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 i want to have a conversation liability. about recent policy changes and and that is a strict an approach that i have long liability because of the called for nature of those crimes to prove to find somebody i would explore with you a host of issues relative to the guilty to establish they are responsible that they took department including my reit those actions for a recent fbi i also want to particular purpose. discuss with you at another the specific the mens rea example of stonewalling at the that there were american administration and using the tourist would still not

alleviate the government of its responsibilities so they department as a tool for its resistance. the people are now aware that they have used nongovernment would be held accountable in service for official business day did not know in that example that americans were over 2000 e-mails containing classified information with some involved to be used appropriately as to what containing with what we describe as top-secret, sensitive, they could be found liable compartmented information and for. >> to commute the sentence other related to special access at the age of 24 never programs. served one day in jail was found guilty of a third the department and the fbi have refused to officially confirm basic information about the strike with the sale of scope and nature of the investigation to this committee. drugs and was given a life apparently the fbi is conducting sentence. an investigation relating to the he served 22 years i have mishandling of that classified information. given the politics involved, the potential for improper influence worked with him and that is excessive in and way beyond over the work of the what should have been investigators and career imposed. prosecutors is high.

there are 20,000 clemency the president and his spokesmen petition is it doesn't have commented on the merits of appear you have the capacity the investigation, some news to deal with that in a timely way. reports say that investigation includes even the clinton foundation. >> with respect to clemency president clinton who was involved with a pound foundation the number of petitions i am not sure it is that i but to put in place practices to was appointed to be u.s. attorney in new york. this does work through the backlog to not involve anything different than appearances by giving these appearances more needs to be those resources that we done to ensure the public and the decisions are being made without any influence from can't is committed to working through the process. political appointees. it is part of a larger system of criminal justice if the fbi prefers of the matter to the justice department and it reform. refuses to prosecute than the with the issues of the results with good intent. 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 >> i admire your poris and conviction. it is about a systematic effort

to avoid freedom of information what you have done to laws and federal record laws prepare for the oversight because you have heard me say so hearing article one section many times that the public's nine clause eight of its business are to be public. officials accepting money the records of government for foreign government while in office the constitutional business i think, belong to the convention prevented foreign american people. simply said, the american, the american people ought to know what their government is doing and must be influence on government officials and according to sure that it is free from the interference of political appointees in the executive secretary clinton filings branch. i conclude now by said i look she and former president forward to conducting oversight clinton will receive over these issues, again thank you for being here attorney payments directly from foreign governments or the instrumentality with those publicly released emails to general lynn chen for engaging in these important parts of our system of checks and balances, analyze of that joy and also thank you so many times since you have been attorney in, violated the general for discussing things with me on the phone one-on-one, restrictions has the justice i appreciate it very much. now i call on senator leahy. department analyze if that >> thank you very much. has violated that provision? to make your raising an issue but the matter that is i do welcome our nation's top law-enforcement officer by the under discussion is under lynch back to the senate

judiciary committee and i the department review how commend her for the way she has the state department handles classified information. handled the department of justice. one of the core responsibilities of our committee is to provide >> is it possible to have the department looking into oversight of the justice with and report back? >> if you provide department and that includes information we will see i cannot promise a report at this time. holding public hearings of the attorney general so i would note and no issues or timing ora that on matters of ongoing those relevant rules. >> in one final question matters the attorney general has eyes been available to answer questions for members of this that the justice department committee. did not play a role with those legal questions that but the american people deserve the opportunity to evaluate for can be raised from those themselves the work of the department and i look forward to speaking engagements and as hearing from the attorney general. including a range of subjects that are important to us in ethical questions based on vermont. the joint filings of but public hearings are also a secretary clinton. chance for the american people to watch us, their elected >> i am not sure the timing

officials. america should should be able to see their government of when that would have in action, they should know occurred site won't have an answer we may want to raise whether we are acting on their behalf and whether we are keeping their interest, not partisan politics, at the forefront of everything. that with the state i must say that is why the department civil again that committee holds hearings for the next nominee for the supreme i wanted to ask the question court, public hearings. about the inspector the senate's constitution i general's report in part of mention that because for a that was entitled to hundred years we have done that strengthen procedures at the in public hearings. time you don't have the however, for the next nominee opportunity to go to the the for the supreme court has yet to hold a think a public inspector general's report. committee meeting to discuss how have you had an opportunity we are going to fulfill their constitutional duty. i know the republican committee as the chief executive? members met behind closed doors >> i have not read that to unilaterally decide without report specifically that i any input from democrats,

decided this committee and the am aware that changes the senate as a whole, will simply department made throughout refuse to consider supreme court most of of 2015 to ensure those disciplinary nominee this year even assuming procedures were consistent to provide resources for responsibility. if you will that the president fulfilled his constitutional duty to nominate a supreme court >> movie that down to a justice. it is spelled spelled out very clearly in the lower level of detail rigo constitution. of course we have taken an oath of office under god to uphold there is i backlog and from the constitution which is advising and consenting to that your confirmation hearing i nominee. by having a unilateral decision raised debt issue with the for some behind close doors and the derelicts of our claims backlog it doesn't constitutional ability and it look like we have made much denies the people a chance to participate in a public discussion of the nominee. progress also the of a now we talk about the justice length of time that there department responsibility of keeping america safe, we should were over 1,000 claims remember that the senate republicans refuse to consider

the next supreme court nominee outstanding do you think 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 that backlog is appropriate court will be missing a justice in that length of time to close the claims and is not for probably a year and a half anyway. what action are you taking? as several former u.s. attorneys from ohio and washington, >> that is a very important california, virginia recently issue that i had occasion to discuss with the groups meet wrote, the federal prosecutors, with regularly. agents a year is a lifetime. the public safety officers benefit program is managed we see real threats whether it through the department is the heroin epidemic or the threat of isis recruitment facing people in our communities office of justice. every day. while law-enforcement stands ready to protect the public they need to know the rules of the but part of the issue is the road. nature they received they these former law-enforcement officials explain a supreme court unable to function as part are looking to set and place of the operative of our nation's their own system to laws could be a real challenge streamline to make sure to the law-enforcement they're requesting only what community. they need and acting as clip -- quickly as possible.

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 in to give the status reports and updates. and to have frequent conversations with but those as an oath to pull the constitution, so help me god. that are involved in these tragedies that you refer to end up holmes stayed there we should consider nominee to is the tragedy we take that the nation's highest court. responsibility seriously. it represents the american >> and we will follow up people every week before the supreme court, hearing today is on the justice department but with any sort of measures what looms in the horizon is that may be necessary and 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, it 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 jue ust e 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.