[Senate Hearing 117-803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-803
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 26, 2021
__________
Serial No. J-117-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-440 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii BEN SASSE, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E......................................... 3
Booker, Hon. Cory A.............................................. 7
Padilla, Hon. Alex............................................... 9
VISITING INTRODUCERS
Cassidy, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Louisiana.................. 9
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator from New Mexico.............. 5
Lujan, Hon. Ben Ray, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 6
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 6
NOMINEES
Chipman, David H................................................. 17
Questionnaire................................................ 56
Responses to written questions............................... 410
Additional Materails......................................... 572
Cunningham, Tiffany.............................................. 11
Questionnaire................................................ 94
Responses to written questions............................... 449
Additional Materails......................................... 646
Jaddou, Ur Mendoze............................................... 18
Questionnaire................................................ 138
Responses to written questions............................... 476
Additional Materails......................................... 662
Milgram, Anne.................................................... 19
Questionnaire................................................ 150
Responses to written questions............................... 507
Additional Materails......................................... 677
Polite, Kenneth Allen, Jr........................................ 20
Questionnaire................................................ 272
Responses to written questions............................... 516
Additional Materails......................................... 714
Strickland, Margaret Irene....................................... 16
Questionnaire................................................ 383
Responses to written questions............................... 549
Additional Materails......................................... 746
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2021
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Grassley, Leahy,
Feinstein, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono,
Booker, Padilla, Ossoff, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton,
Kennedy, and Blackburn.
Also present: Senators Heinrich, Lujan, Menendez, and
Cassidy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. This hearing will come to order.
Today, the Committee is holding its sixth nomination
hearing of the 117th Congress as we continue to process the
Biden administration's nominees. We have before the Committee
this morning six nominees. Welcome to all.
Tiffany Cunningham, nominated to the Federal Circuit, will
be on the first panel, and then the second panel includes
Margaret Strickland, nominated to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico; David Chipman, nominated to be
Director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives, known as ATF; Ur Jaddou, nominated to head the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS; Anne Milgram,
nominated to be the Administrator of DEA, or Drug Enforcement
Administration; Ken Polite, nominated to be the Assistant
Attorney General for the Criminal Division.
Before I introduce two of these nominees, I want to say a
word about the nominations process. I want to thank the White
House for sending us nominees with extraordinary experience and
credentials for the positions to which they've been nominated.
I want to make sure that we understand we need to do our part,
here in the Judiciary Committee and in the United States
Senate, to make sure that we have Senate-confirmed leaders in
the executive branch.
Many of the positions that are being--aspiring to be filled
today by these nominees have been vacant long periods of time.
For example, former President Trump never nominated an
Administrator for the Drug Enforcement Administration. There
hasn't been a Senate-confirmed head of that Agency in 6 years,
since 2015. The confirmation process not only serves to gauge a
nominee's qualifications, but it's an important challenge to
the Senate and to this Committee to do their job. The prior
administration relied heavily on acting officials, took the
Senate out of the process. This administration is trying to
bring the Senate back into its constitutional role.
Turning to the nominees, I want to first introduce Tiffany
Cunningham, nominated to the Federal Circuit. Ms. Cunningham
was born in Detroit, Michigan. She spent almost 20 years in
Chicago. I'm proud to call her a fellow Illinoisan. Her
credentials are extraordinary; undergraduate degree in chemical
engineering from MIT, law degree from Harvard Law School,
clerkship on the Federal Circuit. Ms. Cunningham has spent
almost two decades as an intellectual property litigator and
has worked on every aspect of patent litigation, from the
inception of the case, through discovery, trial, and appeal.
Further, she has represented clients from any number of
fields; mechanical engineering, chemicals, pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology, computer science, and the auto industry. Her
clients include Fortune 500 and other high-tech companies.
Given her experience representing both plaintiffs and
defendants, she understands the importance of the law being
applied evenhandedly. Ms. Cunningham will be ready from day one
to serve on the bench. She has technical expertise, deep
knowledge of patent law, and almost 20 years of experience as a
litigator. Finally, I would note that, when confirmed, Ms.
Cunningham will be the first Black judge to serve on the
Federal Circuit. This history--historic nominee will bring both
professional and racial diversity to the court.
I also have the privilege of introducing David Chipman,
nominated to be the director of the ATF. Mr. Chipman, 25-year
law enforcement veteran, after beginning his career as a
Special Agent with the General Services Administration's OIG,
Mr. Chipman joined ATF in 1988, when it was still part of the
Treasury Department. He served as Special Agent with multiple
field offices in many locations, including Virginia, Texas, and
Michigan, and led a number of components of the ATF in
Washington, including the Firearms Enforcement branch and the
Policy Development Education Branch.
While at ATF, Mr. Chipman led or assisted in multiple
efforts to combat gun trafficking and the proliferation of gun
violence. He also worked tirelessly to bring more attention to
the health, safety, and wellness of law enforcement officials
nationwide.
Since leaving ATF, Mr. Chipman has continue DHS work
advancing bipartisan, commonsense measures to protect
responsible gun ownership while reducing the use of law--of
firearms against law enforcement officers and innocent
individuals. Mr. Chipman has quite literally been on the front
lines in a fight against gun violence. As a gun owner himself
and an advocate for principled, constitutional gun safety
measures, Mr. Chipman is singularly positioned to lead ATF and
tackle the gun violence epidemic facing our Nation.
It's worth noting, as well, that Mr. Chipman would be only
the second confirmed ATF Director in the agency's history. I
want to repeat that. He would be the--only the second confirmed
ATF director in the agency's history and the first director to
ever have served as an ATF special agent.
His knowledge of the Agency and its purview is
unparalleled. In my estimation, he has what it takes; acumen,
leadership experience, and commitment to lead the ATF. With
that, I turn to my friend and Ranking Member, Chuck Grassley.
Senator Grassley. You don't have to answer this now, Mr.
Chairman, but I would think that science ought to be advanced
enough to show us on this virus that we don't have to have this
spacing that we have now. Would you check that out for me?
Chair Durbin. If you want to sit closer to me, I'll arrange
that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Grassley. I do, yes. Yes. I think we ought to get
to the point where we have some more--I'd like to be able to
actually see our witnesses, so maybe think about it. Okay.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. Today, we're here for six nominees, one
for the circuit, one for the district, and four executive
nominees.
The nominee for the Federal Circuit, Tiffany Cunningham,
seems very well qualified. The Federal Circuit is a specialty
court. It hears mostly patent cases. It does also hear some
other appeals as well, including Federal taking, and so I'm
going to have some questions for Ms. Cunningham on that
subject.
The district nominee, Margaret Strickland, is another of
President Biden's Criminal Defense Judges. This is the fourth
Criminal Defense Judge that we've considered.
I want to be very clear that there's nothing wrong with
being a Criminal Defense Attorney. Some of President Trump's
excellent judges, like Paul Matey of the Third Circuit, Raag
Singhal of Florida, and Clifton Corker of Tennessee, were
Criminal Defense Attorneys. They were out to protect their
clients' constitutional rights, all of them.
Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with the position
that an organization--that Demand Justice takes. We ought to
have equal consideration or thoughts given by that organization
compared to some things that were said about judges that came
with Federalist backing. Groups like Demand Justice have made
it clear that's not what they want. They seem to think that
these criminal defense judges will defund the police from the
bench. I think we should try to find out what kind of Criminal
Defense Judges we're getting; a Bill of Rights Judge or a
Demand Justice Judge.
We also have some executive nominees. Former Attorney
General Milgram and Mr. Polite seem to be--have relatively
broad support. Mr. Polite, in particular, has received strong
letters of support from Republicans like Brian Benczkowski and
Alice Fisher, who aren't the usual suspects supporting Democrat
nominees. That's pretty impressive.
I have concerns regarding Ms. Jaddou, a nominee to be
director of USCIS. During her time as Chief Counsel for that
organization, that Agency, during the last several years of the
Obama administration, the Agency created various parole
programs that are not consistent with the language or the
intent of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Should she be
confirmed, I have concerns about her willingness to further
stretch the limits of parole authority, and I hope to get some
clarification in her views during today's hearing, and I didn't
get that clarification when I had a telephone conference with
her.
I'm also troubled by statements that she has made on other
issues, such as the use Title 42 Expulsion Authority at the
southern border, funding for immigration enforcement agencies,
and asylee law. I believe all of these issues are worthy of
thorough questioning before this Committee. I regret that
today's format hearing will hinder our ability to explore each
of these topics, so I will probably have questions in writing
on those issues.
Last, we have Mr. Chapman. Ever since Mr.--not Chapman,
Chipman. Ever since he was announced, I have been hearing from
alarmed constituents who care about their rights under the
Second Amendment. Mr. Chipman seems to have worked for every
prominent gun control group in the country. He's been described
by CNN as, quote, ``a fierce advocate for gun control,'' end of
quote. There isn't a liberal hobbyhorse on guns that he hasn't
ridden, whether it's misleading the public about modern sports
rifles, arguing against popular magazine sights, or advocating
for universal background checks.
Of particular concern is the contempt with which he seems
to view ordinary Americans who buy and carry firearms. By the
way, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I've pulled a trigger of a gun
in the last 40 years. If I do, I don't remember when. I'm not
one of these guys that has an arsenal of guns on my farm or
anyplace. I just come from this from the standpoint of the
Constitution.
In regard to Mr. Chipman, to pick just one example, he said
last year, quote, ``If you keep gun--'' quote, ``If you keep
gun--the gun store open, there's a risk of first-time buyers
who are largely buying out of fear and panic and untrained,''
end of quote.
ATF is a significant law enforcement Agency. We mostly hear
about it when it messes up, whether it's Waco, Operation Fast
and Furious, or the Chicago stash house scandals. Day to day,
ATF plays a significant role in the legal trade of firearms in
this country. Many see putting a command--committed gun control
proponent like Mr. Chipman in charge of ATF is like putting a
tobacco executive in charge of the Department of Health and
Human Services or ATF in charge of the Portland Police
Department. I hope he can alleviate those fears today as we
question him. I yield.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. We have four or
five Members, Democrats and Republicans, who would like to say
a word of introduction on behalf of one of the nominees. First,
from the State of New Mexico, we have both Senators. The senior
Senator, Senator Heinrich, is joining us remotely, I believe.
He'll introduce Ms. Strickland. The floor is yours, Senator
Heinrich.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member
Grassley, it's really my pleasure and honor this morning to
introduce Margaret Strickland, the President's nominee to be
District Court Judge for the District Court of New Mexico. Ms.
Strickland was born and raised in the southwest border region,
where this district court seat presides. She attended New
Mexico State University and the University of Texas at El Paso
before attending law school at New York University.
Ms. Strickland returned to the southwest after law school
and started her career with the Las Cruces office of the New
Mexico public defender, representing clients in the juvenile
drug court and in felony defense work.
In 2011, Ms. Strickland formed her own law firm, continuing
her public service work representing indigent defendants in
Federal court. Ms. Stricklan litigated both criminal and civil
cases, including a significant number in the Federal District
Court located in Las Cruces, New Mexico. She's also appeared
before the New Mexico Court of Appeals, the New Mexico Supreme
Court, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and filed before
the United States Supreme Court.
Ms. Strickland served on the board of New Mexico Criminal
Defense Lawyers for over a decade, including as president. In
2018, the Federal District of New Mexico appointed her to
represent all Criminal Justice Act lawyers as a panel
representative. Ms. Strickland has also done significant
volunteer work with programs that reduce the rate of euthanasia
for companion animals. In fact, she and her husband, Greg,
foster dogs and puppies so that they can be placed in a home
rather than euthanized.
If confirmed, Ms. Strickland will be faced with one of the
busiest Federal dockets in the country and inherit a heavy back
load of cases. I am confident that her experience and her
incredible work ethic will best position her to immediately get
to work. Ms. Strickland is a highly qualified nominee with the
right experience, the right temperament, and the right
disposition to be a fair-minded District Court Judge.
The ABA agrees with the majority, giving her a well-
qualified grading. She has spent her entire professional career
working in the community in which she will sit. She knows
intimately the impact the legal system has on everyday
Americans. She understands that serving as a judge is very
different from serving as an advocate. She is ready and
prepared for the shift from zealously and effectively
representing clients to fully applying the law to the facts of
a specific case.
I also want to take a quick moment to recognize Ms.
Strickland's husband, Greg, and their son, George, who I am
certain are so proud to celebrate this moment. I
enthusiastically support Ms. Strickland's nomination for
District Court Judge for the District of New Mexico. I hope
that all of the Members of this Committee will join me in
supporting this highly qualified nominee. Thank you both.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. Next, we have
the junior Senator from New Mexico, our new colleague, Senator
Lujan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Mr. Chair, it's my honor to be before the
Judiciary Committee today to help introduce Margaret Strickland
for consideration to serve on the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico in Las Cruces.
Ms. Strickland, as my colleague Senator Heinrich shared,
was born and raised in the southwest and would bring
significant legal experience and judicial experience to the
district court. Ms. Strickland has spent the last 15 years
practicing law in New Mexico, including before the New Mexico
Court of Appeals, the New Mexico Supreme Court, and the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.
As a former public defender, she would bring much-needed
professional diversity and perspective to our Federal courts.
Ms. Strickland has strong ties to the New Mexico legal
community, including being elected by her peers to the board of
New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers, where she served for over
a decade in different positions, including as president. In
2018, she was appointed by the Federal District of New Mexico
to represent all Criminal Justice Act Lawyers as the panel
representative.
With a proven record of service and leadership, I'm
confident that Ms. Strickland will continue to serve all New
Mexicans equitably on the district court once confirmed. She is
a highly qualified nominee, and it's my honor to stand with her
today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lujan. Next, we have
Senator Padilla to introduce Ms. Jaddou. I think he's going to
join us shortly. In the meantime, I'll ask if Senator Menendez
is available, also by remote, to offer one of the two
introductions of Ms. Milgram, our DEA nominee. Senator
Menendez, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking
Member, Esteemed Colleagues. Today, I'm pleased to join Senator
Booker in introducing Ms. Anne Milgram, President Biden's
nominee for Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency.
Ms. Milgram's experience as a local, State, and Federal
prosecutor, a State attorney general, a philanthropy executive,
and a respected voice on criminal justice reform make her an
exceptional nominee. Ms. Milgram grew up in East Brunswick, New
Jersey, was drawn to public service at a young age, even
serving as a congressional page. She went on to earn her B.A.
from Rutgers College, a Master of Philosophy from the
University of Cambridge, and law degree from New York
University. After clerking for U.S. District Court June
Thompson in Trenton, New Jersey, Ms. Milgram got her start in
the Manhattan District Attorney's office.
In 2001, she joined the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil
Rights Division as special litigation counsel for human
trafficking. There, Ms. Milgram won several convictions under
newly enacted human trafficking laws, an issue that is deeply
intertwined with illicit drug trade.
Then in 2007, after serving as counsel in his U.S. Senate
office, New Jersey Governor, Jon Corzine, nominated her to
serve as attorney general. In this position, Ms. Milgram
oversaw a criminal justice division with 21 prosecutors, 30,000
law enforcement officers across New Jersey, a managerial
experience that leaves her well prepared to oversee the DEA's
9,000 employees. As attorney general, Ms. Milgram led
investigations into gang activity, organized crime, mortgage
fraud, illegal trafficking, and more. She also pursued
innovative, data-driven approaches to fighting crime in New
Jersey, including a 2007 partnership with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to help New Jersey
trace illegal firearms recovered at crime scenes.
Yet, Ms. Milgram is best known for her ground working--
reform policing in the city of Camden, then known as the most
violent city in America. Using analytics and crime data to
create a more responsive police force, within 1 year, she
helped achieve a 40 percent reduction in violent crime in
Camden.
In 2011, she founded the Criminal Justice Initiative at the
Laura and John Arnold Foundation to continue her focus on
leveraging technology to advance criminal justice reform. There
she developed a public safety risk assessment tool to provide
judges with more holistic decision-making information and
helped invest over $55 million in efforts across the country to
prevent violent crime and create a more humane criminal justice
system.
Today, she is a professor of Practice and Distinguished
Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law,
where she launched the Criminal Justice Lab.
My colleague, Anne Milgram is uniquely positioned to lead
the DEA and advance the Biden administration's effort to combat
the opioid epidemic, stop the flow of dangerous substances like
fentanyl into our country, and build safer communities. In my
view, the DEA can only benefit from her vast experience, her
eye for innovation, and her reputation for excellence. I urge
her swift confirmation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Menendez. Senator Booker,
you're now recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, there is
a privilege Senators get, to introduce someone from their
State, but this is a deeper privilege, that some of my
colleagues have had, is I get to introduce somebody from my
State who I have known for almost 30 years.
About 29 years ago, I met Anne Milgram when--and by the
way, I'm not under oath, so I will say 29 years ago, I was 21
and she was 5. I met her when we were both finalists in New
Jersey to go on for--to go on to the final round to be Rhodes
Scholar candidates. I have since got to know a lot of the
people that interviewed us that day, and they made it clear to
me that she was the outstanding standout of the duo that would
go on to the final round. Anne made an impression me on that
day, back in 1992, that I will never forget, and I tracked her
career since then.
It was 15 years ago that she and I both landed in important
positions in our State. I was the Mayor of the State's largest
city, and she was the attorney general for the State of New
Jersey. Newark was in crisis. We had spiking violent crime. The
drug crisis in our city was palpable. Residents were afraid,
and the biggest issue people talked about in our public polling
was the crisis of crime.
What we got in Anne Milgram was, for our city, a champion,
someone that had a depth of knowledge about the issues from her
being a prosecutor, an advocate for civil rights, and she
became, for the State of New Jersey, a nationally known pioneer
in public safety. My colleague, Senator Menendez, has already
mentioned the statistical data that supports the simple truth.
She helped to drive down crime to historic lows in places all
over the State of New Jersey.
For me, she was an extraordinary partner who had a holistic
understanding of what real public safety is. It is not a police
officer on every corner. It is this understanding that these
issues go deeper, that there is an intrinsic tie between public
safety and ideals of justice, transparency, and accountability.
Her success as an attorney general led to her continuing that
pathway of being a pioneer. She went to work with the Arnold
Foundation and helped to further advance ideals of reform in
how we address safety and security in our communities.
She has now become one of the preeminent experts on the
very issue she would be dealing with should she be confirmed.
She is someone that gives me hope about our country that we
cannot be chained to the drug war policies of the past but find
ways that actually produced evidence-based results.
I am so confident in her leadership, not just because of
the pattern of her career of success after success, successful
innovation after pioneering triumph, but I know her as a
person. I know her character. I know her core. She is an
extraordinary American. She is a celebrated leader in the State
of New Jersey, and I am confident for our country, in this time
when we are still dealing with the travesties of a failed war
on drugs, that she will do for this country what she did for
cities like Camden and Newark, deliver public safety and a
deeper, more meaningful justice for all. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Booker, for that inspiring
statement. Finally, before we return to Senator Padilla, one of
our colleagues from the great State of Louisiana is going to
introduce Mr. Polite. I understand Senator Cassidy may be
joining us by remote. I hope so. Senator, are you with----
Senator Cassidy. You should be seeing me, Mr. Chair.
Chair Durbin. I hope so.
Senator Cassidy. Do you have me? Do you have me?
Chair Durbin. You can proceed, and, I think, we will find
you. There you are.
Senator Cassidy. I should be on.
Chair Durbin. There you are.
Senator Cassidy. You got me?
Chair Durbin. Yes. Please proceed.
Senator Cassidy. Got you. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking
Member Grassley. It is a privilege to introduce New Orleans
native and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, Kenneth Polite. He is the nominee for the Assistant
Attorney General for the Criminal Division in the Department of
Justice.
Mr. Polite has succeeded with his intelligence, hard work,
and support from his family. He started life in the Calliope
Projects in New Orleans, raised by a single mom driven to
provide a future for her children. Her mother--his mother,
Rosalind, took classes at Xavier University, gained employment
in the State Probation and Parole typing pool, which enabled
her to move off of public assistance and out of the projects
into her own home. She taught her children the power of
education by, among other things, taking them to the public
library every weekend. It paid off. Mr. Polite received a full
scholarship to De La Salle High School. He graduated as
valedictorian and subsequently graduated from Harvard
University and Georgetown Law School.
With this background of hard work and dedication and two
decades of litigation and management experience in criminal,
civil, and compliance law, Mr. Polite is clearly qualified.
He's also highly recommended from official--by officials
across the political spectrum back home. Republican Louisiana
Attorney General Jeff Landry wrote a letter to this Committee
saying of Mr. Polite's time as U.S. attorney for the Eastern
District of Louisiana that he was, quote, ``not only an
effective crime fighter, but also an invaluable member of the
community.''
Mr. Polite is also endorsed by Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New
Orleans and the city of New Orleans Department of Police,
sheriffs, district attorneys, faith-based leaders, as well as
the F.B.I. New Orleans field office, former Special Agent in
Charge Michael Anderson, and former Assistant Special Agent in
Charge Daniel H. Evans.
I look forward to the Committee and the full Senate taking
up and approving Mr. Kenneth Polite's nomination. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. Has Senator
Padilla joined us by remote, I hope, to introduce----
Senator Padilla. Yes, I'm here.
Chair Durbin. Please proceed.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize
for the back and forth. We're wrapping up the markup in
Environment and Public Works. I do expect to join you in person
in a little while, but in the meantime, I want to thank you and
Ranking Member Grassley for the opportunity to introduce Ur
Mendoza Jaddou from the great State of California as President
Biden's nominee to be the director of the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services at the Department of Homeland Security.
USCIS plays a critical role in our immigration system, as
every Member of this Committee knows. It is the agency tasked
with processing and adjudicating visa applications, asylum
petitions, and employment authorizations. It also handles the
process for granting citizenship to immigrants who have worked
hard to come to the United States and pursue the American
dream. Ms. Jaddou has spent her long and distinguished career
working to improve the lives of immigrants in the United
States.
This work is personal to me and to her, I, as a son of
immigrants and her as a daughter of immigrants. Her mother was
from Mexico and her father was from Iraq. Ms. Jaddou grew up in
the California border community of Chula Vista, which is just 7
miles north of the Mexican border. She knows firsthand what it
means to be from an immigrant family and how much immigrants
contribute to the diversity of our country and to the fabric of
our communities and, of course, to our economy.
I believe Ms. Jaddou is uniquely qualified to serve as
director of USCIS at this critical time. In 2014, she was named
chief counsel for USCIS, where she led an office of 270
attorneys around the country, who provided legal advice to the
Agency. This included advising on policies and programs,
changes in statutes and regulations, and other complex legal
issues. During her time as chief counsel, she also worked
closely with the DHS Office of General Counsel and her
counterparts at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs
and Border Protection.
Her understanding of immigration law and how USCIS
functions is second to none. Her career began on Capitol Hill
as counsel to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. She went on to become
the Majority Chief Counsel to the House Immigration
Subcommittee when Congresswoman Lofgren was named Chair of that
Subcommittee. She also served as deputy assistant secretary for
regional, global, and functional affairs at the State
Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs, and most recently,
she served as director of DHS Watch, a project of America's
Voice.
I want to close with a story that Ms. Jaddou shared with me
that perfectly demonstrates her passion for this work, for
immigration law, and her commitment to service. While she was a
student at UCLA Law School, there was no tenured immigration
law professor on staff or an immigration law clinic where she
and her peers could help immigrants with their cases. Instead
of being deterred, she sought the guidance of her professors,
and she and her classmates started their own immigration law
clinic. I think it embodies the passion and initiative that we
need in the next director of USCIS.
She's the right person to lead this Agency, and I strongly
support her nomination. I urge you all to do the same. Thank
you very much.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Padilla. Now,
I'd ask our first nominee on the first panel, please stand to
be sworn.
[Witness was sworn in.]
Thank you. Let the record show that the witness answered in
the affirmative. Ms. Cunningham, please proceed with your
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF TIFFANY CUNNINGHAM, NOMINEE
TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
Ms. Cunningham. Good Morning. Thank you, Chairman Durbin.
Thank you, Ranking Member Grassley. Thank you to the entire
Committee for scheduling this hearing. I also appreciate the
Committee's flexibility in the scheduling because I had to
attend to a pressing family emergency. I also want to thank
President Biden for the nomination. I'm truly humbled and
honored. I have some people here to introduce, some people who
are present in the room and also some people who are unable to
attend.
I'm going to start with the people who are unable to
attend. First, I want to introduce my mother. Her name is
Patricia Mae Cunningham. She was born and raised in Paducah,
Kentucky. She was a high school English teacher, teaching in
the Detroit public schools for almost 30 years. She's also
literally an embodiment of my heart outside of my body. As I
sit before this Committee, my heart is partially broken because
my mom is facing a very serious medical issue, which is the
only reason she is not present today. I love you, Mom, and I
will see you again very soon.
Next, I want to introduce my father. His name is Elisha
Donald Cunningham. He was born and raised in Talladega,
Alabama. He is a veteran of the Vietnam War. He worked in the
automobile industry for approximately 50 years. I love you,
Dad, and thank you for being there to support Mom through this
difficult challenge.
Next, I want to introduce my aunt, Dorothy Clemons. She was
a longtime resident of the Washington, DC, area and like a
second mother to me. She worked for the Federal Government for
most of her life, and in addition, unfortunately, she cannot be
here because she passed away in 2015. I'm confident that she is
watching and sending her support. I want to thank the larger
Cunningham family, the larger Clemons family, my friends, loved
ones, significant other, and other people who have really sent
their support my way.
I want to turn to introduce the people who are present in
the room today, starting with Dr. Muneera Kapadia. I've known
her since we were 6 years old. She was my first best friend.
She drove all the way from North Carolina to be here to support
me today.
Next to her is Judge Qiana Lillard. I've known her since
freshman year of high school, and she is also a very dear
friend and supported me on this journey today.
Next to her is Ms. Jan Anne Dubin. She is a consultant in
Chicago and another dear friend, and I thank her for her
support.
Last but not least, I want to thank my colleagues at
Perkins Coie for all of their support. I truly appreciate it.
Without further ado, I look forward to answering the
Committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cunningham appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin [Presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Cunningham. Yours
is an amazing story that brings you to this moment before the
Senate Judiciary Committee and aspiring to this judgeship. It
really is star studded, the things you have done, chemical
engineering from MIT and Harvard and so forth. Let me ask you
this question. At this point in your career, you seem to be at
the top of your game. Why do you want to give it up to be on
the bench?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Senator. I can
tell you that this is literally my dream job. I recall when I
was fortunate enough to clerk for the court in 2001 to 2002,
one of the first days walking around and really seeing the
pictures of the judges on the walls. I saw a court that had
fine, fine jurists, but it was very homogeneous, if I must
admit. There were all white Judges and only two women at that
time. At that point in time, I kind of put in my mental vision
board that I hoped that one day I could be a judge in that
court. I'm truly humbled to be sitting here before you today,
and it's really a dream job that I've aspired to.
Chair Durbin. You've seen a number of judges as a
litigator, as a clerk. What do you think are the shortfalls of
some and the benefits that others bring to the bench?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Senator. In
general, I have been very fortunate to both clerk for a
wonderful judge and also appear in front of wonderful judges
across the country. In general, I have appeared in front of
judges that really have upheld all the standards of being a
good judge. These are fair, impartial, unbiased people who come
to the judging without any sort of prejudgment. I feel like
that is really great. In terms of being a judge, and if I were
fortunate enough to be confirmed, I really would bring those
same qualities to the bench and also really make sure that I
carefully gave every party a chance to be heard and carefully
studied the arguments and fully applied the law to the facts of
the case.
Chair Durbin. Some critics argue that the jury system is--
may not be up to the 21st century challenges, that many issues
coming before juries are so technical, so complicated, that the
average layman--laywoman, layman--would have difficulty
understanding them and really coming to a conclusion that is
the basis for a verdict or a decision. You're in one of those
rarefied atmospheres of the law where there is just that sort
of technicality and complexity. What has been your observation
on the performance of juries with those challenges?
Ms. Cunningham. Senator, I've been fortunate enough to try
a number of cases, and I've seen juries really meet the task.
They absolutely will pay attention to all of the arguments.
What has been incumbent on really all of the advocates is to
make sure to explain the technology so it's understandable to a
layperson. That really is a duty of every zealous advocate and
something that I have really tried to fulfill in my role as an
advocate to date.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Thank you very much. Congratulations to
you, Ms. Cunningham.
It is important for the Federal Circuit to protect the
rights of private property owners under the Fifth Amendment
taking clause. I'm going to give you some facts. At the Supreme
Court, taking clause relief was granted to 35 percent of
private property owners between 1979 and 2015, where in State
and Federal courts, excluding the Federal Circuit, the success
rate of regulatory takings claims from that same period of time
was nine and nine-tenths percent. Last, Justice Thomas has
cited data showing that only one and sixth-tenths percent of
the taking claims under Lucas were successful from 1992 to 2017
in the Federal Circuits, where you will be seating--sitting.
These aren't exactly apple-to-apples comparisons, but there is
a trend there.
Do you think it's a problem that the takings claims seem to
be far less successful in the Federal Circuit than in other
tribunals, and what do you think accounts for the difference?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you, Senator, for that question. In
general, I think that I--while I've told you already, I've been
a patent litigator for the last 20 years and have not actually
litigated any takings cases, what I can tell you is that if I
were fortunate enough to be confirmed, I would take that area
very seriously, no pun intended, and would also be sure to
faithfully apply the law to the facts of any case before me. In
terms of the statistics, I believe that the court faithfully
tries to apply the law to the facts of a case, so, I think, it
really depends very much on the facts of each case that comes
before the court.
Senator Grassley. If you'll do no more for me than just
take that into consideration, that we seem to get less relief
under the taking constitutional rights than--in the Federal
Circuit than we do at other tribunals, I would consider that
quite an accomplishment today. In the wake of the T.C.
Heartland, what do you see as the role of the Federal Circuit
in enforcing proper venue in patent cases?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Senator. T.C.
Heartland, obviously, the venue case that came down, has led to
cases being filed in different jurisdictions and potentially a
shift of some of the cases from some of the jurisdictions where
they were filed previously. In general, I feel like the Federal
Circuit will, of course--and I recognize that if I were
fortunate enough to be confirmed, would be bound by all Supreme
Court precedent, including that case, and I would faithfully
apply that case to any of the issues that came before me.
Senator Grassley. Okay. My last question, as a general
matter, do you think it's appropriate for district judges to
actively create favorable patent venues in their courts?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Senator. In
general, I think that district court judges, just like all
judges, need to be bound by the rule of law and just being
focused on applying the law to the facts of each case without
really taking into consideration regarding what sorts of cases
they might want to appear before them.
Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. The next Senator
seeking recognition is Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I'll defer to my
colleague from New Jersey, who would like to make just a minute
of brief remarks.
Chair Durbin. Of course.
Senator Booker. Yes, I just wanted to have 60 seconds. You
know, these--we have these hearings, and this is one of those
moments where I feel this sense of exhaustion and exaltation at
the same time. We are in this period, almost 250 years of
American history, where we still are counting the first Black
person to do this, the first Black person to do this. I just
wanted to say for this moment, and have no questions for the
witness, how extraordinary it is that she is a history maker
and a rule breaker, should she be confirmed.
This is a long and tortured history of Federal courts in
this country, from Dred Scott to Plessy v. Ferguson to even
recent decisions that trouble me on voting rights. We have to
mark these moments where we are making extraordinary progress.
The witness before us today is an extraordinary human being by
any measure, and I just want to say for the record that the
history of our country, our ancestors, Black and white, a
rainbow coalition of people that have struggled to make a day
like this possible, our ancestors are rejoicing, and I'm so
grateful to see the witness before us today. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Booker. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Cunningham,
welcome. You have very strong credentials and have represented
some of America's most successful and best-resourced companies,
companies like Intel or Microsoft or General Motors.
I'm someone who, in IP, is always concerned about balance,
balance in policy, balance in experience, balance in advocacy.
I just am interested in your views, broadly, as well as your
experience around solo inventors, small start-up companies,
because often, they have quite different experiences in our IP
system and different views on the importance of patent
protection, in particular. Have you represented a small start-
up company or a solo inventor, or are you aware of the
challenges that sometimes face these smaller players when they
seek protection under our patent system?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you, Senator, for that question. My
representations have been very broad. I've represented both
individuals and large companies, as you already indicated, and
also smaller companies. I do have that breadth of
representation.
Senator Coons. What do you see as the differences in how a
General Motors or a Microsoft experiences our patent system
versus the somewhat iconic, I know, garage inventor?
Ms. Cunningham. Sure. I think usually the differences come
down to kind of the resources that are available to the
companies versus the smaller individuals. Really, ensuring
equal access for everybody, including the garage inventor, as
you indicated, as well as the large companies that may be more
well-heeled, is important in our system.
Senator Coons. We're in the middle, on the floor of the
Senate right now, in debating and hopefully moving toward a
final vote on a bill designed to strengthen innovation, R&D,
our competitiveness as a country. I'm concerned about China's
ongoing theft of American intellectual property. I'm also
alarmed by the contrast between China's recent efforts to
bolster its IP regimes and the weakening of protections for
creators and innovators in our system. How do you view the
challenge or the potential threat to our global leadership in
IP by China?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Senator. In
general, I've seen some statistics, for example, that show that
China's involved in potentially 60 percent or so of trade
secret cases, and I'm aware of some of the theft concerns and
some of the issues that I believe this body and Congress at
large are considering.
I also am aware of a fairly recent suit where there was
essentially an anti-suit injunction that took place, and then
the Texas court--it was the Eastern District of Texas, I
believe, before Judge Gilstrap. It looks like you're familiar
with this particular decision I'm describing, Senator Coons. In
that particular case, it was a situation where the Texas court
decided that that court could go ahead and proceed on the
merits. I think that's another concern, and I think it
interrelates with the concern that you flagged.
Senator Coons. One of the areas that Senator Tillis and I
worked hard to try and find some common ground and some path
forward on in the last Congress is subject matter--the
eligibility to Section 101 Jurisprudence. I would argue we have
heard from many former heads of the P.T.O., many practitioners
in the field, even judges on the circuit to which you've been
nominated, that there is profound uncertainty about the path
forward in Section 101 Jurisprudence.
I recognize there's real limitations on what you can say in
a confirmation hearing, but do you believe the Federal Circuit
could provide greater clarity or certainty in this area? Are
you concerned that some critical technologies around things
like artificial intelligence or personalized medicine are now
not eligible for patents or there's lack of real clarity and
that's impacting our competitiveness as a country, particularly
in these two critical areas?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you for that question, Senator Coons.
I know this is an area that, I think, is near and dear to your
heart as well to some of the other Senators' hearts. In
general, in terms of Section 101, I think the impact of the
Alice and Mayo decisions and kind of that framework, the two-
step framework that it looks like you're familiar with that was
set up, has led to decisions where there is more in terms of
cases where really there are Section 101 invalidation decisions
that come down. It comes down in a variety of areas. As you
indicated, because some of these cases may likely come before
me, I can't speak to it because I completely understand my duty
to not prejudge matters.
Senator Coons. Understood.
Ms. Cunningham. I do recognize that this is an important
area and an area that deserves attention and an area that the
Supreme Court is considering taking up a cert petition on as
well.
Senator Coons. Last question, if I could. A decade ago, we
passed and the President signed into law the America Invents
Act. One of its core goals was increased efficiency and the
improvement of patent quality and the reduction duplicative
litigation. A decade later, is it your impression that that
goal has been achieved or not, and what, if anything, has
surprised you about the implementation or interpretation or
real world impacts of that legislation?
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you, Senator, for that question. In
general, as you indicated, that legislation was passed in 2011,
and it really has led to a number of--especially, I.P.R.
petitions have really been a boon effort. I think that has led
to more people really seeking, from the P.T.O., sort of the
invalidity decisions that they may want to try to get in place
or at least challenging the validity of a patent before the
P.T.O. as opposed to strictly before the district courts.
I feel like it has led to some decrease in filings, at
least in terms of dealing with some issues in terms of
invalidity before the district courts. Again, I feel like, as a
nominee, I can't speak to exactly where all these things would
go because various issues, of course, come before the Federal
Circuit. I do recognize that the A.I.A. has had a huge impact
and was really the biggest change since the 1952 Patent Act.
Senator Coons. I appreciate--I'm glad that you have been
nominated by our President, and I look forward to supporting
you and appreciate your answers to my questions, constrained as
they are by the context in which you appear, and look forward
to your service on the Federal Circuit. Thank you, Ms.
Cunningham.
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Coons. Senator Hirono was
hoping to be here, but apparently, she hasn't made it yet, I'm
sorry to say. I want to thank Ms. Cunningham for her testimony,
and I also want to say, reminiscent of what has been said by
Senator Booker, when you're in a category of a first, you have
to be the best. I believe President Biden has found, in your
nomination, that kind of quality. We thank you.
You may be receiving written questions following the
hearing from Senators, which we hope you will diligently
respond to as quickly as possible. Ms. Cunningham, thank you
for your testimony today.
Ms. Cunningham. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. With that, we move to our second panel. I ask
for everyone's patience while we finalize the setup for five
nominees. Take a minute or two to put the name tags and seats
in position.
[Pause.]
Senator Grassley. Hey, I was just thinking, when I asked
you do we have to be socially distanced----
Chair Durbin. I think we have the five witnesses, and we'll
hear from them in their opening statements after they stand to
be sworn, please.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Let the record again reflect that the panel has, in its
entirety, answered in the affirmative. I think, Ms. Strickland,
you are the first to proceed with an opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET IRENE STRICKLAND,
NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Strickland. Thank you. First, I want to say thank you,
Senator Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley, for setting this
hearing. I want to thank President Biden for the honor of this
nomination. I want to thank my home State Senators, Senator
Heinrich and Lujan, for their support, their recommendation,
and their kind opening statements on my behalf.
I would like to acknowledge my parents, who, I know, are
watching this back home in New Mexico; my husband, who was able
to come to this hearing today to support me; and parents, my
in-laws, who are watching our son at home so that my husband
could be here at the hearing today. I want to also thank my law
partner for all of her support during this process and all of
the Committee Members for your time.
With that, I'm--I'll be glad to answer all of your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Strickland appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. I believe, Mr. Chipman,
you are next and may proceed with your opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF DAVID H. CHIPMAN, NOMINEE
TO BE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,
TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES
Mr. Chipman. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Grassley, Members of the Committee. Thank you, Senator Durbin,
for your generous introduction earlier. I'm honored to be here
today and grateful to President Biden for nominating me to the
position of director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives. I thank my wife, Tara, who is here
with me, and my family, including my children, Carson and
Allison, for all their love and support.
ATF's mission is critical to our Nation's public safety. If
confirmed, I will proudly lead the bureau and serve, once
again, alongside its dedicated and talented agents,
investigators, and professional staff as they work every day to
keep our communities safe from criminal shootings and other
violent crime, firearms trafficking, bombings, arson, and more.
When I first joined ATF in 1988, at the age of 22, I swore an
oath to defend my country, uphold our Constitution, and protect
the American public. During 25 years of public service, until
my retirement as a special agent in 2012, I honored that oath
every day.
I know the danger that agents face in the field to ensure
public safety and bring criminals to justice. As a young agent,
I was a certified explosives specialist on the National
response team and a tactical operator on the special response
team, ATF's version of SWAT.
I understand the physical and emotional stress that agents
are under, particularly when working on crimes involving mass
casualties and destruction. I was an investigative first
responder to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New
York and the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma
City. I have felt the pride that ATF agents experience when
they prevent gun violence or apprehend criminals who violate
our Nation's gun laws. I disrupted firearms trafficking
organizations that funneled hundreds of firearms along the Iron
Pipeline from Tidewater, Virginia, to New York. I arrested a
straw purchaser who bought a handgun that a child used to shoot
a cop.
The leadership positions I held at ATF grounded me in what
it will take to improve bureau operations and morale. I have
supervised agents in the field multiple times. I used that
experience to develop new approaches to combat homicides
committed with firearms, impacting communities across the
United States. While at ATF headquarters during the Bush
administration, I was responsible for all ATF field policies
and procedures. I later oversaw all firearms programs and
foreign offices for the entire bureau. I launched the Violent
Crime Impact Team program, credited with preventing gun
homicides in 15 targeted cities.
During my last several years at ATF, I had fiscal
responsibilities. I oversaw large budgets, including the $50
million field operational budget, ATF's $80 million spectrum
relocation program, and the $60 million assets forfeiture
program.
These experiences, hard won over the course of decades,
will serve as my guide if I'm confirmed to lead the ATF. The
bureau has excelled at investigating crime since the days of
Eliot Ness. My leadership mission will be to sharpen ATF's
focus while striving to prevent more violent crimes from
occurring in the first place. I look forward to answering your
questions today, and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chipman appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chipman. Ms. Jaddou, please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF UR MENDOZA JADDOU, NOMINEE
TO BE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Ranking
Member Grassley. I greatly appreciate the honor to be
considered by this Committee for Director of U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services. I would especially like to thank
Senator Padilla, my home State Senator from beautiful
California, for your kind and gracious introduction. I'd also
like to thank Senator Feinstein for opening the door to Federal
service as a summer intern in your San Diego office 25 years
ago.
I come before you today the product of a uniquely American
experience. My late dad, a Chaldean Catholic from northern
Iraq, came to America as a bright-eyed foreign student in the
1950s, with dreams of freedom, democracy, and opportunity. He
also found love and marriage of almost 50 years to my late mom,
an immigrant from Mexico, beautiful inside and out, who arrived
with an equally ambitious American dream. My parents would go
on to raise three daughters and strive for their American dream
in a southern suburb of San Diego, less than ten miles from the
U.S.-Mexico border.
My husband, Peter, my rock, who's right behind me, is here
today, along with our two amazing daughters, Suli and Luna, my
sun and moon. Peter's family shares a very similar story. His
parents, Coptic Christians from Egypt, immigrated to America to
serve in the medical field. His dad served as a doctor in the
U.S. Navy as a lieutenant commander. His mom trained and became
a radiation oncologist, helping thousands of cancer patients
through very difficult times.
America has been strengthened by the big dreams, hard work,
and contributions of millions of immigrants and refugees who
have come to our shores to forge a better life for themselves
and their children. At the heart of a functioning immigration
system is an agency that effectively processes immigration and
naturalization applications under the law, like those of my
family and so many others. This means that USCIS must process
applications fairly, efficiently, and in a humane manner; be
accessible, transparent, and accountable; and safeguard the
integrity of the system and ensure the security of the Nation.
My most immediate responsibilities, if confirmed, will be
to return the Agency to firm solvency, resolve dramatically
increasing processing times and backlogs, and utilize 21st
century tools. I'll work to ensure that USCIS retains the
confidence of the American public as an agency able to fulfill
its mission. In addition, I'll work to ensure that the
hardworking and dedicated men and women, my former colleagues
at USCIS, have the resources, support, and leadership they need
to carry out their roles without undue difficulty.
I'd like to thank the President for nominating me,
Secretary Mayorkas, and many others who have supported me
through this process. Thank you very much for considering me
for the honor of serving as USCIS Director.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jaddou appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Jaddou. Ms. Milgram, you may
now proceed.
STATEMENT OF ANNE MILGRAM, NOMINEE
TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF DRUG ENFORCEMENT
Ms. Milgram. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Grassley, and Members of the Judiciary Committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I'm grateful to
President Biden for nominating me to this important position,
and I want to extend my deepest thanks to Senator Booker and
Senator Menendez for their very kind introductions.
At the outset, I want to thank my family for their love and
support. My husband and my nephew are here with me today. My
parents, my sister, and her family and our son are watching on
TV. As I sit here today, I cannot help but think about my
grandfather and my great-grandfather, both police officers who
rose to become the chief of police in South Amboy, New Jersey.
I know that they would be incredibly proud to see their
granddaughter nominated to lead the dedicated, passionate, and
tenacious professionals at the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Today, the DEA is called upon to address some of the most
significant challenges in our Nation. We are in the midst of an
ongoing crisis of prescription opioid addiction. It is a
homegrown problem, where most of those addicted to opioids
begin by taking prescription drugs that they are prescribed or
that they find in the medicine cabinets of their families and
friends. The prescription opioid crisis has now transformed
into a National epidemic that is driven by the distribution of
illicit fentanyl, which is senselessly costing hundreds of
thousands of American lives.
There are sophisticated international drug trafficking
organizations that are brazenly distributing highly addictive
drugs in our communities, accompanied by waves of senseless
violence. Americans in the grips of addiction are far too often
unable to get the necessary treatment and support that they
need. We need to confront these challenges head-on, and I
intend to do that.
I also recognize that Members of this Committee and across
Congress have spent countless hours working on solutions, and
if I am confirmed, I look forward to collaborating with you to
ensure that we make tangible, sustained, and measurable
progress. My experience vigorously enforcing the law, both
public safety and public health, will serve me well in this
role.
I have been an Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan
DA's office, a Federal prosecutor, and the State Attorney
General for New Jersey, where I led the 9,000-person Department
of Law and Public Safety.
As attorney general, I also oversaw the police department
in Camden, New Jersey, which was then one of the most dangerous
cities in America. Today, it is not. We worked tirelessly in
partnership with the DEA and with other law enforcement
agencies to reduce violence in Camden and to improve community
relationships. As a result, violence dropped by more than 40
percent in one year. Today, Camden is at historically low rates
of crime and violence.
If I am confirmed, I will bring this results-oriented focus
in leading the professionals at the DEA as they carry out their
vital mission to make our communities safer and healthier. I'm
grateful for the opportunity to answer your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Milgram appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Milgram. Mr. Polite.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH ALLEN POLITE, JR.,
NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION
Mr. Polite. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley,
Members of the Committee, thank you for today's hearing. I
offer particular thanks to Senator Cassidy for his kind
introduction and to both Senators Cassidy and Kennedy for their
courtesies throughout this nomination process. Thank you both
for your service to our Nation and to the great State of
Louisiana. I am grateful to President Biden for nominating me
to serve in this important role at this important time.
My wife, partner, and advocate, Dr. Florencia Greer Polite,
is here with me today, along with our wonderful daughters,
Gabrielle and Lena. Watching from afar are my mother, Rosalind;
my father, Kenneth Sr.; my supportive in-laws, Gloria and
Theodore; my siblings, Damion, Tyrrel, and Catrina; and scores
of other friends, colleagues, and family members.
Senators, I come from humble beginnings, the oldest child
born to teenage parents in New Orleans, raised in some of the
city's most poverty-stricken areas, including the Calliope
Project in the Lower Ninth Ward. My life was nonetheless rich
with my family's love and, most importantly, my mother's
sacrifice, investment, and commitment to my education.
From Harvard University and Georgetown Law to a Third
Circuit clerkship with my mentor, Judge Tom Ambro, to
prestigious law firms and courtrooms and boardrooms to today's
hearing and beyond, I am always representing and always
reaching back to the community that helped shape me into a
servant leader.
I hail from a family of public servants. My mother recently
retired after 34 years of service in the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. My father was a 37-year veteran
of the New Orleans Police Department. My brother Damion is a
Captain in the Army Reserves and a detective with the Houston
Police Department. Yet despite our connections to law
enforcement, our family, like many Americans, has felt the pain
of losing a loved one, my brother, to street violence. I carry
his memory with me every day.
I bring a wide-ranging legal perspective to this role,
having served as the United States Attorney in the Eastern
District of Louisiana, as well as, as an assistant U.S.
attorney in the Southern District of New York, as well as, as a
defense attorney with law firms in New York, New Orleans, and
in Philadelphia. I also bring the unique insight that comes
with serving as a chief compliance officer for a Fortune 500
company.
If confirmed, I look forward to leading and working
alongside the tremendous public servants in the Criminal
Division. Its work, which includes combatting cyberthreats,
COVID relief fraud, and exploitation of our Nation's most
vulnerable populations, is more essential than ever. Moreover,
it requires even greater collaboration with U.S. attorneys'
offices and Federal, State, local, Tribal, territorial, and
international law enforcement partners. I look forward to
answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Polite appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Polite. What an amazing array,
in this panel, of talent and experience, and we thank you, each
and every one of you, for your willingness to engage in public
service. We have questions to ask. With this panel, I wish I
could ask each of you 5 minutes of questions, but I'll--you'll
be spared from that ordeal, and we'll try to keep this as
condensed as possible. I do want to start with Mr. Chipman.
Mr. Chipman, first, thank you for serving in law
enforcement and risking your life for this Nation. We cannot
ever thank you enough and your family for standing by you in
this commitment.
Buckle your seatbelt. You want to be the head of the ATF,
hang on tight. They're coming after you, buddy. They are
creating some fictional stories about your life and your
experience, and you're going to have to try to weather this
storm. It's going to be rough from time to time. I want to give
you an opening opportunity.
It seems that some on the political fringe are willing to
say whatever it takes to try to sink your nomination. That
includes peddling baseless claims about your work as an ATF
special agent in Waco, Texas, and statements that you made
regarding attacks on a helicopter supporting ATF operations at
Waco. I also understand they've gone so far as to Photoshop
your face on somebody else's body to try to establish that you
were in Waco or some other place when you weren't.
Now is your chance to at least open up by telling us the
facts. Would you comment on the role--your role at Waco, the
purported photograph, and the statements you made regarding the
helicopter attack?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, for the
opportunity to address these issues. First, I was directed to
report to Waco in May 1993. That was in the month after the
events at Waco had concluded. My role was to be assigned to a
group of DOJ employees who were investigating the events there,
and one of the reasons I was selected is because I had no
involvement in the actual case that was being examined.
With regards to a photo that I too have seen on the
internet, this is not me. It is, in fact, a real photo that
comes from the time of Waco. It has a stamp on it that showed
that it was evidence. During the course of the investigation, I
interviewed all of the ATF agents at Waco, and that is not an
ATF agent.
Then finally, the question about what I believe you're
responding to is I had the opportunity to do a event on Reddit.
Reddit is one of those things where people fire questions at
you, and you have to type very fast. I got a question about the
lethality of the .50 caliber rifle and how often it was used in
crime in the United States, and I was trying to be candid and
say that the only case that I knew of that .50 calibers were
used was at this incident at Waco that I was familiar with.
I was also familiar that Branch Davidians had, in fact,
shot two of the planes--excuse me, helicopters. There were
bullet holes and I saw the pictures of that. I could have done
a better job by describing them as being forced down because of
the gunfire as opposed to shot down, which might have left the
impression that they were blown out of the sky, which they were
not. I regret that confusion I added.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, and I'm sure you'll have
ample opportunity to answer that and similar questions as we
proceed. Ms. Milgram, I think one of the really startling
things that I learned in this Judiciary Committee many years
ago, as we consider the role of the DEA, was the responsibility
of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States
Federal Government to determine each year how many opioid pills
would be produced by pharmaceutical companies across our
Nation.
Between 1993 and 2015, the Agency which you are hoping to
lead allowed production of oxycodone to increase 39-fold, from
three and a half tons to 151 tons, with DEA approval. Senator
Kennedy and I authored legislation to require DEA in their
quota setting to take into account the fact that that was way
too many, and there were many people who were abusing it and
too many overdose deaths. I'm encouraged that the quota has
gone down from 14 billion opioids on the market in 2016 to 9.7
billion in 2019, but that is still too much. Those pills are
enough--that quota is enough for every adult in America, every
adult in America, to have a 2-week supply of opioids. Haven't
we learned our lesson? Have you addressed this issue? Are you
aware of it?
Ms. Milgram. Senator, thank you for that question, and
thank you also for the leadership that both you and Senator
Kennedy have shown in raising this issue and in passing the
SUPPORT Act.
I agree with you that drug diversion remains of critical,
critical and urgent importance for the DEA. We've seen, between
2019 and 2020, approximately 90,000 Americans have overdosed.
Again, many of those individuals are starting on opioids
through their medicine cabinets and through the medicine
cabinets of their family and friends. I share your concern
about this issue. You have my commitment that, if I am
confirmed, I will--this will be a high priority issue to look
at the quotas and to work with you, I hope, and other Members
of this Committee on this important issue.
Chair Durbin. I'll just say to my colleagues, it is hard to
understand how the pharmaceutical industry can, year after
year, ask for approval for the production of billions of these
opioid pills when we're going through this scourge of overdose
and all the heartbreak that it brings with it. I hope the DEA
will finally stand up and say, ``Enough.'' Thank you very much,
Ms. Milgram. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. One question for Ms. Strickland. What, if
any, is your relationship with the group Demand Justice or its
leaders, like Brian Fallon and Chris Kang?
Ms. Strickland. Thank you for the question, Senator. I have
spoken with Mr. Kang.
Senator Grassley. That's the answer to your question.
You've had one conversation with him?
Ms. Strickland. I believe I've spoken to him twice, maybe
three times.
Senator Grassley. Okay. For Ms. Jaddou, as you're aware,
the Immigration and Nationalization Act grants Homeland
Security the authority to temporarily parole an alien into the
country on a case-by-case basis for specific reasons. Unlike
with DACA, aliens who are paroled into the United States are
eligible to adjust their status and obtain green cards.
The Vice President has said--and called for granting parole
in place to countless young people who are living in the United
States illegally. This would have the effect of bypassing
Congress and giving millions of people living illegally in the
United States a path to legal status or U.S. citizenship,
unlike some of us who would like to do that if we could get it
done reasonably on a bill passed in Congress.
Do you agree with the Vice President's proposal to grant
parole in place to potential millions of so-called Dreamers?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator, for the question. My job as
USCIS director, if I'm confirmed, will be to work with the
attorneys in the Agency to understand that provision and
understand who it could apply to. I would have to study what
the Vice President is recommending or suggesting, and I would
have to work with the people who understand the provision of
law and apply it to the facts of the individual on a case-by-
case basis to determine that answer.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Then let's go to the law. One more
question for you. How is letting an entire class of people
receive parole consistent with an immigration law's clear
language that parole should only be on a case-by-case basis for
specific reasons?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator. One of the things that
USCIS does as it adjudicates--it adjudicates on a case-by-case
basis. Individuals must submit a form that is the general
access that people have to any sort of request made before the
Agency. They must provide quite a bit of information about
themselves before they can even be considered. Many background
checks are done on each individual case, and an adjudicator
says yes, no, may request additional information. That's
where--how adjudication is done.
Senator Grassley. Mr. Chipman, on March 25th this year,
Senator Johnson and I wrote to ATF asking for records relating
to the October 2018 Hunter Biden firearm incident. In response
to my letter, ATF has refused to provide any records, citing
the Freedom of Information Act, which is totally irrelevant to
ATF's responsibility to comply with legitimate Congressional
oversight requests. Congress isn't subject to FOIA
restrictions, and ATF's use of the law as a shield is
incompetent.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to produce records
to this Committee relating to Hunter Biden's October 2018
firearm incident?
Mr. Chipman. Senator Grassley, thank you for asking me this
question. If I am confirmed as ATF director, I will abide by
all ATF policies and DOJ policies to ensure that you receive
the records that you require.
Senator Grassley. This matter has been all over the news.
What else do you need to learn before you can make a decision
to do what I ask you to do?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, I am familiar with what I've seen in
the news. I think if I'm confirmed as ATF director, it'll be my
responsibility to respond based on the facts, and I'm sure that
there would be more facts available to me if I am confirmed.
Senator Grassley. I will submit the rest of my questions
for answer in writing.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chipman, as you
know, the ATF's National Tracing Center in West Virginia is our
country's only crime gun tracing facility. When a gun is found
at a crime scene, law enforcement authorities want to find the
gun's last-known owner, they submit a trace request to the
National Tracing Center. The National Tracing Center receives
nearly 1,700 trace requests every day, every day. It's on a
pace to receive 550,000 requests this year as all--a record
high. Incredible number--amount of time-sensitive work for the
NTC.
I know from my days in law enforcement how important it was
to trace a gun found at a crime scene. It could be the key to
solving the crime, preventing others. I think most Americans
would be shocked if they knew this is the observed reality of
crime gun tracing at the ATF's National Tracing Center. Laws
have been passed that forced you into that situation. Congress,
at the behest, I think, of some of the gun lobby, prohibited
ATF from electronically searching gun sales records currently
in its possession. You have tens of millions of these records
being stored in metal shipping containers in the parking lot,
some of them frayed, decayed, barely legible.
Again, a number of us on this Committee have served in law
enforcement, and we know how important it is to be able to
trace a gun. Anything else you want to trace, we'd do it
electronically, scan it. Any agency in the 21st century would
do that. You are forced by the laws that we passed, foolish
laws, to have this labor-intensive process, which, of course,
hinders law enforcement all over the country. I think, we have
to act swiftly to bring the ATF into the 21st century. Just
yesterday, I reintroduced the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization
Act. It's supported by the Justice Department. It would allow
ATF to electronically search crime gun records.
Mr. Chipman, my question is do you agree that further
improving the efficiency of crime gun tracing is going to help
law enforcement throughout the country?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you, Senator, for this question, and
thank you for being so passionate about something that's just
so critical to not only the functions of State and local law
enforcement, which ATF supports, but the mission of ATF to
disrupt firearms trafficking.
As a young agent in Norfolk, Virginia, there was not a
single trafficking case that I was able to make that didn't
rely on the Tracing Center, and I can confirm those pictures
are accurate, at least as of 10 years ago, when I oversaw the
activities there, that we have dedicated Federal employees that
are just meeting obstacles that are inhibiting the ATF from
doing a good job. That is telling local cops where crime guns
came from, which is just a very valuable lead.
Senator Leahy. I'm told that electronic traces could
potentially save hundreds of thousands of hours on traces
overall. I think that's why so many law enforcement agencies
support my legislation. In fact, Mr. Chipman, I'd like to enter
letters of support from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association and the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Without objection.
Senator Leahy. Since 2013, Mr. Chipman, I've been working
with ATF on bipartisan legislation to curb straw purchasing and
firearms trafficking. I worked with Senator Collins and
Chairman Durbin to reintroduce that legislation to help us stop
these kind of straw purchases. Why is that important, that we
be able to do that?
Mr. Chipman. It's critical. One of the most significant
cases I ever was able to make in my ATF career was actually in
Waco. We had a officer shot by a juvenile, and I was able to
trace the gun using the Tracing Center and was able to identify
that an adult had straw purchased this gun for the child.
You know, this is what places everyone in danger, and it's
something we've known has occurred for a long time, and I think
that working collaboratively with the licensees to teach them
how to observe this criminal behavior and stop it but also
investigating these crimes is just absolutely essential.
Senator Leahy. I now close with this. I'm a gun owner, but
when I go to the gun store in Vermont to buy a gun, they say hi
to me and, ``I saw your cousin the other day. Every--how are
you doing? Oh, by the way, we have to do a background check on
you.'' I say, ``Fine.'' I want it to be done for everybody. I
don't want straw purchases. Most gun shop owners don't want
some of these gun show things where they can have straw
purchases. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, before my 5 minutes starts,
I'd like to just respectfully note my objection to five
executive branch nominees here all for very significant Senate-
confirmed positions, and the Chairman has given us these five
nominees and 5 minutes to ask them questions. This is a--to me,
it's a--trivializes our constitutional responsibility of advice
and consent. I don't think we have much choice but to proceed
to try to ask what questions we can, but this is really a joke.
When it comes to our Constitutional responsibilities, I
understand the eagerness of the Chairman and the administration
to move nominees as fast as they can. It's a frustration for
every--every administration, every Senate majority. This is
really beyond ridiculous, and I just would respectfully note my
objection.
Chair Durbin. Senator, if I could respond? We're doing our
best to move these nominees in a timely fashion. But I----
Senator Cornyn. This is a drive-by hearing, is what this
is.
Chair Durbin. I would like to add for the record that many
of the vacant--many of the positions they are seeking were
either left vacant or filled by temporary appointment under the
previous administration. This administration is bringing the
nominees for Senate confirmation.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, I support the nomination and
will, in all likelihood, vote for the confirmation of some of
these nominees, but there's some I have serious questions about
that I'd like to have a chance to ask them. Having noted my
objection, let me just proceed.
Ms. Jaddou, in 2015, the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations here in the Senate did a extensive multiyear
investigation into the placement of unaccompanied children with
sponsors here in the United States. They documented that, in
one case, the Office of Refugee Relocation placed eight
children in a forced labor condition. Basically, what happened
is human traffickers posed as sponsors, and then ORR placed
these unaccompanied children with sponsors who then trafficked
them and used them for forced labor. Do you believe the current
procedures that are in place to vet sponsors for placement of
unaccompanied children are acceptable?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator, for that really important
question. As a mother, the protection of children is--I can't
even describe how important it is, not only to me personally
but parents everywhere.
On this specific issue, as the director of USCIS, if I'm
confirmed, this is not generally the area where I would have a
specialty, and I don't necessarily have a specialty in the
placement of children in specific homes. I am aware that USCIS
currently is assisting in the mission of Homeland--that HHS,
Health and Human Services, at the moment, and they have been
trained under the current procedures. Unfortunately, I have not
been brought up to speed on those issues, and I would
certainly--that would be one of the first things I would want
to do, to ensure that the officers of USCIS have the greatest
amount of information and training available to them to place
children in safe and loving homes.
Senator Cornyn. Are you aware that, as of May 24th, 2021,
that the Biden administration has 18,187 children in custody?
Ms. Jaddou. I was not aware of that specific number, but I
have heard it's a larger number.
Senator Cornyn. Are you aware that, since the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations conducted this multiyear
investigation into the placement of unaccompanied children with
sponsors, there has been no change in the policy. In fact,
there is no government agency that is responsible for following
up on the placement of these children. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Jaddou. As I stated, sir, I was not aware. That's not a
process that I'm a specialist in. I don't have much expertise
in that area. Certainly, to the extent that USCIS officers, if
I'm confirmed, are involved in that process, I would like to
learn as much about it, and I thank you for bringing that to my
attention. I would definitely like to take a look as soon as
I'm confirmed.
Senator Cornyn. As a matter of fact, on March the 11th,
2021, the Biden administration entered into a new memorandum of
understanding regarding unaccompanied children, terminating the
cooperation between HHS, ORR, ICE, and CBP with regard to
vetting the background of the sponsors with whom these
unaccompanied children are placed. In other words, as bad as
this Committee report is, and it dates back to 2015, there's
been no change in the--in the follow-up of these children that
are being placed with potential traffickers, people who would
subject them to forced labor, assault them, abuse them, exploit
them. The Biden administration has just made that harder to vet
because they terminated the memorandum of April the 13th, 2018.
Mr. Chipman, I wanted to ask you, do you recognize the--an
individual right to keep and bear arms?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you for that question, Senator. The
Supreme Court has recognized that right. I'm a gun owner
myself. The answer is yes.
Senator Cornyn. Is a law-abiding gun owner a threat to
public safety, in your view?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you for that question, Senator. If the
term law-abiding means someone has lawfully possessed a gun,
there are often occasions that that person then goes on to
commit a violent crime. If you're just saying characterize the
majority of gun owners, the majority of gun owners are law
abiding.
Senator Cornyn. What's the role of the ATF or the Federal
Government in restricting the right of law-abiding gun owners
to keep and bear arms? You said that some of them may go on to
commit crimes, but so far, we're not living with, I guess, the
movie The Minority Report, where we had the capacity or ability
to investigate pre-crimes. What restrictions would you place on
the right of a law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms under
the Second Amendment?
Mr. Chipman. If I'm confirmed as ATF director, it's ATF's
responsibility to primarily enforce the National Firearms Act,
the Gun Control Act, and our priority will be, you know,
focusing on people who break Federal laws and attempt to, you
know, intervene before they kill someone. That is a balance
that we need to strike, but again, the Constitution is the
guardrails to that activity.
Senator Cornyn. I'll just say, in conclusion, if the
Chairman will give me just a moment, that, I think, one of the
areas that I do think that ATF needs to focus on is unlicensed
firearms manufacturers that are not currently obligated, like
Federal firearms licensees are, to conduct background checks.
Indeed, this is a loophole through which some individuals--for
example, the shooter in Odessa, Texas, a few years back,
circumvented the background check system by buying a AR-15
lookalike from a unlicensed firearms manufacturer. I hope
that's an area you will look at and work with us on.
Mr. Chipman. Thank you, Senator, and if confirmed, I will
strive to work with you on that, and I thank you for your
dedication improving the NICS system.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. While we are
sitting here, we have a gunman in San Francisco shooting down
people. The press say at this time maybe six to seven people
have been killed. Mr. Chipman, gun violence is so prevalent in
this country. What are the first steps you will take to do
something about it, if any?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, well, I wanted to say thank you for
that question, but first, I'm sorry to hear that news. I wasn't
aware of that. If I'm confirmed as ATF director, one of our
priorities at ATF will be focusing on gun trafficking and the
unlawful transfer of legal guns to criminals, and perhaps, in
this case, you know, a crime like this could be prevented. As
ATF tries to solve crimes, we will have to strive just as hard
to prevent them from ever happening in the first place.
Senator Feinstein. I thank you. You know, and I guess I've
been listening to these questions being asked and responded to
for more than 20 years now, and nothing changes on the streets.
I think we all need to think a little bit about that. You know,
this is a gun-happy nation, and everybody can have their gun,
but what is happening out there in the killing of innocents
should be protected by our laws. Unfortunately, we're not
making the laws that can protect people from this kind of gun
crimes.
Last fical year, the number of inventory inspections
conducted by ATF to ensure that weapons are not diverted to
criminals fell to just over 5,800. My understanding, that's
down from 13,000 in Fiscal Year 2019. The--your Department is
sitting by, and all of this is happening. At the same time, gun
sales were spiking around the Nation. Even before the pandemic,
ATF inspected less than 15 percent of licensed dealers in a
year. I'm not a great fan of those numbers. If confirmed, what
will you do, specifically, to increase the number of ATF
inspections?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you for this question, Senator. It's a
very important question. If confirmed, very early on in my
tenure, I want to find out the reasons for that drop in
statistics. One thing strikes me is I'm unsure how COVID
impacted the ATF work force. Certainly, when just looking at
the numbers, we have to ensure that ATF inspectors are
targeting those firearms dealers most at risk.
I also see in those numbers that a large percentage of the
inspections result in no findings, which suggests that, in
those cases, they're--the dealer is compliant. I think a whole
review of what's going on to make sure that the limited
resources that ATF--is used efficiently to further this mission
is absolutely critical, and thank you for bringing up this
important point.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I will do everything within
my power to see that you have the staff to do this if you
really show that you're going to do it because I am
increasingly concerned, as the numbers of mass shootings go up,
people dying, and that is happening on our streets right now.
Gun sales are spiking across the Nation. ATF's record has
decreased from--as I understand it, down to 15 percent of
licensed dealers being inspected in a year. Is that a correct
figure? It was in The New York Times, May 2, 2021.
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you for that question. It is my
understanding that ATF has not yet been able to meet a self-
imposed goal of inspecting dealers every 3 years. It's
something that ATF is mandated to do with explosives dealers. I
think it's a good goal. Again, if I'm confirmed, I will get to
the bottom of this situation, and I thank you for your
dedication in doing what you can to provide ATF the resources
to get this important mission done.
Senator Feinstein. I hope you do that. I'm going to hold
you to it. If you don't, you're going to hear from me. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Chipman. Yes, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like Senator Cornyn,
I'd like to make a brief statement not counting against my time
at the outset. I just want to express agreement with what
Senator Cornyn said, and while I'm certainly sympathetic to the
need to get through nominees, it is different than establishing
that we need to have all five of these nominees in a single
panel in a single hearing. If we need to have more hearings,
fine. If we need to have more panels of the same hearing,
that's fine too. This is a difficult spot. To cover this many
nominees of this much significant in one hearing can be tough.
Thank you for letting me address that.
Mr. Chipman, I'd like to start with you. I believe Senator
Cornyn referred briefly to a statement that I independently
found concerning, a statement that you had posted on Reddit
back in 2019, when you said, quote, ``While at ATF, I conducted
studies involving people who failed background checks to
determine how many later committed crimes with a gun. Many did.
This is a perfect opportunity to arrest people before
committing crimes rather than responding after the fact,''
close quote.
I find this statement very troubling, especially troubling
for someone who's been nominated to serve as the ATF director,
because, even setting aside for a minute the Second Amendment,
even before you get to the Second Amendment, this violates our
most fundamental rules of due process, talking about a desire
to arrest people before committing crimes rather than after the
fact. It's not how our criminal justice system works. If that's
how you view people, that is concerning to me.
This is compounded by other comments you've made that, to
me, reflect a certain degree of disdain toward gun owners and,
in particular, new gun owners.
On April 3rd of 2020, just over a year ago, you gave an
interview with Cheddar News, and you were talking about
increases in gun sales, especially first-time gun owners who
had decided to purchase a gun for the first time during the
pandemic. In the interview, you openly mocked first-time gun
owners, saying that they were, quote, ``more like Tiger King,''
and then advising them in quite a mockery to hide their gun,
quote, ``behind the cans of tuna and beef jerky they have
stored in a cabinet and only bring that out if the zombies
start to appear,'' close quote.
When I first saw this, I watched the clip and I read the
clip several times, hoping that I was missing context, hoping
that there was something else there that would make this less
troubling. It concerns me that you, as the nominee to be the
director of the ATF would have such a flippant and, if I may
say so, utterly condescending attitude toward first-time gun
owners in this country. I say this as a former Federal
prosecutor, one who worked with ATF agents and agents from many
other agencies. This is a troubling, flippant attitude for
somebody who's going to head this Agency.
You may find it interesting to learn that a survey of
Federal firearms licensees conducted by the National Shooting
Sports Foundation shows that retailers supported the highest
average percent increase in sales to Black Americans during the
first half of 2020, with large increases also to women and to
Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans as well. Why would you
choose to insult so many of your fellow Americans with a
statement like this based on the fact that they've purchased a
gun?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to address both of these comments that, I believe,
were misunderstood and taken out of context. I'll start with
the first.
When I was talking about the prosecution of people who had
lied and tried to buy a gun, clearly those people who lie and
try have committed a serious Federal felony. What I suggested
is, if we did research, we could determine which of those
people were most likely to later commit some violent crime. I
do believe it would be ATF's mission, that of prosecutors, to
prosecute those people who committed a serious Federal felony
before, you know, striking again and killing someone. With
respect to the other quote, I'll just say briefly----
Senator Lee. Are you saying that what you, in fact, meant
was before committing other crimes and after committing a
predicate crime? Is that what you're telling me that you meant
when you said, ``This is a perfect opportunity to arrest people
before committing crimes rather than responding after the
fact?'' Is that what you meant?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank
you for the opportunity to clarify. What I said was that I
think that, in certain circumstances, it is absolutely the
mission of ATF to arrest people for lying on a Federal firearms
form, a 5-year felony----
Senator Lee. Right, because that's a crime. That is a
crime.
Mr. Chipman. It's the one I was speaking about in the quote
that you were saying, sir.
Senator Lee. Okay. You said before committing crimes.
Mr. Chipman. Before committing an additional violent crime,
which is something I was seeing at ATF, that people would lie
and try and then go through other means, acquire a gun, and
hurt someone.
Senator Lee. Okay. That statement was sort of in invisible
brackets? Is that what you mean? Or is that just what you're
saying that you meant?
Mr. Chipman. At the time, I did my best to communicate and
clearly, as exampled here, I fell short. I will try to do
better.
Senator Lee. Okay. How about the other statement?
Mr. Chipman. With regards to the comments that I made on
Cheddar, that was a lengthy interview. What I was trying to use
is self-depreciating humor. The person who had a gun stored
behind tuna and beef jerky was me. I was saying that all of us
were acting in new ways as a response to COVID, and I thought
that people should be very clear that when they bring a gun in
their home, they need to be properly trained.
Again, we have oftentimes the ability to talk to the media.
Sometimes that's taken out of context, and I'm sorry for any
confusion I made when I was trying to point out the fact that
sometimes bringing a gun into your home, if you're untrained,
is a particularly dangerous thing to do.
Senator Lee. Yes, it does concern me that these--these
statements that you say are taken out of context or
misunderstood are not themselves out of context. When you view
them in context against other statements you've made,
statements--including statements that you made while you were
representing, as a lobbyist, Americans for a Responsible
Solution.
You were talking about silencers, about sound suppressors
used on firearms. You said, ``You know what protects your
hearing better than a silencer? Earplugs.'' You went on to say
that making it easier for people to purchase silencers would
make it easier for active shooters to inflict serious harm on
our communities without being protected by trained law
enforcement professionals. Now, The Washington Post, hardly a
bastion of conservative, right-wing-nutcase journalism, gave
that three Pinocchios.
You were even more acerbic. You were even more aggressive
and, I believe, even more reckless, when you gave a similar
comment to The Salt Lake Tribune, my hometown paper, in
response to legislation I had filed dealing with sound
suppressors for firearms, recognizing that there are legitimate
medical reasons why someone might want to protect their hearing
using a combination of earplugs and sound suppressors.
You said, quote, ``The only people that benefit from this
bill are gun lobbyists and criminals who want easier access to
deadly weapons. That's why this irresponsible legislation
couldn't get passed when Republicans had complete control of
the Congress. Instead of making it easier for firearms that
could be used in ambushes and other attacks to enter our
streets, Congress should focus on making the job of police
officers who are trained to serve and protect the communities
and their families safer.''
You're saying that the only people who could benefit from
them are gun lobbyists and criminals who want to kill people.
Is that statement also taken out of context? If so, what was
the additional context? How does this reflect the careful,
measured judgment of one who would be in charge of enforcing
our Nation's gun laws?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you for the question about
silencers, which have been regulated under the National
Firearms Act since the 1930s. The effort to take the silencer
out of that regulatory regime that has prevented silencers by
more frequently being used in criminals, as an advocate, I
thought that that was the wrong approach.
Senator Lee. Yes, you made that quite clear. That's not
what I'm complaining about. What I'm complaining about is that
you said the only people who could support this are gun
lobbyists and people who want to engage in illegal shootings,
people who want to engage in mass shootings, or something like
that. Do you stand by that statement?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, I was trying to contrast the fact
that silencers are legal. You purchase them----
Senator Lee. No. No.
Mr. Chipman [continuing]. Through the National Firearms
Act. The people who want them unregulated are those that want
to have easier access.
Senator Lee. Look, you're not going to spit downwind and
then tell us it's just raining. I mean, I'm sorry. There is no
reasonable reading of this statement that could be interpreted
this way. ``The only people that benefit from this bill are gun
lobbyists and criminals who want easier access to deadly
weapons.'' Is it not also true that some people might want to
protect their hearing while shooting?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, as I said before, it's my belief that
those who want to buy silencers to protect their hearing,
there's a method to do that. There are many companies that sell
National Firearms Act weapons, and there's a process to do
that. I was addressing was making it easier for criminals to
use silencers, a threat that our Nation has really avoided
because of a strong law passed in 1930.
Senator Lee. Yes. All right. Look, I get it. My time has
expired. That's not what you said. That's not what you said at
all, nor is that the impact that this bill would have. The fact
is that most people don't get sound suppressors because of the
regulatorily and expensive, time-consuming, burdensome process
that is imposed by this law. I think this is very concerning
for someone who's had a series of inflammatory statements, very
concerning that we're considering confirming you to be our lead
law enforcement officer for our gun laws. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Polite, I
assume you'll agree that it's wrong to pursue a criminal case
for political purposes.
Mr. Polite. Certainly, Senator. That is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. Is it also wrong to duck a case for
political purposes?
Mr. Polite. Senator, considerations related to politics
should play no role in enforcement or prosecutorial decision-
making.
Senator Whitehouse. There's room for misuse on both sides.
It would be wrong to pursue a case for political reasons, and
it would be wrong to duck a proper case for political reasons
also, correct?
Mr. Polite. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Did you read Judge Gleeson's brief in
the Flynn case?
Mr. Polite. I am familiar with the brief, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Would you read it before I vote for
you?
Mr. Polite. Certainly, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Great. Thank you. Ms. Milgram, in Rhode
Island, we have integrated peer recovery specialists into law
enforcement. Sometimes they ride along. Sometimes they follow-
up. It has been an enormously successful program that many of
our police departments have not only come to participate in but
come to love.
Whoever is handling the mic, could they please deal with
that? Like, turn down my volume. May I hold the time while we
fix this? How are we feeling? It's just--let me try again. Can
you hear me? I think my mic is off now. All right. Hello? Off.
You get a pause while we sort out the microphones. Okay. Am I
back yet? No.
[Voice heard off mirophone.] Can you all hear that?
Chair Durbin. This microphone is not working.
Senator Whitehouse. Are we back?
Chair Durbin. No.
Senator Whitehouse. Are we back? All right. What I'm told
is that we are audible online but maybe not through the
speakers in the room. I will just try to speak loudly enough
that we can hear each other across the gap.
I mentioned this integration of peer recovery specialists
into law enforcement. As DEA administrator, how would you
respond to that kind of initiative?
Ms. Milgram. Senator, I really appreciate the question and
the work that you're doing in your State. When I did work
around reducing violence in the City of Camden, many years
later, we went back to look at the overlap of health and crime
in the city. We did a study, and we found that 67 percent of
the individuals who were frequent users of the healthcare
system were also frequent users of the criminal justice system.
Underlying that is substance abuse, mental health, and
homelessness.
I very much agree with you that we have separated, in many
ways, law enforcement from public health, but that, if we want
to have the safest communities we can, we need to be thoughtful
about addressing many of these things that can be----
Senator Whitehouse. While DEA is an enforcement Agency, you
would support the integration of peer recovery and addiction
workers into law enforcement's work?
Ms. Milgram. Senator, I've spent the better part of the
past 3 years at NYU working with law enforcement, with the
Indianapolis Police Department, and with McLean County,
Illinois, to build a screening tool for law enforcement to be
able to identify individuals suffering from substance abuse and
mental health. If I'm confirmed, I would very much look forward
to working with you and others to address the overlap of health
and crime, and I would look forward to that opportunity.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Senator Cornyn and I are working
on legislation to expand what's happening with respect to peer
recovery, recovery integration, into a larger behavioral health
and crisis intervention integration with law enforcement. Would
you support those initiatives as well?
Ms. Milgram. Senator, I would very much look forward to
working with you and Senator Cornyn on these. The question in
my mind, just to put it very basically, is how do we make our
communities safer and healthier. To me, anything that can get
us there are things that--sorry--are things that we should be
pursuing. I didn't mean to scream. I apologize.
Senator Whitehouse. No, I think they just turned the
speakers back on. That's why that happened. Would you also
comment on how important it is for DEA to look at the money
side of the international narcotics trafficking industry as
opposed to just the drug supply side?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, Senator. There is no question that one of
the core missions of DEA is to dismantle the most significant
individuals and organizations that are engaged in narcotics
trafficking, and a significant aspect of that is following the
money, looking at whether it's money laundering or other
financial transactions that are happening, not just in the
United States but also around the world. I'm grateful for the
leadership you've had on this issue, and I would also look
forward to working on that with you and other Members of the
Committee.
Senator Whitehouse. Good. Thank you. As the Chair of the
International Narcotics Trafficking Caucus, I want to focus in
this area, and we look forward to working with you.
Finally, Mr. Chipman, can you think of any position that
you have taken regarding firearms that you would pursue at ATF
that is out of step with majority views of the American public?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you for that question, and the
answer is no.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me just take a second if I close
out. I think I actually got a little extra time as we switched
the clock because of the microphone, so I'll end. I do want to
express my appreciation to Chairman Leahy for his work on gun
tracing. As a U.S. attorney and as my State's attorney general,
we really tried to focus on getting information to
investigators as quickly as possible from crime scenes and to
be able to trace back where guns and ballistics, shells, for
instance, came from so that you could, in real time, be working
on preventing further crimes.
We are long overdue getting that problem fixed. I just
wanted to express my appreciation to Senator Leahy for his work
on this, and he is well supported in the caucus trying to make
sure that we get this done. Thank you. Look forward to working
with you on this ballistics and gun tracing side.
Mr. Chipman. Thank you, Senator.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chipman, a
minute ago, Senator Whitehouse asked you if any of your views
on guns are out of step with the majority of the American
people. The AR-15 is one of, if not the most popular rifle in
America. It's not a machine gun. It's a rifle. Your public
position is that you want to ban AR-15s. Is that correct?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank
you for our visit yesterday and offering me a Dr. Pepper. It
made me reminisce about my time in central Texas. Now, to your
question, with respect to the AR-15, I support a ban, as has
been presented in a Senate bill and supported by the President.
The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF's SWAT team, and it's a
particularly lethal weapon, and regulating it as other
particularly lethal weapons I have advocated for. As ATF
director, if I'm confirmed, I would simply enforce the laws on
the books, and right now, there is no such ban on those guns.
Senator Cruz. You want to ban the most popular rifle in
America. A minute ago--and you noted there is a Senate bill.
Senator Feinstein had a bill to ban some 2,000 specified rifles
and other firearms in her bill. In 2013, the Democrats had a
majority in the Senate. It was the Harry Reid Senate. We voted
on the Senate floor on Senator Feinstein's so-called assault
weapon ban. Do you know how many Senators voted for it?
Mr. Chipman. No, I do not.
Senator Cruz. Forty. Sixty voted against it. In a
Democratic Senate, a supermajority voted against a ban. Part of
the reason they voted against the ban, as you're aware, is
during the Clinton administration there was a ban in effect.
The Department of Justice studied the effect of that law and
discovered that it had no measurable impact on violent crime.
Is that right?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, I did enforce this law for 10 years
as an ATF agent. I'm unfamiliar with the study that you are
pointing out, and I apologize for that.
Senator Cruz. When you and I met in my office last night
and discussed it, I asked if there were any data to suggest
that the ban was effective, and what you said in the office is
you were not aware of any data, that the data was--I think,
mixed is the term you used.
Mr. Chipman. Yes, Senator. What I said to you yesterday,
you've accurately stated it. I think it was mixed, which, you
know--I stand by that remark. I think my recollection is that
evidence was shown that the limitation on magazine size had an
impact. I also believe that later studies showed that the use
of assault weapons in mass shootings had declined during that
period, but, you know, that's how I would like to characterize
my views on that.
Senator Cruz. You also said, when you and I talked
yesterday in the office, that Senator Feinstein's bill, which a
supermajority of Senators voted against in a Democratic Senate,
you said that bill didn't go far enough, and you wanted an even
broader ban to ban--you said it didn't go far enough. Is that
right?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thanks for that question and the
ability to clarify. What I did say is that Senator Feinstein's
bill did not address those firearms that are currently in the
possession of Americans, and then I did share with you my view
as an advocate, which would be quite different than someone
actually enforcing the law on the books, that those firearms
could be treated under the NFA and regulated that way, which
would deal with those currently in the possession of Americans.
Senator Cruz. When you say it didn't go far enough, you
mean that you don't just want to ban the manufacture of those
rifles, you don't just want to make it illegal to sell those
rifles, but you want to actively have government go after the
people who currently possess firearms, and if they don't
register and submit to all of the onerous restrictions of the
National Firearms Act, presumably confiscate their weapons?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, what I've said publicly is that, as
an advocate, I prefer a system where the AR-15 and other
assault weapons are regulated under the National Firearms Act.
Senator Cruz. Let me shift to Ms. Jaddou. You and I also
had a conversation this week. Do you consider so-called birth
tourism to be a problem?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, and thank you
for taking the time to meet with me yesterday. I really
appreciated that. Yes, we did have a quite fruitful discussion
on that issue. I believe we ended with the thought that we need
to collect some information and the data is not there. I also
noted that, as a mother and as someone who's been through quite
a difficult delivery, the incredible interest in protecting the
health of a mother, the health of a new baby, and ensuring that
we can do the best we can so that women and their babies are
protected.
Senator Cruz. Ms. Jaddou, with all respect, I don't find
that answer remotely credible. You said in my office you didn't
consider birth tourism, an 8-month-pregnant or 9-month-pregnant
woman getting a tourist visa to come to America to have a child
on American soil so that child is an American citizen, that you
didn't consider it an abuse of our laws. It's an obvious and
transparent abuse of the laws.
I will point out last December Federal prosecutors indicted
six people running a birth tourism operation in Long Island
where Turkish women would pay between $7,500 and $10,000
dollars to travel to New York on tourist visas to give birth
and return to Turkey with American-citizen babies. In 2019, The
New York Times referred to the birth tourism industry as,
quote, ``thriving.'' Is it your position that this doesn't
occur, that The New York Times was wrong, that there's not a
blatant abuse of our immigration system?
Ms. Jaddou. To the extent that anybody is committing fraud
or assisting in anybody committing fraud or misrepresentation,
that has--not only makes someone inadmissible to the United
States, but also there are criminal penalties. I understand--
I'm not familiar with the case you just mentioned, but I'm
familiar with other ones that a sister Agency inside the
Department of Homeland Security in the past, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, has addressed.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to all the nominees. I think I'll start with
you, Mr. Polite, down there. You were appointed by a Republican
Louisiana Governor to serve on the Louisiana Civil Service
Commission and currently have the support of Louisiana's
Republican Attorney General, who praised you for being not only
an effective crime fighter but also an invaluable member of the
community.
In your view, have you earned that support? How do you work
together? I always think of prosecutors, when I had my old job,
as ministers of justice, that you have to, of course, focus on
community safety and convicting the guilty but also protecting
the innocent, which, to me, also involves things like
conviction integrity units, drug courts, and the like. If you
want to briefly respond.
Mr. Polite. Senator, thank you so much for that question,
and my view is very similar to what you articulated, Senator,
that my role as a U.S. attorney, while certainly focused on
issues of enforcement, was much broader than that. It was to be
a community problem solver, and so to utilize all of the tools
at our disposal, not just enforcement but tools such as
prevention and intervention and even reentry, particularly in a
State like Louisiana, where incarceration rates were so high.
All of those tools were critical to our work, and it required
outreach to many different components within our communities,
across State, local, and Federal law enforcement, but also
outside of government to actually achieve those goals.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Chipman, it's
not lost on me that, as we're having this discussion with you,
or several Members are, about guns, that there is another mass
shooting with fatalities near San Jose.
We have worked hard. There are Republicans, like Senator
Toomey, that have worked on the background check issue and
tried to get that done. We know the vast majority of Americans
support rational gun violence legislation, and a piece of this
is for many years, I've led the legislation to close a
dangerous loophole in the law that allows domestic abusers to
buy a gun simply because they're not married to their victims.
This bill actually was included in the Violence Against Women
Act over in the House and got a number of Republicans voting
for it, and it's something that I think we can advance.
Could you comment about that? Do you agree that we should
keep guns out of the hands of all convicted domestic abusers?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you, Senator, for this question, and
thank you for your dedication to domestic violence, which
remains the most dangerous call police will ever respond to. As
an ATF agent in central Texas, one of the most significant
cases I worked was a pipe bomb sent by an estranged boyfriend
to a woman who worked at a probation and parole office.
Domestic violence is something that ATF agents regularly deal
with on the job, and there's no greater threat than those
offenders who have access to a gun. It would be one of the top
priorities I had if I am confirmed as ATF director.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much. Ms.
Milgram, I enjoyed our discussion, and we talked about opioids,
something that I've been working on for quite a while with a
number of Republicans on this Committee as well as Democrats.
What do you see DEA's role--we talked about the documents from
a recent trial showing drug manufacturers mocking what they
called ``hillbillies'' in West Virginia. I do suggest--I know
there's shared belief on this issue, but this mocking of the
Beverly Hillbillies song, where drug executives were--actually
put in words mocking the people they got hooked on the drugs,
was an outrageous thing I'd never seen until last week, and it
just shows how heartless this addiction was where people were
profiting off of people's own addictions, many times resulting
in death.
Could you quickly address what the DEA--you see as the
priorities?
Ms. Milgram. Senator, I share your concern on this issue.
America is in the midst of an opioid crisis, and fentanyl,
which has now come to our cities and streets, is really fueling
this addiction opioid crisis today. I share your concern that
there are two pieces of this.
First, it's the pharmaceutical companies and the
manufacturers and others that have essentially put us in a
situation today where we must regulate opioids and the
prescription drugs that people are being given. There's a huge
function in the DEA's diversion work that is a part of that,
and it will be a priority for me.
The other piece is really stopping the illicit fentanyl
from coming into our country, where individuals who--most of
whom first become hooked through prescription drugs, are then
turning to heroin, to illicit fentanyl, and to other
substances. We're seeing just way too many overdose deaths in
our country.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. Last, Ms. Jaddou, I
really enjoyed our conversation as well. It--we talked about
the fact that, for so many of us in our States where we have
needs for immigrant workers, permanent workers, temporary
workers, and the like, this is becoming a near crisis,
especially in northern Minnesota in our tourism industry, in
some of our farmlands, and others. We also rely on all levels
of education from immigrants that are part of our economy.
One of those is in medical. Yesterday, Senator Collins,
Rosen, Ernst, and I led--introduced a bipartisan bill that I've
long been leading. I took it over from Senator Conrad when he
left. The Conrad State 30 and Physician Access Act, which
increases the number of international doctors trained in the
U.S. to remain in the country if they practice in rural or
underserved areas. I remind people that more than 25 percent of
our U.S. Nobel Laureates were born abroad, and 70 of America's
Fortune 500 companies were started by people born in other
countries.
How can USCIS help to ensure we are attracting talent to
come to our country at all levels and work with us on this
really crisis of not having enough doctors in underserved
areas, one of the reasons you see Senator Collins and Senator
Ernst join me on this bill?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator. I really appreciated the
time talking with you yesterday, and when we talked about this
issue, as you know, I worked on it when I was a Hill staffer
back in the day on the House side, and I completely appreciate
and understand this issue. A family member, my father-in-law,
came through a program, a little different but somewhat similar
to ASSIST, in the U.S. Navy. I can personally appreciate the
program.
Professionally, from USCIS, what we can do is to ensure
that the processing of the applications surrounding that is not
something that is slowing down the process, that we are doing
it efficiently and in an accessible manner, and of course, to
ensure the integrity and security of the system.
Senator Klobuchar. Excellent. Thank you all for----
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. Your pointed and brief
answers so I could get all my questions in. I appreciate it.
Chair Durbin. The patience of your Chairman.
Senator Klobuchar. The patience of our Chairman, yes.
Chair Durbin. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all
of the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Chipman, if I could just start with you. Since leaving
the ATF, you've served as a policy advisor or provided support
for, I think, just about every national gun control group in
the country, or close to it: the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Mayors Against
Illegal Guns, and most recently the Giffords group.
My question is, given your policy bias--I mean, you clearly
have a very distinct policy point of view. You alluded to this
with Senator Cruz a moment ago. How can America's hundreds of
millions of law-abiding gun owners have confidence that you
won't try to restrict their Second Amendment rights if you're
confirmed as ATF director? I mean, what assurances can you give
them that you will limit your efforts to criminals who misuse
weapons and leave law-abiding firearms owners to themselves?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you for this question because
it's really important. As I've said, for 25 years, I enforced
the law on the books. Every day, me and other Federal agents
tried to catch the bad guys. I mean, that's what the mission
was. It was trying to keep the public safe.
During those 25 years, I saw gaps in the law that really
prevented us from doing the job I knew the American public
wanted us to do. Look at that 25 years. I was not going wayward
with law-abiding gun owners. I never received complaint of that
sort. I'm prepared to return to that job. My passion after
leaving ATF was to make ATF and our enforcement of gun laws
more effective to keep us all safe. I understand, if I'm
confirmed, I will have to earn the confidence and your respect
and trust to keep doing that.
Senator Hawley. Let me ask you about some of your work for
the Giffords group. In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case
District of Columbia v. Heller, which happened--was handed down
when I was actually working at the U.S. Supreme Court, the
Giffords Law Center that year, if memory serves, authored an
amicus brief arguing that there is no individual right to own a
firearm under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court,
famously, found otherwise.
Do you share your employers belief that the Second
Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear
firearms?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you for your question, Senator. I do
not. I'm a gun owner. I respect that the Supreme Court has
recognized this right, and if ATF director, I will ensure to
uphold that right.
Senator Hawley. Very good. You think Heller was rightly
decided, just to be clear about this?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, I'm a cop, not a lawyer. What I know
is the law is the law, and the Supreme Court plays a role in
recognizing what those rights are. You know, as an agent, I
felt like we were going down a highway. Our mission was to
prevent crime, and the Constitution were those guardrails to
keep us in line. At times, when the road was uncertain, we had
signposts, and those were attorneys who we asked advice and
counsel.
If confirmed as ATF director, that's the balance that I
would strike. The bottom line is our job is to prevent crimes
from--apparently, that is ongoing right now, that other Members
have suggested, and that would be my sole duty.
Senator Hawley. I just want to be clear on this because you
said that you do think that the Constitution supports--protects
the individual right to keep and bear arms. That was the
holding of Heller. You've been a policy advocate now for quite
a number of years, and I think that your views, and you've
discussed some of them today, are fair game. I just want to be
clear on this. You think Heller was rightly decided, is that
correct?
Mr. Chipman. Yes, sir.
Senator Hawley. Okay, great. Thank you. That's helpful. Let
me ask you about something you said in 2012. In an interview--I
think it was on MSNBC--you said that the Secret Service should
not carry guns. You said their whole role is to cover and
evacuate, and you went on to say possibly we need to think of
strategies like that in schools. Is that still your view?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, I trust that you have--and your staff
have actually picked something I've said. I do not believe I
ever said that. I might have said this, which is I was trained
to work with the Secret Service. I have observed that part of
that training is that you have to get your body in between you
and the person you're protecting, and you often don't have the
opportunity to even draw your gun. That is something that I
would say. I have never advocated that the Secret Service
should not carry guns, ever.
Senator Hawley. Did you mean to suggest then that schools
should have unarmed guards, that they shouldn't be able to
protect students with firearms? I mean, I'm trying to
understand the import of your comments.
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank for the question about schools.
I mean, this is something that we've all debated and tried to
figure out a solution to the mass violence we've seen in
schools. We know how to keep buildings safe. I came in one
today. I do not believe that the best approach is to arm people
to win gunfights in schools.
Senator Hawley. You're opposed, then, to having armed
guards in schools? You think that they shouldn't be armed?
Mr. Chipman. As an advocate and as a firearms expert, I've
rendered my opinion that I believe that there are better ways
to secure schools. If I'm confirmed as ATF director, largely,
this is not going to be the focus of ATF. Our focus would be to
prevent people who would do harm at schools from ever getting
guns in the first place. Hopefully that addresses the question
as you've asked.
Senator Hawley. Wouldn't that just leave the guards who are
there, the law enforcement who are there, to act as human
shields? I mean, is that essentially your view?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, no, it's not. I'm sorry if I'm not
explaining this correctly. We came into a building today
secured so that guns would not be brought in. I'm more a
believer of hardening targets so that guns could never enter a
school, so that armed people inside would not be faced with
other armed people. You know, metal detectors is something used
in some schools, and I've suggested that that's a possible, you
know, view that States and localities will have to make for
themselves.
Senator Hawley. I do have some additional questions for you
which I'm happy to give to you for the record, as well as we'll
give to you for the record your comments on that 2012 interview
that I referred to and give you a chance to follow-up more
fully on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hawley. Senator Cotton.
I'm sorry. Senator Blumenthal, then Senator Cotton.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I want to pursue
the line of questioning, Mr. Chipman, that you just finished
with my colleague Senator Hawley because, I think, you said
something very telling, and it ought to be compelling to this
Committee and to the United States Senate. You said, ``I'm a
cop, not a lawyer.'' As the head of ATF, you'd be the top cop
in that Agency, which has agents who enforce the law just like
cops do. You wouldn't be making law, would you? You'd be
enforcing it.
Mr. Chipman. No, I'd be enforcing it, and I'd be relying on
attorneys, as I did through my entire career, if that road
became uncertain. That's just standard practice.
Senator Blumenthal. In 25 years as an agent at the ATF, you
liked some of your targets, maybe personally, and you didn't
like others. You thought some laws were really good and maybe
didn't like others, but you enforced them against people
without fear or favor, correct?
Mr. Chipman. In some ways, it's easy. You enforce the law
on the books. There's not--and you want to do it safely, and
you want to keep yourself safe.
Senator Blumenthal. The President of the United States has
issued a proposed regulation dealing with ghost guns, that, in
effect, would require that all firearms have serial numbers. I
strongly support it. I've introduced legislation that would ban
ghost guns, as they're called, that lack serial numbers. In a
hearing that I recently held in my Subcommittee on The
Constitution--not mine; I Chair it--the following fact was
disclosed.
In--between January 1, 2016, and March 4, 2021, ATF
attempted to trace almost 23,946 ghost guns, but only 151
traces could be completed. That's less than 1 percent. What
happens in investigations when guns can't be traced?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you for this question, Senator. What
happens is, it makes the case very difficult to solve. We can
rely on other technologies to help, but certainly, tracing the
serial number of a product is critical. It's how we solved the
World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. It's
absolutely essential to law enforcement to be able to trace a
gun.
Senator Blumenthal. There's nothing ghostlike about ghost
guns. They look like guns. They shoot like guns. They kill like
guns. They are guns. In my home State of Connecticut, we've
banned ghost guns. The law of one State really can't protect
the citizens of that State because guns can be brought from
other States. Now, people can actually assemble these guns in
their homes, make them out of plastic on machines.
In your experience, is the serialization of firearms the
same as a gun registry? Because I know some of my colleagues
and some people are very fearful that the serialization of
guns, which is now a requirement on all guns sold by licensed
manufacturers, will be turned into some kind of national
registry. That isn't true, is it?
Mr. Chipman. No, Senator. It was clear as an ATF agent that
such a registry is prohibited by law. The only registry that
exists is in the National Firearms Act. The bottom line is is
that serial number, even before ghost guns, was something that
criminals would try to remove, especially firearms traffickers,
and so this is a real threat to firearms trafficking.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Ms. Jaddou, you and I had a
wonderful conversation, and I want to just commend to my
colleagues your personal story. Your mom and dad, your entire
family is really a model of what citizenship should mean in
this country, the way you've contributed and your entire
family.
I want to focus on the use of parole powers, which you and
I discussed briefly. There are about 3.5 million people in the
family based visa backlog and hundreds of thousands more in the
employment-based visa backlog. This problem is now completely
out of hand. It's a disgrace to this country. I know this
administration didn't create it, but I'm hoping that you will
address it. I've spoken to you previously about recapturing
unused visas, which I hope you will explore.
To circumvent the visa backlog problems, Congress
specifically granted DHS the authority to grant parole on the
basis of urgent humanitarian need or significant public
benefit, as you know. It seems reasonable that the reunion of
families who have an approved immigrant visa petition but who
are stuck, literally just stuck, waiting for a visa to become
available is an urgent humanitarian need.
I'm--would like to ask you, would you consider creating a
parole program for children and spouses of those with approved
visa petitions? Such a step would have enormously beneficial
consequences to thousands of people.
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator, and I especially
appreciated the time talking with you. It was extremely
enjoyable getting to know you.
With regard to your question, that is certainly something I
would like to take a look at if I'm confirmed. I--of course, it
would require reviewing the parole provision with regard to the
individuals you're mentioning and to determine whether the law
allows for such facts. That would--something I'd be happy to
work with you and your office on.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Now, Senator Cotton.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add my
voice to the objections raised by Senator Cornyn and Senator
Lee about scheduling a panel with five witnesses, one of which
is a lifetime judicial appointment, the other four of which are
very important appointments to the executive branch.
Chair Durbin. Senator, would you allow me to respond be--
and not at the expense of your time?
Senator Cotton. Please. Please.
Chair Durbin. Senator, in the last Congress, on the
following occasions, we had one court nominee followed by a
second panel with five nominees, judicial and executive
nominees; October 4th, 2017; December 13th, 2017; May 9th,
2018; June 6th, 2018; August 22nd, 2018; October 17th, 2018;
May 22nd, 2019; December 4th, 2019. These panels included
lifetime appointees, and as you can see, in eight different
occasions under Republican leadership, they had exactly the
same format as today.
Senator Cotton. No time like the present to change our
ways. As a new Member of the Committee, I'm observing that I
don't think that we should have four important executive branch
nominees in front of us at a time. Thank you.
Mr. Chipman, you testified to Senator Lee that it's a
serious felony to lie on a background check application, and I
agree. The ATF form 4473 asks, ``Are you an unlawful user of or
addicted to any drug or uncontrolled substance?'' If an
applicant checks yes, they cannot purchase a firearm.
On March 25th, Politico reported that Hunter Biden,
President Biden's son, applied for a handgun that was later
thrown in the trash and had to be recovered by Secret Service
agents in 2018. Politico reported that Hunter Biden completed
this background check and answered no to the question of
whether he was an unlawful user of or addicted to any drug.
Hunter Biden has since published a book and gone on a
nationwide book tour, conducting numerous interviews stating
that he was, in fact, very much addicted to drugs at the same
time that he purchased this firearm. This would mean that, by
his own admission, Hunter Biden lied on that form, and, by your
earlier testimony, committed a serious felony. Should Hunter
Biden be prosecuted for breaking this law?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you for your question. If I'm
confirmed as ATF director, it will be my responsibility to
enforce all Federal laws without political favor. I do not know
any factors in this particular case, but I am familiar with the
press account of it.
Senator Cotton. My understanding is the statute of
limitation is only 5 years and that this happened in 2018. Mr.
Biden is obligated to keep a record of that form for up to 5
years himself. This should be a fairly easy case to
investigate. Can I get your commitment that, if you are
confirmed, you will, in fact, look into this matter and refer
it for prosecution if you find that Hunter Biden violated the
law?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, what I will assure you is that, if
ATF director, I will ensure that all violations of law are
investigated and referred. I'm not sure that it has not been
investigated.
Senator Cotton. I hope it has. If the facts are as clear-
cut as they appear to be, based on Mr. Biden's own admission, I
would expect to see criminal charges forthcoming. I would say
that when a case is as high profile as this, if there is not an
answer for the American people and public, it severely
undermines the confidence in our gun laws as well as the ATF
and the Department of Justice if there are not criminal
consequences.
I want to turn to a second matter now, Mr. Chipman. You
have called for an assault weapons ban. I have a simple
question for you. What is an assault weapon?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, an assault weapon would be, in the
context of the question you asked, what Congress defines it as.
Senator Cotton. You're asking us to ban assault weapons. We
have to write legislation. Can you tell me, what is an assault
weapon? How would you define it if you were the head of the
ATF? How have you defined it over the last several years as
your role as a gun control advocate?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, if I'm confirmed as ATF director, you
know, my recollection is the only process by which ATF is
weighed in is that I know there is a Demand Letter Program,
which requires multiple reports--multiple sale reports on the
southwestern border. ATF in that program has defined an assault
rifle as any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a
detachable magazine above the caliber of .22, which would
include a .223, which is, you know, largely the AR-15 round.
Senator Cotton. You believe that every weapon that takes a
detachable magazine that can take a .22 round or 5.56 in
military parlance should be defined as an assault weapon?
Mr. Chipman. Let me clarify. What I believe I just said is
any semiautomatic rifle with----
Senator Cotton. Okay, any semiautomatic rifle.
Mr. Chipman. What----
Senator Cotton. That's the--a detachable magazine that
takes a 5.56 or .22 round should be defined as an assault
weapon?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, you asked me if ATF had used this
term, and I was sharing with you my knowledge of a program in
which ATF has defined this term. It is in the Demand Letter 3
program. That rifle is a semiautomatic rifle capable of
accepting a detachable magazine with a round greater than a .22
caliber. In those cases, firearms dealers on the southwest
border are required to make a multiple sale report to ATF.
Senator Cotton. I'm amazed that that might be the
definition of assault weapon. That would basically cover every
single modern sporting rifle in America today. Let me put it
this way. If I wanted to buy an assault weapon, and I walked
into Walmart or Cabela's or some other firearm dealers, and I
looked up on the wall where they were labeling their weapons,
would there be a label on the wall for assault weapon?
Mr. Chipman. I don't believe, Senator--and thank you for
this question--that the firearms industry has used the term
assault rifle in their marketing since there was a ban on it.
It was after that that they changed their use of the term
assault rifle to the modern sporting rifle.
Senator Cotton. I've been in Walmarts, and I've been in
Cabela's, and I've seen that you can find sections for pistols
or handguns or for shotguns or for rifles because those are
actual kinds of firearms. I think our exchange here illustrates
that there really is no such thing as an assault weapon. That
is a term that was manufactured by liberal lawyers and
pollsters in Washington to try scare the American people into
believing that the Government should confiscate weapons that
are wildly popular for millions of Americans to defend
themselves and their families and their homes.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ask
the panel to respond to my two initial questions en masse.
First question, since you became a legal adult, have any of you
ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any
verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Everybody on the panel, please.
Ms. Milgram. No, Senator.
Ms. Jaddou. No, Senator.
Mr. Chipman. No, Senator.
Ms. Strickland. No, Senator.
Mr. Polite. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Thank you. Have you ever faced discipline
or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Ms. Milgram. No, Senator.
Ms. Jaddou. No, Senator.
Mr. Chipman. No, Senator.
Ms. Strickland. No, Senator.
Mr. Polite. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. This is a question for Ms. Milgram. We all
know that our country is in the throes of an opioid crisis. I
would like to point out that Hawaii continues to be plagued by
meth, and Honolulu actually just set a five-year high for drug-
related deaths, with 197 such deaths in 2020, and this was
largely driven by meth overdoses.
I know that, you know, you are going to be very focused on
the opioid crisis, and I'm glad that you mentioned that there
is an overlap of health and behavioral health aspects to this
addiction, but I hope that you will also allocate DEA resources
to ensure that issues like the meth problem in Hawaii do not
get short shrift as the Agency focuses on the opioid crisis.
Ms. Milgram. Senator, thank you for that question. I share
your concern about methamphetamine. In the United States, there
are large quantities of methamphetamine and other narcotics
coming across borders, being shipped by mail. This is a
critical aspect, and it's part of the core mission of the DEA
so you have my assurance that, if I'm confirmed, that it will
continue to be part of that core mission.
Senator Hirono. Thank you. Ms. Jaddou, I'm glad that we had
a chance to talk briefly, and you mentioned in our discussion,
and you also said today that the heart of the immigration
system is the processing of applications. There is a huge
backlog on the processing of various kinds of applications
where sometimes people have to wait months and months for
applications to be processed.
I would like to have your commitment, as you did in our
discussion, that you--this will be one of the first areas that
you will address because you do consider the processing of
applications to be at the heart of what USCIS does.
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you so much, Senator, and I really
appreciate the time we had together. I absolutely--you
absolutely have my commitment on that. It is my top priority.
Senator Hirono. You have been with the USCIS during the
Obama administration, and why are you choosing to return to an
office that you have been before?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator. I understand the intrinsic
value of a functioning legal immigration processing agency, and
that's what USCIS does. I have been on the Hill. I have taken
those phone calls from constituents. I have seen it myself in
my life. At USCIS, when I was chief counsel, I saw that the
simple act of opening an envelope with an application can
create backlogs if not done well, and I also understand that
partner agencies are really important to the process.
I look forward to using the relationships and the knowledge
that I have already gained in my time working on the Hill and
at USCIS to now convert it into working as the director of the
Agency.
Senator Hirono. Thank you. Mr. Chipman, just as Ms. Jaddou,
you are going back to an Agency with which you have a lot of
experience. How do you think the experience--your previous with
ATF will help you in your role as director?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you for that question. It's a great
question. Much of that experience, I was an agent, and I know
what it takes to do that job, so, I think, I'll be able to
connect with the employees that I would lead. I also know how
important it is for a leader to be accountable, and that's what
I want to be for the troops.
Senator Hirono. You've been asked a number of questions
about whether or not--obviously, you have been an advocate for
sensible gun safety legislation, but I just want to note for
the record that, of course, you will be enforcing the law, so
you'll be following the law, something that I wish some people
in the previous administration also did.
When we look at the issue of gun violence--and even as we
speak, there is a mass shooting apparently happening in
California--that there are those among us who think that the
way to deal with the scourge of gun violence in our country is
to enable ever more guns in our country. Mr. Chapman, while I--
Chipman, while I don't expect you to weigh in on that point, it
is very clear, is it not, that there's nothing in the
Constitution that prevents Congress or the States from enacting
gun ownership--sensible gun ownership laws, is there?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, I think that it is well within the
powers of Congress to balance the rights we have under the
Constitution and the responsibility as a Nation to keep us
safe.
Senator Hirono. While the Supreme Court did decide in
Heller, there are a lot of us who do not agree with that
particular Supreme Court decision. My time is up. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin--
I don't have any questions for him, but I want to give a shout-
out to my friend, Mr. Polite, who served honorably and well as
a United States Attorney in Louisiana, and I'm going to vote
for him. I want to thank him for his willingness to serve. I
don't know how he talked his spouse into it. He's giving up
major dollars to come back into government service, but I am
grateful that he is willing to do so.
Mr. Polite. Thank you for your support, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Ms. Strickland, Counselor, you do not
believe in qualified immunity for law enforcement officials, do
you?
Ms. Strickland. Thank you for the question, Senator. For
much of my career, I have served on the Board of the New Mexico
Criminal Defense Lawyers Association----
Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. See, my time is so limited.
You don't believe in qualified immunity for law enforcement
officials, do you?
Ms. Strickland. On behalf of organizations and associations
that I've been in, we have taken the position that New Mexico,
who is considering its own civil rights bill, should not----
Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you again. Do you believe in
qualified immunity for law enforcement officials?
Ms. Strickland. So----
Senator Kennedy. You, personally.
Ms. Strickland. Any personal views that I have on it would
not come into consideration if I were to be confirmed as a
judge.
Senator Kennedy. Oh, sure they will.
Ms. Strickland. I have----
Senator Kennedy. Sure they will. You're--if you're
confirmed, you're going to do everything you can to undermine
qualified immunity, aren't you?
Ms. Strickland. No, Senator. Qualified immunity is the law
of the land. It is the law of the Supreme Court, is the law of
the Tenth Circuit, and I would apply it.
Senator Kennedy. You spent your entire adult career arguing
against qualified immunity, haven't you?
Ms. Strickland. I have spent my time as an advocate working
underneath qualified immunity, where I did not argue against
qualified immunity. I worked within the bounds of qualified
immunity. On behalf of associations----
Senator Kennedy. Yes, but you don't believe in it. It's
okay. I mean, this is America. You can believe what you want.
Ms. Strickland. I----
Senator Kennedy. I don't want to be misled here. You don't
believe in qualified immunity, do you?
Ms. Strickland. I do believe, Senator, in qualified
immunity. It is the law of this country. It is the law of the
Supreme Court.
Senator Kennedy. Then why did you help New Mexico--why did
you work so hard to get Mexico to change--New Mexico to change
it?
Ms. Strickland. New Mexico was considering a new bill
regarding civil rights, and it was trying to decide whether
qualified immunity should apply in a new----
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Understand, I'm not trying to cut
you off. I really hate being rude like this and interrupting
folks, but we have so little time. Here's what I want to ask
you. I want you to answer this one for me in front of God and
country. If you personally were queen for a day and you could
make any policy you wanted to right now and you had the ability
to get rid of qualified immunity for law enforcement officials
by just sweeping your hand, you're telling me you wouldn't do
it?
Ms. Strickland. Yes, Senator. I--qualified immunity----
Senator Kennedy. You wouldn't do it.
Ms. Strickland. I would not because qualified immunity----
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Let me ask a question of Mr.
Chipman. Where's Mr. Chipman? You're nominated for Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives and all kind of other
dangerous stuff, is that right?
Mr. Chipman. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. You don't believe in private
ownership of handguns, do you?
Mr. Chipman. That's incorrect. I own one myself.
Senator Kennedy. Do you? Do you believe in private
ownership of assault weapons?
Mr. Chipman. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. What do you own, by the way?
Mr. Chipman. That's a pretty private question. I have the--
I'll share the gun I'm proudest of. It's a Smith and Wesson
Treasury Commemorative gun, and the serial number is my birth
date.
Senator Kennedy. That's cool. Congratulations. Do you
believe in banning assault weapons?
Mr. Chipman. I do, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Define assault weapons.
Mr. Chipman. Assault weapons would be something that
Members of Congress would define.
Senator Kennedy. How do you define it? You're going to be
running the Agency.
Mr. Chipman. Senator, I think this is good question. If I
am confirmed as ATF director----
Senator Kennedy. I got 35 seconds left. Define it for me,
would you please, sir? What's an assault weapon?
Mr. Chipman. Yes. Senator, the bill to ban assault weapons
is----
Senator Kennedy. What is your definition of an assault
weapon?
Mr. Chipman [continuing]. Dozens of pages. There's no way I
could define an assault weapon in 30 seconds.
Senator Kennedy. You don't have any--you're going to run
an--this Agency, and you don't have a definition of assault
weapon?
Mr. Chipman. I would be enforcing the definition that
Members of Congress pass.
Senator Kennedy. Yes, but you're going to be issuing rules
and regulations. Just give me your definition.
Mr. Chipman. I'll give you one definition that ATF
currently uses.
Senator Kennedy. Give me your definition.
Mr. Chipman. One definition that ATF currently----
Senator Kennedy. Give me your definition.
Mr. Chipman. I can give you one definition that ATF
currently----
Senator Kennedy. If you won't answer my question, how can I
vote for you? I'm done, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I'm going
to get an answer.
Senator Ossoff [Presiding]. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. I
yield myself 5 minutes to question--oh, pardon me. Senator
Coons, you want to go ahead? Okay. Yield myself 5 minutes, and
I thank the panel. Thank you for your willingness to serve.
Thank you for putting yourself through this process. I'd like
to begin with you, Mr. Chipman. Much of the--in fact, the
majority of homicides involving firearms involve handguns. Is
that correct?
Mr. Chipman. That's correct. Thank you for the question,
Senator.
Senator Ossoff. What steps do you intend to take, should
you be confirmed, to stop the proliferation of illegal handguns
and reduce the level of gun violence involving handguns on
American streets?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you, Senator. The top priority of ATF
will be a focus on firearms trafficking. By focusing on the
illegal transfer of guns from lawful commerce into illegal
commerce, the selling and illegal dealing of guns to criminals,
is the best way to prevent crime with guns. The ultimate
responsibility is--of ATF is to do what is within our powers to
prevent those offenders from ever getting a handgun if they
can't lawfully possess it in the first place.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chipman. This is a question
for both you and Ms. Milgram, please. We've seen a significant
increase in violent crime across the country over the last
year. In the city of Atlanta, for example, homicide has
increased 60 percent year over year. I was recently out at a
park in my neighborhood with my wife and dear friends,
celebrating our friend's son one-year-old birthday party.
Gunfire erupted at that park. A group of young people who had
been fighting moved several blocks west throughout the
afternoon. Gunfire erupted again. 15-year-old girl was killed,
two young people wounded.
Will each of you, Mr. Chipman and Ms. Milgram, please
commit to joining me in Georgia, should you be confirmed, to
meet with leaders in local and State law enforcement, as well
as community leaders, the Atlanta Police Department, the Fulton
County Sheriff's office, to discuss how we can tackle and
reverse this disturbing trend of increased violent crime and
homicide that's taking lives and doing grievous harm to so many
families?
Ms. Milgram. Yes, Senator. I'd be delighted to join you if
I'm confirmed.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Milgram. Mr. Chipman.
Mr. Chipman. Yes, Senator. I'd welcome the opportunity to
visit Atlanta, visit our Atlanta field division, and visit
ATF's critical lab that's located there.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you. I'm going to ask you a similar
question about two other areas of my State that have seen
comparable significant increases in violent crime over the last
year. The City of Savannah is experiencing an outbreak of
homicides and shootings at levels not seen in three or four
years. Last fall in Savannah, violence escalated from, on
average, a shooting every 3 days to one every other day. Will
you similarly please commit to joining me to meet with
Savannah's political leadership, Mayor Van Johnson, the
Savannah Police Department, and the Chatham County Sheriff's
office to discuss how to reduce violent crime in and around
Savannah, Georgia?
Ms. Milgram. Senator, I would commit to you that I believe
that violence is--it is critically important that we address
it, and I, if I'm confirmed, am happy to assist you in any way,
with any meetings or otherwise, and any other Members of this
Committee, in any way that I can.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you. Mr. Chipman.
Mr. Chipman. Senator, thank you very much for the
opportunity to again go to your State and meet with local law
enforcement, which is ATF's role to support in their efforts to
prevent violent crime.
Senator Ossoff. It is, indeed, and so, Mr. Chipman, in the
same vein, I'd like to also ask you if you'll please make the
same commitment to meet with me and the leadership of Augusta's
Police Department, the Richmond County Sheriff's office, and
leaders in and around Augusta, Georgia to discuss similarly
increasing rate of violent crime in the Augusta area.
Mr. Chipman. Senator, I agree that I will commit to that
visit, and it will be nice to visit a place of Georgia I have
never visited.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much. I appreciate your
willingness to serve. Thank you again for putting yourselves
through this process. Senator Blackburn is recognized for 5
minutes.
Senator Blackburn. To our witness, thank you for bearing
with us today as we have been in and out. Mr. Chipman, I'm
going to come to you. There's been a lot said about your
affiliations and the organizations and how that might influence
your work at the ATF. One of the things that I hear from
Tennesseans is they want the ATF to be going after criminals,
not after law-abiding gun owners. How would you execute that?
Mr. Chipman. Thank you, Senator, and thank you also for
spending the time on the phone with me earlier so we could
meet.
Senator Blackburn. Sure.
Mr. Chipman. I think the perfect example of how Tennesseans
should expect ATF to respond is how we responded to your city
that was bombed on Christmas. We will always be there in the
worst hours to determine who committed a crime and bring them
to justice if we can. We will always be focused on criminals.
That's what we do.
Senator Blackburn. I hope you appreciate why people are
very concerned about your stance on the Second Amendment and
are very concerned that you would be going after law-abiding
gun owners. Let me ask you this. In the House Judiciary
Committee hearing on 2019, you said, and I'm quoting you,
``Simply restating--reinstating the `90s era ban on assault
weapons is not enough.'' I want you to tell me what is enough
in relation to this statement.
Mr. Chipman. Thank you for the question. In that hearing, I
was commenting on the fact that I had the opportunity to
enforce the National Firearms Act for 24 years. That was an act
that balanced the right of individuals to possess those
firearms but had a regulatory structure that, I found, kept
them out of the hands of criminals, which is the ultimate goal
of all Americans. I thought, and I expressed that belief at
that time, that the National Firearms Act would be a proper way
to balance the rights and responsibilities of Americans----
Senator Blackburn. The National Firearms Act would be
enough.
Mr. Chipman. I believe that the National Firearms Act would
be----
Senator Blackburn. Let me ask you this. Because in the same
hearing, you continued--and this gets to the question that
Senator Kennedy had for you. I'm quoting you. ``Instead, we
should regulate a broader class of firearms, including assault
weapons manufactured before the law's enactment. One option
would be to require the registration of all existing assault
weapons under the National Firearms Act, while banning the
future manufacture and sale of these firearms.'' In these
statements, you're talking about expanding the National
Firearms Act, correct?
Mr. Chipman. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. That would not be enforcing it as
it is written. That would be a change of policy. Then you would
ban the future manufacture. That would be a change of policy.
Banning the sale would be a change of policy. In these
statements, and going back to that hearing, you were referring
to common semiautomatic firearms when you speak of assault
weapons, correct?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, in this hearing, I was acting as an
advocate and was asked to propose solutions to complex
problems. As the----
Senator Blackburn. You were referring to semiautomatic
weapons, correct?
Mr. Chipman. Yes, Senator. But----
Senator Blackburn. Yes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chipman [continuing]. As director of----
Senator Blackburn. Okay. Ms. Jaddou, I'd like to ask you a
question, please, ma'am. We are quite concerned about some of
the practices that have taken place under USCIS. During your
time as the chief counsel at USCIS, the Agency expanded the use
of discretionary parole activity from a restricted case-by-case
basis into a variety of new parole programs, such as
International Entrepreneur Parole, the Filipino World War II
Veterans Parole program, and the Central American Minor Parole
program.
Did this expanded use of discretionary parole through these
new programs actually circumvent congressionally established
immigration policy, and did USCIS exceed its authority under
law created by Congress by admitting aliens who did not qualify
for admission under normal and legal immigration categories?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for taking the
time to meet with me on the phone.
Senator Blackburn. Absolutely. Yes, I enjoyed it.
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you. Yes, I did too. Thank you. With
regard to your question, we looked at the Immigration and
Nationality Act, and I have worked with the, at the time, other
attorneys in the Agency as well to determine if it fits within
the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We did
determine that, and therefore, we proceeded.
Senator Blackburn. You feel that none of these programs
went outside of the authority.
Ms. Jaddou. That was the determination we made at the time.
Senator Blackburn. Why not just go by the law as written?
Ms. Jaddou. The way the law is structured is there is a
case-by-case determination.
Senator Blackburn. Correct.
Ms. Jaddou. Those programs certainly set out guidelines for
adjudicators, but nonetheless, every individual must apply,
must submit an application, must be reviewed, have background
checks. An adjudicator must review that application very
carefully before they make a decision.
Senator Blackburn. I will tell you this appears when you
expand the use of discretionary parole authority and move away
from a restricted case-by-case basis and put these new programs
in place. The appearance of that is that you're making it
easier to circumvent the law as written, and that is
problematic.
I know I'm over my time. I have a question for you on the
birth--Ban Birth Tourism Act, a piece of legislation that I
introduced. I'm going to submit that to you----
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. For the record. I know that
Senator Cruz asked you about that earlier and would appreciate
your attention to that question.
Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely.
Senator Blackburn. I will say this, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Jaddou, you have an adorable family, and your girls deserve----
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. All the ice cream that they
want to eat this afternoon.
Ms. Jaddou. We already secretly promised them a few
dollars.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blackburn. Because they have behaved beautifully.
Ms. Jaddou. Aw, thank you.
Senator Blackburn. We give them the gold medal for that.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator Coons
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank
our remarkable panel of nominees for your dedication, your
willingness to serve, for all that you are going to bring to
your service. Listening to your individual stories, to the
journeys that brought you here, was inspiring to me. We stand
at a moment when the American people are looking to us here in
Washington, in the Federal Government, in the Biden
administration, in the Federal Judiciary, here in Congress, to
see their problems, to hear their concerns, and to actually
deliver some meaningful solutions.
If I can, Ms. Strickland, I just wanted to ask you a quick
question about the difference between an advocate and a judge
and how you understand those different roles, and then I'm
going to get into more law enforcement related issues for our
remaining nominees. Ms. Strickland?
Ms. Strickland. Thank you for that question, Senator. As an
advocate, my role was defined by the Sixth Amendment, to
zealously work within the bounds of law in the best interests
of my client, and I've had to--tried to do that over my career.
The role of a judge is quite different. The role of a judge is
also defined under the Constitution, and the judge is to
approach every case neutrally, with deliberately putting aside
any personal opinions the judge might have in order to fairly
consider the facts, the law, and the argument of counsel.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Strickland. If I might also,
Ms. Jaddou, USCIS--I've gotten a number of calls, as has my
colleague Senator Hirono, about the backlog for USCIS for
fingerprinting, specifically in Delaware, which has put
thousands of Delawareans' lives on hold, keeping them from
visiting loved ones or getting jobs. USCIS has made some
strides recently to address this an cut the backlog in half,
including by eliminating some unnecessary requirements imposed
by the previous administration. Can you speak to how you will
address these ongoing processing backlogs and commit to keeping
me updated on the situation in my home State?
Ms. Jaddou. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for that
question. This is exactly why, I think, this is the right
moment for me in this job. I have been in that Agency, and I
understand those little, minute steps can really create
backlogs, time-sensitive backlogs. I have seen it, so I could
hit the ground running. I have built such wonderful
relationships with the dedicated men and women at USCIS, whom I
admire tremendously, and I know I can work with them, and not
just them. It's partner agencies as well that we need to build
strong working relationships. I have a running start.
Senator Coons. I look forward to working with you in that
context, and I know there's thousands----
Ms. Jaddou. Absolutely.
Senator Coons [continuing]. Of families in my State that
are looking for some relief from these significant challenges.
Mr. Chipman, if I might, Senator Cornyn and I have recently
reintroduced a bill, the NICS Denial Notification Act, which
would require Federal authorities to notify State and local law
enforcement when someone goes in, lies on their background
check form, tries to buy the gun--and this is someone who's a
person prohibited, so it's against the law for them to get that
gun. Current law does not require any notice to local law
enforcement. There were 100,000 Federal background check
denials in 2019. In some States, because the background check
goes through State police, they get immediate notification, but
in a majority of States, including mine, they don't.
Can you help explain why it's an urgent warning sign when
someone tries to buy a gun, fails their background check
because they're lying--they're a convicted felon, say--and
they're trying to get their hands on a gun? Why is this
something we should take up and pass a bill to require
notification to State and local law enforcement?
Mr. Chipman. Senator, first, thank you for the question and
thanks for your dedication to this important issue. I view this
as a near miss. In many professions, you study a near miss
because you feel lucky that the bad thing didn't happen. If
someone is willing to go into a gun store and lie and commit a
Federal felony, we shouldn't expect that it stops there because
there are loopholes in the law. As ATF agents, it's our job to
ensure that the information we have is in the hands of local
police who might come across these people. It's not only good
policy. It's a way ATF can support local law enforcement and
keep them safe.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I'd like to ask about what we're
going to be doing together to not just make law enforcement
more transparent, more accountable, but to make law enforcement
more effective. I'm from Wilmington, Delaware. You just heard
from Senator Ossoff from Georgia concerns about a rise in
violent crime in cities in his State, in Savannah and Augusta
and Atlanta. In my hometown of Wilmington, despite the best
efforts of our Mayor and Governor and our police department, we
have seen a steady in violent gun crime.
Mr. Polite, I understand from your testimony, you became
interested in serving as a prosecutor when your own half-
brother was murdered. You've spent time clerking for Judge
Ambro, a personal friend, on the Third Circuit and serving in
the Skadden Arps office in Wilmington, a place I was a summer
associate. You know a thing or two about my hometown.
Mr. Chipman and Ms. Milgram, you're nominated to lead the
ATF and DEA and to work alongside Mr. Polite, who will be
leading, hopefully, DOJ Criminal Division. All three of you
have significant experience in law enforcement and have great
experience in addressing violent crime in American cities. Ms.
Milgram, you spoke about Camden and the work that you did.
I'd be interested in hearing from each of you what role you
see in coordinating between the ATF, DEA, and DOJ's Criminal
Division to reduce violence in our communities, whether you'll
commit to staying engaged with me and with other Members of
this Committee and the Senate as we work with our local
communities to try and address and interrupt the ways in which
drugs and guns and gangs and violence seem to be going
together, and how you see this journey, should you be
confirmed, of trying to bring more peace, more justice, and
more order to our communities. If we could, in order, Mr.
Chipman, Ms. Milgram, Mr. Polite.
Mr. Chipman. Senator, first, yes. I commit to this
collaborative approach. It's one I found effective at ATF, and
I do believe that the ATF will have information and
intelligence and techniques and technology that, when married
with the ground truth that a local law enforcement agency has,
that that's a good pathway to preventing violent crime.
Senator Coons. Ms. Milgram.
Ms. Milgram. Thank you, Senator. I've had a job as a State
Chief Law Enforcement Officer where a prior attorney general
had taken over the police department of one of the most
dangerous cities in America. I understand this concern, and my
belief is that one of the things we did there was we partnered
with the DEA. We partnered with ATF. We partnered with other
local law enforcement agencies and State agencies in order to
do a concerted effort to reduce violence, improve community
relations, and bring accountability, and it was incredibly
effective.
If I am confirmed to lead the DEA, I believe that one of
the great strengths of the DEA today is its partnerships with
States and local law enforcement. They're a big part of running
task forces across the country and also sit as an important
part of HIDTA. I am deeply committed to addressing the issues
of violent crime. Drugs drive violence in our communities. In
Camden, it was a huge part of the work we did, was drug
related. You have my full commitment, if I'm confirmed, to
partner with you, other Members of this Committee and Congress,
as well as with the other agency heads and the Department of
Justice, in any way that I can to be helpful on this.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Milgram. Mr. Polite.
Mr. Polite. Senator, thank you for this question, and thank
you for your commitment to this area. I would also note that
I'm a proud member of the Delaware Bar, and most importantly,
my wife was born in Wilmington, so we have very close ties to
your State.
Like my colleagues assembled here, I share in this
commitment to collaboration in this area. During my time as
U.S. Attorney, this is exactly the way we approached many of
the same violent crime issues that crippled the city of New
Orleans. What we did was establish what was called the
Multiagency Gang Unit. It included agents from ATF, DEA, other
State, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies that worked
shoulder to shoulder, not just--not just in terms of sharing
intelligence but actual personnel and space where they
investigated those cases and ultimately decided what was the
appropriate venue in order to address violent crime that was
caused disproportionately by a small number of individuals in
the New Orleans area.
That level of collaboration is what I view as being the
hallmark of our work then, and I look forward to, if I'm
confirmed, to lending my voice to those same discussions and
that same level of collaboration that you articulated.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I'm not just a Member of this
Committee. I'm a Member of the Subcommittee that funds all of
Federal law enforcement, DOJ, ATF, DEA and I look forward to
working with you because we have a real challenge in this
country. We need to strengthen our communities. We need to
strengthen families. We need to push back on the drivers of
violence and division. We also need to provide more effective,
more timely, more relevaderal resources to support state and
local law enforcement and communities as they are trying to
bring peace to our streets and justice to our country.
I look forward to working with all of you. Thank you for
your willingness to serve. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time
to question.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Senator Coons. Thanks again to
the nominees for your testimony, your willingness to serve.
Before I adjourn today's hearing, I want to enter a number of
letters into the record and make a few logistical notes.
We have received a number of letters of support for today's
nominees from those across the political, professional, and
ideological spectrum. These include letters of support for Ms.
Cunningham from intellectual property experts and
practitioners, letters from multiple law enforcement
organizations in support of our executive branch nominees, a
letter of support from the Criminal Defense Bar in support of
Ms. Strickland, and many others. I will enter all of those
letters into the record without objection.
Questions for the record will be due to the nominees by 5
p.m. on Wednesday, June 2nd, and the record will likewise
remain open until that time to submit letters and similar
materials. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]