>> the senate armed services is holding another hearing tomorrow. they write the committee will take up the nomination of eric fanning to be the next army secretary. nominated inas september. exit tee members have dragged background check process and assist that he step down as ating secretary because of potential conflict with his confirmation. live coverage of the hearing c-span beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> tonight on c-span loretta lynch testifies at a senator hearing about the president's executive actions on guns. the annual winter meeting of the u.s. conference of mayors in and the u.s. strategy in the middle hear committee

hearing. >> testifying at a senator hearing on president obama's actions on guns, attorney general loretta lynch the the committee president's orders are constitutional and legal. from thettee hearing state attorney general from alabama and the father of the sandy hookd at elementary school. this is two and a half hours. this hearing will come to order. attorney general we thank you for joining us today to discuss the president's recent actions. as chairman of the subcommittee i believe it is my duty to the american people to properly the department of justice and ensure that any funding provided by this

is used as congress boundsd and within the of the constitution. it is clear to me that the american people are fearful that eager to obama is strip them of their second amendment rights. be clear the second amendment is not a suggestion. rightan individual protected in the bill of rights that has been recognized by the supreme court. with that in mind, this morning i'm very concerned with the thent executive actions by president for two main reasons: 1) president obama is far too willing to run congress through executive action. the president has said he believes that when congress doesn't act the way he wants us to then he must act alone. our constitution won't allow for unilateral action and the american people will not for it. where through executive amnesty with thousands of illegal immigrants or increased gun

measures, the president has unwisely, i believe, acted alone. however what the president fails to remember is that we have a balances.checks and a system that was created to ensure that power was not concentrated in a single branch of the federal government. haspresident, i believe, ignored the founder's system and the use to alarming new levels. executivenone of the actions that president obama has proposed would have prevented the recent tragic events in our nation. whether it is a terrorist attack single gun crime, i firmly believe that those responsible should be held accountable. and that we must work to prevent it from having again. we have seen time and again, this president used tragic push his political agenda. i believe that he's more interested in grand standing and

engaging in anti-gun theatrics than actually doing the work protect this country. in the wake of the terrorist bernardino,anta president obama did not address our law enforcement's failures terroristsed those to live among us. he also did not look at making immigrationhe system after it clearly failed us by allowing an individual who known to be aen violent extremist to enter our country. the president's immediate response was to additional gun control measures. criminals and terrorists -- let's be clear -- criminals and terrorists are not buying their guns from gun shows, gun stores, or collectors. by definition do not follow the law. madame attorney general, we live world, as you know. the american people are looking for us to do everything in our keep them safe. the next time a terrorist attack nation, innocent

law-abiding americans must have the ability, i believe, to protect themselves and their ones from harm if they so choose. it is our responsibility, i to preserve a right and not limit them. i think most of us know that this president has made no secret of his desire to restrict rights to amendment law-abiding american citizens. deserve, andpeople i believe they expect more, from their president. they also expect more from their congress. i intend to live up to their expectations. general, theey department is on notice. the subcommittee will no v no part in undermining the constitution and the rights it protects. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. open a session. ins and their accessibility

our society. this hearing does tackle the role of the pressing issue of guns and gun violence. 2americans are shot every day. many of them will die. almost a third. we need to change our nation's culture of violence. to stop guns getting in to the wrong hands of with mentald those onness without infringing the rights of law-abiding firearms.o purchase do know we support the measure on guns. it is within the constitutional to act.y many of the activities like fbi and atv has struggled by the committee. think last year really showed our commitment to enforcing the the staff to and do it. the look forward to hearing

lynch,y general, loretta and her testimony today and the will have from the and will itders help the american people within boundaries weonal do respect the constitution. also the justice department and the ability to deal with this. we all listen to the testimony of outside witnesses in the panel. these are excellent people who seasoned, well experienced, and also a father who will talk about the things point.ppened at sandy aboutno one wants to hear gun violence. gifford or are gabby your children go to elementary school in a suburban community

called sandy hook, whether you are just simply going to movies or a community college, or charleston church of the an iconic civil right the lord's study words and welcome in a stranger to end at such a terrible tragedy. mr. president says we have to do something. we'll go forward to this. we look forward to what the president's proposals will be in the budgetary recommendations that he puts we are all appropriators. we look forward to the president's recommendation. particularly interested in the criminal background checks, technology glitches, people who go by the law who are frustrated. fbi'se to enhance the

capacity to run background checks while asking them to do a checks.ther background are there new ways to do this and to train local law enforcement? this is not only a justice department problem. hearing where they are holding the hearing on mental illness. are rippingle who through gun violence and volatile with mental illness and access to guns are dangerous. i look forward not to me talk but listening to the attorney general and listening to the wonderful panel of which you've invited to participate today. let's solve the problem. involved in constitutional rights. let's help our american people be safe and secure in their neighbors, and house of worship. >> ma some attorney general,

welcome again. that youten system made prior to the hearing recommend. would oppress? thank you. good morning to the distinguished members of the subcommittee. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the steps the department of justice is taking to reduce gun violence and to ensure smart and effective enforcement of our nation's gun laws. now, of course, the subcommittee guns our nation faces violence that's taken a def devastating toll around the country. each year millions are americans are killed. armed robbery, domestic suicide, and acts of violence. law enforcement officers shot down for defending their communities to children killed in tragic accidents, our friends

family members are being taken from us day after day after day. of tragedies involving firearms was going to force the american people to leave, we must do more to stem the tie of gun violence. is committedration to doing our part. the executive actions that the weeksent announced two ago, including the measures that i recommended to him, are essential components. they are important steps within the executive power to clarify existing provisions and focus enforcement efforts and to spur innovation. thate complete confidence the common sense steps are now why the president is lawful. with theconsistent constitution as interpreted by the supreme court and the laws by congress. for example, the gun control act lists the people who would not allowed to have firearms, such as felons, domestic abusers, and others. congress has also required that background checks be conducted

of sales made by federally licensed firearm dealers to make sure that guns stay out of the wrong hands. they've announced by the which focus on background checks are fully consistent with the laws passed congress. taken together, the new actions willses bring progress by clarifying means to be engaged in the business. we raise the awareness of and with lawsmpliance already on the books. by making sure that licensed report weapons lost or stolen in transit, and those acquire some of the most dangerous weapons undergo checks.ground by enhancing the national system of background checks, we will be keep guns outd to of the fronting hands in the first place, by increasing access to mental health care

with a proposed $500 theion investment to department of health and human department of health and human services, also referred to as hhs. we will not only be helping in need, we will be the majorityeaths, of which result from suicide. by supporting research on gun safety technology, we will be laying the ground work for a safer future and drawing on our as the most technologically advanced nation on earth. and thes are outlined actions that president obama has described are all well reasoned within existing legal authority and done work that is already underway. they clarify law that is are already in the books. because clear notice will help laws are followed. they direct important resources agents.aw enforcement because these men and women deserve to have the support they jobsto do their difficult effectively. they law the ground work for mores and governments to

easily provide information to the background checks system and for helping people with mental illness gain access to care. because in addition to helping the truth they need, they must make sure we keep guns out of the hands of those who prohibited by law from having them. in researchl invest and promising technology that will make weapons safer because solving through innovation has always been one country's greatest strengths. mr. chairman, i'm confident that make actions will help to our people safer, our more secure, and our law enforcement more effective. i have no illusions that these measures by themselves will end gun violence in america. at a time when there's so much so muchbe done and capacity for progress, there many areas where only congress can act. we would welcome the opportunity to work with you to further these goals.

i am so grateful to have this opportunity to speak with you today about how we can work together to reduce gun violence in this country. i look forward to continuing daysconversation in the ahead as we discuss how to keep our promise to protect and defend every american's right to safety and security and to life and liberty. at this time, i look forward to answering any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thank you. madame attorney general, as i earlier, the constitution is not a suggestion. you agree with that, would you not? that the constitution of the united states is not a suggestion? the law of thes land and the law that we're all to uphold. conveyed are it not recommendations? >> i agree with you on that as well as your previous proposition. and the constitution obviously the -- the second amendment is part of the

constitution. rights; right? >> it is an important part of the first set of elements, the bill of rights. >> do you believe the rights granted by the second amendment equally important as those granted by the first, fourth, amendment and so forth? all an intiy it is gal part? >> i believe they are an thegral part as well as laws to interpret them. >> madame attorney general, you said you worked closely with the president to craft the executive actions to go as far as the president can go without overstepping. may disagree about whether or not the president has overstepped, i'm sure we would, i'm concerned that the president is slowly, slowly -- slowly chipping away at our second amendment rights. us, madamerantee

attorney general, that there's legal authority for the president to take the actions he taken and can you provide us the specific laws and the court -- cases that the position? >> with respect to the positions that i made to the president, i believe they are consistent with the constitution and existing case law that interprets the constitution, specifically the heller case hand down by the theeme court that defined clarifiedndment and arms as wellbear as the guidance as well and i'm sure they are consistent with the land and within the president's authority. enforcing the existing laws and strengthen the congress hast taken the oath to keep the american people safe such as the background system.

protections enhance for those who have mental illness providing greater for them. i know the subcommittee supports. each time there's a mass shooting, the issue of expanded theground checks ring in as public debate. i think we must look at the facts. of those are that most actions are carried out by individuals that would not have by obtaining a firearm. the sandy hook crimes were a young man who shot his mother and stole their guns. now, madame attorney general, would a background check have tragedy? that horrible the virginia tech shooter passed a background check to get his guns. much like those that committed similar crimes at fort hood, chattanooga, and the list would go on and on. terroristsly, the responsible for the attacks in theirrnardino obtained

guns through a straw purchase which means a background check would not have helped them either. coming back to the issue. madame attorney general, would these examplesh and tell us having -- tell us federal firearms licensees where they are altered the outcomes of those events. >> as i indicated, i don't look back're able to and find a specific measure to prevent a specific crime. mean we must not seek to prevent future tragedies. with respect to strengthening background system, sadly the system is overwhelmed at this point in time. we saw with the tragic shooting in charleston individual's information was submitted. through a series of glitches, the information needed was not discovered in time to prevent that. the license firearm dealers who

submit the information deserve the best and most efficient systems we can provide them. the individuals who submit their wait for thend that response also deserve the most efficient system that we we can provide them. certainly the measures that we are discussing today, for example increasing the number of examiners for the next system directly related to the appropriations seek with the end. with respect to other tragedies again, because as i look through criminal laws which give us a way to protect people and rights of those who have been the victims of a way to haven't found erase the human condition that leads to crime. we're committed to doing everything that we can look forward to making sure our gun enforced and our american people are kept as safe as possible. >> madame attorney general, as on some of these tragedies and their real tragedies, which of these

individuals bought their gun from a gun show and which of criminals purchased their gun illegally online. you? i don't believe they did. >> i'm not able to give you that information now. what i can indicate is with respect to the clarifications on is required to seek a license as a firearms dealer to inquiriessponse on athe fbi receives regular basis as they operation within gun shows to provide guidance.n and they also receive telephonic inquiries for people seeking to want toith the law who know the standards and whether or not they need to apply far license. >> the area of standards for gun dealers. times" article states the president's plan on gun control would require

officials from the federal to begin investigation contacting gun sellers to let tom know of new standards clarify who would be considered a regulated dealer. goes on to suggest that the changes are onlinelarly meant for gun merchants to avoid conducting background checks of making quote high volume gun control through sites. web the law requires that anyone selling guns for profits, which high volumeuld be gun sales, to have a federal firearms license. you are quoting in the article as saying the article in "new now your wordsht it is really an internet loophole. a loophole in the law or failure of enforcement? >> i typically do not comment on articles. i would prefer to provide you my

particulare to that issue. with respect to internet sales, they are increasing. an increasewe see in sales at the typical commercial level in which the fact,e consumer may, in appropriately buy a number of commodities, including firearms, saleso see firearm growing on what is called the dark net. that's the particular part of not accessible to the average consumer of where elicit transactions are primarily held. transactions where an average citizens are seeking lawfullye a firearm and through the traditional process. these are sales where criminals require firearms to harm our american citizens. this is not a loophole. area of enforcement atf has been focused on. with respect to the individuals shows, flea at gun markets, and the like, there will be an educational

component. the information to be provided to them. they will be allowed to ask questions. will increases lessen compliance and confusion. the individuals that operate on the dark net, it will also put them on a notice. that enforcement actions need to be taken, there will be no discussions they simply were not particulare provision. >> adam attorney general, i believe what we really should be talks not just here today is how guns out of the hands of criminals and violence offenders. an uphill battle, i believe, if the president continues to focus on eroding amendment rights while firearms.ces for the we will debate the mandatory

sentences. ofse individuals conflicted illegally possessing a firearm is disturbing. know, madame attorney needal, why he feels they shorter sentences. i know this: this sends a you commit a crime with the gun the administration will not be hard on you. perhaps go easy on you. that's the wrong message. the president's actions sending message to americans. one day he issues new executive actions to change gun regulations. then he pardons criminals in gun-related convictions the next day. how can the president and you the attorney general representing this administration, say he's committed to using every tool at the administration's disposal to when his ownolence administer is not following through with the sentences of

gun-relatedth convictions? does that trouble you? >> well, mr. chairman, i don't cases to whichic -- >> we'll give you a list of them. can tell you is with respect to pardons, individuals who applied for those who carefully reviewed and carefully vetted. only after consideration of a factors, in particular again there's been recent about connotations of known violent drug offenders and whether or not they have convictions, i would need to know the specific case. president's to the project, for example, it is a individualsking at who today would not necessarily have received the lengthy sentences they receive and who also otherwise qualify as non-violent with a particular type of record. i'm happy to provide information that it is helpful on specific cases if you could

me to them. i think with respect to want issues that we're discussing however again providing clarification of existing case law, gathering the case law so that individualing seeking to comply with the law have in one easy-to-read, comprehensive preference to what law says qualifies as engaged in a business of firearms so they know what they have to apply for a license or questions can be more informed helping the american people in clarifying the important issue. the issue of who needs to report a firearm when stolen in transit allows atf to begin stolen firearms much more quickly than to know.le we uncover the average of 1,300 guns a year from crime scenes that turn out to be lost or stolen. we don't know that information

until they are recovered in the course of a criminal investigation. learning that information will help us to start the investigation earlier and shipmentsfind those before they fall in to the hands of criminals, which is, of usrse, the goal of all of here. >> madame attorney general, i won't go through the record here but i've beginning, been handed by staff here a people who were convicted of possession of firearms during a -- committing a criminal act or using a actarm during the criminal and have been let out of prison and back with the people. danger. intelligence.your ?enator >> thank you.

we thank the justice department of their help doing their recent challenges in related to the uprising we had after the death of freddie gray for which is now through the judicial system and we're examining the for justice reform within our police department. over 350 baltimorians were year. last 350 dead. were little children who were killed as innocent bystanders where there's a question about the killings. this is criminal work. of drugs,g amount guns, violence, murder. my question to you, when i look what can they do

plain english to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals? talking about second amendment rights and numbers of enormous gun traditions. baltimoreadition in city shouldn't be that the drug dealer is the one who how could we, can we, with either the president proposals have an aggressive effort on this issue of guns and criminals? >> one of the most important things we can do is make sure andbureau of tobacco firearms is fully resourced.

we do intend to send information. the law enforcement priorities are to focus on the violent crime issue you just described to read individuals who terrorize neighborhoods. essentially, through the unlawful possession of firearms, presen a danger to law abiding citizens. we are targeting not just the gun traffickers, but as my atf director calls it, the trigger pullers. places where we have seen an increase in violent crime. we are looking at ways to target our resources to focus on those individuals who are causing the most harm to our communities. sen. mikulski: do you feel this rising gun violence -- not to interrupt -- is related to the growing heroin epidemic?

what is happening in my city, which is just awful with these over 350 dead, not only the injured, but this is in every major city that this is going on . it's not just a baltimore bubble. this seems to me like an epidemic that has hit our big urban areas. ms. lynch: indeed. i believe the phrase epidemic accurately captures the problem in heroin and opioid abuse we are currently seeing. this is a problem in many of our urban areas but it has sadly spread across this country. there are many counties with various densities, even rural areas that are in the grip of an opioid and heroin epidemics.

they are forced on pairing atf agents with dea agents to target criminal organizations bringing narcotics in and are protecting the drug trade with their firearms. sen. mikulski: thank you very much, madam attorney general. my time is up. i was just put on a panel for mental illness and it was an excellent panel with excellent witnesses and i know we are going to talk about this issue of mental illness. people who are mentally ill getting drugs. this whole issue of privacy rights, the virginia tech situation comes to mind and we could go through other cases, but in virginia tech, that young

man had been in and out of institutions. when can we help? when can we intervene? we also had a shooting at a columbia mall. we all have shootings, that is what is so terrible. we all have shootings. i look forward to hearing your comments on the mental illness aspect. i know we have excellent other senators here and i want to get to their questions and hear your answers. sen. shelby: senator lankford. senator langford: let me bounce a couple of questions off of you as well. previously there was a committee where we went to the subpoena process to ask your predecessor for the documents on the fast and furious documents on guns. those were delayed and privilege was announced. the court told the attorney general's office that that had

to be turned over. will those documents he released to the oversight and government reform committee as part of the judge's order? ms. lynch: we did receive that yesterday and we are still reviewing the ruling. we want to determine what appropriate steps to take and the timeliness of them, but i can assure you we will be responding to the committee or court at the appropriate time. senator langford: so you are not saying whether those documents will be turned over in time? ms. lynch: we have not made that decision. if we had, i would let you know, but since we have not, i cannot give you the decision at this time. we will let you know within the time you have mentioned. senator langford: one of the conversations i had was on process issues with the atf and fbi.

those can be combined to make sure we have clear processes across doj. do you know any process that has been made with how they do investigations? ms. lynch: we need to know the context of the processes you were referring to. if you would provide that -- senator langford: there is a process moving on that. let me ask about some of the guidances you mentioned several times with the federal firearms licenses. the guidance that has come out seems to be as before, if you are in the business of dealing firearms, then yes, you have to be licensed. that is nothing new. we are trying to get what is the new definition? it seemed to change during the clinton administration, to say

people who are kitchen table dealers selling to their neighbors or selling a firearm out of their own collection, they are not a licensed dealer. we are trying to get a clarification on who is a licensed dealer. will it be a regulatory change or guidance document? ms. lynch: the guidance document that has been promulgated answers the question you have raised. it collects information from all the cases on this issue and provides a series of clear examples a definition for when someone is engaged in a business and when they are not. the definition has not changed because the statute has not changed. we are simply gathering the case law, the legal definitions, promulgated by court in situations where people have been found to take place in the business and with the hobbyist and collector.

those are also part of the law. hobbyists and collectors are not required to obtain a license to transfer firearms. this information has been scattered in a number of cases throughout the country. atf still anticipates receiving inquiries seeking to comply with the law, asking if -- senator langford: is it how many firearms you sell it over a lifetime or the number in your collection? is it based on the income you receive? ms. lynch: the courts have determined a number of factors whether one engages in the business. it has specifically said there is not a specific number that makes one meet the test. it is a totality of circumstances. if one is repetitively selling firearms, if you do intend to make a profit, all of these things go into that calculation.

the statute does not contain the order. senator langford: i will walk back through some of the details. one final question i find very important -- they gathering of information going into the background checks -- the interstate identification index, is that used for the background information as well or only what is going into national terminal -- criminal background checks? are both of them used? ms. lynch: i would have to get clarification. this focuses on strengthening the system. senator langford: this has been an issue. i don't find anyone here who says we shouldn't do background checks and the database

shouldn't be effective. but if i can have the pleasure of the chairman for a moment, let me run through a couple of our states in the states that submit information into the system, federally, if there is a federal conviction for a felony, that's going into the system right away. if it is a state felony, alabama has zero felonies. california has 4032. delaware has zero. maryland has 12. my fine state of oklahoma has one, very law-abiding state. rhode island has zero and wisconsin has 106. that's not very many coming from our state into the system. the question i have is what is happening between the states that they are not submitting the

information into the federal system or is the federal system so complicated that states of all stripes are not submitting that information? ms. lynch: i think you have raise a very important issue. after the virginia tech tragedy, the government did reach out to the states and requesting greater influx of information into the system. federal agencies are required to report information into the system. states do it on a voluntary basis. in the years since the virginia tech shooting, the amount of information coming from all of our states has increased by 70%. i would not be able to break that out for you. what i did is sent a letter to the governors of every state asking them to essentially look at their systems and processes and make sure they were in fact

setting up the most efficient systems to provide information to us. the department of justice does provide support for states to receive assistance in categorizing the types of offenses that need to provided and possibly making their own systems consistent and we will continue to do that. senator langford: i know i have indulged the chairman's time going long on this, but this is an area of common ground where we could actually work together and i look forward to that. sen. shelby: senator kaine's -- >> thank you for appearing before the appropriations committee. i was encouraged in your testimony earlier that you want to focus on the smart and effective enforcement of our existing gun laws.

the elements of the executive order you have covered are strong attempts to do exactly that. i was proud to hear you as you review the well-settled constitutionality of the actions proposed in the executive order and in the budget. rather than debating that further, i am going to move forward to what you view as the most valuable part of the budget request, something where this committee will be taking action. a portion of the presidents announcement was new fbi and atf personnel. i have seen tragically firsthand in my hometown what a dramatic fight in gun violence can do to disrupt a town and community, to wreak destruction and pain on families and neighborhoods. i am grateful for how the department of justice has

provided additional resources, but i have also seen how access to better quality background checks and an increased federal law enforcement presence can make a significant difference. can you explain why these new atf and fbi agents are really necessary and how they can help reduce gun violence not just in my hometown but in rural areas all over the country? ms. lynch: with respect to our request for increased resources for atf, we have discussed requesting resources that would allow us to hire 200 agents and investigators. some of those would work on the increased paperwork resulting in background checks, but the agents will be focusing on the violent crime problems we find to be so troubling in so many of our cities, towns and neighborhoods.

focusing on the hotspots of particular areas would allow us to increase the amount of enforcement we provide over the internet sales, as i mentioned, but to really focus on the violent crime problems plaguing so many of our cities. the resources we are requesting and would begin using this year would go toward strengthening a law enforcement initiatives that traces guns found at crime scenes as well as casings, essentially all firearms related evidence and shares that information on a nationwide basis from law enforcement entities and allows us to make connections and find connections between firearms, those using the firearms, and we are opening a national center for that in

november. this is a tool our law enforcement agencies depend on greatly. the ability to track firearms is of grave importance. the ability to track stolen firearms can protect our communities. stolen firearms and even those that are lost do not end up in the hands of law-abiding americans. they end up in the hands of criminals and are recovered during criminal investigations. sadly, they are recovered at the rate of 1300 year over the last five years once the crime has already been committed. one of the things these regulations would do is allow us to begin those investigations earlier and hopefully intercept those before they fall into the hands of criminals. sen. coonz: thank you for the good work your team has been doing in cooperation with the

wilmington police department. i've gotten to see firsthand how better access to ballistics tools has improved our homicide case clearing rate from 10% two years ago to 50% this year. that makes a real difference and having access to world-class and timely analysis has significantly improve the investigatory and prosecutorial programs in my town. i am excited about this work and it is my hope we can invest resources to tackle gun violence around our country. it is a shame that americans literally in their going to church to worship, going to see movies, going to college classrooms, going to elementary schools have been victims of gun

violence and we must do more to tackle this problem facing our nation. >> thank you, attorney general, for being here with us today. very appreciative. i want to begin by echoing what we have heard across the board and that is the tragedy we all feel when gun tragedies occur. it hurts us all and our prayers and thoughts are with those most deeply affected. but i do think acknowledging there's a great deal of frustration by the unilateral actions the administration has chosen to take to curb this gun violence. part of the actions seem ambiguous and provide confusion for gun owners and seem a little at more about political messaging. that is not to say we should not take action.

i would like to focus where our common ground is. much of the work we have talked about today is conducted in west virginia. the atf facility is in martinsburg, west virginia. they have each proven their worth helping to track weapons and perpetrators of gun violence when crimes are committed. i've visited these facilities and have seen the professionalism and deep commitment they have to getting it right. you did mention that they are overstressed and overloaded and hopefully, through the appropriations process, we are able to increase the budget to make sure we are able to employ more to make sure they can successfully complete in a timely fashion to background check.

i wanted to get an understanding from you -- i understand in your statement -- i'm sorry you were not here, but you are going to a 24 hour system -- is that your goal? ms. lynch: the goal is to increase the capacity of the current system so that it can be responsive on a 24 hour, 70 a week basis. currently, we are limited by staffing and we are able to operate 17 hours a day and i am not sure if it is seven days a week at this time. we also have an electronic platform that allows dealers to get information quickly and we hope to improve that platform greatly and are working with u.s. digital services and gathering information into how to make that is the more efficient so that can be up 24 hours a day. there are times when it must be down for maintenance or to get

information uploaded to it. that will help with the backlog we are seeing and we anticipate that will continue. sen. capito: have you begun the hiring on that? ms. lynch: we do hope to begin hiring with that using this fiscal year's appropriation and the 2017 request would allow us to maintain that because we need to move as quickly as possible. we will likely begin hiring on a contractor basis first. the goal is to have full-time employees on board. for government employees, there is time required for background checks and like. so it will likely be several months before we have that full component on board. this is a matter of great concern for us because it is becoming increasingly difficult to process the applications

within the three day time frame. sen. capito: let me ask you this -- senator langford ronna been excellent point. your ability to trace and perform an adequate background check is only as good as the information coming in. as we saw in the charleston, south carolina incident, it was unable to be traced to that individual. is that training at the local level? is it the examiner? what happened there? ms. lynch: i think you know that the examiners are dedicated and do their jobs with great commitment. in the charleston case, my understanding is the arrest was located in one particular jurisdiction but the query was

made of another jurisdiction. and because there was not a conviction yet, it prevented it from being the courts system, so the examiner followed all the queries as per normal and the information was literally sitting in an adjoining counties docket and was not pulled in to that. it was heartbreaking to all of us who work on this matter from the fbi and throughout the department of justice. one of the reasons why even then we began looking at the ways to improve the system and the fbi director commissioned a report, being able to modernize the electronic database will be helpful in making sure all the relevant jurisdictions are able able to be queried. if that could happen on an electronic basis, that would ease the situation. it is impossible to say what could have prevented this

glitch, but it is one thing we are looking to do. in terms of the examiners, making sure they have the time to conduct these examinations and provide a response to the dealers who come in. most of the is still done over the phone. most responses are handled quickly. often the dealer will get an answer in the first phone call, but the ones where you do have to search and make sure this individual was not prohibited, those often do take time. still, it is a system of which we are incredibly proud. over 200 people have been prevented from buying a handgun and we think that has been a benefit to the country and public safety. we are incredibly proud of the system but we want to make it the best system we can. sen. capito: i want to make sure

the fine folks doing this work have the best technology, have enough staff to help them. it is a very stressful position for many of them. i hope we can with this additional hiring, eliminate some of these loopholes people are able to fall into and prevent those people who shouldn't from getting a firearm. senator feinstein: madam attorney general, you certainly look well and as if you were not worn out by the job. i have not seen you since your confirmation, so it is very good to see you again. i am glad you stressed that the president's executive order largely clarifies existing laws, which should make enforcement easier. enforcement is what people seem to want of existing law. however, you do have to have people to enforce existing laws. as you have said twice in your

remarks and once in your written remarks, the atf is requesting $35.6 million for an additional 200 special agents and industry operation investigations through atf. my understanding is atf is going to have the retirement of 544 special agents this year that are eligible to retire. i can't say how many are going to retire but it appears to me with atf being an enforcement agency, that you are going to lose people and that is going to have an unfortunate effect. do you have any comment on that? lynch: yes, and thank you for raising that important issue. atf is facing a situation were so many talented agents are soon

able to retire. we hope that they will not but we know we will lose some. it is important to know the request that would bring an additional 200 agents and investigators on board still would not increase the size of the agency. it's not a request for additional fte but the budget to hire existing slots that are vacant now and will soon be vacant. senator feinstein: i speak for a state that is over 40 million people. we want the enforcement of existing law. we want to see the atf is staffed and able to do it. this is the subcommittee that is responsible to see atf is funded sufficiently to enforce every

day laws. i'm going to do everything i can on this committee to see that that amount is raised so you get a sufficient number. i would appreciate all the data that you can provide me with. the second thing are machine guns and other fully automatic weapons as well as weapons like short barreled shotguns. these are regulated under the national firearms act and it has been reported that individuals have been able to avoid regulation by applying to acquire these dangerous guns through trusts or corporations rather than as individuals. the number of applications for such transfers has increased from fewer than 900 applications

in 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2015. the trusts are obviously being used not to have register them or not to have a background check or not to have to buy them through a licensed firearm dealer. how has atf managed to keep up with this massive increase despite flat manpower levels? ms. lynch: the reality is it is difficult to keep up with those applications. for national firearms weapons like short barreled shotguns and machine guns, there's an application process similar to a background check which typically requires a law enforcement officer's certification. one of the regulations

promulgated after going through the notice time is requiring individuals seeking to purchase these weapons to undergo a background check whether they are using a trust or any other legal entity or a standalone person. right now, if an individual seeks to purchase a silencer or short barreled weapon, they have to undergo an application process. when they use a trust, they do not. current regulation being promulgated as a final rule closes that loophole and says individuals using a trust or entity stand in the same position as individuals standing alone. it also removes the law enforcement officer certification requirement because that has been obviated by the background check. that was an additional delay. with the information from the

background checks, individuals using a trust, a legal entity or applying as individuals will have the same requirements and undergo the same level of scrutiny before buying a national firearms act weapon. that was one of the rules promulgated in this past week as well. senator feinstein: thank you very much. i'm glad you are on top of this. of the 25 attacks of more than four people killed in the last 10 years, california has six of them. watching machine guns and those things that can be used to attack others is really important and i thank you very much and will do everything i can to be of help in seeing that you get more atf agents. senator bozeman: thank you for being here today. i have a number of concerns with the way the president continually overreaches his authority.

something that really concerns me is the executive actions this upcoming rule proposal by the social security administration to include folks who have into the program. this is not clarifying existing law. this would prohibit them from their second amendment right not based on due process, but only on the fact that they request a family member or friend to assist them with their finances. i am concerned with your department's final ruling with the adjudication of those being a mental defective to more broadly cover folks who seek treatment. i am concerned because these were not changed through congress and you cover that with the upcoming social security rule, what are we going to have? please tell me what your

department's plans are, what is the social security administration planning to do and who will be entered in based solely on social security records? ms. lynch: thank you. the current gun control act is prohibited individuals who have been adjudicated in certain ways regarding mental health of possessing firearms. federal agencies are required to submit information about individuals who fall into those categories -- the social security administration is beginning a process of seeking comment through a rulemaking process in order to clarify who within the social security administration the unification system should fall under that as well. they are currently not providing the information, so the questions you raise are real and salient ones. the social security

administration's process which is just beginning is designed to solicit comment and get input as to which types of adjudication should be provided and which should not. the issue of mental illness is not one that some checks every individual trying to obtain a firearm, so it is important we clarify which types of adjudication and which types of issues would require those records. if the social security administration's beginning that process and we look forward to providing whatever input and guidance they suggest as well. one of the things that will be part of that is our the a -- our va already provides records. one of the things that we part of that process is making sure any individual who finds themselves in that situation

receives notice that is a possibility. that would be consistent with existing law and second amendment. also that there is a way for an individual to have their rights restored. anything that might be a collateral consequence. i cannot predict what types of adjudication the social security administration would decide to be provided to the system. sen. boozman: thank you because that is a real concern. i have heard from a number of departments in arkansas who have had accounts removed due to justice's mismanagement of the budget. in a letter regarding asset forfeiture, the program has already begun implementing cost-reduction measures.

what are the measures and when do you envision the equitable sharing program to be reinstated? can you explain the benefits to the american people? we are so concerned about violent crime, this is one of the tools we are using very effectively in order to fight that battle. ms. lynch: thank you for the question because i share your concern and our regard for the strong working relationship the federal government has with our state and local counterpart. i was the direct beneficiary of their talent and expertise and now as attorney general, i do all i can to keep those relationships strong and vital. with respect to the equitable sharing issue that you raise, there have been budget issues there.

i don't know the exact time, but that essentially limited our ability to provide funds of equitable sharing. we are looking forward to providing those as soon as the asset forfeiture would allow. i know there is a great deal of discussion about asset forfeiture in general and we have been working with congress to make sure we retain this important aspect of it while addressing those concerns as well. senator baldwin: thank you, mr. chairman and senator mikulski for holding this important and timely hearing. violence continues to plague our communities. in my home state of wisconsin, gun homicides reached their highest point in a decade last year in the city of the walkie. milwaulkee

while we finally saw a notorious gun dealer, i once called the number one seller of crime guns in america start to clean up its act and be held liable for selling firearms used to injure cops, other gun dealers have rushed in to take its place. i hope all my colleagues can agree that we can and must do more to address this critical issue and keep our communities safe. i am a gun owner and i support and respect the second amendment. at the same time, i'm very frustrated the senate has been unable to advance common sense and bipartisan measures to bolster the enforcement of our existing gun laws and to pass

additional safety provisions. in the absence of leadership on this important issue in a congress of the united states, i applaud the president for taking small steps to strengthen the enforcement of existing federal gun laws. in our limited time, i want to call your attention to wisconsin matters. one i noted in my process which is milwaukee was home for years to a notorious rogue gun shop, badger guns, which in one two-year timeframe was the source of weapons used to shore -- used to shoot and wound six milwaukee police officers. in 2005, it was the top seller of crime guns in the entire country according to sources i have seen. but the shop had been found in

violation by the atf as early as 1989 and subsequent inspections uncovered additional violations. a 2006 recommendation by federal investigators said that its license should be repealed and was unheeded. it was not until 2011 at the shop lost its ability to sell guns. despite an active role by the atf in monitoring this facility it was allowed to put guns into the hands of dangerous criminals again and again. you made it clear the president's actions are not wholesale solutions and we understand that. i would like to hear how the steps we are discussing today might have helped stop a bad actor like badger guns and what

more congress can do to prevent stores like this from contribute to gun violence? ms. lynch: thank you. separate and apart from the recommendations i made to the president, it is a crime to knowingly sell a gun to a person who is prohibited. where there are gun dealers, and it is a small category in the category you discussed, atf does take enforcement actions there. we have learned from investigations that the shooting of law enforcement officers and civilians where the guns tend to come from, and that supports us. it is important to create an investigative trail and say what could or should have been done

in that situation. as part of the enforcement of existing laws, the atf takes these situations very seriously. it's a very small minority of them, but where we find a situation where a gunshot has that type of record, it is something that would be subject to enforcement action. senator baldwin: i think the action seems like significant concerns. obviously, we want to see more swift action in cases like this moving forward. i have run out of time but hope to submit for the record an additional question regarding an atf operation in milwaukee that raised significant concerns in

the last couple of years. >> thank you with your chairman and thank you madam attorney general for your testimony this morning. one of the benefits of coming in late is getting to listen to the probing questions of my colleagues and one was senator feinstein's questions about the trusts and corporations that have had more active in acquiring weapons. just a few questions. the proposal by the president would require the individuals who obtain these weapons to run a background check, correct? ms. lynch: that is correct. senator reed: they are applying just with handguns and what we would consider to be personalized weapons?

ms. lynch: typically, we see trusts purchasing weapons that are not handguns, that typically one can go to a dealer that are under the national firearms act. they are usually short barreled shotguns, certain types of machine guns as well as silencers. sen. reed: it strikes me ironically because the second amendment is seen as the individual rights americans have and to create corporations and trusts. it is not alone in this era. corporations and trusts are often created to evade something that can be directly done. i think this is a sensible step and reflects the thoughtful way you and the president seek to do these sensible improvements to

background checks. the issue of being engaged in business. from your answer, you rejected a categorical arbitrary number of weapons and reflected the interpretation of the constitution. i'm sure that is the rationale, to ensure this is constitutionally correct. ms. lynch: we have crafted the guidance to reflect what the courts have said who is in the business of dealing firearms and the court has says there is no set number. there can be large numbers of firearms transferred but if someone has a collection and is simply selling that, that would not make them subject to the licensure requirement. if they sell them repetitively or hold themselves out of the dealer, that's a different

scenario. it is not limited to where one operates, but what one does. we have collected the guidance based on information around the country and hopefully that will be understandable to people who have those questions. sen. reed: this is not an arbitrary decision, it's a reflection of the courts view on the second amendment rights of the individual americans. one other general issue is the effect of these regulations overall clearly in a very gross sense, people who are exercising their right to self-defense, for recreation, and people who are trying to obtain a weapon for illicit purposes, the effect of the president's regulations on

both groups, my hope is no impediment to those who seek legitimate use of firearms or the right to do so and the reasonable constraints and those people have illicit motives. thank you very much, mr. chairman and thank you , attorney general, for being with us today. i want to get into a question or two about the guidance to continue on this line of questioning about resources. we talked a lot about atf resources but i want to explore resources within the next system itself. as we start to game out our budget for the 2016 appropriations year, what should we be looking at in terms of the appropriations necessary for the department of justice to be able

to do all of the things to keep up with the increasing number of applications and make sure we have all the records uploaded on to that system? ms. lynch: that question is a very timely one as we look to invest in a system that is one of our first lines of defense against keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. for fiscal year 15, nick's performed over 23 million background checks. that number is increasing. just this december alone, they received 3 million requests. that's a highest number of requests since after the sandy hook shooting. our estimates are we would need $121 million to run it. that would allow us to maintain the additional positions we hope

to add this year. we may not be able to add all of them right away. it would help us improve the electronic platform and have an operational on a 24 hour basis by the end of this year that will require a great deal of information technology, investment, and support. that is our goal. senator murphy: those who are focused on the laws, you would need that to enforce that? ms. lynch: in order to provide for the accurate implementation of the system that has been set forth by congress to process the

application in a timely fashion and provide the information, that is the basis for this request. senator murphy: i hope we can enter into the record the actual guidance that is the subject of this hearing if there is no objection. i would hope those that have an opinion, especially those who have a strong opinion on this guidance would take the time to read it because our second panel will include individuals who are going to call it an unwarranted assault on the second amendment and an effort to intentionally intimidate and harass law-abiding citizens. there will be those who call it patently unconstitutional. i hope people will read through what this guidance actually says. in summary, it is five points -- one, that federal law requires a person be licensed by the atf.

that's a simple recitation of existing law. second, you can be engaged in the business regardless of the location in which the firearms transaction is conduct that. i'm not sure anyone would dispute that fact. third, determining whether you are engaged in the business requires you to look at specific act and circumstances of your activities. that seems patently clear. four, as a general rule, you need a license if you buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. a clear restatement of existing law. and fifth, a simple explanation about what existing courts have already said to interpret the law. to the extent a lot of the objections may be over this fifth point, let me ask you to state for the record, this fifth point on your page of key points is simply a recitation of

existing court interpretations of underlying law. there is nothing in there that is a new statement of law that simply summarizes what existing courts have found relative to who is required to have a license. ms. lynch: that is correct, senator. senator murphy: there have been different interpretations by different courts as to the interpretation of that law. ms. lynch: that is also correct. senator murphy: for those trying to determine whether they fall under the law or not, the existing precedent may be confusing or hard to track down. ms. lynch: it is hard to track down and it is a lot to ask every citizen to do a search and determine what the courts have said about how they are operating. what often happens is individuals operating at gun

shows or smaller sales will reach out to the atf and they have questions. they say this is what i'm doing and i don't know if it means i need to apply for a license or not. they asked those questions in person when they see investigators at gun shows, they call in and so our hope is this guidance along with the educational program the atf will be beginning providing the information to people will allow people to have clarity about this issue. we don't assume everyone is a lawyer or even wants to be, but they do have this requirement if they are engaged in the dealing of firearms and we hope this will ease compliance for those individuals seeking to comply with the law. for those individuals who have no intention of complying with the law, this will put them on notice and remove the sense that this is too confusing or i had no idea i was falling in this

category. it also allows people who are hobbyists and collectors to gain clarity about their collection and they need not apply. sen. shelby: we have reached the conclusion of our first panel. any subcommittee members have additional questions for the attorney general, they submit them for the official hearing record and we would request madam attorney general provide responses within 30 days. you generally do. thank you for your appearance today and for your time. sen. mikulski: i must excuse myself from the second panel. i have several maryland constituents i scheduled to meet on the issue of hate crimes for which they are being targeted and i need to participate in that. i want to welcome the witnesses to the second panel. i have read their testimony,

particularly their acknowledgment from barton and what he brings to the table as well as the practitioners of law. we look forward to moving forward on this agenda, to resource the agencies and to enforce the laws we have on the books and find common ground on the president's executive orders. ms. lynch: as the attorney general departs, i invite our second panel of witnesses to join us at the table. sen. mikulski: senator murphy will sit in my stead at the meeting. sen. shelby: i would like to make some brief introductions of the next witnesses. first, i welcome the attorney general for my state of alabama. attorney general strange is recognized as a national leader in advancing because as of federalism and a limited government by fighting the increasing unconstitutional

overreach of the federal government and its assault on individuals. he serves on the republican attorney general's association and is the chairman of the southern region of the national association of attorneys general. next, we will be joined by the former attorney general of virginia. he challenged many of the federal government's attempt to overreach its constitutional powers. today as a private attorney with 20 years experience as a litigator, he serves as a founding partner for the self-defense law.

after tragically losing his son daniel, mr. barton has dedicated himself to bringing people together to find sensible solutions to spare other families in pain of losing a child to gun violence. finally, we have dr. joyce lee malcolm joining us from george mason university school of law where she works as the patrick henry professor of constitutional law and the second amendment. dr. malcolm is a constitutional scholar active in the area of constitutional history, focusing on individual rights in britain and america. she has written numerous books and articles on gun control, the second amendment, and individual rights. professor malcolm taught at princeton university, boston university, northeastern university and cambridge university. i want to thank all of you for

joining us here today and we will start with attorney general strange. welcome to the committee. mr. strange: thank you. i thank vice-chairman mikulski for inviting me. i'm honored to accept your invitation to speak on an issue of importance to all americans -- reducing gun violence while ensuring the fundamental right of citizens to bear arms is not infringed. i wish to commend your centrally for convening this panel because these goals are not mutually exclusive. my duty is to enforce the law and i am here today as the chief law enforcement officer to deliver the law enforcement officers on the streets perspective on this issue. for the last five years, i have witnessed the challenge of safeguarding the gun rights of law-abiding citizens also working to deny lawbreakers the

ability to use firearms to commit crimes. i've learned an important lesson -- further limiting the ability of responsible citizens to buy guns will not keep criminals from getting one. in fact, i reached out to local police chiefs soliciting their advice on what is working and what is not working in stopping gun violence on the street. i wanted to be able to carry their message based on decades of experience on the front lines of this fight. these are the men and women who are the first line of defense, the first on the scene of a terrorist attack or a violent event, an active shooter situation. again and again, i heard the same thing -- enforce laws already on the books. number two, prosecute criminals for gun related crimes. number three, stop releasing violent criminals from jail

before their sentences are completed. they see the federal government as failing to uphold criminals accountable for gun crimes and they have their doubts about the promises they hear coming out of as one police chief print, if anyone of any political stripe whatsoever was sincerely concerned about gun violence, they would take a no holds barred approach to approaching the seemingly and with laws relating to guns that are already on the books. i don't think there is anyone in america whose heart does not break over the news of mass shootings that take innocent lives. there's no one that opposes making our streets safer. we want to do everything we can more gun crimes. -- to prevent more gun crimes. but we must make sure local actions taken place are grounded in fact. they must be vetted by the representatives of the american

people and not undermine our constitutional rights. two weeks ago, the president announced a series of executive actions he asserted would reduce gun violence. while he may have had the best of intentions, the law enforcement officers in my state and i , daresay around the country , believe these actions will not have a meaningful impact. the centerpiece of the president's order, expanding background checks to include the so-called gun show loophole, is not only an assault on the second amendment, but will be ineffective in reducing overall gun crime. it will be ineffective because less than 1% of illegal gun purchases are determined to come from gun shows, if you are still involved in violent crimes. it is our goal to reduce crime to make streets say. . the president's action will not accomplish that. the only practical effect of the provision will be to intimidate or frighten law-abiding citizens

so they will refrain from selling their guns at all, for fear they will be prosecuted for failure to register. instead of new rules and regulations, a better approach would be to enforce the laws we have by increasing the efficiency of an ending for the existing chexsystems. it is critical to ensuring guns do not end up in the wrong hands. i think that is the sentiment shared by all members of the committee on both sides. with thatbetter system. with more funding, states can ensure every felony is reported to the system. if the cause is not in the system, it is -- it cannot work. when the system does work, we find felons attempting to buy guns, and we prosecute them. using the same laws on the books today, the bush administration secured 35% more federal gun convictions into 2004 and 2005

inn the obama administration 2014. with the exception of a slight uptick in 2012, federal gun have fallen every year president obama has been in office. if we are not enforcing our laws and adding new executive orders, even if well-designed, will accomplish nothing. at the same time, the federal government must do more to them -- provide law enforcement more tools to do their job. countyriff of calhoun told me what he needs is more resources, not fewer. in fact, he has recently suffered the loss of assets to protect his officers in dangerous situations. we can do more. and remember, the sacrifice of our men and women in law enforcement grade i think sometimes we lose sight,

especially in the washington, that the reaction of a few have tarred the whole. i have had the sad duty, i'm sure other members have also, to attend funerals of officers fallen in the line of duty, either the result of a criminal, mentally ill person, or gang member. this is a major concern. i applaud president obama for focusing on the mental illness issue. my concern is it should not be done in the manner he is doing it, but should be debated by congress and this committee to be done in a thoughtful and thorough way. in conclusion, what we don't want to see is a veteran coming back from iraq or afghanistan, who has concerns and wants to talk to a counselor, finds himself unable to purchase a gun. the same for someone who might turn over to his affairs to a family member to handle, and ends up losing their second

amendment thank you for allowing me to be here. our second amendment rights can be protected at the same time we keep our american safe. mr. chairman, members of the committee, and addition to being number attorney general and a second amendment layer, i spent 12 years working in the mental health arena. i would say that nothing, not one thing in the president's executive actions related to we are discussing today would have any meaningful effect on tragedies like virginia tech in my state or san bernardino, much less more common gun related three kinds. -- however, the president's focus on improving mental health care does assist in preventing future tragedies, considering more than 60% of all gun related deaths are mentally health-related. , thosere two parts

relating to gun in law enforcement, and those relating to mental health. everything the president advocates cost money. i'm a lawyer. i have to start with my coffee yet. it would be my strenuous help, given the fact that our national government is astonishingly bankrupt, that the congress would cut more money than it proposes to spend on any of these programs. presumably you would cut lower priority expenditures if you decided mental health care is of greater importance, as i hope you will. directeddent's actions at scanning gun violence appeared to be in some cases, inely aspirational, and other cases intentionally intimidating and harassing of law-abiding citizens in an effort to get them to shy away from selling guns they legally own. to moreedural proposals quickly and smoothly run background checks more accurately are unarguable, as long as they are paid for.

all of us want the laws to be enforced. if that can be done more efficiently, then we are doing today, that would be wonderful. however, when the president and attorney general the to intentionally create confusion and ambiguity about when someone selling a single gun might be in violation of a lot with five-year jail penalties, one can only call that dishonorable intimidation of the citizenry by its government. i would note that this jail threat includes a problem found across the entire universe of federal regulatory law, namely there is no clear mens rea requirement, no necessity for finding culpable intent on the part of the hypothetical offender citizen. listis another of a long of existing residents, expanding federal power using regulatory bodies that have been imbued with criminal lawmaking authority.

now the president wants federal law enforcement authorities to crack down on people selling as few as one gun by forcibly classifying them as gun dealers. this is obviously ludicrous, but the president and attorney general don't seem to care. remember to put yourself in the position of the individuals. from individual citizens perspective, having your own federal government and we investigating you to make sure one gun sale you conducted privately and innocently, perhaps to use the money to go by a different gun, for example, is an excruciating and painfully expensive x fraught with peril -- experience fraught with peril. that is how the president wants it. his rhetoric surrounding the release of the proposed actions makes it very clear that while he cannot do much, he can threaten much. in that he intends the bureaucracy to torment many of my fellow citizens who also happened to be gun owners. has worked ono hundreds of mental commitment

cases, and deeply involved and how might own mental health community is involved with the thecial system, i would add -- in addition to mental health throughout our country as a relates to safety, we have a balance to strike between patient privacy and liberty, public safety, and liability. it would be my hope that the federal government would do two things and only two things in the area of mental health. first, provide funding to expand mental health funding in the -- mental health care in the states by cutting programs and second, get out of the way of the states. federal rules and requirements, and trust states to provide ways to find better and more cost efficient care over time.

they do want to do it. other than providing funding for mental health care, the president vaguely mentioned the department of health and human services removing information -- barriers to states reporting information about people disqualified from purchasing guns due to mental health reasons. i would urge the committee to go hhs to and urged the certify hit the -- hippa. in the case of the virginia tech tragedy, the shooters were virginia public high school, which i represented at the time in the virginia state senate, had figured out how to manage the shooters mental health issues, but they were not allowed to talk to virginia tech about the subject. even virginia tech did not know they had a seriously mentally ill student arriving as a freshman. while we fix that under virginia law, such opportunities for

improving information sharing exist throughout the legal system. yourl finish by calling attention to very serious concerns i have about threats to do process. and when i reference to the president's rhetoric, i think threats. the other concern at a constitutional level, because time is out, that i have is the second amendment, beyond the process, is the separation of powers. alreadyone senator here say, if the congress will not cooperate with the president, i'm glad the president is bypassing congress. actually, a lack of cooperation is a decision by the congress not to change the law. i have yet to hear a senator or witnessed data law should be anything other than an artist as it is written. -- other than enforced as it is written. thank you. >> thank you, members of the committee. my name is mark barden. over three years ago i was a

professional musician. a husband and a father, and doing a simple happy family life. i have the opportunity to be home with my children most of the day. my wife grew up in the bronx and put herself in school. to pursue her passion, which was teaching. we now live in newtown, connecticut. with our three beautiful children. daniel was our youngest, and an absolute light and joy. sense of awareness, empathy, and tenderness transcended his seven years that prompted many to refer to him as an old soul. he earned a reputation as a sweet little boy in school who would ask to sit with someone sitting alone or having a bad day. some of the parents of daniels kindergarten peers asked to have their children place with him again in first grade. at home, he was a bastion of ethics and respect for dinner

crime -- dinnertime, he would scold his older siblings if they were picking at their food before we sat at the table. he also insisted we offer a prayer of gratitude. i don't mean to sound my a bragging parent, but i think it is important in this context, that you take a moment to consider the humanity any and personal impact of what has been taken from us and what is at stake here. family and i had what we considered an idyllic existence. it all changed on december 14, 2012. when a gunman wielding an ar-15 semiautomatic assault rifle equipped with 30 round magazines shot his way into sandy hook elementary school, and shot and killed six educators, and 20 first grade children. one of those children was my sweet, precious daniel.

in an instant, the little boy who danced around our house and rescued worms from the sun, and held doors open for strangers, was gone forever. in the days and weeks following his murder, like all of us, james and natalie were people there didn't harbor them with questions -- were be will did wildered and heartbroken, asking questions like how could anyone do this? old -- overned that 30,000 people are killed by gun violence every year. that is 89 people every day including children. gun related fatalities are on track to exceed car accident fatalities. this is unacceptable. subsequently made it my life's work to try to identify realistic sustainable solutions,

and ultimately save other families from having to live this never-ending pain. i am now one of three managing directors of sandy hook promise a nonprofit organization aimed at bringing gun related tragedies down through preventative programs. the bottom line is we as a nation, as americans, individual members, have to do better. shamefully, congress has done ,othing to address is epidemic and thankfully president obama and attorney general lynch are doing what they can within their andority as elected leaders president obama as a father, to take meaningful steps to protecting our children and making communities safer. package of executive action the president is offering will help enforce what is already on the books, adding resources to projects will facilitate a process for law-abiding

citizens who wish to purchase firearms. reporting guns lost or stolen in transit will help minimize the number of firearms ending up in the hands of criminals. applying better technology to firearms and making them safer will cut down on tragedies across the board, from stolen guns, accident shall discharge for children, and suicides. the president has also proposed more resources be available for mental health people. access to quality mental health care is critical to early identification and treatment for individuals who may be on the path to hurt themselves or anybody else. -- todayre you before as an informed, proud american who knows these modest proposals will go a long way toward not only saving lives but improving quality of life. i am also before you today as a grieving father who knows firsthand the cost of inaction. i'm asking you guys to think of my sweet, little dental and what

daniel, and what was lost. and the 90 american families who will lose a loved one today. and the 90 american families who will lose a loved one tomorrow. and so on, every day until we do something. president obama is trying to do something. please help him. sen. shelby: dr. malcolm. dr. malcolm: we are here because -- thank you very much for inviting me today to discuss this important issue. we are here today because on january 5, president obama announced lands to increasing gun control without obtaining the legislative approval of congress. certainly gun safety is essential duty of government, and we are all dismayed by the terrible incidents and rash of shootings that have taken place most recently in the president's hometown of chicago, baltimore,

paris, and san bernardino. the president has the authority and duty to see that existing laws are well enforced. however, members of congress have not ignore the problem. they are sensitive to the need to balance the constitutional rights of american citizens with government measures to keep citizens likely to misuse weapons from obtaining them. however, the president, thwarted in the effort to get his ideas through, is acting on his own initiative to address gun violence. there is a fundamental problem, whether his measures, without congressional approval, are constitutional. i would like to address two of these proposed measures that failed a test of constitutionality. the president has had many opportunities to direct federal

agencies and the execution of the law, but the constitution forbids him from changing the law. this is what he needs to do with his plans to expand the definition of gun dealer. current law requires individuals, as you have heard, who are in the business of selling guns commented that a federal license and perform background checks on buyers. obama would expand as to require everyone who sells a few guns, excludes, toal lot get a federal gun dealer license and perform background checks here it as you heard from the attorney general, it is really not clear how many gun sales would require a seller to obtain a lot -- a license. the penalty which is up to five years in jail and up to $250,000. the atf has warned under the 1968 gun control act, when this type of licensing was passed and part of the law, the court

appel part of the law, that the court upheld convictions for failing to have a license when to firearms were sold in a year. president obama is planning to alter present lot in opposition to the congress. is this permissible? in the famous case of youngstown, in which president truman was not allowed to carry out his planned seizure of gun mills, what he said was that when the president takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of congress, his power is at its lowest. then he can rely only on his constitutional powers.

courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the congress from acting upon the subject. of power,president inclusive and preclusive, must be scrutinized. what is it it is the equilibrium established by the constitutional system. the president's actions alter this lot unilaterally. i have another minute but i would also like to mention the president's plan to put people who are on the no-fly list for being able to purchase a gun, heard, byf us have former senator edward kennedy, surprised to find his name on the no-fly list. it is compiled in secret for the last five years, the aclu has challenged the operation. it is extremely hard to get your name off of the list. does not seem to be any due process to do so. the aclu is representing to

including two marine corps veterans, and a u.s. air force veteran. projectticle their manager wrote, she claims, until the no-fly list is fixed, it should not be used to restrict people's freedoms. that holds true for their freedom to travel, and they should not have the second amendment right for self-defense impugned as well. thank you. >> senator shelby: thank all of you. i will start with you, general strains. according to the president's executive actions, the u.s. attorney general will begin a new dialogue with states to ensure the robust provision of data into the national criminal back on system. yet in recent years, his budget has proposed to cut the funding that grantsram

states and local law enforcement agencies, helping to make technology upgrades that enable better data sharing. at thes has balked president's proposal, and restored funding levels for these important points. strange, howral has the president's disjointed funding and other state related support programs impacted communities in our state of alabama and elsewhere? they have not been helpful. i want to think the leadership and the committee for their support of local law enforcement. as it has been made abundantly clear, without resources, the states cannot adequately get .nformation to the nci s without doing that we have a system that is functionally broken. that is a detrimental thing for law-enforcement. i don't think that i'm speaking

just for alabama, but every law enforcement official at the state level would say that. i did some checking, even though we have had the department provide this information for some time, only recently we have received any money at the state technologyvelop the and information needed to put information into the federal database. senator shelby: shouldn't this be a high priority for the president? a.g. strange: the best thing the committee could do to make this a higher priority. put it into the system. so we can identify gang members and others who would attempt to violate the law. sen. shelby: what senator langford pointed out earlier, i think you are here, i thought that was spot on. in your public service as an attorney general of virginia and in your position of a state

investor -- senator, you have been a strong supporter of the second amendment rights. now as a binding partner in the united self-defense law, which focuses on providing counsel in the area of self-defense rights, you are continuing to focus your career on the protection of the second amendment rights. the first question, do you believe the president's executive actions to implement new gun-control measures will have a deterring effect on violent gun crimes in the country? >> the answer to that is a simple no. what he has done in the area of guns is thoroughly indirect as it relates actual crime either on the street, or when you have tragic mass shootings and mental health-related incidents. there can't be a connection. anyone contemplating crime, when you think of deterrence, you think of them contemplating the

consequences. this will have nothing to do with that. sen. shelby: you have spent a lot of time dealing with mental health issues. how can we do more and what would you recommend? >> in your exchange with general strange, you noticed states reporting information. one of the lessons learned out ofvirginia tech, in the case chou, he had been in the mental health system. but he had not been formally adjudicated without his objection for mental health incapacity. however, he had submitted under mentalrt system, two health treatments. because he went that route, rather than resisting the adjudication, he was not reported to the system. we have fixed that in virginia.

i believe a lot of other state learned some of our informational lessons. if you look about a year or two years after virginia tech, you start to see date at a much higher rate of reporting of these sorts of people to the system. we don't want them to be able to purchase firearms. that was a failure of the system thiswe ought would cover area in virginia. i think a lot of other states are learning from that and fixing it. >> you're not saying we have solved the problem, but we had taken steps in the right direction. >> in virginia, and alabama as well, we stopped hundreds if not thousands of tons sales already. -- gun sales already. many being caught up in the system because of the information being provided this way. those are substantial. that is the one way that we

might have changed the outcome at virginia tech. a lot of these incidents, it is hard to find any way to have changed the outcome based on the kinds of regulatory and physicians the president is talking about here. shelby: the executive actions we have been talking how with what the president proposing, how would it infringed -- infringe on law-abiding citizens? those impression given to operating as individuals, the night in their mind conducting the business of gun sales, is that they are being intimidated and harassed. the attorney general cap saying that they were clarifying. say, i was thinking, she knows what this word means.

that is not what they are talking about. they are holding a five-year prison sentence over the heads of anyone who isn't a gun dealer, and by any objective standard, not be considered one, but does sell a gun. the attorney general has said, one is enough to fall under the umbrella. with penalties like that, the obvious intent is to deter people from a been considering making otherwise entirely legal sales. sen. shelby: millions of americans own guns and i for one, i have sold a gun and taken the money to buy another gun, but i'm not a gun dealer. but under the attorney general's recommendation, the president's recommendation, that could curtail my rights to do that? it affects your actual exercise of the second

amendment. if you are a law-abiding citizen -- i am a gun under -- honor and i have done what you describe. sold one gun and bought another to upgrade. , and my here impression, from the president and attorney general on down, they want people in that situation to twice. maybe not be comfortable selling directly to and from a firearms dealer where there are background checks going both ways. the ultimate effect is to slow down the opportunity to legally purchase by law-abiding , citizens, firearms. that is where the infringement comes on the second amendment. senator shelby: chipping away at our constitutional rights. >> yes, sir. senator shelby: do you believe rather than saving lives, the president's actions could result in more lives lost through the violation of the constitution?