[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-630 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
NOVEMBER 17, 2015
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 1
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 4
WITNESS
The Honorable Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, United States
Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 7
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 88
Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Loretta E.
Lynch, Attorney General, United States Department of Justi95
deg.OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
Unprinted Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable Cedric Richmond, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Louisiana, and Member, Committee on
the Judiciary. This material is available at the Committee and can
be accessed at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104114.
Material submitted by the Honorable David N. Cicilline, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary. This material is available at
the Committee and can be accessed at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104114.
OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2015
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob
Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Smith,
Chabot, Issa, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe,
Chaffetz, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, Collins, DeSantis, Walters,
Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Bishop, Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren,
Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Pierluisi, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez,
Bass, Richmond, DelBene, Jeffries, and Cicilline.
Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff &
General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief
Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel;
Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Chris Grieco,
Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security,
and Investigations; Kelsey Williams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry
Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown,
Parliamentarian & Chief Legislative Counsel; Aaron Hiller,
Chief Oversight Counsel; Tiffany Joslyn, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Slade
Bond, Counsel; Kurt May, Counsel; Eric Williams, Counsel; and
Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Goodlatte. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will
come to order.
And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on the
oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice. And I'll begin by
recognizing myself for an opening statement.
Welcome, Attorney General Lynch, to your first appearance
before the House Judiciary Committee since your confirmation
earlier this year. And we are very pleased to have you here
with us.
Last week, we witnessed horrific terrorist attacks in Paris
which claimed the lives of over 120 innocent civilians and for
which ISIS has taken credit. Our thoughts and prayers remain
with the French people, and we mourn with them.
At the same time, these terrorist attacks are a stark
reminder that ISIS poses a threat to our allies and America.
Yet this reality is not clearly seen by our President. Just
hours before the attack, President Obama boasted that ISIS is
contained. ISIS is not contained in Syria, it is not contained
in Europe, and we know ISIS is continuing its campaign of
propaganda here in the U.S.
We know from the Paris attacks that at least one of the
perpetrators was registered as a refugee from Syria in
countries through which he traveled on his way to France. Just
last month, FBI Director Comey told this Committee that the
U.S. refugee vetting process is not adequate to guarantee that
Syrians referred for resettlement in the U.S. are not
terrorists who plan to harm us. Yet the President presses on
with his plan to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees
during this fiscal year alone.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue,
considering that the top counterterrorism investigator in the
U.S. consistently states that the databases and law enforcement
resources are not available to properly vet Syrians.
Furthermore, reports indicate that, despite repeated
congressional action to the contrary, this Administration
thinks terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, who are cut from the same
cloth as the Paris attackers and many of whom are deemed too
dangerous for release to foreign countries, should be brought
to the United States. Transferring these combatants to the
United States will only increase their odds of being released
inside the U.S.
These public and national security concerns, coupled with
unanswered questions about the cost and logistics of bringing
detainees into the U.S., should cause the Administration to hit
``pause'' on its reckless decision to close its Guantanamo
detention facility. Enemy combatants should remain outside of
the United States, where they can be detained away from our
communities and without needlessly jeopardizing the safety and
security of the American people.
In addition to the mounting national security threats
facing the Department of Justice, I would also like to focus on
the need for an impartial Justice Department. Americans have
become more and more suspicious that their government agencies
are biased. To understand this, one need look no further than
the well-founded allegations that the IRS targeted conservative
groups for extra scrutiny.
After numerous appeals to appoint a special counsel to
investigate this, last month the Justice Department announced
that no criminal prosecution would be brought against IRS
personnel in connection with this matter. It is not difficult
to understand why a special counsel was needed, given that only
those organizations opposed to the President's overreaching
agenda were targeting by high-ranking IRS officials.
Apparently, officials at the IRS share Secretary Clinton's
abhorrent notion that Republicans are ``the enemy.''
I am profoundly disturbed the Administration's handling of
this matter. At every turn, President Obama and Administration
officials repeatedly and publicly undermined the investigation.
When the House of Representatives took the responsible step of
calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate
the matter, our concerns and those of the individuals targeted
by the IRS went unresolved by the Administration.
Madam Attorney General, now that your department has
concluded its investigation, I look forward to discussing the
Department's decision with you in greater detail.
Given the controversy surrounding the Administration's
mishandling of the IRS targeting scandal, it is critical that
the Justice Department clearly demonstrate to the American
people that it will handle with impartiality its investigation
surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of
a private e-mail server for official purposes.
Earlier this year, two inspectors general reported that
classified information was contained within the private e-mails
of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and have referred
the matter to the Justice Department. During his appearance
before the Committee last month, FBI Director Comey vowed that
this investigation will be conducted ``promptly,
professionally, and independently.'' Rest assured, Congress and
the American people will hold both the Bureau and the
Department to this standard.
The Committee also remains concerned that the Department is
subverting Congress' budget authority by using settlements to
funnel money to third-party interest groups. The concern is
institutional and nonpartisan. Yet, rather than suspend the
practice, DOJ has expanded it, while quietly obstructing the
Committee's investigation.
Last week, the Department finally produced a small subset
of relevant documents that the Committee requested 11 months
ago. I would like to know, Madam Attorney General, what you, as
an experienced prosecutor, would do if a large corporation
behaved this way in an investigation.
As we sit with you today, Attorney General Lynch, law
enforcement agencies across the country face profound
challenges. Thirty-one police officers have been shot to death
this year alone. In many places, officers are understandably
asking whether it is worth pursuing violent criminals or
otherwise putting themselves in harm's way, less they be the
targets of intentional violence or community backlash.
Force must be used appropriately, and police officers must
take proper steps to protect innocent civilians. However,
irresponsible anti-police activity from many in the advocacy
community and the Justice Department's ongoing efforts to
micromanage State and local police agencies have only served to
exacerbate the divide between police and citizens. This trend
cannot continue.
Many American cities have seen a spike in violent crime. In
Baltimore, homicides are up 71 percent. In August of this year,
the number of murders here in Washington, D.C., already matched
the number for all of 2014. Other cities have seen similar
increases in violent crime. Despite these grim statistics,
however, the Obama administration has continued to support
initiatives that will only exacerbate this violence.
On November 1 of this year, nearly 6,000 Federal drug
offenders were released from prison, pursuant to a 2014
Sentencing Commission amendment which the Justice Department
supported. Over the next 2 years, some additional 10,000
offenders will be released early. This ill-advised amendment
applies without regard to an inmate's criminal history and will
result in the release of some dangerous violent criminals as
well as illegal criminal aliens.
As you know, the Committee has introduced bipartisan
legislation to institute meaningful sentencing reform while
preventing release of serious violent criminals.
Speaking of releasing violent criminals, the murder of Kate
Steinle in San Francisco earlier this year is a tragic reminder
that the lack of appropriate immigration enforcement in our
Nation today and the reckless sanctuary policies in many cities
across the country can have deadly consequences.
It is not enough for Administration officials to pay lip
service to the problems presented by sanctuary cities. Federal
agencies, including the Justice Department, must take
meaningful steps to ensure that criminal aliens released from
Federal custody are promptly deported.
Attorney General Lynch, I look forward to hearing your
views on all these important topics today, as well as on other
issues of significance to the Justice Department and to our
Nation.
Thank you.
And now I'm pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of the
Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. Your opening
statement could be the basis of a hearing all of its own. And I
appreciate your views.
Madam Attorney General, welcome to the House Judiciary
Committee.
Nearly 7 months ago, after much delay in the Senate, you
took over the Department of Justice with not one but two tours
of duty at the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New
York. You are unquestionably the right leader at the right time
for the important work of the Department of Justice.
Nowhere is your leadership more important than in national
security. The attacks on Paris, France, leave no doubt that our
most pressing mission, yours and ours, remains protecting the
American people.
And, unfortunately, history shows that tragic events like
these are followed by calls for drastic action. Already we have
heard proposals to undo encryption, to roll back surveillance
reform, and deport some of the most vulnerable among us. I urge
restraint in these matters, Madam Attorney General. At this
time, we have very little information about how the attacks
were carried out.
Rather than use these events as an excuse to advance
policies that otherwise betray our values, I urge the
intelligence community, including the Department of Justice, to
focus on the most effective tools in our toolbox: targeted
surveillance, targeted investigation, and smart policing.
Back at home, you have cultivated strong relationships in
the police community, but you are not afraid to call out bad
behavior or to prosecute police officers when circumstances
warrant. That experience will prove invaluable as the
Department, along with this Committee, takes its next steps on
criminal justice reform.
Under your leadership, the Civil Rights Division continues
its work with police departments around the country to ensure
that State and local policing practices comport with the
Constitution.
The Office of Juvenile Justice is also working hard to
disrupt what you've called the cycle of criminality and
incarceration. I commend you for your work on this front, and I
look forward to our partnership as this Committee moves forward
with its own package of criminal justice reforms.
Another area where we look to you for leadership is
enforcement of voting rights. Earlier this year, observing the
50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, you remarked, ``It
is the lesson of every generation that the price of freedom is
constant vigilance. Because opponents of free and fair access
to the voting booth have neither retreated nor surrendered.''
The unfortunate truth of that statement plays out across
the country today, no place more vividly than in the State of
Alabama, where officials plan to close 31 driver's license
offices across the State, including those in every county in
which African-Americans make up more than 75 percent of
registered voters. Coupled with Alabama's strict new voter ID
law, these closings will make it even harder for many citizens
to obtain the identification now required to cast a vote.
The discriminatory impact of this plan plays out in other
ways too. Imagine having to drive hundreds of miles across
rural Alabama to renew your driver's license. We know that this
burden will weigh heaviest on the State's poorest citizens.
Borrowing again from your words, ``It is incumbent on all
of us to stand up, to speak out, and to make clear that no end
is worth the means of disenfranchisement, no small-minded
policy is worth the cheapening of our democracy.''
Finally, Madam Attorney General, I want to comment on the
virtue of your being a new leader at the Department of Justice
ready to make a fresh start with this Committee. Today, you
will hear questions, no doubt, about Benghazi, Planned
Parenthood, Solyndra, Operation Fast and Furious, and Lois
Lerner at the IRS. These are not matters that affect a whole
lot of our constituents, but you will hear questions about them
and comments anyway. My advice to you--that you don't need--is
stick to the facts and the law, and you'll be fine.
We know that some Members are displeased with the outcome
of the Department's investigation into the Lois Lerner matter,
but we also know that your investigators were as thorough as
can be. They conducted over 100 interviews, collected more than
1 million pages of documents, and closely analyzed almost 500
applications for tax-exempt status.
Some Members may wish your predecessor had appointed a
special counsel to investigate the matter, but both the plain
text of the applicable regulations and the congressional
research tell us otherwise. The facts of the case did not
involve senior Administration officials. They did not present a
conflict of interest to the Department of Justice. And so the
appointment of a special counsel was simply not appropriate in
this matter.
Too often, your predecessor, who I still admire, found
himself the target of personal insults in this Committee and
elsewhere. And I like to think that all of us in this room and
on this Committee regret the frequent attacks on his character
or at least realize that those attacks were almost entirely
unproductive.
We have a chance to start over today. We can do better.
Progressives and conservatives, Congress and the
Administration, there is so much common ground between us to be
explored, particularly in the work of the Department of
Justice. And so I am so glad that you're here with us today,
and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
And, without objection, all other Members' opening
statements will be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. And we again welcome our distinguished
witness.
And if you would please rise, we'll begin by swearing you
in.
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Attorney General Lynch. I do.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much. And please be seated.
Let the record reflect that the witness has responded in
the affirmative.
I'll now begin by introducing our sole witness today, the
Attorney General of the United States, Ms. Loretta Lynch.
Attorney General Lynch was sworn in as the 83rd Attorney
General of the United States on April 27, 2015. She began her
career in public service by joining the United States
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York.
After 9 years, Ms. Lynch was appointed by President Bill
Clinton to lead that office as United States Attorney, a post
she held until 2001. Ms. Lynch then worked in private practice
until 2010, when President Obama asked her to resume leadership
of the United States Attorney's Office in Brooklyn.
Ms. Lynch is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law
School.
Attorney General Lynch, we welcome your first appearance
before the Judiciary Committee and look forward to your
testimony. Your entire written statement will be made a part of
the record, and we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5
minutes.
Thank you. And please begin at your convenience.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Good morning, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers,
and distinguished Members of this Committee. I am very grateful
for the opportunity to appear before you today to share some of
the recent accomplishments of the U.S. Department of Justice,
to discuss some of my top priorities as Attorney General, and
to explore ways that we can continue to work together.
I do want to begin, however, by commenting on Friday's
reprehensible and heartbreaking attacks in Paris. The
Department of Justice and, indeed, the entire Obama
Administration stand in solidarity with France, just as France
has so often stood with us. As President Obama said, this is
not just an attack on Paris or the people of France; it is an
attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we
share.
We are committed to doing everything within our power to
assist our French law enforcement colleagues in bringing those
responsible for this monstrous act of terror to justice. And,
as we go forward, our thoughts and our prayers of course remain
with the victims and their loved ones.
Now, as this distinguished Committee well knows, our
Nationfaces a host of serious, varied, and evolving challenges.
Our highest priority must always be the security of our
homeland, and we are acting aggressively to defuse threats as
they emerge.
We are working around the clock to uncover and disrupt
plots that take aim at our people, our infrastructure, and our
way of life. We continue to investigate and apprehend those who
seek to harm us, including upwards of 70 individuals charged
since 2013 for conduct related to foreign-fighter activity and
homegrown violent extremism. And, of course, we remain focused
on the threat posed by domestic extremists, as well.
At the same time, we are placing particular emphasis on
countering security threats in cyberspace. We are perpetually
on guard against individuals, organized groups, terrorists, and
state actors who might attempt to steal our data, endanger our
economy, compromise our privacy, and threaten our security.
In recognition of the need for strong public-private
partnerships, we have created a new cybersecurity unit within
our Criminal Division's Computer Crime and Intellectual
Property Section and announced a National Security Division
outreach initiative designed to promote information sharing and
resilience as part of the division's National Asset Protection
Program.
I have also been meeting personally with corporate
executives and general counsels around the country to spread
our message of cyber awareness, to encourage strategic
collaboration, and to find new ways to protect American
consumers.
Now, of course, to bring about the stronger Nation that we
all seek, we must also empower the communities within our
borders.
Across this country, brave police officers risk their lives
every day to protect our neighborhoods and serve the residents
of their jurisdictions, and we are tremendously grateful for
their dedication and their valor. But we have seen the
devastating results of mistrust between law enforcement
officers and the citizens we serve, and we've experienced the
consequences when decades of tension erupt into unrest.
During the first 100 days of my tenure, I conducted a six-
city community policing tour to engage with communities that
have made significant progress in this area. In each city, I
convened roundtable discussions that included law enforcement
officers, public officials, civic leaders, and young people,
where participants shared some of the most effective ways that
citizens and law enforcement officers could join forces to
foster trust, to build respect, and to spread mutual
understanding.
Restoring that essential trust between communities and law
enforcement is one of my top priorities as Attorney General.
And the Department intends to do everything we can to foster
those bonds and to create safer and fairer communities across
the country.
Now, we are also paying special attention to vulnerable
victims in our communities, particularly those caught in the
clutches of human trafficking. In September, I announced that
the Department would be extending $44 million in new grant
funding to help support research, bring more traffickers to
justice, and care for survivors.
And, at this moment, I really want to thank our partners in
Congress for their efforts. By tripling human-trafficking-
related funding for our Office of Justice programs in fiscal
year 2015, Congress was instrumental in allowing us to increase
our grant funding in this critical area. This October marks the
15th anniversary of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act,
which is certainly a fitting occasion to redouble our
commitment to eradicating this pernicious practice.
And, finally, I'd like to address our efforts on criminal
justice reform at the Federal level.
I commend the Committee Members who have come together to
help chart a new course on criminal justice that will make our
society both stronger and more secure. It is of course built,
in part, on the success of the Smart on Crime initiative that
my predecessor, Attorney General Eric Holder, launched in 2013,
which shifted our approach away from harsh mandatory sentences
for low-level drug offenses and enabled us to focus on more
significant violent defendants, while better supporting
rehabilitation and reentry programs that can reduce recidivism
and promote public safety.
But more must be done. Prison spending has increasingly
displaced other critical public safety investments, and to make
our sentencing laws more efficient, more effective, and more
just, congressional action is needed. Reform has been embraced
by prosecutors, law enforcement, and policymakers of all
stripes, and the Justice Department is eager to see meaningful
sentencing reform enacted during this Congress. And we thank
you for the chance to work with you on that.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you so much for the
chance to speak with you today. And thank you all for your
ongoing support of the Justice Department's efforts. I look
forward to working closely with you to advance the objectives
that we all share.
And I'm pleased to answer questions from this body at this
time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Attorney General Lynch follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, General Lynch.
We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions
for the witnesses, and I'll begin by recognizing myself.
Yesterday, a video reportedly linked to ISIS was posted
stating that, ``As we struck France in the center of its abode
in Paris, then we swear that we will strike America at its
center in Washington.''
Now, there is little doubt that ISIS views the United
States and the West as a strategic enemy, and there is little
doubt that our immigration laws, our lawful immigration laws,
have been abused on a number of occasions by people intending
to perpetrate harm against the United States.
Do you agree with what your own FBI Director, James Comey,
told this Committee regarding the inability to adequately vet
and confirm the true identity because of the lack of
information, databases, law enforcement resources, intelligence
resources, and military resources available to us in Syria of
Syrians who have applied for refugee resettlement in the United
States?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to that important issue, as I've indicated,
the most important priority of the Department of Justice is the
protection of the American people. And, certainly, national
security and terrorism are one of my own top priorities and
certainly an area of concern for all of us. That is certainly
our main concern.
At the same time, we do have a system for allowing not just
immigration but refugee entrance into the country. As the FBI
Director has noted, there is a process in place that allows for
significant vetting of refugees from all countries.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, let me interrupt, because he said
something contrary with regard to the situation with Syrians.
He said, ``We can query our database till the cows come home,
but there will be nothing to show up because we have no record
on that person.''
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, with respect to the
databases that the Director was referring to, as he noted, I
believe, before this Committee, there is a screening process
that has data from several different agencies. The FBI
participates, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland
Security, National Counterterrorism Center. And much
information is vetted and queried.
Certainly, a lot of the information that is vetted does
have to be inputted into the system.
Mr. Goodlatte. In the case of Syria, you can't go to the
government offices in that country. They're in disarray. You
can't go interview people who know people who are applying for
this status.
Do you disagree with the FBI Director when he says that
vetting Syrian refugees is extremely difficult, if not
impossible?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure he
said it was impossible. Certainly, not only the Department of
Justice but all of our agencies will make every effort to vet
every refugee coming into this country, from the databases, to
the interviews that those individuals are subject to, to the
biometric screening as well.
Mr. Goodlatte. Let me go on.
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, there are challenges to
that process because of the situation in Syria. But I would
note, however, that we do have the benefit of having that
significant and robust screening process in place--a process
that Europe has not been able to set up, which renders them
much more vulnerable.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I think we'll be vulnerable, too, when
it comes to people from Syria, when we can't get access to
those databases because the country is in disarray, and we
can't even gather information, fresh, new, because we can't
access the people that we could talk to.
Let me move on to another topic. The latest available data
from the Justice Department shows that, during fiscal year
2015, the government reported 6,002 new weapons convictions.
This number is down 5.8 percent from the previous fiscal year,
when the number of convictions totaled 6,373. Compared to 5
years ago, when there were 7,101 weapons convictions, the
number for fiscal year 2015 is down 15.5 percent. Convictions
over the past year are lower than they were 10 years ago.
Overall, the data show that convictions of this type, weapons
violations, are down 34.8 percent from the level of 9,206
reported in 2005.
The President has repeatedly called for new gun control
laws, yet your department has seen weapons prosecutions and
convictions fall to levels not seen in over a decade.
How do you explain such a precipitous drop in weapon
prosecutions and convictions under this Administration? And why
is such little emphasis placed on these types of prosecutions,
when the President has called for yet more laws when the
current laws are not being enforced?
Attorney General Lynch. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
question.
With regard to the Department of Justice enforcement of the
gun laws, we take those gun laws very seriously and are
committed to using the full panoply of laws and regulations on
the books.
We typically use those laws at the Federal level in
conjunction with our many and numerous violent crime
initiatives. For example, in my former position as U.S.
attorney in the Eastern District of New York, many of our gang
cases also carried with them firearms charges. They would not
necessarily be the lead charge, they may not be reflected in
the data that you have, but they certainly are an important
tool in every prosecutor's arsenal in combating violent crime.
In the discussions----
Mr. Goodlatte. Then why aren't they being prosecuted for
those violations?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. Goodlatte. Then why aren't they being prosecuted for
those violations related to firearms?
And, by the way, this doesn't just mean using a firearm in
the commission of crime. It also means illegal sales of
firearms. It means lying on the Instant Check System of which,
for the last year for which we have complete data, 76,000
people were found to have committed the felony of swearing to
false information on that form. Five thousand were referred for
prosecution, but the 94 U.S. attorneys' offices across the
country could only find time to prosecute 62 out of 76,000.
So somebody going into a gun store to buy a weapon knows
that, even if they're caught--and often they're not caught
because the system doesn't have all the information it needs in
it--but even if they're caught, they often find that the odds
are one in a thousand that they'll be prosecuted even when
they're caught.
What are you doing about that? What should be done about
it? And why has this decline been so precipitous over the last
several years?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, with respect to
the types of cases that are prosecuted, as I indicated, a lot
of the firearms prosecutions are done in conjunction with our
violent crime program, and they may not show up in your
statistics as the lead charges. They are a significant part of
the arsenal that every Federal prosecutor utilizes.
Most recently, I've convened a summit with the top elected
officials, police chiefs, and leaders of major cities to talk
about violent crime that's currently taking place in several
major cities, with a focus on finding the causes and finding
the best ways to direct Federal resources to those particular
cities.
Mr. Goodlatte. Can we expect these prosecutions to go up as
a result of that?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, what we do is we look
at the root causes of violence in a particular area. If, for
example, the firearms were the main issue there, we would focus
our efforts there. We follow the facts and the evidence.
Mr. Goodlatte. Not necessarily prosecute for the gun
violation.
So, if that's the case, would you agree with me, then, that
it doesn't make sense to add new gun laws, when we already have
hundreds of them that are not being enforced today and you
don't seem to anticipate an increase in the use of those
current laws to prosecute people who misuse firearms?
Attorney General Lynch. I think, at this point, it would be
difficult to speculate as to what numbers would look in a year
with respect to any particular criminal program.
What I would say is the Department of Justice is committed
to using the full panoply of laws that are currently on the
books as part of our violent crime initiative, as part of our
desire to keep all communities safe. And that does include our
firearms laws.
Mr. Goodlatte. I want to cover one more topic that concerns
me greatly.
During the FBI's investigation of the IRS matter, the
President stated on Super Bowl Sunday that there was not ``even
a smidgeon of corruption at the IRS.'' At the end of that
investigation, no charges were filed.
Two weeks ago, the President stated with respect to
Secretary Clinton's e-mails, ``This is not a situation in which
America's national security was endangered.''
Should we expect that when the FBI finishes its
investigation of this matter that no charges will be filed?
Does the Department allow statements by the President to
dictate its investigative practices?
Attorney General Lynch. Mr. Chairman, the Department
reviews facts and evidence submitted before it. We apply the
law to those facts and evidence. We take all the appropriate
steps in every matter that we review. And that is how we will
essentially manage every matter under our purview, whether it
relates to the IRS, to an e-mail matter, or every matter that
comes before us.
And with respect to the President's comments, they have no
influence or bearing on how the Department manages these
matters. And I would have to refer you to him for a review of
those.
Mr. Goodlatte. I'm glad to hear you say that. In your view,
wasn't it inappropriate for the President to once again inject
his personal views into an ongoing FBI investigation?
Attorney General Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I really don't have a
comment on the President's expression of his views.
Mr. Goodlatte. He's the chief executive officer of the
United States, and everything that operates within the
executive branch is under his purview, including the very
important independent nature of the FBI in conducting its
investigations.
Wouldn't it be better if the President of the United States
did not comment on the merits of those investigations while
they're going on?
Attorney General Lynch. Mr. Chairman, I really don't have a
comment on the President's statements.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Michigan, for his questions.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Chairman Goodlatte.
Attorney General Lynch, I want to thank you again for
speaking at my panel at this year's Congressional Black Caucus
Legislative Forum. It was marvelous.
At that event, you spoke about the breakdown in trust
between law enforcement and the communities they serve. You
also spoke about getting to the root of the problem with a
comprehensive approach to training, to policy, and to research.
Many of the law enforcement officers in attendance agreed
with your comments. How are you planning on reaching out to the
broader law enforcement community to promote these ideas?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman Conyers.
This is, in fact, one of my top priorities as Attorney
General. And I'm incredibly proud to say that the Department of
Justice has already begun the type of outreach that I was
discussing at that particular event.
Through our COPS Office, in particular, the Community-
Oriented Policing Service Office, we reach out directly to
police departments across the country and offer technical
assistance, we offer training, we offer peer-to-peer support.
We have found that an incredibly effective way to share
information within the law enforcement community is peer-to-
peer, police-officer-to-police-officer, chief-to-chief. And so
we work with the departments that have, in fact, made great
strides in the area of police-community relations and seek to
match them up with other departments who are having challenges
in this area and who would be receptive to their input.
I also, as I noted in my opening statement, have been on a
six-city community policing tour. And as I talk with residents,
with young people, elected leaders, I also talk with police
officers. I do meet with chiefs and supervisors, but I also
talk to the rank-and-file, the officers who are on the beats of
our cities, to get their ideas as to what has worked in their
city, as to why a positive relationship has developed in the
cities where they have had challenges and where they have had
struggles.
I have listened to their stories of commitment and
dedication and to their embrace of community policing and
concern for residents as a program and policy that makes
policing more efficient and that makes communities safer. And
I'm incredibly proud to support those efforts.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
In recent weeks, there have been some suggestions, some
from within your department, that our dialogue on these issues
have somehow reduced the willingness of some police officers to
perform their duties.
I know of no real evidence to substantiate this claim, but,
in your opinion, does that conversation about civil rights and
the appropriate use of force by police somehow make us less
safe?
Attorney General Lynch. Mr. Congressman, our discussion
about civil rights and the appropriate use of force and all
police tactics can only serve to make all of us, the community
members and police officers, safer.
In my discussions with police officers around the country,
I have found a positive engagement on these issues. I have
found them to have some of the best thoughts and best practices
to share with other departments on these issues--issues like
the best practices for deescalation of certain situations,
issues like the best practices for maintaining a relationship
with community organizations and citizens councils, issues on
police safety. They've provided us valuable input in our
program, such as providing bulletproof vests, body-worn
cameras. They are focusing on the best ways to use these new
technologies.
So, while certainly there may be anecdotal evidence there,
as all have noted, there's no data to support it. And what I
have seen in my travels across this country is the dedication,
the commitment, and the resolve of our brave men and women in
law enforcement to improving policing, to embracing the 21st-
Century Task Force recommendations, and to continuing to have a
dialogue that makes our country safer for all.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
The State of Alabama's plan to close 31 driver's license
offices demonstrates how one policy decision can have wide-
ranging discriminatory effects. The media's picked up on this.
And this will make it harder for citizens of these rural
counties to vote.
And I'm just as concerned about the discriminatory economic
effects of this decision, which will fall hardest on rural,
poor, and African-American communities. I imagine a Black
farmer driving hundreds of miles across rural Alabama to renew
an expired driver's license. And, on this Committee, we know
what might happen to such a young man.
What tools does the Department have to combat
discrimination in all of the ways it manifests itself? And how
are you going to be using these tools in this case?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman.
With respect to the Department's enforcement of our various
civil rights statutes, it is certainly robust and will continue
to be so. While we no longer have the advantage of the
preclearance provisions that were in the Voting Rights Act, we
still have significant provisions of the Voting Rights Act that
allow us to review actions and decisions taken, albeit after
the fact, to determine whether there has been either a
discriminatory intent or, as is very often the case, a
discriminatory result.
We can engage in negotiation and conversations. Many times,
we do that before we even move to litigation in an attempt to
reason with or have a discussion with entities that are making
significant changes. And often those discussions are very
productive. I was pleased to see that, after discussions with
Members of Congress, the State of Alabama may be making some
modifications to those changes. And, certainly, those types of
discussions are an efficient way to bring about change and
raise these important issues.
But I will reiterate, Congressman, that the Department of
Justice is committed to enforcing the civil rights laws that we
do have on the books. And we are committed to a vigorous review
of matters that are brought to our attention and will ensure
full and fair and efficient review of those matters and take
the action that is appropriate.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much.
Last question. More than 30,000 people die from gun
violence in this country every year. What can this Committee,
the Committee on the Judiciary, right now do that would save at
least some of those lives?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Mr. Congressman, I think
there is a significant debate and discussion going on as to how
to best save lives in that situation. And I think that all
voices are necessary in that debate and discussion.
And, certainly, if Congress were to consider new laws, I'm
sure this Committee would be deeply involved in discussions.
And that is, of course, up to Congress as part of your purview,
and the Department would be happy to work with you with regard
to that.
I think that we also have to look at the root causes of the
violence. As I indicated in a response to an earlier question,
just last month I convened a summit on violence of several of
the leaders of our major cities--police chiefs and mayors, as
well as police executives. And what the Department is doing is
looking for ways to identify the root causes of so much of the
violence that we are seeing.
Even as violence is at historic lows nationwide, we still
have some communities that struggle with this issue. In some
instances, it is gun violence. In some instances, we see an
increase in drug use--methamphetamines, heroin, opioids. And so
we are trying to find our best ways to focus our resources
there.
Just yesterday, I met with representatives from the
National Conference of Mayors and had discussions on these very
issues, about the differences that all communities present and
the need to have a full and robust discussion about these
issues.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much for your testimony and your
views.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
Madam Attorney General, welcome. We hope to be seeing you
for a bit, at least for the next 14 months.
I have a question relative to the issue of the Guantanamo
detainees. Congress recently passed and the President is
expected to sign into law legislation that explicitly prohibits
the use of Federal funds to move detainees from Guantanamo Bay
to the United States.
Former White House Counsel Gregory Craig recently wrote an
op-ed arguing that the law is unconstitutional and that
President Obama can legally ignore it. Since you are America's
top lawyer, do you believe that President Obama could legally
ignore legislation prohibiting the transfer of detainees to
American soil?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
What I would say on this issue certainly is, as the
Administration has stated, the closure of Guantanamo Bay is
something that is part of the Administration's policy, and the
Department of Justice supports that, as well.
At this point in time, I believe the current state of the
law is that individuals are not transferred from Guantanamo to
U.S. shores. That position is reiterated by the legislation
that you mention. And my understanding, as you indicated, is
that I do believe the President has indicated that he would
sign that.
And, certainly, it's the position of the Department of
Justice that we would follow the law of the land in regard to
that issue.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, the question I had is, do you
believe that the law is unconstitutional, as Mr. Craig has
opined in last week's Washington Post? And would you ignore the
law based upon that argument?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Mr. Congressman, I'm actually
not familiar enough with Mr. Craig's analysis to comment on
that. So I'm not able to comment on his views about the
statute.
Certainly, with respect to the existing state of the law,
the Department of Justice is committed to fully following that.
And the closure of Guantanamo Bay is being carried out in
compliance with that law.
And so I believe that it is the view of the Department that
we would certainly observe the laws as passed by Congress and
signed by the President. Only very rarely would we take the
step of finding that an unconstitutional provision was
something that we could not manage. We would, of course, seek
to work with Congress and the Administration to resolve that
issue.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Now, does this mean that you think it's
okay for the President to transfer these people, who are some
of the world's most dangerous terrorists, to countries other
than the United States but it would not be okay for him to
transfer them to the United States?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Mr. Congressman, the current
state of the law allows for the transfer of certain detainees
from Guantanamo Bay, those that after a vigorous review process
are placed in that transfer category, to countries that, after
significant vetting and promises of management, can accept
them.
With respect to individuals being transferred to the United
States, the law currently does not allow for that. And that is
not, as I am aware of, going to be contemplated, given the
legal proscriptions.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay.
Let me ask one question on an unrelated matter. As you may
know, the House, last month, passed a bill called the Judicial
Redress Act, which, in my opinion, is essential to enforcing an
umbrella agreement to transfer law enforcement information from
certain European countries to the United States and vice versa.
If the Senate fails to pass this bill, in your opinion,
what will be the effect on the sharing of law enforcement data
with certain of our European allies?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman.
We fully support the Judicial Redress Act. And I actually
would like to thank you and the other Members of this Committee
for the important work that you've done on this issue.
As you have noted, this legislation is critical to
continued law enforcement sharing of information from the U.S.
and the European Union. In fact, I have been involved in
discussions with ministers from the European Union on the Data
Protection Act, often called the Umbrella Act, as well as the
Judicial Redress Act.
It certainly is our view that this important legislation
should be passed. It would provide, as you know, redress for
European Union citizens should there be an unauthorized or
misuse of their data here in the U.S., which is a privilege
enjoyed by U.S. citizens within the European Union.
Without this, we do have a grave risk of not having the
completion of the data protection or umbrella agreement. And I
think, sadly, recent events have shown us the importance, the
critical nature, of making sure that we have these safe and
secure portals for transferring information from one law
enforcement entity to another.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Let me make one point, as my time is
expiring. While the Judicial Redress Act does not deal with the
sharing of counterterrorism information, there frequently is an
interface between those who want to commit terrorist activity
and those who do commit petty crimes which would end up being
in the law enforcement file.
And I would just look at today's New York Times, where
comments relative to the attack in Paris and what apparently
happened in a neighborhood in Brussels, where it says, ``In a
neighborhood known for extremists, a trail of petty crimes and
missed plots.'' The Judicial Redress Act might be able to put
the pieces of the puzzle together from petty crimes so that
there can been missed plots.
Thank you for your support.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Nadler, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. I thank the Chairman.
And I thank the Attorney General.
Madam Attorney General, in the immediate aftermath of the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Department of
Justice established and oversaw a victims' compensation fund
that provided more than $7 billion to families who lost loved
ones on that day.
In the years after the attacks, it became clear that
thousands of first responders and survivors continued to suffer
major health consequences from the attacks and their aftermath.
Thousands of lawsuits were filed against contractors and others
by these victims.
In 2010, Congress enacted the James Zadroga Act, which
provided essential healthcare services to those in need and
reopened the Victim Compensation Fund to those families whose
losses became apparent after September 11, providing them an
alternative to litigation. In the last 5 years, the Victim
Compensation Fund has provided nearly 6,300 first responders
and survivors with $1.4 billion in compensation determinations.
Since we enacted the bill, I am aware of no further 9/11-
related lawsuits.
Despite its current success, on September 30, 2015,
Congress allowed the VCF and the World Trade Center Health
Program to expire. Fortunately, there is legislation pending in
the House to permanently reauthorize the Victim Compensation
Fund and the World Trade Center Health Program. The bill now
has the cosponsorship of 247 cosponsors, a majority of the
House, including more than 50 Republicans, and a filibuster-
proof majority in the Senate, with 65 cosponsors.
If Congress fails to act, thousands of first responders and
survivors will lose access to compensation on which they depend
to support their families when they are tragically gone. The
VCF is preparing to shutter its operations once it has
processed existing claims. If the VCF is not fully funded and
reauthorized, the first responders and survivors who have
already received the notice of their compensation could
actually see that amount cut by up to 50 percent.
We are literally talking about taking money out of the
hands of a sick police officer. I am deeply saddened to think
that is how Congress plans to remember the heroes of 9/11.
Attorney General Lynch, do you agree that this is not the
proper way to honor the heroes of 9/11? Don't you think that 9/
11 survivors and the firefighters and police officers who
risked their own lives to save them and have suffered health
consequences because of it deserve the full support of the
American people and a fully funded Victim Compensation Fund?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
This is, indeed, an important issue. Of course, we will
always be deeply indebted to those first responders and brave
men and women who risked their lives to search for and recover
victims, to remove debris at the site, to carry out the
recovery efforts at Ground Zero at 9/11.
It certainly is an important issue to me both as Attorney
General and as someone who was in New York on 9/11 and who had
friends and former colleagues who were in that group of those
who were on the scene and who were involved in those
activities. This is, in fact, a serious issue for those who
were affected by it, and I greatly appreciate your expression
of compassion for those who have fallen ill.
With respect to the bill that is currently pending,
certainly, on behalf of the Department of Justice, we would do
all that we could to work with you to make sure if there were
any questions or issues they could be addressed. And we hope
that there would be none.
This is, indeed, an important issue. And, again, I think it
is something that deserves, certainly, strong review, serious
consideration. And please let us know how the Department can be
of assistance to any of the Members as they consider this
important issue.
Mr. Nadler. Well, thank you.
As you may know, Chairman Goodlatte and others on the
Judiciary Committee have introduced legislation to reopen the
VCF. Unfortunately, their bill would open the fund only
temporarily and would authorize very limited funding. It was
heavily criticized as a result.
The Zadroga bill, however, is a permanent reauthorization
and has broad bipartisan support--again, 247 House cosponsors
and 65 Senate cosponsors. The Zadroga bill, like the black lung
program that we had for black lung survivors, like the nuclear
program we had for people who were irradiated as a result of
nuclear tests, is permanent, recognizing the permanent nature
of their disabilities.
I hope you will thank the President for signing the
original Zadroga bill into law in 2010 and do everything you
can to see that this legislation is permanently reauthorized
and fully funded as soon as possible.
Attorney General Lynch. Yes. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
I have another question on a different topic. Mr.
Sensenbrenner referred and you referred to the statute that
says that you can't bring Guantanamo detainees to the United
States. I think the Chairman in his opening remarks commented
obliquely that this might be dangerous to do so, et cetera.
My question is the following: Forgetting the legalities for
the moment, if Guantanamo were closed, if detainees were
brought to super-max security facilities, prisons in the United
States, in what conceivable way could this threaten anyone's
safety? In what conceivable way could housing someone in a
super-max Federal prison affect the local community, especially
when you're talking about 60 or 70 people, not 7,000 people,
throughout the country? And has anyone ever escaped from a
super-max Federal facility?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly, as a tribute to
the strong efforts of the Bureau of Prisons, I do not believe
anyone has escaped from super-max.
Mr. Nadler. Ever.
Attorney General Lynch. As far as I know, they have never
escaped from super-max. And, certainly, the men and women at
the Bureau of Prisons are dedicated professionals and do
everything in their power to run that institution in a way that
protects the American people but also contains the security
issues therein.
With respect to your question, Congressman, it certainly is
difficult to say. Obviously, I have the greatest pride and
respect for the brave men and women of the Bureau of Prisons.
Indeed, I feel that the men and women of the entire Department
of Justice can do anything. So, certainly, I think that they
are up to any task that is assigned to them. And, of course, we
look forward to working with Congress to consider these issues
should such a change be made.
Mr. Nadler. And so in other words, the summary of your
testimony is that bringing people to supermax prisons would
pose no danger to anyone in communities or in the United
States.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Mr. Congressman, certainly I
am not in a position to say that any prisoner poses no danger
ever. We certainly have the security regulations over a host of
dangerous inmates for very, very significant reasons. But I am
of course tremendously proud of the work of the men and women
of the Bureau of Prisons.
And of course this issue is one that is before Congress. I
believe it is going up, as has been indicated to the White
House. And we would work with Congress with respect to whatever
decisions are made in providing information that could best
inform its decisions.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I see my time has expired.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith,
for his questions.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Attorney General, under this Administration the
number of sanctuary cities has doubled to about 340
jurisdictions. As a result, many innocent Americans have been
killed. What are you doing to discourage jurisdictions from
claiming sanctuary status?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry, the last part of your
question, Congressman?
Mr. Smith. The number of sanctuary jurisdictions has
doubled under this Administration. What are you doing to
discourage municipalities from asserting sanctuary status? By
doing so, of course, they are endangering Americans, because
individuals released who commit crimes, including murder, rape,
and so forth. What are you doing to discourage sanctuary
cities?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, with respect to
the issues that you raise, certainly they are very serious. We
are committed to enforcing our criminal and immigration laws.
Mr. Smith. But there is a law on the books that prohibits
sanctuary cities. What are you doing to enforce that law?
Attorney General Lynch. I believe the designation of a
sanctuary city is something that was in the purview of----
Mr. Smith. No. It is actually in an act I introduced that
became law in 1996.
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry. I am having trouble
hearing you.
Mr. Smith. Okay. There is clearly a law in existence that
prohibits jurisdictions from refusing to cooperate with the
Federal Government when it comes to detaining criminal aliens,
criminal immigrants. What are you doing to enforce that law?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, where we have a situation
where that situation occurs we certainly would talk with that
jurisdiction. We would reach directly in and enforce the
criminal laws against the individuals themselves.
Mr. Smith. But you're not doing so. Give me one example
where you have enforced current law that prohibits
jurisdictions from claiming sanctuary status.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, what I'd like to do, sir, is
study that issue and provide information to you on that point.
Mr. Smith. I would hope that you'd have more knowledge
about enforcing immigration laws than that, but I will await
your report as to what you have done.
The next question is, a recent IG report found that
Chairman Chaffetz's Secret Service file was improperly accessed
and publicly disclosed by Secret Service managers. This may
have violated the Privacy Act, the Computer Abuse Act, and
perhaps amount to obstruction of justice. Have you taken any
disciplinary action whatsoever against the Secret Service
managers involved with the disclosure of that file?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, my understanding is
that that matter is being handled by their inspector general.
The Secret Service is part of the Department of Homeland
Security. And so with respect to those specific administrative
or disciplinary actions my understanding is that their
inspector general is reviewing that.
Mr. Smith. Some of the laws that may have been violated
come under your jurisdiction. Are you aware of any
investigation by DOJ into that matter or not?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm not able to comment at this
time. I would certainly provide information to you.
Mr. Smith. Okay. And you would certainly let the Member
involved know of any investigation, would you not?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. Smith. You would certainly let the Member involved know
of any investigation, would you not?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, typically we do not comment
on whether an investigation is open or not. With respect to
whether----
Mr. Smith. I know. I'm not asking you to comment publicly
on the details. I'm asking you if you would alert the Member if
there was an investigation ongoing?
Attorney General Lynch. Are you referring to the member of
the Secret Service?
Mr. Smith. No, the Member of Congress whose files were made
public.
Attorney General Lynch. The Member of Congress. Thank, you,
sir. We would certainly do everything we could to provide
whatever information we could consistent with our law
enforcement obligation.
Mr. Smith. Okay, thank you.
And then let me ask you one more question about the FBI,
and that is, to your knowledge, has the President or any White
House staff or you or any of your staff attempted to influence
the FBI's investigation of former Secretary Clinton?
Attorney General Lynch. No, sir.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Do you have any idea when that
investigation will be completed?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I'm not able to comment on
the status of that matter and we typically do not comment. And
also it's impossible to predict when any matter will be
concluded. So I'm not able to give you information on that.
Mr. Smith. Right. And I'm not asking for a comment on the
contents of the investigation, just an idea when it might be
finished. Or have you heard when it might be finished?
Attorney General Lynch. Sir, again, I'm not able to comment
on the timing of the conclusion of any matter.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Attorney General. It's a pleasure to have
you here, and I look forward to working with you, not only
today, but in the months ahead.
As you likely know, I am on the Immigration Subcommittee
and I follow closely what your Department is doing in that
arena. Your predecessor, Attorney General Holder, testified in
2013 before the Senate, and this is a direct quote: ``It is
inexcusable that young kids, 6, 7 year olds, 14 year olds, have
immigration decisions made on their behalf against them and
they're not represented by counsel.''
Now, in July of this year, the American Immigration Council
and several other organizations filed a class action lawsuit in
District Court in the Western District of Washington
challenging the validity of removal proceedings for children
without appointed counsel. And their argument was that an 8-
year-old couldn't receive a full and fair hearing in the
immigration court without representation.
As you know, I'm sure, the Administration has made efforts
to provide counsel to small children by funding nonprofit
groups, but the Assistant Attorney General who argued, I think
a Mr. Leon Fresco, actually argued contrary to that in the
District Court. And I'm wondering if the Department's position
has changed since Mr. Holder left the Department and whether
you think it could meet due process to have an 8-year-old who
speaks only Spanish appear in immigration court without a
lawyer and be able to argue the nuances of immigration law and
asylum law. Do you think that meets due process requirements?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congresswoman.
With respect to the argument that was made on the issue, of
course I'd have to review those pleadings to understand the
specific context and whether or not there was an appropriations
issue involved as to whether----
Ms. Lofgren. Fair enough. What do you think about the due
process issue?
Attorney General Lynch. And, again, thank you for that
issue, because it is an important one. And as you noted,
certainly it's the Department's position that as a general
matter all who appear before tribunals, whether they be courts,
administrative bodies, tend to have a more efficient process
and a fairer process if they are represented by counsel.
Certainly we have statutes and laws to that effect with regard
to adults, criminal matters, and the like.
For those children, also it certainly would seem to
increase efficiency of the entire process to have counsel. And
as you've noted, I believe through our grant process we have
supported nonprofit or NGO organizations that have provided
counsel there for those children.
Ms. Lofgren. So you're not willing to say that it doesn't
meet due process requirements at this point?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, what I'd like to do is look
at the procedures that are in place before I made a
constitutional determination about due process. But I certainly
do agree that it's an area of concern and that as a general
matter we support counsel in proceedings for litigants,
particularly children.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you this. The Department of
Homeland Security Office of Inspector General has done an
analysis of--we have many people from Central America in
particular who are seeking asylum. And what he reports, that
there is a review called Operation Streamline that found that
the Department of Justice has actually prosecuted asylum
seekers for illegal entry before their asylum case is heard.
And it seems to me that while not only does that violate
the requirements of international law, but it doesn't seem like
an efficient use of resources. If someone gains asylum under
the law, then their prosecution would not be very pertinent.
And I'm wondering, have you reviewed that IG's report yet?
Attorney General Lynch. I have not reviewed that specific
IG's report. What I can tell you is that the prosecution and
apprehension of individuals at the border is one to which not
just the Department, but the specific U.S. attorneys in those
border States devote significant time and attention. And steps
are taken at the initial level to try and ensure that those who
are seeking asylum are handled appropriately and that those who
are coming in for other intents and purposes are handled
through the immigration law system and often the criminal law
system.
Ms. Lofgren. Can I ask you whether you would please take a
look at that report and make sure that we're actually using our
resources in a sensible way relative to asylum seekers?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly. We are always happy to
review the way in which we use our resources.
Ms. Lofgren. Finally, I want to mention a situation. We've
had a class action complaint that's now moot because the
individuals who filed the complaint have been released from
detention. They're mothers who were being held in prison with
their children in Karnes. And they had a demonstration and in
response they were put in solitary confinement with their
children. And their argument was that they have free speech
rights.
Here's my question. Do you think immigrants in detention
are entitled to constitutional rights of due process and the
First Amendment and the like?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I certainly think that when
it comes to the conditions in our detention centers we need to
do all that we can to ensure that treatment is fair, humane,
and cognizant of the individual rights of all of those who come
through those systems.
I think that we have recognized certain rights for those
within our borders, certain rights for citizens in varying
degrees with respect to the Constitution. But barring that or
even taking it into consideration, certainly I believe that all
of our detention centers should be run efficiently, fairly, and
humanely.
Ms. Lofgren. I see that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for allowing me to go a little bit over.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Issa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Lynch, as you may recall, a woman working for the
IRS named Lois Lerner was held in contempt by the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee and the full House and referred to
the Department of Justice under your predecessor. Do you recall
that?
Attorney General Lynch. Sir, I am aware of the reports of
that. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Issa. Speaking of those reports, the Committee reviewed
more than a million documents, did approximately 50 interviews,
and produced a report. Are you familiar, have you read that
report?
Attorney General Lynch. I have not had occasion to read the
Committee's report, sir.
Mr. Issa. Well, the Senate Finance Committee released a
bipartisan report in August of this year finding that the IRS
abused conservative applicants for nonprofit status--I repeat,
abused applicants. Did you read that report?
Attorney General Lynch. I have not had occasion to read
that report, Congressman.
Mr. Issa. Well, the gentleman sitting behind you signed on
your behalf about an 8-page report explaining to us why nothing
went wrong legally at the IRS. Are you familiar with that
letter to Congress?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, I'm familiar with the letter
that the Department has provided to Congress on this matter,
sir.
Mr. Issa. And in that case you didn't just indicate that in
fact no laws were broken, you indicated that it was just
mismanagement and that you found no laws broken. Isn't that
correct?
Attorney General Lynch. Actually, Congressman, I believe
that our review found that the management of the process by
which tax-exempt applications were handled at the IRS was
characterized by mismanagement and inefficiency in numerous
circumstances.
Mr. Issa. Right. So you found that there was an
administrative problem, not a legal problem.
Madam General, are you familiar with 2 U.S.C. 194?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. Issa. 2 U.S.C. 194, and I'll refresh your memory. It
states, a statute covering congressional contempt states that
it shall be the duty of the relevant U.S. attorney to bring the
matter before the grand jury. In the case of the referral of
Lois Lerner for contempt, the U.S. attorney failed to comply
with that law under your predecessor.
Are you willing to comply with that law? Are you willing to
have the current U.S. attorney comply with 2 U.S.C. 194, which
very clearly says, shall have the duty, not may, not can make
an independent decision about whether or not that individual
has done wrong or should be held in contempt? Will you comply
with 2 U.S.C. 194 and instruct your U.S. attorney to bring that
contempt before Congress?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman----
Mr. Issa. Before the----
Attorney General Lynch. Before the grand jury.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. Grand jury.
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I believe that matter
has been reviewed by the U.S. attorney at the time and the
prosecutorial decision was made and we're not looking back on
that.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Again, 2 U.S.C. 194 states that it shall be
the duty of the relevant U.S. attorney to bring before the
grand jury. The U.S. attorney did not do so. Is it your opinion
that ``shall do'' in a law passed by both houses of the
Congress and signed by the President is a discretion?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I believe that the
matter was reviewed by the former U.S. attorney.
Mr. Issa. No, ma'am, I'm asking you for a decision. When
something says that you or your employees shall do something,
do you believe that that's discretion?
Attorney General Lynch. Sir, as I indicated, I believe that
in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion the matter was
handled and resolved.
Mr. Issa. Okay. Well, then, we simply disagree on what the
meaning of ``shall'' is. And I guess for your purposes
``shall'' and ``may'' in the thesaurus are synonyms. Is that
correct, that ``shall'' and ``may'' are equally able to be
decided by your choice? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but
you're telling me ``shall'' is something that has discretion.
What part of discretion is in ``shall do''? ``Shall'' is you
will do, isn't it?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, in the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion that decision was made.
Mr. Issa. Okay. So you have no respect for laws passed if
you don't like them. You think you have discretion when
something says ``shall'' is what you're testifying to today.
My question to you is, during your predecessor the
Committee on Oversight and others asked for a woman working for
you, Ms. Bosserman, and wanted to do a transcribed interview.
At that time, the Department of Justice said she would not be
made available because there was an ongoing investigation.
Since you have now dismissed that investigation, are you
prepared to make her available to Committees for a transcribed
interview?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, it is the practice of
the Department not to provide line attorneys for congressional
testimony. We seek to provide the information that will help
you in your oversight duties. The testimony of----
Mr. Issa. Mr. Conyers is still sitting here at the dais.
Mr. Conyers very bravely took on the Bush administration. Where
relevant U.S. attorneys and case law effectively now is that in
fact if a Committee of Congress wants somebody, it is not a
discretion to say no. In the case of Harriet Miers, that was
pretty well adjudicated, and Mr. Conyers as Chair made it very
clear that Congress has a right to have someone.
Again, I'll ask you finally. Previously the reason was not
that you would not make a line attorney available, but Ms.
Bosserman was part of an ongoing investigation. Since that
investigation is done, are you saying today that you refuse to
have her available under any conditions?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm saying that I am being
consistent to the policy of the Department of Justice that we
do not make line attorneys available.
Mr. Issa. I'm not asking a policy question, I'm asking
about one individual----
Attorney General Lynch. That would include that individual.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. When there is no ongoing
investigation, they would like to talk about a past
investigation. If she is requested, will you make her
available?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, as I've indicated, we
provide information to the Committee and we seek to do so
through a number of means, as we have indicated. We've provided
a letter, and we are certainly happy to continue with our offer
of a briefing to the full Committee on this matter.
With respect to line attorneys of any investigation, it is
not the policy of the Department of Justice to have the line
attorneys testify, because they do their work independently and
focusing solely on the facts and the law, and we do not want
them having to deal with the issue of a political review of
their work. They are focused solely on the facts and the law
and they follow the evidence where it leads.
As I've indicated with respect to the letter, and as I
believe the previous Deputy Attorney General indicated, in this
matter we are happy to provide information to this Committee.
And I believe we have offered a briefing to Members of the
Committee on the matter as well, and we do certainly stand by
that offer.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence for her
answer, as insufficient as it was.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you
very much.
General Lynch, thank you so very much for your service. And
might I as well thank your staff, who have always been
responsive to me in particular and to the Members of this
Committee as we've tried to work toward justice for the people
of the United States.
A moment, I just want to as I begin my questioning say to
you I apologize, there are going to be pointed questions, that
if I can get yes and no, we'll work on it, it would be helpful
so that I can get through them. As I do so, let me offer to the
people of France again our deepest sympathy.
This Committee in particular is well aware of the impact of
terrorism. Our Subcommittee on Crime is a Subcommittee that is
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. And so
I offer it to the people of France, and certainly we stand
united with them as the Justice Department through the
President of the United States have been already working.
To that point I have a headline that says, ``U.S. Justice
Department working with French authorities after attacks,''
which is a good thing, and I say that because there has been a
massive race by various States to make pronouncements of
blocking Syrian refugees, people seeking asylum. And I
understand the fear. I hope we do not operate under fear.
So my question is, is your confidence in procedures. And I
would suggest that there be an interagency task force, as I
hope that we will have a task force either out of this
Committee, the Judiciary Committee, on Paris, or either, I know
that there is one recommended by the majority, but that we will
have one that is bipartisan on this issue to be helpful to the
Administration.
Do you feel confident in our processes as a partner to this
process of being able to discern who amongst those suffering
people would be a bad guy? I understand we're doing 10,000, I
think that's the number the President has offered. Do you
perceive your processes to be assured and sure?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I do
look forward to continuing this dialogue with you on this
important point.
We do have robust screening measures in place. They include
not just databases, but also individual interviews, biometric
data. We gather all relevant information about refugees from
all countries, because our first goal is the protection and
safety of the American people, as well as carrying out the
compassionate nature also of the American people.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you feel comfortable if a terminology
was used that you would certify that you could be confident on
those that you processed, that you had used every measure to
certify their nonintent to do harm in this country?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly we would use every
measure, as we always do, to ensure that those who were allowed
into the country would not pose a threat to the American
citizens.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I look forward to working with you. Let me
move on to law enforcement and emphasize that obviously they
become more important in these times, and we thank them for
their service. But we also know, and I think your testimony
earlier said that we are better when they are better.
What is your thought? We introduced the Law Enforcement
Trust and Integrity Act which includes a provision on data
collection, but it also includes provisions on accreditation
that the National Association of Police Chiefs has always
supported.
What do you think the importance of having departments
subject themselves for accreditation, determining best
practices, and helping them as well as the American public?
Attorney General Lynch. Congresswoman, in my discussions
with law enforcement across the country I have found them eager
for assistance in sharing best practices. I have also found
them eager for recognition of their professionalism, and
accreditation is one way to do that. I think there are a number
of ways to do that. Certainly we in the Department are working
with a number of the police organizations to try and develop
consistent and national standards on data collection, and we
rely heavily on their expertise for guiding those standards.
And we would look to start with that same process with regard
to any move toward accreditation also.
I have found that law enforcement, frankly, is focused on
professionalism and focused on spreading those best practices
as best they can.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me do this so that my Chairman will
not gavel me. Let me quickly raise three points, sentencing
reform and the value of reducing mass incarceration,
legislation that will reduce the treatment of juveniles and put
it in a positive. I'd like you just to make overall comment on
that.
And then the idea of no fly for foreign terrorists, meaning
those who've gone to the fight, being particularly discerned
before coming back into the United States. If I could get that.
And then let me close on these three points if I could,
please, which are very important. I know that I'm leaving out
some important points that I wanted to make.
The voting rights, you already had a question on that, but
isn't it more efficient on a preclearance approach such that it
had might be more helpful for us to reinstate that preclearance
because it would be more efficient? And I'm going to give you
these. Three cases, if I could meet with your staff on them,
are really a blatant miscarriage of justice. The Sandra Bland
case, we have not had a response from the Justice Department.
The case of Robbie Tolan that went all the way up to the
Supreme Court and indicated he had been mistreated. He lived
and was shot by an officer on his driveway. And then a
nonviolent person that is in the State prison of Texas with a
life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense, first offense. It
is almost unbelievable.
So I would like you to answer just the questions that I
just gave you and these ones about the cases I would like to
meet as soon as possible with your staff on these issues.
Attorney General Lynch. I look forward to continuing to
work with you on those important issues.
Certainly with respect to voting rights, the preclearance
remedy was one that we found to be not just effective, but
efficient, and we felt that it was a way in which way to engage
with jurisdictions as they contemplated changes to their laws
and prevent them from going down a road that would have
disenfranchised their citizens.
Certainly, we felt that it was efficient and much less
costly than litigation. It is an important part of the Voting
Rights Act, and we certainly support the efforts to restore the
preclearance remedy to the Voting Rights Act.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I said juvenile justice, clemency, and--
juvenile justice--I'm sorry, juvenile justice--I had asked you
to do juvenile justice, prison reform, and the sentencing
reform, reducing mass incarceration, the value of that.
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly. With respect to----
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has expired, but
the witness can answer the question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to sentencing reform, we feel it is a vital
measure that recognizes that while we put measures in place
several years ago designed to protect the American people, as
we look back on those measures we see the collateral
consequences that it did not just to citizens but to
communities. And we also are able to evaluate with the passage
of time whether or not those lengthy sentences were the most
effective way to deal with the offenders that they tended to
sweep up.
So certainly as a part of an overall review of our criminal
justice system to make sure it is always as efficient and fair
as possible, sentencing reform has an important role to play in
that, and the Department is supportive of not just this
Committee's efforts, but Congress' efforts in that regard.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And we'll look forward to meeting with
your staff, hopefully this week, about these cases that I
mentioned, including Sharanda Jones.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Forbes. Chairman, thank you.
Madam Attorney General, thank you go for being here today.
Attorney General Lynch. Good morning.
Mr. Forbes. And I know you know well that the mission--one
of the parts of the mission of the U.S. Department of Justice
is to ensure public safety against threats, foreign and
domestic. I have a couple of news articles, and I know that we
don't treat them for the truth of what's always in them, but we
have to pay attention to them. One of them was Fox News that
talked about ISIS having certain terror cells in 15 States and
targeting those States. And then one where we're told by CBS
News national security correspondent reporting that the
Pentagon was notifying various soldiers who had appeared on
lists and neighborhoods and cities that had been targeted by
ISIS throughout Virginia and were actually trying to get the
police to increase patrols in these particular neighborhoods of
these cities.
And my question to you is, would you not conclude that it
would be reasonable to conclude that if terrorists were brought
from Guantanamo Bay to a particular city in the United States
that it would be reasonable to conclude that that could
increase the likelihood that one of those cities could be
placed on one of these lists, be it from ISIS leadership or
some domestic ISIS copycat in the United States?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I'm certainly
not able to speculate as to what a detainee may or may not do
if they were in the U.S.----
Mr. Forbes. Let me correct that, Madam Attorney General,
because you apparently didn't understand my question. I'm not
talking about what the detainee would do. I'm talking about if
you brought terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and located them in
a particular city in the United States, would it not be
reasonable to conclude that that might enhance the likelihood
that that city could be placed on one of these targeted lists?
Attorney General Lynch. With respect to the list that you
refer to, I'm not aware of the source.
Mr. Forbes. I'm not asking you that. I'm saying you know
that there are lists that are around. Are you disputing that
you have no knowledge that there are even any allegations of
these lists around the country today?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, with respect to
the matters that you've mention regarding the Fox News report,
as I indicated, I'm not aware of----
Mr. Forbes. So you're not aware that there is any list in
the United States today that target particular cities or States
by ISIS or someone claiming to be representative of ISIS?
Attorney General Lynch. As I indicated, with respect to the
first article that you mentioned----
Mr. Forbes. No, no, any of them, I'm talking about any of
the lists, Madam Attorney General, you're not aware of any of
these lists?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to the
lists that you mention, I thought that you mentioned two, and
perhaps I did not understand your question.
Mr. Forbes. I'm saying any of these lists. My question for
you is, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude if you brought
terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and located them in a city that
it could very well enhance that city's being on one of these
targeted lists, yes or no? That's a pretty easy question. If
you disagree with that, you can say no, if you agree with it,
yes.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I thought you
were referring to the Servicemembers who are on those lists.
Mr. Forbes. I'm making it clear, any list that targets a
city or State in the United States, if you bring terrorists
from Guantanamo Bay wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that
that can enhance that city's ability to be on one of those
targeted lists?
Attorney General Lynch. I think there are any number of
factors----
Mr. Forbes. Would you not agree that that would be a factor
that would enhance that ability?
Attorney General Lynch. I think there are any number of
factors.
Mr. Forbes. Would that be a factor?
Attorney General Lynch. There are any number of factors.
Mr. Forbes. But you would disagree that that would be one
of those many number of factors?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I don't agree or
disagree. I say that there would be any number of factors.
Attorney General Lynch. So then you, as the Attorney
General of the United States, you do not have an opinion
whether or not bringing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and
locating them in a city would have any capability at all of
putting that city on a hit list by ISIS? You don't even have an
opinion on that?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I think there are any
number of factors.
Mr. Forbes. I'm asking you, would that be one of those
factors?
Attorney General Lynch. I believe I've indicated there
would be any number of factors.
Mr. Forbes. No, you have indicated you wouldn't answer the
question. And, Madam Attorney General, I think that's
atrocious, that you don't even have an opinion of that.
Let me ask you this then in the limited time I have, if
you'll answer this question. You talk about data. We have
certain of these events in Ferguson and Baltimore that you'll
have an event and that will escalate into violence, and you
talked about the police. Have you attempted to gather any
information about outside organizations that may come from
outside the community that may come into those communities and
also escalate that violence?
Attorney General Lynch. We do gather information on
individuals, as well as organizations that are involved in
that.
Mr. Forbes. Do you have a report that you can provide to
this Committee of your investigation and what that has included
with a list of those organizations?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, we do not generate a
report. What I was indicating was that in our review, if a
matter is referred to us, particularly if there was a violent
issue, we would look at individuals who were involved in that.
Mr. Forbes. I'm not talking about whether it's a crime. Do
you have any information as to whether or not--you talked about
police escalating the violence. Do you have any information you
can supply this Committee that these outside groups may be
coming in and also escalating that violence?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, the reports that we do
would not focus solely on one factor. They would focus on----
Mr. Forbes. So you haven't focused at all on outside groups
that could come in and escalate the violence?
Attorney General Lynch. Sir, if a matter is brought to our
attention it would come under our review.
Mr. Forbes. But you haven't done any.
Attorney General Lynch. We don't have a report for you on
that, sir.
Mr. Forbes. But have you done any investigation?
Attorney General Lynch. Sir, if a matter brought it our
attention, it would come under our review.
Mr. Forbes. Well, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back
without getting a single answer to a single question we posed.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And.
I'm going to be like Ms. Lee and ask you a lot of questions
because there's a lot on my mind.
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry, sir, I can't hear you.
Mr. Cohen. I said, I'm going to ask you a lot of questions
because there's a lot on my mind and we have limited time.
In July a young man named Darrius Stewart was shot and
killed by Memphis police. He was a passenger in a motor vehicle
stopped for a traffic citation. Yet he was asked to get out of
the car, they looked at him, they put him in the car, a tussle
occurred, he was shot and killed. The DA asked the grand jury
to indict for voluntary manslaughter. The grand jury chose not
to. How that was presented, who knows, obviously not as well as
a ham sandwich could have been presented.
I've asked the Department of Justice to look into it. Your
first response is you'd monitor the case. Now that the case has
gone through the grand jury process and not gotten the result
that the DA wanted, I would like to ask, as I've asked in
writing before, for the Department of Justice to look into this
case and see if civil rights violations may have occurred.
Attorney General Lynch. I would like to have my staff reach
out to you and get that information, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Are you familiar with the case?
Attorney General Lynch. I am not currently familiar with
the case, although we have a number of similar matters under
review.
Mr. Cohen. Well, I hope you will become familiar because
it's a situation that many people in the city of Memphis,
including myself, feel was a miscarriage of justice, equal to
any of those others in the United States. And for some reason
it hasn't risen to the radar of the United States Attorney
General and I hope it will.
The DEA took a 2015 National Drug Assessment Summary, and
at that particular summary or study most agents said marijuana
was like at 5 percent in total risk to society and meth and
heroin were the most serious drugs challenging them and the
American people. Do you agree that we should spend more time,
our law enforcement, working against meth, heroin, and opiates
and not marijuana?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I think that with
respect to our narcotic laws what we try and do both throughout
the entire Department of Justice and at the DEA is focus on the
specific problem in a specific region and devote resources to
that.
We currently have a crisis regarding heroin use and opiod
abuse in the country and some communities have been consumed by
that particular problem. There are, unfortunately, some
communities that still have problems with methamphetamine, so
there might be a different focus on the type of drugs,
depending upon the issue.
Mr. Cohen. Right, but marijuana is not a place--marijuana
is not where cities have people needing marijuana and knocking
off 7-Elevens to get some money to buy their marijuana. They're
doing that for meth and heroin. Is that not right?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly we have seen violence
associated with meth, with heroin, with prescription drugs as
well. The type of violence associated with the marijuana trade
typically occurs at the dealer level, at the import level, and
I certainly have seen cases where there's been significant
violence at that level.
Mr. Cohen. There is. And the reason there is that violence
is because, just like prohibition, we made it illegal. It's not
because of the marijuana and the need to have it on the street
level basis where people need to commit violence to get money
to buy a drug. It's because we did the same mistake with
marijuana that we did in the twenties with alcohol. The public
demanded it, the racketeers, the criminals got involved. We
made them rich and they used guns to protect their properties.
That was a mistake.
Do you agree marijuana should not be Schedule 1 in the same
category as LSD and heroin?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, with respect to the issue of
scheduling, that is typically determined based on whether or
not there is another use for the product. And I think that
there would have to be studies by the FDA, among others, to
determine whether or not a scheduling change in any drug is
necessary.
Mr. Cohen. But don't you agree that you have to change the
scheduling from 1 to get the studies? I mean, there are lots of
young people, like one of my constituents, Chole Grauer, who
died waiting for the opportunity to get Charlotte's Web; lots
of people who'd like to get cannabinoids. You could talk to
Montel Williams and what it does for Multiple Sclerosis or any
number of cancer patients who it helps with nausea or allows
them to eat and have an appetite.
Don't you agree, unlike Chuck Rosenberg, that medical
marijuana is something serious and should be looked at as an
aid to people in our society to get through difficult problems
and not considered a joke?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly the issue of
medical marijuana is significantly different from the criminal
enforcement or use of marijuana. And certainly the Department
supports the FDA's studies in the use of cannabidiols or the
substance within marijuana that have been shown to have
efficacy.
Mr. Cohen. We're about to run out of time. I hate to cut
you off. I would hope you would look into initiating, which you
can, taking it off the Schedule 1. It's crazy to have it with
LSD and heroin, and it should not be there and it should be
studied.
RFRA has been used to allow groups to discriminate against
LGBT people, and it has been based on a 2007 DOJ Office of
Legal Counsel opinion that said RFRA could be used to grant
exemptions to Federal discrimination laws governing Federal
programs. Will you commit today to instruct the Office of Legal
Counsel to review and reconsider the 2007 OLC legal opinion
that's being used today to justify taxpayer-funded
discrimination counter to the President's executive order?
Attorney General Lynch. I would like to look into that
issue. If I could have my staff reach out to you and get more
information on that, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Cohen. On that same issue, holdovers from the Bush
team--there was a hold over from Bush in the commutation office
for 6 years. That's why the President got hardly got any
recommendations for commutations. Can I have a commitment from
you to give more resources to people to study prison records
and to facilitate the sending expeditiously recommendations to
the President for commutations of the thousands of people whose
sentences should be commuted who are serving time for long-term
drug offenses, nonviolent drug offenses, that aren't serving
the American people by having them be in Federal prison?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, over the last 18
months the Department has in fact taken a significant look at
the staffing and resource needs of the Office of the Pardon
Attorney and sought to provide additional resources so that
every application that comes through, whether before pardon or
clemency, can be considered quickly and efficiently.
Mr. Cohen. But it hasn't done that. And let me remind you
what Dr. King said: Justice delayed is justice denied. Every
single one of those people serving a day in prison who will
eventually get a recommendation is having their justice delayed
and denied.
Mr. Gowdy [presiding]. And on that note, the gentleman's
time has expired. And we will recognize the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Lynch, on February 2, 2014, Kate Duval,
chief counsel to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, learned that
Ms. Lois Lerner's hard drive had crashed and they didn't have
all her e-mails. Mr. Koskinen and the IRS waited until June of
that year, June of 2014, to tell Congress.
In that 4-month time period between when they learned that
her hard drive had crashed and they didn't have all her e-mails
and June when they told us, in that 4-month time period Mr.
Koskinen testified twice in front of Congress and did not
disclose the fact that they knew her hard drive had crashed.
One month later, after they learned her hard drive had
crashed, in March of 2014, March 4 of 2014, the IRS destroys
422 backup tapes. Just so you understand the fact pattern, they
know on February 2 Lois Lerner's hard drive has crashed, they
don't have all her e-mails. Thirty days later they destroy 422
backup tapes. And they destroy those 422 backup tapes with
three preservation orders in place. In fact, one of those
preservation orders came from the Justice Department.
Ten months before that, you had told them, hey, preserve
all the documents, preserve all the e-mails, we've got an
investigation going on. There were two other preservation
orders as well. So three preservation orders and two subpoenas.
Now, that sure looks likes John Koskinen and the Internal
Revenue Service concealed information and destroyed
information. But just last month you guys sent us a letter
telling us you're not going to prosecute anyone in the IRS
targeting scandal. And you specifically say in that letter: Our
investigation revealed no evidence to deliberately conceal or
destroy information.
So here's what I can't figure out. They learn on February
2, 2014, that Lois Lerner's hard drive had crashed and they
don't have all her e-mails. Thirty days later, with three
preservation orders and two subpoenas in place, they destroy
the backup tapes. So if that's not evidence of deliberately
concealing and destroying information, what is it?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman.
With respect to the matter that you've raised, as we set
forth in our letter, we did review the issues surrounding Ms.
Lerner's e-mails and the backup tapes. As with every criminal
investigation, we are looking for evidence of criminal intent
and we are looking for evidence of the specific reasons for why
the actions that you note----
Mr. Jordan. How many times do you have direct evidence of
intent in any type of other fraud investigation? I mean, you
weren't going to get--what were you looking for, an e-mail
where John Koskinen sends an e-mail to the guys in the tape
room and he says destroy the tapes?
You had three preservation orders, one of them came from
the Justice Department, they knew there were problems with the
hard drive and that they didn't have all her e-mails, and 30
days after that they destroy 422 backup tapes. That's not
enough to take it to a grand jury?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, Congressman, it
certainly was a matter that was under review, and as we have
outlined in our letter, the findings of that review.
Mr. Jordan. If it wasn't deliberate intent to destroy and
conceal, what was it?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, as we've outlined in
our letter, the findings that we had based on those actions.
Mr. Jordan. Here's what you said in your letter: ``The
Justice Department's investigation uncovered substantial
evidence of mismanagement and poor judgment.'' What I just
described, was that evidence of mismanagement by John Koskinen?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I'm not going to
attribute it to just one individual, because I believe that
certainly there would be others that would have been----
Mr. Jordan. Was it evidence of poor judgment when Mr.
Koskinen's chief counsel knew that Lerner's hard drive had
crashed, he comes and testifies in front of Congress and
doesn't tell us that and waits 4 months to tell us? Was that
evidence of poor judgment?
Attorney General Lynch. I can't speak to what was in his
mind when he testified before you. What I can speak to is the
information that we've provided to this Committee outlining the
steps that were taken in the Department of Justice
investigation----
Mr. Jordan. What was is it going to take?
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. And the conclusions
that were drawn. As we've indicated----
Mr. Jordan. Here's what the American people want to know,
Attorney General: What was it going to take before you would
take this to a grand jury? Would Mr. Koskinen, would he have
had to wait 5 months before he told us, 6 months before he told
us, 8 months before he told us? Would they have had to destroy
423 backup tapes, 450 backup tapes? Would they have to destroy
every single backup? Would they have to destroy more evidence?
What was it going to take before you were going to take this to
a grand jury with three preservation orders in place, two
subpoenas in place, they have knowledge that there's problems
with their hard drives, that they don't have all their e-mails,
and they destroy the backup tapes? I mean, if that fact pattern
doesn't warrant going to a grand jury and prosecuting, tell me
what would.
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, Congressman, that fact
pattern was part of the investigation, as were a number of
other facts in there. And as we outlined in our letter, we
outlined not only the investigative steps that were taken, but
the conclusions that we drew from them.
Mr. Jordan. So who are you referring to when you say
substantial evidence of mismanagement and poor judgment? Who?
It seams to me the guy at the top is the guy responsible. So
are you saying Mr. Koskinen had substantial evidence of
mismanagement when he didn't inform Congress and when he
destroyed 422 backup tapes? Is that substantial evidence of
mismanagement on the part of John Koskinen?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm not going to attribute it to a
specific individual.
Mr. Jordan. Who would you attribute it to? Someone's got to
be responsible, because--let me ask you one last question if I
could, Mr. Chairman. So you sent a preservation order to the
IRS in May of 2013. March of 2014 they destroy 422 backup
tapes. Now, if a private citizen gets an audit notice from the
IRS and then 10 months later they destroy the evidence, are
they going to be prosecuted?
Attorney General Lynch. It would depend upon the evidence
of intent and why they----
Mr. Jordan. Really? I bet the average American says of
course they're going to be prosecuted. And yet, you guys with
that fact pattern wouldn't take it to a grand jury. Who
mismanaged what? That's the question I want answered. Who's
responsible? Someone has to be.
Attorney General Lynch. I think we have outlined in our
letter the findings of this investigation.
Mr. Jordan. No, you haven't. You said some. I want to know
if it's Mr. Koskinen, the guy at the top, the guy who runs the
IRS, the guy who was presiding over the IRS when we destroyed
the 422 backup tapes. Is he responsible?
Attorney General Lynch. As we've indicated in our letter,
there was substantial mismanagement. As we've outlined when we
indicated we would provide this information to the Committee,
we're also happy to provide a briefing to the Committee on
other questions that you may have about this matter.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
would now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Lynch, I want to commend you and the Department of
Justice on the fact that 70 individuals have been charged since
2013 for conduct related to foreign fighter activity and
homegrown violent extremism.
General Lynch, this Committee has previously heard how ISIL
and other terrorist organizations field potential recruits in
publicly accessible social networking sites via encrypted
messaging platforms and also voice over Internet apps. Are
these encrypted private messaging platforms and also voice over
Internet apps hampering the ability of the Department to
quickly ascertain and address threats to national security? And
if so, in what ways?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, thank you for
the question. Certainly when individuals choose to move from
open means of communication to those that are encrypted it can
cause a disruption in our ability to use lawful legal process
to intercept those communications and does give us concern
about being able to gather the evidence that we need to
continue in our ongoing mission for the protection of the
American people.
Mr. Johnson. How so?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, with respect to individuals
in this country, what we have seen is communications--this is
in regard to specific cases--we've seen communications between
them and individuals urging them to commit acts of violence,
acts of terrorism, and then those individuals dropping from one
type of communication to an encrypted method of communication,
and we no longer have visibility into those discussions.
Mr. Johnson. Well, when you say no longer have visibility
into those discussions, can you break that down and explain
exactly what you mean?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly. Typically we would with
a lawful court order go to a communications provider and
focusing specifically on individuals against whom we had
probable cause to believe were involved in criminal activity,
including terrorist activity, obtain the authorization to
review their communications in the past as well as on an
ongoing basis. When individuals move to an encrypted platform,
one that is not accessible by the provider themselves, then we
have a situation where we're not able to have our court orders
handled in the typical way. That is to say we're not able to
receive that information and ascertain what these individuals
are planning and also, just as importantly, with whom they're
planning these actions. And so we rely on other methods and
means, but that is a loss of an important means and important
law enforcement tool.
Mr. Johnson. Is there any way that the Department can
overcome the use of encrypted data and voice communications by
terrorists who are trying to recruit within the borders of the
United States or a terrorist plot taking place between persons
inside the United States? Take, for example, the terrorist
incident in Paris this past weekend where I heard one expert
say that he would be shocked if the terrorists were not using
encrypted communications, perhaps even during the terrorist
events.
How can the Department thwart that kind of activity taking
place here on United States soil given the fact that we have
these encrypted communications.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly it makes it very
challenging. Our approach has been to work with the electronic
companies, the Internet providers, on a case-by-case basis and
help them find a way or work with them to find a way to allow
them to respond to the valid legal process. And certainly we're
having conversations with the industry as a whole to make sure
that they can in fact comply with legal process and provide us
the information that we need. We rely on other means of
surveillance, other means of gathering intelligence about those
individuals and their associates, but it does cause us the loss
of a very valuable source of information.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. With that, I will yield back, and thank
you for your testimony.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. The gentleman from Georgia yields back. The
Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Attorney General. Appreciate your being
here.
Obviously people are rather sensitive to potential
terrorism, especially since ISIS is known for keeping their
word when they make threats, at least as often as they can. And
we had a witness some time back, the FBI Director at that time,
Director Mueller, and I was asking him about investigations at
the mosque in Boston where the Tsarnaevs attended, and he
indicated that the FBI had an outreach program with that mosque
where they would commune together, but they never actually
investigated at the mosque whether or not the Tsarnaevs had
been radicalized, even after Russia gave the FBI a heads-up
that the older Tsarnaev had been radicalized. They never asked
any questions of the people there.
I know I've been through materials with FBI agents that
have been cleaned out from the teaching materials at the
Justice Department, and for some ridiculous reason they were
classified, so we had to do it in a closed setting. But it
appears to me that FBI agents, Justice officials, are not even
being allowed to be taught what it is that radical Islamists
believe, not even perhaps that Osama bin Laden indicated that
the Egyptian martyr Muslim Brotherhood member Qutb wrote
``Milestones'' that actually helped radicalize him. Nobody knew
enough to go to the mosque and ask, has Tsarnaev been reading
Qutb, have you seen him talking about or heard him talking
about ``Milestones''? It seems like we've blinded, as one
intelligence official told me, we've blinded ourselves of the
ability to see our enemy.
So I was also surprised, since Director Mueller was FBI
Director after al-Amoudi was arrested, based on his
understanding the information that Britain gave us, but he's
doing 23 years for supporting terrorism. He didn't know al-
Amoudi is the one was at the bottom of starting that mosque.
We know that apparently al-Amoudi helped in both the
Clinton and Bush White House find Muslims that al-Amoudi said
could be trusted to work in those White Houses. And I'm just
wondering, since we now know that al-Amoudi supported
terrorism, we know that at least the Tsarnaevs, perhaps others
who have been radicalized worshipped at that mosque, has the
outreach program been terminated with the al-Amoudi-begun
mosque in Boston? And has there been any investigation into
people that al-Amoudi placed in the Clinton and Bush White
House, now that we know he supported terrorism, he's doing 23
years? Do you know of any such investigation?
Attorney General Lynch. Mr. Congressman, I don't have the
information that you're requesting, but certainly what I can
say is that you have touched upon the issue that all of us in
law enforcement deal with as we work not only to protect the
American people, but to counter violent extremism that does
pull in young people like the Tsarnaevs.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, and I appreciate your calling it violent
extremism. Did you have a degree in Islamic studies?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry, sir?
Mr. Gohmert. I really don't know. Did you have any degrees
in Islamic studies?
Attorney General Lynch. No, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, there is a guy named al-Baghdadi, who
happens to be head of ISIS, who has a bachelor's, a master's
and a Ph.D. in Islamic studies from the University of Baghdad.
He perhaps is a better expert than you and I, and he says ISIS
is Islamic. And so I think we should take the word of an
expert. It certainly doesn't represent the views of all
Muslims, thank God.
But I would encourage you to take another look at the
Justice Department training materials, take another look at
your outreach program, and look back and investigate who al-
Amoudi placed in those White Houses to see if they're still
around. The FBI completely dropped the ball on Tsarnaev, and it
concerns Americans they may be dropping the ball on the Syrians
as we speak.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now
recognize my friend from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, General Lynch.
I would like to address DOJ's mission to prevent and
prosecute violent crime. And naturally, as Puerto Rico's only
representative in Congress, I want to concentrate on the U.S.
territory. This is the same topic I raised with General Holder
each time he appeared before this Committee.
Broadly speaking, when it comes to violent crime, the
narrative in Puerto Rico has been positive lately. In 2011,
there were 1,136 murders in Puerto Rico, over 3 a day, the
highest in our history. Most of these homicides were related to
the drug trade.
So I pushed DHS and DOJ extremely hard to dedicate more
personnel and resources to Puerto Rico. DHS, including the
Coast Guard, ICE, CBP, responded to this pressure. DOJ
responded to, but to a lesser extent than DHS.
These enhanced Federal efforts have born fruit. The number
of homicides in Puerto Rico has decreased significantly every
year. In 2015 to date, there have been 508 murders. If the
current trend continues, there will be about half as many
homicides in Puerto Rico this year versus 4 years ago. That is
a remarkable statistic we should be proud of.
But we're fighting a determined enemy and the gains we have
achieved can be easily reversed unless our efforts are
sustained and strengthened. And the fact is, despite recent
improvements, Puerto Rico still has a homicide rate far higher
than any State. Yet, my staff and I have found it difficult to
obtain answers to basic questions about DOJ efforts in the
territory. So I want a Member-level briefing on this subject as
soon as possible.
In the meantime, I have three specific questions for you
today. I will ask them all at once and then give you the time
to answer them.
First, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Puerto Rico has a very
high criminal caseload. Part of the reason is that they are
prosecuting a number of cases that in the States would likely
be prosecuted in State or local courts as opposed to Federal
court.
I'm aware that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Puerto Rico
has entered into an MOU with the Puerto Rico Department of
Justice so that State prosecutors can be detailed to the U.S.
Attorney's Office to work on Federal cases. While I support
this arrangement--I'm a former AG, and in my time in the
nineties I did something similar--I'm concerned that there are
not enough Federal prosecutors assigned to Puerto Rico in light
of the caseload.
Have you looked at this issue? And if not, can you please
look at it and have your staff brief me on your specific
findings? Again, number of assistant U.S. attorneys in Puerto
Rico.
Second, as you have stated here today, DOJ has a
comprehensive program, called the Violence Reduction Network,
designed to reduce violence in some of our country's most
violent cities. I believe there are cities in Puerto Rico that
are suitable candidates for this program and I urge DOJ to
select a Puerto Rico site in 2016. Can you assure me that
Puerto Rico will receive due consideration for inclusion in the
VRN program or any other DOJ program designed to combat violent
crime?
Finally, The New York Times just reported--or recently
reported--that in 2014 more guns used to commit crimes in
Puerto Rico were purchased in Florida than in Puerto Rico
itself. What is DOJ doing to reduce the number of guns being
unlawfully transported from Florida and other States to Puerto
Rico and being used to commit crimes in my turf?
Thank you.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman.
And I am happy, indeed, to have my staff arrange to provide
further information for you on all of these points.
I can certainly tell you that we are looking to expand our
efforts under that MOU. And with respect to specific numbers, I
would like to have the opportunity to look into that and
provide you with a briefing on that.
With respect to the firearms trafficking between the
mainland Florida and Puerto Rico, we do have a very strong
presence on the island of ATF, along with, as you know, a host
of other agencies. And we are looking at ways to deal with
that, as well. We also certainly will give Puerto Rican cities
due consideration in the Violence Reduction Network selections
for the upcoming year.
I would note, however, that we are also committed, even
beyond the Violence Reduction Network, to working with local
authorities in Puerto Rico, as well as the U.S. attorney, to
deal with the situation there.
As you note, the homicide rate is down significantly, but
it is still far too high. And that places the residents of
Puerto Rico in an unreasonable and untenable situation. And we
feel it is our obligation and responsibility to do all we can
to ameliorate that.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Puerto Rico
and now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for being here.
General Lynch, several videos, as you know, that have been
talked about quite a bit have been released that show corporate
officers and employees of Planned Parenthood casually
discussing their practice of harvesting little baby parts from
the many hundreds of thousands of innocent babies they kill in
their clinics across this Nation every year.
And the videos reveal that some babies are born intact,
which is the most, I understand, desirable and marketable state
of the baby's body for people in that business because the
little body parts haven't been damaged by the abortion
procedure. And because of that incentive, some of these little
babies are born alive.
And I'm wondering, has the Department investigated or
enforced any cases of born-alive children being killed from
their abortion survivors?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to the
issue that you raise, you're asking about born alive----
Mr. Franks. Born alive, yes. Born-alive abortion survivors.
In other words, babies that were victims of abortion but were
born alive, much like the situation with Kermit Gosnell.
You know, there's some legislation on the books that
ostensibly protect born-alive children. Has the Department ever
enforced that or had any investigations for protecting born-
alive abortion survivors?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, it's my understanding
that, since the relevant statute was passed some time ago,
there have been some few cases that dealt with certain issues
about--I believe the statue is the National Organ Transplant
Act. There have been a few cases under that statute. I'd have
to get those facts for you. I don't believe they fit the
factual scenario that you just outlined. But I can provide that
information to you on that.
Mr. Franks. Okay. Well, let me shift gears, then, just
slightly. You know, there's legislation here in the Congress
that's passed the House that would give definitive protection
to born-alive--now, I'm not talking about unborn children, but
born-alive babies that have survived the abortion process.
Would you support that legislation, and would you enforce it if
it were in statute?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I have not seen
those drafts. Certainly, with respect to any draft legislation
proposed by this body, the Department of Justice will review it
and provide the relevant input to you for your help and for
your use.
Mr. Franks. But, generally, would you support legislation
supporting born-alive abortion survivors?
Attorney General Lynch. Not having not seen the drafts, I'm
not able to comment----
Mr. Franks. Just generally.
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Specifics. We would
look at whatever----
Mr. Franks. Born alive.
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. Proposals you had.
Mr. Franks. Born alive.
Attorney General Lynch. We would look at whatever proposals
you have, Congressman.
Mr. Franks. All right. Well, that's too bad you can't
answer a question like that.
So let me shift gears on you again, then. Is the Department
of Justice currently investigating Planned Parenthood based on
the footage released by the Center for Medical Progress? And if
so, what's the status of that investigation? And if not, why
not?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, we have received a number of
requests for information as well as congressional requests and
referrals on this matter. Because we are still reviewing it,
I'm not able to comment on the nature or status of that at this
time, sir.
Mr. Franks. All right.
In light of DOJ's recent public praise of the Southern
Poverty Law Center--this is an organization that's implicated
the in domestic terrorism conviction of Floyd Corkins, as you
know, who used the Southern Poverty Law Center publications to
identify and attempt to kill employees of pro-family
organizations in D.C.
It is important for us to know the DOJ's level of
involvement with SPLC. Can you tell us about DOJ's relationship
with the Southern Poverty Law Center and its employees,
publications, and events? Can you give us any insight into that
at all?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I certainly am aware of the
organization, but I'm not able to give you specifics on the
Department's involvement, if any, in the Southern Poverty Law
Center at this time. I certainly would appreciate the
opportunity to have my staff reach out to yours.
Mr. Franks. Well, I hope that you would respond in writing
to these questions, General, because you certainly haven't
answered them here. In all due deference to you, you haven't
answered them. And the last person that held your position
didn't answer them either and promised to respond in writing
and didn't do that either.
Have you personally reviewed any of the videos released by
the Center for Medical Progress? If so, was there anything in
those videos that you found disturbing?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I have not undertaken
a review of the videos. I'm of course aware of the news reports
about them. And, as I indicated, all of the information that's
been received by the Department is currently under review. So I
don't have any further comment on it at this time.
Mr. Franks. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields.
The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Chu.
Ms. Chu. Attorney General, I want to bring your attention
to the cases of Chinese-American scientists Guoqing Cao, Shuyu
Li, Sherry Chen, and Xiaoxing Xi. All of these named
individuals, despite their ethnic names, are American citizens,
and all of them have been profiled, suspected, and treated as
spies by our Nation's government within the past 2 years, only
to have all charges dropped.
And these are only the cases that actually reached national
headlines. There could be countless more.
Two of these individuals, Sherry Chen and Xiaoxing Xi, are
here at today's hearing, sitting two rows behind you. I want to
take a moment to share their stories with you.
Dr. Xiaoxing Xi is a professor and the interim chairman of
the physics department of Temple University. In May of this
year, on a day that seemed like any other ordinary day, Dr. Xi
and his family were woken up at the break of dawn by almost a
dozen armed FBI agents in his home pointing guns at him. In his
pajamas, he was handcuffed and arrested in front of his wife,
two young daughters, and neighbors.
After months of investigation, after losing his position as
chair of the physics department, after the emotional trauma
that he and all his family endured, all of the charges against
him were dropped. It turns out the technology that the
government thought Professor Xi was sharing with China wasn't
the right technology to begin with.
We also have Sherry Chen, who, like Dr. Xi, was wrongfully
profiled and suspected of being a spy for China. She was
arrested by six FBI officers and humiliatingly handcuffed in
her own office at the National Weather Service. After months of
investigation and having her reputation smeared, all the
charges against her were dropped. Not only is she suffering
from mental and emotional turmoil that this investigation has
caused, she is now fighting for her job as a hydrologist within
the Department of Commerce.
These Chinese-Americans were wrongfully suspected of spies
and paraded as criminals through their arrest, only to have the
charges later dropped, but not before they were traumatized and
their lives nearly ruined. And it leads us to question, are all
Chinese-American scientists suspect because they are Chinese-
Americans?
So my question to you is, what went wrong in these cases?
And how are you addressing this internally, especially with the
FBI, to prevent this from happening in the future?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I can state to you unequivocally that the Department of
Justice does not focus an investigation on any individual on
the basis of their race or their national origin.
Now, with respect to the specific cases that you mentioned,
I'm not able to comment on those specifics at this time.
Ms. Chu. Even if you can't comment on the specifics of the
cases, I will follow up with you personally on the details of
these cases.
There is no question that we must fight against espionage
and threats to American innovation, but, in this process, we
must not ensnare innocent Americans that make this Nation great
or undermine our fundamental values of liberty, due process,
and equality under the law.
This is especially true in light of the horrendous Paris
attacks, which senselessly took over 120 lives in an act of
terror. While we must combat terrorism and protect our national
security, we must also not impinge upon fundamental rights. We
must ensure that we do not see an increase in profiling against
Muslims because of these events.
We have seen what happens when we compromise our
fundamental values. In fact, it wasn't too long ago that
120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were removed from their
homes, rounded up, and incarcerated during World War II,
accused of having spies amongst them. They were proud
Americans, but their citizenship meant nothing. In the eyes of
our government, all of them were potential spies, outsiders,
and enemies. Yet, over 60 years later, not a single case of
espionage has ever been proven.
Today, when we profile Chinese-American scientists in this
manner or any American on the basis of their race, ethnicity,
religion, or country of origin, our government is telling our
own citizens, our own communities, that they are un-American
and that it's okay to fear or even hate them. When this
happens, in my opinion, we have failed as a government and as
Americans.
I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair will now recognize former United States Attorney
from Pennsylvania Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon, General. Welcome.
Attorney General Lynch. Good afternoon.
Mr. Marino. I'm going to talk briefly on drug diversion.
Attorney General Lynch. I can't hear you.
Mr. Marino. I'm going to talk briefly about drug diversion.
And it's not a question, really.
It has been a priority of mine to encourage the DEA to
collaborate with companies in the pharmaceutical supply chain
to address prescription drug abuse. In the past, DEA officials
used ambiguities in the law to treat businesses like suspected
criminals. With the support of this Committee, the House passed
my legislation to clear up the relevant provisions of the
Controlled Substance Act. That bill is now pending in the
Senate, and it appears likely to be enacted.
The Department's response to my recent questions on this
subject, that the Department ``recently made some important
changes that demonstrate its commitment to work more closely
with the drug supply chain and registrants,'' is very
encouraging to me. I will closely keep an eye on this, but I am
optimistic that progress is being made. And I thank you for
pursuing that.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Marino. I'm going to switch gears now to the Bureau of
Prisons and oversight, and I do have some questions pursuant.
My district has three high-security Federal
penitentiaries--I'm in Pennsylvania 10th District--Canaan,
Lewisburg, and Allenwood. Three correction officers have died
in recent years in the line of duty. Eric Williams was working
alone and unarmed on a cell block with over 100 inmates at
Canaan. He was stabbed 129 times.
A BOP pilot program was put into place to provide officers
with pepper spray, which I think Eric and others would have had
a chance to survive. Will you promise and give your word to me
that you will support this program and make it permanent to all
the personnel?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I'm aware of the death
that you mentioned, as well as the deaths of several of our
other brave men and women in our correctional institutions.
I do support additional measures to increase their safety.
I recently actually had a meeting with the heads of the
correctional officers unions and spoke about these issues. And
I look forward to working with them and with this body to make
sure that they have all of the tools that they need to have a
safe working environment.
Mr. Marino. Do you believe that pepper spray is one of
these protection devices that would help officers but yet not
have a weapon that the inmates could take?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, I certainly think that pepper
spray is a viable option. I would like to see the results of
the pilot study.
Mr. Marino. Okay.
Attorney General Lynch. But I also would like to make sure
that we include every possible option----
Mr. Marino. Thank you.
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. For protecting our
correctional officers.
Mr. Marino. Still on the Bureau of Prisons, I'm going to
talk about staffing for a moment.
Many of our Federal prisons are understaffed significantly
below their authorized levels. I constantly check on this. In
some cases, counselors, not corrections officers, fill in to
guard inmates--counselors. Would you fully staff corrections
officers' positions with trained officers?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I can tell you that,
certainly, not only is the safety and security of correctional
officers a priority of mine, but ensuring that they have the
appropriate staffing is a priority of mine.
It has certainly been a challenge for us from a budgetary
perspective. We are certainly looking forward to meeting those
challenges in the future and trying to ensure that every
facility is fully staffed with professional officers.
Mr. Marino. And, almost 1 year ago, the Committee requested
all communications relating to mandatory donation provisions in
certain DOJ settlements.
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry, mandatory?
Mr. Marino. Mandatory donation provisions in DOJ
settlements.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you.
Mr. Marino. Last week, your staff advised that they did not
realize that we wanted internal documents. We were very, very
clear, both via letter and in live questioning, that we were
specifically seeking internal documents.
There always seems to be some jockeying between Congress
and this Administration over oversight matters. This is
unacceptable. It's a continual problem.
When will we receive the internal documents we requested
almost exactly a year ago?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to the
requests that have been made, to the extent that we receive
requests that ask for internal deliberative documents that
typically we do not disclose, that may have been the reason for
that.
What we try and do is work with either staff or the entire
Committee to provide the information that you need to carry out
your oversight function consistent with our law enforcement and
privilege obligations. And we certainly look forward to working
with you to do that.
Mr. Marino. I just hope we do not have to continue, as we
have in the past, splitting hairs over a particular word.
And thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Lynch, thanks so much for joining us and
especially in light of the horrific attacks in Paris. And I
know that the Department of Justice is doing everything that it
can to help its French counterparts do their part to bring all
of those responsible for these heinous terrorist acts to
justice.
I also want to acknowledge the importance of the work that
the Department of Justice does in keeping the American people
safe. And, as we mourn with Paris, it's moments like these
where we pull our own loved ones closer. And we trust that the
Administration, including the Justice Department, and law
enforcement and our intelligence community and the men and
women who serve our country in uniform are doing all that they
can to keep our people safe from the threat of terrorism,
homegrown and abroad. And we're grateful for that.
We do face daily threats of another kind here at home,
however, and I want to talk to you about the daily gun violence
that claims nearly 1 American's life every hour of every day
and over 32,000 per year.
Every day, dangerous individuals in the United States buy
guns without completing any background check at all. And
whether it's Dylann Roof, whose approval went through, who
wound up murdering nine Americans at worship in Charleston
during the summer, or whether it's gang members in Chicago,
where more than 400 people have been killed by gun violence
this year.
I've served, Madam Attorney General, on this House
Judiciary Committee for over 5 1/2 years, and, in that time,
gun violence has claimed the lives of over 150,000 Americans.
But we haven't had a hearing on this gun violence, not on this
Committee, not after Tucson, not after Aurora, not after
Newtown, not after Roseburg.
The majority says, as the Chairman said just today again,
that there's no reason to have a hearing. All we need to do is
simply enforce the existing laws, we're told, and everything
will get better.
And before going on to my specific question for you, I'm
sure you would acknowledge that it was, I think, helpful to
hear the Chairman say earlier that sometimes the National
Instant Criminal Background Check doesn't have all the
information that it needs.
And I would point out that after the Virginia Tech
massacre, where that gunman's mental health record wasn't
accessible and the court had declared him a danger to himself,
he should never have been allowed to purchase a gun, Congress
acted, that Congress acted, and passed legislation that was
signed by President Bush that authorized over a billion dollars
to States and territories to improve their recordkeeping and
reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check
system. Congress, however, has only allocated about 11 percent
of all that money.
And so I would ask the Chairman, consistent with his views
that there are some problems with existing law, that we work
together to allocate the funds so that all of the information
gets to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
so that it can actually work to keep guns out of the hands of
dangerous people. That doesn't require a new law. It simply
requires making sure we allocate the money, that we spend the
money that Congress has authorized over the past several years.
Now, I do want to ask you, Madam Attorney General, about
steps that can be taken. As you know, the gun lobbyists made it
nearly impossible for the Federal Government to enforce some of
our existing government laws. The Federal Government is barred
from keeping records of gun sales for more than 24 hours. It's
barred from denying a gun sale if a background check can't be
completed within 72 hours. It's barred from electronically
managing trace data, information about guns recovered at crime
scenes and who sold them. Investigations into corrupt gun
dealers, therefore, take months instead of minutes. It's barred
from requiring gun dealers to keep inventories, logs, and their
books in order. And it's barred from seeking assistance from
other agencies like the FBI and the DEA.
So I reject the assertion that there's no room for
improvement. Clearly, there is. And I'll continue to push for
sensible gun safety measures like preventing suspects on our
terrorist watchlist from buying guns, making interstate gun
trafficking a Federal crime.
But, General Lynch, there may be ways, real ways, to
strengthen background checks through Executive action--
Executive action that could save lives.
Everytown Against Gun Violence recently issued a report on
one potential action. Under current law, only people in the
business of selling firearms have to conduct background checks.
People who aren't in the business of selling firearms don't
have to. But some of these people who technically aren't
sellers and don't work in the business sell hundreds of guns a
year, without background checks, at gun shows, online, or out
of car trunks.
We have to better define the language. Couldn't we set a
number for how many gun sales it takes to be in the business of
selling guns? And has your office explored that possibility,
and are you considering a threshold like that to define who
would be technically engaged in the business?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, with respect to
the serious issue of gun violence, the Department is certainly
pursuing all of our enforcement actions that we do have under
existing law. And, certainly, it would always be useful to have
additional resources for our ATF to allow them to fully
investigate everything that we need and that comes under our
purview.
With respect to the question that you've raised as to a
statutory definition, I believe the statute is going to define
that at this time. But, certainly, the Department of Justice
and ATF are committed to rigorous enforcement of that statute.
Mr. Deutch. All right.
To the extent that there is an opportunity for Executive
action that can be taken to help define something that is
undefined in statute, is that something that you are looking
at?
Or let me just simply, since I'm out of time, encourage you
to take a hard look at that, because that would be a meaningful
step that could help, again, ensure that the background checks
that should be completed, even without additional legislation,
are, in fact, completed. I hope you'll consider that seriously.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize himself.
Madam Attorney General, I want to tell you I enjoyed
visiting with you recently. And I want to thank you for DAG
Sally Yates' recent trip to South Carolina, which was very
well-received.
There are three areas I want to cover with you. First would
be Mr. Kadzik's letter to Congress recently. And I'm going to
paraphrase one of the paragraphs, but it's a pretty close
paraphrase: The IRS mishandled tax-exempt applications in a
manner that disproportionately impacted conservative groups.
I read that to mean that he found a discriminatory effect.
In other words, there were similarly situated people, but there
was a disparate impact on conservative groups. That's, I think,
the only way to read that paragraph in Mr. Kadzik's letter.
He then wrote, ``It left the appearance that the IRS
conduct was motivated by political, discriminatory, corrupt, or
other inappropriate motives.''
So have you a discriminatory effect, but he said the cause,
the motive was mismanagement, as opposed to a crime. And then
that got me thinking, if my sheriff stops only red cars for
speeding, at what point is it not mismanagement but it actually
is circumstantial evidence of intent?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, with respect to the actions
that you refer to, Congressman, I think you certainly are
accurate when you indicate that our letter noted that the
groups that had complained were treated differently from other
groups. And they were also treated in a way that did not
advance their applications; they were treated badly. So one can
understand their concerns and the issues that they raised.
With respect to the investigation, as we outline in our
letter, under the relevant statutes that we were reviewing, we
needed to find evidence of criminal intent. That intent was not
there.
With respect to the example that you raise, certainly there
are certain statutes that take into effect a discriminatory
impact. But, again, even in our civil rights laws, if one had a
discriminatory impact, you would not necessarily be able to
prove a discriminatory intent.
Mr. Gowdy. It's really hard to prove intent, really hard,
which is why usually you use circumstantial evidence. And if
female voters were required to show two forms of ID but male
voters were only required to show one, how many voters would
have to pass through the prompter before you would say that's
circumstantial evidence of an intent to discriminate?
I mean, never do you have direct evidence of intent. It's
really hard to prove intent, which is why we typically use
circumstantial evidence.
And I noted, in Mr. Kadzik's letter, he didn't say there
was insufficient evidence; he said there was no evidence. Would
you agree with me that there's a very big difference between
saying insufficient evidence and absolutely no evidence, which
is what he wrote? He found no evidence of any intent to
discriminate despite the fact that there's a discriminatory
effect.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I think the letter does speak
for itself in that regard.
What I would say is that, Congressman, as a general matter
in how we handle our criminal investigations, we do look for
evidence of intent. And it comes in a number of ways--some
circumstantial, some direct. Every case is different. In every
investigation, as in this investigation, we gather all the
evidence, we gather all the facts, and we apply the law to
those facts and let that determine the answer.
Mr. Gowdy. I'm with you, Madam Attorney General, but you
concede the discriminatory effect. So that's half of what you
have to prove, and it's already there. You concede that.
And we've got e-mails from Ms. Lerner that we need a plan
but we have to be cautious that it's not per se a political
project. I think a jury would find that to be an interesting e-
mail.
She worried mightily that Republican control of the Senate
might be tantamount to a Republican President, and she wasn't
thrilled about that. That would be circumstantial evidence of a
political motivation.
She referred to the Tea Party as very dangerous.
I mean, how many pieces of circumstantial evidence--keeping
in mind the author of the letter didn't say ``insufficient.'' I
could have lived with it if you'd said, ``Look, our prosecutors
just couldn't make the case. It's a close call. It's a jump
ball. We couldn't make the case.'' That's not what he said. He
said there's no evidence.
I just cited three e-mails that I think would be evidence
of some intent. Don't you think?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, as I said, I
think the letter in its full entirety speaks for itself and
does outline not only all of the issues that you raise but the
host of other things that were reviewed and looked at in the
course of the investigation and does explain the conclusions to
which the Department came.
With respect to the referral, the issue was whether or not
there was evidence of a criminal intent. That is to say, did
one act on certain views? Was that the reason for the actions?
And as we've noted in our letter, and as we've offered to have
in further briefings with you, we did not find evidence of that
through the million pages of documents and hundreds of
witnesses that were interviewed.
Mr. Gowdy. I would love to take you up on that offer for a
private debriefing, because I need somebody to explain to me
the difference between specific intent and general intent.
Because, as I read her e-mails, even some of the mediocre
prosecutors on this panel, I think, could get to a jury, given
the evidence that they have.
I want to touch on two other issues and then--because
there's a trend of going over.
I would invite you at some point--and this is going to be a
bipartisan comment, because this goes back to 2004, and in 2004
there was a Republican administration.If you look at the
firearms prosecutions from 2004 to 2012, you're going to be
shocked at how few prosecutions there were, not for 924(c), not
for firearms offenses that happened during a crime of violence,
but I mean lying and buying, selling a gun to somebody who's
been adjudicated mentally ill, somebody who's been committed.
There were 22 guilty adjudications over the course of 9 years
for people possessing firearms who were users or addicts of
drugs--22 in 9 years.
So when I hear my friend from Florida talk about the need
for more gun laws, yes, we're going to say, how are you doing
with the ones you currently have?
And I would invite your attention to this chart, which came
from--former Attorney General Holder provided it to us. I think
you're going to be shocked at how few--and I get that there's
not much jury appeal. Trust me, I get that it is hard to go in
front of a jury in a lying-and-buying case. But you noted
earlier the focus on firearms cases in the context of violent
crime. And I think we would all agree the objective is to
prevent the violent crime, not to do a really good job
prosecuting it afterward, but to keep it from happening in the
first place, which is why I would invite your attention to
this.
My last point is simply this: You have been asked
repeatedly this morning to comment on ongoing investigations,
and you always give the same answer. And it's the exact same
answer that Marino gave me in the back, who's a former U.S.
attorney, and it's the exact same answer Mr. Ratcliffe gave me
in the back, who's a former U.S. attorney, which is you can
neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing
investigation. And if we happen to know about one, you're not
going to comment on it. That's exactly what you should say. I'm
just wondering why the President didn't get that memo.
And you may in your well of souls believe that it does not
impact Director Comey or you, and it may not. But I promise you
it impacts the perception of my fellow citizens when the person
who is responsible for executing the laws in this country
prejudges the outcome of investigations. It may not impact the
reality; I promise you it impacts the perception. And that's
equally dangerous.
And, with that, I would recognize the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Attorney General.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. I posed the same questions to the FBI
Director. I want your advice, and I'd like to work with you.
In my hometown of Chicago, there are 40, 50 shootings any
given weekend. That is a whole classroom of children, and it's
unacceptable. And we need more Federal action, I think, because
whatever we do in Chicago, according to a city report from the
mayor's office and the Chicago Police Department, 60 percent of
the guns are coming from Wisconsin, Indiana, and Mississippi--
all States that have weaker gun laws than the city of Chicago
does.
We know this thanks to the Chicago Police Department's
tracking of trace data, meaning that the Chicago Police
Department traces every single gun it recovers to determine
where it was originally sold and how it may have entered the
illegal market.
So, given that the majority party in Congress refuses to
take up, despite widespread and robust support, gun control
legislation, a couple of questions: What's your advice to me,
as an individual Member of Congress who supports gun control,
and how can I help curb gun violence in Chicago?
And, second, will the Justice Department encourage the
police departments everywhere in the Nation to collect trace
data on illegal gun trafficking like we do in Chicago?
So, first, you're in Chicago, you're a Member of Congress;
what's your advice? And, second, trace the guns. We're doing it
in Chicago. What do you think about across the Nation?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, thank you for
the question.
You certainly raise an area of concern and priority for the
Department of Justice, which is, of course, violence, be it gun
violence or any type of violence, in our cities, as it affects
our children, not only those who are the actual victims, but
children who are exposed to violence, of course, suffer
greatly, as we know, in their later development as well.
We feel that the city of Chicago is certainly taking a
concerted look at this problem. And I'm extremely proud to note
that the Federal Government, through the U.S. Attorney's Office
in Chicago, is working very closely with local law enforcement
on this issue, focusing on the issue of not just firearms but
also the gang violence in Chicago as well.
We also have a very strong presence with our Federal
agencies, FBI as well as ATF, who works closely with the
Chicago Police Department on the eTrace program that you
mentioned. We do find it to be a very useful program. We do
find it to be something that arms us with the data to trace the
source of weapons into neighborhoods who suffer so grievously
from them. And, certainly, it's an example that certainly we
would hope could be exported to other cities, as well, as you
have noted.
And I can tell you that we are committed to continuing to
work with the city of Chicago and all of our major cities in
violence reduction programs. In fact, Chicago was represented
at the Violence Reduction Summit that I held just last month
with the mayor and the police chief. And we had a very robust
discussion about the causes of violence, some of the ways in
which the Department could be helpful in very targeted ways,
whether it is increasing our task force presence, whether it is
focusing on dangerous fugitives in the area, whether it is
focusing on violence prevention efforts as well.
So we remain committed to working not just with Chicago but
all of our cities who are experiencing these troubling issues.
Mr. Gutierrez. So if you were to suffer something as
egregious as a demotion to a Member of Congress from your high
position as Attorney General, what do you think? What would you
do? You're back in Chicago, you got demoted, you're not the
Attorney General, you're just one of us 435.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I certainly would not call
that a demotion. I think all of us in public service have a
great opportunity to----
Mr. Gutierrez. You get my point. What would you do?
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. To serve our people.
And, certainly, I think that within this body there's a lot
of significant discussion going on. Obviously, the resources to
fund the programs that we have on the ground are essential and
funding the Department's budget that focuses on the Smart on
Crime initiative, which does focus on violence reduction as
well as reentry and recidivism. Because, of course, a grave
concern is, as people return home to their communities, that
they not return to violence, as well.
So, certainly, the resources that would be useful for the
Department's overall budget. And, particularly, when it comes
to firearms, the resources for ATF----
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay.
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. To continue its
vigorous enforcement of the firearms laws and the eTrace
program would be very beneficial.
Mr. Gutierrez. Lastly, I want to--so there's a letter from
my colleagues Congressman Ruben Gallego and Robin Kelly from
Chicago. And they've asked to meet with you with a group of
Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Black Caucus.
And I want to put it in some context for all the Members
and why we would invite you to meet particularly with that
group. Because African-Americans are 13 percent of the
population, but they constitute over half of all the
homicides--over half. So 13 percent; 55 percent of all the
deaths, given firearms.
And, interesting, Latinos are relatively less likely to own
a firearm than the general population, and yet, again, they
disproportionately die due to gun violence. So you have a
population that doesn't own guns but dies of guns. And 13-
percent black population, and over half of the deaths.
I hope you got the letter. And I love working with those
two colleagues of mine. And I was wondering if you would accept
an invitation to come and meet with us.
Attorney General Lynch. I look forward to meeting with the
caucus. Thank you so much.
Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you very much, Attorney General.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the Chairman.
And I thank you for being here.
The Inspector General Act, which is currently on the books,
says that inspectors general, in carrying out their provisions
under the act, are authorized ``to have access to all records,
reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations,
and other material available to the applicable establishment
which relate to programs and operations with respect to which
the inspector general has responsibilities under the Act.''
Somehow, the Office of Legal Counsel indicated on July 20
that, despite longstanding tradition within the FBI,
specifically, the Department of Justice Inspector General is no
longer allowed access to grand jury testimony, wiretap
information, credit information.
We disagree with that conclusion, but, at this point, we
have worked with the inspector general, worked with this
Committee, and we're still waiting for full input from the
Department of Justice to try to rectify this.
I was hoping that I'd get some commitment from you to work
with us and spend time with us on the proposed piece of
legislation. I think the current law is sufficient, but you
don't, and we're trying to come up with something that would
rectify this.
Would you be willing, as somebody from the Department of
Justice, to give us guidance and input on this?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman.
I think that you certainly raise the important issue of the
important work of all agencies' inspectors general, in
particular the Department of Justice----
Mr. Chaffetz. I just want to get a commitment that you'll
work with us on this proposed piece.
Attorney General Lynch. We have sent legislation up, we
feel, that would clarify it and, in fact, ensure that the
inspector general would receive all the information he needed
and we'd be happy to meet with you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Would you meet with us, not you specifically,
somebody within the Department of Justice, to give input on the
piece of legislation that I'm drafting in a bipartisan way with
Mr. Cummings to try to resolve this?
Attorney General Lynch. We're happy to meet with you.
Mr. Chaffetz. Okay. And hopefully soon? Soon, I hope?
Attorney General Lynch. I will have my staff reach out to
yours. We're happy to meet with you and work with you on that
issue.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
I've also had great concern on geolocation. In July, the
Oversight Committee, we sent a letter seeking the so-called
Jones memos. This relates to a Supreme Court case from a number
of years ago.
On October 26, I did a bipartisan, bicameral letter, six
Representatives, five Senators, including the Ranking Member
from both Judiciary Committees in the House and the Senate,
calling on the Department of Justice to share with the Congress
these letters. I still don't understand why you won't share
this information with us.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly, with respect to
the requests that you refer to, to the extent that it refers to
the internal deliberative process of the Department, we
typically do not provide those specific memos.
However, we certainly do look forward to working with you
to share the information.
Mr. Chaffetz. You don't think that the House Judiciary
Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee should understand
your approach in tracking people through geolocation?
Attorney General Lynch. We certainly are willing to sit and
work with you to convey what we can and as much as we can about
why we----
Mr. Chaffetz. That's a huge step forward, because thus far
the Department of Justice has not been willing to share with us
any information or have such a meeting. So I look forward to
that meeting.
I need to ask one more topic. I'm trying to go quick just
because of the time.
Share with me your thoughts and perspective on subpoenas.
You know, subpoenas are often issued from a variety of
different places, but Congress also issues subpoenas. Do you
feel a duty and obligation to help enforce those subpoenas, as
well?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, that's part of the
obligation of the Department of Justice in terms of its general
law enforcement obligations.
Mr. Chaffetz. When would you not enforce a subpoena?
Attorney General Lynch. You know, I would have to know more
specific facts and context to provide an answer as to whether
or not we would not be able to for some reason or whether there
would be a reason not to. I would have to have more
information.
Mr. Chaffetz. Do you feel a duty and an obligation to
enforce, then, a congressionally issued subpoena?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, with respect to a
subpoena issued by any body, be it Congress or be it a court,
the decision as to whether to enforce it or not would be one
that we would review and determine the best course of action to
take. But I would certainly like to have more facts about the
specific issue, if I could.
Mr. Gowdy. I think what the gentleman is asking is, if a
subpoena goes out and someone does not comply with the
subpoena, how do you view the Department's obligations to
enforce compliance?
A subpoena is only as good as your ability to enforce
compliance. And we don't have access to a police force, which
is a good thing. So we're relying upon you to enforce them.
And I take the gentleman's question to be, how do you view
your obligation to back up this branch of government when it
needs access to documents or witnesses?
Attorney General Lynch. Again, Mr. Chairman, I certainly--
with respect to a subpoena from this body or any other that
would come to the Department of Justice for enforcement, we
would review all of the information about that.
Certainly, in my career as a prosecutor and as a U.S.
attorney, I have had occasion to issue subpoenas and then work
on alternate means of compliance, both as a prosecutor and as a
private attorney. So there are a number of ways in which we can
obtain compliance, and I would certainly need to know more of
the factual predicate before I could provide you with any
specific guidance.
Mr. Gowdy. Yes, ma'am.
The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for your time today
and also for your patience.
It seems as though many people on the Committee would like
to have some of your time.
Attorney General Lynch. That's quite all right.
Ms. Bass. And I listened to my colleague a minute ago, as
well as my colleague Gutierrez, and he mentioned the letter.
There's a letter, also, that I sent to your staff requesting a
meeting with you. And perhaps what we could do is just join
forces, because I didn't realize there were multiple letters.
Because the concern is really the increase in homicides in
a number of cities and specifically the desire to sit down with
you personally, as well as members of your staff, to look at
various programs that the agency has that might be allocated in
more of an emergency fashion, considering there has been a
spike in specific cities.
So I would definitely like to continue following up. And,
perhaps, if by the middle of next month we could have the
meeting, it would be very good, since we've been asking for a
while.
I wanted to know if you would tell us about some of the
programs from a more global perspective. For example, the
Federal-local partnership like B-FED, which I believe is the
partnership between the Federal law enforcement and local
police in Baltimore. If you could talk about how those efforts
are helping to address a spike in Baltimore.
As well as you mentioned your summit, the summit that you
had in Detroit. And I wanted to know if you could perhaps share
some of the lessons from that summit in terms of how cities are
able to address the spike.
And then, after that, I want to ask you a question about
sex trafficking.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for those questions on
topics of great importance to me as Attorney General, to the
Department of Justice, and to the American people.
With respect to the violent crime issues that we're facing,
while, as we have noted, for a number of months and even the
last year or so we're fortunate in that crime in general is
down across the country and in all of our major cities crime
generally is down, but we have neighborhoods where there is a
persistent issue of violence. And we have neighborhoods where
we either have not seen similar decreases or we have seen
increases in violent crime.
In my former role as U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, I had many
of those neighborhoods within my district, so I dealt with
those on a daily basis. And I know the importance of a
partnership in terms of dealing with that issue.
Baltimore is an excellent example of some of the resources
the Federal Government is looking to bring to bear to deal with
specific situations. We've partnered with the police department
in Baltimore to provide an influx of Federal agents, focusing
on the violent crime problem, to aid with the investigation and
literally making those cases so that we can remove the violent
offenders from the streets of Baltimore and allow the citizens
to continue to flourish in that great city.
With respect to the summit that I had, because we were
looking at this issue from a host of perspectives, actually,
this summer, I asked my United States attorneys in cities that
had seen an increase in violence in some neighborhoods to meet
directly with their local partners and counterparts--district
attorneys, police officers, sheriffs--and discuss the nature of
the crime increase and try and focus on the reasons, to the
extent that they could be gleaned from those discussions, for
those increases.
We were able to essentially accumulate a great body of
information there. And, as one can imagine, the reasons for
crime differ depending upon the neighborhood.
Ms. Bass. Sure.
Attorney General Lynch. With that, we built on that and
convened our Violent Crime Summit in October, where we had
mayors and police chiefs and U.S. attorneys from those cities
here in Washington speaking together, sharing best practices
for crime reduction.
Ms. Bass. Great.
If there are--and I want to get to my last point and would
ask the Chair's patience with this. Perhaps we could get the
information from that summit that happened in October. If we
could get those proceedings, it would be very helpful.
Finally, I wanted to ask you about sex trafficking, which I
know is a high priority with you. And I wanted to know if you
could mention any specific collaboration that is taking place
with the Department of Health and Human Services, in
particular, because we know that a percentage of the girls
involved in trafficking are in the foster care system.
So the question is, is there collaboration between DOJ and
DHHS, and can you speak to that?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, certainly. We have a number of
collaborations across different agencies. I cannot recall the
specific ones with HHS, but I would certainly like to provide
you with that information.
We also are working with the Department of Labor, and we're
working with State and local law enforcement in many ways to
not only improve enforcement but to provide services for the
survivors. The services range from housing services to
treatment to therapy and the like.
Ms. Bass. Okay. And I will follow up with you.
Specifically, getting these girls back into the foster care
system is really critical. So I'll specifically look for that
collaboration.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gowdy. Yes, ma'am.
The gentlelady yields back.
Madam Attorney General, you've been sitting there for 3
hours. Votes are coming, which will provide a break. But I am
happy to break now, given the fact that you've been sitting
there 3 hours, if you would like 5 minutes, or we can march on
until they call votes. It is totally up to you.
Attorney General Lynch. I would appreciate 5 minutes if
that's possible.
Mr. Gowdy. Done.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
[Recess.]
Mr. Collins [presiding]. The Committee will come to order.
Welcome back. Thank you for the break and allowing us to go
vote. And at this time we will continue questions, and the
Chair recognizes Ms. Walters from California.
Ms. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Lynch, last year I followed the various
scandals that plagued the Department of Veterans Affairs. And
like many Americans, I was appalled at the manipulation of
patient wait times at numerous VA facilities. Our veterans
risked life and limb to serve this Nation and the VA failed
them.
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on June 11, 2014, that
the FBI was investigating criminal allegations, and this was
within the Veterans Affairs related to the manipulation of
patient wait times. Can you provide to us the status of an
update regarding the investigation?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for the question. I
certainly share your concern in regard for our Nation's
veterans, having several of them in my own family.
With respect to that matter, I'm not able to provide you an
update at this time. I would like to have my staff reach out to
you after we see what information we'd be able to provide to
your office.
Ms. Walters. Okay. Are there any cases in which the
Department of Justice has decided to pursue charges against VA
employees for manipulating wait times? And if not, why not?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm not aware at this point in time
of the status of that matter. So, again, I would not be able to
give you that information.
What I can say, Congresswoman, not to delay the time, is
that certainly the service of our veterans is of great
importance to us and we support them in a number of ways, not
just through the investigation that you referred to, but
through our Servicemembers Initiative act and our work
protecting their right to vote overseas, as well as our
implementation of services such as veterans courts and working
with local municipalities to alleviate homelessness in
veterans. All of these things, all of these issues plague our
veterans and are something that we as a Nation need to be
engaged in.
Ms. Walters. Do you happen to know how many VA medical
facilities are under active investigation for manipulating wait
times?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm not able to give you that
information at this time.
Ms. Walters. Okay. And you wouldn't know when the
investigations are planned to be concluded?
Attorney General Lynch. No, but I certainly would
appreciate the chance to get back to you with that.
Ms. Walters. Okay. Just a couple more questions. How many
cases has the DOJ declined to prosecute or press charges
against the VA employees for manipulating wait times?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm not able to give you that
information.
Ms. Walters. Okay. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Collins. The gentlelady yields?
Ms. Walters. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you for coming and thank you for
enduring several hours of testimony, so I will try to be very
brief.
What I wanted to do in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, is ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from The
Clemency Report which talks about 25 women deserving of
clemency. Of interest to me would be of course Sharanda Jones
and Danielle Metz. And I'd like to give it to you so that--a
copy to you so that we can talk about it in the future. But
there are cases where----
Mr. Collins. Without objection, it will be entered into the
record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The material submitted by Mr. Richmond is not printed in
this hearing record but is on file with the Subcommittee and can be
accessed at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104114.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you. There are cases where women were
sentenced to either natural life in jail or a really large
number of years when they were not the actual kingpin, they
were just either following their boyfriend or other things. And
I really would like the Department to do something on that as
we talk about criminal justice reform and move forward.
I represent the Second Congressional District of Louisiana,
which is New Orleans, and we're under a very unique situation
in which we have a consent decree for both our police
department and our sheriff's department. And the cost of the
implementation of those consent decrees are a large part of our
city budget. And in an effort to make the police department
more constitutional and the jail more constitutional, which are
both laudable goals, we are sacrificing city services that
would keep people from having to deal with the police or the
sheriff's department. So it is almost we're doing something on
our left hand to help, but we're depleting all of our resources
on the right, so it's not helping. And we now have an increase
in police response time that is almost an hour when you call
911.
So the question is, as you all decide Byrne grants and
others and look at consent decrees, when you have a unique
instance where you have more than one consent decree in a small
jurisdiction, can you all help to provide resources so that we
can, one, comply with the consent decree, but two, not lose
critical services for our youth and our public to keep them
safe at the same time?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I appreciate the
question. Certainly our practice of being involved with local
law enforcement jurisdictions in a host of areas, not just
consent decrees but collaborative reform and technical
assistance, is an important way in which we provide assistance
to our colleagues there.
With respect to the New Orleans situation, again, I think
every municipality does see these as a financial challenge and
we certainly understand that. We view it as an investment in
the future of constitutional policing and constitutional jails.
When a jurisdiction is involved with a consent decree they
still are able to apply for grants and other programs and
other--from other portions of the Department or any other
agency. So it would not preclude the kind of assistance that
you are talking about. And certainly I'm happy to have someone
from our grantmaking arm reach out to your staff and talk about
options there.
Mr. Richmond. Well, I would just say that because it's
taking up such a disproportionate and large part of our city
budget, we're having to raise taxes and we're having to cut
services such as youth recreation and other things that would
keep kids out of trouble in the first place. So we don't want
to overstress constitutionality and then at the same time take
opportunity away from kids. So to the extent that you all can
help, whether it's grants or other things, we'd appreciate it.
Another thing is Attorney General Holder and Secretary
Duncan sent out an advisory on the school-to-prison pipeline.
And I would just hope that that's something that you all are
going to follow up with. We had a bill, but it seems like
school districts are still not getting the word that police are
not the answer to a school discipline problem. So what are you
all doing in that effort?
Attorney General Lynch. With respect to the school-to-
prison pipeline, it is still a very important focus of the
Department's civil rights efforts. We provide guidance to
school districts and law enforcement organizations. We actually
have a number of cases that were brought approximately 2, 2-1/2
years ago by the Civil Rights Division challenging school
districts' disciplinary policies. And we are trying to provide
assistance to reduce the zero-tolerance policies that tend to
be the start of this problem.
That, in conjunction with providing appropriate training to
law enforcement officers should schools choose to have school
resource officers, is a way in which we hope will be helpful to
every school district in dealing with these issues. Obviously,
school districts have to have discipline. But just as
obviously, the education and the future of the children really
is the first priority.
Mr. Richmond. Two things as I close. One is to stress the
importance of the COPS program and additional funding for
community policing and other initiatives that would help.
The second two are requests. One would be to urge you to
continue to work with the different district courts to push
specialty courts, whether it's drug courts or reentry courts or
other things that could help, would be very, very important.
And the other one is a request. Can your office get to me
the statistics on the adjudicated deferral of convictions, the
diversion program, how many people get accepted and what those
demographics look like? Because I am very concerned that
diversion programs are usually used for those who have means
and those who have some sort of political connections or
community connections, and that people who really need it don't
get the benefit of the doubt to get accepted in it. So if I
could get a year or 2 worth of data on diversion programs,
who's admitted and what those demographics look like, who's
rejected and what those demographics look like, I'd appreciate
it.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired, but it's a
good question. If our witness would like to answer or provide
the information requested.
Attorney General Lynch. I look forward to providing you
information on those points. With respect to diversion courts,
because they are often run by the court system and not by the
relevant U.S. Attorney's Offices, we would look for ways to get
you information from the Office of Court Administration also.
But certainly we do have a wealth of information on the success
of those programs.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes myself for questions.
On September 28, 2015, the VA Office of Inspector General
report recommended the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of
Columbia, pursue criminal charges against two VA executives it
found to have abused their position in order to take jobs with
less responsibility while keeping higher salaries. The report
detailed how the VA executives pressured subordinates to accept
positions transfers only to volunteer for the vacated jobs
while keeping their original salaries and having the VA pay
them for more than $400,000 in taxpayer-funded relocation
benefits. Will the DOJ pursue charges against these employees?
And if not, why not?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for the question, Mr.
Chairman.
With respect to a matter that's been recently referred to
the Department, it's a matter that is currently under review,
and so I'm not able to comment on it at this time.
Mr. Collins. Well, I think one of the issues, and I think
the gentlelady from California also talked about this as well,
the VA issue is something that has been ongoing. And I think
you made a rightful statement that our veterans deserve that
support and help. And I think we're seeing vast--we've seen it
in Georgia, where people are just transferred, not held
accountable. There are some that have been held accountable.
I think coming to this conclusion it is more than just
words. Actions have to be taken here. And to simply say we're
going to look into this and look into this is, frankly, the
American people on both sides of the aisle are not satisfied
with that kind of a response.
I do appreciate your mention of veterans courts. Veterans
courts are working in my home county in Georgia and we are
expanding that process. Governor Deal, as well as local DAs and
judicial circuits have worked well in that regard. So I would
commend that and continue the process as we look forward.
I want to move to an area that is coming up a little bit in
some trade secrets issues. And we recognize that trade secrets
is an additional form of intellectual property. And companies
in America, however, are increasingly targets of sophisticated
efforts to steal proprietary information, harming our global
competitiveness. There are many in Congress, including myself,
who believe we need to create a Federal civil remedy for the
misappropriation of trade secrets, keeping and harmonizing the
legal framework so that companies can protect.
The Administration throughout that recommendation supported
a call for private right on action on trade secrets. Do you
join them in recognizing that such a private right of action
would be beneficial?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly, Congressman, you have
raised an important issue and one of great priority to both me
and the entire Department of Justice. We are committed to
prosecuting cyber criminals who do seek to steal our
intellectual property. I believe the last recent estimate was
that we are losing possibly up to $250 billion worth of
intellectual property a year through hacks and crimes and the
likes. And we look forward to working with you on the proposed
legislation that you mention that you discussed.
Mr. Collins. So you do believe a civil--a private right of
action would complement your efforts, given the resources and
limited actions many times that you have, that would be
something that would complement the actions that you
currently----
Attorney General Lynch. I'd like to see the language, but
certainly we look forward to working with you on that.
Mr. Collins. Okay. Also, I want to--and we're jumping to
several different issues, and one I want to come back to that
was brought up earlier and it has to do with sanctuary cities.
And it goes back to a question. I want to know, has DOJ taken
any action to withhold law enforcement grants or other funding
to sanctuary jurisdictions? If not, why not?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, the grant process under which
DOJ operates is a formula-based grantmaking process and
different organizations and entities within cities apply.
Certainly with respect to our grantmaking process in general,
we're always cognizant of concerns that come up within certain
jurisdictions. We have found that through our grantmaking
process we can effectuate great change in a host of very
significant focused areas.
Mr. Collins. But, Madam Attorney General, if you don't mind
me interrupting you here, but shouldn't following the law be a
prerequisite for a grant?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly we work to enforce not
only the laws that you are referring to, but all the laws with
the cities with whom we work.
Mr. Collins. But getting a grant, if you're not following
the law, have no intention of following the law, why should--I
mean, at that point in time that application should be just set
aside, follow the law, we'll talk to you about your grant. Why
can't we get to that?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you for the question,
Congressman. Certainly it's been raised in a number of
contexts. We do find that our grants are very focused on
specific areas. For example, providing more police officers on
the ground, providing----
Mr. Collins. Again, you've great talking points. I
appreciate that. That's not my question. How can you get--if
you're using money to circumvent the law, as you just basically
implied, that's even worse. You don't incentivize this kind of
behavior. Why would it just not be a permanent stop to the
grantmaking process until a city or a municipality or a
government entity complied with the law?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, with respect to
our grantmaking process, we do make very discrete focused
grants to specific portions of city government.
Mr. Collins. So in essence you have subsidized lawless
behavior. That's what the Attorney General of the United States
of America has just testified to. And you can sit and--I mean,
that's what you just testified to. You'll give money to a
locality that is not following the law because you want to use
your grant in discrete, private ways. Is that what you just
said?
Attorney General Lynch. We use our grants to incentivize
better behavior in a host of ways. And our grantmaking policy
is focused on a very rigorous application process that is fact-
based.
Mr. Collins. So you're telling the people of the Ninth
District of Georgia that taxpayer dollars that come to them is
being used and will not even be considered if a locality is not
complying with the law, you will still give their tax dollars
to a locality that is not complying with the law. Is that your
testimony?
Attorney General Lynch. We look at a host of factors----
Mr. Collins. So the answer is yes----
Attorney General Lynch. We look at a host of factors----
Mr. Collins [continuing]. Not your host of factors, it is
yes. I mean, this is a part--and the Ranking Member made a
great point earlier when he first started. I want to finish up
with this. I've had these hearings and you'll be back before us
at another time and I look forward to those hearings.
But what is amazing to me and the American people watching
here is he said tell the truth and work those, but also being
prepared for questions. You're going get VA questions here,
you're going get sanctuary city questions here, you're going to
get a lot of host of questions, and even the Ranking Member
listed those off.
Coming and giving an answer that we're looking for, that
we're not being basically a setup where the people don't
understand that is a thing that very much frustrates most
people with Washington, D.C. You're been very well prepared for
this by those who want to prepare you for these hearings.
There's just a big disconnect at a certain point in time when
the Attorney General of the United States will not say that
they would not want to give money to an organization or to a
locality that is not following the law, we're still going to
give taxpayer money to that. That is unacceptable and what most
people find abhorrent.
And with that, I recognize the gentlelady from Washington,
Ms. DelBene.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Attorney General, for being here with us today
and for all of your time.
As you are no doubt aware, in 2012 voters in my home State
of Washington passed Initiative 502, which legalized the sale,
consumption, and taxation of marijuana products. Including
Washington, 23 States and the District of Columbia have
legalized some form of marijuana, and in 2016 several more
States are expected to consider marijuana legislation on ballot
initiatives. Washington has already collected over $80 million
in tax revenue from sales. And since the passage of Initiative
502, court filings in Washington for low-level marijuana
offenses have dropped by 98 percent, saving the State millions
of dollars in enforcement and in judicial expenses.
As you also may know, there are a wide variety of marijuana
reform measures that have been introduced in Congress. And
there is still the ongoing concerns about the conflict between
State and Federal law in many areas, particularly in banking,
for example, and they range from legalization to rescheduling.
And a bill that I recently introduced, the SMART
Enforcement Act, my bill would give you, the Attorney General,
the authority to waive the Controlled Substances Act for States
that are effectively regulating marijuana themselves, such as
Washington State. So it authorizes a waiver from the Controlled
Substances Act for States that meet requirements preventing the
distribution of marijuana to minors, violence or use of
firearms in cultivation and distribution of marijuana, and drug
driving.
And I want to thank your team for answering many questions
that my office had as we were in the drafting process. I wanted
to hear from you your thoughts on this type of legislation and
this approach to reform and about how the enforcement
priorities that were outlined in the Cole memo have been
working.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the
question. And we're happy to provide information and assistance
as needed by your staff as you review this important issue.
Certainly the factors that have been outlined in the Cole
memo and that have been stressed in further discussions with
the U.S. attorney community remain consistent. Our concerns are
the areas that you mentioned. Where a State chooses to have a
legalized marijuana structure, we will review that structure
and look at that, but our concern is, frankly, marijuana
getting into the hands of minors and also being trafficked out
of State where a State may have not made the same choice.
We also have grave concerns about the areas of the edible
products that are so appealing to children and expose them to
this product, which I don't believe is the goal of the regime
that you're talking about, but is a concern of ours. We're also
concerned as well about the violence that is still associated
with the higher levels of the marijuana trafficking industry.
And so at the Federal level we are focusing our resources
on that type of enforcement action and we continue to do so. In
my former office, we prosecuted cases involving importation of
large amounts of marijuana, utilizing an Indian reservation on
the Canadian border, and also utilizing organized crime
connections.
So we certainly still have a robust practice. Again, we
focus limited Federal resources on those types of cases.
Ms. DelBene. But we know that we have States like ours that
have challenges, banking in particular, because they're still,
even while there may not be active activity against States who
have legalized, we still have situations where banks are not
able to serve these types of businesses because of the conflict
between State and Federal law.
My legislation would allow you to issue waivers to States
that meet and provide an effective regulatory regime, and these
would be 3-year waivers so that you're able to give those
States a waiver from the Controlled Substances Act and
establish the requirements they were going to meet. Is that a
type of legislation that you think would help address the
issues that we have between Federal law and State law today?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, we're certainly happy to
review any proposal that you think would be helpful and to
provide comment on that. I'd have to look further at that
proposal before I could respond.
Ms. DelBene. It's a bill we've introduced and we work to
get feedback from your office too. So I'd welcome any feedback
there.
I also just wanted to ask quickly, you talked about
creating a new cybersecurity unit within the Criminal Division,
and I wanted to ask exactly what made you decide to do that and
what are the goals of that particular new unit.
Attorney General Lynch. That is within our Computer Crime
unit. We have a Cybersecurity Unit focusing on computer
intrusions, computer hacking, and the sophisticated types of
computer activity that hackers, many of whom are based
overseas, are using to infiltrate our computer systems.
The types of activity that we are looking at involve not
just the wholesale theft of private information, which can be
so challenging at a very basic level of identity theft, but
also the theft of personal information such as healthcare
information, which raises significant privacy concerns, and
also intellectual property.
We find that private industry is being targeted,
particularly our financial services are being targeted at an
increasing level by cyber intruders who are seeking to
essentially take advantage of American technology and ingenuity
and siphon it overseas for production there without the benefit
of the work that we put into it. As I indicated in response to
Mr. Chairman's question, that recent estimates indicate that
approximately up to $250 billion worth a year worth of our
intellectual property is being lost to us through that.
This is a grave concern, as all of us seek to make sure
that our economy is as strong as possible, that we get the
benefit of American ingenuity and American technology and that
we protect what are protected secrets. Many of these, many of
the matters that are being stolen are not only sensitive but
very, very unique to particular industries and important to the
growth of particular discrete industries. We felt that we
needed to increase the resources to this because the problem is
increasing.
In addition, however, it is working very, very well. And
one way in which it's working very well is through our
connections to private industry. We, along with the FBI and the
Secret Service, have made extensive contacts and discussions
with private industry, general counsel, CEOs, CIOs, about
cybersecurity and the need to share information about breaches
when they occur.
We are also ramping up within the Federal Government our
own efforts to provide information to companies when we
determine that they've been the subject of a breach or a hack.
We are working to reduce our response time to get information
to them as quickly as possible so they can also begin
protecting their data and protecting their information. So it's
been a very positive effort.
Mr. Collins. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. DelBene. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
DeSantis.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Attorney General.
When you were the U.S. attorney and you received inquiries
about an ongoing investigation, how would you respond to those
inquiries typically?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Mr. Congressman, thank you
for the question. It is Department policy and certainly my own
view as a career prosecutor, typically our response would be
that we're not able to comment on an ongoing matter.
Mr. DeSantis. And part of the reason for that is because if
you're out making statements in the press that detract from the
public's confidence that you're doing it by the facts if you're
trying to prejudice the investigation. Is that fair to say?
Attorney General Lynch. That is certainly one of the
reasons, Congressman.
Mr. DeSantis. Let me ask you this. When you were an AUSA, a
line prosecutor, did you ever prosecute a case against someone
with whom you had either a relationship on a personal or
professional basis?
Attorney General Lynch. Can you be more specific?
Mr. DeSantis. Did you ever get assigned a case where the
defendant was somebody that you knew either personally or
professionally that had a private relationship?
Attorney General Lynch. That did not occur in my
experience.
Mr. DeSantis. Would it have been appropriate, do you think,
for you to have had a case if someone who, you know, maybe you
worked with prior to taking the position as a prosecutor or
would that case likely have been sent to a prosecutor who did
not have that relationship?
Attorney General Lynch. It depends entirely on the facts
and circumstances of the case, what type of case it was,
whether it involved an individual, an entity. Every case is
looked at on its own merits.
Mr. DeSantis. And so here is why I'm kind of asking these
questions, because I delivered a letter, you probably haven't
had a chance to read it yet, from a number of my colleagues,
over 40 of us, requesting that you appoint a special counsel to
look into the situation with former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's e-mails. And the applicable regulations say that
that's warranted if there's a conflict of interest for DOJ or
there are other extraordinary circumstances and it would be in
the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel.
So here is why I think it makes sense. You were appointed
to the U.S. attorney in 1999 by President Bill Clinton. And
I've had a chance to meet a lot of people who have served as
ambassadors, different. I've never met anybody who doesn't have
esteem for the person that appointed them to high office. I
mean, it's a tremendous honor.
Your current boss who appointed you to your current job,
President Obama, appointed you again to the U.S. Attorney's
Office and now to your current job as the Attorney General and
it's been said made statements saying that somehow there is no
damage to national security. And then you have the presumptive
Presidential nominee of your party is subject to this
investigation.
So to me that would meet any definition of extraordinary
circumstances. I don't think we could probably find a similar
fact pattern in American history where such an investigation
was put up. So why not, so that the public has confidence that
this is done in an apolitical manner, assign somebody who is
trustworthy to serve as a special counsel and then this way,
however the investigation goes out, the public's going to have
much more confidence in the outcome?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, thank you for
your letter. I look forward to reviewing it and will provide a
response.
Mr. DeSantis. But why not just--forget about the letter--
why aren't these extraordinary circumstances?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I would never
forget about your letter, first of all, and we will provide a
response to that. Certainly, we'll review the issues that you
raised and we'll provide you with a response.
Mr. DeSantis. Do you think, though, that you as the
Attorney General then having an investigation that concerns the
spouse of somebody that's appointed you previously to a very
important position, I mean, and it's not saying that somehow
you're not going to try to do a good job, but it's just--it's
human nature I think. And then the appearance of whether there
is a conflict of interest at stake is something that I think a
lot of people are concerned about. And I appreciate you're
going to review the letter, but do you not see why that would
cause people a little bit of pause?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, we will review
everything raised in your letter and provide you with a
response.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Well, we look forward to doing that and
hopefully you will do that in a timely fashion. Your
predecessor usually did not respond in a timely fashion.
The vetting of the refugees. The testimony you gave is
different from the testimony that we had from the FBI Director
a couple weeks ago about our capacity to vet. And he, I think,
said that you're getting better at it, but that you can't
guarantee. I think you are confident that they'll be able to
vet.
Well, let me ask you this. Your Department brought
terrorism charges against a number of Bosnian immigrants, some
of whom--at least one of whom was a refugee. So if our vetting
is good, what happened in that case involving the Bosnian who
was indicted on material support for terrorism charges in
February 2015?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, I'd have to look at that
specific case before I could provide you with an answer about
that, Congressman. And of course if it were an ongoing case I
wouldn't be comment about it. So, again, I'm not able to give
you that answer at this time, and we'll see what information we
can provide about that matter.
As I indicated, we have a robust screening mechanism for
refugees from all countries. It relies upon efforts of not just
the FBI, but the Department of Homeland Security, Department of
Defense, State Department. It uses interviews, it uses
biometric data. It is, as I indicated earlier, a challenging
process, as is everything we do in law enforcement. But that
does not mean that we are not committed to doing everything
that we can to make sure that the process is as robust as
possible and that we do everything that we can to protect the
American people.
Mr. DeSantis. I think the concern, though, is that you can
do everything right, but given the lack of data, the lack of
information we have on people who are being pulled out of a
very, very difficult circumstance, essentially an Islamic civil
war, that you can do everything right and you could still have
people come into the country who mean to do us harm. This
Bosnian was able to get in in probably circumstances that it
would have been easier to vet than with Syrians, and so I know
a lot of us have concerns. But I appreciate your testimony.
And I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. I thank the Chairman.
And I thank the Attorney General for your presence and your
testimony here today and your leadership.
One of my colleagues from Illinois mentioned earlier that
in the city of Chicago approximately 60 percent of the
instances of gun violence can be traced to weapons that were
initially purchased in either the neighboring States of
Wisconsin or Indiana, as well as, I believe, from Mississippi.
It's also the case that many of the weapons that are used to
commit crime in south-central Los Angeles can be traced
initially to the neighboring State of Arizona.
We've got a similar problem in New York in terms of the
weapons that are used often to commit crime in the city, and in
fact this has been illustrated. Recently we've experienced the
deaths of four officers in the line of duty over the last 10
months, Detective Ramos, Detective Liu, Brian Moore, and
Randolph Holder. It was a very diverse group, sort of
emblematic of the increased diversity of the New York City
Police Department, one was African America, one was White, one
was Asian, one was Latino. They all paid the ultimate price.
One of the things that they had in common was that the
weapons that were used to kill each of these offices came from
outside of the State. Detective Ramos, Detective Liu were
killed by a weapon that came from Georgia, Officer Moore a
weapon that came from Georgia, Officer Holder a weapon that
came from South Carolina.
And so it seems that even as certain States see fit to
tighten their gun violence prevention laws, because there is no
national legislative effort, many States have been subjected to
closing the front door, but guns being able to come into those
States through the back door.
And so my question is, do you think that the gun
trafficking laws that currently exist on the books are adequate
for the ATF, the FBI, the Department of Justice to do its job
in combatting gun violence?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly, Congressman, the
protection of the American people, particularly when it comes
to gun violence, is one of our highest priorities, and we are
committed to making every effort to carry out that goal and
that responsibility. We look to vigorously enforce all the laws
on the books. There are a number of cases I recall when I was
still in Brooklyn that my colleague in the Brooklyn DA's office
was able to essentially close down a firearm trafficking ring
that was bringing guns, as you indicated, from Georgia to New
York.
So it is something that all levels of law enforcement take
very seriously. We work closely with our State and local
colleagues on this issue and we will continue to do so.
Certainly should Congress consider additional legislation,
we'd be happy to provide input and comment on that. That is
certainly something that I think there is a debate about and I
think all voices should be part of that debate.
Mr. Jeffries. Has the Department of Justice taken a
position, for instance, as to whether universal background
checks or comprehensive background checks would be something
that Congress should look do as it relates to tightening our
gun violence prevention laws?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly I think as we've
been asked that question we've provided information about cases
and about trends that we have seen that we hope would be
helpful to the analysis here in Congress on that. And if that
were something that Congress were to consider we would work to
implement that as well.
Mr. Jeffries. It's my understanding that the Department of
Justice is currently investigating whether the civil rights of
Eric Garner were violated when he died as a result of a
chokehold that was deployed in July of 2014 by an NYPD officer,
Daniel Pantaleo. Is that correct?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes. That tragic incident did occur
in 2014 and it was on Staten Island, which is in my former
district.
Mr. Jeffries. And in December of 2014, I believe the
Department of Justice publicly announced that it was
considering whether civil rights prosecution would be
appropriate. Is that correct?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes. Essentially, as you may be
aware, the Staten Island district attorney initially undertook
an investigation and grand jury presentation. As is commonly
our practice, we awaited the results of that investigation and
after the conclusion of the State matter began our own Federal
review, which is ongoing.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And in the context of the Federal
review that's ongoing, Eric Garner obviously has been killed.
The individual who I think courageously recorded the incident
is currently being prosecuted at the State level in a manner
that many of us view as retaliatory. It remains to be seen. But
the officer who deployed a chokehold that had been
administratively prohibited by the NYPD for the previous 20
years remains on the force on desk duty still receiving a
salary.
At any point did the Department of Justice communicate to
the city of New York that it should refrain from proceeding
with disciplinary action against this officer during the
pendency of your investigation?
Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired, but the
Attorney General can answer.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Congressman, I am not able to get into the specifics of
the discussions that we may or may not have had with the NYPD,
except to say that it is common practice that during the
pendency of the investigation officers are placed on a modified
duty assignment consistent with the internal practices of the
NYPD and that they still retain the right to take action. They
often do await the results of a Federal investigation also.
That has been my experience in the past with the cases that I
have personally prosecuted and seen prosecuted.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Madam Attorney General, for being here today
and for your patience in sitting through this long testimony.
The primary function of any prosecutor is to enforce the
law and the Constitution and to ensure justice. And as I
listened to some of the questions, and this can be applied in
several different areas that we've been discussing today, the
Chairman took you down the path of talking to you about
sanctuary cities. And to me the idea of sanctuary cities is
really antithetical to what prosecutors believe and that is
justice, because it is the selective application of laws.
And I'm wondering what your opinion is of sanctuary cities
given all that's been happening in this country. We have cities
that have decided to enforce their own brand of law, to ignore
law. We have constituents that we represent that don't
understand that and Members that do not understand how we can
have a law enforcement community that does not enforce the law.
It just is inexplicable.
I think it's important that we have some clarity to this
answer, but Federal law prohibits, specifically section 642 of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996, any State or local government from prohibiting their
officials from communicating with DHS information regarding the
immigration status of any purpose. Yet, it happens.
And I'm just wondering, your predecessor didn't address
this issue, I'm wondering if you can address it and if you can
give the American people some clarity as to why sanctuary
cities are still allowed to exist in this country.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, I have to tell
you, it is not an issue on which I'm able to give you clarity
about the history of sanctuary cities. At this point I'm happy
to look into the issue and provide you with whatever
information we can.
I know that it is an issue of intense debate, and of course
the Department of Justice is able to provide not only the
information, but to help in that debate. I'm not able to give
you the history of how they came about or explain that to you.
I do understand the challenges that you note, however.
Mr. Bishop. Well, that is exactly why Americans are
frustrated, because that's the answer that they're getting.
Selective enforcement of the law is not justice. It is in fact
lawlessness. And we live in a country that we require our
citizens to obey the law, yet our own law enforcement is being
directed not to follow the law.
So you have to wonder at what point in time do the citizens
of this country begin to say, ``Why in the world am I following
the law if my own government doesn't apply it in a fair way?''
I do believe that we are fast approaching a point in time in
this country where people will just ignore the law. We wonder
why the crime continues to proliferate. You have your violence
reduction summit that you had. I would think this would be a
really good conversation piece to have, why is it that we allow
cities to ignore the law and why law enforcement refuses to
talk to each other and why we allow some of these glaring
examples of violence to occur in our inner cities, we complain
about it, I have heard it here today, yet we're not doing what
we could do to ensure that it doesn't happen in the future.
It causes me great anxiety to sit here and not hear
someone, a public official, say we will not stand for
lawlessness, we will not allow cities to circumvent or ignore
the law. We are going to use the power and weight of our office
to ensure that justice is done.
And I say that with conviction because I believe it's
common sense. It has nothing to do with politics. It's common
sense. And I'll let you respond to that if you have any
response to it.
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you, Congressman. I do
understand the frustration that you outline. And certainly with
respect to the statutory regime that you inquired about, as I
indicated, I'm not able to give you that historical information
now. But I look forward to providing you what information we
can.
Mr. Bishop. I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman, Mr. Cicilline, is recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Attorney General, for being here,
particularly at a moment when I know you and the entire Justice
Department is offering full assistance to your counterparts in
France to respond to this horrific terrorist attack.
I want to focus my questions really on gun violence in our
country. And specifically, as you know, under Federal law, a
gun seller may transfer a firearm to a purchaser after 72
business hours even if the criminal background check has not
been completed. And because of that--it's called default
proceed policy within the Department--and because of that, gun
dealers went forward with almost 16,000 sales to people who
turned out to be prohibited purchasers between 2010 and 2014.
So my first question is, do you think that the default
proceed policy should be changed to a policy that says firearm
sales may only occur if the background check has been completed
and the transfer approved?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly you raise an important
issue about gun safety and our background system. We have been
looking specifically at this issue given the unfortunate tragic
circumstances that allowed Dylann Roof to purchase a firearm.
And what I will say, though, is that while it certainly does
make it challenging and make it difficult to ensure that we
keep firearms out of those who are prohibited, that is the
current state of the law.
Mr. Cicilline. No, no, I understand that. But you agree, do
you not, Madam Attorney General, that if the law in fact said
the background check has to be completed and the transfer
approved we would reduce the likelihood that people who are
ineligible, 16,000 in that 4-year period, from purchasing
firearms, correct?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly it would provide law
enforcement with another tool to make sure that firearms are
out of the hands of prohibited persons. And should Congress
consider something, we'd be happy to provide input and comment
on that.
Mr. Cicilline. So when that information is determined--when
it's determined that a person is a prohibited purchaser, the
agency sends out a retrieval notice to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, correct?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes. If a prohibited person does
obtain a weapon, there is a retrieval notice.
Mr. Cicilline. Okay. And so do you know what happens to
those cases in which ATF is directed to retrieve a firearm? Do
you track that?
Attorney General Lynch. With respect to retrieval notices,
ATF will designate an agent to investigate the location and
whereabouts of the individual and the firearm and retrieve that
firearm from that person.
Mr. Cicilline. So under current law and practice no notice
is provided to local law enforcement or to the U.S. Attorney's
Office in that jurisdiction. Is that correct?
Attorney General Lynch. It is done through ATF. That is
correct.
Mr. Cicilline. So that we have information that in at least
some of these cases someone who is ineligible because they're a
convicted felon has purchased a firearm but we don't provide
notice to local law enforcement or to the U.S. Attorney's
Office, only to ATF.
Attorney General Lynch. That's the current system, yes,
sir.
Mr. Cicilline. Okay. You would agree that providing that
information to local law enforcement or to the U.S. Attorney's
Office would allow them to prosecute some number of individuals
who criminally and in violation of Federal law bought a gun
with a criminal record.
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I agree that certainly
the sharing of all relevant information helps all law
enforcement. Every case would have to be looked at differently
and with respect to the individual facts of each case.
Mr. Cicilline. In addition, I want to just focus your
attention for a moment, Madam Attorney General, on the NICS
system. Director Comey testified before our Committee that
receiving timely records from State and local law enforcement
was a potential area for improvement. Are there legislative
efforts we can undertake to increase compliance by State and
local governments? Is it your sense that it's a lack of Federal
standards, general administrative difficulties, or is it just
noncompliance? And what can we do as Members of Congress to try
to encourage or require compliance with the NICS system because
it's only as good as the information that's contained within
it?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, the
NICS system is an important part of our background check system
and we do rely very heavily on information from our State and
local counterparts. In many instances, we have excellent
reporting from those counterparts. In some instances it is not
as robust as we need. And anything that could be done to
improve that would be useful.
Certainly you could consider legislation. We also have been
working directly, speaking directly with those localities to
encourage them to improve their reporting to the current
system.
Mr. Cicilline. And one final question, Madam Attorney
General. Congressman Deutch made reference to this, this
challenging issue of the definition of engaged in the business
of dealing firearms. Even the ATF has said that this very vague
standard frustrates prosecutions, it allows people who
regularly sell guns to avoid the requirements of background
checks. And some have suggested that you could issue a
regulation that would provide greater clarity and define that.
We recognize legislation is also possible.
But will you agree to at least look at whether or not you
have the ability to issue clarifying legislation that will
attempt to reach these individuals who are regularly engaged in
the sale of firearms but are not determined to be engaged in
the business of dealing firearms and thereby go free from any
of the constraints that exist for firearm sales and present
significant dangers as a result?
Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired. The Attorney
General can answer.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Congressman, with respect to the important issue of our
firearm statutes, obviously significant changes would have to
be considered and implemented by Congress. And should they be
considered, we'd be happy to provide input and guidance there.
In the current statutory scheme we always do everything
that we can to ensure robust enforcement under the current
statutes. It involves, for example, outreach on the part of ATF
to gun dealers to provide guidance to them as to their
activities, that goes on on a regular basis, so that we can in
fact increase and encourage compliance on the part of dealers.
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent that
this first report, ``The FBI Data Shows Thousands of Gun Sales
Beat Checks,'' be introduced as part of the record.
Mr. Collins. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cicilline. I'd ask unanimous consent that this article
entitled ``Walmart Has Tougher Policies for Background Checks
Than the U.S. Government Does,'' be introduced into the record.
Mr. Collins. Without objection.
Mr. Cicilline. And finally a report entitled ``Business as
Usual,'' prepared by Everytown for Gun Safety, ``How Unlicensed
High Volume Gun Sellers Fuel the Criminal Market.''
Mr. Collins. Without objection.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Note: The material submitted by Mr. Cicilline is not printed in
this hearing record but is on file with the Committee and can be
accessed at:
http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104114.
Mr. Collins. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Idaho, Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for being here. I know
it's been a long day.
As you, I'm deeply troubled by recent events taking place
on the global stage. I know that you have shared your concern
about what happened in Paris, attacks in Beirut, and the
current crisis in Syria. These events, both singular and
ongoing, have reinforced and further impressed on us the very
harsh realities of our world, and now we are confronted with a
duty to respond here in Congress. I hope that the
Administration will take the necessary steps to ensure our
Nation's security to the greatest extent possible in these
uncertain times.
As you know, Director Comey was here just a couple of weeks
ago, and we asked him some questions, and he testified before
this Committee that the FBI cannot offer absolute assurance
that there is no risk associated with the current Syrian
refugee crisis. In fact, when I asked him specifically about
the security gaps in Syria, he said, ``The challenge we face
with Syria is that we don't have that rich a set of data. So
even though we've gotten better at querying what we have, we
certainly will have less overall.''
So, in other words, he's saying we have the ability to
query the information that we have, but we don't have a good
set of data, we don't have a good set of intelligence. Do you
agree with that assessment?
Attorney General Lynch. Certainly with respect to the
information coming into our databases from Syria, as the
Director has noted, it does present challenges to law
enforcement. However, that does not mean we will stop trying to
obtain data and utilize that screening system and I certainly
want to convey our commitment to doing that. But certainly, as
the Director has indicated, there are challenges to a system
based upon the amount and type of data that one can obtain.
Mr. Labrador. So when you hear the media out there, they've
spent the last 2 days saying that we are vetting these Syrian
rebels, but the reality is that we don't have sufficient
information to know.
Obviously your Administration is doing everything possible
to gather the information that we have, but the problem is that
we don't know what we don't have, especially because the
intelligence on these people is not as fast as it was in Iraq,
for example. Isn't that correct?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly every country
presents a different scenario in terms of the information that
we can gather from them. And certainly while Syria does present
its challenges, I'm not able to unequivocally say that we
obtain no data from them. I don't believe that we have that
information at this point.
Mr. Labrador. I don't think that's what I said. And I don't
think that's what I said. I just said that we have some
problems. In fact, he said, ``I would say that we have a less
robust data set dramatically than we had with Iraq. So it is
difficult.'' Would you agree with that assessment?
Attorney General Lynch. It certainly does present
challenges, yes, Congressman.
Mr. Labrador. So he said dramatically. He didn't say just
there's a small difference between the two countries, but
between Iraq and Syria there's a dramatic difference in the
type of intelligence that we have.
Then when I asked the FBI Director--I asked him what the
FBI can do to improve security checks. This is one of the
things that scared me the most. He said, ``That's one I don't
have a good answer for.''
So do you have a good answer for what we could do right now
to improve dramatically the intelligence that we have on these
Syrian refugees?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, what I can tell
you is that both the FBI Director and I will do everything in
our power to continue to protect the American people.
Mr. Labrador. Well, I know you will do everything in your
power, and I appreciate your answer. But what specifically are
you going to do so I can go back to the people of Idaho and let
them know that the Syrian refugees that may be coming to the
State of Idaho have been properly vetted--not just vetted, but
properly vetted--so we know exactly what their backgrounds are?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, certainly, Congressman, we
can provide you information on the type of vetting that is
done. As I've mentioned before, the FBI----
Mr. Labrador. But we know already that the vetting that is
done is not sufficient. I mean, Director Comey already said
that. So that your answer is insufficient at this time. How can
I give assurances to the people of my district that we will
have the intelligence that is necessary to know whether they
are going to be harmful or not to our communities, to our
Nation, and to the families in my district?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, as I indicated,
we can in fact provide you information on the nature of the
vetting. We can in fact provide information, as I indicated,
that is done by the FBI. But also in conjunction with the
Department of Defense, State, Homeland Security, we also rely
on more than the databases. Every refugee from whatever country
who chooses to come here or to try and come here is also
subject to a robust interview process as well as a biometric
analysis of the individual who is literally in front of that
interviewer, something that unfortunately Europe does not have
the ability to do at this time, placing them in a dramatically
different situation than us. And certainly we're happy to keep
you updated on developments there.
Mr. Labrador. So you think the biometric information that's
provided for Syrians, which the FBI Director said was not
sufficient, you think that it is sufficient?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I can indicate to you
the types of measures that are in place and provide you the
information on the type of screening that is done so that
information can be conveyed to the people of your district.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Trott.
Mr. Trott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam General, for testifying today.
And I want to talk a little bit about the mortgage
settlements. And, you know, in 2013 activist groups met with
then Deputy Attorney General Tony West and urged him to, in my
opinion, create a slush fund to fund their activities in
connection with the JPMorgan Chase settlement. Then in 2014 the
same groups came back to the Deputy Attorney General and in
connection with the Citi and Wells Fargo settlements really
pushed and accomplished mandatory donations to activist groups,
specifically IAF, with enhanced credits for donations to those
groups. And I wondered if you could comment on whether you
think that those discussions occurred, number one, and if they
did, why?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, with respect to those
settlements involving residential mortgage-backed securities
frauds, they are an important part of the Department's work to
not only protect the American people, but provide relief from
the financial crisis and the housing crisis that has occurred
from 2008 on.
In connection with your specific question, I'm not aware of
the meetings that you were talking about. I was not involved in
them. But what I can tell you as a former U.S. attorney who was
involved in the settlements of two of those matters,
negotiations were between the banks and the governments, and
that is certainly how those matters were handled and how they
were resolved.
With respect to the consumer relief portions of those
settlements, the money there comes from the banks, and it is
specifically designed in the wake of the widespread and
detailed admissions of wrongdoing on the part of the banks that
led to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of homeowners
losing not only their homes, but the value of their homes and
their savings.
We also instituted consumer relief to provide direct relief
to people that went above and beyond the statutory penalties of
the FIRREA statute under which these cases were brought. Where
banks are able to provide, for example, one of the main forms
of relief is principal reduction.
Mr. Trott. Right.
Attorney General Lynch. Where there are other entities
involved, the banks would make a selection and they would have
to be of an entity from a pre-approved HUD list that focuses
specifically on relief, for example foreclosure relief, to
homeowners.
Mr. Trott. No, I understand how the settlements and the
money in connection with the settlements was supposed to be
used. What I'm concerned about is IAF, which is specifically an
activist group which focuses on community organizing, got tens
of millions of dollars with the intent, I believe, of training
high school students about the importance of debt management
and financial management. And I can't for the life of me
understand why that, if you're really looking at trying to
curtail future mortgage defaults, why that money wasn't given
to the Mortgage Bankers of America or the different State bar
associations that were doing very good work in terms of loan
modifications, and instead it went to some group that had a
different agenda, in my opinion, unrelated to mortgage default
activity.
And then I guess the larger question is, how are we doing
on the discovery with respect to what really happened in
connection with these settlements?
Attorney General Lynch. Can you be more specific about
that?
Mr. Trott. Eleven months ago this Committee asked for the
e-mails relating to discussions between DOJ and outside groups
as it relates to mandatory donations to these activist groups.
That was 11 months ago. And you're a former and very
accomplished prosecutor. I mean, how would you feel if a
corporation took 11 months to send you 10 e-mails? What would
you do?
Attorney General Lynch. It would depend on the context of
the request, the discovery, and any negotiations. I'm not able
to comment on that.
Mr. Trott. Is 11 months a good turn time for discovery?
Attorney General Lynch. It depends totally on the facts of
the specific circumstances.
Mr. Trott. Let's move in my last minute here to sanctuary
cities for just a moment. So earlier today Chairman Smith asked
you about the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 which bars State
and local governments from prohibiting their officials from
communicating information regarding immigration status to DHS.
And your response to Chairman Smith's question was that we're
talking with the different jurisdictions about their compliance
with this act. So what are you talking with them about?
Attorney General Lynch. Congressman, I don't believe that
that was my specific response. I would have to go back and look
at that response.
What I can tell you is that I believe my response was that
I was not familiar enough with the specific statutory terms
that we were discussing to provide a specific answer to this
question and would be happy to look into that and provide
information.
Mr. Trott. Sure. So let me focus--the section that Chairman
Smith was referring to, he didn't reference it, but section
642(a), which specifically gives you the ability to enjoin
jurisdictions from deciding not to comply with this act. Have
you sought, other than talking with the jurisdictions, have you
sought any enforcement actions or any injunctive relief to try
and make sure the different cities that have decided to go
rogue are following Federal law?
Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired. The Attorney
General can answer the question.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not aware of those actions, but certainly I'm happy to
look into that and provide a response to you.
Mr. Trott. Thank you for your time today.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Collins. At this time the Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you, Attorney General, for a long day
today, and I hope you got a break for lunch. I did.
A number of things come to mind. I'd like to pick up on the
sanctuary city side of this. And that is this statute that
prohibits the local jurisdictions, the law enforcement
jurisdictions from having a policy that prohibits their law
enforcement officers from engaging with, supporting with, or
helping immigration enforcement officials from the Federal
Government. And I'm of the understanding that some of these
communities prohibit their law enforcement officers from
gathering information and in that way they circumvent the text
of 642(a), as the gentleman referenced.
And so I think it's important that you know that section
and enforce that section. I've not yet seen an attorney general
that does enforce that section of the law. And if you read that
and it reads to you as literally as I have described it to you,
would you be prepared then to withhold law enforcement grants
from those local jurisdictions?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, thank you for the question,
Congressman, and for the specific factual predicate to it.
Again, it's not a statute that I'm familiar with now to give
you a specific response to, but I am happy to look into that
and provide you with information on that.
Mr. King. I would urge you to do that. And I'm asking you
in this record to please send that to me at my office as well
as to the Committee. I would like to know directly what your
response is on that. It's very frustrating to be engaged in
passing legislation here in this Congress and then seeing that
it's ignored. That's the sanctuary city part of this.
I wanted to go back, though, to the background check piece
of this. And I understand the distinctions between Iraq and
Syria and the more difficulty in Syria. But do we have
biometrics on the Syrian refugees or the migrants? Do we have
fingerprints? Do we have digital photographs of those? And is
that part of the background check?
Attorney General Lynch. It depends on the individual
circumstance. I mean, a number of people do come in and do have
that information and a number of people do not. If they come
in, as I indicated before, as part of the process, that
information would be gathered and also stored in a database.
Mr. King. But you can't do a background on information that
you've just gathered as far as fingerprints or digital
photographs are concerned. And so it would have to be part of
their record prior to that, say, coming out of Iraq or Syria.
I just came back from there last week. And not only that,
but I but traveled over much of Europe and I tracked with the
migrants, and I saw tens of thousands of them. And I met with
the State Department in a number of countries. And they tell me
that they're giving our expertise to local countries in the
European Union because, as you've said, we're ahead of them. So
I said, well, as some of that, are they fingerprinting? Are
they taking digital photographs? And their answer was, well,
no, they aren't. Do we give them that advice? Well, no, we
aren't.
And so I'm very troubled about the level of confidence you
seem to exude here, or the President exudes, on an ability to
do background checks when I see a huge haystack of humanity,
and in that haystack are the needles that are terrorists. And
also in that haystack are the pieces of hay that will become
the needles of terrorists.
And so do you actually believe that the Administration, all
together, can assure America with any degree of confidence that
they can identify someone who will be radicalized because of
their association, especially with their religion and their
family members, that they will be transferred into here in this
country?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, as I indicated,
we do have a robust screening mechanism. As I also indicated--
--
Mr. King. But how is it robust?
Attorney General Lynch [continuing]. It's a challenging
circumstance in order to ensure that we have the information
that we need to make the determinations on who can come into
the country and who cannot come into the country.
Mr. King. Let me suggest that it doesn't sound at all
robust to me, not if it's not robust enough that we have
already have identified them in their home country. If they
don't have a legal existence in their home country, then how in
the world can we possibly do a background check on people that
from a legal perspective didn't exist before they showed up
here at the borders of the United States? We are faced with
that constantly.
How about this? Are you under any kind of directive by the
Administration not to say Islamic jihad or radical Islam? Is
that a memo that has come out?
Attorney General Lynch. I've seen no memo on vocabulary,
Congressman.
Mr. King. Can you say that or describe then the enemies we
have that are killing Western civilization in that fashion? Are
they Islamic jihad? Are they Islamic radicals?
Attorney General Lynch. I call them murderers, sir.
Mr. King. But you can't say Islam in conjunction with that?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry?
Mr. King. How do we understand them if you can't say that?
I mean, I want to read to you then--you can't say it, Can you?
You can't say it anymore than Hillary Clinton can say the word
``Islamic jihad, radical Islamic jihad.'' If we can't
understand our enemy, if we don't know who they are, if we
don't know what motivates them--do you know what the term
``hijrah'' means?
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry, I can't hear you, sir.
Mr. King. Hijrah, h-i-j-r-a-h, an Islamic term for peaceful
migration to invade other countries and start your civilization
there and don't assimilate into the broader culture of
civilization. And that's being preached in mosques around the
Middle East and they're rising up and moving into Europe and
moving into the United States and they're resisting the idea
that they could ever assimilate into the American culture or
civilization. And we're sitting here acting like we can vet
them without even understanding what the word hijrah is and not
being able to say radical Islam, radical Islamic jihad, and
having a President out of your party that can't say it either.
And I'm flabbergasted, I'm listening--here will be my last
question, honest, and that is----
Mr. Collins. The Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. King. I'd ask unanimous consent to ask the last
question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. Finish your question.
Mr. King. Did you ever think, this is actually a little bit
of levity, did you----
Attorney General Lynch. I'm sorry?
Mr. King. A little bit of levity, actually. Did you ever
think that you would be sitting here testifying before the
House Judiciary Committee hearing so many people of the other
party advocate for legalizing marijuana? It's purely
rhetorical, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman yields back.
At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman Texas, Mr.
Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Attorney General, in my district there is quite a
large number of law-abiding gun owners who also happen to be
hunters. I can't tell you how many times I've heard complaints
from those hunters about the availability of ammunition,
especially at the start of deer season. As you may know,
hunters are being forced to use alternative nonlead ammunition
because manufacturers can't make brass or steel core ammunition
for.30-06 a .270 deer hunting rifle unless they get a waiver
saying it's primarily intended for sporting purposes and that
waiver has to come from the Attorney General.
Now, in the last 4 years there have been at least 32
petitions that have been submitted by manufacturers seeking
that designation. Not a single one of those petitions has been
granted. But what really begs an explanation, I think, is that
in the last 4 years not a single response has been sent to any
manufacturer with regard to those petitions.
So my question to you is a two-part question. Why haven't
those been responded to, and when can a response be expected?
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you for the question,
Congressman.
I'm not aware of the requests that you have noted. But I
thank you for raising them and I would like the opportunity to
look into that matter and provide you some information.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, so can you tell me in the last 4 years
have you discussed the existence of those petitions with anyone
at the Department of Justice?
Attorney General Lynch. Well, Congressman, certainly for
the last 4 years in my prior position as U.S. attorney for
Brooklyn, that matter would not have been within my purview.
And as I indicated, while I'm not aware of the situation now,
I'd appreciate the opportunity to speak to with your staff and
provide you with some information.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, are you aware, though, that
there is a statute, 18 U.S.C. 921, which says that it is--it
says, ``Which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended
to be used for sporting purposes.'' So do you understand that
it is your responsibility to make that designation?
Attorney General Lynch. Yes, it is certainly included in
the panoply of responsibilities for the Office of the Attorney
General.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So do you have any explanation for why
there hasn't been any response at all in the last 4 years to
folks making petitions to the United States Department of
Justice?
Attorney General Lynch. Happy to look into that and provide
information to you on that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, let me then turn to another
troubling issue. As the Nation's top law enforcement official,
I want to get your reaction to a growing antipolice sentiment
and actions of certain public groups out there in this country.
I'm hoping that you'll agree with me--I am also a former United
States attorney, I took the same oath that you did--I'm hoping
that you'll agree with me that police officers and law
enforcement are an important part of the backbone of our
criminal justice system. And in fact I would hope that you'd
agree with me that the work that they do is vital to your
ability as the Attorney General and to the thousands of lawyers
that work for at the Department of Justice to be able to
prosecute violations of law. We can agree on that.
Attorney General Lynch. I would call them essential,
Congressman.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. Well, with that in mind, what is the
status of your investigation into Karla Dobinski?
Attorney General Lynch. Can you give me some context for
the question?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sure. Let me refresh your recollection.
Karla Dobinski was the DOJ taint lawyer for the New Orleans
police officers that were charged in connection with shooting
of civilians in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And as you
know, Madam Attorney General, the role of the taint officer is
to make sure that the constitutional rights of police officers
are protected from the disclosure of privileged information.
Now, it was subsequently established in Federal court that
rather than protecting those police officers, Ms. Dobinski, who
was a DOJ deputy chief, actually rather than protecting their
constitutional rights went online to anonymously leak evidence
from the case and to mock the actual defendant police officers
that she was supposed to be protecting. Now, the Federal judge
in that case called it reckless, he called it wanton, and a new
term that I'd not heard, he called it grotesque misconduct and
found that she had personally fanned the flames of those
burning to see the defendants convicted.
So the reason I raise this is 10 months ago at your
confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee you
deferred answering questions from Chairman Grassley until you
could fully investigate the matter of Ms. Dobinski. But you
responded to his questions in writing by stating, ``If
confirmed, I will commit to ensuring that the Department holds
accountable any employees who are found to have committed
misconduct.'' And so please, please tell me that you have in
fact done as you promised and you've held Ms. Dobinski
accountable for that outrageous conduct.
Attorney General Lynch. So, Congressman, my understanding
of the matter, to the extent that I'm aware of the specifics of
it, is that the matter was referred and reviewed by our Office
of Professional Responsibility and that the Department followed
the applicable civil service laws in conjunction with that. But
I don't have further specifics on that for you.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So can you tell me whether or not Ms.
Dobinski, who engaged in the conduct of trying to help convict
the defendants she was sworn to protect, can you tell me
whether or not she's still employed at the Department of
Justice?
Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired. The Attorney
General can answer.
Attorney General Lynch. Thank you, sir.
I belive that she is.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, it would seem to me, beg the
Chairman's indulgence here, with the appalling targeting of the
police that's going on in this country right now, I hope that
that's not the message that you want to send to the brave men
and women that wear the uniform to protect us. If police
officers and other law enforcement officials can't count on the
top Federal law enforcement official to back them up, who can
they count on?
Thank you for being here.
I yield back.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman's time has expired.
Seeing no other Members, this concludes today's hearing.
Thanks to the Attorney General for your patience and your
time today.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witness and
additional materials for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Loretta E. Lynch,
Attorney General, United States Department of Justice***
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Note: The Committee did not receive a response to these
questions at the time this hearing record was finalized and submitted
for printing on March 21, 2016.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]