funeral service on friday. it comes up life at 2:00 p.m. eastern time on our companion network c-span. ..

i want to have a conversation about recent policy changes and an approach that i have long called for i would explore with you a host of issues relative to the department including my reit recent fbi i also want to discuss with you at another example of stonewalling at the administration and using the department as a tool for its resistance. the people are now aware that they have used nongovernment service for official business over 2000 e-mails containing

classified information with some containing with what we describe as top-secret, sensitive, compartmented information and other related to special access programs. the department and the fbi have refused to officially confirm basic information about the scope and nature of the investigation to this committee. apparently the fbi is conducting an investigation relating to the mishandling of that classified information. given the politics involved, the potential for improper influence over the work of the investigators and career prosecutors is high. the president and his spokesmen have commented on the merits of the investigation, some news reports say that investigation includes even the clinton foundation. president clinton who was

involved with a pound foundation was appointed to be u.s. attorney in new york. this does not involve anything different than appearances by giving these appearances more needs to be done to ensure the public and the decisions are being made without any influence from political appointees. if the fbi prefers of the matter to the justice department and it refuses to prosecute than the public may be kept in the dark about the fbi findings. but the public has a right to know the facts even if those facts do not result in conviction. it is about a systematic effort to avoid freedom of information laws and federal record laws because you have heard me say so many times that the public's business are to be public. the records of government

business i think, belong to the american people. simply said, the american, the american people ought to know what their government is doing and must be sure that it is free from the interference of political appointees in the executive branch. i conclude now by said i look forward to conducting oversight over these issues, again thank you for being here attorney general lynn chen for engaging in these important parts of our system of checks and balances, and also thank you so many times since you have been attorney general for discussing things with me on the phone one-on-one, i appreciate it very much. now i call on senator leahy. >> thank you very much. i do welcome our nation's top law-enforcement officer by the lynch back to the senate judiciary committee and i commend her for the way she has handled the department of justice. one of the core responsibilities of our committee is to provide oversight of the justice

department and that includes holding public hearings of the attorney general so i would note that on matters of ongoing matters the attorney general has eyes been available to answer questions for members of this committee. but the american people deserve the opportunity to evaluate for themselves the work of the department and i look forward to hearing from the attorney general. including a range of subjects that are important to us in vermont. but public hearings are also a chance for the american people to watch us, their elected officials. america should should be able to see their government in action, they should know whether we are acting on their behalf and whether we are keeping their interest, not partisan politics, at the forefront of everything. i must say that is why the

committee holds hearings for the next nominee for the supreme court, public hearings. the senate's constitution i mention that because for a hundred years we have done that in public hearings. however, for the next nominee the for the supreme court has yet to hold a think a public committee meeting to discuss how we are going to fulfill their constitutional duty. i know the republican committee members met behind closed doors to unilaterally decide without any input from democrats, decided this committee and the senate as a whole, will simply refuse to consider supreme court nominee this year even assuming

if you will that the president fulfilled his constitutional duty to nominate a supreme court justice. it is spelled spelled out very clearly in the constitution. of course we have taken an oath of office under god to uphold the constitution which is advising and consenting to that nominee. by having a unilateral decision for some behind close doors and the derelicts of our constitutional ability and it denies the people a chance to participate in a public discussion of the nominee. now we talk about the justice department responsibility of keeping america safe, we should remember that the senate republicans refuse to consider the next supreme court nominee that is going to make the goal harder for the justice department. republican shutdown of any confirmation process for the supreme court nominee means the court will be missing a justice for probably a year and a half anyway. as several former u.s. attorneys

from ohio and washington, california, virginia recently wrote, the federal prosecutors, agents a year is a lifetime. we see real threats whether it is the heroin epidemic or the threat of isis recruitment facing people in our communities every day. while law-enforcement stands ready to protect the public they need to know the rules of the road. these former law-enforcement officials explain a supreme court unable to function as part of the operative of our nation's laws could be a real challenge to the law-enforcement community. the senate consideration of the next supreme court nomination not be a question of politics or electoral matter. it should be about what we took as an oath to pull the

constitution, so help me god. we should consider nominee to the nation's highest court. it represents the american people every week before the supreme court, hearing today is on the justice department but what looms in the horizon is whether this committee will do its job to barely consider the next nominee to the supreme court's. i hope we will do our job for the good of this country, for our entire justice system. thank you mr. mr. chairman. >> attorney general lynch, i believe we may hear a little bit about things that are contrary

to normal oversight as you just heard from senator leahy. senator leahy has every right to say what he was going to do. i want to react just a minute to what he did because i think i think tomorrow if you want to hear a full-blown debate on this issue, i think we'll have one before committee tomorrow while we are also considering three or four judges that may be a piece of legislation as well. i would respond just very shortly to what senator leahy said, whether it is today, tomorrow or the next seven or eight months, this is a very important debate that we ought to have about the constitution. also about not only who is going to be a replacement for justice scalia, but the role of the supreme court. i get people coming to my town meeting saying how come you don't impeach those supreme court justices? they don't realize that we are the jury in the house and peaches, they are making laws instead of interpreting laws so you should get rid of them. at the grassroots of america there is a real feeling, what is the supreme court doing what the

constitution requires. i will respond to one thing that senator leahy said and that is about the caucus that we had of the people around this room when we sent a letter to the republican caucus of whether or not we should wait for the next election or the senate act right away when the president makes a nominate which he has a constitutional responsibility to do. that was caucuses of the republican members of this committee that we have very frequently. i assume the democrat members have their caucus to talk about things that just how do their respective members feel about issues. i have never been invited to a democrat caucus and i don't think that them a is open to the public. the tomorrow i think we are going to have a debate, in regard to the constitutional function of the congress, most

of the time everything that congress does has to be interactive between the president and the congress. we pass a bill, he vetoes it, we can override or he can sign it and everything is good. there is that relationship. when it comes to these appointments, it is to separate positions. one, the president nominates and the senate consents or withholds consent. they are entirely separate. i think i have some quotes here and i think the other side gets tired of me quoting from members of them but i think it is very important that somehow we have taken a position ahead of a nominee wrong. it is not any different than if the president of the united states notifies congress well in advance of passing a piece of legislation he is going to veto it.

so the constitution makes it clear that it is up to the senate to decide how we do our job, by providing advice to the senate and we get to make that determination with each nomination. i want to point to the wisdom of senator biden not in the speech that i quotes often but another one in 2005, "i do not work for the president of the united states, none of you meeting other senators work for the president of the united states, we states, we are all a coequal branch, equally powerful and important with specific constitutional responsibilities that only we have the right to determine". the last thing i'll say senator reid said in 2005 "the duties of the senate are set forth in the u.s. constitution, nowhere in that document does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote ". you are long term public servant

and you ought to have a long introduction. i would like to give you just a short introduction. you are the 8083rd attorney general of the united states. you were sworn in on april 20 seventh, 2015 following your service as u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. a position you have held twice. you hail from greensboro, north carolina were surprisingly you are still living there and you are a distinguished graduate of harvard college, and harvard harvard law school. we welcome you to the committee. i think i would ask you just to sit because i want to swear you in but you stand up because you get your pitcher the paper. just stay seated. do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you guy? >> i do. >> thank you very much and now you make your segment as lazy

lazy want to make it. >> thank you mr. chairman. good morning, chairman grassley, ranking member leahy and distinguish numbers of the committee. it is good to be here again. i'm grateful for the opportunity to share some of the recent accomplishments of the justice department as well as to outline my priorities as attorney general and to discuss how we can continue working together to create a stronger and safer nation. our first responsibility is to protect the american people. we are working tirelessly to investigate, detect, and disrupt those that are citizens -- we have charged approximately 90 individual since the year 2013 for conduct related to foreign fighter activity, or homegrown violence extremism. we remain focused on the danger imposed by domestic. that means the best getting attacks like the one in san bernardino using tools

available. want to emphasize the department of justice take the responsibility extremely fiercely. we understand that all of these issues raise serious issues and questions for consideration by this body and by the american people. the department of justice we intend to do our duty to protect the american people and to uphold the rule of law. we are also doubling our efforts in cyberspace, where as they do in the physical world, wrongdoers seek to steal data, copy trade, copy trade secrets and threaten our national security. we are using and supporting a wide range of tools to counter cybercrime and terrorist use of the internet, including criminal prosecution, the efforts of our u.s. attorney and partnerships with the private sector. we have created a cyber security unit within our criminal division, we have launched a private-sector private-sector outreach initiative under our national security division. we will continue to explore other ways to meet the challenges of law-enforcement in the digital age.

our first line of defense against terrorism and crime are the brave police officers and agents who risked their lives to keep us safe. we are grateful for their dedication and for their valor. we we are proud to support them in any way we can, from training programs, grant funding, technical assistance, but as we have seen into many communities these vital relationships between law-enforcement officers of the residents we serve and protect have freight. among long simmering tensions have interrupt. i recently launched the second phase in my community policing to her which will take me to cities that are making significant progress in six areas defined by president obama's task force on 21st century policing. i have already visited miami, florida and portland, oregon. i look for to highlighting more examples of collaboration ahead.

one of the greatest hazards to both law-enforcement and the people we serve is an epidemic of gun violence. in january, i recommended and president obama president obama announced, important new steps and guidance that will help keep guns out of the hands of individuals who are not legally allowed to have them. we will enhance the background check system, it will combat on my firearm dealing spur cutting edge gun safety technology. this, since measures measures will make a difference but addressing gun violence or comprehensively will require assistance from congress. i look for to discuss how we can work together to safeguard every american's right to life, liberty, and security. we are also focused on the most honorable members of our society, especially those those who have fallen victim to human trafficking. since becoming attorney general i have expended a program called the anti-trafficking coordination coordination team

initiative. we have to call by its initial so it is called the act team. this this is a collaborative and a survivor centered approach to human trafficking investigations and prosecutions. it unites officials across the government to enhance our antitrafficking efforts. last september i announce the department would provide $44 million in new grant funding to support research, to improve care for the survivors of human trafficking, and also to bring these traffickers to justice. i want to thank our partners in congress, many who are on this committee for their support. by tripling human human trafficking funding for our office of justice program in fiscal 20 2015, on behalf of the survivors

, i thank you. finally want to say a word about criminal justice reform. the department of justice has taken steps to build on the success of the smart on crime initiative which has reduced our use from the harsh mandatory sentences for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses and enabled us to focus on the more serious federal crimes. among other actions we introduce the first ever second chance fellow to advise the reentry counsel which i am proud to chair. to help a formally incarcerated individuals to stand the right path. we have forged partnerships to tackle problems that lead to crime in the first place. we invested invested and will continue to invest in promising federal, state, local and tribal reentry efforts including a 68 million-dollar investment in second chance act grant in fy 2016 and a proposed proposed 100 million-dollar investment in fy 2017. these are important steps. there are so much more to be done. particularly with sentencing reform. i want to take a moment to to thank the members of this committee for your support of

the sentencing reform and corrections act of 2015 which which has been embraced by prosecutors, law-enforcement officers, and legislators of all political ideologies. i'm eager to collaborate with you to secure the passage of this important legislation by the full senate. mr. chairman, i thank you for the chance to speak with you today and for your ongoing support of the justice department's effort. i look for to working closely with you in advance of our shared goals. i'm happy to answer questions. thank you for your time and attention today. >> before we start, i think we'll have seven minute rounds. i would like to asked my members both the republican and democrat , if you cannot get your last question out before the seven minutes are up, don't ask it. usually we wait if you have one second left and you start the question, then we let you go ahead. because i would like to have two

rounds of questioning if we could. by the way, again you mentioned sentencing reform, senator urban and i hope that we have an agreement that is sound, that will make it possible for a leader to bring this up in the united states senate. we have to talk to some of our colleagues not to see if the changes we made our adequate, i know that you as well as others have been helpful in this effort. i want to thank you. current law -- i'll start my seven minutes now. current law prohibits the president from transferring any of the 91 dangerous one dangerous terrorists currently housed at guantánamo to prisons in the united states. yet the president recently submitted submitted a report to congress announcing his intentions to do just that.

in his report, the president said that the administration will work with congress to lift and i want to emphasize, unnecessary prohibitions in current law. these prohibitions from my point of view are unnecessary, they are critical to ensuring this president will not act unilaterally and endanger our public safety and national security. you recently testified it would be against the law for the president to transfer detainees from guantánamo, but but the presidents staff and others close to him keep suggesting that he can use his executive authority and i think then, ignore the law. so the question, does the department of justice believe the president has the authority to violate the nda a and transfer terrorist from guantánamo to prisons, and can you assure us this will not

happen while you are attorney general? now, the last question i think better rephrased is would you be giving advice to the president that he can do it under current law? >> thank you mr. chairman. with respect to the president's policy put forth to close one time obey,t has been discussed over several cycles. this is an issue of long-standing discussion and interest in the administration and within our intelligence committed and are for encounter parts. as is noted in what was submitted to congress, while there are certainly some ongoing efforts to transfer individuals from guantánamo bay, individuals are not able to be transferred from guantánamo bay to a facility on u.s. soil. that is prohibited by the nda a, as you have noted. i believe the presidents policy indicates a desire to work with congress to implement any

necessary changes before this action could be taken. that is my understanding, it's my intention to follow through with that and certainly with the spirit this committee has worked with me in terms of discussing issues i believe that is the plan. >> so on the latter question, it sounds to me that you intend to continue advising the president what the law is, that the law does not allow him to do that. >> yes, the law currently prohibits a transfer to u.s. soil and the president when the work with congress, congress would have to consider any relevant changes that could be made to the law before a transfer could be undertaken. now i would like to ask you how you or your department reconciled this presidents efforts to close gitmo, while at the same time the u.s. military

has launched a complex initiative in iraq and syria to capture, detain and interview leadership and operatives. these are some of the world's most dangerous and savvy terrorist and when they are done interviewing them then they are simply being released to iraq he authorities where our ability to keep tabs on that may be in doubt. so, the extent to which you are involved in explaining to the president what the law and the constitution is, the question that i ask, how do you recognize through your department as advisor to the president this effort to close gitmo at the same time u.s. military is launching these complex initiatives? >> with respect to the president's plan to close guantánamo bay, certainly the

plan was primarily provided by the department of defense which has jurisdiction over that and manages those individuals were there. certainly if we are called upon to provide legal advice as to any changes that may be required in the law we would work not only with the president but with congress that was considered. with respect to the larger issue raised of the current campaign that we are waging against isis, in various countries in the middle east but in particular in syria, that effort is also one that engages not just the department of justice but the department of defense, the department of commerce because again, this is the whole administration approach to attack this enemy at various sectors, to attack their economic base of operations, attack from a military point of view and the department of justice would be involved if prosecutions were to occur or as we often do send legal advisors to other countries to advise on the rule of law.

we do not advise on issues of actual combat. that is not within our area of expertise. with respect individuals who may be captured or confined, everyone would be looked at on an individual basis. certainly it would not be just the department of justice deciding how those individual should be handled. i'm not able to give you that comprehensive overview now, i apologize for that. i will not be able to speak for my fellow agencies on that. i can assure you this is really a whole government approach. those individuals will be looked at and reviewed on an individual basis. we feel we will be able to take the appropriate action against them. >> to not violate my own admonition and my colleagues, i am going to leave out the introduction to this question but it involves going dark and encryption. does the the department of justice going to cortes were backdoor into apple iphones? if not, does apple behavior in the new york in sin

bernadino cases suggest the administration strategy of trying to engage technology company is a failure? >> we do not want a backdoor into apple or anyone else's technology. what we are asking for both of the relevant cases, san bernadino and the one being litigated in brooklyn, new york is for apple to to comply with a valid court order and provide assistance to its customer. the san bernadino case we have requested assistance and in the new york case to provide assistance that it has provided hundreds of times before. we are not asking them to break encryption, we are not asking them to weaken encryption. we are asking them to provide a way to remove a password blocker from the san bernadino phone so the government can try to obtain access to that phone as we feel it is our obligation to do. we do not want to retain or possess anything they may create in order to help us with that.

it would remain with apple. with respect to the new york case as i mentioned, where asking apple to comply with the court order as it has done hundreds of times before on the older model phones in which encryption is not the issue at all. >> senator lee. >> thank you. madame attorney general, i have read read something the other day were immigration judge status, said that three-year-old children can be taught immigration law and represent themselves in court without a lawyer. i seemed at first it was a misprint and then i actually said it. i have been on this committee for decades, a lawyer for decades, i have never heard such a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid thing from a judge or anybody else.

the immigration laws are complex enough anyway but to say a 3-year-old child can represent themselves and learn this, i understand the statement the judges somehow speaking on his personal capacity think i would have fired him on the spot. i do know that we pursue immigration cases against children who do not have lawyers, even though doj has the authority to make sure these children have lawyers. would you agree the justice department agreed that a three-year-old-year-old child cannot comprehend immigration law? >> senator leahy, again i share with you your puzzlement over those statements. >> i'm not puzzled, it's a sheer anger. >> as well as the views as we want to think that our children are precocious but in no way does the department of justice feel that children of that age

or even frankly children older can, or should represent themselves individually. i'm sure those of you on the committee who are former prosecutors and judges would find that a surprising occurrence where if they would show up in your court as well. i do not have an explanation for those comments other than they were in a personal capacity. i simply do not understand them enough to ask play meant to you. i'm not able to provide clarity there. >> but why don't children, if there's children going into court, without lawyers, -wise that happen in? >> we do not take the view that children can represent themselves, currently, in the immigration court while the current law does not provides the right to counsel, as a matter policy we do feel immigration proceedings for all applicants proceed much more smoothly when there is counsel appointed. particularly for unaccompanied children or children in general. the immigration judges as they proceed through their matters

have an obligation to actually stop and put matters on hold if the litigant in front of them is not able to company in the matter. >> but that's rest my question, doj has the authority to make sure these children have lawyers. yet children are going before immigration hearings without counsel. why not just have a blanket policy that they must have counsel? things are not going to go smoothly people don't know their rights. you have a child in their why wouldn't they have, if there is a authority to make sure they why not just exercise that authorities say they have have lawyers. >> we support that is a policy matter, we we support efforts to provide counsel to not discount children but others in

immigration court who do not have counsel through pro bono representation, through nongovernmental groups, we also support congressional efforts to strengthen the policies and laws that would allow them to have a lawyer for every individual. >> but they do have the right now and you have the right, doj has the right to ensure, why not just say hey, there will not be hearing with the child unless they are represented. >> senator, i think you raise an excellent point. we may find ourselves there, i there, i think we're looking to find various ways to support that, we are looking to find various ways to get legal counsel in every situation. >> i think it is a mark against this country if you have children where you think they can learn immigration law. most lawyers around here have a hard time looking through the immigration law. frankly, i think it is a bad

image for a judge to say something that stupid, that reprehensible, to be the face of the united states. now, we talk a lot about opiates , i hope we can get that opioid bill passed in some money for it. i've been inspired by the hearings i've had around vermont and the issue they have responded to help the crisis, comprehensive treatment, recovery act, law-enforcement, pay community to teachers, everybody. but what is happening at the federal level to support states and local efforts? do you see a connection between the growing opiate crisis and the illegal

firearms trafficking? >> thank you senator. i i will start with your last question because i think that and then move to the federal policies that we are implementing and expanding to deal with this crisis. as you noted, it it is a crisis in an epidemic. it affects every state with which we interact, every state in the union. when we look at and not only the increase in firearms stealing but increase in violence levels overall, one of the things we did over the last calendar year is that we directed u.s. attorneys to reach out to state and local counterparts. u.s. attorneys in jurisdictions that have seen an increase in violence in general. not necessarily limited to firearms but a violent crime in general to see if we could pinpoint the causes and these relevant jurisdictions. in many jurisdictions while the causes did very, drug, drug abuse, particular heroine, opiate and methamphetamine abuse were behind upticks in violence as

well as violent crime using guns. there is a connection there as individuals turn to crime to support habits. we do see that. at the federal level we are very concerned about this issue. it's an issue we feel needs to have also a whole of government approach. there is an opiate task force within the administration, the department of justice at summit task force along with the veterans affairs, health and human services, on dcp, so that we can look at all the things that factor into this particular epidemic and ways we can combat it both from a public health issue and a law-enforcement issue. it really is both. from a law-enforcement a law-enforcement perspective, doj has an important role to pull. play. we know we cannot prosecute our weight out of this problem. many individuals who are caught in the grip of this epidemic,

for example most new heroin users are those who previously abused prescription drugs before that. that is a clear gateway to the recent uptick in heroine that we are seen. we have to also look at prescription drug abuse and the public health issues that raises. that involves doctor education, prescriber education, working with states who are doing tremendous work in terms of coming up with systems to record prescriptions that doctors can check and make sure a patient is not dr. shopping. that is important as well. on the impressment side as we mentioned, dea's expanding the task force that focus on heroine. we are working to provide grants and supporting efforts to equip state and local law-enforcement officers within a lock sewn which is a emergency overdose treatment which can be effective when law-enforcement come upon

someone who is experiencing a heroin overdose. often that's a family members and friends make that 911 call and the officers arrived and someone -- they can use this moloch's own and cut down on the risk of death significantly. our deal is they can use this as a tool. supporting our efforts in on the local level as well. >> chairman lynch i have a high opinion of you. i appreciate the work that you are doing at the justice department. i would like to begin with the going dark issue. i miss it is about about law-enforcement, whether law-enforcement should have access to encrypted data on cell phones. i am not convinced that backdoor keys were specially designed software is the answer. bad actors will exploit any avenue to achieve their goals. this includes encrypted devices

and software so by companies outside of the united states. it seems the current dispute is less about one iphone and more about the precedent that it will be established both here and abroad. what would limit law-enforcement the next go around from asking for additional access? is there limiting principle here? can you understand why this is a difficult issue to resolve. >> thank you senator. i think you have highlighted the difficulties of this. i know it's something you spent a great deal of time studying and writing about as well. i appreciate your efforts in this field. and the chance to appear before you in other capacities and other doj witnesses to talk about this. i think it goes back to what you just said in your statement, bad actors will exploit anything to achieve their goal. they currently are exploiting our technological ability in a way in which we handle communications and data.

so as we achieve the wonderful advances that american companies have been able to achieve something that i think we should all be proud of, we have to keep in mind that as we have protected privacy, we have have also balanced it with the need for security. that is the role of our constitution. it is certainly what i see see as a part role of the department of justice. we protect privacy but we also have to protect security as well. what we feel is the appropriate way at this point in time, certainly in the cases before us, is to take a narrow view of the information that we need and the means in which we seek to obtain that information. so so that we would not be asking for major change in example overall operating system but simply a way to enable the fbi to try to get into a particular phone in the san bernadino case. our view has been on our

discussion with companies have been informed by the view that every platform is different and presents different issues. the response to the government should be as narrowly tailored as possible so the relevant platform and protected security will still work with government. i will say is i hope it's been made clear to you and others on the committee that is the attorney general and certainly is a citizen, i support strong encryption. i think we all have to. we needed to protect our data, our financial data, medical our financial data, medical data, the issue hears want proof encryption. just as we have security in many areas of our lives and yet still retain the ability to have very focused responses to law-enforcement, i believe our technology companies, the greatest in the world have the ability to work with us and achieve that. >> i understand your position. i like to turn now to criminal justice reform and specifically the issue of mens rea.

it is to protect innocent actors to be sent to jail accidentally breaking the law. they say that in order to be guilty of a criminal offense a person must have acted with a guilty mind. i like to read a quote from the 1952 supreme court case, morrissette versus united states. the morrissette versus united states. the opinion in the cases by justice jackson. who is one of the all-time great justices, as you know. a contention that an injury can amount to a crime only -- this is his quote. only when afflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. it is a universal and persistent of law that believe in freedom of will and is the ability of the person to choose between good and evil. it was the notion that a criminal act requires a guilty mind, that it is no provincial

or passing notion, i think could you answer that yes or no. >> thank you senator, i think you have given certainly one of justice jackson's most pressing quotes on this issue. i think sternly is a practicing prosecutor for over 20 years, having to prove that element is an important part of many parts of the case, i recognize also that this body has seen fit to provide different levels of intent and a work in those levels as well and i work with congress as it sitters how to handle this in terms of criminal justice reform. >> do you agree that mens rea is a universal feature of our system. i certainly agree that it's an essential features of our legal system and certainly one of the defining elements and as to how we characterize certain

activities. >> do agree that unless congress has provided otherwise, person should not be convicted or sent to prison without proof of criminal intent? >> i believe congress has taken that responsibility very seriously as it is crafted. our criminal code and as i work with the criminal code i is taken that very seriously. i think congress has recognized the need to have varied levels of intense and very means to prove them. our courts have interpreted that in ways that have been useful in protecting important interests such as our environmental interest and public safety interests. as i indicated indicated before i look for to working with congress to explore this issue, i think it's a very important issue and one in which we concert we look to refine the ways in which we make sure as we prosecute offenses that we are clear and the requirements that are set forth, that the defenders have notice of what is in fact prohibited. >> okay, i will accept that. on that. on topic of trade secret, this committee recently reported the hatch coons vote by -- now it's

by the majority of the senate, i'm optimistic that this legislation can get to the president's desk in the near future. with that said, that said, do you agree with me that a right of action will -- in prosecuting trade secret cases? >> tank you. i'm very happy to see the progress of that bill throughout. i know know it is something that not only impacts prosecution but also as we look to protect our intellectual property in so many ways the protection of trade secrets there. we are committed to prosecutions under the current law and look forward to working with you to advance this bill as well. we look forward to continuing those discussions. it's a very important issue. >> thank you. i need just 30 seconds. >> senator hatch has asked to make a short statement. >> just really a closing statement. >> i have one last request for

you to take back. it has been nearly two years as the department began working on revisions to the ask and dmi consent decrees. i would like you to ask you consider could you consider with your subject matter experts and an update on when the revisions arcs expected i would appreciate that. >> thank you, we surely will. >> welcome madame attorney general, it is good to see you again, i want to begin by thanking you and hopefully you will think the head of the fbi for the fbi strong position on the issue of encryption and a probable cause court order. it is my deep belief that no american company is above the law and that particular industry should comply. i wanted to ask you a couple of questions,

google, microsoft, dropbox, dropbox, and other e-mail and cloud service providers use forms of encryption to protect customer data. there encryption techniques are strong. that makes them relatively well protected against outside attack. the reality is that many companies only protect data like your e-mail and ways they can still use it themselves and profit from it. i believe the amount of personal information in the hands of private corporations and what some of those corporations are doing with that data is concerning, isn't it true that private companies can encrypt data so that it is protected from outsiders, but at the same time those same companies can use our personal contact data to target advertisements?

>> thank you for raising this important issue. it certainly is the case that many companies on those that you mentioned and others have strong encryption which we think is a very positive thing yet retain the ability to use the data that is transmitted along their systems both for security purposes as well as marketing purposes. so it is certainly the case as we have seen in our talks with various companies that strong encryption can be accompanied with the ability to still access the data and use it in relevant ways. we think it is something that is part of the overall debate on this important issue. as we all consider and as you have noted how much personal information we willingly turn over to private companies and how we want that information handle. certainly as we continue to discuss these issues i thank you for raising them and making them part of the debate. >> thank you very much because with my own devices and i am not the most hit person when it comes to all of this, i have been amazed to learn what i

cannot control. my understanding is it is private information like web browsing history, e-mail content, geolocation information, even when encrypted on smart phones, i think it is an area of concern as companies want to defy a probable cause more that they can use this data for their own prophet making motives. that is of concern. second question, as you know, there is a relentless and growing ice is recruitment effort through social media platforms. recruitment is repeatedly identified in nearly all of the 80 criminal indictments brought by your department during the past two years regarding isis. i understand the civil injunction authority already exists for the attorney general

to obtain orders against those who provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, and to unlawfully spy on people. the authority has been used to compel third-party providers to stop their participation in these crimes. has the department made any effort to use its civil authority under the material support law to combat the use of the third-party like financial providers or internet companies by isil? >> thank you for raising that important issue. certainly as we look at the unfortunate spread of violent experience extremists and accompanied the activity in the us, much much of that recruitment as you notice on my. we do see various platforms being used, we have actually had great success in working with

the provider companies in these situations and in pointing out to them situations where we feel terrorist are using their platforms to communicate. for many of the tech companies that violates their own terms of services. they have been very helpful in this regard in using their own criteria to remove recruiting material, jihadist material, extremist material and the like. again trying to again trying to balance the first amendment concerns there. that is an area in which we work well with the tech companies and other companies. that has been a productive dialogue for us. when it comes to the financial industry, as we look at those who use financial services to provide support we also found that industry cooperative in terms of providing information. >> thank you very much, i have been very concerned about some of the material put out by terrorist organizations which

can train pictures of people to kill with their names, where to sit on the plane, to have the best effect from a bomb and particularly the recipe for a bomb that can go through a magnetometer which is real and when tested would explode a plane. i visited with the general councils of the major tech companies and asked them to remove this material, the answer i got was that no, we will not. that answer has very much struck and mike -- we all know the boston bomber use the recipe from one of those magazine how to do it of the pressure cooker and got it from one of these magazines. so the fact of the matter is, that this does not belong in the public domain is my very strong

view because the safety of our people depend on it. they just passed me a note, would an an injunction help you in some cases? >> certainly we would look at the facts of every case and start discussions with the relevant company. when we speak with the companies we do try to balance the first amendment issues with the security issues there. as i indicated, many in particular, twitter has been responsible in removing. >> i found that two and facebook wants to cooperate as well. i think that is helpful. but the others i got a solid no. >> i think that is an unfortunate response. i would say in my meetings with the same tech companies we received a request for more information and guidance and to classify that material for removal the videos

in particular are an area of concern for the providers that have a communication services as well. i think they actually are struggling to differentiate when the video first comes across something they can block their terms of service. as it turns into a new story or news reporting they're struggling with that balance of how to not propagate this but still provide news and commentary on something. >> ..

>> >> the fbi doesn't have any authority to go to court? >> i am confident that but people understand their roles of different agencies of the law enforcement comedienne of the fbi and the doj but i intended to start with your comments about the violence with that other issue in a moment do believe this plays a role to

the gun violence we have experienced over the last few years? >> with those specific cases that it has been adjudicated we can say that otherwise it is speculation. otherwise the issue that is cutting across so many law-enforcement issues today both from how we police to violent crime in a bandage our prisons now suddenly how it relates to how we firearms in this country essentially to be sure we continue to have the right to have responsible firearms and balancing those who are not allowed to have firearms because of the adjudication of mental illness. >> i could not agree more. of the adjudication issue was in the virginia tech shooting for example,.

what the state had not uploaded that through the background check system. i could not agree more to the intersection of mental-health lead gentleman who has introduced himself is the sheriff of the lsc angeles county. many people were homeless but don't have adequate treatment to those that need additional resources to help their loved ones looking at the mental health community is act and i was looking -- look forward to your input.

>> i will review that. >> getting back to the role of the fbi into moved have the investigation of some sort that secretary clinton had previously deleted 30,000 emails that she did not send to the state department. and now the courts go through the process to determine for the freedom of information act.

but it is true that they cannot be granted by the fbi alone to require the department of justice to go to court to grant immunity is part of the ongoing investigation. >> there is limited use and some from an agreement between the defense counsel so certainly regardless that is something done in conjunction with the attorneys to make the decision. >> in this case to the department of justice approved of the agreement? >> with respect to that specific case we don't discuss the specifics of any ongoing investigation. >> i am not asking about the specifics but procedure. >> with procedure with any

specific witness i cannot comment on the interactions. so the fbi cannot go to court without the department of justice approval and you go together and with the department of justice that you have. >> it is depended on the type of immunity. >> you already said that. >> yes. >> if you make a referral to the department of justice with us agree injury of that purpose as an operational

procedures rework with that discretion with all relevant factors of the investigation and to come to a conclusion. >> to have somebody else working a deal with the department of justice. >> end to not cut them out of the up process. >> i am not suggesting he would cut the amount if the fbi makes a referral to persist a the criminal charges and anybody involved in this case or this affair

affair, does that rest with you or somebody that works for you with the department of justice? >> with respect to anyone who has been identified as a potential witness i cannot comment on the specifics. >> i am not asking you to comment on the specifics but the standard operating procedure it seems pretty straightforward that the fbi does a criminal investigation then refers the charges to the department of justice including the u.s. attorney's maybe the more celebrated cases go higher up the food chain doesn't the buck stops with you whether to proceed to seek an indictment or convene a grand jury and prosecute a case referred by the fbi? >> there are many levels of review of various stages.

i would not necessarily be revoked -- involved in every decision. >> i am confident of that. [laughter] >> well done attorney-general. >> in just to speak for myself you would have made a great supreme court justice and nominee. from this committee we had before us a long and arduous acrimonious confirmation process oppose that she was

eminently qualified. wasn't about her record, her character, entirely about politics. with the only cloture vote required for the attorney general in the united states but you are far from being the only one to suffer madam attorney general. many others have suffered togas regard. to hold hearings on the supreme court nominee but in with a majority led confirmation in process. republicans have confirmed the u.s. civilian nomination than in the senate in decades and these are important post with the

chief distinction is officer in commissioners for the ftc the board and the fed and the ex-im bank and the senate has confirmed far fewer judges did any recent comparable session. with the public majority not doing their job but the appointments up and down the line. it has tripled since the republicans gained the majority. in those that have the support of the home state to hold our republican colleagues will not play politics. the bottom line is if the senate does it do its job to confirm nominees so now we will focus on the supreme court.

there represents u.s. government in every court case in which it has an interest. correct? criminal and civil that is a lot of cases probably many times larger than the biggest law firm. >> we are the largest law firm in the world. >> don't you rely on the federal courts to be arbiters of significant legal disputes? >> they are important in the process. >> united states was a party interested the vast majority so a functioning supreme court mattered in terms of functioning. >> and through the department of justice what happens if the group deadlocks the lower court's opinion would stand. >> but many places in the

justice department in the private sector paralyzed or put them on hold? companies may wait for a decision your agency may not be able to prosecute if there is the deadlock for red division. >> we have to evaluate to allow them to proceed with the matter and there are times that they cannot proceed. and to proceed to protect the american people to the best of our ability regardless of the circumstances. >> this is the extradition in case it is heartbreaking and i want to ask for your help to bring those perpetrators to justice on march 14 vladimir that was

brutally killed after being shot at the end of the business day with the witnesses from brighton beach from 30 years ago. that contained $32,000 the list of whom was killed but unfortunately the suspects fled the country before they could be prosecuted one was arrested in australia the n.y.p.d. has been diligently working to be extradited to be tried for murder and the family can receive justice. before we have an extradition treaty with australia it is within our authority to bring the killer back but they have been waiting seven years. will you help try to look into this so they don't have

to wait longer? >> the am looking at this extradition matter we look forward to being in consultation on the matter as to what might be the issue. >> we may need some help and whenever you can do to get justice would be appreciated. we have a school district in the hudson valley someone is angry about this school and they are plagued by attacks to make repeated threats of violence against the school. the school has to be evacuated sometimes the kids have to stay after 3:00 control law enforcement authorities make sure it is safe.

summer keeping their kids at school and repeated 13 instances of swatting just half of them to the maple hill elementary you to imagine the fear the kids and the parents have that we have a problem because the caller is hiding behind the locked in numbers we have spoken to the local fbi in they are helping us so this is a national problem. first we ask you to make sure that the resources to find the perpetrator. second, what more can we be doing to deal with these incidents that i think a nationwide? >> it is a nationwide issue and we do not view these as

pranks were childish calls but they are serious and divert resources or that they terrified children and parents into have long-term issues. and we do intend to prosecute. and we are happy to work with you on legislation in as well. but we do take these efforts very seriously. and outside of new york state also. >>. >> actually it is. >> as a small rebuttal to what you said about the court and to go into detail

of judicial vacancies. there are 31 and we have 12. thank you. good morning. so with that continuing sanctuary city around the west the senator the policies in terms of not wanting to dissuade those illegals the would-be witnesses and those are not reporting those illegals on the criminal and in the

event from the san francisco. do you think it is allowed for the local jurisdiction to prohibit the police force from supporting the legal status of somebody that is convicted? >> search of the you have raised an important issue that affects the interaction with the local jurisdictions the you have noted b'rith federal policy of aliens particularly those who cannot of federal custody. it has highlighted this issue. and with those two particular matters with a whole man security with the

jurisdiction is a report to them. >> i don't want to cut you off the my time is limited deal agreed or disagreed to report illegal status for those convicted of a crime? >> with the current state of local jurisdictions are handling this matter what we have done as a policy we have a new policy regarding those in the past have refused to turn individuals over to us or for deportation. >> the law says no government entity including states or local may prohibit

or restrict any government entity to receive from the intelsat regarding citizenship for this data is lawful or unlawful. >> we're defending that position in court now. >> so based on the position and those of their illegal status. and if that predicts that particular statute to fall under again that the jurisdiction and should report. as it reported in the statute that information we would need in expanding this

century cities someone that has been arrested any convicted bed now through the spokesperson in to is

that correct. >> that policy is in question to police new orleans and when we needed information as part of the responsibility and that is the interest in ending of that situation. >> i have given my understanding of the situation. with that consent decree. maya and the standing is new orleans does provide information to us of illegal immigrants. >> this policy specifically prohibits from reporting the illegal status including

those arrested and convicted across to specifically from tallying ice when he is releasing from his local prison who visited illegal status specifically. that is troublesome particularly given the statement of the justice department approved the policies to neck that is not maya understanding of the terms of the policy. they are provided to give information is required to the authorities so we can have our responsibilities for those individuals. >> including if i said asked them on a regular basis of the legal status and in any person be released from jail

due to the illegal status? >> i am not aware of the provisions to that. and with those that have a practice of not providing information to have individuals in custody to is a the state charges that we take seriously. been to not provide the information. >> was last statement. if you read the policy in black-and-white and clear words that is wrong. that the n.y.p.d. shall not engage or support immigration enforcement in

response to the direct threat of safety or when the services are required for a court order issued by a federal judge. '' that means as i am describing the they will not tell i.c.e. when they have a convicted criminal under illegal status. they will not tell i.c.e. when they are releasing a person from the local jail. >> if the attorney general wishes she should respond before i start my time. >> the q mr. chairman. new orleans has indicated they will provide this information in those issues you raised under a court order was issued under public safety and would allow us to undertake that responsibility.

>> so the similarities with the tobacco industry that tobacco stranger -- dangers were unsettled. in the fossil fuel industry that the carbon emissions danger is unsettled and is remarked on widely particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus. under president clinton and the department of justice brought a civil action against the tobacco industry but it has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme a request of action by the department of justice is referred bayou to the fbi. my question in to you is an

under the civil matter and is referred to the fbi. >> takes for raising that issue. we have received information about it and referred to the fbi to see if there meets the criteria to take action. outside of what you just raised. >> are there any simple cases but that civil division in the fbi is preparing that case. >> with country and? >> that is a question for the record.

into file a civil demand prior to the institution of the proceeding to protect evidence to refer this matter to the fbi did you authorize them to issues of the old pavilions. >> i could give you the specifics of that ahead of time. had designated the fbi or anyone as the custodian. >> to be head term in the rico section. >> i cannot provide the information above with respect to the fbi specific steps we cannot give you an outline.

>> whether or not they were used on the attorney general's authority. >> they always have that authority but whether or not it is a particular case. >>. >> and to give those events and doubts. >> the campaign finance requirement from the wild west the several election commission from three commissioners from their own chairman that is called dysfunctional. and with that campaign finance area in that one area where they still operate requires that the federal forms be filed of a

reporting requirement. and to do the same organization to be on one form and also under oath on another form. is it true that false statements from the section and? >> and with that statement made under oath or orally to federal agents. >> with that bread-and-butter of the department of justice? to retail not sure that is a characterization but there is a tool ws. >> and with a referral. >> we use those in the field

>> can you tell us if they have taken steps of any kind to inquire into the flagrant consent -- statements made under oath in that state election in commissions in what they said under oath to the ira's. >> we take all allegations of any relevant statutes. >> the concern i have that the department has a hearing on this before you were attorney general in the department has taken the position of the election

commission makes a referral and would not take notice of the open played santa vittoria isn't evident conflict between public statements made under oath and that seems to be hard to understand given the very simple nature of the up prosecution it is a matter that requires those to delve deeper into a tax law and if they are a newt -- irreconcilable it if there is an explanation that is fine but none rather than simply allow this atmosphere to continue.

bridge time is expired. >> fakes for joining as today. the department of justice recently obtained a court order requiring apple to enter your software that currently does not exist to enable the government to bypass security mechanisms built previously used by one of the california shootings. there were those that used in they were crushed end and accessible because they did not physically exist anymore. this particular phone was a work phone speculating it was not destroyed for work

purposes. it as the subject of this effort resulting in this effort by the department of justice to require apple to engineers' offer that does not currently exist. and what is this is their eight o were appropriate for those usages. in for it to allow the court to demand anything and everything it still has to be agreeable to those principles of law. is your position if it permits those to compel private parties to engineer software? >> as has been laid out in the relevant case it is the

position with a variety of quartz including the supreme court does require that third parties to read quire assistance when necessary to execute the lawful court orders. and with those third parties are able to give that assistance so provides the legal authority to provide assistance but that type will vary from case to case. >> while limiting principles will re-read to authorize the court for software that doesn't already exist? but that effort of that company to create something that does not exist?

and then to allow the government with some other mechanism perhaps the software arm lock a camera or the phone microphone or the location system in order to assist the government there as this -- assuming apple is at issue doesn't have software to do that. what principle would stop the government from using that to compel the product? >> looking at that assistance needed and in a row of the case here the government is asking apple to upload the phone but with the passwords are doesn't destroy evidence civic but that is not apple of blocking the floater going into extract or taking

certain steps. every case from jurisprudence will be developed by the facts for cohousing it is a customer request for a company to provide assistance to a customer that first came from the order of the phone. so that is an issue that is of relevance and important also. what we have tried to do is have a very narrow focused inquiry into potential evidence. >> the supreme court has stated with those u.s. marshals service's. with a residual source of authority read statute had the issue at hand but importantly there was a law

that deals with issues in this area. it explicitly states that it does not authorize any law-enforcement agency to require a specific design for features or configurations to be adopted by telecommunications equipment. and the carrier should not be responsible to assure the government's ability to equip information and the equipped. in the carrier possesses the information and necessary for the communication''. does this apply here? >> a think the relevant laws we feel are applicable are they doubt in the pleadings of the case i will refer you to those briefs rather than

to put limited discussion of one law here. >> a understand but it is important nonetheless made a standing the department of justice takes the position that it does not apply. and that seems odd because apple is a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment is to be a responsible for decrypting plan also find it troubling this administration for congress for a long time to required by statute that apple and others provide a back door key to be used by law-enforcement. that effort failed but then

that changes. because it fails it is that much more disturbing that there was not enthusiasm in congress with legitimate public policy concerns expressed with connection with that idea. congress declined to adopt such legislation and then the government goes into court and that was intended not to comply in certain circumstances. a remedy and a policy decision. it should be handled by congress. not the federal courts. my time is expired. >> just briefly mr. chairman? things raising these points.

per this is important for debate and discussion and with the congress and the american people but with an obligation to proceed that is from prior testimony we don't want the back door we want companies to do what they have been doing for years to provide assistance when and how they can in with every specific case in most respects believe we did not wait for congress to stop considering an issue to bring the court action. someone killed 14 people and in the course of the investigation a customer asked for assistance to obtain information the same way if we needed to get into their desk or locker we go

to the order or if they go to the manufacturer to help gain access in a way that would not destroy what was inside is the situation in here. that is part of that consideration. in those will require how we handle these issues and continue that constitutional value we have always done in this country with a right to privacy. also with that safety and security rights of every american which is my sworn duty. >> things for being here today in the course of this campaign with those candidates that have been hateful. one refers to syrian refugees as rabid dogs and donald trump the front runner said we should ban all muslim immigrants.

in with that monetary of hate crimes and with law-enforcement from american muslims. >> i raised a very important issue in that hearing with the open airing of the concerns with the rhetoric we are hearing of those of any religion or perceived indifference and then we protect that even hateful speech is protected even when it crosses the line

when violence occurs. we take it very seriously as something that could be a precursor to violence. protecting the balance of free-speech to incite others to commit violent acts. we saw that with 9/11 with the acts of violence and so it can happen that is indicative of the values of your country. before there were flashpoint incidents there on both sides of the law with the

concerns they are concerned about bullied in school the we find that very helpful as rebuild law enforcement investigation. >> as asked earlier about the men's area, assistant attorney general caldwell testified in opposition to the senator hatch legislation on the ted kennedy be more forthcoming or more specific it is my in the standing linlithgow's crimes there is that strict standard of adulteration.

with that federal government or otherwise for crimes involving child pornography or sex trafficking. argues dan example where we have the crime on the books that you will be held criminally responsible. and they could not have known they were american terrorists but they could be held responsible so can you expend more on the issue of mens rea? >> certainly for the opportunity to comment further we look forward to working with you and other members of the committee to interact with the sentencing reform.

we have decided there are crimes that liability would be important than to ensure the protection of those that serve as. assaulting the federal agent but our activities as a society in congress have deemed to be such a nature to incurred criminal liability. and that is a strict liability because of the nature of those crimes to prove to find somebody guilty to establish they are responsible that they took those actions for a particular purpose. the specific the mens rea that there were american

tourist would still not alleviate the government of its responsibilities so they would be held accountable in day did not know in that example that americans were involved to be used appropriately as to what they could be found liable for. >> to commute the sentence at the age of 24 never served one day in jail was found guilty of a third strike with the sale of drugs and was given a life sentence. he served 22 years i have worked with him and that is excessive in and way beyond what should have been imposed.

there are 20,000 clemency petition is it doesn't appear you have the capacity to deal with that in a timely way. >> with respect to clemency the number of petitions i am not sure it is that i but to put in place practices to work through the backlog to those resources that we can't is committed to working through the process. it is part of a larger system of criminal justice reform. with the issues of the results with good intent. >> i admire your poris and

what you have done to prepare for the oversight hearing article one section nine clause eight of its officials accepting money for foreign government while in office the constitutional convention prevented foreign influence on government officials and according to secretary clinton filings she and former president clinton will receive payments directly from foreign governments or the instrumentality with those publicly released emails to analyze of that joy in, violated the restrictions has the justice department analyze if that has violated that provision? to make your raising an issue but the matter that is under discussion is under

the department review how the state department handles classified information. >> is it possible to have the department looking into with and report back? >> if you provide information we will see i cannot promise a report at this time. and no issues or timing ora those relevant rules. >> in one final question that the justice department did not play a role with those legal questions that can be raised from those speaking engagements and as ethical questions based on the joint filings of secretary clinton.

>> i am not sure the timing of when that would have occurred site won't have an answer we may want to raise that with the state department civil again that i wanted to ask the question about the inspector general's report in part of that was entitled to strengthen procedures at the time you don't have the opportunity to go to the inspector general's report. have you had an opportunity as the chief executive? >> i have not read that report specifically that i

am aware that changes the department made throughout most of of 2015 to ensure those disciplinary procedures were consistent to provide resources for responsibility. >> movie that down to a lower level of detail rigo there is i backlog and from your confirmation hearing i raised debt issue with the claims backlog it doesn't look like we have made much progress also the of a length of time that there were over 1,000 claims

outstanding do you think that backlog is appropriate in that length of time to close the claims and is not what action are you taking? >> that is a very important issue that i had occasion to discuss with the groups meet with regularly. the public safety officers benefit program is managed through the department office of justice. but part of the issue is the nature they received they are looking to set and place their own system to streamline to make sure they're requesting only what

they need and acting as clip -- quickly as possible. in to give the status reports and updates. and to have frequent conversations with but those that are involved in these tragedies that you refer to end up holmes stayed there is the tragedy we take that responsibility seriously. >> and we will follow up with any sort of measures that may be necessary and for those reasons to prolong the closure of the tragedy. >> i have the final question

with criminal justice reform levy be aware in north carolina with the reinvestment act to reduce recidivism and improvisation and full dash am probation violation. do you share any concerns you would like us to work gone? i know you're getting support but i was curious. >> a very important issue that i appreciate the efforts of everyone to work with us. with respect to potential changes of criminals and firearms offenses we're working at the staff level to make sure we move forward with reform to still deal with the serious issues

raised in from the department polenta of view even if those are not the issues we do feel there should be a presentation to the relevant judge. every day la forward to talking further. i commend north carolina on the reinvestment act because over the last several years we were down for what we're all extremely grateful. >> eight you for being here and i will start by thanking you for your focus on sex trafficking in the implementation of the trafficking act that we have worked so hard for go and i have had good results in to

stand for that anti-a tracking coronation teams. the twin cities are one of them but you have 86 percent increase of convictions compared dash 14% can you comment with what is happening with the piece of the bill to develop a national strategy to combat human trafficking? >> with respect to tremendous excess to raise the conviction rate and the ability to open those cases so to bring six more cities and districts on board hoping for better results as well.

and the tip of the speaker of the approach to do with human trafficking that partnership with the vhs and the department of labor to enable us to not only bring the case but a real support for the victims of trafficking because the trauma doesn't end with a conviction. along with the bill on the issue a national strategy is in progress but as part of that the team that has been in his into a collaboration between department of labor and doj and a homeland security. . .

>> also supporting the ngos that the survivors turn to. they often don't call law enforcement first. >> we look forward to continuing that work. we have cases in the twin cities with islamic extremism recruiting of extremists, a number of ink statement saying convictions in all of our federal enforcement is working together and doing a good job here. the violent extremism is very

important. it's worth three areas were featured where the twin cities in terms of the work there during, can you tell me what doj is doing and we are continuing to try to get more money of the budget for this effort? >> thank you very much. a very happy the twin cities is a pilot city in our program for combating violent extremism. focusing on those communities, listening to them and what they need. that will be helpful to us as we develop it. we have a strong enforcement piece when it comes to combating violent extremism and particularly the home grown extremists we see here in the country. most recently within the last two years we have seen individuals seeking to leave the u.s. to travel overseas, we have prosecuted more than 85 individual so far. of great concern is the fact that over the years that the ages dropping. they are getting younger and younger, the median age is 21

years or less. we are seeing more young women being involved. not a majority but those numbers are increasing. >> right, i appreciate the law-enforcement piece of it. the concept was to intervene early when schools another see signs of it. i believe we still have more private money in it and we have some federal money so we are really trying to push hard to get the additional funds. >> to be very helpful. i think the twin cities will be a good example of that. one thing we are doing is working with silicon valley in the tech industry to help us as well as madison avenue, to provide assistance from the nongovernmental side and combating violent extremism. i think think it is better to say the government is not necessarily the best messenger for that. we are not the voice of young people who are on the edge are going to listen to first. >> i would agree. i'm glad we're doing that. if we want to use this model where we're try to identify kids early in the coordinate the community to circle around them, we probably

need funding to get some of that going. the white house featured our area so that is where we are continuing to work to get that done. my last question is about the cops program, senator murkowski and i leading this effort for the reauthorization. i think you how important as someone who has been a prosecutor funding of the local level is for community policing. could you talk about the grants and how an increase in funding would be helpful? >> with respect, we we recently have within our cops program some grants for local law-enforcement dealing with the heroin issues. that program essentially for financial reasons has been shifted, i don't want since been taken away because in fact it now resides within dea. dea is going to have six

additional heroine based task forces to deal with this issue. obviously while those in poland state local law-enforcement officers we understand that the prior cops program was a great source of support for local law-enforcement, as they had targeted efforts that were very effective as well. we greatly appreciate your and senators efforts. murkowski of alaska. we have a good team. the last thing. >> the last thing i want to mention is on the op edit bill and we look for to continuing to work with the justice department. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your courtesies and your leadership.

we appreciate that. the number of questions that are important and will have time to go into fully today, i would like to race among them. first, in response to my colleague senator durbin, the leading republican candidate said we should have a moratorium on immigration from muslim immigration until we figure out what is happening. not a permanent ban. i want to say it is critically important that the american people and everybody knows that when a person is in our country, they are entitled to have their religion respected. the constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and that must be honored. i would note that nato commander philip testified before the armed services committee not long ago, that terrorists are infiltrating refugees in europe

where he is the commander and that isis is spreading like cancer within this mix. he even said russia's action in syria has a wildly exacerbated the problem. if it's into a strategy of using nonmilitary means to divide nato. this is not a little matter. i know you know that. i will not go into the details about it. with regard to drug situation that is happening today and increase in heroine of the deaths that we're seeing, do you believe law-enforcement plays a critical role in reducing the abuse of drugs, at reducing heroin and cocaine and deaths that are now current? >> thank you. as we discussed this epidemic it is a grave concern for us. law-enforcement's has an important role to play particularly in the interdiction of hair when trafficking. the

apprehension of those who are bringing heroin both into the country and spreading it throughout. >> i would agree with that. the interdiction is is probably a key thing for the federal official, although that is not all. they are major drug dealing networks in major city and throughout the city and in rural areas too. they need to be attacked by federal officers. but the interdiction i think is verse. i was i suggest to you that a more secure border is essential because isn't it true that the majority of the cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine amount that we are seen in america is coming across the border of mexico? >> with respect to methamphetamine, a lot is made here. >> i know a lot is made here but isn't the majority, across from mexico question mac. >> i cannot give you -- >> what about heroine. >> certainly the mexican border is a major shipment point for heroin and cocaine. >> the majority.

>> when i was prosecuting we we had airplanes about some things of that nature and different areas coming in. the trend has changed and we have seen the movement across the mexican border, have have we not? >> it has certainly grown to rival other areas although i would hesitate to say that we take art attention away from the ports, the ships, the boats. >> i think it clear to clearly is a majority. it was noted 47,000 people died from drug overdoses in 2014 and it is still rising. that is one. that is one drug overdose death every 12 minutes. 61% involved opiates, the opal had overdose in the opiate overdose has tripled 6000, national survey of drug use and

health under this administration leadership produced a report sent there were approximately 169,000 new heroin users in 2013 alone. the substance abuse and mental health services and 2014 found 589,000 people in the united states had an opiate disordered. this is a huge thing. this destroys lives. not just overdose deaths. people unable to function and work anymore. families are destroyed. people destroy their whole careers, young people destroyed their ability to have a financial secure future. they commit crimes and in furtherance of these addictions. the dea administrator chuck rosenberg noted that 120 people die a day of her when overdose

in the united states. what i'm saying to you is, and and you indicate that law-enforcement plays a key role, but the center for disease control prevention noted that law-enforcement must intensify its efforts to reduce the availability of heroin, fennel and other illegal opiates, would you agree to that? speemac's early that is an important goal and a goal of ours. >> mr. rosenberg said those that must have the tools they need to attack criminal groups who facilitate drug addiction, do group that. >> those are a major target ours both here and overseas. as you also noted with the number of new heroin users every year, over one 60,000 sadly over 80% of those our prior prescription drug abusers. we also continue our efforts both from enforcement perspective and prevention

perspective in the prescription drug. >> i appreciate that. are you aware of the fact that your own executive office of the united states attorney that operate under your direction, at the end of 2015 found six month average of drug prosecution by the u.s. department of justice was down 21% compared to five years ago? are you aware that excluding prosecutions in federal magistrate court that six month average was nearly 32% lower at the end of 2015 the five years ago? >> the number does not surprise me because we have moved through a process of focusing less on the lower level individual offenders toward targeting the traffic networks that you have noted. those are really the focus of ours. we will have evolved -- >> i would say to you that i have heard that argument that we

are also always focusing on higher people. i do not believe that. the attorney general has abandoned the equitable sharing of drug proceeds with local law-enforcement which is degenerating the cooperation needed to attack these gangs. we are proposing more reductions and sentences after senator durbin and i agreed on a reduction plan that passed and reduced cocaine significantly. now we have to have more. prison population prison population is declining at a rapid rate, it was down 5000 last year, the budget for the prisons is being raised deuce as a result a substantial decline in population. at the same time, the drug use is surging. deaths are occurring. in my opinion it is going to get worse. mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership and i enjoyed working with you.

>> it looks to me like we had coons and then senator graham. i would like to go over there to have a vote right now or soon and vote and come back here. i would like to have seven more minutes with the attorney general. >> would you like me to chair? >> would you please. >> yes sir. >> you will be the last one to turn the lights out. so that is the way we'll plan it then, is that okay with you? senator coons now. >> thank you chairman grassley. jimmy grassley i was encouraged at the beginning of the hearing at your comment that you believe our bipartisan sentence reform bill may soon be able to move forward. i'm pleased also the comprehensive reduction act which is a comprehensive effort is also moved forward. it is

possible for this committee to make bipartisan progress. although rare, it is possible. i was also encouraged by your comments on the response to the question on senator hatch. let me start by thinking you met him attorney general and all the men and women of federal law-enforcement for what you do to tackle very difficult issues facing our country. from drug addiction and counterterrorism to the healing relationship between law enforcement and the community they serve. let me start with a few critical issues that relate to the support for state and local law-enforcement. gun violence has been a significant problem for my home town in delaware, the department reduction network has a tremendous positive impact so far. the program is now the second round of the city partnership, i am hopeful the department intends to continue to support it and expend it. that there is some likelihood that the annual conference will be held and i would be

interested in hearing what sort of improvements you see being implemented in the violence reduction network this year and how you see the program in the future? >> i think you. on behalf of the men and women in the department of justice, all the law-enforcement agencies as well as the staff who work to support them, the lawyers that implement their cases, i cases, i think you for your comments about their service and i greatly appreciate your recognition of them. i i am proud to represent them every day. the violence reduction network is an important tool. we have have found it to be one of the ways in which we have been able to bring focus, law-enforcement resources at a very cost-effective way to jurisdictions that have been struggling with historically high crime rates. in wilmington, delaware it has been one of our success stories. we have asked for more money in the budget for, for fy 2017. $5 million is not a lot compared to other things that we ask for. certainly the benefit will be

great. we currently already have at least ten or 12 cities and we are planning on bringing five more cities on board. as you know from your experience, to be a city it requires a certain level of crime that we do not every city to aspire to. the lessons we feel could be very useful to other jurisdictions, one of the things were going to be doing this summer in the summer of 2016 is to convene about 20 cities that are not in the network but have similar issues to a conference with o jp to share the ideas and best practices that we have been able to glean from working with cities like wilmington, little rock, flint and others. not only do we find it to be a program but we hope it is help let the local level. we feel that as with so many efforts that are anchored by our state and local partners it will be a program that will provide leadership in guidance for other

jurisdictions that are struggling with the same issue. >> thank you. i intend to continue to support the brn and the appropriations as well. i returned briefly to two other programs that i think have shown positive impact for delaware and i think can, and should be more fully supported federally. one is the justice reinvestment initiative. delaware participated in an early, our general assembly made a number of changes to our criminal justice system. we have seen positive impacts as a result. i would be interested in hearing how you see the future of the justice reinvestment initiative. also mention the victims of child abuse act, we work to get that reauthorize. i was somewhat disappointed the president's budget request was half of what we hoped for. the bullet proof vest act which provides appropriate bullet proof vest for local law enforcement around the country. i think all of these are programs that provide real meaningful assistance to local law enforcement and help

strengthen the criminal justice reform movement in the case of the justice reinvestment initiative. could you briefly comment on how these programs fit into your overall objectives to improve law-enforcement and country? >> thank you for the chance to talk about them and for raising these programs together's because because they highlight that criminal justice reform will have an anchor that comes from this committee and body and from statutory changes. it also is going to be managed by how we interact and support our state and local partners, for example the bullet proof vest initiative. as we support officer safety, officer health and support issues. also how we deal with the victims of child abuse. the justice reinvestment act is something also extremely important to us because those funds are used to support changes both and local laws and also the probation system. we have have states that have been able to close the provisions and have seen significant traps and

crying. criminal justice reform for us is really a long-range view of the entire system. these programs a particular focus on three specific elements of it. they show how everything comes together as it were. in a way that supports a holistic review of the criminal justice system and that by supporting victims, by supporting local jurisdictions in their effort, and by supporting local law-enforcement we will all have different community. >> we have a lot of work to do together in improving public safety and healing some of the rift between communities and law-enforcement. i'm grateful for your leadership. let me ask the last question. in the shelby county decision, the supreme court significantly weekend someone would say gutted and on a bipartisan basis 42 of us are trying to advance of the voting rights advancement act. senator murkowski is a

cosponsor, senator leahy and others. what difference do you think having this committee take up the voters rights act would make. >> thank every question and thank you for your leadership in this area. i think this committee is it takes up the important matter. consideration of the act and the department has been working with a group on this and is happy to continue. we think it would help restore an important part of the department's arsenal in protecting the voting rights of all americans. it's vital to us to look at this in a way in which we protect everyone's right to vote. the citizen on the street, or service member, are elderly, people have trouble getting to the polls, all polls, all of those individuals are of concern to us. certainly we thank you for your efforts and looking for a way to

provide legislative support to those efforts. we look forward to working with you and this committee as it considers the matter. >> the right to vote has been described as the most foundational right and democracy and nearly a sacred right. i hope that we can find a way to make progress in ensuring all americans have access to the ballot in the right to vote. thank you for your service and leadership as attorney general. >> thank you senator. >> madame attorney general, welcome to the committee. >> the morning. >> thank you for the job you do for the country. have you ever discussed the clinton e-mail with president obama or anyone else at the white house? >> know, so i have not. >> do you anticipate that happening? >> no, sir i do not do not. >> so when joshua speaks about investigation talks about basically to reassure the american people that this is no big deal, do you know where he gets that information from? >> senator, no i do not. i can us or you -- >> can you tell him he should probably stay silent. >> it is my hope that when it comes on going and best we would all stay silent. i can assure you i nor anyone from the department has a brief mr. ernest or anyone at the

white house about this matter or other law-enforcement matter. >> he's operating on his own i take it? >> i'm simply not aware of the source of the information. >> thank you very much. have you seen more threats to the homeland, more than today and in the past? to agree there are more threats on our homeland today than there has been in recent memory? >> i think those threats have increased, yes sir. >> sequestration, if we go back to sequestration path next year, what damage will it due to your ability to protect this nation? >> sequestration would cause harm to the department's ability to protect harmon areas of national security as well as other law-enforcement function. >> you will have less fbi agent dealing with counterterrorism, zechariah? >> we would.

>> you would have less capability to deal with growing cyber threat. >> that is correct. >> when it comes to the problem with apple and san bernadino, would you support legislation requiring apple and other technology technology to create technological backdoors made available to the government in terrorism cases? would you support legislation to that? >> certainly we would review whatever was proposed and work with this committee or others to talk about the issues and to make sure that what ever was crafted would cover the range of issues that arise. the reason might we have focused on litigation in a case-by-case basis is that we have noted every platform is different. every issue is different. we have been trying to deal with the situation with our discussion with the tech company. >> would you be willing to draft legislation, provide to the committee your ideas of what legislation should look like to accomplish the goals? >> i do not think the department

is that a point where we are drafting legislation here. as i indicated we are happy to work with you and others on the committee as you consider proposal. >> if china went to apple in china and said we want a backdoor key to all iphones in china, what would your response be? >> certainly think the company would have a strong response there. >> would you support apple's request to say no to china? >> we are not asking for a backdoor here, i do not see us supporting a backdoor elsewhere. >> it seems to meet the judicial decision basically is requiring apple to create technological devices or to create a system that would be able to get into the phones, that's not true? >> what we are asking apple to do is to essentially effectuate

a system that would remove the password blocker. the password blocker destroys information. >> best not to unlock the phone? >> no, we would have to buy their own way into the pole. the password blocker destroys the information on the device if you guess the password incorrectly ten times. we would like the opportunity -- >> would you support the chinese government's request request to do the same thing? >> i do not think i would be pining on the chinese government's request. >> the point i am raising is if we ask companies here we are setting precedents for russia, china and other countries. >> senator, think one of the issues raised by that question i think you are raising it is that it creates a false equivalency without legal systems with other countries, with our moral system and the way in which we do business. >> we are the good guys and their the back i. >> we have a system of laws that have worked for a number of years. >> i agree with the good guys. >> with corporate america to allow them to provide information to us from a variety

of ways, systems and devices, and protect ribas at the same time. those have not led to the parade of horrible's as often described whenever those a particular changes are made. >> one of the arguments apple makes is that there are other companies create encryption, from a terrorist point of view you are not limited to apple iphones to communicate, are you? >> i think terrorist use any device they can't. >> this encryption issue, if you required apple to unlock that phone, that does, that does not deny terrorists the ability to communicate privately, does it? there other ways they can do this? >> we have servicing terrorist using a variety of encrypted platform for communication. >> getting the information to this particular phone does not protect terrace from using encrypted devices beyond apple. in terms of apple's point of view, do you think their argument that if you require us to do this that it will hurt their market share? it would put them at a disadvantage to other companies

that produce products outside the united states question of. >> i have seen it apple's marketing analysis for that. >> some company in switzerland says want to buy or iphones, you don't have to worry about the american government or any other government being able to break the encryption. >> again, i think it would depend upon how people view that and how they rated as an important feature. howell compared to apple devices. >> so we are balancing the information were trying to get on this individual case against a president we may be setting that other countries could follow, we are also having to balance the idea that terrorist can use encryption outside of apple. we also have to balance the idea that we may be hurting american companies competing globally. those are the four things that were looking at. >> i am not going to cabin the issues at this time.

i think for us the issue is about a criminal investigation into a terrorist act and the need to obtain evidence. >> but it is just not so simple. i will end the with this. i thought it was simple until i started getting brief by people in the intel community and i'm a person who has been moved by the arguments of the president we sat and that damage we may be doing to our own national security. i have definitely moved to any member of the committee who has moved very passionate about this, introduced legislation requiring the apple technology companies to do what you want the judges to do. i would like to look at it. there's not enough to complain. if you think these companies should be required to do this, let's sit down and see if we can introduce legislation. i doubt many people will do that. thank you for your fine work on behalf of our country. >> thank you sir. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you madame attorney general for the excellent work you're doing and your dedicated and energetic

work on behalf of law-enforcement over many years. i want to ask about the freedom of access to clinic and princes act, the face act. i was involved with enforcing when i said attorney general for the state of connecticut. it was passed in 1994 after a particularly troubling time in our nation's history involving threats and attacks on clinics. it continues to serve a vital role in our nation. recently the decades long tacked on the exercise of reproductive rights have taken the form of a series of highly edited deceptive and extremely inflammatory set of videos targeted planned parenthood. i wonder if you could tell me whether the fbi has noticed an increase in the number of

violence incidents targeting abortion providers since the release of those videos beginning in july 2015? >> senator you raise important issues and it's an important forstmann area for the department. the fbi under severance division and our u.s. attorneys offices. i do not believe i have the statistics on the increase on the number of face act of violation since those but videos have surfaced. certainly we are in connection with the colorado shooting while the state investigation is proceeding. we are still reviewing that as a possible possible face act violation although that case is proceeding in state court as a murder case. it is an active area of enforcement. i don't have the information on the data since that particular time. >> i wonder if i could ask you to provide any data about the number of incidents and also prosecution. >> certainly. >> i wonder if you could also tell the committee whether the

department of justice is taking any increase in enforcement activity with respect to incidents of violence or threatening violence? >> i know that with respect to -- and not limiting to the time since the videos were introduced into the public domain, but for the past five or six years and the of cases that we have charged under the the face statue has increased. we have charged a total of 12 cases criminally and nine cases civilly. i get that is over the entire course of this administration, not limited to just that time. we have seen that uptake over the past five or six years. where taking those cases seriously. >> thank you. the department of justice was very responsive to a number of requests that i have made. i thank you for the responsiveness that it has

shown, for example on the general motors investigation for deliberate concealment of the ignition switch defect where there has been a prosecution and results, with the airbags where there's an ongoing investigation into deliberate concealment of test results suggesting dangers for those airbags. volkswagen for the use of a device to aid admissions testing , recent indications of potential collusion by airlines on so-called capacity discipline , and a number of others. i hope you agree the public interest is well served by prompt inclusion of these

investigations. also where there are prosecutions, potentially against individual corporate officers, there is an important deterrent effect as the deputy attorney general indicated in a memo september 9 of last year, prosecutions against individuals, corporate officers, where there is evidence i where there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt will encourage compliance with the law by corporations and those individuals and that will be to the good of not only the public in general but also the corporation's shareholders and its employees. >> yes, we certainly do. we certainly feel that the new individual accountability policy which essentially puts the onus on those corporations wanted to

cooperate to also provide information about individual wrongdoing and also requires, and a more systematic manner, that we make sure that we are considering those issues in every corporate case. we think it is a very important part in the issues you have race. for corporate accountability as well as public knowledge. >> i have also asked for an investigation of ever source in connection with potential miss use of h1d visas. i hope that perhaps you could respond to that request if it is possible to do so. >> certainly, sir. >> i want to ask finally about the so-called charleston loophole. i know you are familiar with the situation that enabled dylan roof to buy the firearm he used to massacre

innocent people in the charleston church. the charleston loophole in effect enabled him to get a gun after the expiration of the 72 hours hours without the completion of a background check. i wonder if even as we work towards a legislative fix, which i have proposed, whether the department has been able to take steps that may enable prompt completion a background check. >> thank you for the opportunity to comment on our work in this area. as i recommended to the president and discussed in prior testimony, one of of the things the department is working on is improving the systems within our background system the mix system so to speak. as looked at west virginia by dedicated employees, all of whom who were heartbroken at the issues that led to mr. ruth being able to obtain that firearm. the current law is it that if a background check is not concluded within a three day.

the licensed firearm dealer is free to go ahead and conclude the transaction. many do not. many actually do wait if they have not gotten a definitive answer. but they are lawfully allowed to go ahead and sell the firearms in many do. in this case that is what happened. the person the person did submit the information, because of issues of geography and the counties and confusion caused therein, the information did not receive the examiner in time to stop that purchase. we are undertaking a review of the computer systems of this facility, we are also undertaking through higher, almost double more those individuals, doubling the number of examiners so we can comply within that three day. area to extend that period would require congressional action. should congress congress consider that we will work with you to drafted the appropriate legislation. we are looking to operate with a sufficient as possible.

that's a framework. our goal is to essentially strengthen and prove the next system so it can be fully responsive in the allotted time. >> thank you. finally, the topic of gun violence as you may know i have introduced legislation that would repeal the so-called protection of lawful commerce in arms act, also known as paco. the department of justice has repeatedly defended the law against challenges to its constitutionality. as you well know the department of justice also has a history of declining to defend laws it believes is unconstitutional, most recently with the marriage act. i believe a a compelling arguments have been made against popular constitutionality on to process, taking cause grounds as well as the tenth amendment. i wonder if you would consider

and look carefully at the possibility, in affected declining to. >> i have not been involved with placa on those grounds so i'm not aware of what we have done. we may have opinions and have done a review so far. if there's more information and analysis you like to provide we would consider that. i do not know the analysis done to date on that. >> thank you. thank you for your service. >> my stay staff is tell me to go votes and i know you want to ask more questions. >> if you let me go now, will you let me go now?

[inaudible] >> i think a senator brought up in put it a little different way, about secretary clinton's e-mail arrangements, can i say something? i've often been accused about asking about secretary clinton's e-mails sent she is run for president. to make the record clear, in june 2013i started asking questions about this as it related to one of her counselors email and conflict of interest and stuff like that. that is where this all started, long time before she was running for president. recently a senior on name to law-enforcement official told the washington post about it in a unity agreement with the state department staffer who maintained her e-mail server. yet, you, attorney general, have

not answered the committee's questions about the nature and status of that investigation. does the immunity agreement contain a provision requiring that staffer to cooperate with all government inquiries, including committees that i have have requested and if not, why not? would you provide a copy of that agreement to the committee? >> again, thank you for your recent letter on this also. we are providing a response to your letter in writing. so i do not want to get ahead of that as we review the issues that you have raised there. i believe you have asked for a copy of that document. we typically do not provide copies of documents as part of ongoing investigations but we are preparing a response to your letter on those issues. similarly, we don't go into the details of the agreements that we have with any witness in any

matter. an ongoing investigations. senator, i know as you mentioned you have race this issues a in the context of reviewing another matter a few years ago and you are following through now. what i would say is that my response to this is the sign as it is to other questions on ongoing matters, whether now weatherize u.s. attorney earl for alina system. the consistency with which the department handles the ongoing matters, whether they involve someone who has a famous last name or not it is something we take very seriously. our desire not to discuss this matter in open hearings, or in the press is not out of a desire to evade your questions are certainly this committee's oversight responsibilities. oversight responsibilities. it is how we handle ongoing matters.

i certainly hope it is taken in that way. we treat them the same. that is how the public has confidence in the investigations we conduct. >> if that latter comment is about something i said in my opening statement, it was about the appearance, no accusation. >> certainly. >> okay, now now what you just to me about immunity, i'm telling you just what common sense tells me. if immunity immunity in certain instances, the only simple question we're asking is does that immunity carry over to congressional communities? we asked without immunity, the console for pagliaro united and it seemed to me a simple question. if it covers him for justice department matters, why wouldn't it cover him so he could testify before congress? you don't have to talk about that now but i hope the letter will address that. me go to the fbi whistleblowers. the committee has put a bill on the agenda for tomorrow, this is something that ranking member leahy and i really agree on.

to provide better protection for fbi whistleblowers i would hope that we'll be able to move forward with the bill earlier. it is truly bipartisan legislation that we need to take up. one problem, the bill tackles is protection for fbi employees who report wrongdoing within their chain of command. director, director, he said in december that he supports those protections. do you support legal protections for fbi employees who report wrongdoing to their supervisors? >> thank you sir, i sternly do support protection of whistleblowers in general. the situation situation you race is one that also all of us and law-enforcement have an obligation to support and protect as well. you are referring to the issues of the incidence of people who report

through the chain of command. i understand that our step have been talking about the bill, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on it. what i would say is as we work through this issue, please know that again and it concerns the department raises are not out of a disagreement with the point of view of the protection of whistleblowers, again just making sure the fbi's intelligence gathering functions are also protected at the same time. we appreciate the opportunity to work with your step on these issues. it is particularly important to all of us in law-enforcement because whistleblowers to bring us important information. we often are going to individual citizens and asking them to bring us information. we are going to people who are witnesses outside of the government so we are trying to protect them as well. it is important that we have strong protections for whistleblowers who are inside governments. >> you use one word that is central to my next issue, why would there be any reason for not providing these protections to fbi including people involved in the intelligence of the fbi,

given that every other branch employee, even including in the intelligence community has that protection? and never words, what's special about something with the fbi? as much as we respect the fbi. >> i think you for your statement of respect for the fbi. i appreciate that in their behalf. certainly i think the dialogue we were having as i indicated hopefully highlights i was really support the objective of protecting whistleblowers and every federal agency included the fbi. we certainly support protecting those who report within the chain of command. as you yourself yourself noted within the intelligence committee. our hope is to make sure that we retain the consistency of treatment on the intelligent community side for those issues also. i think you and your staff are working with us on those points. >> and i thank you for working

with us and let me bring up one of those issues that was brought up in these conversations. one of the issues your department has raised is that allowing fbi employees to report wrongdoing to their chain of command could lead to too many complaints. what is wrong with too many complaints? you have a department of what 50,000 employees but you are the attorney general, you cannot know what is going on all over. seems to me you would invite every wrongdoing to be reported to someone so he could get corrected. you can't know about it. anyway, it should be seen as a good thing for fbi employees to report wrongdoing. the judiciary committee held a hearing last march where we looked at the government accountability office report. that report found that in a five-year period, only three whistleblowers, one those cases. those took between eight - ten years. certainly something is wrong with that process. last process.

lester the deputy attorney general's office told the government office that it would give whistleblowers updates on their cases. then they told me in a letter that they were just too busy to do that. i will will submit that letter for the record. it does not seem to me that the department has made improving fbi whistleblower protections a priority, almost 22 years ago the department promised it would issue a new regulation. two years later we don't have the proposed regulation. question number three, where are the changes the justice department said it was going to make in 2014? you were not even? you are not even attorney general then so i can't blame you. that's where we are. >> certainly sir, regardless of when, when, we will certainly endeavor to respond to on that point. as i said before the concerns are always making sure we protect whistleblowers and also protect the fbi law-enforcement efforts and deal with the efforts raised while also being a member of the intelligence committee attract community.

we are looking at specifically which of the bill and i thank you for that opportunity. >> here is something that i think you should give to us. one is the improvements that justice said it was making for justice employees was a better training rights and legal protection as whistleblowers. now you had a training session on this, there there was some sort of video at that training session and we discovered that video really did not say much about how whistleblowers are encouraged or protected in reporting up the chain of command and stuff like that. i'm not sure i remember exactly. i requested i requested a copy of that training almost one month of go and have not received it. i i would like to have you get me a copy of the video. a simple thing, video. you video. you ought to be able to supply that. so not to harass you but he is

going to come back to ask you a question and then i will be done. recently deputy attorney general issued a memo that the department will now focus on prosecuting individuals and not just ringing financial statements from corporations. as i said at the time, the department supplement was hsbc was a missed opportunity to bring criminal charges in an enormous money-laundering case. this administration failed to prosecute any wall street bankers or executives responsible for a financial meltdown. so the goal of the h memo is a good one. this is something you and i agree on. president obama's former deputy attorney general has said that the h memo is quote, unquote impractical, not based in

reality and will lead to very few actual cases against individuals. is president of former attorney general correct that this new policy is not based on reality, and how are you going to ensure that individuals are actually prosecuted? >> thank you sir, i think the memo does reflect the view within the department of justice that individuals have to be held accountable for their actions, particularly in the white collar area. i'm not aware of the context of those comments so i do know what was said about that. what i can tell you is this memo was the result of thought and a desire to encapsulates into a specific and clear policy guidance that many of us in the department have and has for some time, we need need to look at individual accountability. particular as we do white-collar cases and interact with

corporate counsel, with white collar big issue they are aware this is a focus of hours. as you may recall one facet of the policy that i think is very important is that when we cooperate when they cooperate with the government, provide us with information about wrongdoing within the ranks or their company has carried out, we will provide credit for that should it be reliable and accurate. they will not receive any credit if they do not also provide information about individuals who are involved in wrongdoing. it is to incentivize them and to put them on notice that our investigation will be looking at them also, we'll have our focus on individuals as well. that is something we think will in fact generate results as we interact with corporations who do want to work with the government.

where we do not have cooperation we still will continue our focus on individuals. if that mama will clearly put together in one clear, concise a policy statement, the directed to all the litigating components as well. when we are working at cases involving corporations that we have to make sure that we completely consider all of the individuals. certainly it is something that many offices have been doing for some time. if you look at the records for individuals who have been prosecuted, i would would note under our financial fraud enforcement task force, over 500 individuals have been prosecuted for financial crimes related to the housing market, financial market and the like. we wanted to make sure it was clear, consistent and in one place and we are focusing on not just the entity but the individual. again, i'm not sure the basis for the comments and i cannot comment knowing their context.

we believe very strongly in this policy. we believe it will provide results in our investigations and in our cases. we think it it is an important and necessary step in making sure that individuals whom we interact are a notice about what we expect from them, but that publicly people are aware of how we conduct our investigation. >> thank you very much. senator from minnesota. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all, attorney general lynch thank you for waiting for me, are and i think the chairman to freer your service and it is good to see you again. >> thank you sir. >> i think it is good - mac there are not a lot of colleagues here to say this too but it is good that we are here doing our job, i think we may be say that we should continue to do our job when it comes to when the president puts forth a nominee for the supreme court.

and examine that nominee's qualifications and experience. attorney general lynch, i think you're probably aware i have have been a vocal opponent of further consolidation and certain industries, particularly in the cable and broadband market. i appreciate the tough stance that the doj took of time warner cable, i know you cannot discuss the specifics of any deal that are currently being reviewed but i have a few questions about the way doj analyzes mergers and acquisitions and how doj enforces conditions on when conditions have been, when mergers have been improved with

conditions. as we we saw following comcast acquisition of universal, provisions can be difficult to enforce. they are not always terribly reliable. and also sometimes those positions expire, in general how come the department of justice assure that merger conditions actually have enough teeth to protect consumers in the long run? >> thank you, this is an important area of focus for the department of justice. i think people think of antitrust a sort of a draw area of law. i have found it to be one of the most vital areas of law because it deals directly with consumer protection issues. the devices and products that people use every day in their lives and have them around in our homes and businesses. we seek to make sure they are protected in their dealings as they make decisions with hard earned dollars.

when it comes to the enforcement of conditions in a merger agreement, the agreement may provide for certain types of conditions, certain types of reporting for example. we will conduct periodic reviews. certainly if a situation or circumstance where an individual corporation are not meeting those conditions, we would not hesitate to take the appropriate steps and take action there. either depending on how far along the transaction was, take action action or consult with the appropriate company and the appropriate board. when it comes to more specifics, i am happy to have staff from the antitrust provision provide a briefing to you on specifics we have done in the situations of that would be helpful. >> and some of the cases i'm talking about telecom and comcast, nbc, for example, it seems, seems like -- i'm trying to figure out where falls whether it is fcc or doj that has the responsibility of enforcing conditions.

it seems like someone they have fallen through the cracks. i was wondering how. >> there might be that middle place that neither entity is really reviewing as closely as they should? >> what seems like the fcc does not have the resources to enforce conditions. >> we are not able to comment on the fcc's abilities or resources. i have not had the discussions with him. i'm surly happy to provide a briefing for you. >> it is something the fcc and doj kind of work together on whether to allow a merger to go on, very often conditions are put on an as we saw there, conditions are not followed. let me ask about something amy brought up, which is about

combating terrorist recruitment in minnesota, and about the program that has put in place and we are one of the three cities for combating, it's called combating violent extremism. we prefer to call it community resilience. we have a large somali population and at first we were some young people who were recruited to somalia for fight with al shabab which is an al qaeda affiliate. that kind of stop that happened when they came into somalia. now we have seen, and it is not all that many but it is enough

to cause alarm and it is very alarming within the community obviously to use sons and some daughters who are going to syria or iraq to fight with isis. it was brought up about the funding, i just just want to bring up at the approach which is, this is not an easy needle to thread because we do not want to the communities to feel this is simply some kind of surveillance, of trying to find out -- on the other hand you want to gain the trust of the community. is this something you've looked at a lot that you've looked at in minnesota, and what can we do

to make those communities feel like we are partnering with them in a good way and not simply using this as a way of monitoring? >> ..

>> increasing the distrust between them and the government. we are approaching approaching every distinct community in america and we are seeking guidance from communities themselves. and the other thing can be imported to other communities. the other thing that has been happening in the twin cities that we are trying to import other cities is this direct and very personal interaction between federal and local law enforcement and the distinct minority communities. and they had made a great personal connections within the

community. without that personal connection and trust it is very easy to misinterpret actions and also i do think that we have to get out of government some time and realize that government isn't always the best voice for can conveying the appropriate message. we are working with madison avenue in silicon valley and trying to come up with effective programs to counter violent extremism. and so silicon valley is also very concerning. as we discussed it's not their goal to be a platform for terrorism and the concern is that they are being used as recruitment tools and repositories for material that is being absorbed by these horrible young people of varying backgrounds and so they are trying to figure out can they on their own come up with programming that will counter what is coming across the

airwaves and computer ways and can they use the terms of service to take down the content that is there. but knowing all the content is not going to be away and that it will be replaced, what can they do to generate the content that is supported. >> again, i think that that has a lot to do with interacting with the community. you say that changing the name has been helpful in that could've been done on the front side by saying how do you like this name. i mean, that feels like a pretty logical and easy thing to do. if you are talking about what kind of content that you're going to, silicon valley needs to be talking to the community. if we are going to counter the

propaganda that they are offering i think that there has to be a real cultural understanding and i'm closer to this obviously then you are. and that is that there has been a frustrating lack of resources and i think that they would rather see a good soccer field quite frankly. or someplace to have fun. >> or an afterschool venue. >> yeah, i think that's what we are talking about and it has very little to do with the isis

propaganda and saying that the people of the united states, the people of minnesota senators are fighting for us and we have some challenges and if our young people had better things to do that that might be helpful. and there was a promise of money and resources. and that would go a long way. until he thank you, mr. chairman. >> you have been a good witness. any correspondence we have, i

would appreciate answers as quickly as you can get them to us. the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations] >> coming up next on c-span2. the senate indian affairs committee examines the 2017 budget request.

after that, former congressman jc watts on campaign 2016 in the republican party. later, another chance to see loretta lynch testifying before the senate judiciary committee. ♪ >> "washington journal" is live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. on thursday's "washington journal", our first guests include a discussion on race, change of age and other election considerations impacting this year and beyond. and then allison kojak joins us to talk about the health care plans of the front runners in this year's presidential race. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion.

>> the canadian prime minister justin trudeau makes his first visit to the united states on thursday. the official ceremony kicks off on the white house lawn. and then at 11:40 a.m., president obama and the dirt hold a joint news conference from the rose garden. live coverage also on c-span3. later add 18:00 p.m., live coverage of the arrivals for this the dinner and you can see that on the stand. >> first lady michelle obama, former president george w. bush and laura bush are among the dignitaries attending the funeral. mrs. reagan will be buried next to her husband at the library. that coverage is on c-span,

c-span radio and c-span.org. >> senate affairs committee heard from the national congress of american indians of the 2017 budget request for tribal communities. funny areas include health care, domestic violence prevention programs and law enforcement. the hearing is just over 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i call this hearing to order and

today the committee will examine the president's fiscal year 2017 indian country budget. the united states continues to face a federal and tight budgets, the funding provided to indian people in native communities is an important federal responsibility. the president's fiscal year 2017 budget request calls for increases for travel related programs including the bureau of indian affairs and the indian health service. whatever funding is provided for these programs it must be used effectively and efficiently and be responsible and for filling federal responsibilities. let me be clear that funding must reflect performance metrics and it is imperative that the executive branch provide congress with the necessary data to support these funding requests. today we will hear from key federal agencies which serve countries. before we hear from the witnesses present, i want to recognize a vice-chairman for an opening statement. >> thinking the panelists here,

we appreciate your endurance, so thank you for being here. i want to commend the administration for cementing a budget that details how the federal government will attempt to have priorities. we are working together and if there's one thing that i think we should agree on is that the challenges are severely underfunded. i'm committed to do that, but i also believe that we cannot balance the budget on the back of the country. and this year the administration has requested moderate increases for many programs and overall the suns have a significant impact in the overall well-being of travel communities. so while increasing funding is a

step in the right direction, we all know that there are substantial unmet need in the department of an carrier is requesting $2.9 million for indian affairs and until it has focused its attention, among other things 138 million for construction. it is that the administration has continued to focus on the issue but the department needs to provide more details for using those requested funds. it sounds familiar. last month i introduced the safety act which would require a ten-year plan for school construction. so i would love to hear your thoughts on that or any similar plans of the department may have. with health care, even the ihss in a 43% increase over the last two years and it is still underfunded by nearly 50%. we will never be successful until we have the funds needed to treat people and the

administration's request to continue to provide funding as a step forward. the budget also proposes an increase of over $100 million for native american programs at the department of justice and we recently heard about public safety issues and i look forward to this increase. and that includes the native american housing block grant and it's more than justified for the loan. the block grant has been a relatively level situation of the last 20 years and i do agree with my colleagues, one just has to drive to know that more funds are needed. this increase will help reduce a severe backlog that faces many authorities and overcrowding has devastating ripple effects and so we need to get serious about housing conditions in the country. i recognize not everybody has the same priorities. were the same approach. but i hope that today's hearing

will open a discussion on how we can come together and on solutions to fill the countries obligations. with that, i want to thank the witnesses and i want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing. >> would any other members like to make an opening statement? >> we will be hearing from the assistant attorney general in the u.s. department of justice. mr. lawrence roberts, acting indian affairs and the secretary of the interior. mr. rivera's who is the principal at assistant deputy secretary of indian housing and housing and urban development, mary smith, the principal deputy director of the department of health and human services and the secretary of the national congress of american indians. i would like to remind the witnesses bigger fool than tenfold testimony will be made

part of the hearing record today. and so please try to keep your statements to a few minutes. please proceed. >> thank you, distant shores of the committee. i'm very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the president's fiscal year 2017 budget request for public initiatives in the indian country. from the earliest days i have been privileged to work with dedicated employees from the department to help ensure the safety of our community. we are leaving the team that included the funding opportunities and now i am directly responsible for a full array of programs designed to improve tribal justice and

victim services and i'm pleased to say without hesitation that the justice department's commitment has never been stronger. and that includes a wide range of travel specific programs. and that includes warning $620 million to tribal communities. i refer to your written statement from moore's civic examples of our successes in indian country. and those challenges women considerable period last give

natives continue to be victimized in high alarming rates. complex patterns hamper investigations and impede justice and resources remain scarce. the report noted the need for almost 3000 tribal law enforcement officers and a 50% staffing shortfall. that is why the resources are rested our vital. the allocated almost $300 million for safety in indian country. this level of funding would be historic and would allow us to build upon progress and make inroads to solving the impractical problems faced by our partners. the budget would take a page to dedicate to tribal specific initiatives. a flexible tribal grant of programs would give reliable access to $111 million in grant

resources. this would remove some of the unpredictability and anxiety around competition for federal funding which under resource tribes are at a distinct disadvantage. we plan to make a targeted investment as well. this would be devoted to meeting the needs of native american victims who remain chronically underserved. funds from the policing services with help higher law enforcement officers and train and equip them to protect their communities. $56 million for violence against women would support a variety of efforts aimed at reducing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, trafficking and stalking in indian country. a portion of those funds would expand on a groundbreaking program to reverse decades of injustice by giving tribes the authority to adjudicate domestic violence, dating violence and protection against -- non-indian

defendants on tribal land. the justice department's is well beyond funding and the u.s. attorney's offices have established close working relationships with tribes and an active subcommittee on native american issues composed of u.s. attorneys providing advice and counsel to the attorney general. we are training tribal prosecutors and bring them onto support prosecution and reworked resolve management claims and protect tribal land and travel sovereignty. we coordinate these closely to make sure that we are maximizing resources in meeting every public need in indian country. the department of justice is working hard across the component and across other agencies to give them the resources they need to achieve justice in their community and there is no substitute for federal dollars are a public safety is an investment that we cannot afford to forgo. the president's budget request represents a powerful and

comprehensive strategy for supporting tribal justice, juvenile justice and victim services in the department of justice looks forward to working with the committee to fill the responsibility and to meet collective goals of sabre travel communities. good afternoon, president and vice president, i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today and it's an honor to be here as the acting assistant secretary of indian affairs. i want to thank each and every one of you. and it is making a difference in

our country. in fiscal year 2008, appropriations for indian affairs was $2.9 billion, $17 million decrease from fiscal year 2007. budgets were shrinking and employees were asked to do more with less. there is no doubt that today's request remained difficult. and unlike the rest of the discretionary budget, the president's budget request for indian affairs reflects an increase over 16 and active levels. compared with 2008 until today, the indian affairs proposed budget of 2.9 billion and nearly 138 million increase over fiscal year 2016 and i think that we could collectively agree that strong bipartisan support for budget is they are to foster strong communities and self-determination. the increase is in large part to the work of tribal leaders.

our grief staff has decreased by approximately 1600 employees. and they can deliver results and that includes resources in we have seen progress in this program. and that includes careful coordination with our tribal budget council and the president's budget again includes full funding or contract support and proposes that it be mandatory funding beginning in fiscal year 2018. they propose 21 million-dollar increase to support objectives including 12.3 million for social services in 3.4 million increase the child welfare act programs and an additional 1.7 million access to suitable housing. this reflects the needs at the

outset that provide an environment that removes those barriers for native young adults. the budget includes increased funding and it proposes a $1.1 billion budget. and it focuses on being a service provider with educating youth and delivering a world-class culturally appropriate education. the budget includes tribal grant supported for those tribes that choose to operate this to their students. finally, the budget provides 130 to replace and repair schools in poor condition and to address these needs at the 183 campuses in the school system. the request continues the

momentum launched with the appropriation and provides funding necessary to develop the construction pipeline. the budget continues in fiscal year 2016 for the service center. that includes leasing and reporting for conventional projects and to provide the resources to ensure that the development that anchors manages risks appropriately and the department is working to provide cooperative management and the president budget requests 2 million-dollar increase to address this in alaska and the funding will target areas across the state that promote tribal management for fish and wildlife and improve access on federal lands and waters. and that includes the budget

being proposed for indian affairs. and nearly 138 million above these active levels, it is the second-largest total requested budget increase of any bureau within the department of interior and i know that it will continue to foster the self-determination and i am happy to appear before you today and happy to answer any questions you could have. >> thank you so much, sir. >> thank you very much for your partnership over the years and for this opportunity to discuss how the budget request specifically is proposing investments to native hawaiian and tribal communities. as you know, native american people hold a special place in our countries history and they have made lasting contributions to every aspect of our nation's life and our commerce, culture and character and more. the sad truth is that too many

members of this community play significant barriers for affordable housing. not a lot i met families that were struggling to get by. when i asked them what would make their lives better, a young girl from the community said a house. she wanted to know why her family could not find a decent place to rent. a place that she could call home. she explained that she had lived her entire life with her extended family in a small overcrowded house and she clearly recognizes what we all do. that safe and affordable housing provides a foundation that every american needs to achieve their

dreams. we have requested $700 million for the indian housing grant program. the largest single source of funding for affordable housing under the native american housing assistance and self-determination act. we expect the 8% funding increase to support block grants to 567 tribes in 34 states. also requesting $5.5 million for the indian housing loan guarantee program in buying a home and building wealth. we want to help those with the assets that end so we are seeking the program, an increase of $20 million as far as economic development and travel

info. [inaudible] we have been financing and building 122 new affordable housing units including elderly housing and a community park in the town of watery grave. we want to reach every segment of his society. whether a family or a veteran returning from service overseas are you and that is why i request a commitment to native american youth by dedicating $20 million to further this initiative for native views. and that's why we are in returning and working to ensure that every veteran has a home. to assist brave native american who have served our country and are now experiencing

homelessness. awarded $5.9 million in rental assistance to 26 tribes to assist 500 veterans. working closely with the va and tribal partners to ensure that this succeeds and that we request $7 million to renew this. we recognize the right of indian self-determination and tribal self-government and we have foster relationships that have flexibility to design and implement his housing program according to local needs and customs. we strongly support the reauthorization and the tribes have made great strides even in challenging budgetary environments and we look forward to working with this committee and congress on this vital piece of legislation. finally the budget represents a demonstration's strong

commitment to the positive results that have been achieved or native american program and we are proud of the strong and the growing capacity that our tribal partners have demonstrated in putting their limited resources to work and also increasing the ability to leverage federal dollars. we thank you again for the invitation to discuss the budget proposal and i look forward to the conversations today. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, chairman. thank you so much for this opportunity today. i am mary smith, director of the indian health service. i've only been in my job for a little over one week. although i have been at the agent for slightly longer i have served as a rule role of deputy director and it has become clear to me that while ihs is confirmed to providing care, with we've faced the care

challenges and this situation is unacceptable. i do want to thank the committee. i knows little over a month ago that the committee held an oversight hearing on the indian health service and we appreciate the opportunity as well as leadership to shine a light on these issues and i firmly believe if we are not talking about them, we are not addressing them. i appear before you to underscore my commitment to fixing challenges including the great plains and more systemic issues that we raised as an agency. and we are committed to fixing these agencies in the short term and that they are sustainable over time. we are committed to creating a culture of quality, leadership, and accountability and it's far from this mess as usual at the indian health service. with that, i am pleased to provide testimony on the president's proposed fiscal year

2007 budget for ihs which will allow us to make a difference in addressing our agency mission to raise the physical and mental, social and spiritual health of american indians and alaska natives. i'm committed to working with our partners to providing access to quality health care to native americans. the budget proposes to increase the total budget to 6.6 billion. and if appropriated this will represent a 53% increase of indian health service since fiscal year 2000 and eight. the overall funding increase is proposed.

not a lot in that includes infrastructure needs. and that includes inflation and population growth increases that are critical to maintaining the budget of our tribal hospitals. and we are doubling up on the suicide prevention project to increase the number of children and allison behavior professionals, continued integration between medical, behavioral health and tribal community organizations. and domestic violence prevention programming. i am pleased to report that the

budget includes a new proposal which is a two-year mandatory proposal to address mental and behavioral health. this proposal includes a new 15 million dollar tribal response fund which would allow us to assist tribes experience experiencing crises and an additional tonight to increase the number of behavioral health through the american indians program and ihs scholarship loan with payment program. that includes funds for infrastructure that is critical to health care delivery and upon the newly constructed facilities. i want to acknowledge that we are working aggressively to address quality of care issues at all three facilities in the great plains areas. omaha, winnebago, and pine ridge.

especially an we have commissioned officers throughout hhs. and we look forward to enact the president's budget and i just want to emphasize that we take these challenges to delivering high-quality care seriously and have my commitment that we will work tirelessly to make meaningful progress. >> thank you. >> turman members, i would like to thank you for holding this important hearing.

the federal budget is one of the key measures of how and whether the federal government is filling just responsibility towards tribal governments. respect is essential for the ability of governments to me to needs of our citizens. due to historical underfunding and consistent bhajans, tribes have faced continued emergencies in meeting the health education and public safety needs. the written testimony calls for tribal governments across the board and then addresses a specific proposal in the administration budget. in collaboration with partners it has developed recommendations than the fiscal year 2017 budget request. we asked for the documents to be entered into the record. we appreciate the coronation in the budget request and encourage congress to recognize that the budgetary needs of indian country must be addressed to be successful.

it is not enough to boost funding without also addressing the need for housing for teachers and law enforcement personnel. a great example of collaboration is our initiative which is a pilot program that addresses the unity well-being. we ask to include this on a holistic manner. and the fiscal year 2016 included substantial increases for ihs and other programs that we are hopeful that the 2017 budget will build upon and those investments made. tribes have made some progress and there are key advantages of underfunded services. i am appalled at what happened in flint. over 200 members and my tribe were affected by this and i'm glad that congress and the rest

of the nation is paying close attention to what can happen when community infrastructure breaks down. i am equally appalled that no one is paying attention to the structural needs. in our citizens have been under comparable conditions and i ask you to consider this when they include the quiet crisis later this year. the commission is undertaking a review of the federal funding of obligations in indian country. we call on congress that is necessary to reverse the trends on the underfunding that has long-standing impacts on the nations people. we provide services such as law enforcement and social services, and energy development.

we urge congress to adopt at least a 5% increase for the budget to counteract the historical underfunding of the agency. the funding has increased by about 24% and we are grateful for that. when we adjust for inflation it is below the 2003 level by about 5%. i just faces major funding as well compared to other federal health care programs. the proposes an 8% increase overall for a total of 5.2 billion and we are grateful for that. this will be a great step towards the 30 billion overall needed in ihs. and that includes the budget request that we urge this committee to support.

and that includes the cost which we are working on an ungrateful. criminally authorizing this special program. including language and appropriations bills in these areas that provide great benefits indian countries. congress wants to answer the moral and legal costs so that we can look forward to prosperity and progress for future generations. exercising self-determination and we need you and tribal governments to pass the trust responsibility of the united states. i want to thank you, and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you, sir, i appreciate your comments. i would like to start with the first because i agree with your comments about the challenges and the situation being unacceptable. focusing on quality, leadership, accountability, aggressively

working in the great plains area and members of this committee as you know have been hearing a couple weeks ago and even members of the senate were not on the committee such as the senator who are here because of the concern that we have in regard to the conditions in the great plains area specifically. in 2016 you've only been on the job for sure it time, congress appropriated $2 million to help address some of these emerging issues. despite how dire the conditions are in the great plains and took the administration months to figure out what to do with $2 million in appropriated funds and i know you were there at the time. meanwhile, the facilities have lost their medicare provider status, facilities ultimately paying the price. another i know that the funds would not have solved all the problems in the area. but they were appropriated for the specific purpose and i think they could've made a difference. you know what it is that takes them so long to figure out what

to do with the funds? >> thank you, senator. first of all i do want to thank the senators for this funding. i think that the funding that you are referring to was funding allocated to any facility that had received a notice from the centers of medicare and medicaid which was $2 million and we are greatly appreciative. i like to know that we have decided to use that funding to replace equipment needs, some of the needs that were cited by the ms. we started replacing the equipment and getting the procurement process for we were able to proportion the money. but i will tell you that it was a process in a thoughtful one because we wanted to make sure that the funds were distributed equitably and so we have three facilities that were eligible for the running and what we agreed to do was, for the first

million, we would divide them of equally and we wanted to make sure that all of the tribal communities have access. the second million we wanted to make sure that we went with them to replace possible lost billing so the second million would he allocated according to past collections. then we went through what equipment is needed and i will make clear that for the equipment that was cited by the ms we had already replaced that were put into this situation. and i understand that the funds will be available.

>> the acting deputy services secretary testified in february that under the immense regions funding increased about 42-43%. and that includes being underfunded in the service. that includes people don't always seem to know where the money is going and i'm hoping you can help us have a better understanding for the last fiscal year and prior years under this administration. and that is what we heard in the discussion. whereas a larger percentage is using for administrative and other purposes. and we are all looking for this accountability in getting an

understanding. >> certainly, senator. we will get back to you. >> the committee got a letter this past week from the great plains tribal association and obviously it asks that we take action to ensure that the department of health and human services is working to address the immediate needs of the people in the great plains and it goes on to say that the crisis continues to escalate even after the hearing and that includes the act of burning patience and they are dying in transit non-indian hospitals and surrounding communities and the other hospitals are getting overwhelmed by 60% spike in the report that they are even communicating to ensure patient

safety. and i think they have a right to be. this is a bipartisan issue. so we need swift action, no band-aids or recycle plants to make plans. so could you help us to talk about what exactly do you need to make these things right in the great plains area? >> we have seen this as well. i perfectly understand the frustration and the situation is unacceptable. there is an urgency at the indian health service and we are working urgently and i say that i have only been on this position for a week. but there's no more important thing that we need to work on and getting those three hospitals on track. one of the major challenges are the staffing levels and we have a three-pronged approach to address the staffing issues and we have done deployment on these

officers to try to get the emergency department back up and running and we are also working on a contract to manage the emergency department at the hospital and of course we are working on long-term strategies for permanent hires and i have one little bit of good news. one of the challenges that we face is the hate we are able to pay versus the private sector and even other government agencies and even the va. we have approval for this so that we are now able to provide emergency room doctors 300,000 and we are able to pay supervisors 325 and that will help in our permanent hire. we are tracking that on many levels. >> senator cantwell? >> thank you, mr. chairman and i want to thank the vice chairman for allowing me to proceed.

and i wanted to ask about low income housing tax credit as in indian country. i know that we have talked about this increase after years of stagnant funding. as a member of the finance committee i've actually been to montana with my colleague with these projects being used and so i'm wondering how you think that that tax credit could be better used to leverage housing development in indian country. >> thank you, senator for the question. you are correct. they are leveraging this program and it is financing resource that enables tribes to be able to build affordable housing or mixed income housing and i think during my testimony i reference

that i had an opportunity to visit the nation with securing five income house credits. we are focused on increasing the public and private partnership and just to that point we are working closely with the tribal leaders and also with the senator on pulling together a housing form that will enable them to understand other funding that is available to continue to address the growing need of affordable housing. >> the senator and i have also facilitated these improvements and so i think that the 138 million that was a bump up was maintained but it's clearly

not enough to deal with the shortfall. one of the issues seems to be the facility conditions index. so they operated tribal school is at capacity. they didn't think that they actually qualified because they had only operated it for 37 years in the building was over 50 years old. and i just feel like there's always a lot of mystery in what gets funded and it should not be a mystery. >> thank you, senator for the question. i will say that in terms of the process that we are going to address. the rules are very clearly laid out to the negotiated rulemaking that we are a part of in a process. i will say that having observed that and having come to the

little league in the game i think that there are ways that we can work with future funding in terms of better addressing and making choices and to let me give you an example. this index is key. as part of this process for those schools that were invited by the committee to present, we reached out to all of the tribes they that we need to make sure that all of the tribal schools are making sure that this index is up to date. and so we did a lot of à la this over the last year to reach out to each of the schools offer technical assistance and also we have contractors visiting each of the schools every three years to do this index. having said all of god moving forward, quite frankly i think that some of the schools we need to take a look at and i don't think that that was a metric within the proposed rulemaking

or the negotiated rulemaking that was resolved and so i do know that the index was 85% and that includes the top 10 schools to move forward. so i how the that answered your question. i think it's vitally important. >> i'm not sure that it does. >> you have a certain degree and you might actually get funded. and so i get that you want to have an index and i think of that that is great but i think we need to have permit ability.

or if it is going to be a constant thing where other products because of the population gives us policymakers and maybe make some suggestions if people are falling through the cracks. >> that is we are completing the construction and the department is going to be internally working at a long-term program to lay out for the committee and for the tribes generally. here's where we are. here's the funding is needed. here's how we propose to afford. >> my time is expired. >> the obamacare it employer

mandate. it is $1.1 million in penalties. and i would argue outrageous fines. and they have endorsed this bill and the president recognizes the impact of obamacare on many and changes to other related provisions and could you speak to the burden? and that includes the needs of this legislation to exempt them from this mandate. >> the question is catered to me

because i was speaking loudly on this issue. i'm here to speak and i do have an example. it is likely to be about $3 million and so once again the reauthorization we are grateful for this and we are seeing some of the gains that we received because of the consequence of the employer mandate. one portly and we have some of those from the white house, understanding the unintended consequences before implementation. not afterwards. so there is a diversity and then there is also the tribes that

have entrances, some do not. and there's a complex maze to figure out what the unintended consequences going to be. and i would ask this be put on hold until after we do consultation with chives and we fully appreciate the full costs are going to be. >> thank you, i want to shift gears and talk about wildfires. in 2015 we experience one worst fire seasons and in fact the fires were so severe that the tribe opened a separate facility fielders. and here is one of the challenges, oftentimes they start on federal lands. and in a proposal providing them

more freedom to protect tribal trust resources through active management. my question is do you support increasing the tribe's authority to more actively manage tribal lands and the neighboring federal forest lands? >> thank you for the questions. i am generally supportive and i understand that the act is focused on the department of agriculture and so i understand that it does provide guidelines for certain types of funding to be provided and i think generally we are so order of of deadlines and so i would like to talk more with my colleagues and maybe circle back with your staff on questions that we might have. >> we saw some clear examples and where there was proper for stream in active management and

as you know wildfires are not a respect her boundaries and that interface is important. i would like to get your commitment to work with me and the usda to address these. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, and to the vice chairman for letting me go first. i think that when we usually do these hearings and other committees there is one agency had been sitting in front of us who we can hold accountable for outcomes and one of the great challenges is the styling of services for the tribes, whether it is health care, whether it is hhs or all of the issues that fall all of the above with the department of interior and honestly the department of justice and i want to say that i applaud this administration for doing the most i've ever seen to

try to coordinate among all of you to try to build relationships across the agencies to change the outcomes. with that being said we continue to see incredible challenges, whether housing for indian education, indian health care, law enforcement. respect for sovereignty and respect for consultation until i will start at that juncture. so kind of like rapid fire her because her so much to talk about. obviously we have extended the invitation to the director to come to north dakota and see what is happening with the lack of law enforcement and the lack of protection for a very vulnerable population. he hasn't responded and i hope that you will go back and asked

him once again. given that you have primary jurisdiction in many of our states. >> i will share that information but i will like to point out in partnership with the department of interior they have been working collaboratively to provide services for victims. >> it hasn't stopped drugs from coming on the reservation. and let me tell you if you want to see children born under conditions they should be warning, come to any one of my reservations. and there are people operating there with impunity. ..