>> so the fbi doesn't have any authority to go to court on its own? >> no. we do take them with us, howev however. >> i am confident of that. i want to make sure people

understand and respect the roles of different agencies within the law enforcement community, the fbi and the doj. what i intended to start with is your comments on gun violence and let me come back to the other issue in a moment. do you believe mental illness plays a role in some of the incidents of mask on violence we have experienced in america in the last year's? >> i think with respect to specific cases where it's been adjudicated we can say that. otherwise it would be speculation but i will say that i think mental illness is the issue i find cutting across law enforcement issues today. both from how we police to overlook a violent crime to how we manage our prisons. circa as relates to how we manage fire arms in this country, essentially making sure we continue to have the right to

have responsible firearms owners and yet balancing that against those who were not allowed by law to firearms because of the adjudication of mental illness of various types. >> i couldn't agree more and i know the adjudication issue was in the virginia tech shooting, for example, the state of virginia had adjudicated the shooter as mentally ill but the state had not uploaded that the adjudication of the background check system and so it was missed. i couldn't agree with you more about the intersection of mental health and law enforcement. i met at a major county sheriff's meeting yesterday. a sheriff of los angeles county, and, of course, many people who are homeless living in our streets don't have recourse to adequate treatment and perhaps

even families who need additional resources to help their loved ones comply with their doctors orders, particularly with regard to taking their medication. i would ask you to look at this legislation i've introduced call the mental health and safety movies act which includes component you've talked about. perhaps that's something we can work on together. i would welcome your input and advice on the. >> i look forward to reviewing it. >> let me get back to the role of the fbi and the department of justice. i want to talk for a minute about secretary clinton's use of her private e-mail server. we have read the fbi is conducting an investigation of some sort, that secretary clinton had previously deleted about 30,000 e-mails that she did not send to the state department. she did send another 30,000 to

the state department, and no the courts are going through the process of determining which of these are producible under the freedom of information act. but recently the department offered immunity to the gentleman who was what helped set up the private e-mail account. it's true that immunity cannot be granted by the fbi alone? it requires the department of justice to approve of that grant of immunity to go to court and ask the court to grant immunity as part of the ongoing investigation, is in direct? >> there's various types of immunity. some of the purchase without agreement between the lawyer and the defense counsel. there some that are conferred by the corporate certainly regarding the very stipes that is something that's done in conjunction with an agent and

editor to make the decision and also in conjunction with discussion with defense counsel. >> that the transit of approve granting immunity to transcend? >> with respect to that specific case as i'm sure you we don't discuss specifics of any ongoing investigation. >> i'm not askin asking about specifics the unmasking of a procedure. >> with respect to the procedure went in specific witness i would not be able to comment on interaction between that witness and the department. >> just as you said the fbi can go to court without department of justice's approval and usage ago together. that's what you said you go to get the if, in fact, this was immunity granted by a court, that had to be done under the auspices and with the approval of the department of justice which you had, current? >> it would depend on the type of immunity. sometimes it's an agreement between the attorney and the defense attorney.

>> i believe you already said that. let me give you a hypothetical. if the fbi were to make a referral to the department of justice, to pursue a case by way of indictment, could be in grand jury for the purpose, the department of justice is not required by law to do so, are they, are you? >> certainly it would not be an operation, it would be an operational procedures which we work closely with our partners bigger would be consulting with the agents on all relevant factors of the investigation. and come to the conclusion. >> you would have to make that decision for someone else working under you in the department of justice? >> it's done in conjunction with the agents. it's not something we want to cut that out of the process. that has not been an effective way of prosecuting in my

experience. >> i'm not suggesting he would cut them out. as you said earlier you had the fbi would do that together, current? >> we handle matters together of all types. >> if the fbi were to make a referral to the department of justice to pursue criminal charges against mr. pagliano or anyone else who may have been involved with in this affair, does the ultimate decision whether to proceed to court asked for the convening of a grand jury and to see canada but? does not rest with you or somebody who works for you at the department of justice's? >> with respect to mr. pagliano for anyone who has been identified as potential witness in any case, i'm not able to comment on the specifics so not able to provide you -- >> i am not asking you to comment on specifics. i mask it with a standard operating procedure is. it seems pretty straightforward that the fbi does criminal investigation but reversed the

charges to the department of justice including those attorneys perhaps anymore celebrated case, goes higher up the food chain. my simple question is doesn't the buck stop with you in terms of whether to proceed to seek an indictment, convened a grand jury and to prosecute a case that refer to you by the fbi? >> there's many levels of review at various stages of the case so i would not necessarily be involved in every decision as every prosecutorial -- >> it would be you or someone who works for you, correct? >> everyone in the department of justice works for me, including the fbi. >> i'm confident of that. >> well done, attorney general. well done. i want to welcome you here. thank you for the new. it's nice to see new yorkers before this committee. brooklyn, our home broke his extreme gravity of the great work you're doing. just speaking for myself, you would have made a great supreme court justice and nominee.

i regret you put your name out but so be it. all want to talk about appointments to supreme court but it's instructive to discuss broader issues of confirmation to this committee under the senate majority. we have before us as we all know, someone who went through a large, ma arduous and sometimes acrimonious confirmation process to a post to which she was eminently qualified. the acrimony wasn't about her record. about her character. it was entirely about politics. it resulted in nearly six months delay between nomination and confirmation as well as the only only cloture vote required for an attorney general in united states history. but you are far from being the only one to suffer a delay, madam attorney general. many others suffered total disregard or today we talked about majority's refusal sight unseen to hold hearings on

supreme court nominee. but there's a whole slew of lower court nominees and executive branch appointees who are languishing in the morass that is the majority led confirmation process. or i should say lack thereof. republicans have confirmed the fewest civilian nominations of any senate and decades. these are important posts. chief sanctions officer in the treasury department, commissioners for the acc and sec, and this senate has confirmed far fewer judges than any recent comparable session. it's not just with the supreme court that the republican majority is not doing their job. it's about appointments up and down the line. it's no surprise that the number of judicial emergencies tripled since republicans gained the majority in 2015. we are going to try to get votes on a few judges that have the

support of their own state republican senators this afternoon. i hope our republican colleagues will not take politics within. the bottom line is that the republican senate doesn't do its job confirming nominees, whether it's for executive or judicial branches, and other branches of government can't do their job or i want to focus on the supreme court, just ask you a few quick questions. your department represents the u.s. government in every court case in which it hasn't interest, correct? >> yes. >> that's a lot of cases, isn't it? probably many times longer than the biggest law firm. >> i view us as the largest law firm really in the world. >> don't rely on the federal courts to be the arbiters of significant legal disputes because they certainly are important in the process. >> the united states was party or filed interest in the vast majority of cases before the supreme court last your? >> yes. >> a function supreme court matters in terms of function?

>> it matters to the executive branch and the department of justice. >> what happens when the court deadlocks and can result issued because of a tie? we had in the past with certain justices had to recuse themselves because my understanding is the lower court opinion would stand and that would bring the relevant law. >> -- in the justice department and the private sector sort of perilous things or put them on hold, companies may wait for decision? your agency may not be able to prosecute or move forward on other cases if this deadlock or division within the fairest districts, is that there is a? >> i think anyone would have to evaluate whether the currency of the law allows them to proceed or whether they had to wait. >> there are times when they can't? >> you are times when they could not proceed. i would say from a law-enforcement perspective we will proceed to protect the

american people to the best of our a building regardless of. >> sometimes it would be easier if you had a decision. >> i think people want clarity. >> another issue. this is an extradition case, a heartbreaking criminal case and want to ask your help in bringing the perpetrators to justice. on march 14, 2009 vladimir was brutally killed after exiting his shop at the end of the business day. is murder, brighton beach, part of my old district even 30 years ago. is murderers stole a payroll back and beating to death. he left behind a widow, four beautiful children, the youngest was only an infant when his kill. but, unfortunately, the suspects fled the country before they could be prosecuted and one was arrested in australia two years ago. the nypd and the brooklyn das

office had been diligently working to get him extradited to the u.s. so he can be tried for murder in the family can receive justice. but because we have extradition treaty with australia, it isn't within our authority to bring the killer back at the been waiting for seven years. will he try to help look into this and maybe speed up this extradition so they don't have to wait any longer? >> i am aware of the case and where our office of international affairs has been pursuing this extradition matter for approximately two years. i look forward to being in consultation with my australian counterparts soon on the matter. >> we need real help on this issue because they been waiting for justice. i don't know what's holding it up. whatever you can do to get justice for them would be appreciated. last issue for me, mr. chairman, is squatting. we are the school district in middletown in the hudson valley.

someone is angry at something about this school and they have been played by swatting attacks. a caller calls up and makes repeated threats of violence against the school. fiscal has to be evacuated. sometimes the kids have to stay in school after 3:00 into law enforcement authorities make sure it's safe, disrupting parents and allies. the kids are scared. some parents are keeping their kids out of school and it's been repeated times, 13 times just to this middletown school district. half of them to the maple hill ulimately school of own. you can imagine the fear that the kids and the parents have. we have a problem because the caller is high dpi locked and spoofed numbers. i've spoken to the local fbi. their main office is in manhattan, and they are helping us but i understand this is a national problem. so first i would just ask you to

make sure that the resources that they are to help find the perpetrator of the school. and second and finally, what more can we be doing to deal with these swatting incidents which i think are nationwide? >> thank you, senator. this is actually a nationwide issue and we do not view these as pranks or childish calls. they are serious. they divert scarce law enforcement resources to incidents that are not, in fact, acted as you noted they terrify particularly children, parents and cause long-term issues for school districts are dealing with this. we take take them very seriousld will refine these perpetrators we do intend to prosecute them. certainly whatever is being proposed here either by this committee or congress were happy to work with you and legislation that would aid in those efforts but we do take these efforts very socially.

it is outside of new york state also. >> would you just make sure that every resource is being used to help find the perpetrators speak with yes. actually it is. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> before senator vitter, just a small rebuttal to a small part of what you said about the court, and that's in regard to reference, you didn't go into detail about emergency judicial vacancies. there are 31. we have 12 here. just so the public knows, we can't deal with the other 19th until the white house gets them up here. senator vitter. >> turn one. thank you, madam secretary, general. i'm very concerned about continuing sanctuary city policies in many jurisdictions around the u.s. we have talked about this before. often defenders of those policies couch it in terms of

not wanting to dissuade illegals who would be witnesses or who are victims, reported by. a lot of these policies also applied to not reporting illegals who are arrested or convicted of criminal offenses. in other words, they are on the criminal and, at the event of course as a saw tragically the murder in san francisco. do you think it should be disallowed for a local jurisdiction to prohibit its police force from reporting illegal status of somebody who was arrested or convicted of a crime? >> thank you, senator. you have raised a very important issue that affects the interaction with the local jurisdictions as you've noted with our federal policies for

removal of dangerous aliens, particularly those who are coming out of federal custody. your reference again to the tragic murder in san francisco is one that is highlighted this issue. certainly with regard to local policies they vary across the country, and certainly we are in litigation now on to particular matters where we are defending the department of homeland security and their request to have jurisdictions report to them when local illegal immigrants are finished with state cases and, therefore, removable. we currently actually have -- >> i don't want to cut you off but my time is limited. do you agree or disagree with policy that prohibits reporting illegal status of somebody who was arrested or convicted of a crime? >> with the current state of the law and concerns about local jurisdictions are handling this matter, that is a local matter. what we have done as a policy --

>> actually it's not just a local matter. >> we have a new policy regarding without we deal with cities that have refused to either turn individuals over to us for deportation or provide us -- >> there's a federal law on the matter, eight usc 1373, says that no government entity including state or local or official may prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to a receiving from the immigration and naturalization service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of lawful or unlawful of any individual. so it's a federal marital, isn't that great? >> yes and we are defending that position in court. >> so based on your defense of the opposition, do you disagree with policy that prevent reporting to ice and federal authorities illegal status of

arrestees or convicted criminals? this effort is a? >> if those policies impact the particular statute that you mentioned, rv would be they would fall under again the laws, the position w where currently defending which is jurisdiction should report. our issues i went jurisdictions do not report. as you quoted in the statute to i.c.e. for removal the information that we would need to of touch with the removal of those defendants. >> in louisiana, new orleans has just announced an expanded sanctuary city policy. they had some elements of century city policy. they have just finalized and announced a far expanded policy that would include absolutely prohibiting the world's police department from reporting to i.c.e. or any federal authority, illegal status of someone again, puts it aside victims and witnesses, someone who's been

arrested and convicted of a crime. in opd through its spokesman said publicly and quoted in the press, i'll be happy to give it to you, that the justice department in the federal consent decree monitor were very involved in discussions leading to this policy and approved the revised policy. do you know if that's great? >> what i can tell you is the policy in question is one of the new orleans police department felt that they needed to effectively police new orleans. it's my extent it does not pray with them from providing information to the federal authorities when we need that information as part of our eyes responsibilities. essentially that is my understanding of the situation. >> specific question. did the justice department approved the policy? >> i've given you my understanding of the situation and so i would refer you to the

specific terms of our consent decree with new orleans as you can see what is specifically approved or not. my understanding is that new orleans does provide information to us for removal of illegal immigrants so that we can, in fact, fulfill our eyes responsibilities. >> this policy specifically prohibits the new orleans police department from reporting illegal status, including of folks arrested and convicted. this policy specifically prohibits the criminal sheriff from telling i.c.e. when he is releasing from his local prison somebody who is in illegal status. specifically prohibits that. that's very troublesome, particularly given a statement of the justice department approved this policy. >> that's not my understanding of the terms. they would be allowed to provide information as required under

the statute to i.c.e. authorities so that we could effectuate our removal responsibilities for those individuals. and that's consistent with -- >> including i.c.e. asked them to do that on a regular basis to report any arrestee, person convicted who is in illegal status, and any person being released from jail who is illegal status speak with i'm not aware of prohibitions do that. that would be consistent with the policy which we have just recently announced regarding cities that you have a practice of not providing that information of where we have individuals in custody who would've been released to a state dictator to answer to state charges which we do take seriously in situations where those jurisdictions have indicated they would not return the person to us at the end of the state proceeding or not provide this information. >> madam attorney general, my

time has wound down but one last statement. i think if you read a policy, and it's laid out in black and white in clear words, but that's absolutely wrong. part of the says the nopd shall not engage in, assist, or support immigration enforcement except as follows. in response to an articulate direct threat to life or public safety are one such services are gorgeous able to execute a criminal warrant or court order issued by a federal judge. that means that routine as i'm describing they will not tell i.c.e. when they have an arrestee or convicted criminal who is in illegal status, they will not tell i.c.e. when they are releasing that person from the local jail. >> if the attorney general wishes, she should have a chance to respond i think of that

before i start my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, senator vitter. as i indicated before, new orleans has indicated that will provide us information. certainly the issues you raised about a court order or issues of public safety to implicate i.c.e. concerns and would allow us to undertake our i.c.e. responsibility to remove those individuals. >> thank you. madam attorney general, the similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco dangers was unsettled, and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus, that the fossil fuel industry has erected a. under president clinton veterans have brought in 18 civil action against the tobacco industry for

its fraud. under president obama the department of justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme. a request for action by the department of justice has been referred by you to the fbi. my question to you is other than civil forfeitures and matters attended to a criminal case, on the other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the department of justice has been referred to the fbi? >> thank you for raising the issue and thank you for your work in this area. i know your commitment is deep. this matter has been discussed. we received information about it and have reverted to the fbi to consider whether or not it meets the criteria. i'm not aware of the civil referral at this time i will look into that and get back to you. i'm not aware of a civil referral outside the one you

just raised. raised. >> aren't any civil cases with united states as plaintiff within doj's civil division in which the fbi is preparing the case for the civil division? >> are you regarding climate change? >> regarding any matter. >> i couldn't give you information right now in terms of whether or not -- >> take that as a question for the record. section 1968 authorizes the attorney general to file a civil demand prior to the investigation, institution of a civil rico proceeding to gather and to protect evidence. in referring this matter to the fbi, did he authorizes them to issue civil investigative demands under your authority pursuant to that section? >> i wouldn't be able to give you the specifics on that at this time. >> question for the record than. have you designated the fbi or anyone as the document custodian

under the statute at issue, document custodian be a term of art in the rico statute? >> i wouldn't be able to provide that information. with respect to the fbi specific steps relating to a referral to them we would not be able to give you an outline at this time. >> so whether or not they were authorized to use the attorney general's authority to file civil investigative demands would that be something you could disclose? >> they always have the authority. whether or not it happened in a particular case i would not -- >> i want to make sure they have that authority. >> whether or not it occurred in a particular matter is something we would not be able to give the ins and outs of while the matter was under review. >> the campaign finance environment america is now as lawless as the wild west. the federal election commission has been blockaded by three commissions to the point where

it is now according to the enjoyment of the cord dysfunction. the irs has been intended to the point where it is dysfunctional in the campaign finance area as the post recently been ported it has thrown in the towel. the one area where the agency still operate is in requiring that federal forms be filed and filled in under oath or that's the reporting requirement. when you look at these forms, they show on their face over and over again the same organization will give one answer under oath on one form, and a different answer also under oath on any other form. let me ask you is it true that false statements made under oath are prosecuted at the department of justice? >> you cited the relevant statute. that would cover false statements under oath in forms

or orally to federal agents. >> is a true this section are the bread and butter of the department of justice? >> i'm not sure if that's the characterization i would use but there is a tool we use in a different types of investigations. >> frequently, constantly and without the need for agency referral? >> we use them frequently both with the lawyers, justice and in the field. >> can you tell us whether the department has taken any steps of any kind to inquire into the flagrantly inconsistent statements made by organizations under oath to the irs into the federal election commission, and, indeed, in some cases the state election commissions? against iraq and sign the ball it would. actually what they said under a to the irs. >> i don't have that information for you. we take all allegations of

violations of 1001 or any other relevant statute governing these important violence seriously. >> the concern i have from previous conversations we've had, the department takes, not you and i but the department and i, is that the department has taken the position that unless the iris makes a referral to it or the federal election commission makes a referral to it, it will not take notice of the open plain notorious and evident conflict between public statements made under oath on federal applications and forms. that seems to me to be hard to understand, given the very simple nature of an 18 usc 1001 fusion. it's not as if this is a matter that requires one to delve that deep into the arcana of tax law.

as a statement is false. it is false. if two statements are irreconcilable it would seem to be there's a reasonable likelihood that one is false, and if there's an explanation, fine, but i would think the department would want to try to obtain that explanation rather than simply allow the lawless to continue. my time has expired. [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general lynch for joining us today. the department of justice pursuant to the all writs act recently obtained a court order requiring apple to engineer software, software that it doesn't currently exist. it would enable the government to bypass security mechanisms built into an iphone previously used by syed farook, one of the san bernardino terrorists.

importantly there were several phones that were used by the to san bernardino terrorists. all of the other phones were destroyed. all of them were crushed and for inaccessible because they didn't physically exist anymore. this particular phone was a work phone and some to speculate perhaps that's why it wasn't destroyed. wraps it was being used for work purposes. but regardless of this phone because it wasn't destroyed as the subject of this effort by the department of justice, resulted in this effort by the department of justice to require apple to engineer software to doesn't currently exist. the all writs act important it provides that the supreme court and all courts established by acts of congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in the eight of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to usages and principles of law. it's not open ended. it does require, allow the court

to demand anything and everything. it still has to be agreeable to the usages and principles of law. law. is it none the less you position the all writs act permits courts to compel private parties to engineer software to assist law enforcement? >> as has been laid out in the pleadings in the relevant case, it's our position of the all writs act as interpreted by bride of course including the supreme court does require third parties to provide assistance to the government when necessary and when they're capable of doing so to execute lawful court orders. the specifics of that will vary from case to case and will essentially determine, essentially out of third party person is able to provide assistance to under what needs and measures. the all writs act provides a legal authority for the court to order the third party to provide the system. the type of assistance will vary

from case to case. >> what's limiting principles would exist if, in fact, the all writs act permits, can be read to authorize a court to develop software that doesn't already exist, to enlist the work effort of a tech company to create something that doesn't yet exist works what principle is better? i would ask what principle is there in place that wouldn't also allow the government to use the all writs act or some other mechanism to require apple, for instance, to write other softer, perhaps software that would unlock a cell phone came from unlock a phones microphone from unlock a phones location services system in order to assist the government? assuming apple or whatever other company is at issue. what a limiting principle would stop the government from using, going into court and using the all writs act to compel the kind of work products because in

every situation you have to look at the assistance that was needed. in the case here in san bernardino, the government does not asking apple to unlock the phone but did disable the password blocker that would destroy the evidence. >> they would have to engineer something that doesn't currently exist spirit that is not apple unlocking the phone or going into the phone and extracting it or apple taking certain steps. every case as we know just watching jurisprudence will be developed by the relevant facts. in this instance is important to note this is a customer request for a company to provide assistance to a customer. this request first came from the owner of the phone, and so i think that's an issue that's of relevance and importance in this case also. every case is going to be different. what we've tried to do is have a very narrow very focused inquiry into potential evidence on one device. >> it's important to remember

the supreme court has stated in pennsylvania bureau of corrections versus u.s. marshal services, 1985, the all writs act is a residual source of authority to issue writs pattern otherwise not covered by statute. it is that afford and not the all writs act that is in control. there is a long that deals with issues in this area, the law of courses called taking medication assistance or collegiate. it states -- clia -- cully it does not authorize any office require any specific design or equipment features or system configurations to be a doctor but any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. calea further states that quote a telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting all ensuring that governments the ability to

decrypt any communications encrypted by a subscriber or customer and less was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication. does calea apply? >> i think the relevant laws that we feel are applicable are laid out in the place in the san bernardino case so i would refer you to those briefs, rather than have such a limited discussion about one long. >> i understand this is a limited discussion at our time is limited but it's important nonetheless. my understanding is the department of justice takes the position that calea does not apply, and yet that seems odd to me because apple is, in fact, a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. and apple is, in fact, being asked to be responsible for decrypting or ensuring the government's ability to decrypt and i think that apple itself has manufactured. i also find it troubling that

we've got a situation here in which this administration and many others were calling on congress for a long time to require by statute that apple and other simile situated manufacturers provide a backdoor and a backdoor key to be used by law enforcement. that effort failed. that effort contemplated effort to calea. because that effort failed it's that much more disturbing, because there was not enthusiasm of congress because there were legitimate public policy concerns expressed in connection with that idea. congress declined to adopt such legislation. now that congress has declined to adopt such legislation then and only then the government goes into court about the same that they decide not to pursue this. tries to get to the all writs act, 1789 statute that was intended to not apply in

circumstances like this where the entry has been addressed by statute, a remedy it couldn't get through congress. this is not the traditional situation. it should be handled by congress, not the federal courts. thank you, mr. chairman. i see my time is expired. >> just briefly, mr. chairman? thank you, senator for raising these unborn issues and for your thoughts on them. i agree this is a metaphor for public debate and discussion both by this body, hopefully this committee. i know many people have given great thought to it, the larger congress and the american people. we have a law enforcement obligation to proceed. and i can assure you that as was set forth in prior testimony we've never asked for a backdoor. we don't want a backdoor. we want companies to do what they've been doing for years which is provide assistance when they can and how they can. and hautacam will be determined and i feel should be determined by the court in every specific

case when there's a battle law enforcement interest to do so. most respectfully we did not wait for congress to stop considering an issue to bring court action but what happened was someone killed 14 people in san bernardino and in the course of our investigation a couple of our assistance obtained information from the device. the same way if we need to get into that person's desk or lochner, we went to the owner of the end of the had to go to the manufacturer to gain access to help us gain access to a locked device in a way that would not destroy what was inside, that's the situation. i simply placed before you as part of the consideration of this important issue. but i thank you for those thoughts. those are important issues and did you require more fulsome discussions as to how we handle these issues and how we continue to constitutional balancing we've always done in this country. and also the safety and security rights of every american which

is my sworn duty. >> senator durbin. >> madam attorney general thank you. during the course of this presidential campaign to been statements by candidates which have been hateful toward american muslims. one candidate preferred you certain refugees as rabid dogs. donald trump up-front buyer said we should ban all muslim immigrants from the united states. we held the first hearing ever on anti-muslim rhetoric and hate crimes several years ago. i would like your comments on the monitoring of hate crimes and crimes against people of the muslim faith, and your observations when it comes to law enforcement and the need for cooperation from american muslims to keep america safe. >> you raise a very important issue and i think a hearing that was held on that, those issues that allowed for full and open airing of the concerns about

rhetoric that we are hearing that is hateful toward muslim or people of any religion or any perceived difference. and, of course, we enjoyed a robust habit and pattern of free speech in this country and we protect that. even hateful speech is protected. my concern has always when that speech crosses the line into incitement of violence and when violence occurs as result of that. we take it very seriously as something that could be a precursor to violence. as i indicated before protecting the bounds of free speech but looking for the situations where people to cross that line and they are inciting others to commit violent acts. we saw that happen after 9/11 unfortunately. we saw several acts of violence against those who are muslim or who were perceived to be muslim, wrongly so. that resulted in death and serious harm. we know it can happen and something that is not indicative

of the values of our country. we have found it to be very effective to engage with the muslim community before the flashpoint incidents. it's been my experience both in his chair as attorney general and as u.s. attorney at the muslim communities like any other community in this great country of ours, they have people who are both sides of the law, they also the same concerns that we all do. their children are concerned about being bullied in school. they're concerned about received discrimination or real discrimination. providing information to the muslim community about those issues can ease the fears of conflict would find it to be very helpful in obtaining and building rapport that can help us as we go law enforcement investigations. >> senator hatch asked earlier about the issues of mens rea, and cited opinion by justice jackson. assistant attorney general leslie caldwell testified before

the committee in opposition to send hatch's legislation on mens rea in a recent hearing. i'd like to ask you to be more forthcoming if you would, perhaps more specific. it's by accident of course that there are certain crimes were we have said that there's a strict liability standard, food alteration is an example. the notion of killing someone who is law enforcement or federal government or otherwise, even crimes involving child pornography and sex trafficking. i use an example in a hearing where we have a crime on the books which says if you're engaged in terrorist activity until an american you will be held terminally responsible. i use the example of a terrorist in mumbai and the fact they couldn't have gone a bit on that the work american tourist was killed by the terrorist act at that hotel.

under our law they could be held responsible. could you expand more on this issue of mens rea? >> certainly and thank you for the opportunity to comment further on this issue. we look forward to working with you and other members of the committee as we explore how this interacts with the sentencing reform efforts. as you've noted we have decided as a society and as a statutory body, congress decided to our crimes for which liability is important to ensure the safety of our food and drugs but also to ensure the protection of those who serve as big as you mentioned the murder of a federal agent of terrorist activity that results in the death of americans abroad, are activities that we as a society have deemed to be a such a nature that they should incur criminal liability when they occur and when it can be proven.

that liability is indeed a strict liability because of the nature of those crimes that there are other and nation would have to prove inward to find someone guilty. we would have to establish that they were responsible for the actions, that they took those actions for a particular purpose. the absence of a specific mens rea or knowledge of that the american tourist in a particular place would still not only the thgovernment of its responsibilities to fully, fairly and ethically prove that law. the fact they did not know in that example that americans were involved would be used appropriately in my view, as something to which they could be found liable for incentives for. >> last december that president commuted the sentence of a man who at the age of 24 never served one day in jail, was

found guilty of a third strike for the sale of drugs in the city of chicago and was given a life sentence. life since. he served 22 years before the president commuted his sentence. i have met him, worked within. it is clearly a sentence which is excessive, way be on what should'vshould have been impose. that are not 20,000 clemency petitions are pending before your department. it doesn't appear you have the capacity to deal with any kind the way. tell me i am wrong. >> i think that with respect to clemency, the number of petitions is i'm not sure it's quite that high and we are working, we have put in place practices to work through the backlog. we have committed the resources we can consistent with the appropriation issues that we have. we are committed to working through the process.

it is part of our larger system of criminal justice reform. it is part of the many ways in which we're trying to deal with the issues that have been the result of prior decisions that were taken we feel at the time with good intent, the intent of protecting people but have had these collateral consequences. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chair. madam attorney general, welcome. i admire your points out appreciate all the work you do and your staff is done to prepare for this oversight hearing. article one, section nine of the united states constitution prevents officials from accepting money from foreign government while in office. the constitutional convention of 1787 in have adopted the cost to prevent foreign influence on government officials. according to secretary clinton's public financial findings, she and former president clinton appeared to have received payments from speeches direct from foreign governments or

detention account of a foreign government but none of the publicly released e-mails suggest the state department ethics officials analyze whether their joint income violated the constitutional restriction. as the justice department analyzed whether their income from foreign sources may have violated the provision of the constitution? >> you raise an interesting issue. i concluded that the matter has been under discussion both in this and other proceedings is in the department's review of how the state department handles classified information. i'm not aware of any other issues along the lines of what you outlined. >> would be possible to have the department look into it and report back? >> if you would provide this information. i'm not sure i can promise you a report at this time but i don't know what issues will be implicated. i don't know the timing of the issues you mention or the amount you have mentioned or the relevant rules of the department -- >> we will follow up with a

formal request. one final question. it sounds as though based on the answer to that question the justice department did not let anyone in advising the state department about legal questions that may be raised from the former presidents speaking engagements? >> from president clinton's? >> that's correct. and the joint finance with secretary clinton. back to the same question. you haven't been consulted on this matter of? >> i'm not sure of the timing of when that would be, when that would've occurred and so i simply don't have an answer for you. i do not believe we would've consulted with state department. you may want to raise that with the state department internal process. >> we will conclude that any follow-up questions and for the record i wanted to ask a question during her confirmation hearing last year i asked a question about the inspector general's report of i think december 2014. i was curious, i think part of the report is titled the doj

strengthen procedures for discipline its attorneys. at the time i don't think you have the opportunity to go to the inspector general's report. now that you've been in the role for a while, have you had an opportunity to look at that? has the report been constructed in any management decisions you've made? >> what i can do is i have not read that report specifically. i am aware of the changes the department has made and was making throughout most of 2015 to ensure that the disciplinary procedures were streamlined, efficient, consistent including providing more resources for the office of professional responsibility. >> about to move down to maybe a lower level that relates to your public safety officers benefits program. we know there's a backlog in the doj process, and i believe in her confirmation hearing last year you may recall i raised

issue with you whether or not we could place priority on clearing the claims backlog. it looks like we haven't made much progress, and kind of curious, i guess the sheer number of claims and the length of time process of claims to october 30 laughter the total of over 1000 claims -- last year -- claims outstanding. in north carolina 20 oh so active death penalty claims outstanding. do you think the backlog is appropriate, and the length of time to close claims? if not what actions are you taking to reduce the backlog of? >> that's a very important issue and one i've had occasion to discuss with leaders of the various law enforcement groups with whom i meet regularly as well as mike sherif association. -- as well as the sheriffs association.

it's one that is mentioned to the department office of justice programs and they've been working on the backlog and i think part of the issue is the nature of the information they receive and the questions they may have to raise about it. they are looking to set in place their own system of streamlining fat and making sure that they are requesting only what they need at that they're acting as quick as possible. i know they're speaking on an individual basis about those claims to give him status reports and updates. it is something we are aware of, something we have frequent conversations with our law enforcement partners because it's a matter of great importance to the families that are involved in these tragedies at every claim you are referring to in her home state or otherwise, there's a tragedy underlying that. >> we will clearly be tracking the claims within north carolina but the broader question, we'll follow up with any sort of

measures and the resource needs and the other things may be necessary or changes may be necessary to draw down the backlog. it's prolonging the closure on a tragedy that these families argued with and i think it's important. i have a final question that i appreciate your comments in your opening statement about sentencing and criminal justice reform. it may be aware north carolina we did somebody reinvestment act which has been successful in terms of reducing recidivism and probation violations. it seems the concern for some of our members relate to the retroactive application for certain classes of crimes. do you share any concerned with the underlying bill, think you like for us to work on? i appreciate the fact you're going to help us gain support. >> a very important issue and

one i really appreciate the efforts of everyone on this committee in working with us on. with respect to i think you're referring to potential changes involving armed career criminals and possibly other firearms offenses. we have been working at a staff level to discussions about those who have we can make sure that we move forward with reform and still deal with serious issues raised by those types of defendants. from the department's point of view even if those are not the issues when it comes to release of any kind we do feel there should be a fulsome presentation to the relevant judge so decision came to me. i don't believe any decisions have been made about those and we look forward to talking with you further. i will commend north carolina of its use of the justice reinvestment act because through that i believe over the last soviet crime is down 11% in the state for which we are all extra in a grateful.

>> thanks very much, thank you. thank you, attorney general, for being here. want to start by thanking you for your focus on sex trafficking and implementation of the justice for victims of trafficking act that senator cornyn and i and others have worked so hard on. i know that events in good results in some of the cities that have been -- that stands for anti-trafficking coordination teams. i know many, the twin cities are one of them. but from what i've read you have 86% increase in convictions in those bishops. compared to 14% and non-atc-t district but what if you could comment as well as what's happening with a piece of our bill which was developing the national strategy to combat human trafficking? >> thank you very much for raising an issue that is of great importance in one of my own priorities as attorney general.

with respect to the atc-t we've had success along the lines you noted in raising the conviction rate and also the ability to open cases in the cities to participate in it. we are bringing six more cities and districts on board and we hope for similar results as well. it has been one of the, the tip of our sphere so to speak and are approach dealing with human trafficking, the partnership we have taken with dhs and the department of labors are enabling us to not only bring the case but also provide real support for the victims of trafficking at the end of this case because of course there, does not end just with the conviction. i thank you again for your work along with senator cornyn on the bill but also on this important issue. our national strategy is in progress but what i would say as part of the national strategy it

has been enhancing the federal collaboration between doj, department of labor at department of homeland security. we also been strengthened our collaboration with our state and local colleagues. last fall announced another $44 million in grants to improve and enhance those local efforts at about 35 million of that is going to go towards organizations that are focused directly on survivors both in terms of empowering them and providing them real assistance at the end of the case. these collaborations are also going towards training local enforcement officers and the variable type of recognizing human trafficking victims when they see the. this has been one of the concerns that they've expressed to us that they don't have a problem in their jurisdiction. they want to work with federal authorities and enhance with us but are concerned about the ways in which to gain inroads into the victim community. also supporting the ngos who often are the first people that the survivors country.

they often don't called law enforcement first. >> thank you very much for your work. we look forward to continuing to work. we've had enough of cases out of the twin cities with islamic extremism, recruiting of extremists, number of indictments come number of convictions, all of our federal law enforcement is working together and doing a good job. ..