U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–788 WASHINGTON : 2018

PREVENTABLE VIOLENCE IN AMERICA: AN EXAMINATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION 

SHARING AND MISGUIDED PUBLIC POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 20, 2018 

Serial No. 115–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida 

KAREN HANDEL, Georgia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

VALDEZ VENITA ‘‘VAL’’ DEMINGS, Florida 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

VALDEZ VENITA ‘‘VAL’’ DEMINGS, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

MARCH 20, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 4 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Mr. David Bowdich, Deputy Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Panel 

I 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Mr. Timothy Carter, Sheriff, Shenandoah County, Virginia, Panel II 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Mr. Max Eden, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute, Panel II 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35 

Ms. Kristen Harper, Director for Policy Development, Child Trends, Panel 

II 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 37 

(1) 

PREVENTABLE VIOLENCE IN AMERICA: AN 

EXAMINATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION SHARING AND MISGUIDED 

PUBLIC POLICY 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND

INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Sensenbrenner 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Gohmert, Goodlatte, 

Chabot, Poe, Gowdy, Ratcliffe, Roby, Johnson of Louisiana, Rutherford, Jackson Lee, Nadler, Richmond, Lieu, and Raskin. 

Staff Present: Jason Cervenak, Counsel; Scott Johnson, Professional Staff Member; Joe Graupensperger, Minority Chief Counsel; 

Monalisa Dugue, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel; Veronica Eligan, 

Minority Professional Staff Member; and Mauri Gray, Minority 

Crime Detailee. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The subcommittee will come to order and, 

without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 

subcommittee at any time. The topic of today’s hearing is ‘‘Preventable Violence in America: An Examination of Law Enforcement Information Sharing and Misguided Public Policy.’’ And I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Last month, we had one of the most horrific and tragic school 

shootings in the history of this country. This was a preventable 

tragedy. And it was a preventable tragedy because law enforcement 

missed a whole lot of tips that Nikolas Cruz was a bad person and 

actually put up on the internet the fact that he wanted to become 

a professional school shooter. 

And there have been misguided policies where people who are 

disruptive at school end up not being arrested or charged with a 

misdemeanor, even though that is what they have committed, and 

nothing gets put on their record and nothing would end up getting 

put into the National Crime Information file or the NICS system. 

Today, we are going to examine information sharing among 

State, local, and Federal law enforcement entities. Additionally, we 

2 

will look at the poor public policy decisions that have led to unacceptable and disastrous consequences for our Nation’s K–12 students. I hope that today’s hearing sheds light on these issues and 

will help Congress and the public better understand these important matters. 

We know that law enforcement was called to the residence of 

Nikolas Cruz at least 39 times in the years leading up to the Parkland shooting. Despite these numerous visits for such matters as 

domestic violence and assault, the mentally-ill Cruz was never arrested. In one instance of February of 2016, a Broward County deputy responded to the Cruz home because a neighbor called police 

after seeing an alarming Instagram post that suggested that Cruz 

might plan to shoot up the school. The deputy passed the information along to the school resource officer, Deputy Scot Peterson. It 

is unclear what Peterson did with that information. 

There were numerous other opportunities for local law enforcement to step in and possibly alter the course of events in this situation. Documents in Cruz’s criminal case also show that the school 

officials and a sheriff’s deputy recommended, as of September 2016, 

that Cruz be involuntary committed for a mental evaluation. Doing 

so would have prevented him from legally obtaining a firearm. 

Fast forward to January of this year. On January 5th, the FBI 

tip line received a call from a woman close to the Cruz family. In 

very specific detail, the caller described Cruz and his violent behavior as well, explicitly stating, ‘‘He is thrown out of all these schools 

because he would pick up a chair and throw it at somebody; a 

teacher or a student, because he did not like the way they were 

talking to him. Um, I just think about it. You know, getting into 

a school and just shooting the place up.’’ 

We now know this information was not forwarded to the Miami 

Field Office or to local law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, this 

was not the only missed opportunity for the FBI to intercede before 

Cruz acted. In September of last year, the FBI received a tip from 

a Mississippi man who posts videos on YouTube. A comment had 

been left on one of his videos under the username Nikolas Cruz in 

what is now an undeniably menacing prediction that said, ‘‘I am 

going to be a professional school shooter.’’ 

While the FBI did look into this case, it was closed by October. 

While it was known that the call screener at the tip line was aware 

of the previous investigation, it is unclear if the supervisory agent 

was made aware of the previous investigation. Imagine if the FBI 

had been made aware of numerous previous interactions between 

law enforcement and Nikolas Cruz. The tragic outcome may have 

turned out very different. 

The question needs to be asked why Cruz was never placed 

under arrest, either at school or at home. He clearly had a violent 

past, a past that as properly handled by law enforcement would 

have prohibited him from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Despite committing a string of arrestable offenses on public school 

property, Nikolas Cruz was able to pass a background check and 

purchase the weapon that he used to slaughter 17 people. This 

hearing will also touch on the role of a 2014 Federal guidance may 

have played. 

3 

Broward County Public Schools, the sixth largest school system 

in the country and home to Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas 

High School, where the school shooting took place, was one of the 

first school districts to rewrite its discipline policy based upon this 

guidance. The new policy made it much more difficult for administrators to suspend or expel problem students or for campus police 

to arrest them for misdemeanors, including some of the crimes 

Cruz allegedly committed in the months and years leading up to 

the deadly February 14th shooting. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today and 

I look forward to your testimony. And I now recognize the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 

Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The first thing I would like to do is to thank 

the chairman for his courtesies. We have worked together for a 

long time. We have a leadership Democratic Caucus meeting and 

a number of issues were being raised, including the horror of a recent school shooting this morning at St. Mary’s school in Maryland. 

Certainly, we have experienced some unfortunate circumstances 

with a member and a number of these issues were discussed. And 

maybe we can put in place a 10:30 a.m. start time. But the chairman’s courtesy is very much appreciated again, and I wish to 

thank him. 

Let me acknowledge the ranking member of our committee as 

present today along with members, Ms. Demings, Mr. Lieu, Mr. 

Raskin, and others are coming. Because whenever we have an opportunity to be corrective, I think it is crucial. 

And so, before we start, Deputy Director, my question to you is 

my opening statement. I certainly will be looking for answers on 

best practices. I take note of the fact and hope in your statement 

that you will acknowledge that there were investigations of these 

calls. 

I think members need to understand how those investigations resolved. But you will not find from me the opportunity or take the 

opportunity to bash or to charge conspiracies and attribute to the 

DOJ or the FBI conspiracies against the President or anyone else. 

I think we have to solve these problems. 

Secondarily, let me be very clear. During my questioning, I will 

submit a letter from the Congressional Black Caucus, because if 

anyone attempts to diminish this whole idea of how we address bad 

behavior kids—nonviolent, bad behavior kids—I would argue that 

Douglas School had their own process. 

Douglas also had its own recommendation from the disgraced officer and others that Mr. Cruz be forcibly committed. The local authorities did not do anything, and we might want to find out why 

that was the case. 

These procedures put in previously by President Obama’s Department of Education was, in fact, to address how we deal with 

these individuals, clearly, and to have zero policy for misbehavior 

but not have a disparate treatment of minority youngsters which 

I have seen in living proof Latinos and African Americans. I am 

saddened that we have not had a hearing in the middle of the crisis on the Austin bombing. So, I will ask you a question about that. 

4 

And as well, I am saddened that it has been more than 72 hours 

and we have not noticed a hearing on the unfortunate but really 

dastardly circumstances of the Cambridge Company that is dealing 

with secured information from millions and millions of Americans 

to influence and skew the election toward Donald Trump. And to 

find out what the relationship was with Facebook and why we do 

not have the call for a full committee hearing with Mr. Zuckerberg 

here, as the Senate has done. And I have asked for that full hearing. 

So let me be very clear. There are many issues that we have. We 

need to nurture and embrace our students across the Nation. We 

need to applaud them for their courage. And they know the truth. 

It is gun violence. It is raising the age. It is stopping bump stocks. 

It is banning assault weapons. It is universal background checks. 

It is not talking about a policy offered by Mr. Obama who has 

become the appropriate whipping boy—if you will—whipping stick 

for anything that has gone wrong in this Nation. So, let me publicly say, he is responsible for much of what is good in this Nation, 

including our economy. And as I understand, we can all look at 

ourselves and account for how we can do better. 

I will be posing my questions to you on that basis: how we can 

do better. But I will not yield and lend myself to the ideas of controversy about law enforcement who work very hard. And having 

been a former judge, I will not yield and lend myself to the idea 

of conspiracies that the FBI and conspiracies at the DOJ, so that 

we cannot get our work done. 

I thank the chairman for his kindness, and I yield back and ask 

unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, 

I would like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for their 

testimony today. I want to recognize in particular my friend, Sheriff Tim Carter of Shenandoah County, in my congressional district. 

Sheriff Carter has served the men and women of Shenandoah 

County since 2003 and has done so with great honor and distinction. Sheriff, I am very glad to see you here today. 

Today’s hearing focuses on information sharing between Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement, and public policy decisions that 

have resulted in less information being known to law enforcement 

about potentially violent juveniles. 

In the wake of the tragic and senseless attack on the students 

and faculty of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, 

Florida on February 14, by Nikolas Cruz, a narrative of failures by 

law enforcement at all levels has emerged. We must examine what 

information law enforcement had concerning Cruz and what was 

done with that information. 

However, we must also examine how a troubled youth like Cruz, 

with a disturbing history of deviant behavior and ample signs of 

mental instability, would have a spotless criminal record, allowing 

him to purchase multiple weapons. Given the Obama-era mandates 

for schools to reduce the school-to-prison pipeline by arresting 

fewer students, the frightening question is how many other Nikolas 

5 

Cruzes are there out there? The FBI has briefed members and staff 

of this committee in detail regarding the tips the FBI received regarding Nikolas Cruz. 

The FBI told us that it has initiated internal investigations of 

the handling of both tips—the internet tip from September 2017 

and the phone call from January 2018—and will report the results 

of its investigations to us once they are complete. The FBI told us 

of certain changes to protocol that have already been made. We expect to hear of additional changes and accountability after the investigations are concluded. 

There were also numerous tips made to the Broward County 

Sheriff and other local authorities concerning Cruz’s aberrant behavior and acts of violence. Instead of having Cruz arrested for his 

violent acts, officials transferred him to other schools or referred 

him to counseling. The reason for this lenient approach was that 

Broward County school policies were altered several years ago to 

reduce juvenile arrests. 

These policies, implemented by the Obama Department of Education, replaced previous zero-tolerance policies in Broward County. 

Before this change, Cruz likely would have been arrested, perhaps 

multiple times. This lack of an arrest record made it more difficult 

for local police to confirm that Cruz was a threat and to intervene 

when they received tips and complaints from neighbors, classmates, and relatives about his stated desire to kill people. 

When the tips were made to the FBI, no derogatory information 

about Cruz existed in the Federal National Crime Information Center—NCIC database—which includes all state arrests, convictions, 

warrants, and alerts. 

If Cruz had been arrested and booked for any of the on-campus 

offenses he committed, the FBI intake specialist handling the call 

would have seen this criminal history in NCIC and the call would 

have been taken more seriously. Moreover, Cruz would not have 

been permitted to purchase a firearm under the National Instant 

Criminal Background Check System, NICS. 

Our Nation’s safety depends on law enforcement at all levels 

seamlessly sharing information, but that information is only as 

good as what is documented and entered into systems. When information is inaccurate or missing, or derogatory information is not 

generated because of misguided public policy, the ability of law enforcement to protect us is severely impaired. Having said that, in 

this case there are also very concerning missed steps by law enforcement, as well. 

I look forward to examining all these problems in depth during 

today’s hearing. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

important hearing. I look forward to the testimony today and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, the 

ranking member of the full committee. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, before I turn to the 

issue before us this morning I must comment on a truly disturbing 

phenomenon. 

Whether or not the Attorney General’s decision to fire Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was justified—and we cannot begin to know 

6 

that until the inspector general’s report is completed and published—none of us should take pleasure in this ending to the career 

of a man who has dedicated his life to the bureau, yet President 

Trump relished it. He took to Twitter to celebrate, and when he 

was done dragging Mr. McCabe through the mud yet again, he set 

his sights on his real target, Special Counsel Robert Mueller. ‘‘A 

total witch hunt,’’ he declared again yesterday morning. 

And in response to this latest attack, the majority here has said 

nothing. We have asked time and again for this committee to take 

action. In letter after letter, we have asked that the committee hold 

hearings on the President’s overt attempts to undermine the Department of Justice. We have asked that the committee conduct 

basic oversight of the administration to help us secure the information we all need to do our jobs and to protect an ongoing criminal 

investigation from a President who clearly does not want the investigation to continue and to find the truth. 

And what has been the response? Silence. A complete abdication 

of our constitutional responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable to the American people for its misconduct, misguided 

policies, and general abuses of power. What will it take, Mr. Chairman? How far must the President push before the majority will 

stand with us, tell him he is wrong, and hold him accountable? 

It is appropriate for the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on 

Crime to conduct hearings to examine ways to prevent the victimization of our citizens by violent acts. I hope that, as a result of 

today’s hearing, we will find ways to make our country safer. But 

before addressing the issues that appear to be the focus of this 

hearing, I must note two things. 

First, this hearing is being conducted in the aftermath of the horrible shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, 5 weeks ago. In the time since that tragedy in which 

17 students and staff were shot and killed, we should have conducted hearings about shortcomings in our gun laws, and we 

should have advanced legislation to strengthen them. 

We know that we must also plug the gaping holes in the background check system that is designed to help prevent illegal gun 

transfers and possession. We must also explore ways to help States 

establish extreme risk protection orders in emergency situations 

when someone presents a danger to themselves or others. And we 

must enact legislation to ban certain devices, such as assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines which have no place 

in our streets. 

Unfortunately, there has reportedly been another school shooting 

just this morning at Great Mills High School, about 70 miles from 

here in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. There are reports that several people were shot, and we can only hope there will be no fatalities. But we simply cannot watch this happen time and time again 

and take no action. 

But this committee has not done what is needed. And I fear— 

I fear—that this hearing is designed as a way to dodge these critical issues relating to firearms and is a way to deflect attention 

from the failure of this Congress to fix what is broken with respect 

to our firearms laws. Certainly, we should examine the mechaVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:41 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032788 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A788.XXX A788
7 

nisms we employ to encourage and allow citizens to report the fact 

that someone is planning to commit a violent crime. 

Recently, I attended a briefing conducted by the FBI’s Deputy Director, who will testify today, at which he explained how the bureau and its contract employees did not follow up appropriately to 

the tips they had received about Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland shooter. In those instances, the system did not work. We need to know 

why and how to fix the flaws, while also ensuring that the evaluation of such tips involves due process for the subject of these reports. 

Also, the issue of school discipline is a worthy topic of discussion, 

so long and it is constructive and not intended to undermine 

progress in reforming disciplinary policies that have been racially 

biased and counterproductive for a long time. 

Unfortunately, some individuals are advancing the charge that 

reforms to these policies contributed to the Parkland shooter not 

having been stopped. To use a horrible mass shooting as a pretext 

to hold up the progress in these much-needed reforms is offensive. 

Similarly, we must not accept claims that we need to arm teachers or to ratchet up law enforcement intervention in our schools. 

We can keep our children safe and at the same time stop the 

school-to-prison pipeline. In conclusion, I hope we can find a way 

to learn lessons from this hearing about law enforcement’s processing of tips and the need to adopt sound evidence-based and unbiased disciplinary policies for our schools. 

But examining these issues is not substitute for hearings and 

legislative action to fix our gun laws. We know what we need to 

do to protect our children and all of our citizens from gun violence, 

and we should act without further delay. 

Mr. Chairman, noting that I have repeatedly called to the committee to conduct hearings on gun violence and to advance legislation to strengthen our gun laws, including doing so at our committee’s markup on March 7th, I ask unanimous consent to place the 

following letters to the chairman of the full committee in the 

record. 

First, on February 21st, 2018, I led a letter by all House Judiciary Committee Democrats urging the chairman to bring gun violence prevention legislation before the Judiciary Committee for a 

vote. 

Second, on November 7th, 2017, committee Democrats sent a letter to the chairman requesting that the committee’s ATF briefing 

on bump stocks be conducted as a public hearing and that the FBI 

be included to discuss background check issues. 

Third, on November 1st, 2017, all committee Democrats sent a 

letter to the chairman urging that we hold hearings on gun violence in America. 

And fourth, on October 2nd, 2017, immediately following the Las 

Vegas shooting, committee Democrats sent a letter to the chairman 

renewing previous requests for hearings on gun violence issues. As 

I said, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be placed in the 

record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I yield back. 

8 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Without objection, other members 

opening statements will be made a part of the record. 

We will have a two-panel hearing today, which I am not really 

enthused about. But the FBI will not be on the same panel with 

people that are outside the government; so it is what it is. I would 

like to swear in all of our witnesses, including the second-panel 

witnesses, at the same time. So could you all please stand? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you God? Let the record reflect that all witnesses responded in the affirmative, and please be seated. 

Our first witness is Mr. David Bowdich, the Deputy Director of 

the FBI. And I guess I do not have lengthy biographies, so let me 

say I would like to ask the witnesses to summarize their statements in a 5-minute period. And without objection all of the witnesses opening statements will be printed in entirety in the record. 

Mr. Bowdich, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BOWDICH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Mr. BOWDICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege to appear before you today as the 

Deputy Director of the FBI. As I told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, I wish it were under different circumstances. 

On February the 14th of 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas 

High School in Parkland, Florida, a former student murdered 17 

innocent people and caused significant physical and emotional 

harm to countless others. This tragedy abruptly ended the lives of 

kids who had their lives and dreams ahead of them and stole their 

futures. 

To the victims, families, and friends of those who were killed or 

injured that day: Director Wray, myself, and the rest of the FBI extend our deepest sympathies to you. Though nothing can be said 

to undo the hurt and loss that you all feel, please know that the 

FBI continues to work closely with our State and local law enforcement partners in Florida to ensure that justice will be served. 

Unfortunately, as was disclosed by the FBI shortly after this terrible incident, we did receive two separate tips that we now know 

were related to the shooter, Nikolas Cruz. As the FBI director has 

made clear, the FBI should have and could have done more to investigate the information it was provided prior to the shooting. 

While we will never know if we could have prevented this tragedy, we clearly should have done more. Our investigation continues 

into exactly what the FBI learned prior to February 14th, 2018, 

and what we did and did not do in response. To summarize the results of our investigation to date, let me quickly walk the committee through the relevant timeline as we understand it. 

It is important to know the FBI receives tips from the public 

through our Public Access Line, or PAL. The PAL is the FBI’s central call center for all calls and electronic tips made to the FBI’s 

56 field offices. 

The access line is responsible for receiving and vetting information from the public, then disseminating it to the field as actionable 

9 

tips and leads for special agents and intelligence analysts to follow 

up on. To understand the volume of leads that we receive, during 

2017 alone the PAL received approximately 765,000 calls and 

735,000 email tips. 

On September the 25th, 2017, the FBI received an email tip from 

a person in Mississippi who indicated that a person unknown to 

him posted on his YouTube page the following text, ‘‘I am going to 

be a professional school shooter.’’ The posting was from the 

username Nikolas Cruz. In response to this tip, the PAL opened 

what the FBI calls a Guardian lead and assigned it to our Jackson, 

Mississippi Field Office. 

Upon receipt of the Guardian lead, an FBI special agent, along 

with a local task force officer, interviewed the tipster on October 

the 2nd, 2017. At the time of this interview, the tipster provided 

a copy of a screenshot of the subject’s post. 

The agent conducted searches of both FBI databases and open 

sources. Believing that the true identity of the poster could not be 

determined, the Guardian lead was closed on October the 11th, 

2017, with no other additional activity. A few months later, on January the 5th, 2018, the FBI received another tip by way of a call 

to the PAL from someone who identified herself as a close friend 

of the Cruz family. 

The caller provided the following very explicit information about 

Cruz: Statements about Cruz harming himself and others, references to ISIS, that he had threatened his mother with a rifle, 

that he had purchased several weapons, that he wanted to kill people and he was going to explode, that he was mutilating small animals, that the caller was concerned that Cruz might shoot up a 

school. 

The caller also noted that Cruz was 18 years old, yet he had the 

mental capacity of a 12- to 14-year-old. She indicated she was very 

concerned and had contacted the Parkland Police Department and 

wanted someone to look into this matter. 

Upon finishing the call, the FBI operator conducted a search of 

FBI databases and found the closed Guardian lead which was created previously in Mississippi. The operator then consulted with 

her supervisor and the matter was closed. The information was 

never forwarded to a field office nor to any of our State or local 

partners for further review or investigation. 

As the FBI learned of the Parkland shooting incident, our personnel searched our holdings and discovered these two tips. This 

is not the kind of news I want to deliver to Congress, to the families, or to the public. But we are committed to transparency in all 

that we do on behalf of the American people. 

While I cannot fathom the anger or the sense of loss of the victims’ families and friends, I again want to express on behalf of the 

men and women of the FBI our deepest sympathy. When we make 

mistakes, we will not hide them, and we are committed, with your 

help, to doing whatever is necessary to correct our mistakes and 

prevent tragedies like this one from ever being repeated. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Both of the tips that the FBI received 

10 

indicated that Mr. Cruz had the thought in mind of shooting up a 

school, including using the phrase, ‘‘professional school shooter.’’ 

Given the tragedies that occurred before the one in Parkland, 

Florida, would there be anything in what the FBI received that 

would rise to a level of above a tip that was received on something 

that would not be a mass school shooting or an act of terrorism? 

Mr. BOWDICH. [Inaudible—microphone not on] 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Are you saying that a school shooting is an 

eminent threat to public safety and should be top priority or the 

other things that I mentioned? Mike please. Turn your mike on. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Whether it is a potentially 

eminent act of terrorism, or a potential act of violence at a school, 

a school shooting, those would be top priorities that we would need 

to address immediately. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. You got two tips. The FBI agents 

went and interviewed the tipsters and decided after seeing the evidence, including verbal testimony or information from someone who 

knew the Cruz family very well, they decided to close the information and not pass this on to local law enforcement. Why was that? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Sir, it is a good question and that is what we are 

trying to get to the bottom of. So, just to clarify, you had two tips. 

In the first one, you had an agent and a local task force officer that 

went and conducted an interview. They did do some investigative 

activity to include checking certain databases. However, they closed 

that lead on October the 11th after receiving it on September the 

25th. 

In the second lead, it was a customer service representative at 

our call center in West Virginia. She received the call, she listened 

to it, something made her go to her supervisor, who was a supervisory special agent. Based on the content of her presentation to 

him and that dialogue, he told her to close it, no lead value. 

What we do not know is exactly how that was presented. So, we 

have tried to make numerous corrective actions to ensure that in 

the future that supervisor would have had to take certain steps to 

include reviewing that call and to include ensuring that certain 

databases had been checked. 

In this case, she not only listened to the call with all the concerning behaviors that she was told about, she also found the 

Guardian lead from Mississippi that had occurred a few months 

prior and then closed. 

We still, to this day—and I am not sure we will ever know—how 

was it presented to the supervisor because we have two different 

recollections between those two employees. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, the thing is, I can understand that 

with the Mississippi tip, which was the one that used ‘‘professional 

school shooter,’’ you had no idea who Nikolas Cruz was. Whether 

it was a real name or an alias and where Nikolas Cruz lived. 

However, with the verbal tip of the neighbor who knew the Cruz 

family, you knew precisely where he lived and what a lot of his activities and predispositions were which I assume we could have 

picked up the fact that there were 39 domestic violence calls made 

to the local police. 

Why was there not a connection made between the tip from Mississippi that was closed because nobody knew where Nikolas Cruz 

11 

was or whether that was his real name, and the fact that when you 

found out that Nikolas Cruz lived in Florida and it was a neighbor 

using that name and describing some of his behavior? Why was 

there not a connection made between the two? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Senator, the call taker in West Virginia did find 

the Guardian with the name Nikolas Cruz on it. She did find that 

closed Guardian. The connection was there. She did not action it 

and send that lead to the field office. She did not create a lead, and 

then forward it to a field office for further investigation. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay, thank you. My time is expired. The 

gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chairman very much for 

yielding. Let me, as I indicated, that I would be mentioning a number of other elements, but I do want to associate myself with the 

ranking member of the full committee—certainly since, Deputy Director, you are here before me—to indicate that I absolutely do not 

believe that there are any conspiracies being created by the FBI 

with the DOJ. 

Secondarily, I think it is important to put on the record that although we wait for the I.G. report as relates to Deputy Director 

McCabe, no one can discount the outrageous actions of the administration over the weekend, and they should be held accountable for 

it. 

Having said that, I pick up that I hope this committee—as I had 

indicated, and the ranking member indicate—will truly focus itself 

on the item of violence that is guns, that is automatic weapons, the 

bump stocks, AR–15s, which Mr. Cruz had. Let me ask this question. Are you familiar with the ED/DOJ school discipline guidance 

package that was offered in 2014? Dealing with the issues of how 

to address student discipline? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Ma’am, I do not recall that guidance, no. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. But do you have any indication that 

that guidance had anything to do with the reaction of the FBI on 

those tips? 

Mr. BOWDICH. We do not. No, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You have no indication of such? 

Mr. BOWDICH. We have no indication. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That anything of that nature was blocking or 

stopping any agent from acting? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No, ma’am. We do not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. First of all, I thank for your honesty. And I do want to take note of that fact to correct the record 

that the Broward County school discipline—that it might have 

been rewritten pursuant to this 2014 ED/DOJ school discipline 

package was not accurate. Broward County instituted their own reforms dealing with school discipline in 2013. 

But what I do want to bring to your attention is the family member. You said in your statement that the person identified themselves as a close friend of the family and, therefore, that could have 

been documented. 

And then, the statements about Cruz harming himself and others, references to ISIS, that he had threatened his mother with a 

rifle that he purchased several weapons, that he wanted to kill people, and was going to explode, that he was mutilating small aniVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:41 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032788 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A788.XXX A788
12 

mals, and the caller was concerned that Cruz might shoot up the 

school. 

Tell me, why in the world, whether or not there was criteria or 

not, that the supervisor independently would have not had their 

hair on fire? This is not a discipline problem. This is a monster 

who, unfortunately, happens to be a young person, tragically saddened that their life has come to this. And then, the actual agent 

would not do anything. Can you explain that to me? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Ranking Member Jackson Lee, again, I do not 

know how it was presented to him. But there were discussions. Apparently, the local department had been called. And I do not know 

if that triggered him to believe this was a local matter. That was 

my understanding, is at least some of that local discussion triggered in his mind, ‘‘This is a local matter. It is being dealt with—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me, because my time is short. Going forward, would you have wanted his hair to be on fire and to take 

charge? Or her hair? And to at least contact local authorities? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Absolutely. And I want to be clear here. We made 

a mistake. I am not talking for any other agency, and I am not trying to spread the blame. We made mistakes as an organization. Absolutely. Based on the contents of this call and all the concerning 

behaviors that came out of it, we would want them to act immediately; whether it was us or whether it was an immediate call to 

that police department. And then, we can join in later. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you have best practices that you can 

present to us? Will you please submit that to this committee in 

writing? What are the new changes, as relates to these specific actions, which you should not be classifying? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, ma’am. Our inspection team went out there. 

They are still finalizing their report, but they made 16 independent 

recommendations. We have already bridged nine of those and we 

continue to work through a number of—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And will you provide the committee with 

such? 

Mr. BOWDICH. We will, after our reports are finalized. I have conferred with our general counsel, and we are willing to share that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And let me just put on the record that the— 

as I indicated in my opening statement—it was recommended by 

the disgraced officer and others that this young man should be 

forcibly committed, and it was not done. So, we can spread a wide 

range of activities, but I hope that the one activity that we will 

count is that he did not kill 17 people with his fists. He killed them 

with an AR–15, and we have to bring an end to the utilization of 

those guns by young people. Frankly, they need to be banned, and 

that certainly would be a contributing factor to saving lives. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair would add that the staff tried 

to get officials from the Broward County Public Schools and law enforcement to testify at this hearing—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER [continuing]. And they refused to do so. I 

think in order to close the loop on what went wrong and stop something like this from happening again; the committee should consider subpoenaing these officials, so we can get that on the record. 

13 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes. The gentleman from New York. 

Mr. NADLER. With respect to what you just said, is it not impossible or difficult for them to testify during an active investigation? 

And we might think that, without a subpoena, they would testify 

after the active investigation is over? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, they did not want to testify at all. 

Mr. NADLER. I think that might change, because there is an active investigation. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, after there is either a plea or a trial 

from Mr. Cruz, they ought to come up here to Washington. The 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Director, if 

Nikolas Cruz had been arrested at some point for the various acts 

of violence that were reported, both at home and at school, would 

those arrests have shown up in his NCIC background check? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir, they would have. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And so, that would also come into play if someone 

checked the NCIC records. We are trying to determine his mental 

status. It still shows up for them to consider, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. It would have shown a criminal history status of 

some sort. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But without ever having an arrest for the many 

acts of violence that we are told occurred, when someone runs a 

criminal background check, there is nothing that shows up, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No criminal history, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

Mr. BOWDICH. That is correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, it does not matter how many people he threatened, how many chairs he threw, how many people he struck or assaulted. None of that ends up in the criminal background check unless there is an arrest, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. In your written testimony and reporting, you indicated that the January 5 caller said that Nikolas Cruz made reference to ISIS on his Instagram post. Does the FBI have any information about any connection there between Cruz and ISIS? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No, sir, we do not. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Has there been any investigation to see whether 

there may be any connection? 

Mr. BOWDICH. There absolutely has, sir. We did a very extensive 

social media scrub on Nikolas Cruz. And just to give you a scope 

of the scale of these types of investigations, Mr. Cruz had over a 

million images alone, and we have reviewed hundreds of thousands 

of pages, thousands of videos. This is one person. There is so much 

on social media for us to review today. But to answer your question 

directly, we did not find any sort of a connection to ISIS or any 

other—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Were any of the million images that were noted, 

did those come from ISIS sources? Obviously, you got the name 

‘‘ISIS’’ from somewhere. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge, sir. 

But I have not seen it all. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yeah. So, you do not know if those were viewed? 

14 

Mr. BOWDICH. I have been told clearly by our Counterterrorism 

Division, ‘‘We do not see any sort of a connection between ISIS or 

any other form of terrorist’’—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Connection means a communication, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But it does not mean he was not inspired by information from ISIS, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Did the agent supervisor at the FBI’s Public Access Line at CJIS listen to the call made by the woman on January 

5th? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No, sir, he did not. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Should that have been brought to the agent supervisor’s attention? 

Mr. BOWDICH. It was brought to his attention—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. They just did not listen to it? 

Mr. BOWDICH [continuing]. We would have preferred him to review it. And today, if that same call in, he would be required to 

review it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. And I hear my friends on the left of 

this dais and the left of the political spectrum, for the last 13 years 

I have been in Congress, repeatedly demanding that we should not 

claim an absolute right or wrong. We should look at things as being 

more relative. Not really a morality but more like amorality—one 

word. Let’s let people make up their own minds as to what is right 

and wrong. 

And that appears to be behind this idea that if we just do not 

arrest people, if we do not enforce the clear rule of law that is in 

black and white—this is right, and this is wrong—if we do not enforce that, we do not arrest people, then all is better. When actually, that led to his ability to buy a gun. And the problem is not 

the gun; it is the one that holds it. 

As someone who spent 4 years in our military training with such 

weapons, it was not the weapon. It was the holder. Like the law, 

it can be used to build up or it can be used to destroy. It can be 

used to protect or destroy. 

John Adams said this Constitution is ‘‘for a moral and religious 

people. It is wholly inadequate’’ for governing any other. And I 

would submit we have got to get rid of the Second Amendment, 

First Amendment, get rid of free speech because that offends people and causes violence if we are not going to get back to having 

a right and wrong. I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Deputy Director, let me just ask you a 

question to clear up a remark you made a moment ago. Is it true 

that it is not just the lack of communication but that you have seen 

no evidence whatsoever of any connection in any way between this 

event and ISIS or any other terrorist group? 

Mr. BOWDICH. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. So there is no reason to suspect any such motivation at all? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Correct, sir. 

15 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Now, let me ask you, what mechanisms 

are in place to audit the processing of tips that the FBI receives? 

Mr. BOWDICH. So, first of all, we have increased our oversight resources, our supervisory resources. We did not use to have a supervisor there at night during certain hours when the calls were diminished the numbers. We have increased that. We have doubled 

the size of our supervisory and oversight staff there. We have also 

brought in some operational focus into what is called a word cloud. 

So remember when I briefed this committee, the overall committee, I talked about the center. So, we have about 160 people 

working in the call center. The vast majority of those folks are taking calls; however, right next to it we have folks taking what we 

call e-tips. These are just online tips. 

As part of that, as they take these e-tips, there is a word cloud 

at the bottom left side of the screen where it will say things like 

bomb, gun, school shooter, ISIS; those types of things. And it will 

allow them to quickly determine is there something here? Or at 

least focus on it. And there is a number of judgments that are 

made. 

The same thing has been done with the call center to where they 

are looking for certain behaviors, keys, words. We have also 

brought in our operational folks in the both the counterterrorism 

side as well as the criminal investigative side to provide emerging 

threat words and add to their acumen. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. And with respect to the handling of tips 

concerning the mass shooting in Florida last month, could and 

should the FBI have arrested him? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Could we have? I do not know. So even if we had 

done everything right here—and I have said this repeatedly and 

again—— 

Mr. NADLER. So even if you had done everything right, you do 

not know? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Even if we had done everything right, I am not 

sure if we could have arrested him. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And when will the FBI finalize and make 

public the results of its review? 

Mr. BOWDICH. I do not have the answers, sir, but they are moving rapidly on the report. 

Mr. NADLER. Can you give us an estimate? I mean, are we talking about a month, a year, a week? 

Mr. BOWDICH. I would say within weeks. 

Mr. NADLER. Very good. Thank you. I now yield the balance of 

my time to the gentleman from Florida who represents Marjory 

Stoneman Douglas High School who is a member of the full committee, Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Florida is recognized 

for 2 minutes and 10 seconds. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. First, I would like to submit for the record a statement 

from the superintendent of Broward County Schools, Robert 

Runcie. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Deputy Director Bowdich, I appreciate your being 

here. On March 8th, after the briefing you gave members of ConVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:41 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032788 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A788.XXX A788
16 

gress I asked Director Wray to offer additional briefing to the families of the victims. Do you know whether the FBI’s reached out to 

any of those families to offer those briefings? 

Mr. BOWDICH. We have not, sir. However, we did—before we 

came out to the public—we realized the day after this event that 

we had—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. Deputy Director Bowdich, I understand the discussions you have had. I only have a minute. But have you reached 

out to them since I asked the director to reach out to those families, so they could understand what I understand as a Representative and what they deserve to know? 

Mr. BOWDICH. We have not, sir. We have not been—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. I understand. There are a couple of things that 

really strike me. When the first Guardian was closed, it was closed 

because it was unclear. You could not identify the person. Did you 

ask the social media company that the screenshot came from if 

they could help? 

Mr. BOWDICH. We did not, sir. As I explained during the previous 

briefing, there are two potential steps—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. I am so sorry that you did not. 

Mr. BOWDICH. We did not. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And I appreciate the opportunity that we had to 

speak at length about this before. Also, we were told in the transcript, and you mentioned this morning, that the person who took 

the call reached out to the Parkland Police that I assume would be 

the Broward Sheriff’s Office. Did anyone call to confirm whether 

that conversation took place? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I do not understand how those two things did not 

happen. There are so many questions. I just would—to close—I 

would urge you in the strongest possible terms to just be in contact 

with these families because they deserve it. 

And to my friend who said that it is not the gun, there were 150 

rounds that were fired in under 5 minutes. That is possible from 

that gun. It is a weapon of war, and my friend acknowledges such 

because that is where he learned how to use it. The point here is 

our gun laws are broken. We need to have that conversation in this 

committee. We cannot be afraid to have that conversation, Mr. 

Chairman. I hope that we will have that opportunity, and I appreciate the time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this very important hearing. There were, clearly, multiple failures at both the local level and by the FBI—of the system—to prevent this horror from happening. This mentally disturbed shooter, 

he was a walking warning sign, I think we will all agree. And he 

could have—should have—been stopped before he ever entered that 

school. 

And my colleagues before me have already asked a number of 

questions. They have already been asked and answered, so I am 

not going to go over all that ground again. But one thing I do not 

think we did mention too much yet was that on that day of the 

17 

shooting itself, there was an armed school resource officer who 

failed to enter the school and try to defend those students. 

And it is my understanding that there were a number of deputies 

that came. And they had been warned, I believe by him, to stay 

away, and they got their guns drawn and stayed behind their cars. 

And then, it was another police department that came and ultimately, they went in the building. And we will never know for sure 

how many lives could have been saved had personnel acted more 

decisively. 

And in addition to that, a lot of our schools—and this one included—have a sign out front in effect that says it is a gun-free 

school zone. Let me ask you that, Deputy Director. Do you have an 

opinion about that? Having signs out there basically telling law enforcement and telling law-abiding citizens not to have a gun there 

and that, in essence, the only person that is going to have a gun 

there is somebody who decides to break that law, is the deranged 

shooter, or criminal, or whatever? Could you tell us your thoughts 

on that? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, I want to be careful because, as I 

mentioned to the Senate last week, I do not want my personal 

opinions to enter into this. And I think I am here representing the 

FBI as the Deputy Director and what I think about those types of 

things I do not think is appropriate for me to bring into this setting. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Well, I will tell you what I think. I think it 

is nuts to have a sign out there letting one of these people who has 

malice in their heart to know that they are the only person that 

is going to have weapon there. 

Now, that may change because some school systems have—I 

know President Trump talked about arming teachers. And that got 

misportrayed, I would argue, by a lot of the mainstream press as 

him saying that all teachers need to be armed, and that is not 

what he was saying. And I certainly would not support that. 

But I think it does warrant discussion as to whether some teachers who feel confidence and have been trained, who would feel comfortable and would want to protect themselves, other school personnel, and especially students, to at least consider that. But I also 

think that it would be critical to have additional law enforcement 

in those schools. School resource officers, not like the one who 

failed to protect those students in Florida, but ones who really are 

trained. 

Now, in my community—I happen to represent the First District 

of Ohio—and the city of Cincinnati, most of it is in my district. And 

the president of the FOP there—his name is Dan Hils—he had suggested retired police officers. 

A lot of these folks retire at 50, 51, 52, have another 15, 20 years 

to work, and they are some of the most highly trained personnel 

of all. And I think having those folks in there to protect our children makes a lot of sense. As does a lot of the other things in the 

Stop School Violence Act that the House, to its credit in a bipartisan manner, passed recently allowing significantly more funding 

for things like metal detectors. Things like training our folks in the 

schools as to how to handle an active shooter situation. Things like 

18 

identifying those students who are a danger to themselves or others and actually doing something about it. 

In this case, the failures that took place are almost too many to 

comprehend. This never should have happened, and it could have 

been stopped, and I think all of us—hopefully on both sides of the 

aisle—are determined to do everything we can to make sure that 

one of these things never happens again. And I am almost out of 

time, so thank you very much for being here. I look forward to seeing a local law enforcement officer. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Bowdich, 

for being here today. There is a profile, Mr. Bowdich, in the Washington Post. I would like to submit an article for the record dated 

January 29th on a profile of Mr. Bowdich. I would like the American people to know that in 2005 he was a sniper, worked on the 

SWAT team, and as a result of a year-long investigation, that was 

the first time they were able to bring criminal racketeering charges 

against a street gang. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. LIEU. 2009, Mr. Bowdich also worked, and he worked on cartels. What he did was he identified the emerging kidnapping trend 

of Mexican cartel-related groups and in response, created the country’s first FBI squad to pinpoint kidnapping threats on both sides 

of the U.S./Mexico border. So, thank you for your service. You serve 

our Nation well. 

I would like to ask you a few questions on your years of service 

and also about these school-related shootings. If an FBI agent is 

close to a school and gets a notice that there is a school shooting 

going on, is the agent trained to go and try to engage that shooter? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir, if necessary. Absolutely, we would expect 

them to respond in some form or fashion there. 

Mr. LIEU. Now, the President of the United States has attacked 

the Department of Justice and the FBI on partisan grounds. So, in 

all your years of experience, whether as a sniper, or on a SWAT 

team, or dealing with the San Bernardino terrorism issue, or school 

shootings, do you have any doubt that if an FBI agent happened 

to be a Democrat that that person would do exactly the same job 

if that FBI agent happened to be a Republican? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No, sir. 

Mr. LIEU. In terms of the cases you did, when you would interact 

with prosecutors, did you bar justice? Did it matter to you whether 

that prosecutor was a Democrat or a Republican? 

Mr. BOWDICH. It did not. We do not see the world through 

shades. 

Mr. LIEU. The FBI Director Christopher Wray happens to be a 

Republican who also happened to give over $37,000 exclusively to 

Republican candidates. I still trust Christopher Wray to do the job. 

Do you trust him to do the job, even though he is a Republican? 

Mr. BOWDICH. One-hundred percent, sir. 

Mr. LIEU. I personally find it demeaning when the President attacks FBI because he believes that agents somehow cannot do their 

job because of whatever political ideology they have when they are 

off-duty. My view is that they have professionals at FBI; they train 

19 

to risk their lives for our Nation, and the President of the United 

States needs to stop attacking the FBI. 

Now, I want to go to what a person should do in an active shooter situation. I have served on active duty in the military; been on 

bases where we do all these drills. And I was taught three things. 

The first is you run if you do not have a weapon. If you cannot run 

and you do not have a weapon, you hide. And third, only if you cannot run, and you cannot hide, and you do not have a weapon do 

you try to engage the shooter. Would that be accurate? 

Mr. BOWDICH. That would be standard guidance we would put 

out to the public, yes sir. 

Mr. LIEU. Okay. So, I just need to clarify when the President of 

the United States publicly said that, ‘‘He would have confronted 

the shooter at Parkland even though he did not have a weapon.’’ 

I just need the American public to know that that is really stupid. 

People should not do that. If you do not have a weapon in an active 

shooter situation, you do not engage that shooter. You run first. If 

you cannot run, you hide. Only if you cannot do those two do you 

engage the shooter. And I am glad that you confirmed that. 

And then, let me conclude now on some issues related to gun violence. I am glad we are having this hearing. But I do want the 

American public to know that we are not allowed to vote, not even 

have a vote, on legislation that could establish universal background checks, on legislation that could ban bump stocks—whose 

only purpose is to make a weapon fully automatic. There is no need 

in a civil society for that product. 

We cannot even have a vote on a ban on assault weapons. When 

that was in place, statistics show that gun massacres dropped 37 

percent. We cannot even have a debate on these issues. So, it is my 

hope that the Republican-controlled Congress will at least allow us 

to have a vote and have a debate on these common sense gun 

measure issues. 

And I also note based on what my colleague from Florida said 

Parkland, and Newtown, and Las Vegas a lot of these shootings 

were done by weapons of war. I have two marksmanship ribbons, 

from the U.S. Military. But before they would let me fire a gun, 

I had to be trained on it. Take it apart put it back together. The 

notion that we would give people guns and have them out in 

schools without any training to me seems completely utterly dangerous and ridiculous. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Deputy Director, for being here today. I want to go to the PAL and 

think about the decision-making process that was going on with 

the January 5 decision—when that was actually being made. 

And I want to ask you first if you have a school board and a local 

law enforcement agency that have agreed to create a program that 

keeps violent felonies out of your database system, so there is no 

arrest for a violent felony. And we know that when your agents 

and call receivers are evaluating the threat assessment—when 

they are conducting that threat assessment of a tip—that information would be valuable, is that correct? 

20 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, anytime we are reviewing a tip or 

a lead about someone with concerning behaviors, yes, the more information we can get about that person it certainly helps us establish what would be appropriate actions to investigate this person. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. So, on the Mississippi tip they issued a Guardian follow-up just based on a screenshot of someone who said they 

wanted to be a professional school shooter. Yet the tip that came 

in in January has information about Cruz wanting to harm himself. And I know who the lady is that is providing the tip. 

She references ISIS, that he had threatened his mother with a 

rifle, that he had purchased several weapons, that he wanted to 

kill people, and was going to explode, that he was mutilating small 

animals, and us in law enforcement we know exactly what that 

leads to. And that the caller was concerned that Cruz might shoot 

up a school. Yet, no Guardian investigation was opened on those 

items. And I put myself in that decision, because look I do not believe that the individual that made that decision had evil intent. 

So, I am trying to figure out, why would I make that decision? 

Why possibly could I make that decision? And I think in your opening statement, I think it might be in the very next paragraph 

where the caller noted that Cruz was 18 years old but had the 

mental capacity of a 12- or 14-year-old. And she indicated that she 

was very concerned and had contacted the Parkland Police Department. 

The agency of jurisdiction for this Nikolas Cruz, and she wanted 

someone to look into this matter. Do you think that could have 

played into the decision of this individual that the supervisor who 

is making the decision that, you know, maybe this is already being 

looked into by the Parkland Police Department? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, I do. I think that certainly contributed to the supervisory special agent’s thought process about this. 

That is my understanding. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Right. 

Mr. BOWDICH. However, the call taker; I think there were some 

other things. One of which was there was no specificity on where 

this school was going to be, date, time, that type of thing. Right, 

wrong, or indifferent my understanding is she focused on that. 

When, in fact, I would have preferred she focus on the behaviors 

that were laid out because there is a kind of a—— 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Well, yeah do not get me wrong; I am in no 

way agreeing with the decision. I am just trying in my own mind 

to figure out how the supervisor could have made that decision. 

But, look, what I see here is more a personnel issue as opposed to 

a policy problem. But I cannot imagine that the policy is if you 

have all these things that you do not open a Guardian investigation. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, Congressman. But we are refining some of 

our policies and our procedures because, quite frankly, when I listened to this call the day after the Parkland shooting, the evening 

after, my heart sunk. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. How could you not? Yeah. 

Mr. BOWDICH. How could you not, exactly. And what we are trying to ensure is that we remove the ability for one person, as the 

call taker, to make that decision. That call should be elevated to 

21 

that supervisory special agent, and then require further actual investigation by the—— 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. So, let me close with this because my time is 

almost up. But I want to make it very clear that I think the issue 

here is a personnel problem. A personnel mistake because I do not 

think this supervisor had ill intent, or the call taker; they made a 

bad decision. A very bad decision I think not to follow up really 

with Parkland Police Department to make sure—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. My time is up, and I yield back. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Mr. Chairman, can I add something? Mr. Chairman? The witness? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Raskin, is next up. So you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, am I up or is it Mr. Richmond? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You are up. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for your 

testimony, Mr. Bowdich. You know, obviously, there has been a difference of policy opinion about what to do in the wake of the Parkland massacre where 17 of our people were assassinated by a 19 

year old carrying a weapon of war, an AR–15, into a public school. 

And the most recent poll I saw by the Rasmussen Group showed 

that 97 percent of the American people want to enact a universal 

criminal and mental background check. And 66 percent of the people want to ban military style assault weapons. 

I think 100 percent of the people would like law enforcement to 

be infallible, and to follow up on every tip, and to chase down any 

potential threats that are out there. But I want to follow up on the 

point that you made where you said you were not sure whether you 

might have been able to arrest Cruz, even had you followed up on 

the clues and tips that existed. Would you just explain that? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Well, yes sir. It is a good question. So, when you 

look at these you kind of do a reverse engineering of what occurred 

here. And when we look at what we should have done and could 

have done, ultimately what could have and certainly would have 

been nice to have happen is we would have ended up in front of 

Mr. Cruz, actually face to face interviewing him. 

Could that have stopped this act? I do not know. Could we have 

disrupted the act? Could we have delayed it? I do not know. 

Mr. RASKIN. But could you have arrested him for purchasing an 

AR–15 as an 18 year old or a 19 year old? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No sir, we could not. We had an 18-year-old young 

man with no felonies on his record who purchased seven weapons. 

One of those was used in the shooting, and we could not have 

stopped him based on the information we had. 

Mr. RASKIN. Could you have arrested him if you had known that 

he had been bullied, or he had a history of bullying others? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No. 

Mr. RASKIN. Could you have arrested him if you had known he 

had killed small animals—— 

Mr. BOWDICH. No. 

Mr. RASKIN [continuing]. If someone reported that? Could you 

have arrested him had you known, like with Dylann Roof, that he 

22 

had been involved with racist groups, or had expressed white supremacist attitudes? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No, not based alone on that. But we certainly 

would have been looking very, very hard at him. 

Mr. RASKIN. All right, you said you get 765,000 calls, 735,000 

emails to the tip line each year. How many of those lead to the 

kind of investigation you are talking about where you come face to 

face with someone, even if you do not have the grounds to arrest 

them? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Where it actually ends up being an interview? I 

would say prior to this fateful day, February 14th, about 2 percent 

of those ended up in Guardian leads where essentially the call or 

the e-tip would lead to a lead that would be sent out to the field 

office. Now, what percentage ended up with an interview I do not 

know. 

Since then, the numbers of Guardians have gone up incrementally, actually tremendously, which has a downstream impact on 

our field offices. But that is because I think there is a bit of an over 

correction, which is better than an under correction. We just have 

to refine those policies and make sure we get it to where it is a 

more manageable number. 

Mr. RASKIN. There has been a suggestion by some of my colleagues, including my friend, Mr. Rutherford, that this was a personnel problem. And that had there been different personnel on the 

job something else might have happened. And we all can only pray 

in retrospect and wish that somebody had somehow had pulled out 

of the morass of complaints that had come in—this one—and really 

pushed it up the line. 

But in your experience as a law enforcement official, do you 

think it would be possible for us to come up with a foolproof system 

of identifying anybody who might be interested in committing a 

mass shooting; stopping them and somehow isolating them and 

preventing them from doing it? 

Mr. BOWDICH. No, sir. I do not think there is going to be any 

foolproof system. If I could return back to the personnel issue. Congressman, this is what I was going to try to respond to. We do have 

a lot of personnel out there. Those jobs are difficult. I sat through 

a number of those calls when I went out there right after this incident. 

It is not easy work because you are trying to determine mental 

illness from not. You are trying to determine is there a federal 

crime? And repeatedly those calls come in to the PAL tip line, and 

they do lead to disruptions. So, those folks are working hard. We 

have a job to do, which is to refine the policies and procedures. But 

also to increase their training and make sure that we are giving 

them the proper training. And we have already begun that. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. You know, but I am a representative from 

Maryland, we experienced the most recent gun shooting this morning in St. Mary’s County. Would you please reassure the Marylanders in St. Mary’s County, and Americans generally, that you are 

doing everything that you can to try to tighten up the system as 

the young people lead us towards sane and balanced gun safety 

laws with their march on Washington this Saturday? But can tell 

23 

us that the FBI is doing everything in its power to try to crack 

down. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. To Congressman, to both your constituents and the remainder of constituents around the country, we are 

doing everything in our power to work hand in hand with our State 

and local police to ensure we do everything to keep our school safe. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. I thank the chairman. Thank you for being here. Thank 

you for the work that you do with the FBI. As a former judge for 

22 years and a prosecutor, I had a lot of interaction with the FBI, 

and a lot of other law enforcement agencies as well. The system is 

getting a lot of criticism about breaking down. And I am not talking about the FBI; I am talking about the whole system of the 

school and this individual being allowed getting back on campus 

and then killing people. Investigated by sheriff’s department, the 

Florida Department of Children, lots of tips, calls, students were 

aware of him, school was aware of him, et cetera, et cetera. We 

know that Cruz was a dangerous person when he came back on 

campus. 

The issue about schools and shootings—and I am a parent, four 

kids, 12 grandkids, they all go to school. Well, the four kids do not 

go to school anymore. They are off the payroll finally. And it is of 

great concern to me, because it is a school. You know, the little red 

schoolhouse days of the American flag flying out in front, one-room 

schoolhouse. You know those days are over in this country. 

And let me ask you about security on campus. Who is responsible 

for security on campuses, generally speaking? Is it the sheriff’s department? The police department? The school district? Who is responsible for school security? Generally speaking, just generally 

speaking. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, I do not want to be wrong. I would 

think it would be the school board, but it could vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But I just do not know. I have not researched 

that. 

Mr. POE. I think you are right. It is up to the school district, the 

school board, to make a policy of protecting the students on campus. Do you think that this idea of a gun-free zone sign out in front 

of a school district has anything to do with school safety, and protects the school in any way? I am asking your opinion, just your 

opinion. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, I do not want to opine on that. I 

think that was probably the intent, but I do not want to opine on 

how effective it is. I just do not know. 

Mr. POE. The individuals in your experience, covering a multitude of criminal conduct, that use firearms to commit crimes. 

They go to places that are generally where they hope that they 

could succeed in committing the crime with their firearm. 

And usually in many cases—like, let’s say, all the government 

buildings in Washington, D.C.; the Capitol across the street, this 

building that we are in—are protected by people who wear firearms, or have access to firearms to protect the people in that building. Whether they work there or whether they are coming to visit 

24 

there. Is that not the general rule for, let’s say, in the Federal Government. Government buildings are protected by people who use or 

carry firearms. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. The vast majority of Federal buildings 

are protected by some form of armed security or armed police. 

Mr. POE. Why do not we protect our schools like we protect government buildings? I mean, friends on the other side they talk 

about firearms but, you know, we go across the street to U.S. Capitol, the place is covered with Capitol Police Officers to protect us. 

But yet we want to deny that type of protection to our kids in public schools. 

I am missing the connection of why we should go to a system 

where there is no protection for students who go to schools. I am 

not talking about arming teachers. I am talking about just basic security, whether it is off-duty police officers that are still licensed 

to protect and serve the community, or whether it is a school police 

officers. 

We take a public setting of our schools, and we have a philosophy 

that we will not protect those people by having law enforcement officers there. But yet when we have a government building we are 

protected. Many members of Congress are protected; they have 

their own detail. But yet why will we not protect our students in 

public schools with an armed guard available to protect them? Do 

you know the answer to that? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Deputy Director. Many schools do 

have school resource officers, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And many of them carry weapons, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And, in this case, they had a school resource officer, right? 

Mr. BOWDICH. That is my understanding, yes sir. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And was he carrying a weapon? 

Mr. BOWDICH. I believe he was. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Many banks have police details where they carry 

weapons, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And many banks still get robbed, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes. Many of them to be clear, Congressman, 

many do not have armed guards inside. 

Mr. RICHMOND. The banks? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Many of the banks that are robbed do not have 

armed guards inside. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Let me ask you a couple questions, because we 

are all over the place, and I think that the title of the hearing is 

an Examination of Law Enforcement Information Sharing and Misguided Public Policy. We could talk about bump stocks; we could 

talk about high-capacity cartridges that allow people to create mass 

carnage. But I just want to spend a second about the information 

sharing first. 

We did not have a hearing like this about information sharing 

after the Charleston Nine, because there is a Charleston loophole 

25 

that would allow someone like Dylann Roof to buy a .45 even 

though he would not pass a background check, because if it does 

not come back in 3 days, he can get the gun anyway. Is that not 

correct? If the FBI background check does not come back in 3 days, 

or objection from the FBI, then the person is allowed to purchase 

the weapon, right? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes sir, that is correct. That is part of the proceed 

or deny process. What we have found repeatedly is most of our big 

box stores, your mass firearm, or your large stores that sell firearms, they will often times hold until they received a response. But 

many of your smaller stores will go ahead and proceed after 3 days, 

because legally they can. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And that loophole allows someone, no matter 

what their background, no matter what they have done in the past, 

no matter how evil they are, if the proceed or deny is not done 

within 3 days they are legally allowed to purchase a weapon. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, if we do not have the necessary information to give either a proceed or a deny order to the seller, 

then they can go ahead and proceed with the sale. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And after that loophole was exploited and nine 

people were killed while in Mother Emanuel Church at Bible study, 

do you remember hearing about the examination of law enforcement information sharing for how we could prevent these things 

from happening in the future? Do you remember being called to 

testify? Or anyone at the Bureau that you know? 

Mr. BOWDICH. I do not, sir. But in fairness I was in Los Angeles 

running our Los Angeles Office at the time, so I probably was not 

as tuned into Washington—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, I will help you. This committee did not 

have a hearing on the failure of the Background Check System to 

prevent a crime that was easily preventable if we had better information sharing. Now, I know that we are a product of our life experiences. And I know we have different life experiences, but I am 

going to ask you this anyway. You probably cannot answer it in 

your official capacity, but maybe you can. And I want you to use 

your recollection of your experience on the job. Had this kid’s last 

name been Muhammad, do you think that the follow-up would 

have been a little bit more thorough? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, I cannot speculate on hypotheticals. 

What I can tell you is whether this kid was Smith, Cruz, or Muhammad we would have expected certain actions to take place. In 

this case, they did not. And the last name, and the ethnicity, and 

the background, and the religious faith should not matter. And we 

do not attribute that to what happened here. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I agree with you that it should not happen. But 

in my life experience, as a criminal defense attorney and as a 

young African-American male, it makes a big difference. And I 

think that that is one of the things we could address is the diversity in the FBI. But, too, making sure that we are not so distracted 

running after profiling that we actually concentrate on the bad actors. With that I will yield back and thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. Before 

recognizing the gentleman from South Carolina, the chair will recVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:41 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032788 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A788.XXX A788
26 

ognize for a unanimous consent request, the gentlewoman from 

Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the chairman for his kindness. Mr. Director, I certainly associate myself with the assessment—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. What is your unanimous consent request? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman or Mr. Lieu. But 

while I am sitting here I have been getting a text on Austin. I really will need a briefing for those of us who are concerned, those of 

us who are from Texas and others, on the outright efforts of the 

FBI and ATF. I would like you to convey that to Christopher Wray. 

It is crucial. There is absolute panic in Austin. And we need to be 

able to be part of the understanding of the notice given to these 

citizens in Austin. There is absolute panic going on there now. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The message has been delivered. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman. If the gentlewoman would like that briefing, we certainly do as well. And we 

will request it and make sure that it happens. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the chairman very much. And, Mr. 

Chairman, as soon as possible, thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 

GOWDY. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Deputy Director, I 

am going to ask you leading questions. There are no trick questions. This is just my effort to go as quickly as we can. Anytime 

you have a hearing title that has the word ‘‘preventable’’ in it, I 

think we owe it to our fellow citizens to discuss the limitations of 

our justice system. It is almost necessarily reactive. Something 

happens, law enforcement reacts to it. 

So for us to use the word ‘‘preventable’’ or to discuss preventing 

crime, of course, we want to deter it. Of course, we want to stop 

it before it happens, but our system was set up to be reactive. I 

want you and I to go back and start with the tip coming in, so all 

of our fellow citizens can understand, in theory, what could have 

been done. And then we can determine whether or not the result 

would have been different. The tip comes in, and you first analyze 

it to determine whether or not there is a Federal nexus, right? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right, and that Federal nexus could be the fact 

that there are persons prohibited from possessing firearms. 

Agreed? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Including persons who have been adjudicated mentally ill and including persons who are users of a controlled substances. There also could have been some other Federal offense, 

other than a firearm, kidnapping, carjacking. So your analysts analyze that tip from a standpoint first and foremost of whether or not 

there was a Federal nexus? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Correct, sir. Well sir, that is not necessarily correct. If there is not a Federal nexus yet there is an immediate 

threat to public safety, she would do often times what was called 

a warm hand-off, or a warm transfer where the supervisor would 

27 

sometimes directly call the State or local agency and say, ‘‘Hey, we 

got a problem here. You need to handle this.’’ 

Mr. GOWDY. We are getting to that right now. The first analysis 

is whether or not there is Federal jurisdiction, whether or not there 

is a Federal nexus for you to investigate. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. And if the answer to that is no, then you have an 

obligation, or have assumed an obligation, to notify State and local 

law enforcement. And in this case that was not done, is that correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right, let’s assume that it were done. Let’s assume you called the sheriff or the police chief if it happened in a 

municipality. What, from a law enforcement perspective, can that 

sheriff or police chief do with the information your analyst received? 

Mr. BOWDICH. So sir, I do not know the State laws in Florida. 

If you look through the call, there was a time when the caller stated that Mr. Cruz was suicidal. And at that point, or at somewhere 

in that realm, during that realm, she actually engaged with the 

Parkland Police Department. I believe it was after that—I would 

have to look at the call again—but after that where he became 

homicidal and he started to talk about killing others. 

What could the State or local department, what could Parkland 

Police have done? I do not know the options that are available to 

them. There are, in many municipalities, the option to do a 72-hour 

hold. In this case, I do not know if that is an option, but they certainly could have gone out and conducted a welfare check. 

Mr. GOWDY. Exactly. And the good news is you do not have to 

be an expert in the law to know law enforcement can always go 

and talk to someone. You can always go either do a field interview 

if the subject is cooperative, you can show up at the house and do 

a knock and talk. That does not require any level of proof, right? 

You can knock on the door and say, ‘‘Mr. Cruz, do you mind if we 

talk to you for a while?’’ 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. Again, I am owning our problems and our 

mistakes, whatever they did or did not do. 

Mr. GOWDY. I know, but when we have a hearing title that has 

the word ‘‘preventable’’ in it, I think we owe it to the jury, to our 

fellow citizens, to let them know what law enforcement can and 

cannot do. So, they can show up on the front porch and they can 

say, ‘‘We would like to talk to you.’’ And he has the right to either 

talk or not talk. They can also say we would like consent to search, 

right? I mean—— 

Mr. BOWDICH. That is always an option to any law enforcement 

officer to request that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. It is great if you have probable cause and, 

therefore, have a warrant. But you do not have to have one to ask 

for consent, right? 

Mr. BOWDICH. You do not, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. And assuming you do that consent and you find a 

firearm, what would have happened then? 

Mr. BOWDICH. I am not sure. Again, you had an 18 year old with 

no felonies on his record who purchased seven weapons. Had they 

28 

found one, two, or seven, I am not sure what the options would 

have been for them. 

Mr. GOWDY. You can notify the school district, and make them 

aware that threats have been made, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Was that done? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right, so the theme that I keep seeing—and you 

correct me if I am wrong. Well, I do not want to overlook the cruelty to animals. In some States, including South Carolina, that is 

a felony. So, had there been probable cause to believe that there 

had been acts of cruelly against animals, that could have been a 

way to at least put him in the system for some period of time 

awaiting bond before the crime took place, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Again, not knowing the laws of the State, I believe 

this was a rodent and/or a frog. I am not sure how that factors in. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right, I am out of time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director 

Bowdich, was the agent supervisor at CJIS aware of the other 

Guardian lead from the YouTube comment left by Cruz that he was 

going to be a professional school shooter? 

Mr. BOWDICH. That is what I do not know, sir. I know there was 

a dialogue, a presentation, made to him by the customer service 

representative, the call taker. I do not know if she told him about 

that Guardian. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. So, that call that came in from the neighbor, which was sometime after he had made that post about, ‘‘I am 

going to be a professional school shooter,’’ even now, a month after 

this shooting, we do not know whether the two things were shared 

between—— 

Mr. BOWDICH. We do not because we have different recollections. 

We know she found it. But I do not recall—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. ‘‘She’’ being? 

Mr. BOWDICH. ‘‘She’’ being the call taker. She found that Guardian. What I do not recall is did, and I do not think we know, is 

did she tell him about that Guardian. They have two different 

recollections about what was said, probably because of the volume. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Volume of calls? 

Mr. BOWDICH. That they are taking every day. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Right. Did the intake specialist at the 

FBI’s public access line at CJIS check to see if any derogatory information about Cruz, such as arrests, convictions, et cetera existed 

within NCIC before closing the case? 

Mr. BOWDICH. She did, sir. She did the standard database 

checks. I know she checked in our Sentinel Case Management System she checked our Guardian Case Management System, and I 

believe she checked in DIVS, which is essentially an aggregator of 

many different databases. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. So, if there had been charges of criminal 

activity—for example, the allegation that Mr. Cruz threw his mother up against the wall, which many people would say is a crime of 

domestic violence, which if it were in a database would not only be 

29 

something of concern when she pulls that up, but it separately it 

also. If he had been charged and prosecuted would have gone into 

the NICS System if the State of Florida were providing all the information that needs to go into the NICS System, and, therefore, 

would have come up when he attempted to buy firearms. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. So, had there been a domestic violence 

conviction that would have been a prohibitor, which would not have 

allowed him to purchase a firearm. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. And what is the FBI doing to ensure that 

the NICS System contains the most up to date accurate information concerning crimes and their dispositions? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Senator, the Attorney General recently put out 

guidance and directed Federal agencies to ensure we are—and particularly the FBI—reaching out and establishing the best relationships we can with our State and local partners, which are already 

very strong. But we are asking for them to include their dispositions. 

That is where we are vulnerable is a lot of the dispositions of 

some of these crimes are not being reported to NICS, so they are 

not going in. So, we are doing the best we can to. We are having 

a series of meetings, we are messaging it, will message it at the 

IAC, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and have 

done this in the past. There is working groups to address it. And 

we are continuing to go out and message the importance of all 

those dispositions coming into the NICS System. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The age of Mr. Cruz at the time of this 

shooting was 19. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. But some of the earlier events he would 

have been under 18. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Is there a problem with some State laws 

not putting into the NICS System acts of violence, or mental health 

commitments that occurred if somebody under 18 that really 

should get in there? And this would be a good example of that. 

Mr. BOWDICH. I do not know the answer, sir. I do not know the 

State laws on that. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Can you describe the difference between 

a Guardian lead and a criminal complaint? A D71? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. A complaint is a charging document. A 

Guardian lead is when we receive a tip or a lead, and, in the past, 

it has been if it is a counter terrorism lead we would create what 

is called a Guardian. And that would go out to our field office. Once 

the field office receives this lead, the investigators get it and they 

are under very strict deadlines to address it very quickly. They 

have certain databases they have to check. And we do random auditing of all those Guardian leads to ensure that they were properly reviewed and followed up on. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. My time has expired. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time for the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Director Bowdich for being here today. In previous briefings you mentioned that a section 2703(d) court order had not been submitted 

30 

to the private company. In this case it was Google, which owns 

YouTube. Could you explain for us in further detail how the FBI 

determines if a 2703(d) is appropriate to pursue during an investigation? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes sir, Congressman. So, my understanding is a 

2703 is more of a companion statute. It is actually 2702 letter. So, 

what that letter is is if we were trying to obtain subscriber information we can submit a 2702 letter to a provider. That provider 

it has the option to either respond with that subscriber information 

or not. If they do not, the next possible step for our investigators 

would be to go to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and seek a Grand Jury 

subpoena to compel. The first one is noncompulsory process, second 

part is compulsory. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. In this case, do you know if the 2702 

letter was considered by the Jackson field office, Mississippi, in the 

initial investigation? 

Mr. BOWDICH. It was not done, sir. The agent and the task force 

officer, they conducted an interview they conducted standard database checks. They did find a Guardian from our Houston Office 

where the term ‘‘school shooter’’ was used on social media. Our investigating agent called another agent in Houston, they quickly realized that it was used as a term in a joke on social media, and 

that took him off that trail. So, that one washed out. He did, however, conduct additional database checks. 

Did he have the option, and could he have with the facts as he 

had them, submit a 2702 letter for the YouTube channel subscriber 

information? Yes, he could have, and he did not. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess, right? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. Hindsight is 20/20 Congressman, but I 

would have preferred he did. Because it could have potentially led 

to, we do not know that; but it could have potentially led to us obtaining subscriber information. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Is there a way to ensure that it is 

more carefully considered, or handled differently, in the future? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. That is actually part of the Guardian review. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Okay. 

Mr. BOWDICH. I mentioned during the initial briefing we 

launched two inspection teams. One was for our CJIS PAL line, the 

other was to look at our Guardian review process. Part of that that 

we came back with a recommendation on is we need to increase the 

acumen of all our investigators on social media scrubs; also, on use 

of social media in general. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Does the FBI have any information 

about a possible tie between Cruz and ISIS? I know that has been 

talked about maybe—— 

Mr. BOWDICH. We do not, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Has ISIS claimed responsibility for 

the Cruz—— 

Mr. BOWDICH. Not to my knowledge, they have not. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Do you have any information about 

whether or not he may have been inspired by ISIS to commit these 

atrocities? 

31 

Mr. BOWDICH. We have not seen any indications of that at this 

point. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. During the initial vetting and dissemination of possible leads and tips that were received through 

the public access line, do FBI special agents take into account 

whether State or local law enforcement agencies have open investigations into the lead or the tip that is received? You may have 

said this already this morning, but I was out. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Well, what we are looking for, so I will give you 

a great example. The other day I sat on a call, it was a couple 

weeks ago with one of our call takers, and the woman very quickly 

said, ‘‘They are trying to steal my kids.’’ As you listen to it, it takes 

a number of minutes; I realize she has some mental health issues. 

Another one, right after that was where a gentleman was talking 

about a protective order, a restraining-type order. And I realized 

this is a domestic violence matter. In that one it was more of a 

complaint it was not an exigent circumstance. So our call taker 

asked him to call his local police department. Had that been something like, ‘‘He is breaking into the house now. He has got a restraining order,’’ we would have done a quick warm hand-off to the 

local jurisdiction to ensure that they know about that. 

Had it been purely Federal, and whether or not they had an open 

investigation would have been determined. Once that Guardian 

lead gets cut goes to the field office, then our investigators would 

very likely find whether there was an open local or State case. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. And that protocol is followed as a 

matter of policy, I guess, pretty regularly? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Alabama, Ms. 

Roby. 

Mrs. ROBY. Thank you very much. And I too, like my colleagues 

here, are very interested in the policies and procedures where mistakes were made, but how do we move forward in looking at 

changes and new procedures and policies, particularly as it relates 

to communications with State and local officials; the future being 

now. 

I am very interested in a continuation of the dialogue that my 

colleague from South Carolina had started. And so, I am going to 

yield my time to him so he can finish his line of questioning. I 

think we are all trying to get at the same thing, so I yield to the 

gentleman from South Carolina. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank my friend from Alabama. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes 

and 20 seconds. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s go back to this notion of preventable crime, because I think that is what everyone 

wants to know is at what stage could this have been prevented? 

But they want this conversation to be honest and frank, which 

means that we are going to have to go through the specific facts. 

When you and I left; local law enforcement, assuming there is no 

Federal nexus, no Federal jurisdiction; it is a warm hand-off to 

local law enforcement. They can show up at the home, they can do 

32 

a field interview. In theory, you can do surveillance, right? I mean, 

you do not have to have a warrant to follow someone in the car. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. So, you can ask for consent to search. All of that 

could have been done was not done, correct? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. So, when we are evaluating ways to prevent crime two things leap out to my mind. Number one, the predicate offenses that have been discussed just this morning. My colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, made a reference to domestic 

violence convictions as being a prohibiting act from possessing, 

even a single bullet, much less an AR–15. 

You cannot possess a bullet, if you have been convicted of domestic violence. But it does not require a conviction. It can be a restraining order. You just made reference to a call about a restraining order. If there is a restraining order with the element of violence, that person is prohibited from having a single bullet, much 

less an AR–15. I know that you have title 18 jurisdiction, but ATF 

usually investigates firearms offenses, right? Is that right? ATF 

usually does it. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Yes, sir. We do them as well, but ATF they are 

the experts on firearm violations. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right, title 18 922(g); these are not my words 

these are the words of the statute. ‘‘You have been adjudicated 

mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution.’’ Do 

you know, or can you get for us, it is not a trick question, I am 

really interested in how many prosecutions over the last 10 years 

have taken place. 

Since there is a lot of conversation about mental health and mental illness, we have a statute that if you have been adjudicated 

mentally defective, or you have been committed to a mental institution, you are prohibited from possessing a single bullet, much less 

an AR–15. But if that statute is not being enforced, then it is not 

doing us a lot of good. Can you help us get the statistics on how 

many prosecutions there were under that clause? 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, I would have to defer, certainly, 

with Department of Justice and potentially with the ATF, but I 

will see what I can do. 

Mr. GOWDY. Is there anything about that statute that we can 

change, consistent with both substantive and procedural due process, but change that statute to the extent mental health is discussed a lot. Is there anything about that statute that you would 

recommend us looking at and/or changing under the heading of 

preventing crime before it happens? Prevent the homicide before it 

happens. 

Mr. BOWDICH. Congressman, I am not in a position right now to 

make a recommendation on that. I would have to look at it carefully, and I would have to give it some thought, and I would have 

to talk to our lawyers, quite frankly. 

Mr. GOWDY. Will you do that for us? 

Mr. BOWDICH. I am certainly willing to confer with Department 

of Justice about it, yes sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Also, you cannot possess a single bullet if 

you are a user, or habitual user, of controlled substances. Is there 

33 

any evidence in this defendant’s background that he was a user of 

controlled substances? 

Mr. BOWDICH. I do not recall on that. I do not believe him to 

have been a habitual user. I do not recall if there is anything indicating additional drug usage. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right, well here are my two takeaways with less 

than 30 seconds. We need to be really fair and really upright with 

our fellow citizens when we talk about preventing crime. And we 

need to be really vigilant when it comes to these predicate offenses 

that a lot of my colleagues use the word ‘‘minor’’ attached to. These 

predicate offenses sometimes when they are enforced; they help you 

enforce broader statutes that actually can prevent the crime. And 

we have got to look at title 18 922(g), folks who are prohibited from 

possessing even a single bullet; we have to make sure that we are 

enforcing those laws. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. And, Director Bowdich, you have been a trooper for almost 2 hours. And 

this has been very useful in explaining to us, and to the public, exactly what happened leading up to the tragedy in Florida. I, you 

know, wish you well on that. And I hope you will keep us up to 

date on how we can patch the problems that this tragedy showed 

existed within the FBI’s notification and sharing of information, so 

that we do not have to have another tragedy again and look at it 

back on hindsight like we are doing now. So, thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. May I thank you as well, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOWDICH. You may. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. May I associate myself with the words of the 

chairman. I think we have shown collegiality in commenting on 

these points of trying to save the lives of children. I will just offer, 

as I close, appreciation for your service, and the recognition that 

the FBI is working. It has its Achilles’ heels that I hope that you 

will come back to us, and that we will not see this from that perspective again in terms of missing these very glaring situations. 

And, finally, let me say I think the FBI needs to lead on advocating for real gun safety legislation dealing with the elements of 

guns in the hands of children and others, and particularly assault 

weapons. With that, Mr. Director and Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank you for your service to the Nation. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Bowdich. 

Okay, second panel is Sheriff Carter and Mr. Eden and Ms. Harper. Would you please, you know, step on up. Let the record show 

that all of the witnesses have been sworn. And we would like to 

ask each of them to summarize their testimony in approximately 

5 minutes. And then, we will have another round of questions. 

And just to make it clear, we will set the order of questioning 

by seniority of those who are here now, and those who appear later 

will be below those who have had the patience to stay here now. 

So, Sheriff Carter, you are up. Thank you for coming. 

34 

STATEMENTS OF TIMOTHY CARTER, SHERIFF, SHENANDOAH 

COUNTY, VIRGINIA; MAX EDEN, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE; AND KRISTEN HARPER, DIRECTOR FOR 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT, CHILD TRENDS 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY CARTER 

Sheriff CARTER. Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and members of the committee, my name 

is Timothy Carter. I am the sheriff of Shenandoah County, Virginia, and I have been given the privilege through election by the 

people of Shenandoah County to serve four terms as their county 

sheriff. 

I began my law enforcement career in 1986 as a police officer in 

the town of Blackstone, Virginia. And I thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. My career has been in local law enforcement, and predominantly rural law enforcement. And I have 

worked hard to maintain a connection with the people that I serve. 

The people of my community expect their law enforcement to protect them, and to work with the resources that they have. They expect their law enforcement to reflect the community standards and 

culture. Shenandoah County, like many rural counties, has limited 

resources and a commitment to protect and serve the public. 

Years ago, after the Columbine shooting, our office changed our 

training, preplanning, and response to these incidents. The standards of training were primarily dictated by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. But we also sent command staff to learn from the response, supervision, and management of critical incidents, including school shootings, by attending and researching best practices 

from other agencies, including those who had a history of such 

events. 

Training and preplanning for such events is a continual process. 

Immediately after the Sandy Hook incident, we experienced a disruption in a Shenandoah County school. The school superintendent 

and I held a community safety forum, actually three, after this 

event and we gathered public input on how to improve school safety, over and above what we were already doing. 

Two prevailing themes prevailed from the parents and school 

staffs, and they were that there needed to be facility security improvements, such as controlled access and camera system upgrades 

or installations. Secondly, there was an outcry to increase our local 

law enforcement presence in each school. 

Back then, in controlled access was a sign directing visitors to 

the main office when entering. Also, at the time, there were school 

resource officers assigned to the three Shenandoah County campuses, but not to each school. 

Since these forums, the sheriff’s office and the Shenandoah 

County School Board have been working together to fund these initiatives. The case for facility improvements is complicated in our 

local county, in that the Board of Supervisors must provide funding. That process is ongoing and must be balanced with educational 

capital needs and other critical infrastructure needs. I ask that you 

continue to provide assistance through Federal funding in this 

area, understanding that these types of improvements are costly. 

35 

Regarding staffing, the Shenandoah County Sheriff’s Office, and 

the Shenandoah County Board of Supervisors agreed to fund the 

necessary deputy sheriffs to assigned law enforcement officers to 

each public school. After we received approval from the U.S. Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Money Laundering Section, 

equitable sharing funds were used to initiate this effort. While the 

county gradually took over the local funding at the end of a 5-year 

period, the results were nine full time sworn law enforcement in 

nine public schools and one part-time sworn law enforcement in 

one public technical school. 

Not only were we able to complete this initiative and comply 

with the public demand for increased improved school security, we 

were able to bring the command and control of our law enforcement 

school resource officers under one organization, the Shenandoah 

County Sheriff’s Office. Having the continuity of continued school 

security is critical. 

Prior to this initiative, we had three different law enforcement 

agencies assigned to three different schools in our School Division. 

Having all the school resource officers under the same command 

and control has many advantages, primarily consistency and continuity with school staff and school-related incidents, investigations, and responses. 

We do train our active shooter response with other county law 

enforcement agencies through mutual aid, as well as the Virginia 

State Police. We critique our crisis preplanning each year and keep 

it up to date with the Shenandoah County School Administration. 

These plans are used by all responding law enforcement agencies, 

as well as other emergency service providers. 

There are times when students, family members, or staff members are in crisis and incident information needs to be shared between agencies and jurisdictions. We work hard to create an environment where intervention is possible with students before any 

aggression or violence occurs. Having a cooperative agreement and 

record sharing system promotes this environment with agency information flow. 

Our deputy sheriffs assigned to the schools promote this environment with personal contact with students, families, and staff. Federal grant programs in these areas are critical to enhancing school 

safety and security. And I ask that you continue these programs 

and even increase Federal funding. 

I want to thank you all again for allowing me the opportunity to 

talk with you today. And I appreciate your service to your communities and to our country. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank you, sheriff. Mr. Eden. 

STATEMENT OF MAX EDEN 

Mr. EDEN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lieu, it is a shame 

that death must come to the suburbs before America can have a 

national conversation on preventing school violence. In recent 

years, our schools have looked the other way on violence, because 

that is what we have told them to do. And so long as that violence 

was in urban schools, the media was happy to look the other way 

too. 

36 

But now, the public must finally reckon with the Federal policy 

that, in essence, tells teachers and principals, ‘‘If you see something 

say nothing, because if you do something you might be the one to 

get into trouble.’’ Nikolas Cruz was Parkland’s worst kept secret. 

Yet despite a string of alleged incidents, including assault, cyber 

stalking, weapons, and death threats, he was never arrested. Why 

not? Well, Broward Superintendent Runcie declared, ‘‘We are not 

going to continue to arrest our kids.’’ Sheriff Scott Israel said, ‘‘We 

will judge our success by how few kids we put in jail.’’ Numbers 

first, safety second. 

After over two dozen infractions and a failed effort at involuntary 

commitment, the school developed a plan. ‘‘Do not let Mr. Cruz 

come to school with a backpack, because he might shoot up the 

school.’’ Shortly thereafter, he committed an assault. Now, it used 

to be before this reform there were four levels of assault, and you 

could have a law enforcement referral for three of them. 

After, there were three levels of assault, and you could only have 

a law enforcement referral for one of them. Mr. Cruz was not referred to law enforcement at this time, according to records. And 

even if he were, Broward Sheriff’s Union President, Jeff Bell, says 

that ‘‘His school resource officer’s hands were tied, because the 

schools did not want the bad numbers.’’ This matter is far beyond 

Broward County. 

Superintendent Runcie has said, and I quote, ‘‘Some of my staff 

joke that the Obama administration might have taken our policies 

and framework and developed them into national guidelines.’’ That 

is not funny, because it is not a joke. Shortly after Broward adopted these see something, say nothing policies, the Obama administration issued a Dear Colleague letter to force school districts 

across the country to follow Broward’s lead. 

Schools were put on notice. Even if your rules are fair and administered fairly, you could face a Federal investigation for unlawful discrimination if different groups broke those rules at different 

rates. In other words, get your numbers down or else. ‘‘Or else’’ 

faced an investigation intended to force you to get your numbers 

down. Internal documents make this explicit. Investigators were on 

a mission to force school districts to drop traditional discipline. 

These so-called investigations hit hundreds of school districts 

serving millions of students would appear to be a nationwide grassroots rethink of school discipline was, in reality, largely engineered 

through coercion in secret by bureaucrats in the Department of 

Education. Now, there is no doubt they meant well. They were concerned that minority students were being punished unfairly, and 

that these punishments were having long-lasting effects. And, of 

course, our schools must make every effort to avoid discrimination, 

and to foster a positive culture. 

But you cannot make schools more fair and loving places by 

striking fear into the hearts of principals and teachers. Faced with 

pressure to get the numbers down, the easiest path is to simply not 

address, or to not record troubling even violent behavior. And we 

have seen this, according to teachers, systematically in districts 

from Washington, D.C. to Buffalo to Denver. 

Teachers are afraid to speak out. They fear retaliation from the 

district. They fear accusation from the media. But where their 

37 

unions give them a voice, teachers tell the same horror stories; 

principals doing nothing to address disorder, hiding evidence of violence, even willfully excusing clear death threats. 

When this was an urban problem, neither party wanted to talk 

about it; Republicans, because it did not hit their kids; Democrats, 

because it did not fit their narrative. This pressure must stop. 

Schools do not become safer when adults cannot punish bad behavior. Schools do not become more caring cooperative places through 

fear and coercion. Schools can only become safer and more supportive by allowing teachers, who love and care for their students, 

to do what they think is right. And it is about time for Washington 

to stop blaming teachers and start trusting them instead. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. Ms. Harper. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN HARPER 

Ms. HARPER. Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding 

this hearing on how our Nation can prevent violence, and keep our 

young people safe in school. I am here on behalf of Child Trends, 

a Research Institute known for rigorous and objective research 

which over the last four decades has served as a resource to office 

holders of both parties. I am grateful for this opportunity to help 

ensure that research about how to safeguard school environments 

prevents misguided public policy. 

The Parkland shooting is uniquely painful, because it seemed 

preventable. This is the time for probing questions. What was 

done? What was not done? What might have been done that could 

have prevented this shooting? As I am representing a 501(c)(3) organization, I cannot provide suggestions regarding legislation. 

However, I offer the subcommittee three broad recommendations. 

First, anchor your work with knowledge of trends in school safety 

over the last 2 decades. From 2000 to 2015, school associated youth 

homicides neither increased, nor decreased discernibly from 26 

deaths in 2000, to 40 in 2005, to 28 in 2015. Meanwhile, youth-reported risk behaviors have shown a marked improvement. 

Weapons carrying in a 30-day period have decreased significantly 

from nearly 12 percent of youth in 1993, down to 6 percent in 2003, 

and 4 percent in 2015. The prevalence of physical fights on school 

property has also improved from 16 percent in 1993, to 13 percent 

in 2003, down to 8 percent in 2015. Although recent tragedies have 

refocused our attention on keeping students safe, we must acknowledge that something is already working to help schools become 

safer, less violent spaces. We must be careful not to derail existing 

efforts. 

Second, prioritize approaches that will help schools to prevent 

school shootings, not merely defend against them. Rather than invest in school security, we can invest in adults and young people. 

We can support programs and interventions that build school communities where there is mutual trust. 

And why does this matter? Children with a strong connection to 

school staff do not bring weapons to school. When students feel a 

sense of attachment to their school or to the adults within the 

school, they are more willing to report the presence of weapons. To 

say we should invest in both school security and school climate is 

38 

a good answer but requires a willingness to increase total investment in school health and school safety. Too often, schools are provided only limited resources to address school safety and are, therefore, more motivated to reach for easy and visible security measures than engage in a thoughtful prevention process. 

Third and finally, examine how recent school discipline initiatives have complemented the goal of improved school safety. Some 

have asked whether the 2014 Dear Colleague letter on the nondiscriminatory administration of discipline, which sought to address disproportionate discipline for children of color, is to blame 

for the Parkland shooting and other violent incidents. There is no 

logical connection between the two. 

To address discipline disparities, the Federal school discipline 

guidance, as well as the 2014 Council of State Governments school 

discipline consensus project, encouraged schools to distinguish between violent and nonviolent behaviors and to use disciplinary approaches that are fair, proportionate, and equitable. 

To be clear, schools already administer discipline for violent behaviors at rates that are similar across racial and ethnic groups. 

However, schools discipline children of color for minor behaviors 

more frequently than white students. And behind the numerical 

disparities are children whose safety and welfare have been placed 

at risk. 

In 2014, a sheriff’s deputy placed handcuffs on an 8-year-old 

Latino boy and a 9-year-old Black girl behind their backs and 

around their biceps, causing agonizing pain, for attempting to leave 

an isolation room. 

In 2015, a police officer flipped a Black high school student over 

backwards while she was seated in her chair, breaking her arm, 

after she refused to leave the classroom. The students in these incidents were not carrying weapons, did not express interest in carrying weapons, and presented little credible threat to peers and 

school staff. And these were just incidents that were captured on 

video. 

Neither the purpose nor the letter of the Federal school discipline 

guidance restrict the authority of school personnel to remove a 

child who is threatening school safety. What is more, the documents highlight the critical role that law enforcement serve in safeguarding school environments from threats too dangerous for 

school personnel to handle. 

I will close with this statement. There is no conflict between our 

obligation to prevent discrimination based on race and our obligation to keep children safe in school. We can and must do both. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I am happy to answer your questions. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Ms. Harper. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. And I am not going to direct, at least 

at the beginning, a statement, or a question to a specific witness, 

but please feel free to jump in. 

I think one of the things that we are all concerned about is dealing with students who have mental health issues and who have a 

propensity for violence. And, certainly, Nikolas Cruz was one of 

them. And what can be done, you know, specifically to get a stuVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:41 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032788 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A788.XXX A788
39 

dent like this the help that he or she needs, and at the same time, 

protecting everybody else? 

The law on involuntary commitments or involuntary treatments 

is you have to be a danger to yourself or a danger to others for that 

to take place. Here with Mr. Cruz, you know, he was throwing his 

mother against the wall. He was throwing chairs at other students 

and making threats without overt actions that he wanted to shoot 

up the school. 

Now, when should the time come for someone to get a mental 

health evaluation, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to make sure 

that this type of behavior does not escalate into what we saw in 

Florida last month? Who wants to go first? 

Sheriff CARTER. I do not know who wants to go first. I will answer. I will try to answer the question. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Sure. 

Sheriff CARTER. I do not have all the data, Mr. Chairman, on all 

of the incidents with Mr. Cruz, but in our jurisdiction, we have 

what is called CHINS petition. It is a Child in Need of Services. 

It is obvious to me that this was a child who needed services at 

some point. Now, at what point is that? You know, I guess it depends on the jurisdiction. 

But, I mean, from what I can hear about the number of calls and 

number of interactions, if there were not any probable cause for 

making criminal charges, then, at least, someone should have been 

requiring the child to receive services. And that would be through 

a court. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, somewhere along this timeline, Cruz 

turned 18. So he was not a child anymore. 

Sheriff CARTER. Right. Well, that is true. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And I know it is harder to deal with a bad 

adult than with a bad kid on this. 

Sheriff CARTER. Right. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. But obviously, what he was doing, you 

know, showed that he had the propensity to harm others and attempted to do so. And he was making threats, or boasts, or however one wants to describe them, that he wants to become a professional school shooter. And I think that what we are looking at, 

from our standpoint, is when an intervention should be made before a school gets shot up and there are a lot of innocent lives that 

are tragically lost. 

Sheriff CARTER. Again, I cannot talk for other jurisdictions. Basically, in my jurisdiction, it is understood if a law enforcement officer within my jurisdiction, whether it is a school resource officer 

or not, receives information, whether it is a rumor, whether it is 

a tip, whether it is an actual formal complaint, everybody gets up 

that night, and we basically start to follow up on this information. 

It may be that you have to go to the house and do a consensual 

search. It may be that you do find probable cause to make a criminal charge. Maybe you do not. But at least, the parents of the 

child, the school principal, the school superintendent, law enforcement officers working at the school all know about this prior to 

that event. 

I mean, we have had, literally, social media rumors that we have 

had to basically sit down and track those things down, you know, 

40 

with several people. I mean, going from one rumor, ‘‘I heard it from 

here,’’ ‘‘I saw it on Snapchat from there,’’ over and over and over 

to the point where you basically try to resolve ‘‘is this just a rumor, 

or is there a real threat?’’ 

But the answer is everybody is awake, everybody knows about it, 

and let’s go ahead and get the job done and do follow-up. That is 

our position on it. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. I 

would ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter 

from the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Cedric 

Richmond, dated March 20th, 2018. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Also, a letter to Secretary Betsy DeVos dated 

March 15th, 2018 from the ranking member of the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me read from a statement from the superintendent of Broward County. And let me, again, Mr. Chairman, 

ask to submit this statement, March 19th, 2018. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In his statement, he indicated, ‘‘Please note, 

contrary to media reports, the district has no record of Nikolas 

Cruz committing a PROMISE-eligible infraction or being assigned 

to the PROMISE while in high school.’’ 

His additional comments are, ‘‘The district’s collaborative agreement on school discipline, which was established in 2013, establishes guidelines and processes for handling nonviolent misdemeanor offenses on school campuses to eliminate the school-toprison pipeline. It outlines for school personnel when it is necessary to involve law enforcement and when nonviolent offenses 

can be handled through school resources and programs such as the 

PROMISE program.’’ 

So the crux of the program is nonviolent misdemeanor offenses. 

It has also been assessed by the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce regarding Broward County that, instead, the county 

launched the Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education, PROMISE, that successfully decreased arrests by two-thirds for minor infractions and 

found that that 90 percent of students receiving counselling 

through the program do not repeat the behavior. It does not prohibit referral to law enforcement and still utilizes suspension and 

expulsion for serious infractions. 

So, Mr. Eden, what is your beef and complaint regarding former 

President Barack Obama and the Department of Education which 

he oversaw as the President of the United States? What connection 

are you trying to make? 

Mr. EDEN. Absolutely, ma’am. So, I think the way that the school 

resource officer was talking about it was the way that these things 

need to be talked about. We need to have the adults who know 

these students come together and make a decision based on what 

they have in front of them, not based on a pressure that they face 

41 

internally, or imposed on them from the top down, to just try to 

get these numbers down full-stop. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what evidence do you have of pressure 

coming from up top or down under for the Broward County? The 

superintendent made an independent statement. And do you have, 

as well, the numbers of disparities dealing with Latino and African-American children as relates to minor offenses receiving the 

brunt of suspensions and expulsions? Have you researched that 

number, as well? 

Mr. EDEN. Yes, ma’am. So, in Broward County, that was a selfdriven initiative. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is correct. 

Mr. EDEN. This was before the guidance. This is Mr. Runcie, 

Sheriff Israel. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is correct. 

Mr. EDEN. They get together, they say, ‘‘We are going to get arrests down. We are going to declassify violent and nonviolent offenses, including affray.’’ 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I did not hear that in the superintendent’s 

statement when I put in the record. He indicated nonviolent actions that would be under the jurisdiction of PROMISE, and he 

said that they would not interfere with any efforts to deal with law 

enforcement or any efforts where the child needed that attention. 

Mr. EDEN. Sure. So, within the PROMISE agreement was a violent offense, affray. That is one thing. Another is that we have the 

words of the School Resource Officer Association to go. That their 

hands were tied, their discretion was stripped. That the school did 

not want the bad numbers on their record. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do not know whether it was a resource officer. I do not know what Mr. Peterson was. But Mr. Peterson stood 

outside and gave orders to people not to go in. I think that speaks 

to concerns about those actions. Ms. Harper, let me ask you about 

this idea of dealing with discipline and protecting our children. 

That is our chief responsibility. And how do you juxtapose the two, 

that we can have a fair system and not jeopardize the security of 

our children? And, particularly, should there be a blame on the socalled different perspective that the Obama administration put forward, but that Broward County put forward ahead of that report? 

Ms. HARPER. Yeah. We knew full well from the research that the 

vast majority of the disparities on the basis of race in the administration of discipline is for minor offenses. Right now, schools discipline students across racial and ethnic groups pretty similarly 

when it comes to violent offenses. So if there is any pressure whatsoever on districts to rethink school policies coming from the discipline guidance, reducing suspensions for violent offenses would 

not improve disparities across racial and ethnic groups. 

But it also needs to be said that, you know, the letter of the guidance is its own best defense. The letter of the guidance contains 

nothing that restricts the authority of school personnel or the authority of law enforcement to intervene when a child’s behaviors 

are becoming violent. In fact, there is, actually, explicit language 

in the guidance that says we should train school personnel to be 

able to distinguish between violent and nonviolent behaviors and 

determine when law enforcement need to be brought in. 

42 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sheriff Carter, how do you handle a student who commits a crime of violence 

or sexual offense on school grounds? Do you think local law enforcement should be involved when these crimes occur? 

Sheriff CARTER. Yes, sir, certainly. We would handle it like we 

would if it was off school grounds. I mean, collect evidence, determine if there is probable cause, and make a charge. So that is how 

we would handle that, whether on school property or off. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Mr. Eden testified that the Department of 

Education told school districts to formalize or revisit agreements 

with local law enforcement under the new understanding that the 

school could be held liable for allegedly discriminatory decisions. 

Would this have a chilling effect on their involving local law enforcement? 

Sheriff CARTER. I know that we have agreements with our school 

system. Congressman, we have a relationship. When you have a 

school resource officer assigned to each school, I look at it like it 

is its own little community, its own little town. The law enforcement officer is the sheriff, and the principal is the town manager 

or county administrator. 

There are times, on minor offenses, where it may be appropriate 

to go ahead and try to deal with it outside the judicial system. 

Like, for example, we had a kid last week break a soap dispenser. 

Probably not going to charge that kid, because we believe that the 

discipline that the school can enact would be more than what we 

would get in the court. 

But at the same time, we draw the line when it comes to violent 

offenses and serious crimes. But things like that, if you have that 

relationship with the principal and the school district, I believe you 

can work those events out. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Do you think the school administrator 

should have to do that calculation when there is some violent event 

taking place at the school before they decide to call the police? 

Sheriff CARTER. No, Congressman, if the school resource officer 

and law enforcement have a relationship with the school system, 

have a relationship with the principal, there ought to be a free flow 

of communication constantly. And if there is that free flow of communication, that law enforcement officer should be brought in on 

the early end, not on the back end, and you will not have to worry 

about trying to, for lack of better words, clean up an investigation 

later on. 

I do think there is, sometimes, and we see it with young staff, 

from time to time, they go through and they have to go by and 

check the box each time. ‘‘Well, I have got to get this done, I have 

got to get this done.’’ And I think if you are not using common 

sense and talking with the people that you are working with—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. You are going to miss the target. 

Sheriff CARTER. Yes, sir. I think so. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Mr. Eden, I agree with Ms. Harper that 

we can accomplish both of these goals of making sure that people 

43 

are not discriminated against based on their race or ethnicity. At 

the same time, we can keep school children safe. I think that is a 

good principle. What does the research say about how schools have 

been impacted by the policy shift that you described, however? 

Mr. EDEN. So the research is just catching up to it, but the signs 

are fairly uniformly negative. There have been two academic studies, one out of Philadelphia where they tried to ban suspensions for 

willful defiance. Academic proficiency dropped by about 5 percent 

in reading and math. After the ban, truancy rose by about 16 percent. And perhaps the reason why was that serious offenses rose, 

even after willful defiance suspense’s were banned. And, at the end 

of the day, African-American students spent more time out of 

school on suspension after the ban on willful defiance because of 

this rise in serious incidents. 

The other major academic study comes out of Los Angeles, where 

they fully implemented a willful defiance suspension ban. Schools 

that had 10 or more willful defiance suspensions before the ban 

that were forced to end them, lost about a third of a year’s worth 

of academic growth. So, those are the two academic studies, then 

past that, we have surveys. 

We ask students, ‘‘Do you feel safe? Are there fights? Do you feel 

respected?’’ And where we have the before and after, we see a negative shift. We see more students saying that they feel 

disrespected. Fewer students saying that they feel safe. I absolutely 

agree that we must balance these two things. We must balance, 

like, keeping a firm hand and not discriminating. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Let me ask you one more question. Do 

teachers or parents ever reach out to talk to you about this issue? 

Mr. EDEN. Yeah, kind of by email and Facebook. A mom from 

Maryland shot me a message the other day saying that her school 

resource officer was terrified to talk about this issue. That a teacher said to her, ‘‘Yeah, well the discipline stats are not accurate. It 

is double or triple those darned stats, because they intentionally 

make up their own forms to use instead of using the actual referral 

forms.’’ And she said that, when she went to school after her son 

was threatened, that the school did not help her file a police report. 

And when she went to the police officer, they said, ‘‘Yes, ma’am. 

Your son will have to go off-campus before he calls us, otherwise, 

we cannot go in there, and we do not know what is going on there.’’ 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Harper, if the guidance issued by the Obama administration were rescinded, how 

would the responsibility of schools to address disparities in implementing discipline be different? 

Ms. HARPER. Rescinding the guidance, I think, would cause a lot 

of confusion for schools on what their obligations are under Federal 

civil rights laws. I think most schools are pretty clear that you may 

not treat students differently based on race. You cannot have a policy on the books, you know, apply that policy to one student, not 

apply it to a different student. I think most folks have that clear. 

They may not be as aware that you may not implement policies 

that have disparate impacts based on race that do not serve an imVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:41 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032788 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A788.XXX A788
44 

portant education goal, and for which, there are alternatives that 

could serve that goal. 

At the same time, I think the States and districts have been following the research on school discipline and know now that suspensions not only harm children but are not necessary and do not improve student behavior, especially when it comes to minor misbehaviors. And so, I think, right now, we have States and districts 

across the Nation that are responding to that research and trying 

to find ways to support educators so that discipline is improved. 

Mr. NADLER. I am not sure I follow you. So, in other words, they 

often respond to that research, and therefore, we do not need the 

guidelines from the Department, or the Department adds to that? 

Ms. HARPER. The Department adds to that. So, in the midst of, 

you know, changes at the State and local level. I mean, we just had 

Maryland and Texas last year pass bans on suspension and expulsion from preschool through third grade, for example. We have 

State and local officials that recognize that something needs to 

shift on discipline. However, when a school or when a district is 

discriminating on the basis of race, that is when the Federal guidance becomes necessary. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And do you think the increased presence of 

law enforcement in schools makes students safer? 

Ms. HARPER. The research does not support the conclusion that 

additional law enforcement presence on schools makes them safer. 

We do know that increased law enforcement presence in schools increases criminalization of student behaviors. You place an officer in 

schools, you have higher rates of reported crime. But it is not like 

those rates—— 

Mr. NADLER. The research results are counterintuitive, in other 

words. 

Ms. HARPER. You cannot conclude from current research that 

having law enforcement in schools makes students safer. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Eden, can you point to specific language in the Obama administration’s guidance on school discipline 

that prevented law enforcement from taking any action with respect to the Parkland Florida shooter? 

Mr. EDEN. As Ms. Harper said, there is no language in the text 

of the guidance that would interfere directly in the administration 

of a violent offense. However, in the internal guidance given to investigators, school districts were told by OCR that they had jurisdiction to review all actions taken by law enforcement officers with 

an eye towards finding any alleged discrimination. So, whereas in 

Broward County, no, they moved before this. The guidance came 

after. The guidance applied to other districts who adopted [sic] it 

voluntarily. The guidance made other districts do coercively. 

Mr. NADLER. I do not follow you. 

Mr. EDEN. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Guidance came after what? 

Mr. EDEN. Broward County adopted this policy in the fall of 

2013. The guidance then, as Runcie said, took these principles, 

these frameworks, and said to districts, ‘‘You have to adopt these 

or else we——’’ 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Did that guidance prevent the authorities 

from taking any action with respect to the shooter? 

45 

Mr. EDEN. There appears to be an inhibition on the use of law 

enforcement within Broward County. 

Mr. NADLER. When you say, ‘‘there appears to be.’’ 

Mr. EDEN. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Where do you draw that from? 

Mr. EDEN. I draw that from the change in the discipline matrix. 

For example, it used to be the case that there were four levels of 

assault, and you could get referred to law enforcement for three of 

the four. Afterwards, they changed the discipline matrix that there 

were three levels of assault, and you could only get referred to law 

enforcement for the most severe level. 

Mr. NADLER. That is very interesting. That has nothing to do 

taking action against the Parkland shooter. 

Mr. EDEN. It has something to do with why he was not arrested 

beforehand, and hence, as Mr. Bowdich testified, why there was no 

record on this very dangerous individual. That, despite all of these 

acts that he committed—— 

Mr. NADLER. Because of that third level? 

Mr. EDEN. That is the clearest instance. The question is: what 

was he doing in middle school? Mr. Runcie’s statement has that 

loophole in it. And what other counselling was he given in response 

to his actions instead of arrest because of these policies? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we, again, want to 

thank all three of the witnesses here for helping us to determine 

what is the best action for Congress to take with respect to this 

issue and let us better understand the true nature of the problem 

that we are all facing. 

And we actually did pass legislation recently. Congressman 

Rutherford was instrumental in that. We helped out, as did a number of other members, with suggestions. And it was put together 

and did a number of things, and I would like to hear, are we headed in the right direction up here? Especially, I think, from you first 

of all, Sheriff, if we could. 

You know, one of the things, for example, you mentioned funding. There is significant, more than doubling, of some of the existing funding in this Stop School Violence Act. Metal detectors are, 

you know, one example of something that, if school districts should 

determine that is the direction they want to go, they can use the 

funding for that for better identifying students who do have mental 

health issues and could be a threat to themselves or others, you 

know. And that clearly was one of the critical failures in this case 

was all the warning signs were there about this particular shooter, 

yet, unfortunately, very little was done to actually prevent him 

from doing the horrible thing that he did. 

Training for school officials to know how to better handle an active shooter situation, how to better protect students, principally, 

but also other school personnel in the building. The ability, if it is 

determined that it would provide significant improvement in security, additional police personnel, you know, school security officers. 

I had mentioned earlier that the head of my FOP, the Cincinnati 

FOP, had suggested that we hire retired police officers who oftentimes retire in their early 50’s and could continue to serve the comVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:41 Nov 14, 2018 Jkt 032788 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A788.XXX A788
46 

munity for years to come. And that would be an excellent place for 

them to be, since they have received the best training, you know, 

available. And police officers, I do not want to just single out Cincinnati, but police officers all over the country, they would seem 

like the logical people to do. 

So, Sheriff, does it sound like we are heading in the right direction? At least from here, would those types of things be helpful, in 

your opinion? 

Sheriff CARTER. Yes, sir. Funding increases would be helpful. I 

know that under the former funding levels, my specific school division has applied for funding and, for some reason, sometimes, I 

think, in rural communities, the funding comes later. It just seems 

like it does not get there very quickly. So, anything that can be 

done with regard to increasing funding, I think, is helpful. Even if 

it is just seed money to get programs off the ground. So, yes, sir, 

I do think that is a good start. 

Again, each school district is different. Each school division is different. I know in our school division, the two main issues that parents and schools wanted were they wanted controlled access into 

our schools, and they wanted more of a law enforcement presence. 

And our governing body, the Sheriff’s Office, and the school 

board basically followed through on those commitments. Other 

school districts may be different. They may want different things. 

So, as long as there is funding available to improve those things, 

I know from a Shenandoah County perspective, that has been what 

we have been trying to. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I have only got a minute 

left, so let me shift gears a little bit. The idea that I mentioned 

with the previous panel, or the point that I had mentioned, and 

that is about identifying our schools as so-called gun-free school 

zones. You know, basically allowing those who have ill intent in 

their heart go to a place knowing they are going to be the only person armed there in many circumstances. I would welcome any 

input from any of the panelists. We have only got a, you know. 

Sheriff CARTER. I think it is a value having enhanced penalties 

with regard to areas, whether it be drug trafficking or weapons violations within a school area. So, it does have some value there to 

make sure that you have those enhanced penalties. 

Ms. HARPER. I would also add that the vast majority of school 

shooters are students. They are not strangers, they are not random 

individuals. They are people with connections to the school. Hence 

my earlier suggestion that our investments really should be in 

school climates and in student supports. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and thanks 

to our panelists. I am a little bit baffled about the turn that our 

proceedings have taken this afternoon, because, in the wake of the 

Parkland massacre, which I do insist upon calling a massacre, not 

a tragedy. ‘‘Romeo and Juliet’’ is a tragedy. ‘‘Hamlet’’ is a tragedy. 

‘‘Macbeth’’ is a tragedy. This was a massacre. This was basically 

gunfire terrorism that took place in our society. 

And I feel baffled now, because I believe in common sense. And 

97 percent of the American people are saying they want a universal 

47 

criminal and mental background check on all firearm purchases. 

That is within the margin of error of almost everybody in the country agreeing to that. And yet, we are not having a hearing about 

it. 

Two-thirds of Americans want to see a ban on AR–15s and military-style assault weapons in the country, which is what the young 

people all over America are calling for, and perhaps a million of 

them are coming to Washington this weekend to demand that. And 

yet, we are now caught up in a discussion about school disciplinary 

policy. 

So, let me start with this. Ms. Harper, do you think we are going 

to be able to solve the problem of gun violence in America by making tweaks to school discipline policies? 

Ms. HARPER. I do not. I think most school policies are fairly clear 

about the consequences when a student engages in violent behaviors, and the current guide makes, also, clear that law enforcement 

need to be involved whenever there is a threat to school safety. 

Mr. RASKIN. Are any of the panelists aware of a situation where 

a student brought a firearm or an AR–15 to school and were let 

go because of lax disciplinary policies? 

Mr. EDEN. I am aware of many instances, several instances, 

where a student brought a knife to school and that was not punished, or in one instance, the knife was given back to him. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay, but in terms of my question. Are you aware 

of any cases where a student brought a firearm to school and, because of student disciplinary policies, were just sent home for the 

day, and it was never followed up upon? 

Mr. EDEN. Not firearms. No, sir. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. From Columbine, to Sandy Hook, to Parkland, all of the school shooters that, at least, I am aware of, and 

I may be missing some, but all of them have been white students. 

And I think white male students. So, Ms. Harper, can you explain 

to me why the solution to the problem of gun violence would be to 

weaken civil rights standards in school discipline policy in the 

country? 

Ms. HARPER. There is no connection between the Federal school 

discipline guidance and the violence we saw in Broward 5 weeks 

ago. 

Mr. RASKIN. Do you believe, Ms. Harper, that if President Obama 

had never issued this obscure guidance that I never heard of before 

this hearing, do you think, had he not issued it, any of these school 

shootings would have been prevented? Would have not happened? 

Ms. HARPER. I do not think there is any connection between the 

efforts to address racial and ethnic disparities in the administration of discipline that those efforts have nothing whatsoever to do 

with what we saw 5 weeks ago. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. And is there anybody present on the panel 

who thinks that, had that guidance not been issued, that any specific school shooting would not have taken place? Okay. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. EDEN. Well, I think it would be interesting to see what 

comes out of the recent atrocity in St. Mary’s County, because St. 

Mary’s County adopted new discipline policies in the wake of the 

guidance. Last year, Hugo Morales took his own life after being 

48 

bullied. And there was a townhall meeting where the parents complained to the superintendent, ‘‘You are not doing anything about 

bullying. You are sweeping this under the rug. We cannot access 

you. You are not addressing the problems in our school.’’ So, I do 

not know, but I fear, in this instance, that perhaps. 

Mr. RASKIN. And in terms of Parkland, do you have any reason 

to think that the lack of this guidance would have prevented that, 

or in Connecticut? In Newtown, Connecticut? Sandy Hook? 

Mr. EDEN. I think there is substantial reason to be concerned 

that, had Broward County not adopted this policy that soon became 

a coerced Federal mandate that the situation would have been handled differently over the course of several years and could have 

been prevented, yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Have you written something to that effect? Is 

there any research on that point? 

Mr. EDEN. I have written something to that effect, and I believe 

there is going to be another piece forthcoming in the next couple 

days. 

Mr. RASKIN. And it is based on research that you have done? I 

just do not see the causal connection. 

Mr. EDEN. Sure. The causal connection is that the emphasis in 

these policies is to get the numbers down. You know, it is like ‘‘The 

Wire’’ HBO show. We know that we want to get this reduction. We 

have to get these numbers down. One way to do it is to just not 

punish, to not suspend, to not expel, to not refer to law enforcement. 

So, when we see a school district that has taken aggressive efforts to not refer students to law enforcement, we see a student 

who has acted insanely and violently and was never referred. At 

the very least, I think there is reason to be concerned that that dynamic might have been at play. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to follow up 

on that, Mr. Eden, that is exactly what concerns me when law enforcement collaborates with school boards to not enforce the law. 

And so, Sheriff Carter, I would ask you, who makes arrest decisions in Shenandoah County? 

Sheriff CARTER. I do not know if I understand. Who makes arrest 

decisions? 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Whether to make an arrest or not. 

Sheriff CARTER. Right. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. That is a decision for law enforcement, correct? 

Sheriff CARTER. Yes, sir. It is the law enforcement officer. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. And if you have a law enforcement agency that 

has given away their decisionmaking. Because look, I can tell you, 

it happened in Jacksonville, Florida. They wanted civil citations to 

be written for public affray. Those are violent events. And they did 

not want them reported, and they did not want arrests made in 

those cases. And so, you have violent behavior that escapes the 

view of law enforcement, and that is what concerns me about these 

relationships. 

49 

And particularly, in this case, it appears that even law enforcement outside of the school had a situation where it was reported 

to them that this individual, Nikolas Cruz, had actually pointed a 

gun at somebody’s head; threatened to kill them. That is aggravated assault. That is a felony. Now, the comment was made that 

the police did not arrest because the victim did not want to prosecute. But I can tell you, in the State of Florida, the victim 

agreeance to prosecution is not a requirement for an arrest. 

Sheriff CARTER. Right. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. And I assume it is probably not in Shenandoah County, either. Is that correct? 

Sheriff CARTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Which is exactly we passed all of these domestic violence laws, so that we no longer put it on the victim to have 

to come forward because of the relationship that they had with 

their abuser. And so, we made those laws to take it out of the 

hands of those domestic violence victims. And I think here, we 

have put arrest into the hands of those who have a reason not to 

want those numbers of arrests within their schools. And so, I see 

a real problem with that. 

Ms. Harper, the reason we drafted the Stop School Violence Act 

of 2018, working with the Sandy Hook Promise group, was because, 

as I often told my agency, my community, I did not want to be the 

best first responder to a mass casualty event. I want to prevent it 

before it occurs. And so, I was very glad to see in your writings 

here, you talk specifically about, you know, focusing on those individuals and finding their behavior and what is going on at these 

schools. 

You talk about, you know, we need to look at the negative school 

climate, the lack of school connectedness, involvement in bullying 

perpetration and victimization, association with social peers, low 

school performance. I agree with you 100 percent. We need to teach 

our students, teachers, and officers what to look for in these individuals who have a propensity to become, you know, these mass 

casualty shooters down the road. 

And I also will tell you that we expanded that bill to also include 

toughening the target, because you mentioned that, as well. Not 

only do you want to look at the prevention issues as far as the 

building, but also focus on the individual. And you say that, you 

know, you think we can do both. And I would agree with you. In 

fact, I would say, not only we can do both, we must do both. And 

so, I appreciate those comments. 

But I just want to make the point that, in this case, and I told 

the FBI Deputy Director earlier, that, you know, I see personnel 

decisions in this case at the local, State, and Federal level. The 

Broward County Sheriff’s Office. You know, nobody is even talking 

about the Parkland Police Department. I want to know what they 

did with the tip that they got, because the lady that made the tip 

to the FBI said she gave it to them, as well. What did they do with 

it? And so, there were so many personnel decisions throughout this 

that were wrong. But I thank you for being here today and sharing 

your testimony. 

50 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Demings, has been very patient, and she is recognized. 

Ms. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 

our witnesses for being here today. You know, what happened in 

Parkland, I think we all know all too familiar, that it was a tragedy—as my colleague from Maryland said, a massacre. And we 

have a right to understand what went wrong, what happened. 

When tragedy strikes, there is always a lot of finger-pointing going 

around. We have certainly done enough of that today. But I do believe today we have kind of hit an all-time low, actually. 

We do know, when we look at the life of this young man, a lot 

went wrong, long before February 14th. And I think, in all fairness 

to our witnesses and everybody else who was involved, when we 

talk about what went wrong, I think we, my colleagues and I, have 

an obligation to look at ourselves and our failure to do our job. To 

come up with meaningful gun control legislation that may have, 

just may have, prevented this tragedy and too many others like it 

around our Nation. 

Let’s talk about Parkland, but then officers are responding to a 

shooting today. A shooting in an elementary school, shooting in a 

movie theater, shooting in a nightclub in my district, multiple 

shootings in churches. 

Mr. Eden, I would like to start with you. I know you are here 

today to talk about school safety, and I think we all would agree 

that what has happened and all of the other shootings had nothing 

to do with the school’s disciplinary problem or policy. Could you 

just kind of shed some light, since you have done research on 

school violence, we can point to a policy for school shootings. What 

about the other shootings that have occurred around our Nation? 

What insight would you give in terms of the causes of those shootings that we failed to deal with, as well? 

Mr. EDEN. Yeah. So most of these shootings are committed by 

people who are deeply mentally deranged and whom our system 

fails in ways that have more to do with the intersection of consequences and students’ disabilities. So, it is an open question, having not reviewed the particulars. But I think, in this instance, what 

we can all agree on is that Nikolas Cruz is the kind of guy who 

should have never been anywhere near a gun. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. As well as the Pulse nightclub shooter. 

Mr. EDEN. Yeah. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. As well as the shooter at the concert in Las 

Vegas. 

Mr. EDEN. Absolutely. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. As well as the shooter, probably, in Maryland 

today. Would you agree to that? 

Mr. EDEN. Absolutely. Nowhere near a gun, and so, as we kind 

of walk through the failures, and I kind of bracket the gun conversation. I am not expert. I am kind of sympathetic, but it is not 

really my business. My business is, this policy of explicitly trying 

to push these numbers down can inhibit the good and fair judgment of school resource officers to issue arrests where they may be 

warranted. And those arrests then feed into the system in a way 

that could have been constructive in this case. 

51 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay, thank you, Mr. Eden. Sheriff Carter, thank 

you so much for being here. Thank you for your service. Could you 

talk a little bit about the reason why school resource officers were 

placed in the schools in the first place? 

Sheriff CARTER. The reason they are placed there in the first 

place? 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Years ago, when we put police officers in the 

school, what was the reasoning behind that? 

Sheriff CARTER. My experience is, again, because of incidents of 

school violence, the public demanded to have law enforcement officers placed in schools. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Did it have anything to do with improving the relationship between local law enforcement and the communities in 

which they served, starting with our young people? 

Sheriff CARTER. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. You talked earlier about some of the challenges. 

You said everybody comes together, the school officials and all, to 

deal with the problem had you received a tip, information, to see 

whether it was just, you know, fake or not. Could you talk a little 

bit about your process from receiving the information and then resulting in an arrest? What is kind of the steps that you would take 

in that process? 

Sheriff CARTER. Well, when we receive the information, we have 

to validate the information. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. And it does not mean, every time that you receive 

information, that it is going to lead to an arrest. Is that correct? 

Sheriff CARTER. That is correct. You have to have probable cause 

to make an arrest. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. And could you kind of explain a little bit for those 

who might know what that means? 

Sheriff CARTER. Well, probable cause means that a reasonable 

person would believe that a crime either has been or is being committed. My point is, when we receive information, you have to follow up on the information. And you may have to wake people up, 

you may have to disturb people’s family issues, things that they are 

dealing with. But we all know, let’s get to the bottom of this, and 

let’s find out is there a crime that has been committed or is going 

to be committed. What can we do about what we have heard? And 

then, you start that process, that investigative process. 

At the end of that process, if a crime has been committed, or you 

believe that there needs to be some law enforcement action taken 

above just a consensual search or above just an interview, then 

those things are done. 

Now, the one positive thing with regard to that relationship with 

school officials is, if you have no probable cause. Let’s say you cannot make a charge. At least, then, the school officials know this 

rumor or this incident was connected to this child. It is what I 

mentioned earlier about that relationship between that school resource officer and that principal. You want to make sure that those 

people are communicating. 

In the event that you cannot make a charge, at least they know 

that maybe I have a behavioral issue here with this child. Maybe 

there is a family issue here with this child. But at least we know 

52 

that there is something, some services that need to be directed towards the child, need to be taking place. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

This concludes today’s hearings, and thanks to all of the witnesses 

for attending. Yes, the gentlewoman from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You were closing. Before you gaveled, I wanted to close or say a word. I do not know if you want me to say it 

now. Are you yielding to me now, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, last time I yielded to you for unanimous consent request, you went a bit beyond that, so. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will be contained by my thank yous. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for thank 

yous. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I did not get a chance to pose a question to 

you, Sheriff Carter, but I was impressed by the work that you are 

doing. That you go after violent individuals, or you help us with 

school safety. And I want to make sure that you know that I appreciated it. And there is, Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, a distinction 

that I hope Mr. Eden will fully understand, maybe working with 

Ms. Harper, between the infractions that our children should be allowed to be counselled and grow. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Where is the thank you? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am thanking for Ms. Harper for her words, 

and Mr. Eden, and hope they will work together so that we do not 

have the disparate treatment of young people, but we have secure 

schools and fair treatment of all young people. I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, okay. Without objection, all members 

will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions 

for the witnesses and additional materials for the record. And without objection, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ