’s 

recommendation that the FBI develop special privacy guidelines 

concerning drones. I would also like to inquire about a proposal by 
4 

the Department of Justice that would make it easier for the FBI 

to hack into computers for investigative purposes. 

Despite the FBI’s external successes, I find its internal lack of cooperation with the Inspector General troubling. According to the 

Inspector General, the FBI has significantly delayed his office’s 

work by refusing to turn over grand jury and wiretap information 

when he deems it necessary for one of his reviews. As you know, 

the Inspector General Act—it is very clear—authorizes the Inspector General to access these records. 

However, the Inspector General informed me just last week, and 

I quote, ‘‘All of the Department’s components provided . . . full access to the material sought, with the notable exception of the FBI.’’ 

According to the IG, ‘‘the FBI’s position with respect to production 

of grand jury material . . . is a change from its longstanding practice.’’ 

As a fact, from 2001 through 2009, the FBI routinely provided 

this information to the Inspector General. So I would like to know 

why the FBI has been stonewalling the IG and what changed after 

2009 to cutoff the flow of information from the FBI. 

In addition, I have questions about the status of the Justice Department’s report on the FBI’s whistleblower and anti-retaliation 

procedures. Nineteen months ago, President Obama issued a Presidential Directive related to the FBI’s whistleblower procedures. It 

directed that the Attorney General produce a report within 6 

months on how well the FBI follows its own whistleblower and 

anti-retaliation procedures. That report was also to examine the effectiveness of the procedures themselves and whether they could be 

improved. 

The AG’s report is now more than a year overdue, which, once 

again, I have to say is unacceptable. The FBI is in dire need of an 

update to these provisions. For years, I have asked the Bureau 

about specific whistleblowers who came to my office, going back to 

Fred Whitehurst in the 1990s. Time and again, I have heard from 

whistleblowers that the FBI procedures are an ineffective protection against retaliation. 

When the Attorney General’s report did not come out at the 6- 

month mark, I also asked the Government Accountability Office to 

look at this same issue. The FBI needs to cooperate with the GAO 

on its review. 

Finally, as Director Comey points out in his testimony, the FBI 

is actively investigating wrongdoing and getting results every day. 

That is why it is so perplexing to hear nothing at all from the FBI 

concerning its investigation into the targeting of Tea Party groups 

by the Internal Revenue Service. 

It has been just about a year since that investigation was 

opened. I hope we will have the time today to talk about the status 

of that investigation. 

Thank you very much, Director Comey, for coming, and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Director Comey was sworn in as the seventh Director of the FBI 

on September 4, 2013. He has also served as Deputy Attorney Gen-
5 

eral at the Department of Justice, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. 

Director Comey, I am delighted to have you here. 

Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. COMEY, JR., DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, 

Senators. Let me start by thanking you for your support of the people of the FBI. When I became Director, one of the great stresses 

on the organization was the impact of sequestration, and especially 

the vacancies that was leaving around the country. And thanks to 

you, we now have the resources to rehire to fill those positions to 

be the national security and law enforcement organization that we 

need to be. 

Mr. Chairman, as you noted, national security remains our top 

priority, counterterrorism and counterintelligence, for reasons that 

make good sense. I want to start, though, today by offering just a 

few thoughts about cyber because it has been much in the news, 

and it is something that touches everything the FBI is responsible 

for. 

I try to explain to folks that cyber is not a thing, it is a vector; 

that is, because we as Americans have connected our entire lives 

to the Internet—it is where our children play, it is where our banking is, it is where our health care is, it is where our critical infrastructure is, it is where our Nation’s secrets are, and soon it will 

be where your refrigerator is and where things you wear are and 

your car is. Because we have connected our whole lives there, the 

people who would do us harm in all aspects of our lives, that is 

where they come—for our children, for our secrets, for our money, 

for our identities, for our infrastructure. And so it cuts across every 

responsibility the FBI has. 

I was in Indiana recently, and someone was reminding me of the 

great vector change of the last century that changed the FBI, and 

it was the combination of asphalt and the automobile that introduced a new kind of crime to this country where criminals could 

travel very quickly great distances and do a lot of bad things in the 

same day. So it was very important to have a national resource to 

respond to that. I was reminded of it while the Hoosiers were talking to me about John Dillinger, and I said in response that John 

Dillinger could not do a thousand robberies in the same day in all 

50 States in his pajamas halfway around the world. 

That is the challenge we now face with the Internet. It is a challenge that we in the FBI are trying very hard to respond to, to attract, retain, and train great people, to give them the technology 

they need, to build the relationships with the private sector that 

are vital to us respond to this threat, and to help our partners in 

State and local law enforcement get the training and equipment 

they need to respond because it touches all their responsibilities. 

You saw this week two of the products of that work that both illustrate the hard work being done and the scope of the challenge 

we face with the indictment of the five Chinese hackers and the 
6 

charging of people all over the world in collaboration with 18 different law enforcement organizations. The challenge we face 

through cyber is that it blows away normal concepts of time and 

space and venue and requires us to shrink the world just the way 

the bad guys have. Both of these cases illustrate our commitment 

to reach around the world to make clear to people that we are not 

going to put up with this; that although this cyber neighborhood 

has become dangerous, we are going to treat these burglaries for 

what they are, we are going to treat them as seriously as we would 

someone kicking in your door to steal your stuff, to steal your 

ideas, to steal your identity. So we are working very, very hard to 

make sure that is a priority and that we work across the Government to respond to that. 

I will mention just briefly counterterrorism is something that I 

know this Committee knows very well. I continue to focus a great 

deal of attention on al Qaeda and especially the offspring of al 

Qaeda. Its progeny throughout the Middle East and Africa are virulent and bent on doing great harm to Americans abroad and here 

at home. 

I am particularly concerned about the confluence of that 

virulence among the progeny of al Qaeda and Syria, an opportunity 

that is attracting droves of jihadis to come to Syria to learn new 

things, build new relationships, and then most dangerously of all, 

at some point to flow out of Syria. There will be a terrorist diaspora out of Syria, and those of us—and I know everyone on this 

Committee remembers well the diaspora that we faced out of Afghanistan after the jihadi involvement with the Soviets there in 

the 1980s, a diaspora that you can connect directly to 9/11. We in 

law enforcement, national security, and the intelligence community 

are determined not to allow lines to be drawn between an outflow 

from Syria and future 9/11s. 

And, of course, one of the big changes that I have encountered 

coming back to Government after nearly a decade away is the 

emergence of the homegrown violent extremists in the United 

States, those people who can be inspired by al Qaeda to kill innocents without having to be directed because the Internet, again, offers them access to poisonous information both to inspire them and 

to tell them how to carry out the attacks they wish to carry out. 

In this forum I cannot say much about counterintelligence. It remains a huge part of our work, largely in the shadows. You saw 

a reflection of it, though, in the work we did to produce the indictments this week. Our counterintelligence mission remains at the 

forefront of our work, again, because we face nation states that are 

determined to steal our information and because they are able to 

do it through the vector that I mentioned. 

And, of course, as I said, we are a national security and law enforcement organization, a combination that makes very good sense 

to me. And so on the criminal side we are working public corruption and white-collar crime and protecting kids and fighting gangs 

and violence all over this country and all over the world to great 

effect. 

The last thing I will say is I worry a bit in the wake of recent 

disclosures and conversation over the last year about Government 

surveillance, that it is hard for me sometimes to find the space and 
7 

time to talk about what I do and why I do it. I believe people 

should be suspicious of Government power. I am. I think this country was founded by people who were worried about Government 

power, and so they divided it among three branches. 

I think people should ask me: ‘‘What are you doing and why?’’ 

And I hope I can find the space and time to talk about it, to explain 

why I need the ability to execute lawful court orders to intercept 

communications, why, for example, I need the ability to track a bad 

guy through the cell phone, cell tower locations, because it helps 

me save children, rescue kidnap victims, and a number of other 

things. 

There is an angel in those details involving the courts and Congress and tremendous amounts of oversight and responsible use of 

authorities. It is hard for us sometimes in the current wind storm 

to find that space and time, but I am determined to do that. 

And let me close, again, just by thanking you. The magic of the 

FBI is its people. We do not have a lot of stuff. We do not have 

aircraft carriers, planes, satellites. We have got amazing folks 

working national security and criminal work all over this world 24 

hours a day. That is the great joy of my work, to be able to see 

them and touch the work that they do. And I know you feel the 

same way, and we are very grateful for the support. And I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Director Comey appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. And listening to you, I 

was struck by a number of things that I would like to ask you that 

I can only ask when we are briefed on in classified sessions. And 

it may make sense not so much as a hearing, but it is just a general briefing, to find a time when you and those Senators on both 

sides of the aisle that are interested could meet in a secure room 

and go over some of these issues. Would you be open to that? 

Director COMEY. I certainly would. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Now, you also talked about cybersecurity, which is something 

that has worried me and others considerably. There is no question 

your example of a Dillinger today could be sitting offshore, in fact, 

and steal huge amounts of money. 

Earlier this week the Department of Justice indicted five Chinese 

military operatives for stealing trade secrets from American companies. Several of us were at the White House last night and discussed that, among other things. But the landmark case highlights 

the increasing threat that American businesses face from trade secret theft. We have seen the articles in the paper of everything 

from our steel companies to our high-tech companies. 

We are trying to figure out a way to improve our trade secret 

laws. Last week the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a 

hearing in which the FBI testified. Several of our Members, from 

both sides of the aisle, are working on a legislative proposal. Can 

you elaborate a little bit on your efforts to curb trade secret thefts? 

And tell us, the tools that you now have, are they adequate? 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I agree very 

much with what you said. We face an enormous challenge, which 

was illustrated well on Monday by the indictment of the five Chi-
8 

nese hackers, with a nation state engaging in theft. Why build it 

when you can steal it? And as I have learned both from my life in 

the private sector and from talking to the private sector in my time 

on this job, there are two kinds of big companies in the United 

States: those who have been hacked by the Chinese and those who 

do not yet know they have been hacked by the Chinese. So it is a 

problem that we are responding to with a lot of energy, working 

with a lot of partners across the Government. 

I think in terms of statutory tools, as far as I can tell, I have the 

authorities that I need. The challenge of these cases is they are 

very resource intensive; they require expertise and technology and 

training, which is why I stress that I am focusing on those things. 

Chairman LEAHY. The Committee discussed at length the National Security Agency’s use of Section 215. We actually had hearings on that, when we considered the USA PATRIOT Act. So putting aside NSA’s use of Section 215, the national security letters 

that you can use are based on the same relevance standard in Section 215, but they do not require judicial approval. 

I would hope that national security letters are not being engaged 

in bulk collection. Can you confirm that the FBI does not use national security letters for bulk collections? 

Director COMEY. Yes, sir, I can confirm that. We use them for the 

basic building block records of our most important investigations, 

counterintelligence and counterterrorism, but they are not used to 

collect records in bulk. 

Chairman LEAHY. Do you have any intention of changing that 

and using them for bulk collections? 

Director COMEY. None. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I understand you are planning to move the FBI’s Directorate of 

Intelligence out of the National Security Branch and give intelligence and analysis to the Bureau as a whole, not just national security investigators. The only question I raise, these intelligence investigations, as you know, are often broader in scope. They may 

rely on expansive data collection. And so I am concerned about 

whether there are privacy and civil liberty questions if you use the 

intelligence-based approach to all investigations. Traditional domestic crime fighting may not benefit from such a shift. You acknowledge the agency’s focus on national security has meant that 

some newer agents have not developed the basic criminal investigation skills necessary for more traditional crime solving. 

So two steps. One, are you addressing civil liberties concerns in 

the process of this reorganization? And are you ensuring that this 

emphasis will not come at the expense of training agents to fulfill 

basic law enforcement? 

Director COMEY. Yes, I can assure you of that on both counts. To 

start with the second piece first, I intend, now that I am able to 

hire new agents again, to ask—to direct that all new agents do 

criminal work at the beginning of their careers so they develop 

both the tools and techniques of law enforcement and also the 

mind-set. One of the great gifts of the FBI is that at our core is 

a respect for the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment and the 

Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment. And there is nothing 
9 

like criminal work to drive that into the fiber of an agent, so I intend to continue that. 

And absolutely, with respect to what I intend to do on the intelligence side, what I intend to do simply is just to make sure that 

we are using intelligence, whether it is criminal intelligence collected through interviewing informants or national security intelligence, in the appropriate way, with due regard, in fact, careful regard for civil liberties and the protections that we are so passionate 

about. To me, it is really about trying to make sure that my criminal investigators and my cyber investigators are being thoughtful 

and taking advantage of the same smart people and my intelligence analysts to be thoughtful about the work they do and to see 

what they might be missing in that work. 

Chairman LEAHY. One last question, and I realize I have gone 

over time, but I mentioned this to Senator Grassley. Since 9/11, 

Federal prosecutors have successfully convicted more than 500 terrorism suspects in Article III courts. This week, Abu Hamza alMasri was convicted in New York on terrorism charges. That is 

500. We have had a small handful in our military commission system at Guantanamo, and that has been mired in all kinds of controversy. 

The concern that came to my attention last month that military 

commission defense lawyers that are defending somebody at Guantanamo alleged that FBI agents interviewed a defense security officer who was part of the legal team representing one of the September 11th defendants and asked them questions about the defense team. I have a very serious concern, whether it is there or 

anywhere else, that the FBI would try to recruit somebody on a defense team. 

Do you have anything you can tell me about this? 

Director COMEY. It is a matter that I am aware of. I do not mean 

to hurt the feelings of my friends in the press, but their reporting 

is not always accurate. But—— 

Chairman LEAHY. No. Really? 

Director COMEY. But because it is a pending matter, I cannot 

comment on it other than to assure you that we are being careful 

to make sure that the Commission, the judge in charge of the Commission is fully aware of the circumstances. 

Chairman LEAHY. Okay. Well, let me suggest this: As this goes 

on, keep in touch with me, because—you were a prosecutor, I was 

a prosecutor. You know that if the prosecutor or any aspect of the 

prosecution team tried to infiltrate a defense team, that crosses a 

barrier that never should be crossed. 

Director COMEY. The issue is one that I have dealt with throughout my career and take it as seriously as you do. Unfortunately, 

I cannot comment on the matter in particular. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Chuck. 

Senator GRASSLEY. The first issue I am going to bring up probably goes back a long time before you were Director, but it happens 

that just last month I was approached by several female whistleblowers from the FBI. Each previously worked as a supervisor in 

FBI offices where the rest of her colleagues were male. These 

women allege that they suffered gender discrimination after obtain-
10 

ing these positions and that they were retaliated against when they 

tried to report these abuses through the EEO process or other 

means. 

One whistleblower claims that she was disciplined for allegedly 

being ‘‘emotionally unstable’’ and ‘‘unable to work with others’’ because she pointed out that her men’s size 40 hazardous material 

suit did not fit her. 

Another whistleblower claims that she was denied a job for 

which she was ranked first out of six candidates because her male 

supervisors claimed that she was ‘‘emotionally fragile’’ following a 

divorce. 

I am referring these whistleblowers to the Inspector General and 

asking him to determine whether these cases might be part of a 

pattern that the FBI needs to address. 

So a very general question that I do not expect a long answer to: 

Will you make sure that the FBI fully cooperates with any IG review and that there is no further retaliation as a result of these 

allegations? 

Director COMEY. Yes, absolutely. I am not familiar with the allegations, but yes is the answer. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My next question, I want to ask you about 

terrorism and FISA, and I ask it because you are someone with a 

history of rigorous questioning of the constitutionality of the Government’s counterterrorism programs. So, Director Comey, in the 

debate over the reform of FISA, some are calling for changes to 

Section 702. This is the FISA provision that targets the electronic 

communications of foreigners outside the United States. 

How valuable is Section 702 to the FBI’s counterterrorism mission? And do you have any concerns about whether it is legal and 

constitutional? 

Director COMEY. It is extraordinarily valuable—and in this setting I cannot go beyond that—extraordinarily valuable to keeping 

the American people safe. And, second, I do not have concerns 

about its legality or constitutionality. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My next question gets back to something I 

brought up in my testimony about the Inspector Generals Act that 

entitles that person to access to all Department records. That 

would be governmentwide. And then particularly relating to your 

Department, the PATRIOT Act requires the IG to review these 

records to ensure that the Department is not violating civil liberties of those being detained. 

So leading up to my question, last November the Inspector General testified at a Senate hearing that the Department of Justice 

impeded his access to grand jury and wiretap information. In 

March I requested documents concerning this dispute. Last week 

the Inspector General provided documents showing that the FBI 

resisted providing records even though six other components within 

the DOJ have provided access to records when requested. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these IG things put in 

the record, if I could. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 
11 

Senator GRASSLEY. It seems clear, Mr. Comey, from these documents that the FBI’s refusal to cooperate started around 2010, obviously before you became Director. We do feel very strongly that 

from 2001 through 2009 the FBI provided the IG with routine access to these records. So I have three questions. 

Obviously, this predates your time, but do you know what 

prompted this policy change back in 2010? 

Director COMEY. I do not. In fact, I am not even aware that there 

was a policy change at this point. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Second question: According to the Inspector General’s office, the FBI’s refusal to cooperate delayed his 

office’s access to key information about Operation Fast and Furious 

for about 14 months. So, just generally, do you think that kind of 

delay is consistent with the IG’s legal right to have access to 

records? 

Director COMEY. I do not know the particular, but on its face it 

strikes me as far too long. I meet on a regular basis with the Inspector General because I think what he does is very, very important for all of us. And I am not aware of that particular issue. I 

remember him raising an issue with me about that we were cumbersome in our approval process for producing records, and I have 

asked the new General Counsel to make that much faster. But I 

do not know enough to comment on the particular. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Well, the bottom line here is I am hoping that you could commit that the FBI will stop stonewalling the 

Inspector General. And, again, I know you have only been there 10 

months. You do not know why it was changed, if it was changed. 

I think it was changed. And we just need this kind of cooperation 

both from the standpoint of the general IG statute as well as the 

protection of people’s rights under the PATRIOT Act. 

Director COMEY. Yes, I can commit we are not going to do any 

stonewalling while I am Director. I can commit to you I will find 

out more about this so that I can follow up on that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

I have about 2 minutes left because the Chairman always gives 

me equal time. I understand that the Department of Justice is 

seeking to change the rules of criminal procedure to make it easier 

for the FBI to break into computers for evidence, especially in cases 

where the computer’s physical location is unknown. I think that 

that is extraordinary power that I am not sure many Americans 

understand, and it creates concerns. I am at this point not saying 

it is wrong, but it ought to raise concerns. 

So could you explain what this change would mean for the FBI, 

why it is necessary, and what safeguards are in place to make sure 

that the FBI is not unlawfully intruding in computers of innocent 

Americans? 

Director COMEY. Yes, Senator, thank you. I will do my best. The 

most important thing for folks to realize is that the proposed 

change to this rule of Federal criminal procedure has nothing to do 

with changing the standard the FBI must meet before it can get 

a court order, a warrant to be able to search a computer. It still 

requires us to make a showing under oath to establish probable 

cause to believe that that device contains the evidence of a crime. 

Nothing changes that bedrock protection, and nothing will. This is 
12 

about which judge you have to go to. Given the nature of the challenge we face, as I said, that kind of does away with traditional notions of space and time, this is about trying to respond to the Internet threat by allowing judges in one jurisdiction to pass on that 

and to issue a warrant if the computer may not be in that jurisdiction at the time, may be in an adjoining jurisdiction. 

So it is simply about what is, frankly, an arcane question of 

venue and not about the substantive protection that is so important to the American people. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My time is up, but I would like to ask—I am 

going to submit a question on the EB–5 program and the FBI’s investigation of it and also on a report on the need for drone privacy 

guidelines. And I would appreciate it if maybe you could put these 

questions ahead of the others that the Department has not answered yet. 

Director COMEY. Okay. 

[The questions of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. I yield. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. Mr. Comey, welcome. Thank 

you very much for being here, and congratulations on a banner day 

for the FBI and the Department of Justice yesterday, between the 

Credit Suisse plea for facilitating tax cheating, the strong conviction of Abu Hamza in a Federal civilian court in New York City, 

and for the indictment of the Chinese Army officials, the PLA officials, on the cyber charges, particularly in light of the Blackshades 

takedown as well. Not every day is a great day in that line of work. 

Yesterday was a great day for you, for Attorney General Holder, for 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for the Department of 

Justice. So congratulations to you, and congratulations particularly 

on the indictment of the Chinese military officials. 

As you know, I have repeatedly pestered and hectored Department of Justice and FBI witnesses about why the score was zero 

in terms of indictments on this issue while the administration was 

telling us that we were on the losing end of the biggest transfer 

of wealth through illicit means in history. And you have just put 

some very good points up on the board. There is predictable 

squawking from the Chinese that everybody spies on everybody 

and why should this be different. Could you explain why this is different? 

Director COMEY. Yes, I have heard some of that same commentary, and I push back on the notion that this can somehow be 

dressed up as a national security matter. This is stealing, this is 

theft. This is not about one nation state trying to understand the 

actions of another nation state. This is about enterprise that does 

not have something, rather than building it, stealing it from somebody who devoted millions and millions of dollars to building it, 

and that employs lots and lots of people in this country to make 

those things. So rather than design it yourself or invent it yourself, 

it is being stolen. So to me, it is burglary. It is no different than 

if someone kicked in Alcoa’s front door and marched out with file 

cabinets. It is the same thing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 
13 

The other question I have been pursuing is how well organized 

we are for this cyber effort, which, as you have said, is a new vector of danger for the American public, and that we need to be 

adaptive in responding to. 

You mentioned John Dillinger and the highway system provoking 

a change in the way we had to go at traditional crime, particularly 

the bank robberies that were the specialties of the gangsters of 

that era. It required more than just new attitudes. It actually required new structures. And you are now the head of one of those 

new structures, the Federal Bureau of Investigation that was stood 

up because highway patrols were being left at the State borders as 

Dillinger shot over the border and into another State. 

Similarly, when aviation came to the world as a new science and 

as a new industry, the military had to change its structure. What 

began as a subset of the Signal Corps of the United States Army 

ultimately grew into the United States Air Force, an institution we 

are very proud of. 

As I look at the Department of Justice and the FBI and I see 

CCIPS and CHIP, I see the National Security Division and Criminal, I see counterintelligence and criminal and cyber all working in 

this area, I appreciate the assurances that we have recently received—let me see if I can quote them here—that, ‘‘To better manage its ability to address cyber threats, DOJ has integrated its activities, responsibilities, and functions focused on countering cyber 

threats into a cohesive effort that fuses DOJ’s legal authorities, 

tools, and assets into coordinated action.’’ That a little bit begs the 

question of whether we are structured right, and there is a group 

called the Department of Justice Cyber Advisory Council that the 

FBI serves on. I am interested in the question of how we should 

structure ourselves looking forward to this continued vector being 

a continued danger, whether that is a topic that is being analyzed 

and discussed by that Department of Justice Cyber Advisory Council. 

Director COMEY. I do not think I can speak to the Council because I cannot remember, sitting here, the details of it. I know it 

is being discussed an awful lot throughout the Government, and especially by me, because I am trying to figure out, given that it 

touches everything I am responsible for, from protecting kids to 

protecting infrastructure and our secrets, am I deployed and organized in the right way? And the answer is I think so, but it is one 

that I do not know enough about to give you a high-confidence answer right now. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And conceivably even a high-confidence 

answer right now would not be the right answer 5 years from now 

or 10 years from now. 

Director COMEY. That is right. The most important thing we can 

do is the kind of thing we are trying to do at the National Cyber 

Task Force, which is to get everybody who is touching this threat 

together at a table to share information and to make sure we are 

reacting in the right way to the different dimensions of this threat 

coming through the cyber vector. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Next is Senator Cornyn. 
14 

Senator CORNYN. Director Comey, thank you for your service to 

the country, and thank you for your commitment to cooperate with 

this Committee and Congress as part of our responsibilities to conduct oversight. And that has not always been the case with the administration, but I appreciate the approach that you bring to it. 

In your opening statement, you mentioned al Qaeda-inspired terrorism, and I know you are familiar, if not specifically, generally 

with the facts of the 2009 attack at Fort Hood, Texas, when Major 

Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 people, injured a couple dozen-plus 

more. Do you agree with the intelligence community’s assessment 

that Hasan was inspired by al Qaeda to conduct that attack? 

Director COMEY. Yes, sir, based on everything I have read. Again, 

I was not in office at the time, but I have read about it since, and 

I do. 

Senator CORNYN. I appreciate that straightforward answer. It 

seems almost obvious, but for some reason people want to call it 

‘‘workplace violence’’ or other things that just strike me as flat 

wrong and misleading and a little bit of Orwellian talk. 

Let me turn to the VA. I know we have all been shocked with 

the unfolding of revelations starting with, I guess, the Phoenix VA 

hospital with its secret waiting list that Senator Flake and Senator 

McCain have spoken out about their shock and dismay and concern. 

There is a story today in the newspaper that says that the number of veterans’ facilities being investigated for problems has more 

than doubled now to 26. In other words, each day that goes by, it 

seems like there is another revelation: allegations of destroying evidence, perhaps these secret waiting lists, people dying because they 

have not received the treatment that they are entitled to. 

I know you agree with me that, to live up to our commitment to 

our Nation’s veterans, we have got to do everything we can to get 

to the bottom of this and solve the systemic and perhaps cultural 

problems underlying the crisis. But to start with, we have got to 

get to the facts and get to the serious allegations and reports that 

have been made. 

The VA’s Acting Inspector General testified last week that his office was cooperating with Federal prosecutors in Arizona and the 

Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department to determine if 

any of this conduct warrants criminal prosecution. However, the 

gravity and growing scope of these allegations demands the expertise of your agency, of the FBI, obviously has to be part of that. 

So let me just ask you—I would like to ask you three questions, 

and they are all related. So you can respond to each of them. 

Are you willing to support the VA Inspector General’s investigation? What assets does the FBI have that can be brought to bear 

in a matter of this nature? And some whistleblowers have come forward to report that evidence is being destroyed at VA facilities in 

spite of a request from Congress and an order by the VA to preserve that evidence. What can the FBI do to make sure that the 

evidence is not destroyed and that it is preserved for an appropriate investigation and perhaps further proceedings? 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. As of this morning, the FBI 

has not been asked to assist in any part of that investigation. Obviously, if we were asked, either by the VA or the Justice Depart-
15 

ment, to assist, what we bring to bear are great people with experience in document-intensive, complex investigations. And as a 

former prosecutor and as Director of the FBI, I am always focused 

on making sure that evidence is preserved so there can be a fair 

evaluation of it. So destruction of evidence is something in a host 

of cases we take very seriously. But this particular matter we have 

not yet been asked to be involved with. 

Senator CORNYN. And who would that request come from? From 

the Attorney General or from the VA or from the President? 

Director COMEY. In my experience, it would typically come from, 

in this case, the VA IG to my special agent in charge in Phoenix, 

would be the usual route, could come from prosecutors at the Department of Justice asking us to help. And, obviously, if we are 

asked, we will do everything we can to assist. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I am sure you would agree with me we 

do not want to get too snarled up in the red tape and bureaucracy. 

The point is if you are asked by an appropriate authority, you will 

respond. 

Director COMEY. Of course. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COONS [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. 

Director Comey, thank you so much for your testimony today and 

welcome to your first oversight hearing with the Judiciary Committee. 

Upon your review of FBI operations after taking the helm in September, I would be interested in your findings regarding the partnership between the FBI and State and local law enforcement. As 

the Co-Chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus with Senator Blunt, 

I have focused some of our conversation and efforts on the vital and 

valuable partnership between the FBI and between Federal law enforcement more broadly and State and local, and you both in prepared testimony and in your work I think have highlighted those 

valuable areas. 

I would be interested in what you think are the most critical resources and programs that help advance that partnership and what 

you think we can do to better support that partnership with State 

and local law enforcement here in Congress. 

Director COMEY. Great. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I agree very 

much the partnership we have with State and local law enforcement is vital to everything the FBI does and the country. There is 

nothing we do alone. That is one of the ways in which law enforcement has gotten so much better over my career. So from terrorism 

to protecting children to cyber, the task forces we have with State 

and locals are essential, and I have been making it my business in 

my 9 months on this job to travel the country and in I guess now 

about 30 different cities to speak to State and local law enforcement and say thank you, because we form these task forces and 

they give us their stars. Most people who do not know State and 

local law enforcement would think it might be like the expansion 

draft in football. You would cover your stars and send us people 

who are less than stars? No. They send us their stars. And so the 

partnership is vital across my responsibilities. 
16 

One thing I am hearing about consistently is a crying need for 

digital literacy training, cyber training for State and local law enforcement. It used to be you would execute a search warrant and 

actually find paper in a drug case or an assault case. Now you find 

a thumb drive, an iPad, and some device. They need help in becoming better cyber investigators. 

So one of the things I am working on a lot is to try to get with 

the Secret Service, who does a terrific job on training, to see if we 

together can push training out to State and local law enforcement 

to help the 17,000 departments around the country whose folks are 

calling them for assistance and it needs digital literacy to respond. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you. And, Director, as you work your 

way around the country, if the 30 cities grow to 40 or 50 and Wilmington, Delaware, ever finds its way on to your list, I would be 

grateful. Federal law enforcement is playing an important role in 

helping us stand up an effective State and local response to what 

has been a dramatic increase in violent crime in my home community. 

I also want to applaud your focus on intellectual property theft 

and on trade secret theft, both in your spoken and written testimony. I want to applaud the Bureau for securing five indictments 

against Chinese actors that stole trade secrets from four companies 

and a union, and I do think it is important. This is the first pure 

cyber trade secret case brought by the Department. The scope of 

the threat is enormous, hundreds of billions of dollars lost a year. 

I would be interested in hearing from you how many agents are assigned to investigate trade secret theft and what you view as the 

challenges the FBI is facing in working effectively with other countries in prosecuting IP theft. And before you get to your answer, 

I simply want to thank Senator Hatch for his real leadership in cosponsoring with me the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which we welcome cosponsors to from this Committee. 

So if you would, Director, the number of agents and the challenges you are facing in working internationally to enforce trade 

secret theft. 

Director COMEY. Yes, thank you, Senator. I think the number of 

agents that we have specifically designated as intellectual property/ 

trade secret-focused is something between 50 and 100. I cannot remember the exact number here. But the number actually working 

this threat is much larger than this because it touches my counterintelligence responsibilities and the entire Cyber Division. So I 

have addressing this problem hundreds of people. 

The challenge we face is that the world is as small as a pinhead 

when you are facing a cyber challenge. Shanghai is next door to 

Wilmington on the Internet because the photon travels at the speed 

of light. So we need to get better at understanding that threat here 

in the United States, working well with each other, and building 

the relationships with foreign partners to get that done. Because 

the bad guys have shrunk the world, we have got to shrink the 

world, which is why I am looking to see if I can even expand the 

FBI’s footprint internationally to put more cyber agents abroad to 

build those relationships, because the bad guys do not recognize 

the borders. 
17 

Senator COONS. I think that is a great idea, and I look forward 

to working with you in close partnership. And I am grateful for the 

partnership of Senator Hatch, and I think that together, if we are 

able to pass our bill and if we are able to strengthen your resources, we can do a stronger job of defending America’s innovation. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Sessions was next. 

Senator COONS. I am sorry. Senator Sessions was next. Forgive 

me. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Mr. Comey, you are a very talented and knowledgeable leader of 

the FBI, and we have to expect a lot of you. You know this business, and you know how to do it. And I think the complex cases 

that have been discussed today, you do deserve—you and the Bureau deserve credit for. The FBI is the greatest law enforcement 

agency I guess there is, certainly one of the best in the whole 

world. And I have known and respected agents for many, many 

years. 

But you are a national leader, and I am concerned about a few 

things, and I want you to get a little perspective here. I was very 

disappointed at a Wall Street Journal article May 20th in which 

you seem to make light of marijuana use by those who would like 

to work for the FBI. You say, ‘‘I have to hire a great workforce to 

compete with those cybercriminals, and some of those kids want to 

smoke weed on the way to the interview.’’ You say you have got 

to loosen up your no-tolerance policy, which is just a 3-year—have 

not used marijuana in 3 years. 

Do you understand that that could be interpreted as one more 

example of leadership in America dismissing the seriousness of 

marijuana use and that could undermine our ability to convince 

young people not to go down a dangerous path? 

Director COMEY. Very much, Senator. I am determined not to 

lose my sense of humor, but, unfortunately, there I was trying to 

be both serious and funny. I was asked a question by a guy who 

said, ‘‘I have a great candidate for the FBI. His problem is he 

smoked marijuana within the last 5 years.’’ And I said, ‘‘I am not 

going to discuss a particular case but apply.’’ And then I waxed 

philosophic and funny to say, look, one of our challenges that we 

face is getting a good workforce at the same time when young people’s attitudes about marijuana and our States’ attitudes about 

marijuana are leading more and more of them to try it. 

I am absolutely dead set against using marijuana. I do not want 

young people to use marijuana. It is against the law. We have a 

3-year ban on marijuana. I did not say that I am going to change 

that ban. I said I have to grapple with the change in my work 

force. How do I reconcile my need—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think that is—I appreciate that. I 

think you should understand your words can have ramifications 

out there. The American Medical Association just last October said, 

‘‘Heavy cannabis use in adolescents causes persistent impairments 

in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with 

increased rates of anxiety, mood, and psychotic thought disorders.’’ 

That is the AMA, and I think—and I am very concerned that the 
18 

leak that was used against the Administrator of DEA who expressed some concerns about some of the policies emanating 

around the country and in the White House on drug enforcement 

was used to attack her and the DEA and even indicated they could 

close DEA or move it under your leadership into the FBI. That article said that. 

Did you have anything to do with that? 

Director COMEY. No. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you. Some high official, according 

to the article, probably in the Department of Justice, attempted to 

attack her and discipline her, in my opinion, having watched these 

things for years. 

With regard to Senator Grassley’s written question—and I have 

joined with him in a number of questions—about the D’Souza campaign contribution case, I see there was a conviction. He pled guilty 

to the account, I think, that it appeared from the beginning he 

probably violated. And he gave money to a campaign above the limits by moving money through other persons. I do not think he really ever fully denied that. Neither did his lawyer. 

But my question is—we would like some specific answers about 

that case, because looking at the data that we have seen from 2004 

through 2006, not a single charge was made under that statute. 

And from 2007 to 2013, only 24 were charged under that statute, 

which roughly is about three a year over the last 7 years. And this 

was—I have never seen his movie, but this was an individual 

known to challenge the President. There seemed to be no corrupt 

financial dealings involved in this contribution, and I want to know 

more about how he turned out to be the one that got charged. 

Did you personally review that indictment before it was—review 

the referral of that case for indictment before it occurred? 

Director COMEY. No. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that was a pretty prominent public defendant. Wouldn’t you normally know if your FBI is working on a 

case and going to bring that kind of indictment? 

Director COMEY. No. I mean, not necessarily. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the Department—you are in the Department of Justice. You know the guidelines say you have to ask 

Washington’s approval or even at the local level involving someone 

of high profile, don’t you? 

Director COMEY. I cannot remember exactly, but it is not about 

profile. It is about members of the media, elected officials, that sort 

of thing. My understanding is this fellow is—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think it is high profile, too, if you read 

the Department of Justice thing. 

I also just will wrap up and say I am not of the belief that prosecution of fraud has increased, as you have indicated, by 65 percent 

of corporate cases. Bank embezzlements in 2009—— 

Chairman LEAHY [presiding]. Senator, we can have another 

round if you would like. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator SESSIONS. I will raise that. And I apologize, Mr. Chairman. You are right. You are right. I am over time. 
19 

Chairman LEAHY. It is okay, but we have some Senators who 

have to go to other hearings. 

Senator SESSIONS. Fair enough. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies, Senator Sessions. 

Thank you for being here, and thank you for your service to our 

Nation. Thank you also to your family and most particularly your 

wife for her service to our State of Connecticut. I do not know 

whether you or your family are still residents of Connecticut, but 

hopefully at least for a couple more months you will be, and thank 

you for the great work that you have done so far in your current 

position. 

You have one of the best jobs in the Nation not only because of 

its mission but because of the great people who work for you. And 

I want to thank them through you for all they do to keep our Nation safe. 

Focusing on the subject that was raised by Senator Cornyn, I 

have been dismayed and outraged by some of the revelations about 

the secret records, destruction of records, false statements. These 

are allegations now, but they may have caused injuries or deaths 

among our veterans in Phoenix and in more than 20 locations 

around the country. 

I know that you have not yet been asked, but would you agree 

with me that the alleged criminality that has been raised so far— 

I stress ‘‘alleged’’—would provide a predicate for FBI investigation? 

Director COMEY. Senator, I do not know more about it beyond 

what I have read in the newspaper, so it is hard to say just based 

on newspaper accounts. It looks to be a significant matter, but, 

again, we have not been asked even to take a look at it, so I cannot 

say at this point. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you agree with me that if there are 

credible and reliable indications of false statements to Federal officials, destruction of Federal records, obstruction of Federal investigation—all of them have been alleged, and they are publicly reported—that there would be sufficient predicate for an FBI investigation? 

Director COMEY. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I know that you have not been asked. 

Would your involvement depend on your being asked by either Department of Justice attorneys or by the Inspector General? 

Director COMEY. Yes. In nearly every circumstance, if another 

agency or another IG is already looking at something, we will not 

jump on it without being asked to be involved by either the prosecutors or that agency. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. My view, for what it is worth, is that only 

the FBI has the resources, expertise, and authority to do the kind 

of prompt and effective investigation that is absolutely vital to restore and sustain the trust and confidence of the American public 

and our Nation’s veterans, our Nation’s heroes in the integrity of 

the Veterans Administration. So I will be making that view known 

to the Attorney General of the United States, already have informally and indirectly, and hope that you will be involved as Director 
20 

of the FBI and that you will devote your personal attention to this 

matter. 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me turn to another matter that I 

know is close to the heart of the administration, the President, and 

the Attorney General, which is gun violence in our country. The 

FBI is responsible for enforcing laws to try to make our Nation 

safer from gun violence. Would it be helpful to the FBI and investigation and prosecutorial duties to have a specific prohibition 

against illegal trafficking such as I and others have proposed? 

Director COMEY. Illegal in trafficking in drugs—I mean guns? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Of guns that are stolen or otherwise illegally possessed. 

Director COMEY. I do not think I know—my reaction is a criminal 

prohibition on gun trafficking would be useful, but sitting here 

today, I am trying to remember. I think I have done cases involving 

straw purchasing and illegal transport and trafficking in guns 

under 922 series. So I guess I cannot answer it specifically sitting 

here. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Enhanced penalties might be helpful 

to—— 

Director COMEY. Oh, I see. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I am sorry for the imprecise question. 

Let me just close, and my time is limited. I apologize. The National 

Instant Criminal Background Check System as well as the Uniform 

Crime Reporting System are both critically important sources of information, and I hope that they could be developed to provide more 

reliable and accurate data about gun violence that is involved in 

the commission of other crimes. Right now they are hampered by 

a lack of participation by local agencies as well as the breakdown 

of data within those systems. And I hope that perhaps the FBI can 

do more to make them more useful as sources of data on gun violence. 

Director COMEY. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Comey, I am a big fan of yours and I always have been. You 

are a good man who has the ability and the capacity to be able to 

do what needs to be done in this area. But it is an overwhelming 

job, and we do not always provide you with the facilities and the 

capacity to be able to do it as well as I know you can do it. So let 

us know what we can to help you more in this work, because it is 

really important. And there is no bigger supporter than I of your 

organization. 

Your prepared testimony or statement identifies human trafficking as a priority issue. Now, trafficking victims often end up as 

prostitutes or part of the pornography trade, including child pornography. Last month the Supreme Court held that the current 

statute requiring restitution to victims is not suited for the kind of 

child pornography crimes that we see today. 
21 

So 2 weeks ago, I introduced a bill to amend the restitution statute so that it works for child pornography victims. Seven other 

Members of this Committee on both sides of the aisle are among 

the cosponsors, and I hope more will join us. I hope that investigators, prosecutors, and judges will better understand the unique nature of the crime and the way it harms these young victims especially. 

With the Internet, that harm really literally never ends, and you 

have made a pretty good case here today of how complicated it is 

because of the Internet in so many areas of anti-crime. 

Do you see the connection between crimes such as trafficking in 

child pornography? 

Director COMEY. Yes, sir, very much. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. The computer hacking collective called 

‘‘Anonymous’’ is best known for denial-of-service attacks on Government, religious, and corporate websites. The collective announced 

last month a renewed effort to obtain and release personal identifying information of law enforcement officers. Now, since much of 

this information is legally accessible, targets of such hackers cannot prevent their personal information from being obtained by 

members of the public. However, the malicious actors can use such 

information to craft highly sophisticated computer attacks online 

and again through social media. 

How is the FBI addressing these types of cyber actors? You have 

approached it a little bit here today. I would just like to hear more. 

Director COMEY. We see that kind of behavior. The trick for the 

bad guy is to get you—an email is like a knock on your door. The 

trick is for them to get you to open the door, and so they are trying 

to use false information about their identity, something they know 

about you to get you to click on a link and open the door and let 

them in. And so we see it in hactivist behavior, we see it in the 

Chinese cyber actors, we see it in criminals of all kinds are using 

that same effort to hijack an identity so that innocent people open 

the door and let them in. So it touches everything we do. 

Senator HATCH. I am sure you a following the current debate 

about sentencing reform, especially the push to lower sentences for 

drug offenders. Now, this was one of the issues addressed last 

month be DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart in a hearing before 

this Committee. And based on her personal background and law 

enforcement experience and her current leadership at the DEA, she 

said that mandatory minimum sentences ‘‘have been very important to our investigations.’’ 

Then we received a letter last week opposing the Smarter Sentencing Act. Signatories included two former U.S. Attorneys General, two former U.S. Deputy Attorneys General, two Directors of 

the Office of National Drug Control Policy, three former DEA Administrators, and 21 former U.S. Attorneys. Now, the list includes 

officials from both Republicans and Democrats and from both Republican and Democrat administrations. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that that letter be placed in the record 

at this point. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 
22 

Chairman LEAHY. And I would also place in the record a rebuttal 

of criticisms about the Smarter Sentencing Act. 

Senator HATCH. Fine. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator HATCH. The letter states, ‘‘We fear that lowering the 

minimums will make it harder for prosecutors to build cases 

against the leaders of narcotics organizations and gangs.’’ 

Now, you also served as Deputy Attorney General and U.S. Attorney. Do you agree with Administrator Leonhart and these 

former DOJ officials, or do you take another position? 

Director COMEY. Similar to Michele, throughout my career as a 

prosecutor, mandatory minimums were an important tool both to 

incapacitate bad actors and, maybe as importantly, to develop information and create incentives to cooperate. And so I have used 

them extensively. They were a valuable tool. 

Senator HATCH. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Do you have any concern about the fact—and 

this is somewhat related—that if you are a lawyer, stockbroker, 

whatever, well respected, Wall Street or anywhere else, that Friday 

afternoons, regular routine where somebody comes in with their 

$200 worth of powder cocaine, and if you are caught, you are going 

to get a slap on the wrist—you are going to be told, ‘‘My goodness 

gracious, terrible somebody so prominent as you doing that, we are 

going to give you a week doing some kind of public service, helping 

clean up the local park,’’ or something? And if you are a kid, a minority in the inner city and you buy $200 worth of crack cocaine, 

you are going to get a mandatory minimum, you are going to go 

to prison, you are never going to get a job when you come out? Do 

you see any problem with that? 

Director COMEY. It concerns me both because throughout my career I have been concerned about disparate treatment of people and 

people’s perception that the criminal justice system is not fair. So 

I think it is important that both be taken very seriously. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for coming today. I really appreciate the leadership 

you are providing to the FBI at a very difficult time. 

Are you familiar with the case of, I think, Abu Gaith, bin Laden’s 

son-in-law? 

Director COMEY. Abu Gaith, yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. How long was he interrogated before he was 

read his Miranda rights? 

Director COMEY. I do not know, sitting here, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Can you just get back with me on that? 

Director COMEY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is it the policy of the Obama administration, 

as far as you know, to—do we have enemy combatant interrogations available to us as a Nation under the Law of War? 

Director COMEY. Do we as a matter of law? 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, as a matter of policy. I think as a matter 

of law, someone like him could be held as an enemy combatant. Do 

you agree with that? 
23 

Director COMEY. I do. 

Senator GRAHAM. Did we choose to hold him as an enemy combatant? 

Director COMEY. No. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you believe that one good way to prevent— 

to defend the Nation is intelligence gathering from high-value targets like this gentleman? 

Director COMEY. Very much. 

Senator GRAHAM. So I would just suggest to Attorney General 

Holder that we, in my view are abandoning enemy combatant interrogations under the Law of War which would allow you to gather intelligence because we are at war, and I hope we will reconsider 

that policy. 

Sequestration, very briefly, if we do not change sequestration, 

what will it do to the FBI? 

Director COMEY. It will return us to where we were when I became Director, to being unable to fill vacancies, unable to train, unable to spend money on gas to go interview people. So it is a big 

problem for us. 

Senator GRAHAM. It would really reduce your capabilities at a 

time when we need them the most. Would you agree with that? 

Director COMEY. Yes, I would. 

Senator GRAHAM. You mentioned Syria as a potential al Qaeda 

presence in Syria. Do you agree with Director Clapper that it represents a direct threat to the homeland, the al Qaeda safe haven 

in Syria? 

Director COMEY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Do we have a plan to deal with that as 

a Nation? 

Director COMEY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is that classified? 

Director COMEY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. I would like for you to brief me about 

that, because I think one of the likely next attacks is going to come 

from somebody who is trained in Syria. 

Chairman LEAHY. Excuse me, and on my time. The Senator was 

not here earlier when Mr. Comey agreed to set up a time for a 

briefing, classified briefing. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. I think that will be very helpful to 

the Committee. 

On Benghazi, how close are we to catching someone who attacked our consulate in Benghazi? 

Director COMEY. I am not in a position to say. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Director COMEY. I know the answer, but I am not in a position 

to say. 

Senator GRAHAM. Fair enough. Abu Khattala is widely known to 

be one of the ring leaders, and I do not know if you can say if he 

has been charged or not. But this person who we believe to be one 

of the ring leaders of the attack has been interviewed on CNN, 

Times of London, and Reuters in the Benghazi area. If the press 

can have access to this person, why can’t we capture him? 

Director COMEY. I am limited in what I can say about the matter, and as you said, I cannot—— 
24 

Senator GRAHAM. Fair enough. 

Director COMEY. Comment on the charges. Sometimes the media, 

international media, can get access to people easier than law enforcement or the military can. 

Senator GRAHAM. Would someone like Sufian bin Qumu, a 

former GITMO detainee, who we believe is one of the respected 

members or maybe the founder of Ansar al-Sharia, would he be an 

enemy combatant in our eyes? Would Mr. Khattala fall into the 

category of enemy combatant? 

Director COMEY. I do not think I can say at this point. 

Senator GRAHAM. You can get back with me. Do you know if it 

is the policy of the United States to read them their Miranda rights 

if they are captured, or could we hold them as enemy combatants? 

If you could just get back with me on that and whether or not, if 

we found them, could we use a drone to take them out? I would 

like for you to comment on that at a more appropriate time. 

Do you believe that based on certain actions a U.S. citizen could 

become an enemy combatant under the Law of War? 

Director COMEY. I do not think I am expert enough to answer 

that, sitting here. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Fair enough. If you could get back with 

me about that. My view is that they can. In every other war you 

have had Americans side with the enemy, and they have been 

treated as enemy—— 

Director COMEY. The reason for my hesitation is when I was 

Deputy Attorney General, I know there were at least one or two 

who were held under that authority. But I do not know the current 

state of the law on that. 

Senator GRAHAM. That is good. That is fine. If you could just get 

back with me. I think these are big policy issues. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you agree that homegrown terrorism is one 

of the things that keep you up at night? 

Director COMEY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. And that the enemy is actively trying to penetrate our backyard, recruiting American citizens? 

Director COMEY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. And an American citizen could be a very valuable asset to al Qaeda. Is that correct? 

Director COMEY. Extremely. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, and they are up to—they are trying to recruit people in our backyard, just like every enemy has. 

Very quickly, is General Petraeus still under investigation regarding classified information? 

Director COMEY. That is something else I cannot comment on. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Thank you very much for your service, 

and I really appreciate what you are trying to do for the FBI at 

a very difficult time. All your agents out there who are fighting on 

multiple fronts, you do represent, in my view, the front lines of defense, so thank you. 

Director COMEY. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Klobuchar. 
25 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to see you again, Director Comey. I still think of you as my 

law school classmate, but I will try to suspend belief, and I am very 

glad you are the Director and am pleased with the work you are 

doing. 

I know that you brought up human trafficking in your testimony. 

I was actually over chairing a hearing on retirement at the Joint 

Economic Committee, but I wanted to come over to ask you specifically about this. It is a horrendous crime that gets overlooked. It 

has been overlooked for too long, and I think we are finding some 

startling statistics in our own country where we have learned that 

83 percent of the victims actually are from our own country. Of 

course, we still see women being trafficked in from other places, 

and predominantly Mexico, where I actually was a few weeks ago 

leading a trip with Senator Heitkamp and Cindy McCain, who has 

been very focused on this issue. And we met with your counterparts, with the Federal police, as well as the attorney general of 

Mexico, and others. And I know they are starting to engage in this 

issue and have passed some legislation and have worked with our 

law enforcement on some significant prosecutions in Atlanta and in 

New York. 

And I wanted to know what the FBI is focused on with this 

issue. I know there are some prosecutions that have been brought 

federally. You should know that Senator Cornyn and I are leading 

a bill, a version of which passed the House yesterday, along with 

four other sex-trafficking bills through the House after getting 

through their Committee there. And the bill that we have focuses 

on younger victims. Many of the victims—I think average age is 

13—are under 18, and what the bill that I drafted does is create 

incentives for States to create safe harbors in their State law so 

they are not prosecuting the young victims. Instead, they are giving them help, but then also by doing that, getting them to testify 

against the johns and the pimps, which I think for too long we 

have been neglecting that part of the equation. 

And I wondered if you would comment on this issue when we are 

seeing prosecutions in places like the North Dakota oil patch, 

which I know is Federal prosecution, and other places, what you 

see as trends and what you think is how we should best deal with 

it. Thank you. 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. As you said, this is a 

scourge that has many, many dimensions to it involving children, 

people trafficked within the United States, people trafficked by 

drug-trafficking organizations, Americans traveling overseas with 

so-called sex tourism. And so we are attacking it through our Civil 

Rights Program, through Violent Crimes Against Children Program. We are in about 100 task forces and working groups around 

the country to try and send the messages you just talked about, especially that being a pimp or exploiter of these—of young people or 

women in sex trafficking is a very, very serious offense, and we 

have got to bang these people hard. It is not just some social nuisance type offense. We have got to treat the victims for what they 

are, which is victims, and get them help and elicit their help in trying to prosecute the pimps and the exploiters. 
26 

And so it touches across a wide spectrum of our work in all 56 

field offices, and it is something we take very seriously. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. I also wanted to 

thank you—I know you have been of help in some cases in Minnesota, and also of help in a major drug bust that we had in our 

State involving heroin. We have a new U.S. Attorney now that 

Todd Jones is head of our ATF, and he has taken this on, working 

with law enforcement, primarily DEA but also local law enforcement and, of course, the FBI. I wanted to thank you for that and 

just ask you, knowing that DEA is primarily responsible for this, 

but what you see in terms of the heroin increases, another subject 

we talked a lot about in Mexico and the correlation with prescription drug abuse and those kinds of cases as well. 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. I hear about it everywhere 

I go. I have been to 27 of our field offices, and I am going to visit 

the rest before the end of the year, and I will be in Minneapolis 

in just a few weeks. 

Everywhere I go, State and local law enforcement raise this 

question with me, and I have seen analysis from the intelligence 

community and DEA that the country is awash in highly pure, 

cheap heroin that is crowding out the traditional pill abuse, in 

some places methamphetamine, with deadly consequences. 

Overdoses are up explosively around the country. 

So as you said, it is a DEA lead from the Federal level, but I 

have told all of my SACs across the country, ‘‘Ask what you can 

do. Taxpayers pay our salaries. If we have resources or technology 

or something we can contribute to this fight, let us contribute to 

it.’’ 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, I appreciate that. And, again, with 

U.S. Attorney Luger and the coordinated work that when on on the 

Federal side, it was quite an impressive day, and a number of drug 

busts, and I think it sends a clear message where our State is on 

this issue. And we appreciate the help that you gave. 

The last thing that I wanted to mention is just that I am going 

to the floor, I hope today, to continue pursuing my effort with Senator Graham and Senator Hoeven and Senator Schumer to get a 

Federal metal theft bill passed. I think I have raised this with you 

in the past, but we are again seeing metal theft spreading throughout our country because of the price of copper and other precious 

metals. Veterans’ graves, the stars on veterans’ graves, as we approach Memorial Day, electric companies broken into many, many 

times. We have seen houses explode because people go in and steal 

the pipe. And all this bill does—I assume most scrap metal dealers 

are honest people that are doing good work, but all this bill does 

is take what many States have done and says that you have to 

write a check if you are going to get scrap metal for over a hundred 

bucks, and that way it is easier for law enforcement on either the 

local or Federal basis to track down who these people are and so 

we do not have a situation like we have now where they are stealing metal in Minnesota, because we have stricter laws, and then 

bringing it somewhere else to sell it. 

And we have not seen a decrease in the number of thefts, and 

we believe part of this is that this is a Federal and a national 

issue. And I just wanted to again raise it to your attention and to 
27 

continue to have you watch over these cases. I think at some point 

we are going to have some major break into Federal infrastructure, 

and then maybe everyone will look back and wonder why they were 

listening to the scrap metal dealers instead of every law enforcement group in our country and every single business that deals, 

from beer wholesalers and distribution—because the kegs are being 

stolen—to veterans groups, to the electric companies who are getting broken into all the time. 

That is my last speech on this for now, but I am sure you will 

hear about it again. Thank you very much. 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Comey, for being here and for your service on behalf of our country. 

What you do is very important and affects a lot of Americans, and 

I believe there is a lot that you do that protects a lot of Americans 

from harm. 

I want to talk to you for a minute about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. This is a law that, as you know, was enacted 

in 1986. There are some interesting ramifications that this law has. 

It is something of an anachronism in our legal system in the sense 

that it allows the Government to access the contents of email once 

a particular email has ripened to the age of 180 days old. 

Now, this was in 1986. I think I was in ninth grade at the time 

it was enacted. I do not think I had ever even heard the word 

‘‘email.’’ I do not think most Americans had. It was a transitory 

form of communication. It was not a means by which anyone stored 

information at the time. People primarily communicated through it 

and then deleted the email, or if they wanted to keep it, they would 

print it off. A paper record perhaps would be—would have certainly 

been treated differently, but the electronic remnant of the email 

itself would be subject to subpoena by the Government and could 

be obtained, the content of it could be obtained without a warrant 

once it ripened to the age of 180 days old. 

I do not think too many people raised or even had or even imagined too many concerns with it at the time, partly because most 

people had never even heard of email. There was no such thing as 

cloud computing, at least nothing like what we know now. 

But nowadays, of course, people communicate a lot of information 

by email. They transmit a lot of information into the cloud, and we 

live in a different world in which I think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and one in which most Americans would not 

draw a real distinction between their expectation of privacy in their 

papers, houses, effects, and persons on the one hand, and their 

email on the other. Most people would probably consider their 

emails to be part of their papers or part of their effects. 

So to that end, recognizing this anachronism in the law, recognizing the potential for abuse, my friend Chairman Leahy and I 

have introduced legislation, the ECPA Amendments Act, S. 607, 

that would get rid of this anachronism in the law and that would 

require the Government to obtain a warrant before it wants to go 

after someone’s email, would not allow them to access it by means 

of a subpoena simply because it was 180 days old. 
28 

There is a report that was released just a few weeks ago by the 

White House calling for updates to ECPA, and it recognized the increasing role of technology in our private communications. And it 

suggested that, ‘‘email, text messages, and the cloud should receive 

commensurate protections.’’ 

So I would like to ask you, What is the FBI’s current policy and 

practice regarding the use of subpoenas to go after the contents of 

email and cloud storage? 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. We do not do it, is my understanding. We treat it as I believe it is, which is information 

which people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and so we 

obtain a warrant without regard to its age. That is our policy. The 

statute may be outdated, but I think we are doing it in the right 

way. 

Senator LEE. Okay. So to your knowledge, there are no circumstances in which the FBI would choose to take the subpoena 

route even though they could read ECPA to allow that? 

Director COMEY. I think that is right. I think our procedures require by policy we obtain a probable cause-based warrant from a 

judge to get that content of an email, no matter how old it is, from 

the storage facility. If I am wrong, I will—I do not sit here knowing 

I am wrong, and I will correct it, but I am pretty sure that is our 

policy. 

Senator LEE. Okay. Would you see any distinction between how 

you would treat email and how you would treat something on the 

cloud or text messages or anything like that? 

Director COMEY. No. 

Senator LEE. So you are not aware of any reason why—you are 

not aware of any instance in which the FBI uses subpoenas to go 

after data on the cloud? 

Director COMEY. I am not aware of any. I think we treat it like 

the content—whether it is in email form or text form or cloud form, 

the stored content of a communication is something we treat 

through a warrant if we have the basis to get it. 

Senator LEE. Okay. I see that my time has expired. I have got 

more questions that I would like to ask you about, and perhaps we 

will communicate those in writing. I would like to echo, among 

other things, the concern raised by Senator Sessions regarding the 

Dinesh D’Souza case. Anytime something like this, something that 

is ordinarily not prosecuted as a primary offense, happens to be 

brought against a very vocal critic of the current administration, 

obviously that raises eyebrows, and a lot of us have questions 

about whether the appropriate levels of approval were requested 

from Washington and to what degree Washington was involved in 

that decision. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much, Director Comey, and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Comey, 

thanks for coming. I am sorry I came a little late. We had a hearing in my Defense Subcommittee at the same time. 

I understand Senator Hatch raised the issue of sentencing. 
29 

Director COMEY. Yes. 

Senator DURBIN. And I would like to ask for a couple observations or comments from you on this subject. Senator Lee and I have 

cosponsored a bipartisan bill called ‘‘The Smarter Sentencing Act.’’ 

It is in response to the fact that over the last 30 years we have 

seen a 500-percent increase in Federal incarceration, an 1,100-percent increase in cost. We are now estimating our Federal prisons 

are 40 percent overcrowded. We, unfortunately, as we pay more for 

incarceration, have fewer dollars for law enforcement, prevention, 

treatment of drug addiction. We, sadly, have the highest rate of incarceration of any country on Earth. And what we are trying to address is the question of making the individual decision. 

The bill that Senator Lee and I have introduced, which has 

passed out of this Committee, does not eliminate mandatory minimums. In fact, for all crimes it maintains the top level in terms of 

mandatory minimum. For a specified category of crimes—drug offenses not involving violence, guns, or gangs—we reduce the low 

end of the mandatory minimum to give discretion to the judge. We 

think that this is a way to address a body of offenses which are 

not a serious violent threat to America, but need to be dealt with 

in a much more specific and personal way. 

Again, it is within the discretion of the judge to impose the sentence, and neither Senator Lee nor any of us who cosponsor this 

want to in any way lessen our concern about drugs in our society. 

But we want to try to do this, as we say in the bill, with a smart 

approach. 

What is your response to that kind of approach? 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. And I did not mean by my 

answer to Senator Hatch to be criticizing any particular piece of 

legislation. He asked me whether mandatory minimums had been 

a valuable tool in my career, and the answer is yes. I do not have 

a particular view on what the exact mandatory should be and what 

the incentives that will flow from that will be. 

What you are saying makes sense to me in principle. I think it 

is always important to look at our justice system and say, ‘‘Can we 

be smarter about the way we approach things without watering 

down the deterrent effect that is the benefit of the work we do?’’ 

Senator DURBIN. One of the aspects of the bill addresses an issue 

which I plead congressional guilt when it comes to, and that was 

the decision to increase the Sentencing Guidelines on crack cocaine 

over powder cocaine 100:1. At the time we did it, it was a full-scale 

congressional panic over the arrival of this new, cheap, on-thestreet, addictive narcotic that destroyed lives and babies that mothers were carrying. And we said, ‘‘Hit it, and hit it hard.’’ And we 

did, with 100:1 disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Whether it should be 100:1—which I do not think it should— 

or 1:1—which I happen to endorse—we have reached a congressional compromise at 18:1. Our bill addresses the 8,800 people still 

serving prison sentences under the old 100:1 Sentencing Guidelines 

for crack cocaine, but it does not treat them as a class. It only allows each individual to petition for reconsideration of their sentencing. 

I had a man in my office yesterday. At the age of 17, in Rockford, 

Illinois, he was convicted of drug conspiracy and sentenced to a life 
30 

sentence plus 10 years. He served over 20 years in the Federal 

prison system, average cost $29,000 a year, before he sentence was 

commuted by President Obama. It is an example of a serious mistake made by a teenager, paid for with a major part of his life. 

What is your thought about those still serving under the 100:1 

guideline? 

Director COMEY. I do not think I have thought about it carefully 

enough to offer you a good answer, again, because drug enforcement is not a big focus of the job I am in now. As I said, I think 

as prosecutors and as investigators, it is always important we look 

back and try to see are there ways to do the things we have done 

better and smarter. But that is really all I have at this point. 

Senator DURBIN. Last question. Your predecessor and I worked 

for years on something that came as a shock to me. On 9/11, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation computer system, as it was, was 

totally inadequate, did not have access to the Internet, did not have 

ways to reference and search, and had no capacity to transmit documents or photographs online. When the suspects from 9/11 were 

identified, photographs of those suspects were sent to the FBI offices in overnight mail, could not be sent by the computer system. 

Your predecessor labored long and hard to bring that computer system into the 20th century, let alone 21st century. Where are you 

today? 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. One of the many gifts I inherited from Bob Mueller is the investment in that kind of thing, 

that technology. We are dramatically better. I worked on the 9/11 

investigation as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Virginia, so I know 

what you are talking about, so thank you for the support of that. 

We have made great progress. We are not good enough yet. And 

the bad guys are investing in technology. We have got to keep up 

with them. So I have got to attract great people, and I have got 

to equip them and train them on the best stuff. We have made 

great strides, but the legacy of neglecting it for so long is we are 

not as good as we need to be yet. 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Director. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I remember that time very well. In fact, I 

made an offer to the FBI, instead of having to ship these things, 

my 12-year-old neighbor could email them, and that would be helpful. And I am glad there have been improvements since then. 

Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Comey, welcome. Thank you for your service. I want to talk 

to you about the IRS targeting of American citizens and what I 

view as a persistent stonewalling from the administration on this 

matter. 

It has been 372 days, just over a year, since President Obama 

and Attorney General Holder both publicly stated that they were 

outraged at the IRS’ improper targeting of conservative groups and 

individuals. Indeed, President Obama said at the time he was 

angry and the American people have a right to be angry. Well, if 

he was telling the truth that the American people had a right to 

be angry 372 days ago, the stonewalling and lack of action that has 

occurred for over a year gives the American people a right to be 

even more than angry. 
31 

One year ago tomorrow, Lois Lerner, the senior official who led 

this targeting, pleaded the Fifth in front of the House of Representatives. And yet, despite the passage of time, very little has happened. 

Nearly a year ago, when you were before this Committee for your 

confirmation, I asked you about this investigation, and you stated 

at the time it was ‘‘a very high priority’’ for the FBI. I would like 

to ask you, to date, how many victims or alleged victims of improper targeting have been interviewed by the FBI? 

Director COMEY. Thank you, Senator. Because it is a pending investigation—and my description of it 10 months ago remains accurate and a great deal of work has been done by the FBI, but because it is pending I cannot talk about the particulars of the interviews we have done. 

Senator CRUZ. Have you interviewed more or less than ten alleged victims? 

Director COMEY. I cannot say, sir. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, you could say. That has been the consistent 

answer of the administration. I can tell you the victims of the targeting keep telling us they have not been interviewed. And the answer—the pattern we see, when the President of the United States 

stands up and says, ‘‘The American people have a right to be 

angry,’’ one, we have a reason to expect that an investigation will 

be thorough and there will be some accountability. The answer for 

over a year from the FBI and Justice has been, ‘‘It is a pending 

investigation, and we will tell you nothing about it.’’ 

Let me ask you a second question. In over a year has a single 

person been indicted? 

Director COMEY. I guess I could answer that because it would be 

public. There have been no indictments. 

Senator CRUZ. There have been no indictments. 

Now, you also pledged, sitting in that chair, to personally lead 

vigorously this investigation, personally, regardless of the political 

consequences. Look, I understand you have a difficult job. There is 

a reason your job has a 10-year tenure: to give your position meaningful independence from the pressures of politics. Can you tell this 

Committee, to date, how many White House employees the FBI has 

interviewed in this investigation? 

Director COMEY. And for the reasons I said, I cannot tell you who 

has been interviewed at all. 

Senator CRUZ. So the American people have no right to know 

what is happening other than nothing has happened. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let us be fair. That is not what he answered. 

He answered very appropriately, in the same way that similarly 

appropriate answers have been given during Republican administrations, and we accepted them. 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Chairman, you are welcome to accept them, 

and I would note that this IRS targeting correspondence has come 

out, came in significant request—in significant regard at the written behest of Democratic Members of this body. So I understand 

that there is not an interest among some Members of this body in 

learning what happened. 

Chairman LEAHY. Again, you are not responding to what I said 

at all. I am just saying that what Mr. Comey has said was an ap-
32 

propriate answer based on the reason he did it. It has nothing to 

do with how we feel. I do not like the targeting of anybody, but 

what Mr. Comey said was a correct and appropriate answer. 

Senator CRUZ. I would note for the record that when I introduced 

an amendment before this Committee to make it a criminal offense 

to willfully target American citizens based on their political views, 

the Chairman and every Democratic Member of this Committee 

voted against it. 

Mr. Comey, the Attorney General has appointed to lead this investigation a major Obama donor who has given President Obama 

and Democrats over $6,000. Do you see any actual or apparent conflict of interest in that? 

Director COMEY. I do not—I do not think that is something else 

I can comment on. 

Senator CRUZ. Do you think it would have been appropriate to 

trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon? 

Director COMEY. I think that is an impossible one for me to answer at this point. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, it is an easy question to answer. It would 

not have been. And the Attorney General has repeatedly been 

called on to appoint a special counsel with meaningful independence, and I would encourage you to join that call, because the integrity of the Department and the FBI matters, and it matters beyond the political urgencies of the moment. 

Let me ask one final question. Both you and the Attorney General have repeatedly told this Committee that the investigation is 

a vigorous investigation, despite the fact that no one has been indicted, despite the fact that many of the victims have not been 

interviewed. 

Four days after Attorney General Holder sat in that seat and 

told this Committee it was a vigorous investigation, the President 

of the United States went on national television and told the American people, categorically, there was ‘‘not a smidgeon of corruption 

in the IRS.’’ Now, the President’s statement and the Attorney General’s statement 4 days earlier that there was an ongoing vigorous 

investigation are facially inconsistent. I would ask you as the head 

of the FBI, which of those statements was true and which of those 

statements was false? 

Director COMEY. One thing I can assure you is that the FBI does 

not care about anybody’s characterizations of a matter. We care 

only about the facts, and we are passionate about the facts and our 

independence. 

Senator CRUZ. But, Mr. Comey, you have been a lawyer long 

enough to know when an answer is nonresponsive. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Comey. 

Director COMEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRUZ. And you have not answered the question that I 

asked. 

Chairman LEAHY. The Senator’s time has expired, and I appreciate the Director being here. I understand we have votes on the 

floor in a few minutes, and if others have questions for the record, 

they can be submitted. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Comey. As I told you when you accepted this job, I appreciate the fact of your sterling record in both 
33 

Republican and Democratic administrations. I appreciate the fact 

that you are willing to step forward in this position. Also, as one 

of those who pushed for the bill that made the term of the Director 

of the FBI a nonpartisan one, exceeding that of the President who 

might appoint him, I think it was a good move for law enforcement. 

We stand in recess. Thank you. 

Director COMEY. Thank you, sir. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JAMES B. COMEY, JR., BY SENATOR LEAHY
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JAMES B. COMEY, JR., BY SENATOR BLUMENTHAL
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. JAMES B. COMEY, JR., BY SENATOR FLAKE
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 

Æ