U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–630 PDF 2016

OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 17, 2015 

Serial No. 114–56 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 17, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 4 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 7 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 88 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice .......................................... 95 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Cedric Richmond, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary. This 

material is available at the Committee and can be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104114. 

Material submitted by the Honorable David N. Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary. 

This material is available at the Committee and can be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104114. 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Smith, 

Chabot, Issa, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, Collins, DeSantis, Walters, Buck, 

Ratcliffe, Trott, Bishop, Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 

Cohen, Johnson, Pierluisi, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, Bass, Richmond, DelBene, Jeffries, and Cicilline. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Caroline 

Lynch, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Chris Grieco, Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Kelsey Williams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian & Chief 

Legislative Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Chief Oversight Counsel; Tiffany 

Joslyn, Deputy Chief Counsel, Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Slade Bond, Counsel; Kurt May, Counsel; 

Eric Williams, Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff 

Member. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will 

come to order. 

And, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on the oversight 

of the U.S. Department of Justice. And I’ll begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

Welcome, Attorney General Lynch, to your first appearance before the House Judiciary Committee since your confirmation earlier 

this year. And we are very pleased to have you here with us. 

Last week, we witnessed horrific terrorist attacks in Paris which 

claimed the lives of over 120 innocent civilians and for which ISIS 

has taken credit. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the 

French people, and we mourn with them. 
2 

At the same time, these terrorist attacks are a stark reminder 

that ISIS poses a threat to our allies and America. Yet this reality 

is not clearly seen by our President. Just hours before the attack, 

President Obama boasted that ISIS is contained. ISIS is not contained in Syria, it is not contained in Europe, and we know ISIS 

is continuing its campaign of propaganda here in the U.S. 

We know from the Paris attacks that at least one of the perpetrators was registered as a refugee from Syria in countries through 

which he traveled on his way to France. Just last month, FBI Director Comey told this Committee that the U.S. refugee vetting 

process is not adequate to guarantee that Syrians referred for resettlement in the U.S. are not terrorists who plan to harm us. Yet 

the President presses on with his plan to resettle at least 10,000 

Syrian refugees during this fiscal year alone. 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this issue, considering 

that the top counterterrorism investigator in the U.S. consistently 

states that the databases and law enforcement resources are not 

available to properly vet Syrians. 

Furthermore, reports indicate that, despite repeated congressional action to the contrary, this Administration thinks terrorists 

at Guantanamo Bay, who are cut from the same cloth as the Paris 

attackers and many of whom are deemed too dangerous for release 

to foreign countries, should be brought to the United States. Transferring these combatants to the United States will only increase 

their odds of being released inside the U.S. 

These public and national security concerns, coupled with unanswered questions about the cost and logistics of bringing detainees 

into the U.S., should cause the Administration to hit ‘‘pause’’ on its 

reckless decision to close its Guantanamo detention facility. Enemy 

combatants should remain outside of the United States, where they 

can be detained away from our communities and without needlessly jeopardizing the safety and security of the American people. 

In addition to the mounting national security threats facing the 

Department of Justice, I would also like to focus on the need for 

an impartial Justice Department. Americans have become more 

and more suspicious that their government agencies are biased. To 

understand this, one need look no further than the well-founded allegations that the IRS targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny. 

After numerous appeals to appoint a special counsel to investigate this, last month the Justice Department announced that no 

criminal prosecution would be brought against IRS personnel in 

connection with this matter. It is not difficult to understand why 

a special counsel was needed, given that only those organizations 

opposed to the President’s overreaching agenda were targeting by 

high-ranking IRS officials. Apparently, officials at the IRS share 

Secretary Clinton’s abhorrent notion that Republicans are ‘‘the 

enemy.’’ 

I am profoundly disturbed the Administration’s handling of this 

matter. At every turn, President Obama and Administration officials repeatedly and publicly undermined the investigation. When 

the House of Representatives took the responsible step of calling 

for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the matter, 
3 

our concerns and those of the individuals targeted by the IRS went 

unresolved by the Administration. 

Madam Attorney General, now that your department has concluded its investigation, I look forward to discussing the Department’s decision with you in greater detail. 

Given the controversy surrounding the Administration’s mishandling of the IRS targeting scandal, it is critical that the Justice 

Department clearly demonstrate to the American people that it will 

handle with impartiality its investigation surrounding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server for 

official purposes. 

Earlier this year, two inspectors general reported that classified 

information was contained within the private e-mails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and have referred the matter to the 

Justice Department. During his appearance before the Committee 

last month, FBI Director Comey vowed that this investigation will 

be conducted ‘‘promptly, professionally, and independently.’’ Rest 

assured, Congress and the American people will hold both the Bureau and the Department to this standard. 

The Committee also remains concerned that the Department is 

subverting Congress’ budget authority by using settlements to funnel money to third-party interest groups. The concern is institutional and nonpartisan. Yet, rather than suspend the practice, DOJ 

has expanded it, while quietly obstructing the Committee’s investigation. 

Last week, the Department finally produced a small subset of 

relevant documents that the Committee requested 11 months ago. 

I would like to know, Madam Attorney General, what you, as an 

experienced prosecutor, would do if a large corporation behaved 

this way in an investigation. 

As we sit with you today, Attorney General Lynch, law enforcement agencies across the country face profound challenges. Thirtyone police officers have been shot to death this year alone. In many 

places, officers are understandably asking whether it is worth pursuing violent criminals or otherwise putting themselves in harm’s 

way, less they be the targets of intentional violence or community 

backlash. 

Force must be used appropriately, and police officers must take 

proper steps to protect innocent civilians. However, irresponsible 

anti-police activity from many in the advocacy community and the 

Justice Department’s ongoing efforts to micromanage State and 

local police agencies have only served to exacerbate the divide between police and citizens. This trend cannot continue. 

Many American cities have seen a spike in violent crime. In Baltimore, homicides are up 71 percent. In August of this year, the 

number of murders here in Washington, D.C., already matched the 

number for all of 2014. Other cities have seen similar increases in 

violent crime. Despite these grim statistics, however, the Obama 

administration has continued to support initiatives that will only 

exacerbate this violence. 

On November 1 of this year, nearly 6,000 Federal drug offenders 

were released from prison, pursuant to a 2014 Sentencing Commission amendment which the Justice Department supported. Over 

the next 2 years, some additional 10,000 offenders will be released 
4 

early. This ill-advised amendment applies without regard to an inmate’s criminal history and will result in the release of some dangerous violent criminals as well as illegal criminal aliens. 

As you know, the Committee has introduced bipartisan legislation to institute meaningful sentencing reform while preventing release of serious violent criminals. 

Speaking of releasing violent criminals, the murder of Kate 

Steinle in San Francisco earlier this year is a tragic reminder that 

the lack of appropriate immigration enforcement in our Nation 

today and the reckless sanctuary policies in many cities across the 

country can have deadly consequences. 

It is not enough for Administration officials to pay lip service to 

the problems presented by sanctuary cities. Federal agencies, including the Justice Department, must take meaningful steps to ensure that criminal aliens released from Federal custody are 

promptly deported. 

Attorney General Lynch, I look forward to hearing your views on 

all these important topics today, as well as on other issues of significance to the Justice Department and to our Nation. 

Thank you. 

And now I’m pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. Your opening 

statement could be the basis of a hearing all of its own. And I appreciate your views. 

Madam Attorney General, welcome to the House Judiciary Committee. 

Nearly 7 months ago, after much delay in the Senate, you took 

over the Department of Justice with not one but two tours of duty 

at the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. You are 

unquestionably the right leader at the right time for the important 

work of the Department of Justice. 

Nowhere is your leadership more important than in national security. The attacks on Paris, France, leave no doubt that our most 

pressing mission, yours and ours, remains protecting the American 

people. 

And, unfortunately, history shows that tragic events like these 

are followed by calls for drastic action. Already we have heard proposals to undo encryption, to roll back surveillance reform, and deport some of the most vulnerable among us. I urge restraint in 

these matters, Madam Attorney General. At this time, we have 

very little information about how the attacks were carried out. 

Rather than use these events as an excuse to advance policies 

that otherwise betray our values, I urge the intelligence community, including the Department of Justice, to focus on the most effective tools in our toolbox: targeted surveillance, targeted investigation, and smart policing. 

Back at home, you have cultivated strong relationships in the police community, but you are not afraid to call out bad behavior or 

to prosecute police officers when circumstances warrant. That experience will prove invaluable as the Department, along with this 

Committee, takes its next steps on criminal justice reform. 
5 

Under your leadership, the Civil Rights Division continues its 

work with police departments around the country to ensure that 

State and local policing practices comport with the Constitution. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice is also working hard to disrupt 

what you’ve called the cycle of criminality and incarceration. I commend you for your work on this front, and I look forward to our 

partnership as this Committee moves forward with its own package 

of criminal justice reforms. 

Another area where we look to you for leadership is enforcement 

of voting rights. Earlier this year, observing the 50th anniversary 

of the Voting Rights Act, you remarked, ‘‘It is the lesson of every 

generation that the price of freedom is constant vigilance. Because 

opponents of free and fair access to the voting booth have neither 

retreated nor surrendered.’’ 

The unfortunate truth of that statement plays out across the 

country today, no place more vividly than in the State of Alabama, 

where officials plan to close 31 driver’s license offices across the 

State, including those in every county in which African-Americans 

make up more than 75 percent of registered voters. Coupled with 

Alabama’s strict new voter ID law, these closings will make it even 

harder for many citizens to obtain the identification now required 

to cast a vote. 

The discriminatory impact of this plan plays out in other ways 

too. Imagine having to drive hundreds of miles across rural Alabama to renew your driver’s license. We know that this burden will 

weigh heaviest on the State’s poorest citizens. 

Borrowing again from your words, ‘‘It is incumbent on all of us 

to stand up, to speak out, and to make clear that no end is worth 

the means of disenfranchisement, no small-minded policy is worth 

the cheapening of our democracy.’’ 

Finally, Madam Attorney General, I want to comment on the virtue of your being a new leader at the Department of Justice ready 

to make a fresh start with this Committee. Today, you will hear 

questions, no doubt, about Benghazi, Planned Parenthood, 

Solyndra, Operation Fast and Furious, and Lois Lerner at the IRS. 

These are not matters that affect a whole lot of our constituents, 

but you will hear questions about them and comments anyway. My 

advice to you—that you don’t need—is stick to the facts and the 

law, and you’ll be fine. 

We know that some Members are displeased with the outcome of 

the Department’s investigation into the Lois Lerner matter, but we 

also know that your investigators were as thorough as can be. They 

conducted over 100 interviews, collected more than 1 million pages 

of documents, and closely analyzed almost 500 applications for taxexempt status. 

Some Members may wish your predecessor had appointed a special counsel to investigate the matter, but both the plain text of the 

applicable regulations and the congressional research tell us otherwise. The facts of the case did not involve senior Administration officials. They did not present a conflict of interest to the Department 

of Justice. And so the appointment of a special counsel was simply 

not appropriate in this matter. 

Too often, your predecessor, who I still admire, found himself the 

target of personal insults in this Committee and elsewhere. And I 
6 

like to think that all of us in this room and on this Committee regret the frequent attacks on his character or at least realize that 

those attacks were almost entirely unproductive. 

We have a chance to start over today. We can do better. Progressives and conservatives, Congress and the Administration, there is 

so much common ground between us to be explored, particularly in 

the work of the Department of Justice. And so I am so glad that 

you’re here with us today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

And, without objection, all other Members’ opening statements 

will be made a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 
7 
8 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And we again welcome our distinguished witness. 

And if you would please rise, we’ll begin by swearing you in. 

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

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you God? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I do. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. And please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that the witness has responded in the affirmative. 

I’ll now begin by introducing our sole witness today, the Attorney 

General of the United States, Ms. Loretta Lynch. 

Attorney General Lynch was sworn in as the 83rd Attorney General of the United States on April 27, 2015. She began her career 

in public service by joining the United States Attorney’s Office for 

the Eastern District of New York. 

After 9 years, Ms. Lynch was appointed by President Bill Clinton 

to lead that office as United States Attorney, a post she held until 

2001. Ms. Lynch then worked in private practice until 2010, when 

President Obama asked her to resume leadership of the United 

States Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn. 

Ms. Lynch is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law 

School. 

Attorney General Lynch, we welcome your first appearance before the Judiciary Committee and look forward to your testimony. 

Your entire written statement will be made a part of the record, 

and we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. 

Thank you. And please begin at your convenience. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE LORETTA E. LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 

Good morning, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, 

and distinguished Members of this Committee. I am very grateful 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to share some of the 

recent accomplishments of the U.S. Department of Justice, to discuss some of my top priorities as Attorney General, and to explore 

ways that we can continue to work together. 

I do want to begin, however, by commenting on Friday’s reprehensible and heartbreaking attacks in Paris. The Department of 

Justice and, indeed, the entire Obama Administration stand in solidarity with France, just as France has so often stood with us. As 

President Obama said, this is not just an attack on Paris or the 

people of France; it is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share. 

We are committed to doing everything within our power to assist 

our French law enforcement colleagues in bringing those responsible for this monstrous act of terror to justice. And, as we go forward, our thoughts and our prayers of course remain with the victims and their loved ones. 

Now, as this distinguished Committee well knows, our 

Nationfaces a host of serious, varied, and evolving challenges. Our 

highest priority must always be the security of our homeland, and 

we are acting aggressively to defuse threats as they emerge. 
9 

We are working around the clock to uncover and disrupt plots 

that take aim at our people, our infrastructure, and our way of life. 

We continue to investigate and apprehend those who seek to harm 

us, including upwards of 70 individuals charged since 2013 for conduct related to foreign-fighter activity and homegrown violent extremism. And, of course, we remain focused on the threat posed by 

domestic extremists, as well. 

At the same time, we are placing particular emphasis on countering security threats in cyberspace. We are perpetually on guard 

against individuals, organized groups, terrorists, and state actors 

who might attempt to steal our data, endanger our economy, compromise our privacy, and threaten our security. 

In recognition of the need for strong public-private partnerships, 

we have created a new cybersecurity unit within our Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and announced a National Security Division outreach initiative designed 

to promote information sharing and resilience as part of the division’s National Asset Protection Program. 

I have also been meeting personally with corporate executives 

and general counsels around the country to spread our message of 

cyber awareness, to encourage strategic collaboration, and to find 

new ways to protect American consumers. 

Now, of course, to bring about the stronger Nation that we all 

seek, we must also empower the communities within our borders. 

Across this country, brave police officers risk their lives every 

day to protect our neighborhoods and serve the residents of their 

jurisdictions, and we are tremendously grateful for their dedication 

and their valor. But we have seen the devastating results of mistrust between law enforcement officers and the citizens we serve, 

and we’ve experienced the consequences when decades of tension 

erupt into unrest. 

During the first 100 days of my tenure, I conducted a six-city 

community policing tour to engage with communities that have 

made significant progress in this area. In each city, I convened 

roundtable discussions that included law enforcement officers, public officials, civic leaders, and young people, where participants 

shared some of the most effective ways that citizens and law enforcement officers could join forces to foster trust, to build respect, 

and to spread mutual understanding. 

Restoring that essential trust between communities and law enforcement is one of my top priorities as Attorney General. And the 

Department intends to do everything we can to foster those bonds 

and to create safer and fairer communities across the country. 

Now, we are also paying special attention to vulnerable victims 

in our communities, particularly those caught in the clutches of 

human trafficking. In September, I announced that the Department would be extending $44 million in new grant funding to help 

support research, bring more traffickers to justice, and care for survivors. 

And, at this moment, I really want to thank our partners in Congress for their efforts. By tripling human-trafficking-related funding for our Office of Justice programs in fiscal year 2015, Congress 

was instrumental in allowing us to increase our grant funding in 

this critical area. This October marks the 15th anniversary of the 
10 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which is certainly a fitting occasion to redouble our commitment to eradicating this pernicious 

practice. 

And, finally, I’d like to address our efforts on criminal justice reform at the Federal level. 

I commend the Committee Members who have come together to 

help chart a new course on criminal justice that will make our society both stronger and more secure. It is of course built, in part, on 

the success of the Smart on Crime initiative that my predecessor, 

Attorney General Eric Holder, launched in 2013, which shifted our 

approach away from harsh mandatory sentences for low-level drug 

offenses and enabled us to focus on more significant violent defendants, while better supporting rehabilitation and reentry programs 

that can reduce recidivism and promote public safety. 

But more must be done. Prison spending has increasingly displaced other critical public safety investments, and to make our 

sentencing laws more efficient, more effective, and more just, congressional action is needed. Reform has been embraced by prosecutors, law enforcement, and policymakers of all stripes, and the Justice Department is eager to see meaningful sentencing reform enacted during this Congress. And we thank you for the chance to 

work with you on that. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you so much for the 

chance to speak with you today. And thank you all for your ongoing 

support of the Justice Department’s efforts. I look forward to working closely with you to advance the objectives that we all share. 

And I’m pleased to answer questions from this body at this time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Attorney General Lynch follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, General Lynch. 

We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions for 

the witnesses, and I’ll begin by recognizing myself. 

Yesterday, a video reportedly linked to ISIS was posted stating 

that, ‘‘As we struck France in the center of its abode in Paris, then 

we swear that we will strike America at its center in Washington.’’ 

Now, there is little doubt that ISIS views the United States and 

the West as a strategic enemy, and there is little doubt that our 

immigration laws, our lawful immigration laws, have been abused 

on a number of occasions by people intending to perpetrate harm 

against the United States. 

Do you agree with what your own FBI Director, James Comey, 

told this Committee regarding the inability to adequately vet and 

confirm the true identity because of the lack of information, databases, law enforcement resources, intelligence resources, and military resources available to us in Syria of Syrians who have applied 

for refugee resettlement in the United States? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With respect to that important issue, as I’ve indicated, the most 

important priority of the Department of Justice is the protection of 

the American people. And, certainly, national security and terrorism are one of my own top priorities and certainly an area of 

concern for all of us. That is certainly our main concern. 

At the same time, we do have a system for allowing not just immigration but refugee entrance into the country. As the FBI Director has noted, there is a process in place that allows for significant 

vetting of refugees from all countries. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, let me interrupt, because he said something contrary with regard to the situation with Syrians. He said, 

‘‘We can query our database till the cows come home, but there will 

be nothing to show up because we have no record on that person.’’ 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly, with respect to the databases that the Director was referring to, as he noted, I believe, before this Committee, there is a screening process that has data 

from several different agencies. The FBI participates, Department 

of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, National 

Counterterrorism Center. And much information is vetted and 

queried. 

Certainly, a lot of the information that is vetted does have to be 

inputted into the system. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In the case of Syria, you can’t go to the government offices in that country. They’re in disarray. You can’t go interview people who know people who are applying for this status. 

Do you disagree with the FBI Director when he says that vetting 

Syrian refugees is extremely difficult, if not impossible? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure he 

said it was impossible. Certainly, not only the Department of Justice but all of our agencies will make every effort to vet every refugee coming into this country, from the databases, to the interviews that those individuals are subject to, to the biometric screening as well. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me go on. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly, there are challenges to that 

process because of the situation in Syria. But I would note, how-
16 

ever, that we do have the benefit of having that significant and robust screening process in place—a process that Europe has not 

been able to set up, which renders them much more vulnerable. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, I think we’ll be vulnerable, too, when it 

comes to people from Syria, when we can’t get access to those databases because the country is in disarray, and we can’t even gather 

information, fresh, new, because we can’t access the people that we 

could talk to. 

Let me move on to another topic. The latest available data from 

the Justice Department shows that, during fiscal year 2015, the 

government reported 6,002 new weapons convictions. This number 

is down 5.8 percent from the previous fiscal year, when the number 

of convictions totaled 6,373. Compared to 5 years ago, when there 

were 7,101 weapons convictions, the number for fiscal year 2015 is 

down 15.5 percent. Convictions over the past year are lower than 

they were 10 years ago. Overall, the data show that convictions of 

this type, weapons violations, are down 34.8 percent from the level 

of 9,206 reported in 2005. 

The President has repeatedly called for new gun control laws, yet 

your department has seen weapons prosecutions and convictions 

fall to levels not seen in over a decade. 

How do you explain such a precipitous drop in weapon prosecutions and convictions under this Administration? And why is such 

little emphasis placed on these types of prosecutions, when the 

President has called for yet more laws when the current laws are 

not being enforced? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. 

With regard to the Department of Justice enforcement of the gun 

laws, we take those gun laws very seriously and are committed to 

using the full panoply of laws and regulations on the books. 

We typically use those laws at the Federal level in conjunction 

with our many and numerous violent crime initiatives. For example, in my former position as U.S. attorney in the Eastern District 

of New York, many of our gang cases also carried with them firearms charges. They would not necessarily be the lead charge, they 

may not be reflected in the data that you have, but they certainly 

are an important tool in every prosecutor’s arsenal in combating 

violent crime. 

In the discussions—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Then why aren’t they being prosecuted for those 

violations? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry, sir? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Then why aren’t they being prosecuted for those 

violations related to firearms? 

And, by the way, this doesn’t just mean using a firearm in the 

commission of crime. It also means illegal sales of firearms. It 

means lying on the Instant Check System of which, for the last 

year for which we have complete data, 76,000 people were found 

to have committed the felony of swearing to false information on 

that form. Five thousand were referred for prosecution, but the 94 

U.S. attorneys’ offices across the country could only find time to 

prosecute 62 out of 76,000. 
17 

So somebody going into a gun store to buy a weapon knows that, 

even if they’re caught—and often they’re not caught because the 

system doesn’t have all the information it needs in it—but even if 

they’re caught, they often find that the odds are one in a thousand 

that they’ll be prosecuted even when they’re caught. 

What are you doing about that? What should be done about it? 

And why has this decline been so precipitous over the last several 

years? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, with respect to the 

types of cases that are prosecuted, as I indicated, a lot of the firearms prosecutions are done in conjunction with our violent crime 

program, and they may not show up in your statistics as the lead 

charges. They are a significant part of the arsenal that every Federal prosecutor utilizes. 

Most recently, I’ve convened a summit with the top elected officials, police chiefs, and leaders of major cities to talk about violent 

crime that’s currently taking place in several major cities, with a 

focus on finding the causes and finding the best ways to direct Federal resources to those particular cities. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Can we expect these prosecutions to go up as a 

result of that? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, what we do is we look 

at the root causes of violence in a particular area. If, for example, 

the firearms were the main issue there, we would focus our efforts 

there. We follow the facts and the evidence. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Not necessarily prosecute for the gun violation. 

So, if that’s the case, would you agree with me, then, that it 

doesn’t make sense to add new gun laws, when we already have 

hundreds of them that are not being enforced today and you don’t 

seem to anticipate an increase in the use of those current laws to 

prosecute people who misuse firearms? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I think, at this point, it would be difficult to speculate as to what numbers would look in a year with 

respect to any particular criminal program. 

What I would say is the Department of Justice is committed to 

using the full panoply of laws that are currently on the books as 

part of our violent crime initiative, as part of our desire to keep all 

communities safe. And that does include our firearms laws. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to cover one more topic that concerns me 

greatly. 

During the FBI’s investigation of the IRS matter, the President 

stated on Super Bowl Sunday that there was not ‘‘even a smidgeon 

of corruption at the IRS.’’ At the end of that investigation, no 

charges were filed. 

Two weeks ago, the President stated with respect to Secretary 

Clinton’s e-mails, ‘‘This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.’’ 

Should we expect that when the FBI finishes its investigation of 

this matter that no charges will be filed? Does the Department 

allow statements by the President to dictate its investigative practices? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, the Department reviews facts and evidence submitted before it. We apply the law to 

those facts and evidence. We take all the appropriate steps in every 
18 

matter that we review. And that is how we will essentially manage 

every matter under our purview, whether it relates to the IRS, to 

an e-mail matter, or every matter that comes before us. 

And with respect to the President’s comments, they have no influence or bearing on how the Department manages these matters. 

And I would have to refer you to him for a review of those. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I’m glad to hear you say that. In your view, 

wasn’t it inappropriate for the President to once again inject his 

personal views into an ongoing FBI investigation? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I really don’t have a 

comment on the President’s expression of his views. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. He’s the chief executive officer of the United 

States, and everything that operates within the executive branch 

is under his purview, including the very important independent nature of the FBI in conducting its investigations. 

Wouldn’t it be better if the President of the United States did not 

comment on the merits of those investigations while they’re going 

on? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I really don’t have a 

comment on the President’s statements. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman from 

Michigan, for his questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Chairman Goodlatte. 

Attorney General Lynch, I want to thank you again for speaking 

at my panel at this year’s Congressional Black Caucus Legislative 

Forum. It was marvelous. 

At that event, you spoke about the breakdown in trust between 

law enforcement and the communities they serve. You also spoke 

about getting to the root of the problem with a comprehensive approach to training, to policy, and to research. 

Many of the law enforcement officers in attendance agreed with 

your comments. How are you planning on reaching out to the 

broader law enforcement community to promote these ideas? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congressman Conyers. 

This is, in fact, one of my top priorities as Attorney General. And 

I’m incredibly proud to say that the Department of Justice has already begun the type of outreach that I was discussing at that particular event. 

Through our COPS Office, in particular, the Community-Oriented Policing Service Office, we reach out directly to police departments across the country and offer technical assistance, we offer 

training, we offer peer-to-peer support. 

We have found that an incredibly effective way to share information within the law enforcement community is peer-to-peer, policeofficer-to-police-officer, chief-to-chief. And so we work with the departments that have, in fact, made great strides in the area of police-community relations and seek to match them up with other departments who are having challenges in this area and who would 

be receptive to their input. 

I also, as I noted in my opening statement, have been on a sixcity community policing tour. And as I talk with residents, with 

young people, elected leaders, I also talk with police officers. I do 

meet with chiefs and supervisors, but I also talk to the rank-and- 
19 

file, the officers who are on the beats of our cities, to get their ideas 

as to what has worked in their city, as to why a positive relationship has developed in the cities where they have had challenges 

and where they have had struggles. 

I have listened to their stories of commitment and dedication and 

to their embrace of community policing and concern for residents 

as a program and policy that makes policing more efficient and 

that makes communities safer. And I’m incredibly proud to support 

those efforts. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

In recent weeks, there have been some suggestions, some from 

within your department, that our dialogue on these issues have 

somehow reduced the willingness of some police officers to perform 

their duties. 

I know of no real evidence to substantiate this claim, but, in your 

opinion, does that conversation about civil rights and the appropriate use of force by police somehow make us less safe? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Mr. Congressman, our discussion about 

civil rights and the appropriate use of force and all police tactics 

can only serve to make all of us, the community members and police officers, safer. 

In my discussions with police officers around the country, I have 

found a positive engagement on these issues. I have found them to 

have some of the best thoughts and best practices to share with 

other departments on these issues—issues like the best practices 

for deescalation of certain situations, issues like the best practices 

for maintaining a relationship with community organizations and 

citizens councils, issues on police safety. They’ve provided us valuable input in our program, such as providing bulletproof vests, 

body-worn cameras. They are focusing on the best ways to use 

these new technologies. 

So, while certainly there may be anecdotal evidence there, as all 

have noted, there’s no data to support it. And what I have seen in 

my travels across this country is the dedication, the commitment, 

and the resolve of our brave men and women in law enforcement 

to improving policing, to embracing the 21st-Century Task Force 

recommendations, and to continuing to have a dialogue that makes 

our country safer for all. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The State of Alabama’s plan to close 31 driver’s license offices 

demonstrates how one policy decision can have wide-ranging discriminatory effects. The media’s picked up on this. And this will 

make it harder for citizens of these rural counties to vote. 

And I’m just as concerned about the discriminatory economic effects of this decision, which will fall hardest on rural, poor, and African-American communities. I imagine a Black farmer driving 

hundreds of miles across rural Alabama to renew an expired driver’s license. And, on this Committee, we know what might happen 

to such a young man. 

What tools does the Department have to combat discrimination 

in all of the ways it manifests itself? And how are you going to be 

using these tools in this case? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congressman. 
20 

With respect to the Department’s enforcement of our various civil 

rights statutes, it is certainly robust and will continue to be so. 

While we no longer have the advantage of the preclearance provisions that were in the Voting Rights Act, we still have significant 

provisions of the Voting Rights Act that allow us to review actions 

and decisions taken, albeit after the fact, to determine whether 

there has been either a discriminatory intent or, as is very often 

the case, a discriminatory result. 

We can engage in negotiation and conversations. Many times, we 

do that before we even move to litigation in an attempt to reason 

with or have a discussion with entities that are making significant 

changes. And often those discussions are very productive. I was 

pleased to see that, after discussions with Members of Congress, 

the State of Alabama may be making some modifications to those 

changes. And, certainly, those types of discussions are an efficient 

way to bring about change and raise these important issues. 

But I will reiterate, Congressman, that the Department of Justice is committed to enforcing the civil rights laws that we do have 

on the books. And we are committed to a vigorous review of matters that are brought to our attention and will ensure full and fair 

and efficient review of those matters and take the action that is appropriate. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Last question. More than 30,000 people die from gun violence in 

this country every year. What can this Committee, the Committee 

on the Judiciary, right now do that would save at least some of 

those lives? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Mr. Congressman, I think there 

is a significant debate and discussion going on as to how to best 

save lives in that situation. And I think that all voices are necessary in that debate and discussion. 

And, certainly, if Congress were to consider new laws, I’m sure 

this Committee would be deeply involved in discussions. And that 

is, of course, up to Congress as part of your purview, and the Department would be happy to work with you with regard to that. 

I think that we also have to look at the root causes of the violence. As I indicated in a response to an earlier question, just last 

month I convened a summit on violence of several of the leaders 

of our major cities—police chiefs and mayors, as well as police executives. And what the Department is doing is looking for ways to 

identify the root causes of so much of the violence that we are seeing. 

Even as violence is at historic lows nationwide, we still have 

some communities that struggle with this issue. In some instances, 

it is gun violence. In some instances, we see an increase in drug 

use—methamphetamines, heroin, opioids. And so we are trying to 

find our best ways to focus our resources there. 

Just yesterday, I met with representatives from the National 

Conference of Mayors and had discussions on these very issues, 

about the differences that all communities present and the need to 

have a full and robust discussion about these issues. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much for your testimony and your 

views. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 
21 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. 

Madam Attorney General, welcome. We hope to be seeing you for 

a bit, at least for the next 14 months. 

I have a question relative to the issue of the Guantanamo detainees. Congress recently passed and the President is expected to sign 

into law legislation that explicitly prohibits the use of Federal 

funds to move detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United 

States. 

Former White House Counsel Gregory Craig recently wrote an 

op-ed arguing that the law is unconstitutional and that President 

Obama can legally ignore it. Since you are America’s top lawyer, 

do you believe that President Obama could legally ignore legislation prohibiting the transfer of detainees to American soil? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

What I would say on this issue certainly is, as the Administration has stated, the closure of Guantanamo Bay is something that 

is part of the Administration’s policy, and the Department of Justice supports that, as well. 

At this point in time, I believe the current state of the law is that 

individuals are not transferred from Guantanamo to U.S. shores. 

That position is reiterated by the legislation that you mention. And 

my understanding, as you indicated, is that I do believe the President has indicated that he would sign that. 

And, certainly, it’s the position of the Department of Justice that 

we would follow the law of the land in regard to that issue. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, the question I had is, do you believe 

that the law is unconstitutional, as Mr. Craig has opined in last 

week’s Washington Post? And would you ignore the law based upon 

that argument? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Mr. Congressman, I’m actually 

not familiar enough with Mr. Craig’s analysis to comment on that. 

So I’m not able to comment on his views about the statute. 

Certainly, with respect to the existing state of the law, the Department of Justice is committed to fully following that. And the 

closure of Guantanamo Bay is being carried out in compliance with 

that law. 

And so I believe that it is the view of the Department that we 

would certainly observe the laws as passed by Congress and signed 

by the President. Only very rarely would we take the step of finding that an unconstitutional provision was something that we could 

not manage. We would, of course, seek to work with Congress and 

the Administration to resolve that issue. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, does this mean that you think it’s 

okay for the President to transfer these people, who are some of the 

world’s most dangerous terrorists, to countries other than the 

United States but it would not be okay for him to transfer them 

to the United States? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Mr. Congressman, the current 

state of the law allows for the transfer of certain detainees from 

Guantanamo Bay, those that after a vigorous review process are 
22 

placed in that transfer category, to countries that, after significant 

vetting and promises of management, can accept them. 

With respect to individuals being transferred to the United 

States, the law currently does not allow for that. And that is not, 

as I am aware of, going to be contemplated, given the legal proscriptions. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. 

Let me ask one question on an unrelated matter. As you may 

know, the House, last month, passed a bill called the Judicial Redress Act, which, in my opinion, is essential to enforcing an umbrella agreement to transfer law enforcement information from certain European countries to the United States and vice versa. 

If the Senate fails to pass this bill, in your opinion, what will be 

the effect on the sharing of law enforcement data with certain of 

our European allies? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congressman. 

We fully support the Judicial Redress Act. And I actually would 

like to thank you and the other Members of this Committee for the 

important work that you’ve done on this issue. 

As you have noted, this legislation is critical to continued law enforcement sharing of information from the U.S. and the European 

Union. In fact, I have been involved in discussions with ministers 

from the European Union on the Data Protection Act, often called 

the Umbrella Act, as well as the Judicial Redress Act. 

It certainly is our view that this important legislation should be 

passed. It would provide, as you know, redress for European Union 

citizens should there be an unauthorized or misuse of their data 

here in the U.S., which is a privilege enjoyed by U.S. citizens within the European Union. 

Without this, we do have a grave risk of not having the completion of the data protection or umbrella agreement. And I think, 

sadly, recent events have shown us the importance, the critical nature, of making sure that we have these safe and secure portals for 

transferring information from one law enforcement entity to another. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Let me make one point, as my time is expiring. While the Judicial Redress Act does not deal with the sharing of counterterrorism information, there frequently is an interface between those who want to commit terrorist activity and those 

who do commit petty crimes which would end up being in the law 

enforcement file. 

And I would just look at today’s New York Times, where comments relative to the attack in Paris and what apparently happened in a neighborhood in Brussels, where it says, ‘‘In a neighborhood known for extremists, a trail of petty crimes and missed 

plots.’’ The Judicial Redress Act might be able to put the pieces of 

the puzzle together from petty crimes so that there can been 

missed plots. 

Thank you for your support. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the Chairman. 
23 

And I thank the Attorney General. 

Madam Attorney General, in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Department of Justice established and oversaw a victims’ compensation fund that provided 

more than $7 billion to families who lost loved ones on that day. 

In the years after the attacks, it became clear that thousands of 

first responders and survivors continued to suffer major health consequences from the attacks and their aftermath. Thousands of lawsuits were filed against contractors and others by these victims. 

In 2010, Congress enacted the James Zadroga Act, which provided essential healthcare services to those in need and reopened 

the Victim Compensation Fund to those families whose losses became apparent after September 11, providing them an alternative 

to litigation. In the last 5 years, the Victim Compensation Fund 

has provided nearly 6,300 first responders and survivors with $1.4 

billion in compensation determinations. Since we enacted the bill, 

I am aware of no further 9/11-related lawsuits. 

Despite its current success, on September 30, 2015, Congress allowed the VCF and the World Trade Center Health Program to expire. Fortunately, there is legislation pending in the House to permanently reauthorize the Victim Compensation Fund and the 

World Trade Center Health Program. The bill now has the cosponsorship of 247 cosponsors, a majority of the House, including more 

than 50 Republicans, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, 

with 65 cosponsors. 

If Congress fails to act, thousands of first responders and survivors will lose access to compensation on which they depend to 

support their families when they are tragically gone. The VCF is 

preparing to shutter its operations once it has processed existing 

claims. If the VCF is not fully funded and reauthorized, the first 

responders and survivors who have already received the notice of 

their compensation could actually see that amount cut by up to 50 

percent. 

We are literally talking about taking money out of the hands of 

a sick police officer. I am deeply saddened to think that is how 

Congress plans to remember the heroes of 9/11. 

Attorney General Lynch, do you agree that this is not the proper 

way to honor the heroes of 9/11? Don’t you think that 9/11 survivors and the firefighters and police officers who risked their own 

lives to save them and have suffered health consequences because 

of it deserve the full support of the American people and a fully 

funded Victim Compensation Fund? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

This is, indeed, an important issue. Of course, we will always be 

deeply indebted to those first responders and brave men and 

women who risked their lives to search for and recover victims, to 

remove debris at the site, to carry out the recovery efforts at 

Ground Zero at 9/11. 

It certainly is an important issue to me both as Attorney General 

and as someone who was in New York on 9/11 and who had friends 

and former colleagues who were in that group of those who were 

on the scene and who were involved in those activities. This is, in 

fact, a serious issue for those who were affected by it, and I greatly 
24 

appreciate your expression of compassion for those who have fallen 

ill. 

With respect to the bill that is currently pending, certainly, on 

behalf of the Department of Justice, we would do all that we could 

to work with you to make sure if there were any questions or 

issues they could be addressed. And we hope that there would be 

none. 

This is, indeed, an important issue. And, again, I think it is 

something that deserves, certainly, strong review, serious consideration. And please let us know how the Department can be of assistance to any of the Members as they consider this important issue. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, thank you. 

As you may know, Chairman Goodlatte and others on the Judiciary Committee have introduced legislation to reopen the VCF. Unfortunately, their bill would open the fund only temporarily and 

would authorize very limited funding. It was heavily criticized as 

a result. 

The Zadroga bill, however, is a permanent reauthorization and 

has broad bipartisan support—again, 247 House cosponsors and 65 

Senate cosponsors. The Zadroga bill, like the black lung program 

that we had for black lung survivors, like the nuclear program we 

had for people who were irradiated as a result of nuclear tests, is 

permanent, recognizing the permanent nature of their disabilities. 

I hope you will thank the President for signing the original 

Zadroga bill into law in 2010 and do everything you can to see that 

this legislation is permanently reauthorized and fully funded as 

soon as possible. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Yes. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I have another question on a different topic. Mr. Sensenbrenner 

referred and you referred to the statute that says that you can’t 

bring Guantanamo detainees to the United States. I think the 

Chairman in his opening remarks commented obliquely that this 

might be dangerous to do so, et cetera. 

My question is the following: Forgetting the legalities for the moment, if Guantanamo were closed, if detainees were brought to 

super-max security facilities, prisons in the United States, in what 

conceivable way could this threaten anyone’s safety? In what conceivable way could housing someone in a super-max Federal prison 

affect the local community, especially when you’re talking about 60 

or 70 people, not 7,000 people, throughout the country? And has 

anyone ever escaped from a super-max Federal facility? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, certainly, as a tribute to the 

strong efforts of the Bureau of Prisons, I do not believe anyone has 

escaped from super-max. 

Mr. NADLER. Ever. 

Attorney General LYNCH. As far as I know, they have never escaped from super-max. And, certainly, the men and women at the 

Bureau of Prisons are dedicated professionals and do everything in 

their power to run that institution in a way that protects the 

American people but also contains the security issues therein. 

With respect to your question, Congressman, it certainly is difficult to say. Obviously, I have the greatest pride and respect for 

the brave men and women of the Bureau of Prisons. Indeed, I feel 
25 

that the men and women of the entire Department of Justice can 

do anything. So, certainly, I think that they are up to any task that 

is assigned to them. And, of course, we look forward to working 

with Congress to consider these issues should such a change be 

made. 

Mr. NADLER. And so in other words, the summary of your testimony is that bringing people to supermax prisons would pose no 

danger to anyone in communities or in the United States. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Mr. Congressman, certainly I am 

not in a position to say that any prisoner poses no danger ever. We 

certainly have the security regulations over a host of dangerous inmates for very, very significant reasons. But I am of course tremendously proud of the work of the men and women of the Bureau of 

Prisons. 

And of course this issue is one that is before Congress. I believe 

it is going up, as has been indicated to the White House. And we 

would work with Congress with respect to whatever decisions are 

made in providing information that could best inform its decisions. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 

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

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for 

his questions. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Attorney General, under this Administration the number 

of sanctuary cities has doubled to about 340 jurisdictions. As a result, many innocent Americans have been killed. What are you 

doing to discourage jurisdictions from claiming sanctuary status? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry, the last part of your question, Congressman? 

Mr. SMITH. The number of sanctuary jurisdictions has doubled 

under this Administration. What are you doing to discourage municipalities from asserting sanctuary status? By doing so, of course, 

they are endangering Americans, because individuals released who 

commit crimes, including murder, rape, and so forth. What are you 

doing to discourage sanctuary cities? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, with respect to the 

issues that you raise, certainly they are very serious. We are committed to enforcing our criminal and immigration laws. 

Mr. SMITH. But there is a law on the books that prohibits sanctuary cities. What are you doing to enforce that law? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I believe the designation of a sanctuary 

city is something that was in the purview of—— 

Mr. SMITH. No. It is actually in an act I introduced that became 

law in 1996. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry. I am having trouble hearing 

you. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. There is clearly a law in existence that prohibits jurisdictions from refusing to cooperate with the Federal 

Government when it comes to detaining criminal aliens, criminal 

immigrants. What are you doing to enforce that law? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, where we have a situation where 

that situation occurs we certainly would talk with that jurisdiction. 

We would reach directly in and enforce the criminal laws against 

the individuals themselves. 
26 

Mr. SMITH. But you’re not doing so. Give me one example where 

you have enforced current law that prohibits jurisdictions from 

claiming sanctuary status. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, what I’d like to do, sir, is study 

that issue and provide information to you on that point. 

Mr. SMITH. I would hope that you’d have more knowledge about 

enforcing immigration laws than that, but I will await your report 

as to what you have done. 

The next question is, a recent IG report found that Chairman 

Chaffetz’s Secret Service file was improperly accessed and publicly 

disclosed by Secret Service managers. This may have violated the 

Privacy Act, the Computer Abuse Act, and perhaps amount to obstruction of justice. Have you taken any disciplinary action whatsoever against the Secret Service managers involved with the disclosure of that file? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, my understanding is 

that that matter is being handled by their inspector general. The 

Secret Service is part of the Department of Homeland Security. 

And so with respect to those specific administrative or disciplinary 

actions my understanding is that their inspector general is reviewing that. 

Mr. SMITH. Some of the laws that may have been violated come 

under your jurisdiction. Are you aware of any investigation by DOJ 

into that matter or not? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m not able to comment at this time. 

I would certainly provide information to you. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And you would certainly let the Member involved know of any investigation, would you not? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry, sir? 

Mr. SMITH. You would certainly let the Member involved know 

of any investigation, would you not? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, typically we do not comment on 

whether an investigation is open or not. With respect to whether—— 

Mr. SMITH. I know. I’m not asking you to comment publicly on 

the details. I’m asking you if you would alert the Member if there 

was an investigation ongoing? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Are you referring to the member of the 

Secret Service? 

Mr. SMITH. No, the Member of Congress whose files were made 

public. 

Attorney General LYNCH. The Member of Congress. Thank, you, 

sir. We would certainly do everything we could to provide whatever 

information we could consistent with our law enforcement obligation. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, thank you. 

And then let me ask you one more question about the FBI, and 

that is, to your knowledge, has the President or any White House 

staff or you or any of your staff attempted to influence the FBI’s 

investigation of former Secretary Clinton? 

Attorney General LYNCH. No, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Do you have any idea when that investigation 

will be completed? 
27 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, I’m not able to comment on the 

status of that matter and we typically do not comment. And also 

it’s impossible to predict when any matter will be concluded. So I’m 

not able to give you information on that. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. And I’m not asking for a comment on the contents of the investigation, just an idea when it might be finished. 

Or have you heard when it might be finished? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Sir, again, I’m not able to comment on 

the timing of the conclusion of any matter. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Attorney General. It’s a pleasure to have you 

here, and I look forward to working with you, not only today, but 

in the months ahead. 

As you likely know, I am on the Immigration Subcommittee and 

I follow closely what your Department is doing in that arena. Your 

predecessor, Attorney General Holder, testified in 2013 before the 

Senate, and this is a direct quote: ‘‘It is inexcusable that young 

kids, 6, 7 year olds, 14 year olds, have immigration decisions made 

on their behalf against them and they’re not represented by counsel.’’ 

Now, in July of this year, the American Immigration Council and 

several other organizations filed a class action lawsuit in District 

Court in the Western District of Washington challenging the validity of removal proceedings for children without appointed counsel. 

And their argument was that an 8-year-old couldn’t receive a full 

and fair hearing in the immigration court without representation. 

As you know, I’m sure, the Administration has made efforts to 

provide counsel to small children by funding nonprofit groups, but 

the Assistant Attorney General who argued, I think a Mr. Leon 

Fresco, actually argued contrary to that in the District Court. And 

I’m wondering if the Department’s position has changed since Mr. 

Holder left the Department and whether you think it could meet 

due process to have an 8-year-old who speaks only Spanish appear 

in immigration court without a lawyer and be able to argue the nuances of immigration law and asylum law. Do you think that meets 

due process requirements? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

With respect to the argument that was made on the issue, of 

course I’d have to review those pleadings to understand the specific 

context and whether or not there was an appropriations issue involved as to whether—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Fair enough. What do you think about the due 

process issue? 

Attorney General LYNCH. And, again, thank you for that issue, 

because it is an important one. And as you noted, certainly it’s the 

Department’s position that as a general matter all who appear before tribunals, whether they be courts, administrative bodies, tend 

to have a more efficient process and a fairer process if they are rep-
28 

resented by counsel. Certainly we have statutes and laws to that 

effect with regard to adults, criminal matters, and the like. 

For those children, also it certainly would seem to increase efficiency of the entire process to have counsel. And as you’ve noted, 

I believe through our grant process we have supported nonprofit or 

NGO organizations that have provided counsel there for those children. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So you’re not willing to say that it doesn’t meet 

due process requirements at this point? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, what I’d like to do is look at the 

procedures that are in place before I made a constitutional determination about due process. But I certainly do agree that it’s an 

area of concern and that as a general matter we support counsel 

in proceedings for litigants, particularly children. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you this. The Department of Homeland 

Security Office of Inspector General has done an analysis of—we 

have many people from Central America in particular who are 

seeking asylum. And what he reports, that there is a review called 

Operation Streamline that found that the Department of Justice 

has actually prosecuted asylum seekers for illegal entry before 

their asylum case is heard. 

And it seems to me that while not only does that violate the requirements of international law, but it doesn’t seem like an efficient use of resources. If someone gains asylum under the law, then 

their prosecution would not be very pertinent. And I’m wondering, 

have you reviewed that IG’s report yet? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I have not reviewed that specific IG’s 

report. What I can tell you is that the prosecution and apprehension of individuals at the border is one to which not just the Department, but the specific U.S. attorneys in those border States devote significant time and attention. And steps are taken at the initial level to try and ensure that those who are seeking asylum are 

handled appropriately and that those who are coming in for other 

intents and purposes are handled through the immigration law system and often the criminal law system. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Can I ask you whether you would please take a 

look at that report and make sure that we’re actually using our resources in a sensible way relative to asylum seekers? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly. We are always happy to review the way in which we use our resources. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Finally, I want to mention a situation. We’ve had 

a class action complaint that’s now moot because the individuals 

who filed the complaint have been released from detention. They’re 

mothers who were being held in prison with their children in 

Karnes. And they had a demonstration and in response they were 

put in solitary confinement with their children. And their argument was that they have free speech rights. 

Here’s my question. Do you think immigrants in detention are 

entitled to constitutional rights of due process and the First 

Amendment and the like? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, I certainly think that when it 

comes to the conditions in our detention centers we need to do all 

that we can to ensure that treatment is fair, humane, and cog-
29 

nizant of the individual rights of all of those who come through 

those systems. 

I think that we have recognized certain rights for those within 

our borders, certain rights for citizens in varying degrees with respect to the Constitution. But barring that or even taking it into 

consideration, certainly I believe that all of our detention centers 

should be run efficiently, fairly, and humanely. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for allowing me to go a little bit over. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Lynch, as you may recall, a woman working for the IRS 

named Lois Lerner was held in contempt by the Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee and the full House and referred to 

the Department of Justice under your predecessor. Do you recall 

that? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Sir, I am aware of the reports of that. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Speaking of those reports, the Committee reviewed 

more than a million documents, did approximately 50 interviews, 

and produced a report. Are you familiar, have you read that report? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I have not had occasion to read the 

Committee’s report, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, the Senate Finance Committee released a bipartisan report in August of this year finding that the IRS abused conservative applicants for nonprofit status—I repeat, abused applicants. Did you read that report? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I have not had occasion to read that report, Congressman. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, the gentleman sitting behind you signed on your 

behalf about an 8-page report explaining to us why nothing went 

wrong legally at the IRS. Are you familiar with that letter to Congress? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Yes, I’m familiar with the letter that 

the Department has provided to Congress on this matter, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. And in that case you didn’t just indicate that in fact 

no laws were broken, you indicated that it was just mismanagement and that you found no laws broken. Isn’t that correct? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Actually, Congressman, I believe that 

our review found that the management of the process by which taxexempt applications were handled at the IRS was characterized by 

mismanagement and inefficiency in numerous circumstances. 

Mr. ISSA. Right. So you found that there was an administrative 

problem, not a legal problem. 

Madam General, are you familiar with 2 U.S.C. 194? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry, sir? 

Mr. ISSA. 2 U.S.C. 194, and I’ll refresh your memory. It states, 

a statute covering congressional contempt states that it shall be 

the duty of the relevant U.S. attorney to bring the matter before 

the grand jury. In the case of the referral of Lois Lerner for contempt, the U.S. attorney failed to comply with that law under your 

predecessor. 
30 

Are you willing to comply with that law? Are you willing to have 

the current U.S. attorney comply with 2 U.S.C. 194, which very 

clearly says, shall have the duty, not may, not can make an independent decision about whether or not that individual has done 

wrong or should be held in contempt? Will you comply with 2 

U.S.C. 194 and instruct your U.S. attorney to bring that contempt 

before Congress? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman—— 

Mr. ISSA. Before the—— 

Attorney General LYNCH. Before the grand jury. 

Mr. ISSA [continuing]. Grand jury. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I believe that matter has 

been reviewed by the U.S. attorney at the time and the prosecutorial decision was made and we’re not looking back on that. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Again, 2 U.S.C. 194 states that it shall be the 

duty of the relevant U.S. attorney to bring before the grand jury. 

The U.S. attorney did not do so. Is it your opinion that ‘‘shall do’’ 

in a law passed by both houses of the Congress and signed by the 

President is a discretion? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I believe that the matter 

was reviewed by the former U.S. attorney. 

Mr. ISSA. No, ma’am, I’m asking you for a decision. When something says that you or your employees shall do something, do you 

believe that that’s discretion? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Sir, as I indicated, I believe that in the 

exercise of prosecutorial discretion the matter was handled and resolved. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Well, then, we simply disagree on what the 

meaning of ‘‘shall’’ is. And I guess for your purposes ‘‘shall’’ and 

‘‘may’’ in the thesaurus are synonyms. Is that correct, that ‘‘shall’’ 

and ‘‘may’’ are equally able to be decided by your choice? I’m not 

trying to be argumentative, but you’re telling me ‘‘shall’’ is something that has discretion. What part of discretion is in ‘‘shall do’’? 

‘‘Shall’’ is you will do, isn’t it? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion that decision was made. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So you have no respect for laws passed if you 

don’t like them. You think you have discretion when something 

says ‘‘shall’’ is what you’re testifying to today. 

My question to you is, during your predecessor the Committee on 

Oversight and others asked for a woman working for you, Ms. 

Bosserman, and wanted to do a transcribed interview. At that time, 

the Department of Justice said she would not be made available because there was an ongoing investigation. Since you have now dismissed that investigation, are you prepared to make her available 

to Committees for a transcribed interview? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, it is the practice of the 

Department not to provide line attorneys for congressional testimony. We seek to provide the information that will help you in 

your oversight duties. The testimony of—— 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Conyers is still sitting here at the dais. Mr. Conyers very bravely took on the Bush administration. Where relevant 

U.S. attorneys and case law effectively now is that in fact if a Committee of Congress wants somebody, it is not a discretion to say no. 
31 

In the case of Harriet Miers, that was pretty well adjudicated, and 

Mr. Conyers as Chair made it very clear that Congress has a right 

to have someone. 

Again, I’ll ask you finally. Previously the reason was not that you 

would not make a line attorney available, but Ms. Bosserman was 

part of an ongoing investigation. Since that investigation is done, 

are you saying today that you refuse to have her available under 

any conditions? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m saying that I am being consistent 

to the policy of the Department of Justice that we do not make line 

attorneys available. 

Mr. ISSA. I’m not asking a policy question, I’m asking about one 

individual—— 

Attorney General LYNCH. That would include that individual. 

Mr. ISSA [continuing]. When there is no ongoing investigation, 

they would like to talk about a past investigation. If she is requested, will you make her available? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, as I’ve indicated, we provide information to the Committee and we seek to do so through 

a number of means, as we have indicated. We’ve provided a letter, 

and we are certainly happy to continue with our offer of a briefing 

to the full Committee on this matter. 

With respect to line attorneys of any investigation, it is not the 

policy of the Department of Justice to have the line attorneys testify, because they do their work independently and focusing solely 

on the facts and the law, and we do not want them having to deal 

with the issue of a political review of their work. They are focused 

solely on the facts and the law and they follow the evidence where 

it leads. 

As I’ve indicated with respect to the letter, and as I believe the 

previous Deputy Attorney General indicated, in this matter we are 

happy to provide information to this Committee. And I believe we 

have offered a briefing to Members of the Committee on the matter 

as well, and we do certainly stand by that offer. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence for her answer, as insufficient as it was. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank 

you very much. 

General Lynch, thank you so very much for your service. And 

might I as well thank your staff, who have always been responsive 

to me in particular and to the Members of this Committee as we’ve 

tried to work toward justice for the people of the United States. 

A moment, I just want to as I begin my questioning say to you 

I apologize, there are going to be pointed questions, that if I can 

get yes and no, we’ll work on it, it would be helpful so that I can 

get through them. As I do so, let me offer to the people of France 

again our deepest sympathy. 

This Committee in particular is well aware of the impact of terrorism. Our Subcommittee on Crime is a Subcommittee that is 

Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. And so 

I offer it to the people of France, and certainly we stand united 
32 

with them as the Justice Department through the President of the 

United States have been already working. 

To that point I have a headline that says, ‘‘U.S. Justice Department working with French authorities after attacks,’’ which is a 

good thing, and I say that because there has been a massive race 

by various States to make pronouncements of blocking Syrian refugees, people seeking asylum. And I understand the fear. I hope we 

do not operate under fear. 

So my question is, is your confidence in procedures. And I would 

suggest that there be an interagency task force, as I hope that we 

will have a task force either out of this Committee, the Judiciary 

Committee, on Paris, or either, I know that there is one recommended by the majority, but that we will have one that is bipartisan on this issue to be helpful to the Administration. 

Do you feel confident in our processes as a partner to this process 

of being able to discern who amongst those suffering people would 

be a bad guy? I understand we’re doing 10,000, I think that’s the 

number the President has offered. Do you perceive your processes 

to be assured and sure? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I do 

look forward to continuing this dialogue with you on this important 

point. 

We do have robust screening measures in place. They include not 

just databases, but also individual interviews, biometric data. We 

gather all relevant information about refugees from all countries, 

because our first goal is the protection and safety of the American 

people, as well as carrying out the compassionate nature also of the 

American people. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you feel comfortable if a terminology was 

used that you would certify that you could be confident on those 

that you processed, that you had used every measure to certify 

their nonintent to do harm in this country? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly we would use every measure, 

as we always do, to ensure that those who were allowed into the 

country would not pose a threat to the American citizens. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I look forward to working with you. Let me 

move on to law enforcement and emphasize that obviously they become more important in these times, and we thank them for their 

service. But we also know, and I think your testimony earlier said 

that we are better when they are better. 

What is your thought? We introduced the Law Enforcement 

Trust and Integrity Act which includes a provision on data collection, but it also includes provisions on accreditation that the National Association of Police Chiefs has always supported. 

What do you think the importance of having departments subject 

themselves for accreditation, determining best practices, and helping them as well as the American public? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congresswoman, in my discussions 

with law enforcement across the country I have found them eager 

for assistance in sharing best practices. I have also found them 

eager for recognition of their professionalism, and accreditation is 

one way to do that. I think there are a number of ways to do that. 

Certainly we in the Department are working with a number of the 

police organizations to try and develop consistent and national 
33 

standards on data collection, and we rely heavily on their expertise 

for guiding those standards. And we would look to start with that 

same process with regard to any move toward accreditation also. 

I have found that law enforcement, frankly, is focused on professionalism and focused on spreading those best practices as best 

they can. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me do this so that my Chairman will not 

gavel me. Let me quickly raise three points, sentencing reform and 

the value of reducing mass incarceration, legislation that will reduce the treatment of juveniles and put it in a positive. I’d like you 

just to make overall comment on that. 

And then the idea of no fly for foreign terrorists, meaning those 

who’ve gone to the fight, being particularly discerned before coming 

back into the United States. If I could get that. 

And then let me close on these three points if I could, please, 

which are very important. I know that I’m leaving out some important points that I wanted to make. 

The voting rights, you already had a question on that, but isn’t 

it more efficient on a preclearance approach such that it had might 

be more helpful for us to reinstate that preclearance because it 

would be more efficient? And I’m going to give you these. Three 

cases, if I could meet with your staff on them, are really a blatant 

miscarriage of justice. The Sandra Bland case, we have not had a 

response from the Justice Department. The case of Robbie Tolan 

that went all the way up to the Supreme Court and indicated he 

had been mistreated. He lived and was shot by an officer on his 

driveway. And then a nonviolent person that is in the State prison 

of Texas with a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense, first offense. It is almost unbelievable. 

So I would like you to answer just the questions that I just gave 

you and these ones about the cases I would like to meet as soon 

as possible with your staff on these issues. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I look forward to continuing to work 

with you on those important issues. 

Certainly with respect to voting rights, the preclearance remedy 

was one that we found to be not just effective, but efficient, and 

we felt that it was a way in which way to engage with jurisdictions 

as they contemplated changes to their laws and prevent them from 

going down a road that would have disenfranchised their citizens. 

Certainly, we felt that it was efficient and much less costly than 

litigation. It is an important part of the Voting Rights Act, and we 

certainly support the efforts to restore the preclearance remedy to 

the Voting Rights Act. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I said juvenile justice, clemency, and—juvenile 

justice—I’m sorry, juvenile justice—I had asked you to do juvenile 

justice, prison reform, and the sentencing reform, reducing mass 

incarceration, the value of that. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly. With respect to—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired, but 

the witness can answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

With respect to sentencing reform, we feel it is a vital measure 

that recognizes that while we put measures in place several years 
34 

ago designed to protect the American people, as we look back on 

those measures we see the collateral consequences that it did not 

just to citizens but to communities. And we also are able to evaluate with the passage of time whether or not those lengthy sentences were the most effective way to deal with the offenders that 

they tended to sweep up. 

So certainly as a part of an overall review of our criminal justice 

system to make sure it is always as efficient and fair as possible, 

sentencing reform has an important role to play in that, and the 

Department is supportive of not just this Committee’s efforts, but 

Congress’ efforts in that regard. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And we’ll look forward to meeting with your 

staff, hopefully this week, about these cases that I mentioned, including Sharanda Jones. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Chairman, thank you. 

Madam Attorney General, thank you go for being here today. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Good morning. 

Mr. FORBES. And I know you know well that the mission—one 

of the parts of the mission of the U.S. Department of Justice is to 

ensure public safety against threats, foreign and domestic. I have 

a couple of news articles, and I know that we don’t treat them for 

the truth of what’s always in them, but we have to pay attention 

to them. One of them was Fox News that talked about ISIS having 

certain terror cells in 15 States and targeting those States. And 

then one where we’re told by CBS News national security correspondent reporting that the Pentagon was notifying various soldiers who had appeared on lists and neighborhoods and cities that 

had been targeted by ISIS throughout Virginia and were actually 

trying to get the police to increase patrols in these particular 

neighborhoods of these cities. 

And my question to you is, would you not conclude that it would 

be reasonable to conclude that if terrorists were brought from 

Guantanamo Bay to a particular city in the United States that it 

would be reasonable to conclude that that could increase the likelihood that one of those cities could be placed on one of these lists, 

be it from ISIS leadership or some domestic ISIS copycat in the 

United States? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, I’m certainly not 

able to speculate as to what a detainee may or may not do if they 

were in the U.S.—— 

Mr. FORBES. Let me correct that, Madam Attorney General, because you apparently didn’t understand my question. I’m not talking about what the detainee would do. I’m talking about if you 

brought terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and located them in a 

particular city in the United States, would it not be reasonable to 

conclude that that might enhance the likelihood that that city 

could be placed on one of these targeted lists? 

Attorney General LYNCH. With respect to the list that you refer 

to, I’m not aware of the source. 
35 

Mr. FORBES. I’m not asking you that. I’m saying you know that 

there are lists that are around. Are you disputing that you have 

no knowledge that there are even any allegations of these lists 

around the country today? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, with respect to the 

matters that you’ve mention regarding the Fox News report, as I 

indicated, I’m not aware of—— 

Mr. FORBES. So you’re not aware that there is any list in the 

United States today that target particular cities or States by ISIS 

or someone claiming to be representative of ISIS? 

Attorney General LYNCH. As I indicated, with respect to the first 

article that you mentioned—— 

Mr. FORBES. No, no, any of them, I’m talking about any of the 

lists, Madam Attorney General, you’re not aware of any of these 

lists? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, with respect to the lists 

that you mention, I thought that you mentioned two, and perhaps 

I did not understand your question. 

Mr. FORBES. I’m saying any of these lists. My question for you 

is, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude if you brought terrorists 

from Guantanamo Bay and located them in a city that it could very 

well enhance that city’s being on one of these targeted lists, yes or 

no? That’s a pretty easy question. If you disagree with that, you 

can say no, if you agree with it, yes. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, I thought you were 

referring to the Servicemembers who are on those lists. 

Mr. FORBES. I’m making it clear, any list that targets a city or 

State in the United States, if you bring terrorists from Guantanamo Bay wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that that can enhance that city’s ability to be on one of those targeted lists? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I think there are any number of factors—— 

Mr. FORBES. Would you not agree that that would be a factor 

that would enhance that ability? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I think there are any number of factors. 

Mr. FORBES. Would that be a factor? 

Attorney General LYNCH. There are any number of factors. 

Mr. FORBES. But you would disagree that that would be one of 

those many number of factors? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I don’t agree or disagree. 

I say that there would be any number of factors. 

Attorney General LYNCH. So then you, as the Attorney General 

of the United States, you do not have an opinion whether or not 

bringing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and locating them in a 

city would have any capability at all of putting that city on a hit 

list by ISIS? You don’t even have an opinion on that? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I think there are any 

number of factors. 

Mr. FORBES. I’m asking you, would that be one of those factors? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I believe I’ve indicated there would be 

any number of factors. 
36 

Mr. FORBES. No, you have indicated you wouldn’t answer the 

question. And, Madam Attorney General, I think that’s atrocious, 

that you don’t even have an opinion of that. 

Let me ask you this then in the limited time I have, if you’ll answer this question. You talk about data. We have certain of these 

events in Ferguson and Baltimore that you’ll have an event and 

that will escalate into violence, and you talked about the police. 

Have you attempted to gather any information about outside organizations that may come from outside the community that may 

come into those communities and also escalate that violence? 

Attorney General LYNCH. We do gather information on individuals, as well as organizations that are involved in that. 

Mr. FORBES. Do you have a report that you can provide to this 

Committee of your investigation and what that has included with 

a list of those organizations? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, we do not generate a report. What I was indicating was that in our review, if a matter is 

referred to us, particularly if there was a violent issue, we would 

look at individuals who were involved in that. 

Mr. FORBES. I’m not talking about whether it’s a crime. Do you 

have any information as to whether or not—you talked about police 

escalating the violence. Do you have any information you can supply this Committee that these outside groups may be coming in 

and also escalating that violence? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, the reports that we do 

would not focus solely on one factor. They would focus on—— 

Mr. FORBES. So you haven’t focused at all on outside groups that 

could come in and escalate the violence? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Sir, if a matter is brought to our attention it would come under our review. 

Mr. FORBES. But you haven’t done any. 

Attorney General LYNCH. We don’t have a report for you on that, 

sir. 

Mr. FORBES. But have you done any investigation? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Sir, if a matter brought it our attention, it would come under our review. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back without 

getting a single answer to a single question we posed. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And. 

I’m going to be like Ms. Lee and ask you a lot of questions because there’s a lot on my mind. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry, sir, I can’t hear you. 

Mr. COHEN. I said, I’m going to ask you a lot of questions because there’s a lot on my mind and we have limited time. 

In July a young man named Darrius Stewart was shot and killed 

by Memphis police. He was a passenger in a motor vehicle stopped 

for a traffic citation. Yet he was asked to get out of the car, they 

looked at him, they put him in the car, a tussle occurred, he was 

shot and killed. The DA asked the grand jury to indict for voluntary manslaughter. The grand jury chose not to. How that was 

presented, who knows, obviously not as well as a ham sandwich 

could have been presented. 
37 

I’ve asked the Department of Justice to look into it. Your first 

response is you’d monitor the case. Now that the case has gone 

through the grand jury process and not gotten the result that the 

DA wanted, I would like to ask, as I’ve asked in writing before, for 

the Department of Justice to look into this case and see if civil 

rights violations may have occurred. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I would like to have my staff reach out 

to you and get that information, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. Are you familiar with the case? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I am not currently familiar with the 

case, although we have a number of similar matters under review. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I hope you will become familiar because it’s a 

situation that many people in the city of Memphis, including myself, feel was a miscarriage of justice, equal to any of those others 

in the United States. And for some reason it hasn’t risen to the 

radar of the United States Attorney General and I hope it will. 

The DEA took a 2015 National Drug Assessment Summary, and 

at that particular summary or study most agents said marijuana 

was like at 5 percent in total risk to society and meth and heroin 

were the most serious drugs challenging them and the American 

people. Do you agree that we should spend more time, our law enforcement, working against meth, heroin, and opiates and not marijuana? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I think that with respect 

to our narcotic laws what we try and do both throughout the entire 

Department of Justice and at the DEA is focus on the specific problem in a specific region and devote resources to that. 

We currently have a crisis regarding heroin use and opiod abuse 

in the country and some communities have been consumed by that 

particular problem. There are, unfortunately, some communities 

that still have problems with methamphetamine, so there might be 

a different focus on the type of drugs, depending upon the issue. 

Mr. COHEN. Right, but marijuana is not a place—marijuana is 

not where cities have people needing marijuana and knocking off 

7-Elevens to get some money to buy their marijuana. They’re doing 

that for meth and heroin. Is that not right? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly we have seen violence associated with meth, with heroin, with prescription drugs as well. The 

type of violence associated with the marijuana trade typically occurs at the dealer level, at the import level, and I certainly have 

seen cases where there’s been significant violence at that level. 

Mr. COHEN. There is. And the reason there is that violence is because, just like prohibition, we made it illegal. It’s not because of 

the marijuana and the need to have it on the street level basis 

where people need to commit violence to get money to buy a drug. 

It’s because we did the same mistake with marijuana that we did 

in the twenties with alcohol. The public demanded it, the racketeers, the criminals got involved. We made them rich and they 

used guns to protect their properties. That was a mistake. 

Do you agree marijuana should not be Schedule 1 in the same 

category as LSD and heroin? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, with respect to the issue of scheduling, that is typically determined based on whether or not there 

is another use for the product. And I think that there would have 
38 

to be studies by the FDA, among others, to determine whether or 

not a scheduling change in any drug is necessary. 

Mr. COHEN. But don’t you agree that you have to change the 

scheduling from 1 to get the studies? I mean, there are lots of 

young people, like one of my constituents, Chole Grauer, who died 

waiting for the opportunity to get Charlotte’s Web; lots of people 

who’d like to get cannabinoids. You could talk to Montel Williams 

and what it does for Multiple Sclerosis or any number of cancer patients who it helps with nausea or allows them to eat and have an 

appetite. 

Don’t you agree, unlike Chuck Rosenberg, that medical marijuana is something serious and should be looked at as an aid to 

people in our society to get through difficult problems and not considered a joke? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, certainly the issue of medical 

marijuana is significantly different from the criminal enforcement 

or use of marijuana. And certainly the Department supports the 

FDA’s studies in the use of cannabidiols or the substance within 

marijuana that have been shown to have efficacy. 

Mr. COHEN. We’re about to run out of time. I hate to cut you off. 

I would hope you would look into initiating, which you can, taking 

it off the Schedule 1. It’s crazy to have it with LSD and heroin, and 

it should not be there and it should be studied. 

RFRA has been used to allow groups to discriminate against 

LGBT people, and it has been based on a 2007 DOJ Office of Legal 

Counsel opinion that said RFRA could be used to grant exemptions 

to Federal discrimination laws governing Federal programs. Will 

you commit today to instruct the Office of Legal Counsel to review 

and reconsider the 2007 OLC legal opinion that’s being used today 

to justify taxpayer-funded discrimination counter to the President’s 

executive order? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I would like to look into that issue. If 

I could have my staff reach out to you and get more information 

on that, I would appreciate that. 

Mr. COHEN. On that same issue, holdovers from the Bush team— 

there was a hold over from Bush in the commutation office for 6 

years. That’s why the President got hardly got any recommendations for commutations. Can I have a commitment from you to give 

more resources to people to study prison records and to facilitate 

the sending expeditiously recommendations to the President for 

commutations of the thousands of people whose sentences should 

be commuted who are serving time for long-term drug offenses, 

nonviolent drug offenses, that aren’t serving the American people 

by having them be in Federal prison? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, over the last 18 months 

the Department has in fact taken a significant look at the staffing 

and resource needs of the Office of the Pardon Attorney and sought 

to provide additional resources so that every application that comes 

through, whether before pardon or clemency, can be considered 

quickly and efficiently. 

Mr. COHEN. But it hasn’t done that. And let me remind you what 

Dr. King said: Justice delayed is justice denied. Every single one 

of those people serving a day in prison who will eventually get a 

recommendation is having their justice delayed and denied. 
39 

Mr. GOWDY [presiding]. And on that note, the gentleman’s time 

has expired. And we will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Lynch, on February 2, 2014, Kate Duval, chief 

counsel to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, learned that Ms. Lois 

Lerner’s hard drive had crashed and they didn’t have all her emails. Mr. Koskinen and the IRS waited until June of that year, 

June of 2014, to tell Congress. 

In that 4-month time period between when they learned that her 

hard drive had crashed and they didn’t have all her e-mails and 

June when they told us, in that 4-month time period Mr. Koskinen 

testified twice in front of Congress and did not disclose the fact 

that they knew her hard drive had crashed. 

One month later, after they learned her hard drive had crashed, 

in March of 2014, March 4 of 2014, the IRS destroys 422 backup 

tapes. Just so you understand the fact pattern, they know on February 2 Lois Lerner’s hard drive has crashed, they don’t have all 

her e-mails. Thirty days later they destroy 422 backup tapes. And 

they destroy those 422 backup tapes with three preservation orders 

in place. In fact, one of those preservation orders came from the 

Justice Department. 

Ten months before that, you had told them, hey, preserve all the 

documents, preserve all the e-mails, we’ve got an investigation 

going on. There were two other preservation orders as well. So 

three preservation orders and two subpoenas. 

Now, that sure looks likes John Koskinen and the Internal Revenue Service concealed information and destroyed information. But 

just last month you guys sent us a letter telling us you’re not going 

to prosecute anyone in the IRS targeting scandal. And you specifically say in that letter: Our investigation revealed no evidence to 

deliberately conceal or destroy information. 

So here’s what I can’t figure out. They learn on February 2, 2014, 

that Lois Lerner’s hard drive had crashed and they don’t have all 

her e-mails. Thirty days later, with three preservation orders and 

two subpoenas in place, they destroy the backup tapes. So if that’s 

not evidence of deliberately concealing and destroying information, 

what is it? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congressman. 

With respect to the matter that you’ve raised, as we set forth in 

our letter, we did review the issues surrounding Ms. Lerner’s emails and the backup tapes. As with every criminal investigation, 

we are looking for evidence of criminal intent and we are looking 

for evidence of the specific reasons for why the actions that you 

note—— 

Mr. JORDAN. How many times do you have direct evidence of intent in any type of other fraud investigation? I mean, you weren’t 

going to get—what were you looking for, an e-mail where John 

Koskinen sends an e-mail to the guys in the tape room and he says 

destroy the tapes? 

You had three preservation orders, one of them came from the 

Justice Department, they knew there were problems with the hard 

drive and that they didn’t have all her e-mails, and 30 days after 
40 

that they destroy 422 backup tapes. That’s not enough to take it 

to a grand jury? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly, Congressman, it certainly 

was a matter that was under review, and as we have outlined in 

our letter, the findings of that review. 

Mr. JORDAN. If it wasn’t deliberate intent to destroy and conceal, 

what was it? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, as we’ve outlined in our 

letter, the findings that we had based on those actions. 

Mr. JORDAN. Here’s what you said in your letter: ‘‘The Justice 

Department’s investigation uncovered substantial evidence of mismanagement and poor judgment.’’ What I just described, was that 

evidence of mismanagement by John Koskinen? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, I’m not going to attribute it to just one individual, because I believe that certainly 

there would be others that would have been—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Was it evidence of poor judgment when Mr. 

Koskinen’s chief counsel knew that Lerner’s hard drive had 

crashed, he comes and testifies in front of Congress and doesn’t tell 

us that and waits 4 months to tell us? Was that evidence of poor 

judgment? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I can’t speak to what was in his mind 

when he testified before you. What I can speak to is the information that we’ve provided to this Committee outlining the steps that 

were taken in the Department of Justice investigation—— 

Mr. JORDAN. What was is it going to take? 

Attorney General LYNCH [continuing]. And the conclusions that 

were drawn. As we’ve indicated—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Here’s what the American people want to know, Attorney General: What was it going to take before you would take 

this to a grand jury? Would Mr. Koskinen, would he have had to 

wait 5 months before he told us, 6 months before he told us, 8 

months before he told us? Would they have had to destroy 423 

backup tapes, 450 backup tapes? Would they have to destroy every 

single backup? Would they have to destroy more evidence? What 

was it going to take before you were going to take this to a grand 

jury with three preservation orders in place, two subpoenas in 

place, they have knowledge that there’s problems with their hard 

drives, that they don’t have all their e-mails, and they destroy the 

backup tapes? I mean, if that fact pattern doesn’t warrant going to 

a grand jury and prosecuting, tell me what would. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly, Congressman, that fact pattern was part of the investigation, as were a number of other facts 

in there. And as we outlined in our letter, we outlined not only the 

investigative steps that were taken, but the conclusions that we 

drew from them. 

Mr. JORDAN. So who are you referring to when you say substantial evidence of mismanagement and poor judgment? Who? It 

seams to me the guy at the top is the guy responsible. So are you 

saying Mr. Koskinen had substantial evidence of mismanagement 

when he didn’t inform Congress and when he destroyed 422 backup 

tapes? Is that substantial evidence of mismanagement on the part 

of John Koskinen? 
41 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m not going to attribute it to a specific individual. 

Mr. JORDAN. Who would you attribute it to? Someone’s got to be 

responsible, because—let me ask you one last question if I could, 

Mr. Chairman. So you sent a preservation order to the IRS in May 

of 2013. March of 2014 they destroy 422 backup tapes. Now, if a 

private citizen gets an audit notice from the IRS and then 10 

months later they destroy the evidence, are they going to be prosecuted? 

Attorney General LYNCH. It would depend upon the evidence of 

intent and why they—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Really? I bet the average American says of course 

they’re going to be prosecuted. And yet, you guys with that fact 

pattern wouldn’t take it to a grand jury. Who mismanaged what? 

That’s the question I want answered. Who’s responsible? Someone 

has to be. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I think we have outlined in our letter 

the findings of this investigation. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, you haven’t. You said some. I want to know if 

it’s Mr. Koskinen, the guy at the top, the guy who runs the IRS, 

the guy who was presiding over the IRS when we destroyed the 

422 backup tapes. Is he responsible? 

Attorney General LYNCH. As we’ve indicated in our letter, there 

was substantial mismanagement. As we’ve outlined when we indicated we would provide this information to the Committee, we’re 

also happy to provide a briefing to the Committee on other questions that you may have about this matter. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair would 

now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Lynch, I want to commend you and the Department of 

Justice on the fact that 70 individuals have been charged since 

2013 for conduct related to foreign fighter activity and homegrown 

violent extremism. 

General Lynch, this Committee has previously heard how ISIL 

and other terrorist organizations field potential recruits in publicly 

accessible social networking sites via encrypted messaging platforms and also voice over Internet apps. Are these encrypted private messaging platforms and also voice over Internet apps hampering the ability of the Department to quickly ascertain and address threats to national security? And if so, in what ways? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, thank you for the 

question. Certainly when individuals choose to move from open 

means of communication to those that are encrypted it can cause 

a disruption in our ability to use lawful legal process to intercept 

those communications and does give us concern about being able to 

gather the evidence that we need to continue in our ongoing mission for the protection of the American people. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How so? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, with respect to individuals in this 

country, what we have seen is communications—this is in regard 

to specific cases—we’ve seen communications between them and individuals urging them to commit acts of violence, acts of terrorism, 
42 

and then those individuals dropping from one type of communication to an encrypted method of communication, and we no longer 

have visibility into those discussions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, when you say no longer have visibility into 

those discussions, can you break that down and explain exactly 

what you mean? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly. Typically we would with a 

lawful court order go to a communications provider and focusing 

specifically on individuals against whom we had probable cause to 

believe were involved in criminal activity, including terrorist activity, obtain the authorization to review their communications in the 

past as well as on an ongoing basis. When individuals move to an 

encrypted platform, one that is not accessible by the provider themselves, then we have a situation where we’re not able to have our 

court orders handled in the typical way. That is to say we’re not 

able to receive that information and ascertain what these individuals are planning and also, just as importantly, with whom they’re 

planning these actions. And so we rely on other methods and 

means, but that is a loss of an important means and important law 

enforcement tool. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is there any way that the Department can overcome the use of encrypted data and voice communications by terrorists who are trying to recruit within the borders of the United 

States or a terrorist plot taking place between persons inside the 

United States? Take, for example, the terrorist incident in Paris 

this past weekend where I heard one expert say that he would be 

shocked if the terrorists were not using encrypted communications, 

perhaps even during the terrorist events. 

How can the Department thwart that kind of activity taking 

place here on United States soil given the fact that we have these 

encrypted communications. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, certainly it makes it very challenging. Our approach has been to work with the electronic companies, the Internet providers, on a case-by-case basis and help them 

find a way or work with them to find a way to allow them to respond to the valid legal process. And certainly we’re having conversations with the industry as a whole to make sure that they can 

in fact comply with legal process and provide us the information 

that we need. We rely on other means of surveillance, other means 

of gathering intelligence about those individuals and their associates, but it does cause us the loss of a very valuable source of information. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. With that, I will yield back, and thank you 

for your testimony. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Georgia yields back. The 

Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Attorney General. Appreciate your being here. 

Obviously people are rather sensitive to potential terrorism, especially since ISIS is known for keeping their word when they 

make threats, at least as often as they can. And we had a witness 

some time back, the FBI Director at that time, Director Mueller, 

and I was asking him about investigations at the mosque in Boston 
43 

where the Tsarnaevs attended, and he indicated that the FBI had 

an outreach program with that mosque where they would commune 

together, but they never actually investigated at the mosque 

whether or not the Tsarnaevs had been radicalized, even after Russia gave the FBI a heads-up that the older Tsarnaev had been 

radicalized. They never asked any questions of the people there. 

I know I’ve been through materials with FBI agents that have 

been cleaned out from the teaching materials at the Justice Department, and for some ridiculous reason they were classified, so 

we had to do it in a closed setting. But it appears to me that FBI 

agents, Justice officials, are not even being allowed to be taught 

what it is that radical Islamists believe, not even perhaps that 

Osama bin Laden indicated that the Egyptian martyr Muslim 

Brotherhood member Qutb wrote ‘‘Milestones’’ that actually helped 

radicalize him. Nobody knew enough to go to the mosque and ask, 

has Tsarnaev been reading Qutb, have you seen him talking about 

or heard him talking about ‘‘Milestones’’? It seems like we’ve blinded, as one intelligence official told me, we’ve blinded ourselves of 

the ability to see our enemy. 

So I was also surprised, since Director Mueller was FBI Director 

after al-Amoudi was arrested, based on his understanding the information that Britain gave us, but he’s doing 23 years for supporting terrorism. He didn’t know al-Amoudi is the one was at the 

bottom of starting that mosque. 

We know that apparently al-Amoudi helped in both the Clinton 

and Bush White House find Muslims that al-Amoudi said could be 

trusted to work in those White Houses. And I’m just wondering, 

since we now know that al-Amoudi supported terrorism, we know 

that at least the Tsarnaevs, perhaps others who have been 

radicalized worshipped at that mosque, has the outreach program 

been terminated with the al-Amoudi-begun mosque in Boston? And 

has there been any investigation into people that al-Amoudi placed 

in the Clinton and Bush White House, now that we know he supported terrorism, he’s doing 23 years? Do you know of any such investigation? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Mr. Congressman, I don’t have the information that you’re requesting, but certainly what I can say is 

that you have touched upon the issue that all of us in law enforcement deal with as we work not only to protect the American people, but to counter violent extremism that does pull in young people like the Tsarnaevs. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, and I appreciate your calling it violent extremism. Did you have a degree in Islamic studies? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry, sir? 

Mr. GOHMERT. I really don’t know. Did you have any degrees in 

Islamic studies? 

Attorney General LYNCH. No, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, there is a guy named al-Baghdadi, who happens to be head of ISIS, who has a bachelor’s, a master’s and a 

Ph.D. in Islamic studies from the University of Baghdad. He perhaps is a better expert than you and I, and he says ISIS is Islamic. 

And so I think we should take the word of an expert. It certainly 

doesn’t represent the views of all Muslims, thank God. 
44 

But I would encourage you to take another look at the Justice 

Department training materials, take another look at your outreach 

program, and look back and investigate who al-Amoudi placed in 

those White Houses to see if they’re still around. The FBI completely dropped the ball on Tsarnaev, and it concerns Americans 

they may be dropping the ball on the Syrians as we speak. 

My time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now recognize my friend from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, General Lynch. 

I would like to address DOJ’s mission to prevent and prosecute 

violent crime. And naturally, as Puerto Rico’s only representative 

in Congress, I want to concentrate on the U.S. territory. This is the 

same topic I raised with General Holder each time he appeared before this Committee. 

Broadly speaking, when it comes to violent crime, the narrative 

in Puerto Rico has been positive lately. In 2011, there were 1,136 

murders in Puerto Rico, over 3 a day, the highest in our history. 

Most of these homicides were related to the drug trade. 

So I pushed DHS and DOJ extremely hard to dedicate more personnel and resources to Puerto Rico. DHS, including the Coast 

Guard, ICE, CBP, responded to this pressure. DOJ responded to, 

but to a lesser extent than DHS. 

These enhanced Federal efforts have born fruit. The number of 

homicides in Puerto Rico has decreased significantly every year. In 

2015 to date, there have been 508 murders. If the current trend 

continues, there will be about half as many homicides in Puerto 

Rico this year versus 4 years ago. That is a remarkable statistic 

we should be proud of. 

But we’re fighting a determined enemy and the gains we have 

achieved can be easily reversed unless our efforts are sustained 

and strengthened. And the fact is, despite recent improvements, 

Puerto Rico still has a homicide rate far higher than any State. 

Yet, my staff and I have found it difficult to obtain answers to 

basic questions about DOJ efforts in the territory. So I want a 

Member-level briefing on this subject as soon as possible. 

In the meantime, I have three specific questions for you today. 

I will ask them all at once and then give you the time to answer 

them. 

First, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico has a very high 

criminal caseload. Part of the reason is that they are prosecuting 

a number of cases that in the States would likely be prosecuted in 

State or local courts as opposed to Federal court. 

I’m aware that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico has entered into an MOU with the Puerto Rico Department of Justice so 

that State prosecutors can be detailed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

to work on Federal cases. While I support this arrangement—I’m 

a former AG, and in my time in the nineties I did something similar—I’m concerned that there are not enough Federal prosecutors 

assigned to Puerto Rico in light of the caseload. 

Have you looked at this issue? And if not, can you please look 

at it and have your staff brief me on your specific findings? Again, 

number of assistant U.S. attorneys in Puerto Rico. 
45 

Second, as you have stated here today, DOJ has a comprehensive 

program, called the Violence Reduction Network, designed to reduce violence in some of our country’s most violent cities. I believe 

there are cities in Puerto Rico that are suitable candidates for this 

program and I urge DOJ to select a Puerto Rico site in 2016. Can 

you assure me that Puerto Rico will receive due consideration for 

inclusion in the VRN program or any other DOJ program designed 

to combat violent crime? 

Finally, The New York Times just reported—or recently reported—that in 2014 more guns used to commit crimes in Puerto 

Rico were purchased in Florida than in Puerto Rico itself. What is 

DOJ doing to reduce the number of guns being unlawfully transported from Florida and other States to Puerto Rico and being used 

to commit crimes in my turf? 

Thank you. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congressman. 

And I am happy, indeed, to have my staff arrange to provide further information for you on all of these points. 

I can certainly tell you that we are looking to expand our efforts 

under that MOU. And with respect to specific numbers, I would 

like to have the opportunity to look into that and provide you with 

a briefing on that. 

With respect to the firearms trafficking between the mainland 

Florida and Puerto Rico, we do have a very strong presence on the 

island of ATF, along with, as you know, a host of other agencies. 

And we are looking at ways to deal with that, as well. We also certainly will give Puerto Rican cities due consideration in the Violence Reduction Network selections for the upcoming year. 

I would note, however, that we are also committed, even beyond 

the Violence Reduction Network, to working with local authorities 

in Puerto Rico, as well as the U.S. attorney, to deal with the situation there. 

As you note, the homicide rate is down significantly, but it is still 

far too high. And that places the residents of Puerto Rico in an unreasonable and untenable situation. And we feel it is our obligation 

and responsibility to do all we can to ameliorate that. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Puerto Rico 

and now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for being here. 

General Lynch, several videos, as you know, that have been 

talked about quite a bit have been released that show corporate officers and employees of Planned Parenthood casually discussing 

their practice of harvesting little baby parts from the many hundreds of thousands of innocent babies they kill in their clinics 

across this Nation every year. 

And the videos reveal that some babies are born intact, which is 

the most, I understand, desirable and marketable state of the 

baby’s body for people in that business because the little body parts 

haven’t been damaged by the abortion procedure. And because of 

that incentive, some of these little babies are born alive. 
46 

And I’m wondering, has the Department investigated or enforced 

any cases of born-alive children being killed from their abortion 

survivors? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, with respect to the issue 

that you raise, you’re asking about born alive—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Born alive, yes. Born-alive abortion survivors. In 

other words, babies that were victims of abortion but were born 

alive, much like the situation with Kermit Gosnell. 

You know, there’s some legislation on the books that ostensibly 

protect born-alive children. Has the Department ever enforced that 

or had any investigations for protecting born-alive abortion survivors? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, it’s my understanding 

that, since the relevant statute was passed some time ago, there 

have been some few cases that dealt with certain issues about—I 

believe the statue is the National Organ Transplant Act. There 

have been a few cases under that statute. I’d have to get those 

facts for you. I don’t believe they fit the factual scenario that you 

just outlined. But I can provide that information to you on that. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay. Well, let me shift gears, then, just slightly. 

You know, there’s legislation here in the Congress that’s passed the 

House that would give definitive protection to born-alive—now, I’m 

not talking about unborn children, but born-alive babies that have 

survived the abortion process. Would you support that legislation, 

and would you enforce it if it were in statute? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, I have not seen 

those drafts. Certainly, with respect to any draft legislation proposed by this body, the Department of Justice will review it and 

provide the relevant input to you for your help and for your use. 

Mr. FRANKS. But, generally, would you support legislation supporting born-alive abortion survivors? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Not having not seen the drafts, I’m not 

able to comment—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Just generally. 

Attorney General LYNCH [continuing]. Specifics. We would look 

at whatever—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Born alive. 

Attorney General LYNCH [continuing]. Proposals you had. 

Mr. FRANKS. Born alive. 

Attorney General LYNCH. We would look at whatever proposals 

you have, Congressman. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. Well, that’s too bad you can’t answer a 

question like that. 

So let me shift gears on you again, then. Is the Department of 

Justice currently investigating Planned Parenthood based on the 

footage released by the Center for Medical Progress? And if so, 

what’s the status of that investigation? And if not, why not? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, we have received a number of requests for information as well as congressional requests and referrals on this matter. Because we are still reviewing it, I’m not able 

to comment on the nature or status of that at this time, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. 

In light of DOJ’s recent public praise of the Southern Poverty 

Law Center—this is an organization that’s implicated the in do-
47 

mestic terrorism conviction of Floyd Corkins, as you know, who 

used the Southern Poverty Law Center publications to identify and 

attempt to kill employees of pro-family organizations in D.C. 

It is important for us to know the DOJ’s level of involvement 

with SPLC. Can you tell us about DOJ’s relationship with the 

Southern Poverty Law Center and its employees, publications, and 

events? Can you give us any insight into that at all? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, I certainly am aware of the organization, but I’m not able to give you specifics on the Department’s 

involvement, if any, in the Southern Poverty Law Center at this 

time. I certainly would appreciate the opportunity to have my staff 

reach out to yours. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I hope that you would respond in writing to 

these questions, General, because you certainly haven’t answered 

them here. In all due deference to you, you haven’t answered them. 

And the last person that held your position didn’t answer them either and promised to respond in writing and didn’t do that either. 

Have you personally reviewed any of the videos released by the 

Center for Medical Progress? If so, was there anything in those videos that you found disturbing? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I have not undertaken a 

review of the videos. I’m of course aware of the news reports about 

them. And, as I indicated, all of the information that’s been received by the Department is currently under review. So I don’t 

have any further comment on it at this time. 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Attorney General, I want to bring your attention to the 

cases of Chinese-American scientists Guoqing Cao, Shuyu Li, Sherry Chen, and Xiaoxing Xi. All of these named individuals, despite 

their ethnic names, are American citizens, and all of them have 

been profiled, suspected, and treated as spies by our Nation’s government within the past 2 years, only to have all charges dropped. 

And these are only the cases that actually reached national headlines. There could be countless more. 

Two of these individuals, Sherry Chen and Xiaoxing Xi, are here 

at today’s hearing, sitting two rows behind you. I want to take a 

moment to share their stories with you. 

Dr. Xiaoxing Xi is a professor and the interim chairman of the 

physics department of Temple University. In May of this year, on 

a day that seemed like any other ordinary day, Dr. Xi and his family were woken up at the break of dawn by almost a dozen armed 

FBI agents in his home pointing guns at him. In his pajamas, he 

was handcuffed and arrested in front of his wife, two young daughters, and neighbors. 

After months of investigation, after losing his position as chair 

of the physics department, after the emotional trauma that he and 

all his family endured, all of the charges against him were dropped. 

It turns out the technology that the government thought Professor 

Xi was sharing with China wasn’t the right technology to begin 

with. 
48 

We also have Sherry Chen, who, like Dr. Xi, was wrongfully 

profiled and suspected of being a spy for China. She was arrested 

by six FBI officers and humiliatingly handcuffed in her own office 

at the National Weather Service. After months of investigation and 

having her reputation smeared, all the charges against her were 

dropped. Not only is she suffering from mental and emotional turmoil that this investigation has caused, she is now fighting for her 

job as a hydrologist within the Department of Commerce. 

These Chinese-Americans were wrongfully suspected of spies and 

paraded as criminals through their arrest, only to have the charges 

later dropped, but not before they were traumatized and their lives 

nearly ruined. And it leads us to question, are all Chinese-American scientists suspect because they are Chinese-Americans? 

So my question to you is, what went wrong in these cases? And 

how are you addressing this internally, especially with the FBI, to 

prevent this from happening in the future? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I can state to you unequivocally that the Department of Justice 

does not focus an investigation on any individual on the basis of 

their race or their national origin. 

Now, with respect to the specific cases that you mentioned, I’m 

not able to comment on those specifics at this time. 

Ms. CHU. Even if you can’t comment on the specifics of the cases, 

I will follow up with you personally on the details of these cases. 

There is no question that we must fight against espionage and 

threats to American innovation, but, in this process, we must not 

ensnare innocent Americans that make this Nation great or undermine our fundamental values of liberty, due process, and equality 

under the law. 

This is especially true in light of the horrendous Paris attacks, 

which senselessly took over 120 lives in an act of terror. While we 

must combat terrorism and protect our national security, we must 

also not impinge upon fundamental rights. We must ensure that 

we do not see an increase in profiling against Muslims because of 

these events. 

We have seen what happens when we compromise our fundamental values. In fact, it wasn’t too long ago that 120,000 people 

of Japanese ancestry were removed from their homes, rounded up, 

and incarcerated during World War II, accused of having spies 

amongst them. They were proud Americans, but their citizenship 

meant nothing. In the eyes of our government, all of them were potential spies, outsiders, and enemies. Yet, over 60 years later, not 

a single case of espionage has ever been proven. 

Today, when we profile Chinese-American scientists in this manner or any American on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, 

or country of origin, our government is telling our own citizens, our 

own communities, that they are un-American and that it’s okay to 

fear or even hate them. When this happens, in my opinion, we have 

failed as a government and as Americans. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize former United States Attorney 

from Pennsylvania Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 
49 

Good afternoon, General. Welcome. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Good afternoon. 

Mr. MARINO. I’m going to talk briefly on drug diversion. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I can’t hear you. 

Mr. MARINO. I’m going to talk briefly about drug diversion. And 

it’s not a question, really. 

It has been a priority of mine to encourage the DEA to collaborate with companies in the pharmaceutical supply chain to address 

prescription drug abuse. In the past, DEA officials used ambiguities in the law to treat businesses like suspected criminals. With 

the support of this Committee, the House passed my legislation to 

clear up the relevant provisions of the Controlled Substance Act. 

That bill is now pending in the Senate, and it appears likely to be 

enacted. 

The Department’s response to my recent questions on this subject, that the Department ‘‘recently made some important changes 

that demonstrate its commitment to work more closely with the 

drug supply chain and registrants,’’ is very encouraging to me. I 

will closely keep an eye on this, but I am optimistic that progress 

is being made. And I thank you for pursuing that. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. I’m going to switch gears now to the Bureau of Prisons and oversight, and I do have some questions pursuant. 

My district has three high-security Federal penitentiaries—I’m in 

Pennsylvania 10th District—Canaan, Lewisburg, and Allenwood. 

Three correction officers have died in recent years in the line of 

duty. Eric Williams was working alone and unarmed on a cell block 

with over 100 inmates at Canaan. He was stabbed 129 times. 

A BOP pilot program was put into place to provide officers with 

pepper spray, which I think Eric and others would have had a 

chance to survive. Will you promise and give your word to me that 

you will support this program and make it permanent to all the 

personnel? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I’m aware of the death 

that you mentioned, as well as the deaths of several of our other 

brave men and women in our correctional institutions. 

I do support additional measures to increase their safety. I recently actually had a meeting with the heads of the correctional officers unions and spoke about these issues. And I look forward to 

working with them and with this body to make sure that they have 

all of the tools that they need to have a safe working environment. 

Mr. MARINO. Do you believe that pepper spray is one of these 

protection devices that would help officers but yet not have a weapon that the inmates could take? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Yes, I certainly think that pepper 

spray is a viable option. I would like to see the results of the pilot 

study. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. 

Attorney General LYNCH. But I also would like to make sure that 

we include every possible option—— 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Attorney General LYNCH [continuing]. For protecting our correctional officers. 
50 

Mr. MARINO. Still on the Bureau of Prisons, I’m going to talk 

about staffing for a moment. 

Many of our Federal prisons are understaffed significantly below 

their authorized levels. I constantly check on this. In some cases, 

counselors, not corrections officers, fill in to guard inmates—counselors. Would you fully staff corrections officers’ positions with 

trained officers? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I can tell you that, certainly, not only is the safety and security of correctional officers a 

priority of mine, but ensuring that they have the appropriate staffing is a priority of mine. 

It has certainly been a challenge for us from a budgetary perspective. We are certainly looking forward to meeting those challenges in the future and trying to ensure that every facility is fully 

staffed with professional officers. 

Mr. MARINO. And, almost 1 year ago, the Committee requested 

all communications relating to mandatory donation provisions in 

certain DOJ settlements. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry, mandatory? 

Mr. MARINO. Mandatory donation provisions in DOJ settlements. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Last week, your staff advised that they did not realize that we wanted internal documents. We were very, very clear, 

both via letter and in live questioning, that we were specifically 

seeking internal documents. 

There always seems to be some jockeying between Congress and 

this Administration over oversight matters. This is unacceptable. 

It’s a continual problem. 

When will we receive the internal documents we requested almost exactly a year ago? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, with respect to the requests that have been made, to the extent that we receive requests 

that ask for internal deliberative documents that typically we do 

not disclose, that may have been the reason for that. 

What we try and do is work with either staff or the entire Committee to provide the information that you need to carry out your 

oversight function consistent with our law enforcement and privilege obligations. And we certainly look forward to working with you 

to do that. 

Mr. MARINO. I just hope we do not have to continue, as we have 

in the past, splitting hairs over a particular word. 

And thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Lynch, thanks so much for joining us and especially in light of the horrific attacks in Paris. And I know that the 

Department of Justice is doing everything that it can to help its 

French counterparts do their part to bring all of those responsible 

for these heinous terrorist acts to justice. 

I also want to acknowledge the importance of the work that the 

Department of Justice does in keeping the American people safe. 

And, as we mourn with Paris, it’s moments like these where we 
51 

pull our own loved ones closer. And we trust that the Administration, including the Justice Department, and law enforcement and 

our intelligence community and the men and women who serve our 

country in uniform are doing all that they can to keep our people 

safe from the threat of terrorism, homegrown and abroad. And 

we’re grateful for that. 

We do face daily threats of another kind here at home, however, 

and I want to talk to you about the daily gun violence that claims 

nearly 1 American’s life every hour of every day and over 32,000 

per year. 

Every day, dangerous individuals in the United States buy guns 

without completing any background check at all. And whether it’s 

Dylann Roof, whose approval went through, who wound up murdering nine Americans at worship in Charleston during the summer, or whether it’s gang members in Chicago, where more than 

400 people have been killed by gun violence this year. 

I’ve served, Madam Attorney General, on this House Judiciary 

Committee for over 5 1/2 years, and, in that time, gun violence has 

claimed the lives of over 150,000 Americans. But we haven’t had 

a hearing on this gun violence, not on this Committee, not after 

Tucson, not after Aurora, not after Newtown, not after Roseburg. 

The majority says, as the Chairman said just today again, that 

there’s no reason to have a hearing. All we need to do is simply 

enforce the existing laws, we’re told, and everything will get better. 

And before going on to my specific question for you, I’m sure you 

would acknowledge that it was, I think, helpful to hear the Chairman say earlier that sometimes the National Instant Criminal 

Background Check doesn’t have all the information that it needs. 

And I would point out that after the Virginia Tech massacre, 

where that gunman’s mental health record wasn’t accessible and 

the court had declared him a danger to himself, he should never 

have been allowed to purchase a gun, Congress acted, that Congress acted, and passed legislation that was signed by President 

Bush that authorized over a billion dollars to States and territories 

to improve their recordkeeping and reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system. Congress, however, has 

only allocated about 11 percent of all that money. 

And so I would ask the Chairman, consistent with his views that 

there are some problems with existing law, that we work together 

to allocate the funds so that all of the information gets to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System so that it can 

actually work to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. 

That doesn’t require a new law. It simply requires making sure we 

allocate the money, that we spend the money that Congress has 

authorized over the past several years. 

Now, I do want to ask you, Madam Attorney General, about 

steps that can be taken. As you know, the gun lobbyists made it 

nearly impossible for the Federal Government to enforce some of 

our existing government laws. The Federal Government is barred 

from keeping records of gun sales for more than 24 hours. It’s 

barred from denying a gun sale if a background check can’t be completed within 72 hours. It’s barred from electronically managing 

trace data, information about guns recovered at crime scenes and 

who sold them. Investigations into corrupt gun dealers, therefore, 
52 

take months instead of minutes. It’s barred from requiring gun 

dealers to keep inventories, logs, and their books in order. And it’s 

barred from seeking assistance from other agencies like the FBI 

and the DEA. 

So I reject the assertion that there’s no room for improvement. 

Clearly, there is. And I’ll continue to push for sensible gun safety 

measures like preventing suspects on our terrorist watchlist from 

buying guns, making interstate gun trafficking a Federal crime. 

But, General Lynch, there may be ways, real ways, to strengthen 

background checks through Executive action—Executive action 

that could save lives. 

Everytown Against Gun Violence recently issued a report on one 

potential action. Under current law, only people in the business of 

selling firearms have to conduct background checks. People who 

aren’t in the business of selling firearms don’t have to. But some 

of these people who technically aren’t sellers and don’t work in the 

business sell hundreds of guns a year, without background checks, 

at gun shows, online, or out of car trunks. 

We have to better define the language. Couldn’t we set a number 

for how many gun sales it takes to be in the business of selling 

guns? And has your office explored that possibility, and are you 

considering a threshold like that to define who would be technically 

engaged in the business? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, with respect to the 

serious issue of gun violence, the Department is certainly pursuing 

all of our enforcement actions that we do have under existing law. 

And, certainly, it would always be useful to have additional resources for our ATF to allow them to fully investigate everything 

that we need and that comes under our purview. 

With respect to the question that you’ve raised as to a statutory 

definition, I believe the statute is going to define that at this time. 

But, certainly, the Department of Justice and ATF are committed 

to rigorous enforcement of that statute. 

Mr. DEUTCH. All right. 

To the extent that there is an opportunity for Executive action 

that can be taken to help define something that is undefined in 

statute, is that something that you are looking at? 

Or let me just simply, since I’m out of time, encourage you to 

take a hard look at that, because that would be a meaningful step 

that could help, again, ensure that the background checks that 

should be completed, even without additional legislation, are, in 

fact, completed. I hope you’ll consider that seriously. 

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

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize himself. 

Madam Attorney General, I want to tell you I enjoyed visiting 

with you recently. And I want to thank you for DAG Sally Yates’ 

recent trip to South Carolina, which was very well-received. 

There are three areas I want to cover with you. First would be 

Mr. Kadzik’s letter to Congress recently. And I’m going to paraphrase one of the paragraphs, but it’s a pretty close paraphrase: 

The IRS mishandled tax-exempt applications in a manner that disproportionately impacted conservative groups. 
53 

I read that to mean that he found a discriminatory effect. In 

other words, there were similarly situated people, but there was a 

disparate impact on conservative groups. That’s, I think, the only 

way to read that paragraph in Mr. Kadzik’s letter. 

He then wrote, ‘‘It left the appearance that the IRS conduct was 

motivated by political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives.’’ 

So have you a discriminatory effect, but he said the cause, the 

motive was mismanagement, as opposed to a crime. And then that 

got me thinking, if my sheriff stops only red cars for speeding, at 

what point is it not mismanagement but it actually is circumstantial evidence of intent? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, with respect to the actions that 

you refer to, Congressman, I think you certainly are accurate when 

you indicate that our letter noted that the groups that had complained were treated differently from other groups. And they were 

also treated in a way that did not advance their applications; they 

were treated badly. So one can understand their concerns and the 

issues that they raised. 

With respect to the investigation, as we outline in our letter, 

under the relevant statutes that we were reviewing, we needed to 

find evidence of criminal intent. That intent was not there. 

With respect to the example that you raise, certainly there are 

certain statutes that take into effect a discriminatory impact. But, 

again, even in our civil rights laws, if one had a discriminatory impact, you would not necessarily be able to prove a discriminatory 

intent. 

Mr. GOWDY. It’s really hard to prove intent, really hard, which 

is why usually you use circumstantial evidence. And if female voters were required to show two forms of ID but male voters were 

only required to show one, how many voters would have to pass 

through the prompter before you would say that’s circumstantial 

evidence of an intent to discriminate? 

I mean, never do you have direct evidence of intent. It’s really 

hard to prove intent, which is why we typically use circumstantial 

evidence. 

And I noted, in Mr. Kadzik’s letter, he didn’t say there was insufficient evidence; he said there was no evidence. Would you agree 

with me that there’s a very big difference between saying insufficient evidence and absolutely no evidence, which is what he wrote? 

He found no evidence of any intent to discriminate despite the fact 

that there’s a discriminatory effect. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, I think the letter does speak for 

itself in that regard. 

What I would say is that, Congressman, as a general matter in 

how we handle our criminal investigations, we do look for evidence 

of intent. And it comes in a number of ways—some circumstantial, 

some direct. Every case is different. In every investigation, as in 

this investigation, we gather all the evidence, we gather all the 

facts, and we apply the law to those facts and let that determine 

the answer. 

Mr. GOWDY. I’m with you, Madam Attorney General, but you 

concede the discriminatory effect. So that’s half of what you have 

to prove, and it’s already there. You concede that. 
54 

And we’ve got e-mails from Ms. Lerner that we need a plan but 

we have to be cautious that it’s not per se a political project. I 

think a jury would find that to be an interesting e-mail. 

She worried mightily that Republican control of the Senate might 

be tantamount to a Republican President, and she wasn’t thrilled 

about that. That would be circumstantial evidence of a political motivation. 

She referred to the Tea Party as very dangerous. 

I mean, how many pieces of circumstantial evidence—keeping in 

mind the author of the letter didn’t say ‘‘insufficient.’’ I could have 

lived with it if you’d said, ‘‘Look, our prosecutors just couldn’t make 

the case. It’s a close call. It’s a jump ball. We couldn’t make the 

case.’’ That’s not what he said. He said there’s no evidence. 

I just cited three e-mails that I think would be evidence of some 

intent. Don’t you think? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, as I said, I think 

the letter in its full entirety speaks for itself and does outline not 

only all of the issues that you raise but the host of other things 

that were reviewed and looked at in the course of the investigation 

and does explain the conclusions to which the Department came. 

With respect to the referral, the issue was whether or not there 

was evidence of a criminal intent. That is to say, did one act on 

certain views? Was that the reason for the actions? And as we’ve 

noted in our letter, and as we’ve offered to have in further briefings 

with you, we did not find evidence of that through the million 

pages of documents and hundreds of witnesses that were interviewed. 

Mr. GOWDY. I would love to take you up on that offer for a private debriefing, because I need somebody to explain to me the difference between specific intent and general intent. Because, as I 

read her e-mails, even some of the mediocre prosecutors on this 

panel, I think, could get to a jury, given the evidence that they 

have. 

I want to touch on two other issues and then—because there’s a 

trend of going over. 

I would invite you at some point—and this is going to be a bipartisan comment, because this goes back to 2004, and in 2004 there 

was a Republican administration.If you look at the firearms prosecutions from 2004 to 2012, you’re going to be shocked at how few 

prosecutions there were, not for 924(c), not for firearms offenses 

that happened during a crime of violence, but I mean lying and 

buying, selling a gun to somebody who’s been adjudicated mentally 

ill, somebody who’s been committed. There were 22 guilty adjudications over the course of 9 years for people possessing firearms who 

were users or addicts of drugs—22 in 9 years. 

So when I hear my friend from Florida talk about the need for 

more gun laws, yes, we’re going to say, how are you doing with the 

ones you currently have? 

And I would invite your attention to this chart, which came 

from—former Attorney General Holder provided it to us. I think 

you’re going to be shocked at how few—and I get that there’s not 

much jury appeal. Trust me, I get that it is hard to go in front of 

a jury in a lying-and-buying case. But you noted earlier the focus 

on firearms cases in the context of violent crime. And I think we 
55 

would all agree the objective is to prevent the violent crime, not to 

do a really good job prosecuting it afterward, but to keep it from 

happening in the first place, which is why I would invite your attention to this. 

My last point is simply this: You have been asked repeatedly this 

morning to comment on ongoing investigations, and you always 

give the same answer. And it’s the exact same answer that Marino 

gave me in the back, who’s a former U.S. attorney, and it’s the 

exact same answer Mr. Ratcliffe gave me in the back, who’s a 

former U.S. attorney, which is you can neither confirm nor deny 

the existence of an ongoing investigation. And if we happen to 

know about one, you’re not going to comment on it. That’s exactly 

what you should say. I’m just wondering why the President didn’t 

get that memo. 

And you may in your well of souls believe that it does not impact 

Director Comey or you, and it may not. But I promise you it impacts the perception of my fellow citizens when the person who is 

responsible for executing the laws in this country prejudges the 

outcome of investigations. It may not impact the reality; I promise 

you it impacts the perception. And that’s equally dangerous. 

And, with that, I would recognize the gentleman from Illinois, 

Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Attorney General. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I posed the same questions to the FBI Director. 

I want your advice, and I’d like to work with you. 

In my hometown of Chicago, there are 40, 50 shootings any given 

weekend. That is a whole classroom of children, and it’s unacceptable. And we need more Federal action, I think, because whatever 

we do in Chicago, according to a city report from the mayor’s office 

and the Chicago Police Department, 60 percent of the guns are 

coming from Wisconsin, Indiana, and Mississippi—all States that 

have weaker gun laws than the city of Chicago does. 

We know this thanks to the Chicago Police Department’s tracking of trace data, meaning that the Chicago Police Department 

traces every single gun it recovers to determine where it was originally sold and how it may have entered the illegal market. 

So, given that the majority party in Congress refuses to take up, 

despite widespread and robust support, gun control legislation, a 

couple of questions: What’s your advice to me, as an individual 

Member of Congress who supports gun control, and how can I help 

curb gun violence in Chicago? 

And, second, will the Justice Department encourage the police 

departments everywhere in the Nation to collect trace data on illegal gun trafficking like we do in Chicago? 

So, first, you’re in Chicago, you’re a Member of Congress; what’s 

your advice? And, second, trace the guns. We’re doing it in Chicago. 

What do you think about across the Nation? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, thank you for the 

question. 

You certainly raise an area of concern and priority for the Department of Justice, which is, of course, violence, be it gun violence 

or any type of violence, in our cities, as it affects our children, not 
56 

only those who are the actual victims, but children who are exposed to violence, of course, suffer greatly, as we know, in their 

later development as well. 

We feel that the city of Chicago is certainly taking a concerted 

look at this problem. And I’m extremely proud to note that the Federal Government, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago, is 

working very closely with local law enforcement on this issue, focusing on the issue of not just firearms but also the gang violence 

in Chicago as well. 

We also have a very strong presence with our Federal agencies, 

FBI as well as ATF, who works closely with the Chicago Police Department on the eTrace program that you mentioned. We do find 

it to be a very useful program. We do find it to be something that 

arms us with the data to trace the source of weapons into neighborhoods who suffer so grievously from them. And, certainly, it’s an 

example that certainly we would hope could be exported to other 

cities, as well, as you have noted. 

And I can tell you that we are committed to continuing to work 

with the city of Chicago and all of our major cities in violence reduction programs. In fact, Chicago was represented at the Violence 

Reduction Summit that I held just last month with the mayor and 

the police chief. And we had a very robust discussion about the 

causes of violence, some of the ways in which the Department could 

be helpful in very targeted ways, whether it is increasing our task 

force presence, whether it is focusing on dangerous fugitives in the 

area, whether it is focusing on violence prevention efforts as well. 

So we remain committed to working not just with Chicago but 

all of our cities who are experiencing these troubling issues. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So if you were to suffer something as egregious 

as a demotion to a Member of Congress from your high position as 

Attorney General, what do you think? What would you do? You’re 

back in Chicago, you got demoted, you’re not the Attorney General, 

you’re just one of us 435. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, I certainly would not call that a 

demotion. I think all of us in public service have a great opportunity to—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. You get my point. What would you do? 

Attorney General LYNCH [continuing]. To serve our people. 

And, certainly, I think that within this body there’s a lot of significant discussion going on. Obviously, the resources to fund the 

programs that we have on the ground are essential and funding the 

Department’s budget that focuses on the Smart on Crime initiative, 

which does focus on violence reduction as well as reentry and recidivism. Because, of course, a grave concern is, as people return 

home to their communities, that they not return to violence, as 

well. 

So, certainly, the resources that would be useful for the Department’s overall budget. And, particularly, when it comes to firearms, 

the resources for ATF—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Okay. 

Attorney General LYNCH [continuing]. To continue its vigorous 

enforcement of the firearms laws and the eTrace program would be 

very beneficial. 
57 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Lastly, I want to—so there’s a letter from my 

colleagues Congressman Ruben Gallego and Robin Kelly from Chicago. And they’ve asked to meet with you with a group of Members 

of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Black Caucus. 

And I want to put it in some context for all the Members and 

why we would invite you to meet particularly with that group. Because African-Americans are 13 percent of the population, but they 

constitute over half of all the homicides—over half. So 13 percent; 

55 percent of all the deaths, given firearms. 

And, interesting, Latinos are relatively less likely to own a firearm than the general population, and yet, again, they disproportionately die due to gun violence. So you have a population that 

doesn’t own guns but dies of guns. And 13-percent black population, and over half of the deaths. 

I hope you got the letter. And I love working with those two colleagues of mine. And I was wondering if you would accept an invitation to come and meet with us. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I look forward to meeting with the caucus. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Attorney General. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 

Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman. 

And I thank you for being here. 

The Inspector General Act, which is currently on the books, says 

that inspectors general, in carrying out their provisions under the 

act, are authorized ‘‘to have access to all records, reports, audits, 

reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, and other material 

available to the applicable establishment which relate to programs 

and operations with respect to which the inspector general has responsibilities under the Act.’’ 

Somehow, the Office of Legal Counsel indicated on July 20 that, 

despite longstanding tradition within the FBI, specifically, the Department of Justice Inspector General is no longer allowed access 

to grand jury testimony, wiretap information, credit information. 

We disagree with that conclusion, but, at this point, we have 

worked with the inspector general, worked with this Committee, 

and we’re still waiting for full input from the Department of Justice to try to rectify this. 

I was hoping that I’d get some commitment from you to work 

with us and spend time with us on the proposed piece of legislation. I think the current law is sufficient, but you don’t, and we’re 

trying to come up with something that would rectify this. 

Would you be willing, as somebody from the Department of Justice, to give us guidance and input on this? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congressman. 

I think that you certainly raise the important issue of the important work of all agencies’ inspectors general, in particular the Department of Justice—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I just want to get a commitment that you’ll work 

with us on this proposed piece. 

Attorney General LYNCH. We have sent legislation up, we feel, 

that would clarify it and, in fact, ensure that the inspector general 
58 

would receive all the information he needed and we’d be happy to 

meet with you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Would you meet with us, not you specifically, 

somebody within the Department of Justice, to give input on the 

piece of legislation that I’m drafting in a bipartisan way with Mr. 

Cummings to try to resolve this? 

Attorney General LYNCH. We’re happy to meet with you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay. And hopefully soon? Soon, I hope? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I will have my staff reach out to yours. 

We’re happy to meet with you and work with you on that issue. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

I’ve also had great concern on geolocation. In July, the Oversight 

Committee, we sent a letter seeking the so-called Jones memos. 

This relates to a Supreme Court case from a number of years ago. 

On October 26, I did a bipartisan, bicameral letter, six Representatives, five Senators, including the Ranking Member from 

both Judiciary Committees in the House and the Senate, calling on 

the Department of Justice to share with the Congress these letters. 

I still don’t understand why you won’t share this information with 

us. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, certainly, with respect to the requests that you refer to, to the extent that it refers to the internal 

deliberative process of the Department, we typically do not provide 

those specific memos. 

However, we certainly do look forward to working with you to 

share the information. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You don’t think that the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee should understand 

your approach in tracking people through geolocation? 

Attorney General LYNCH. We certainly are willing to sit and 

work with you to convey what we can and as much as we can about 

why we—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. That’s a huge step forward, because thus far the 

Department of Justice has not been willing to share with us any 

information or have such a meeting. So I look forward to that meeting. 

I need to ask one more topic. I’m trying to go quick just because 

of the time. 

Share with me your thoughts and perspective on subpoenas. You 

know, subpoenas are often issued from a variety of different places, 

but Congress also issues subpoenas. Do you feel a duty and obligation to help enforce those subpoenas, as well? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly, that’s part of the obligation 

of the Department of Justice in terms of its general law enforcement obligations. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When would you not enforce a subpoena? 

Attorney General LYNCH. You know, I would have to know more 

specific facts and context to provide an answer as to whether or not 

we would not be able to for some reason or whether there would 

be a reason not to. I would have to have more information. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you feel a duty and an obligation to enforce, 

then, a congressionally issued subpoena? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly, with respect to a subpoena 

issued by any body, be it Congress or be it a court, the decision as 
59 

to whether to enforce it or not would be one that we would review 

and determine the best course of action to take. But I would certainly like to have more facts about the specific issue, if I could. 

Mr. GOWDY. I think what the gentleman is asking is, if a subpoena goes out and someone does not comply with the subpoena, 

how do you view the Department’s obligations to enforce compliance? 

A subpoena is only as good as your ability to enforce compliance. 

And we don’t have access to a police force, which is a good thing. 

So we’re relying upon you to enforce them. 

And I take the gentleman’s question to be, how do you view your 

obligation to back up this branch of government when it needs access to documents or witnesses? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Again, Mr. Chairman, I certainly—with 

respect to a subpoena from this body or any other that would come 

to the Department of Justice for enforcement, we would review all 

of the information about that. 

Certainly, in my career as a prosecutor and as a U.S. attorney, 

I have had occasion to issue subpoenas and then work on alternate 

means of compliance, both as a prosecutor and as a private attorney. So there are a number of ways in which we can obtain compliance, and I would certainly need to know more of the factual predicate before I could provide you with any specific guidance. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for your time today and 

also for your patience. 

It seems as though many people on the Committee would like to 

have some of your time. 

Attorney General LYNCH. That’s quite all right. 

Ms. BASS. And I listened to my colleague a minute ago, as well 

as my colleague Gutierrez, and he mentioned the letter. There’s a 

letter, also, that I sent to your staff requesting a meeting with you. 

And perhaps what we could do is just join forces, because I didn’t 

realize there were multiple letters. 

Because the concern is really the increase in homicides in a number of cities and specifically the desire to sit down with you personally, as well as members of your staff, to look at various programs 

that the agency has that might be allocated in more of an emergency fashion, considering there has been a spike in specific cities. 

So I would definitely like to continue following up. And, perhaps, 

if by the middle of next month we could have the meeting, it would 

be very good, since we’ve been asking for a while. 

I wanted to know if you would tell us about some of the programs from a more global perspective. For example, the Federallocal partnership like B-FED, which I believe is the partnership between the Federal law enforcement and local police in Baltimore. 

If you could talk about how those efforts are helping to address a 

spike in Baltimore. 

As well as you mentioned your summit, the summit that you had 

in Detroit. And I wanted to know if you could perhaps share some 
60 

of the lessons from that summit in terms of how cities are able to 

address the spike. 

And then, after that, I want to ask you a question about sex trafficking. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you for those questions on topics 

of great importance to me as Attorney General, to the Department 

of Justice, and to the American people. 

With respect to the violent crime issues that we’re facing, while, 

as we have noted, for a number of months and even the last year 

or so we’re fortunate in that crime in general is down across the 

country and in all of our major cities crime generally is down, but 

we have neighborhoods where there is a persistent issue of violence. And we have neighborhoods where we either have not seen 

similar decreases or we have seen increases in violent crime. 

In my former role as U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, I had many of 

those neighborhoods within my district, so I dealt with those on a 

daily basis. And I know the importance of a partnership in terms 

of dealing with that issue. 

Baltimore is an excellent example of some of the resources the 

Federal Government is looking to bring to bear to deal with specific 

situations. We’ve partnered with the police department in Baltimore to provide an influx of Federal agents, focusing on the violent 

crime problem, to aid with the investigation and literally making 

those cases so that we can remove the violent offenders from the 

streets of Baltimore and allow the citizens to continue to flourish 

in that great city. 

With respect to the summit that I had, because we were looking 

at this issue from a host of perspectives, actually, this summer, I 

asked my United States attorneys in cities that had seen an increase in violence in some neighborhoods to meet directly with 

their local partners and counterparts—district attorneys, police officers, sheriffs—and discuss the nature of the crime increase and 

try and focus on the reasons, to the extent that they could be 

gleaned from those discussions, for those increases. 

We were able to essentially accumulate a great body of information there. And, as one can imagine, the reasons for crime differ depending upon the neighborhood. 

Ms. BASS. Sure. 

Attorney General LYNCH. With that, we built on that and convened our Violent Crime Summit in October, where we had mayors 

and police chiefs and U.S. attorneys from those cities here in Washington speaking together, sharing best practices for crime reduction. 

Ms. BASS. Great. 

If there are—and I want to get to my last point and would ask 

the Chair’s patience with this. Perhaps we could get the information from that summit that happened in October. If we could get 

those proceedings, it would be very helpful. 

Finally, I wanted to ask you about sex trafficking, which I know 

is a high priority with you. And I wanted to know if you could mention any specific collaboration that is taking place with the Department of Health and Human Services, in particular, because we 

know that a percentage of the girls involved in trafficking are in 

the foster care system. 
61 

So the question is, is there collaboration between DOJ and 

DHHS, and can you speak to that? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Yes, certainly. We have a number of 

collaborations across different agencies. I cannot recall the specific 

ones with HHS, but I would certainly like to provide you with that 

information. 

We also are working with the Department of Labor, and we’re 

working with State and local law enforcement in many ways to not 

only improve enforcement but to provide services for the survivors. 

The services range from housing services to treatment to therapy 

and the like. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. And I will follow up with you. Specifically, getting these girls back into the foster care system is really critical. 

So I’ll specifically look for that collaboration. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

The gentlelady yields back. 

Madam Attorney General, you’ve been sitting there for 3 hours. 

Votes are coming, which will provide a break. But I am happy to 

break now, given the fact that you’ve been sitting there 3 hours, 

if you would like 5 minutes, or we can march on until they call 

votes. It is totally up to you. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I would appreciate 5 minutes if that’s 

possible. 

Mr. GOWDY. Done. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COLLINS [presiding]. The Committee will come to order. Welcome back. Thank you for the break and allowing us to go vote. 

And at this time we will continue questions, and the Chair recognizes Ms. Walters from California. 

Ms. WALTERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Lynch, last year I followed the various scandals 

that plagued the Department of Veterans Affairs. And like many 

Americans, I was appalled at the manipulation of patient wait 

times at numerous VA facilities. Our veterans risked life and limb 

to serve this Nation and the VA failed them. 

FBI Director James Comey confirmed on June 11, 2014, that the 

FBI was investigating criminal allegations, and this was within the 

Veterans Affairs related to the manipulation of patient wait times. 

Can you provide to us the status of an update regarding the investigation? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you for the question. I certainly 

share your concern in regard for our Nation’s veterans, having several of them in my own family. 

With respect to that matter, I’m not able to provide you an update at this time. I would like to have my staff reach out to you 

after we see what information we’d be able to provide to your office. 

Ms. WALTERS. Okay. Are there any cases in which the Department of Justice has decided to pursue charges against VA employees for manipulating wait times? And if not, why not? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m not aware at this point in time of 

the status of that matter. So, again, I would not be able to give you 

that information. 
62 

*Note: The material submitted by Mr. Richmond is not printed in this hearing record but is 

on file with the Subcommittee and can be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104114. 

What I can say, Congresswoman, not to delay the time, is that 

certainly the service of our veterans is of great importance to us 

and we support them in a number of ways, not just through the 

investigation that you referred to, but through our Servicemembers 

Initiative act and our work protecting their right to vote overseas, 

as well as our implementation of services such as veterans courts 

and working with local municipalities to alleviate homelessness in 

veterans. All of these things, all of these issues plague our veterans 

and are something that we as a Nation need to be engaged in. 

Ms. WALTERS. Do you happen to know how many VA medical facilities are under active investigation for manipulating wait times? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m not able to give you that information at this time. 

Ms. WALTERS. Okay. And you wouldn’t know when the investigations are planned to be concluded? 

Attorney General LYNCH. No, but I certainly would appreciate 

the chance to get back to you with that. 

Ms. WALTERS. Okay. Just a couple more questions. How many 

cases has the DOJ declined to prosecute or press charges against 

the VA employees for manipulating wait times? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m not able to give you that information. 

Ms. WALTERS. Okay. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentlelady yields? 

Ms. WALTERS. I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Richmond. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you for coming and thank you for enduring several hours of testimony, so I will try to be very brief. 

What I wanted to do in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, is ask 

unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from The 

Clemency Report which talks about 25 women deserving of clemency. Of interest to me would be of course Sharanda Jones and 

Danielle Metz. And I’d like to give it to you so that—a copy to you 

so that we can talk about it in the future. But there are cases 

where—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Without objection, it will be entered into the 

record.* 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. There are cases where women were 

sentenced to either natural life in jail or a really large number of 

years when they were not the actual kingpin, they were just either 

following their boyfriend or other things. And I really would like 

the Department to do something on that as we talk about criminal 

justice reform and move forward. 

I represent the Second Congressional District of Louisiana, which 

is New Orleans, and we’re under a very unique situation in which 

we have a consent decree for both our police department and our 

sheriff’s department. And the cost of the implementation of those 

consent decrees are a large part of our city budget. And in an effort 

to make the police department more constitutional and the jail 

more constitutional, which are both laudable goals, we are sacri-
63 

ficing city services that would keep people from having to deal with 

the police or the sheriff’s department. So it is almost we’re doing 

something on our left hand to help, but we’re depleting all of our 

resources on the right, so it’s not helping. And we now have an increase in police response time that is almost an hour when you call 

911. 

So the question is, as you all decide Byrne grants and others and 

look at consent decrees, when you have a unique instance where 

you have more than one consent decree in a small jurisdiction, can 

you all help to provide resources so that we can, one, comply with 

the consent decree, but two, not lose critical services for our youth 

and our public to keep them safe at the same time? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, I appreciate the 

question. Certainly our practice of being involved with local law enforcement jurisdictions in a host of areas, not just consent decrees 

but collaborative reform and technical assistance, is an important 

way in which we provide assistance to our colleagues there. 

With respect to the New Orleans situation, again, I think every 

municipality does see these as a financial challenge and we certainly understand that. We view it as an investment in the future 

of constitutional policing and constitutional jails. 

When a jurisdiction is involved with a consent decree they still 

are able to apply for grants and other programs and other—from 

other portions of the Department or any other agency. So it would 

not preclude the kind of assistance that you are talking about. And 

certainly I’m happy to have someone from our grantmaking arm 

reach out to your staff and talk about options there. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, I would just say that because it’s taking up 

such a disproportionate and large part of our city budget, we’re 

having to raise taxes and we’re having to cut services such as 

youth recreation and other things that would keep kids out of trouble in the first place. So we don’t want to overstress constitutionality and then at the same time take opportunity away from 

kids. So to the extent that you all can help, whether it’s grants or 

other things, we’d appreciate it. 

Another thing is Attorney General Holder and Secretary Duncan 

sent out an advisory on the school-to-prison pipeline. And I would 

just hope that that’s something that you all are going to follow up 

with. We had a bill, but it seems like school districts are still not 

getting the word that police are not the answer to a school discipline problem. So what are you all doing in that effort? 

Attorney General LYNCH. With respect to the school-to-prison 

pipeline, it is still a very important focus of the Department’s civil 

rights efforts. We provide guidance to school districts and law enforcement organizations. We actually have a number of cases that 

were brought approximately 2, 2-1/2 years ago by the Civil Rights 

Division challenging school districts’ disciplinary policies. And we 

are trying to provide assistance to reduce the zero-tolerance policies 

that tend to be the start of this problem. 

That, in conjunction with providing appropriate training to law 

enforcement officers should schools choose to have school resource 

officers, is a way in which we hope will be helpful to every school 

district in dealing with these issues. Obviously, school districts 
64 

have to have discipline. But just as obviously, the education and 

the future of the children really is the first priority. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Two things as I close. One is to stress the importance of the COPS program and additional funding for community 

policing and other initiatives that would help. 

The second two are requests. One would be to urge you to continue to work with the different district courts to push specialty 

courts, whether it’s drug courts or reentry courts or other things 

that could help, would be very, very important. 

And the other one is a request. Can your office get to me the statistics on the adjudicated deferral of convictions, the diversion program, how many people get accepted and what those demographics 

look like? Because I am very concerned that diversion programs are 

usually used for those who have means and those who have some 

sort of political connections or community connections, and that 

people who really need it don’t get the benefit of the doubt to get 

accepted in it. So if I could get a year or 2 worth of data on diversion programs, who’s admitted and what those demographics look 

like, who’s rejected and what those demographics look like, I’d appreciate it. 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman’s time has expired, but it’s a good 

question. If our witness would like to answer or provide the information requested. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I look forward to providing you information on those points. With respect to diversion courts, because 

they are often run by the court system and not by the relevant U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices, we would look for ways to get you information 

from the Office of Court Administration also. But certainly we do 

have a wealth of information on the success of those programs. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. The Chair now recognizes myself for questions. 

On September 28, 2015, the VA Office of Inspector General report recommended the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia, 

pursue criminal charges against two VA executives it found to have 

abused their position in order to take jobs with less responsibility 

while keeping higher salaries. The report detailed how the VA executives pressured subordinates to accept positions transfers only 

to volunteer for the vacated jobs while keeping their original salaries and having the VA pay them for more than $400,000 in taxpayer-funded relocation benefits. Will the DOJ pursue charges 

against these employees? And if not, why not? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. 

With respect to a matter that’s been recently referred to the Department, it’s a matter that is currently under review, and so I’m 

not able to comment on it at this time. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I think one of the issues, and I think the 

gentlelady from California also talked about this as well, the VA 

issue is something that has been ongoing. And I think you made 

a rightful statement that our veterans deserve that support and 

help. And I think we’re seeing vast—we’ve seen it in Georgia, 

where people are just transferred, not held accountable. There are 

some that have been held accountable. 
65 

I think coming to this conclusion it is more than just words. Actions have to be taken here. And to simply say we’re going to look 

into this and look into this is, frankly, the American people on both 

sides of the aisle are not satisfied with that kind of a response. 

I do appreciate your mention of veterans courts. Veterans courts 

are working in my home county in Georgia and we are expanding 

that process. Governor Deal, as well as local DAs and judicial circuits have worked well in that regard. So I would commend that 

and continue the process as we look forward. 

I want to move to an area that is coming up a little bit in some 

trade secrets issues. And we recognize that trade secrets is an additional form of intellectual property. And companies in America, 

however, are increasingly targets of sophisticated efforts to steal 

proprietary information, harming our global competitiveness. There 

are many in Congress, including myself, who believe we need to 

create a Federal civil remedy for the misappropriation of trade secrets, keeping and harmonizing the legal framework so that companies can protect. 

The Administration throughout that recommendation supported 

a call for private right on action on trade secrets. Do you join them 

in recognizing that such a private right of action would be beneficial? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly, Congressman, you have 

raised an important issue and one of great priority to both me and 

the entire Department of Justice. We are committed to prosecuting 

cyber criminals who do seek to steal our intellectual property. I believe the last recent estimate was that we are losing possibly up 

to $250 billion worth of intellectual property a year through hacks 

and crimes and the likes. And we look forward to working with you 

on the proposed legislation that you mention that you discussed. 

Mr. COLLINS. So you do believe a civil—a private right of action 

would complement your efforts, given the resources and limited actions many times that you have, that would be something that 

would complement the actions that you currently—— 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’d like to see the language, but certainly we look forward to working with you on that. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Also, I want to—and we’re jumping to several different issues, and one I want to come back to that was 

brought up earlier and it has to do with sanctuary cities. And it 

goes back to a question. I want to know, has DOJ taken any action 

to withhold law enforcement grants or other funding to sanctuary 

jurisdictions? If not, why not? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, the grant process under which 

DOJ operates is a formula-based grantmaking process and different organizations and entities within cities apply. Certainly with 

respect to our grantmaking process in general, we’re always cognizant of concerns that come up within certain jurisdictions. We 

have found that through our grantmaking process we can effectuate great change in a host of very significant focused areas. 

Mr. COLLINS. But, Madam Attorney General, if you don’t mind 

me interrupting you here, but shouldn’t following the law be a prerequisite for a grant? 
66 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly we work to enforce not only 

the laws that you are referring to, but all the laws with the cities 

with whom we work. 

Mr. COLLINS. But getting a grant, if you’re not following the law, 

have no intention of following the law, why should—I mean, at that 

point in time that application should be just set aside, follow the 

law, we’ll talk to you about your grant. Why can’t we get to that? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. Certainly it’s been raised in a number of contexts. We 

do find that our grants are very focused on specific areas. For example, providing more police officers on the ground, providing—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Again, you’ve great talking points. I appreciate 

that. That’s not my question. How can you get—if you’re using 

money to circumvent the law, as you just basically implied, that’s 

even worse. You don’t incentivize this kind of behavior. Why would 

it just not be a permanent stop to the grantmaking process until 

a city or a municipality or a government entity complied with the 

law? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, with respect to our 

grantmaking process, we do make very discrete focused grants to 

specific portions of city government. 

Mr. COLLINS. So in essence you have subsidized lawless behavior. 

That’s what the Attorney General of the United States of America 

has just testified to. And you can sit and—I mean, that’s what you 

just testified to. You’ll give money to a locality that is not following 

the law because you want to use your grant in discrete, private 

ways. Is that what you just said? 

Attorney General LYNCH. We use our grants to incentivize better 

behavior in a host of ways. And our grantmaking policy is focused 

on a very rigorous application process that is fact-based. 

Mr. COLLINS. So you’re telling the people of the Ninth District of 

Georgia that taxpayer dollars that come to them is being used and 

will not even be considered if a locality is not complying with the 

law, you will still give their tax dollars to a locality that is not complying with the law. Is that your testimony? 

Attorney General LYNCH. We look at a host of factors—— 

Mr. COLLINS. So the answer is yes—— 

Attorney General LYNCH. We look at a host of factors—— 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. Not your host of factors, it is yes. I 

mean, this is a part—and the Ranking Member made a great point 

earlier when he first started. I want to finish up with this. I’ve had 

these hearings and you’ll be back before us at another time and I 

look forward to those hearings. 

But what is amazing to me and the American people watching 

here is he said tell the truth and work those, but also being prepared for questions. You’re going get VA questions here, you’re 

going get sanctuary city questions here, you’re going to get a lot of 

host of questions, and even the Ranking Member listed those off. 

Coming and giving an answer that we’re looking for, that we’re 

not being basically a setup where the people don’t understand that 

is a thing that very much frustrates most people with Washington, 

D.C. You’re been very well prepared for this by those who want to 

prepare you for these hearings. There’s just a big disconnect at a 

certain point in time when the Attorney General of the United 
67 

States will not say that they would not want to give money to an 

organization or to a locality that is not following the law, we’re still 

going to give taxpayer money to that. That is unacceptable and 

what most people find abhorrent. 

And with that, I recognize the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. 

DelBene. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, Attorney General, for being here with us today and 

for all of your time. 

As you are no doubt aware, in 2012 voters in my home State of 

Washington passed Initiative 502, which legalized the sale, consumption, and taxation of marijuana products. Including Washington, 23 States and the District of Columbia have legalized some 

form of marijuana, and in 2016 several more States are expected 

to consider marijuana legislation on ballot initiatives. Washington 

has already collected over $80 million in tax revenue from sales. 

And since the passage of Initiative 502, court filings in Washington 

for low-level marijuana offenses have dropped by 98 percent, saving 

the State millions of dollars in enforcement and in judicial expenses. 

As you also may know, there are a wide variety of marijuana reform measures that have been introduced in Congress. And there 

is still the ongoing concerns about the conflict between State and 

Federal law in many areas, particularly in banking, for example, 

and they range from legalization to rescheduling. 

And a bill that I recently introduced, the SMART Enforcement 

Act, my bill would give you, the Attorney General, the authority to 

waive the Controlled Substances Act for States that are effectively 

regulating marijuana themselves, such as Washington State. So it 

authorizes a waiver from the Controlled Substances Act for States 

that meet requirements preventing the distribution of marijuana to 

minors, violence or use of firearms in cultivation and distribution 

of marijuana, and drug driving. 

And I want to thank your team for answering many questions 

that my office had as we were in the drafting process. I wanted to 

hear from you your thoughts on this type of legislation and this approach to reform and about how the enforcement priorities that 

were outlined in the Cole memo have been working. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the 

question. And we’re happy to provide information and assistance as 

needed by your staff as you review this important issue. 

Certainly the factors that have been outlined in the Cole memo 

and that have been stressed in further discussions with the U.S. 

attorney community remain consistent. Our concerns are the areas 

that you mentioned. Where a State chooses to have a legalized 

marijuana structure, we will review that structure and look at 

that, but our concern is, frankly, marijuana getting into the hands 

of minors and also being trafficked out of State where a State may 

have not made the same choice. 

We also have grave concerns about the areas of the edible products that are so appealing to children and expose them to this 

product, which I don’t believe is the goal of the regime that you’re 

talking about, but is a concern of ours. We’re also concerned as well 
68 

about the violence that is still associated with the higher levels of 

the marijuana trafficking industry. 

And so at the Federal level we are focusing our resources on that 

type of enforcement action and we continue to do so. In my former 

office, we prosecuted cases involving importation of large amounts 

of marijuana, utilizing an Indian reservation on the Canadian border, and also utilizing organized crime connections. 

So we certainly still have a robust practice. Again, we focus limited Federal resources on those types of cases. 

Ms. DELBENE. But we know that we have States like ours that 

have challenges, banking in particular, because they’re still, even 

while there may not be active activity against States who have legalized, we still have situations where banks are not able to serve 

these types of businesses because of the conflict between State and 

Federal law. 

My legislation would allow you to issue waivers to States that 

meet and provide an effective regulatory regime, and these would 

be 3-year waivers so that you’re able to give those States a waiver 

from the Controlled Substances Act and establish the requirements 

they were going to meet. Is that a type of legislation that you think 

would help address the issues that we have between Federal law 

and State law today? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, we’re certainly happy to review 

any proposal that you think would be helpful and to provide comment on that. I’d have to look further at that proposal before I 

could respond. 

Ms. DELBENE. It’s a bill we’ve introduced and we work to get 

feedback from your office too. So I’d welcome any feedback there. 

I also just wanted to ask quickly, you talked about creating a 

new cybersecurity unit within the Criminal Division, and I wanted 

to ask exactly what made you decide to do that and what are the 

goals of that particular new unit. 

Attorney General LYNCH. That is within our Computer Crime 

unit. We have a Cybersecurity Unit focusing on computer intrusions, computer hacking, and the sophisticated types of computer 

activity that hackers, many of whom are based overseas, are using 

to infiltrate our computer systems. 

The types of activity that we are looking at involve not just the 

wholesale theft of private information, which can be so challenging 

at a very basic level of identity theft, but also the theft of personal 

information such as healthcare information, which raises significant privacy concerns, and also intellectual property. 

We find that private industry is being targeted, particularly our 

financial services are being targeted at an increasing level by cyber 

intruders who are seeking to essentially take advantage of American technology and ingenuity and siphon it overseas for production 

there without the benefit of the work that we put into it. As I indicated in response to Mr. Chairman’s question, that recent estimates indicate that approximately up to $250 billion worth a year 

worth of our intellectual property is being lost to us through that. 

This is a grave concern, as all of us seek to make sure that our 

economy is as strong as possible, that we get the benefit of American ingenuity and American technology and that we protect what 

are protected secrets. Many of these, many of the matters that are 
69 

being stolen are not only sensitive but very, very unique to particular industries and important to the growth of particular discrete industries. We felt that we needed to increase the resources 

to this because the problem is increasing. 

In addition, however, it is working very, very well. And one way 

in which it’s working very well is through our connections to private industry. We, along with the FBI and the Secret Service, have 

made extensive contacts and discussions with private industry, 

general counsel, CEOs, CIOs, about cybersecurity and the need to 

share information about breaches when they occur. 

We are also ramping up within the Federal Government our own 

efforts to provide information to companies when we determine 

that they’ve been the subject of a breach or a hack. We are working 

to reduce our response time to get information to them as quickly 

as possible so they can also begin protecting their data and protecting their information. So it’s been a very positive effort. 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Attorney General. 

When you were the U.S. attorney and you received inquiries 

about an ongoing investigation, how would you respond to those inquiries typically? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Mr. Congressman, thank you for 

the question. It is Department policy and certainly my own view 

as a career prosecutor, typically our response would be that we’re 

not able to comment on an ongoing matter. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And part of the reason for that is because if 

you’re out making statements in the press that detract from the 

public’s confidence that you’re doing it by the facts if you’re trying 

to prejudice the investigation. Is that fair to say? 

Attorney General LYNCH. That is certainly one of the reasons, 

Congressman. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Let me ask you this. When you were an AUSA, 

a line prosecutor, did you ever prosecute a case against someone 

with whom you had either a relationship on a personal or professional basis? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Can you be more specific? 

Mr. DESANTIS. Did you ever get assigned a case where the defendant was somebody that you knew either personally or professionally that had a private relationship? 

Attorney General LYNCH. That did not occur in my experience. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Would it have been appropriate, do you think, for 

you to have had a case if someone who, you know, maybe you 

worked with prior to taking the position as a prosecutor or would 

that case likely have been sent to a prosecutor who did not have 

that relationship? 

Attorney General LYNCH. It depends entirely on the facts and circumstances of the case, what type of case it was, whether it involved an individual, an entity. Every case is looked at on its own 

merits. 
70 

Mr. DESANTIS. And so here is why I’m kind of asking these questions, because I delivered a letter, you probably haven’t had a 

chance to read it yet, from a number of my colleagues, over 40 of 

us, requesting that you appoint a special counsel to look into the 

situation with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. 

And the applicable regulations say that that’s warranted if there’s 

a conflict of interest for DOJ or there are other extraordinary circumstances and it would be in the public interest to appoint an 

outside special counsel. 

So here is why I think it makes sense. You were appointed to the 

U.S. attorney in 1999 by President Bill Clinton. And I’ve had a 

chance to meet a lot of people who have served as ambassadors, 

different. I’ve never met anybody who doesn’t have esteem for the 

person that appointed them to high office. I mean, it’s a tremendous honor. 

Your current boss who appointed you to your current job, President Obama, appointed you again to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and 

now to your current job as the Attorney General and it’s been said 

made statements saying that somehow there is no damage to national security. And then you have the presumptive Presidential 

nominee of your party is subject to this investigation. 

So to me that would meet any definition of extraordinary circumstances. I don’t think we could probably find a similar fact pattern in American history where such an investigation was put up. 

So why not, so that the public has confidence that this is done in 

an apolitical manner, assign somebody who is trustworthy to serve 

as a special counsel and then this way, however the investigation 

goes out, the public’s going to have much more confidence in the 

outcome? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, thank you for your 

letter. I look forward to reviewing it and will provide a response. 

Mr. DESANTIS. But why not just—forget about the letter—why 

aren’t these extraordinary circumstances? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, I would never forget about your letter, first of all, and we will provide a response 

to that. Certainly, we’ll review the issues that you raised and we’ll 

provide you with a response. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Do you think, though, that you as the Attorney 

General then having an investigation that concerns the spouse of 

somebody that’s appointed you previously to a very important position, I mean, and it’s not saying that somehow you’re not going to 

try to do a good job, but it’s just—it’s human nature I think. And 

then the appearance of whether there is a conflict of interest at 

stake is something that I think a lot of people are concerned about. 

And I appreciate you’re going to review the letter, but do you not 

see why that would cause people a little bit of pause? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, we will review everything raised in your letter and provide you with a response. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. Well, we look forward to doing that and 

hopefully you will do that in a timely fashion. Your predecessor 

usually did not respond in a timely fashion. 

The vetting of the refugees. The testimony you gave is different 

from the testimony that we had from the FBI Director a couple 

weeks ago about our capacity to vet. And he, I think, said that 
71 

you’re getting better at it, but that you can’t guarantee. I think you 

are confident that they’ll be able to vet. 

Well, let me ask you this. Your Department brought terrorism 

charges against a number of Bosnian immigrants, some of whom— 

at least one of whom was a refugee. So if our vetting is good, what 

happened in that case involving the Bosnian who was indicted on 

material support for terrorism charges in February 2015? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, I’d have to look at that specific 

case before I could provide you with an answer about that, Congressman. And of course if it were an ongoing case I wouldn’t be 

comment about it. So, again, I’m not able to give you that answer 

at this time, and we’ll see what information we can provide about 

that matter. 

As I indicated, we have a robust screening mechanism for refugees from all countries. It relies upon efforts of not just the FBI, 

but the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, 

State Department. It uses interviews, it uses biometric data. It is, 

as I indicated earlier, a challenging process, as is everything we do 

in law enforcement. But that does not mean that we are not committed to doing everything that we can to make sure that the process is as robust as possible and that we do everything that we can 

to protect the American people. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I think the concern, though, is that you can do 

everything right, but given the lack of data, the lack of information 

we have on people who are being pulled out of a very, very difficult 

circumstance, essentially an Islamic civil war, that you can do everything right and you could still have people come into the country who mean to do us harm. This Bosnian was able to get in in 

probably circumstances that it would have been easier to vet than 

with Syrians, and so I know a lot of us have concerns. But I appreciate your testimony. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the Chairman. 

And I thank the Attorney General for your presence and your 

testimony here today and your leadership. 

One of my colleagues from Illinois mentioned earlier that in the 

city of Chicago approximately 60 percent of the instances of gun violence can be traced to weapons that were initially purchased in either the neighboring States of Wisconsin or Indiana, as well as, I 

believe, from Mississippi. It’s also the case that many of the weapons that are used to commit crime in south-central Los Angeles can 

be traced initially to the neighboring State of Arizona. 

We’ve got a similar problem in New York in terms of the weapons that are used often to commit crime in the city, and in fact this 

has been illustrated. Recently we’ve experienced the deaths of four 

officers in the line of duty over the last 10 months, Detective 

Ramos, Detective Liu, Brian Moore, and Randolph Holder. It was 

a very diverse group, sort of emblematic of the increased diversity 

of the New York City Police Department, one was African America, 

one was White, one was Asian, one was Latino. They all paid the 

ultimate price. 
72 

One of the things that they had in common was that the weapons that were used to kill each of these offices came from outside 

of the State. Detective Ramos, Detective Liu were killed by a weapon that came from Georgia, Officer Moore a weapon that came from 

Georgia, Officer Holder a weapon that came from South Carolina. 

And so it seems that even as certain States see fit to tighten 

their gun violence prevention laws, because there is no national 

legislative effort, many States have been subjected to closing the 

front door, but guns being able to come into those States through 

the back door. 

And so my question is, do you think that the gun trafficking laws 

that currently exist on the books are adequate for the ATF, the 

FBI, the Department of Justice to do its job in combatting gun violence? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, certainly, Congressman, the protection of the American people, particularly when it comes to gun 

violence, is one of our highest priorities, and we are committed to 

making every effort to carry out that goal and that responsibility. 

We look to vigorously enforce all the laws on the books. There are 

a number of cases I recall when I was still in Brooklyn that my 

colleague in the Brooklyn DA’s office was able to essentially close 

down a firearm trafficking ring that was bringing guns, as you indicated, from Georgia to New York. 

So it is something that all levels of law enforcement take very 

seriously. We work closely with our State and local colleagues on 

this issue and we will continue to do so. 

Certainly should Congress consider additional legislation, we’d be 

happy to provide input and comment on that. That is certainly 

something that I think there is a debate about and I think all 

voices should be part of that debate. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Has the Department of Justice taken a position, 

for instance, as to whether universal background checks or comprehensive background checks would be something that Congress 

should look do as it relates to tightening our gun violence prevention laws? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, certainly I think as we’ve been 

asked that question we’ve provided information about cases and 

about trends that we have seen that we hope would be helpful to 

the analysis here in Congress on that. And if that were something 

that Congress were to consider we would work to implement that 

as well. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. It’s my understanding that the Department of Justice is currently investigating whether the civil rights of Eric Garner were violated when he died as a result of a chokehold that was 

deployed in July of 2014 by an NYPD officer, Daniel Pantaleo. Is 

that correct? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Yes. That tragic incident did occur in 

2014 and it was on Staten Island, which is in my former district. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And in December of 2014, I believe the Department of Justice publicly announced that it was considering whether 

civil rights prosecution would be appropriate. Is that correct? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Yes. Essentially, as you may be aware, 

the Staten Island district attorney initially undertook an investigation and grand jury presentation. As is commonly our practice, we 
73 

awaited the results of that investigation and after the conclusion 

of the State matter began our own Federal review, which is ongoing. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And in the context of the Federal review 

that’s ongoing, Eric Garner obviously has been killed. The individual who I think courageously recorded the incident is currently 

being prosecuted at the State level in a manner that many of us 

view as retaliatory. It remains to be seen. But the officer who deployed a chokehold that had been administratively prohibited by 

the NYPD for the previous 20 years remains on the force on desk 

duty still receiving a salary. 

At any point did the Department of Justice communicate to the 

city of New York that it should refrain from proceeding with disciplinary action against this officer during the pendency of your investigation? 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman’s time has expired, but the Attorney 

General can answer. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Congressman, I am not able to get into the specifics of the 

discussions that we may or may not have had with the NYPD, except to say that it is common practice that during the pendency of 

the investigation officers are placed on a modified duty assignment 

consistent with the internal practices of the NYPD and that they 

still retain the right to take action. They often do await the results 

of a Federal investigation also. That has been my experience in the 

past with the cases that I have personally prosecuted and seen 

prosecuted. 

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

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Madam Attorney General, for being here today 

and for your patience in sitting through this long testimony. 

The primary function of any prosecutor is to enforce the law and 

the Constitution and to ensure justice. And as I listened to some 

of the questions, and this can be applied in several different areas 

that we’ve been discussing today, the Chairman took you down the 

path of talking to you about sanctuary cities. And to me the idea 

of sanctuary cities is really antithetical to what prosecutors believe 

and that is justice, because it is the selective application of laws. 

And I’m wondering what your opinion is of sanctuary cities given 

all that’s been happening in this country. We have cities that have 

decided to enforce their own brand of law, to ignore law. We have 

constituents that we represent that don’t understand that and 

Members that do not understand how we can have a law enforcement community that does not enforce the law. It just is inexplicable. 

I think it’s important that we have some clarity to this answer, 

but Federal law prohibits, specifically section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, any 

State or local government from prohibiting their officials from communicating with DHS information regarding the immigration status of any purpose. Yet, it happens. 
74 

And I’m just wondering, your predecessor didn’t address this 

issue, I’m wondering if you can address it and if you can give the 

American people some clarity as to why sanctuary cities are still 

allowed to exist in this country. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, I have to tell you, 

it is not an issue on which I’m able to give you clarity about the 

history of sanctuary cities. At this point I’m happy to look into the 

issue and provide you with whatever information we can. 

I know that it is an issue of intense debate, and of course the 

Department of Justice is able to provide not only the information, 

but to help in that debate. I’m not able to give you the history of 

how they came about or explain that to you. I do understand the 

challenges that you note, however. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, that is exactly why Americans are frustrated, 

because that’s the answer that they’re getting. Selective enforcement of the law is not justice. It is in fact lawlessness. And we live 

in a country that we require our citizens to obey the law, yet our 

own law enforcement is being directed not to follow the law. 

So you have to wonder at what point in time do the citizens of 

this country begin to say, ‘‘Why in the world am I following the law 

if my own government doesn’t apply it in a fair way?’’ I do believe 

that we are fast approaching a point in time in this country where 

people will just ignore the law. We wonder why the crime continues 

to proliferate. You have your violence reduction summit that you 

had. I would think this would be a really good conversation piece 

to have, why is it that we allow cities to ignore the law and why 

law enforcement refuses to talk to each other and why we allow 

some of these glaring examples of violence to occur in our inner cities, we complain about it, I have heard it here today, yet we’re not 

doing what we could do to ensure that it doesn’t happen in the future. 

It causes me great anxiety to sit here and not hear someone, a 

public official, say we will not stand for lawlessness, we will not 

allow cities to circumvent or ignore the law. We are going to use 

the power and weight of our office to ensure that justice is done. 

And I say that with conviction because I believe it’s common 

sense. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s common sense. And 

I’ll let you respond to that if you have any response to it. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, thank you, Congressman. I do 

understand the frustration that you outline. And certainly with respect to the statutory regime that you inquired about, as I indicated, I’m not able to give you that historical information now. But 

I look forward to providing you what information we can. 

Mr. BISHOP. I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman, Mr. Cicilline, is recognized. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Madam Attorney General, for being here, particularly at a moment when I know you and the entire Justice Department is offering full assistance to your counterparts in France 

to respond to this horrific terrorist attack. 

I want to focus my questions really on gun violence in our country. And specifically, as you know, under Federal law, a gun seller 

may transfer a firearm to a purchaser after 72 business hours even 
75 

if the criminal background check has not been completed. And because of that—it’s called default proceed policy within the Department—and because of that, gun dealers went forward with almost 

16,000 sales to people who turned out to be prohibited purchasers 

between 2010 and 2014. 

So my first question is, do you think that the default proceed policy should be changed to a policy that says firearm sales may only 

occur if the background check has been completed and the transfer 

approved? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly you raise an important issue 

about gun safety and our background system. We have been looking specifically at this issue given the unfortunate tragic circumstances that allowed Dylann Roof to purchase a firearm. And 

what I will say, though, is that while it certainly does make it challenging and make it difficult to ensure that we keep firearms out 

of those who are prohibited, that is the current state of the law. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No, no, I understand that. But you agree, do you 

not, Madam Attorney General, that if the law in fact said the background check has to be completed and the transfer approved we 

would reduce the likelihood that people who are ineligible, 16,000 

in that 4-year period, from purchasing firearms, correct? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly it would provide law enforcement with another tool to make sure that firearms are out of the 

hands of prohibited persons. And should Congress consider something, we’d be happy to provide input and comment on that. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So when that information is determined—when 

it’s determined that a person is a prohibited purchaser, the agency 

sends out a retrieval notice to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 

Firearms, correct? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Yes. If a prohibited person does obtain 

a weapon, there is a retrieval notice. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. And so do you know what happens to those 

cases in which ATF is directed to retrieve a firearm? Do you track 

that? 

Attorney General LYNCH. With respect to retrieval notices, ATF 

will designate an agent to investigate the location and whereabouts 

of the individual and the firearm and retrieve that firearm from 

that person. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So under current law and practice no notice is 

provided to local law enforcement or to the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

in that jurisdiction. Is that correct? 

Attorney General LYNCH. It is done through ATF. That is correct. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So that we have information that in at least some 

of these cases someone who is ineligible because they’re a convicted 

felon has purchased a firearm but we don’t provide notice to local 

law enforcement or to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, only to ATF. 

Attorney General LYNCH. That’s the current system, yes, sir. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. You would agree that providing that information to local law enforcement or to the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

would allow them to prosecute some number of individuals who 

criminally and in violation of Federal law bought a gun with a 

criminal record. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I agree that certainly 

the sharing of all relevant information helps all law enforcement. 
76 

Every case would have to be looked at differently and with respect 

to the individual facts of each case. 

Mr. CICILLINE. In addition, I want to just focus your attention for 

a moment, Madam Attorney General, on the NICS system. Director 

Comey testified before our Committee that receiving timely records 

from State and local law enforcement was a potential area for improvement. Are there legislative efforts we can undertake to increase compliance by State and local governments? Is it your sense 

that it’s a lack of Federal standards, general administrative difficulties, or is it just noncompliance? And what can we do as Members of Congress to try to encourage or require compliance with the 

NICS system because it’s only as good as the information that’s 

contained within it? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, the 

NICS system is an important part of our background check system 

and we do rely very heavily on information from our State and 

local counterparts. In many instances, we have excellent reporting 

from those counterparts. In some instances it is not as robust as 

we need. And anything that could be done to improve that would 

be useful. 

Certainly you could consider legislation. We also have been working directly, speaking directly with those localities to encourage 

them to improve their reporting to the current system. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And one final question, Madam Attorney General. 

Congressman Deutch made reference to this, this challenging issue 

of the definition of engaged in the business of dealing firearms. 

Even the ATF has said that this very vague standard frustrates 

prosecutions, it allows people who regularly sell guns to avoid the 

requirements of background checks. And some have suggested that 

you could issue a regulation that would provide greater clarity and 

define that. We recognize legislation is also possible. 

But will you agree to at least look at whether or not you have 

the ability to issue clarifying legislation that will attempt to reach 

these individuals who are regularly engaged in the sale of firearms 

but are not determined to be engaged in the business of dealing 

firearms and thereby go free from any of the constraints that exist 

for firearm sales and present significant dangers as a result? 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Attorney 

General can answer. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 

Congressman, with respect to the important issue of our firearm 

statutes, obviously significant changes would have to be considered 

and implemented by Congress. And should they be considered, we’d 

be happy to provide input and guidance there. 

In the current statutory scheme we always do everything that we 

can to ensure robust enforcement under the current statutes. It involves, for example, outreach on the part of ATF to gun dealers to 

provide guidance to them as to their activities, that goes on on a 

regular basis, so that we can in fact increase and encourage compliance on the part of dealers. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I’d ask unanimous consent that 

this first report, ‘‘The FBI Data Shows Thousands of Gun Sales 

Beat Checks,’’ be introduced as part of the record. 

Mr. COLLINS. Without objection, so ordered. 
77 

**Note: The material submitted by Mr. Cicilline is not printed in this hearing record but is 

on file with the Committee and can be accessed at: 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=104114. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I’d ask unanimous consent that this article entitled ‘‘Walmart Has Tougher Policies for Background Checks Than 

the U.S. Government Does,’’ be introduced into the record. 

Mr. COLLINS. Without objection. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And finally a report entitled ‘‘Business as Usual,’’ 

prepared by Everytown for Gun Safety, ‘‘How Unlicensed High Volume Gun Sellers Fuel the Criminal Market.’’ 

Mr. COLLINS. Without objection.** 

Mr. COLLINS. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Attorney General Lynch, for being here. I know it’s 

been a long day. 

As you, I’m deeply troubled by recent events taking place on the 

global stage. I know that you have shared your concern about what 

happened in Paris, attacks in Beirut, and the current crisis in 

Syria. These events, both singular and ongoing, have reinforced 

and further impressed on us the very harsh realities of our world, 

and now we are confronted with a duty to respond here in Congress. I hope that the Administration will take the necessary steps 

to ensure our Nation’s security to the greatest extent possible in 

these uncertain times. 

As you know, Director Comey was here just a couple of weeks 

ago, and we asked him some questions, and he testified before this 

Committee that the FBI cannot offer absolute assurance that there 

is no risk associated with the current Syrian refugee crisis. In fact, 

when I asked him specifically about the security gaps in Syria, he 

said, ‘‘The challenge we face with Syria is that we don’t have that 

rich a set of data. So even though we’ve gotten better at querying 

what we have, we certainly will have less overall.’’ 

So, in other words, he’s saying we have the ability to query the 

information that we have, but we don’t have a good set of data, we 

don’t have a good set of intelligence. Do you agree with that assessment? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Certainly with respect to the information coming into our databases from Syria, as the Director has 

noted, it does present challenges to law enforcement. However, that 

does not mean we will stop trying to obtain data and utilize that 

screening system and I certainly want to convey our commitment 

to doing that. But certainly, as the Director has indicated, there 

are challenges to a system based upon the amount and type of data 

that one can obtain. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So when you hear the media out there, they’ve 

spent the last 2 days saying that we are vetting these Syrian 

rebels, but the reality is that we don’t have sufficient information 

to know. 

Obviously your Administration is doing everything possible to 

gather the information that we have, but the problem is that we 

don’t know what we don’t have, especially because the intelligence 

on these people is not as fast as it was in Iraq, for example. Isn’t 

that correct? 
78 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, certainly every country presents 

a different scenario in terms of the information that we can gather 

from them. And certainly while Syria does present its challenges, 

I’m not able to unequivocally say that we obtain no data from 

them. I don’t believe that we have that information at this point. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I don’t think that’s what I said. And I don’t think 

that’s what I said. I just said that we have some problems. In fact, 

he said, ‘‘I would say that we have a less robust data set dramatically than we had with Iraq. So it is difficult.’’ Would you agree 

with that assessment? 

Attorney General LYNCH. It certainly does present challenges, 

yes, Congressman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So he said dramatically. He didn’t say just there’s 

a small difference between the two countries, but between Iraq and 

Syria there’s a dramatic difference in the type of intelligence that 

we have. 

Then when I asked the FBI Director—I asked him what the FBI 

can do to improve security checks. This is one of the things that 

scared me the most. He said, ‘‘That’s one I don’t have a good answer for.’’ 

So do you have a good answer for what we could do right now 

to improve dramatically the intelligence that we have on these Syrian refugees? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, what I can tell you 

is that both the FBI Director and I will do everything in our power 

to continue to protect the American people. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Well, I know you will do everything in your 

power, and I appreciate your answer. But what specifically are you 

going to do so I can go back to the people of Idaho and let them 

know that the Syrian refugees that may be coming to the State of 

Idaho have been properly vetted—not just vetted, but properly vetted—so we know exactly what their backgrounds are? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, certainly, Congressman, we can 

provide you information on the type of vetting that is done. As I’ve 

mentioned before, the FBI—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. But we know already that the vetting that is 

done is not sufficient. I mean, Director Comey already said that. 

So that your answer is insufficient at this time. How can I give assurances to the people of my district that we will have the intelligence that is necessary to know whether they are going to be 

harmful or not to our communities, to our Nation, and to the families in my district? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, as I indicated, we 

can in fact provide you information on the nature of the vetting. 

We can in fact provide information, as I indicated, that is done by 

the FBI. But also in conjunction with the Department of Defense, 

State, Homeland Security, we also rely on more than the databases. Every refugee from whatever country who chooses to come 

here or to try and come here is also subject to a robust interview 

process as well as a biometric analysis of the individual who is literally in front of that interviewer, something that unfortunately 

Europe does not have the ability to do at this time, placing them 

in a dramatically different situation than us. And certainly we’re 

happy to keep you updated on developments there. 
79 

Mr. LABRADOR. So you think the biometric information that’s provided for Syrians, which the FBI Director said was not sufficient, 

you think that it is sufficient? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I can indicate to you the 

types of measures that are in place and provide you the information on the type of screening that is done so that information can 

be conveyed to the people of your district. 

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

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Trott. 

Mr. TROTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam General, for testifying today. 

And I want to talk a little bit about the mortgage settlements. 

And, you know, in 2013 activist groups met with then Deputy Attorney General Tony West and urged him to, in my opinion, create 

a slush fund to fund their activities in connection with the 

JPMorgan Chase settlement. Then in 2014 the same groups came 

back to the Deputy Attorney General and in connection with the 

Citi and Wells Fargo settlements really pushed and accomplished 

mandatory donations to activist groups, specifically IAF, with enhanced credits for donations to those groups. And I wondered if you 

could comment on whether you think that those discussions occurred, number one, and if they did, why? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, with respect to those 

settlements involving residential mortgage-backed securities 

frauds, they are an important part of the Department’s work to not 

only protect the American people, but provide relief from the financial crisis and the housing crisis that has occurred from 2008 on. 

In connection with your specific question, I’m not aware of the 

meetings that you were talking about. I was not involved in them. 

But what I can tell you as a former U.S. attorney who was involved 

in the settlements of two of those matters, negotiations were between the banks and the governments, and that is certainly how 

those matters were handled and how they were resolved. 

With respect to the consumer relief portions of those settlements, 

the money there comes from the banks, and it is specifically designed in the wake of the widespread and detailed admissions of 

wrongdoing on the part of the banks that led to thousands, if not 

hundreds of thousands of homeowners losing not only their homes, 

but the value of their homes and their savings. 

We also instituted consumer relief to provide direct relief to people that went above and beyond the statutory penalties of the 

FIRREA statute under which these cases were brought. Where 

banks are able to provide, for example, one of the main forms of 

relief is principal reduction. 

Mr. TROTT. Right. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Where there are other entities involved, the banks would make a selection and they would have to 

be of an entity from a pre-approved HUD list that focuses specifically on relief, for example foreclosure relief, to homeowners. 

Mr. TROTT. No, I understand how the settlements and the money 

in connection with the settlements was supposed to be used. What 

I’m concerned about is IAF, which is specifically an activist group 

which focuses on community organizing, got tens of millions of dollars with the intent, I believe, of training high school students 
80 

about the importance of debt management and financial management. And I can’t for the life of me understand why that, if you’re 

really looking at trying to curtail future mortgage defaults, why 

that money wasn’t given to the Mortgage Bankers of America or 

the different State bar associations that were doing very good work 

in terms of loan modifications, and instead it went to some group 

that had a different agenda, in my opinion, unrelated to mortgage 

default activity. 

And then I guess the larger question is, how are we doing on the 

discovery with respect to what really happened in connection with 

these settlements? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Can you be more specific about that? 

Mr. TROTT. Eleven months ago this Committee asked for the emails relating to discussions between DOJ and outside groups as 

it relates to mandatory donations to these activist groups. That 

was 11 months ago. And you’re a former and very accomplished 

prosecutor. I mean, how would you feel if a corporation took 11 

months to send you 10 e-mails? What would you do? 

Attorney General LYNCH. It would depend on the context of the 

request, the discovery, and any negotiations. I’m not able to comment on that. 

Mr. TROTT. Is 11 months a good turn time for discovery? 

Attorney General LYNCH. It depends totally on the facts of the 

specific circumstances. 

Mr. TROTT. Let’s move in my last minute here to sanctuary cities 

for just a moment. So earlier today Chairman Smith asked you 

about the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 which bars State and 

local governments from prohibiting their officials from communicating information regarding immigration status to DHS. And 

your response to Chairman Smith’s question was that we’re talking 

with the different jurisdictions about their compliance with this 

act. So what are you talking with them about? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Congressman, I don’t believe that that 

was my specific response. I would have to go back and look at that 

response. 

What I can tell you is that I believe my response was that I was 

not familiar enough with the specific statutory terms that we were 

discussing to provide a specific answer to this question and would 

be happy to look into that and provide information. 

Mr. TROTT. Sure. So let me focus—the section that Chairman 

Smith was referring to, he didn’t reference it, but section 642(a), 

which specifically gives you the ability to enjoin jurisdictions from 

deciding not to comply with this act. Have you sought, other than 

talking with the jurisdictions, have you sought any enforcement actions or any injunctive relief to try and make sure the different cities that have decided to go rogue are following Federal law? 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Attorney 

General can answer the question. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m not aware of those actions, but certainly I’m happy to look 

into that and provide a response to you. 

Mr. TROTT. Thank you for your time today. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 
81 

Mr. COLLINS. At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank you, Attorney General, for a long day today, 

and I hope you got a break for lunch. I did. 

A number of things come to mind. I’d like to pick up on the sanctuary city side of this. And that is this statute that prohibits the 

local jurisdictions, the law enforcement jurisdictions from having a 

policy that prohibits their law enforcement officers from engaging 

with, supporting with, or helping immigration enforcement officials 

from the Federal Government. And I’m of the understanding that 

some of these communities prohibit their law enforcement officers 

from gathering information and in that way they circumvent the 

text of 642(a), as the gentleman referenced. 

And so I think it’s important that you know that section and enforce that section. I’ve not yet seen an attorney general that does 

enforce that section of the law. And if you read that and it reads 

to you as literally as I have described it to you, would you be prepared then to withhold law enforcement grants from those local jurisdictions? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman, and for the specific factual predicate to it. Again, it’s not 

a statute that I’m familiar with now to give you a specific response 

to, but I am happy to look into that and provide you with information on that. 

Mr. KING. I would urge you to do that. And I’m asking you in 

this record to please send that to me at my office as well as to the 

Committee. I would like to know directly what your response is on 

that. It’s very frustrating to be engaged in passing legislation here 

in this Congress and then seeing that it’s ignored. That’s the sanctuary city part of this. 

I wanted to go back, though, to the background check piece of 

this. And I understand the distinctions between Iraq and Syria and 

the more difficulty in Syria. But do we have biometrics on the Syrian refugees or the migrants? Do we have fingerprints? Do we have 

digital photographs of those? And is that part of the background 

check? 

Attorney General LYNCH. It depends on the individual circumstance. I mean, a number of people do come in and do have 

that information and a number of people do not. If they come in, 

as I indicated before, as part of the process, that information would 

be gathered and also stored in a database. 

Mr. KING. But you can’t do a background on information that 

you’ve just gathered as far as fingerprints or digital photographs 

are concerned. And so it would have to be part of their record prior 

to that, say, coming out of Iraq or Syria. 

I just came back from there last week. And not only that, but I 

but traveled over much of Europe and I tracked with the migrants, 

and I saw tens of thousands of them. And I met with the State Department in a number of countries. And they tell me that they’re 

giving our expertise to local countries in the European Union because, as you’ve said, we’re ahead of them. So I said, well, as some 

of that, are they fingerprinting? Are they taking digital photo-
82 

graphs? And their answer was, well, no, they aren’t. Do we give 

them that advice? Well, no, we aren’t. 

And so I’m very troubled about the level of confidence you seem 

to exude here, or the President exudes, on an ability to do background checks when I see a huge haystack of humanity, and in 

that haystack are the needles that are terrorists. And also in that 

haystack are the pieces of hay that will become the needles of terrorists. 

And so do you actually believe that the Administration, all together, can assure America with any degree of confidence that they 

can identify someone who will be radicalized because of their association, especially with their religion and their family members, 

that they will be transferred into here in this country? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, as I indicated, we 

do have a robust screening mechanism. As I also indicated—— 

Mr. KING. But how is it robust? 

Attorney General LYNCH [continuing]. It’s a challenging circumstance in order to ensure that we have the information that we 

need to make the determinations on who can come into the country 

and who cannot come into the country. 

Mr. KING. Let me suggest that it doesn’t sound at all robust to 

me, not if it’s not robust enough that we have already have identified them in their home country. If they don’t have a legal existence in their home country, then how in the world can we possibly 

do a background check on people that from a legal perspective 

didn’t exist before they showed up here at the borders of the 

United States? We are faced with that constantly. 

How about this? Are you under any kind of directive by the Administration not to say Islamic jihad or radical Islam? Is that a 

memo that has come out? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’ve seen no memo on vocabulary, Congressman. 

Mr. KING. Can you say that or describe then the enemies we 

have that are killing Western civilization in that fashion? Are they 

Islamic jihad? Are they Islamic radicals? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I call them murderers, sir. 

Mr. KING. But you can’t say Islam in conjunction with that? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry? 

Mr. KING. How do we understand them if you can’t say that? I 

mean, I want to read to you then—you can’t say it, Can you? You 

can’t say it anymore than Hillary Clinton can say the word ‘‘Islamic jihad, radical Islamic jihad.’’ If we can’t understand our 

enemy, if we don’t know who they are, if we don’t know what motivates them—do you know what the term ‘‘hijrah’’ means? 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry, I can’t hear you, sir. 

Mr. KING. Hijrah, h-i-j-r-a-h, an Islamic term for peaceful migration to invade other countries and start your civilization there and 

don’t assimilate into the broader culture of civilization. And that’s 

being preached in mosques around the Middle East and they’re rising up and moving into Europe and moving into the United States 

and they’re resisting the idea that they could ever assimilate into 

the American culture or civilization. And we’re sitting here acting 

like we can vet them without even understanding what the word 

hijrah is and not being able to say radical Islam, radical Islamic 
83 

jihad, and having a President out of your party that can’t say it 

either. And I’m flabbergasted, I’m listening—here will be my last 

question, honest, and that is—— 

Mr. COLLINS. The Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. KING. I’d ask unanimous consent to ask the last question, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COLLINS. Finish your question. 

Mr. KING. Did you ever think, this is actually a little bit of levity, 

did you—— 

Attorney General LYNCH. I’m sorry? 

Mr. KING. A little bit of levity, actually. Did you ever think that 

you would be sitting here testifying before the House Judiciary 

Committee hearing so many people of the other party advocate for 

legalizing marijuana? It’s purely rhetorical, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman Texas, Mr. 

Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Attorney General, in my district there is quite a large 

number of law-abiding gun owners who also happen to be hunters. 

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard complaints from those 

hunters about the availability of ammunition, especially at the 

start of deer season. As you may know, hunters are being forced 

to use alternative nonlead ammunition because manufacturers 

can’t make brass or steel core ammunition for.30-06 a .270 deer 

hunting rifle unless they get a waiver saying it’s primarily intended for sporting purposes and that waiver has to come from the 

Attorney General. 

Now, in the last 4 years there have been at least 32 petitions 

that have been submitted by manufacturers seeking that designation. Not a single one of those petitions has been granted. But what 

really begs an explanation, I think, is that in the last 4 years not 

a single response has been sent to any manufacturer with regard 

to those petitions. 

So my question to you is a two-part question. Why haven’t those 

been responded to, and when can a response be expected? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

I’m not aware of the requests that you have noted. But I thank 

you for raising them and I would like the opportunity to look into 

that matter and provide you some information. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, so can you tell me in the last 4 years have 

you discussed the existence of those petitions with anyone at the 

Department of Justice? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Well, Congressman, certainly for the 

last 4 years in my prior position as U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, that 

matter would not have been within my purview. And as I indicated, while I’m not aware of the situation now, I’d appreciate the 

opportunity to speak to with your staff and provide you with some 

information. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Well, are you aware, though, that there is 

a statute, 18 U.S.C. 921, which says that it is—it says, ‘‘Which the 

Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sport-
84 

ing purposes.’’ So do you understand that it is your responsibility 

to make that designation? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Yes, it is certainly included in the panoply of responsibilities for the Office of the Attorney General. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. So do you have any explanation for why 

there hasn’t been any response at all in the last 4 years to folks 

making petitions to the United States Department of Justice? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Happy to look into that and provide information to you on that. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Well, let me then turn to another troubling issue. As the Nation’s top law enforcement official, I want to 

get your reaction to a growing antipolice sentiment and actions of 

certain public groups out there in this country. I’m hoping that 

you’ll agree with me—I am also a former United States attorney, 

I took the same oath that you did—I’m hoping that you’ll agree 

with me that police officers and law enforcement are an important 

part of the backbone of our criminal justice system. And in fact I 

would hope that you’d agree with me that the work that they do 

is vital to your ability as the Attorney General and to the thousands of lawyers that work for at the Department of Justice to be 

able to prosecute violations of law. We can agree on that. 

Attorney General LYNCH. I would call them essential, Congressman. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Right. Well, with that in mind, what is the status of your investigation into Karla Dobinski? 

Attorney General LYNCH. Can you give me some context for the 

question? 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Sure. Let me refresh your recollection. Karla 

Dobinski was the DOJ taint lawyer for the New Orleans police officers that were charged in connection with shooting of civilians in 

the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And as you know, Madam Attorney General, the role of the taint officer is to make sure that the 

constitutional rights of police officers are protected from the disclosure of privileged information. 

Now, it was subsequently established in Federal court that rather than protecting those police officers, Ms. Dobinski, who was a 

DOJ deputy chief, actually rather than protecting their constitutional rights went online to anonymously leak evidence from the 

case and to mock the actual defendant police officers that she was 

supposed to be protecting. Now, the Federal judge in that case 

called it reckless, he called it wanton, and a new term that I’d not 

heard, he called it grotesque misconduct and found that she had 

personally fanned the flames of those burning to see the defendants 

convicted. 

So the reason I raise this is 10 months ago at your confirmation 

hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee you deferred answering questions from Chairman Grassley until you could fully investigate the matter of Ms. Dobinski. But you responded to his 

questions in writing by stating, ‘‘If confirmed, I will commit to ensuring that the Department holds accountable any employees who 

are found to have committed misconduct.’’ And so please, please 

tell me that you have in fact done as you promised and you’ve held 

Ms. Dobinski accountable for that outrageous conduct. 
85 

Attorney General LYNCH. So, Congressman, my understanding of 

the matter, to the extent that I’m aware of the specifics of it, is 

that the matter was referred and reviewed by our Office of Professional Responsibility and that the Department followed the applicable civil service laws in conjunction with that. But I don’t have further specifics on that for you. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So can you tell me whether or not Ms. Dobinski, 

who engaged in the conduct of trying to help convict the defendants 

she was sworn to protect, can you tell me whether or not she’s still 

employed at the Department of Justice? 

Mr. COLLINS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Attorney 

General can answer. 

Attorney General LYNCH. Thank you, sir. 

I belive that she is. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, it would seem to me, beg the Chairman’s 

indulgence here, with the appalling targeting of the police that’s 

going on in this country right now, I hope that that’s not the message that you want to send to the brave men and women that wear 

the uniform to protect us. If police officers and other law enforcement officials can’t count on the top Federal law enforcement official to back them up, who can they count on? 

Thank you for being here. 

I yield back. 

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

Seeing no other Members, this concludes today’s hearing. 

Thanks to the Attorney General for your patience and your time 

today. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witness and additional 

materials for the record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(87) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
88 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

f 
95 

***Note: The Committee did not receive a response to these questions at the time this hearing record was finalized and submitted for printing on March 21, 2016. 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Loretta E. Lynch, 

Attorney General, United States Department of Justice*** 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 

Æ