. >> so before anything to the of contrary would be a typical gratification with that analysis of that preclusion issue? that is from some traditional opinion. >> you are relying on the original history. but to reauthorize the statute in the program was instituted and the wit to the process -- they went

through the process but can you explain to the if i a member of congress in ordinary member but not a committee what was i told? not in the classified briefing about what was i told cove read this what memo did i get? >> i think there were some from the chairs to the intelligence committees. but they identified information was provided by the executive branch and it was important for evaluation of reauthorization of this authority. >> than i had to figure out if it was worth it to me to

do with or not? >> looking at those other issues with that legislation where the president signs it that has been accomplished to say you should go read something before you vote that they approved what never was in there. >> but we have members who pointed to this very debate. >> they say listen in you bozos. but you better read it.

>> but this goes beyond from the ordinary ratification. >> justice scalia does not seem to. you can take it up with him one day. [laughter] >> but with your position in light of the nature with the debates of congress there are multiple coaches walking for word. >> we don't think this is authorized by congress if

they think this is something that should be done to take care of all of these issues that if this is legislatively authorized. >> to save to this sorry don't use this then there is nothing then we don't have the constitutional issue. >> this section into hundred 50th authority june of next year some action has to go one way or another. with data ongoing debates but the president said he supports achieving the national security goals

without the government suggesting with the providers in the same statement to notes in order for that approach to be workable in the manner necessary legislation would be required so he thought it was important to continue this capability to continue the reauthorization then it was reauthorize a second time. >> september 10th is the next date. >> september 12th is the current order reflected in the brief. i think i clarified that

discussion earlier. then i will turn to the fourth amendment. the position is that under smith verses maryland. >> let me tell you with what problem i have the of that not just that it is the old days but not just with the mosaic but doesn't dare come a time when the old-fashioned to recognize

for a long time with admitted data of that sort is so detailed and extensive that's it is content divulging actions rather than not but the whole .11 is is something that you already give out. is not as though you're listening which would be different. a course to become so sophisticated that unlike the register you are finding

content is there any validity to that idea? >> will certainly this is one of the issues in the public debate with disclosures. first we are talking about the same type of information with. >> but to that point they did to each piece of metal data analysis he said it is a third-party but doesn't it require based upon and the

right to your privacy and to make that determination why do you have to go through that exercise? >> reflex talking about the type of information that it is the same type of call detail records in smith. so the number calls and number received time and duration not talking about a name or address but it has changed so much one that it does not work. >> the next few points is the ability of metadata to

reveal information was known at the time and in effect the power of the metadata the center at smith himself pointed out that concluded even though that expectation is, companies are assembling of mitt data -- metadata with a list of calls at the end of the month did not give rise to protected fourth amendment interest. >> but if issues in the four rooms in the united states every day to say all the time that he could be on his cell phone that you should

infer what day talk about. we don't have the context of the phone call but the insider of goldman sachs to talk to the trader. . .

and in light of the technology. i think that is critical to understand, you know understand, you know, in addition to it being only noncontent information about the telephone calls data can only be queried for counterterrorism purposes and then only if there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that the selection term number for whatever is connected, associated with the specified foreign terrorist organization's. >> safeguards built into legislation. >> i don't think i don't think that is right, your honor. in 1861 subsection g requires minimization procedures because i think

the text of the statute reflects it was understood that this tool can be used to obtain data that would relate to, you know, a number of number of us persons. and so the statute requires that the government propose an element of the program be robust minimization procedures. they have outstanding tale. but but that there would be protections around the use and dissemination of the data. >> now that we have some experience with minimization procedures i presume it would be possible to spell out something and legislation of this program were going to be authorized by congress implicitly the said what makes sense and what didn't. after all, this judgment the attorney general has to specify and so far basically signing off on what the attorney general asks for.

when it was made more restrictive that was because of the attorney general asking for it to be so. that is not a criticism of the court because they operate essentially an expert a context. no one is there saying here is what would be better all we think this is what the constitution requires. the government comes in and says, here is a list of things we think you should tell us to do. the course is okay. those restrictions are approved. my concern about all of this is that, that you know it is harder to say we have this program we never misuse this data. we only use it for these purposes. that is not the same thing as the government not having that information sitting there where you know i don't know what mr. snowden

could have done, maybe instead of linking the order he could have leaked the database. we don't know what happens when some inhabitants of the white house this one or another one have the unit and decide to let them have access to the database. these are realistic concerns about letting the government have this massive body of data without anything -- look. i'm sure look. i'm sure part of your answer has to be command it makes sense, whoever makes the rules they could be abused. if you tell the government they can do this, it has the technological pacitti's, they can get it anyway somehow to have all our phones and we would never know it. if they are bad guys these are restrictions but there are levels of restriction. you know it is one thing to have congress adopt a program and say this is what

it is that we consider what needs to be done. and one that says, well, they can give what is relevant that they should be careful how they use it. then we infer from that this massive program. >> i think your honor the record on the enactment of section 215 and its extensions respectfully goes beyond the flood version that you just articulated. but i do think that the.about the national security area of the political branches being charged with within a range drawing the lines about what steps are appropriate to accomplish national security needs something the supreme court has articulated in the 4th amendment context. purged the congress draw some of these lines almost -- am not sure that this is

the phrase that was used for mobile because some of these questions are susceptible and effect to legislative fact-finding about what is appropriate what trade-offs are appropriate to meet the needs of national security. similarly in the mcquaid and cassidy cases this court in evaluating types of anti- terrorism or counterterrorism activities connected with the subways and fairies noted that again record should be reluctant to wrest away from rest away from the political branches the choices about how these judgments should be made. >> very cautious about making the constitutional determination. >> which is why i think your honor should evaluate the program that we have. there is obviously a desire to ask questions about what might arise. given the supreme court has make clear the reasonableness tonight you

do have smith and you do have the same type of information if you are reaching the constitutional issues we urge a focus on the program. >> you agree we have to reach the constitutional issues. >> yes. i was referring to your preclusion.which respectfully i think is a function of the regime that congress established. in the supreme court has also recognized that where that is the case, where congress has not provided in apa for the action the consequence may be examination of the consequent -- constitution. that was the result. the court said the constitutional claim could be reached because there was not in apa cause of action available. >> the only way that we can achieve constitutional avoidance in this case is by ruling against you on something statutory.

otherwise we are forced to get there anyway. >> again, our position is -- >> i prefer that you not rule against us. here us. here congress has not provided jurisdiction for the court to reach the statutory claims. and so therefore we are left with the constitutional argument whether you do it at the level of smith versus maryland and answers the question about whether it is the 4th amendment search to get the records from the telephone companies in this context or if you go to the special needs inquiry and the reasonableness approach if you look at the program as a whole the fact that it is authorize that collection only upon the imposition of robust controls over when the data may be queried very elaborately set out and with

reporting back, this is not respectfully just -- and i think this i think this is reflected in the courts opinions which is now been declassified not just the court accepting whatever the government offered but making a determination according to its own statement that with these procedures the program strikes an appropriate balance with providing the capability. >> the order that imposes more restrictions than the government. >> i don't know the answer to that question. my.was if you look at several of the recent opinions. >> some kind of rubberstamp. the procedures are little different than the ones in

the district court or with congress in terms of having a robust consideration to minimize. whatever the judge can bring to bear. >> right. so what i think i can say is that although these particular not in the joint appendix at home on the declassified materials are opinions reflecting reactions to compliance issues that were identified and steps that were taken in response which as i recall included orders that were not simply things that were proposed by the government but that is the general recollec. >> he seemed to fly them properly so the material that has been declassified and therefore should serve to assure us that there is

not a special needs problem 4th amendment problem. it is odd. that is what he have let us no. i mean, i say this with more than all due respect all of the stuff that we now know that we don't know we don't know, all the stuff we now know is as part of a political reaction to the understanding that this program was in effect. arguing a good deal of material that was made that was classified and was made public as a reaction to that >> certainly that is true. there is no information public and the public realm

that had not been public before. but this program and i think this think this is the critical aspect of the congressional design was subject to article three of you from the beginning by operation of the fiscal it was a body that congress set up specifically to accomplish that just as the intelligence committees act as the channel for oversight of the executive branch from the congressional side where you are by necessity dealing with classified information. >> this is entirely useless. the whole system surely would be give one a much warmer feeling if it was not all ex partake that there was some representative of the other side even if it was a pro bono amicus.

fitzgerald from chicago and have them argue the other side of this. i would find what you say i find this a lot more reassuring if it were subject to an adversary process. >> as your honor may be aware among the proposals currently pending for a change to the program would include provisions that allow for more than one option on the table as the kind of approach are talking about but in fact i think if you look at the reasonableness inquiry for example i think balance the

factors that the supreme court and this court have said should be balanced on the one hand there certainly is an overriding importance on preventing future terrorist attacks. the intrusion if any subject to the smith argument on the privacy of individuals is carefully and to allow the examination of the data, to allow the identification of connection only on finding of reasonable articulable suspicion. so the statutory and post safeguards limit the use retention and dissemination of the records collected. there is also an oversight system as well as other entities and the executive branch all of this should lead the court if evaluating the 4th amendment question

to conclude that the program as it currently stands is reasonable because the 4th amendment. >> constitutionally reasonable whether or not it gives us a warm feeling. >> that is certainly true. because the test is whether it is reasonably effective means there is no restrictive means. >> complete. something that you think you have not gotten to that is critical. >> i just -- we will consider that based on the brief. brief. he will be able to pick it up in rebuttal. he didn't talk about it in his initial. relying on his brief.

we need to hear more about the. something critical that we should know that you have not gotten to. probably more time than you will get in the supreme court. >> i i can assure you if and when you get to the supreme court he will see two of these. >> thank you, your honor. >> we will hear you on rebuttal. limited rebuttal. limited to two minutes. at the same time a very thorough discussion of the issues. so i hope that you will be able to be relatively brief and respond only to points that you have not had an opportunity to address so far. with that go right ahead. >> just a few issues. that doctrine is not a game of god yet.

the the question is always whether there is an official interpretation of statute that congress was aware of and legislated on the basis of which is not the case. many members of congress were not aware. those who were were not provided legal analysis, and even then they're were not allowed to discuss it with their colleagues or constituents in a way a way that the supreme court has pointed to in past cases. the 2nd, to go back to exchange that you had relating to the efficiency the question of efficiency. the professor explained quite clearly that the government could use targeted the man's in a nearly instantaneous way if this structure the range structured arrangement with telecommunications companies in a certain way and congress could provide for that mechanism. and mechanism. and the fact that congress is not yet provided for the mechanism is no bar to this

print court you link to the spring court ruling that he must. that was the case when the supreme court ruled a government cannot wiretap individuals without a warrant and was precisely the case when the supreme court ruled foreign intelligence surveillance even though justified by the need together entail -- intelligence had to be individualized. smith is very different from this case for a lot of reasons. it is not just that the government is acquiring different types of information and it was under smith. not just that the government is acquiring the information about millions of individuals and not just one but that the government is acquiring information even when they are stuck to an single person for an indefinite duration. that is made clear the constitutional balance is different and needs to be addressed differently. i think you are exactly right. now requires this court to

assess the expectations of privacy of this program and not just of what the supreme court decided. a quick related topic, the minimization procedures that the government heavily relies on would be constitutionally superfluous if smith govern this case. they could collect the record without protections in place, place store them indefinitely to my query them for any reason or no reason at all and build with no constitutional restriction. the government tries to explain why it is only asking for narrow ruling but the legal theory that it advances is a roadmap to a world in which the government routinely collects vast quantities of information about americans have done absolutely nothing wrong. i don't think that is the world congress envisioned command it is certainly not the world that the framers envisioned when they crafted

the 4th amendment. >> thank you very much. we very much appreciate the arguments of both sides which were extremely careful and learned command we will take them under advisement and eventually render a decision. thank you all very much. that is the last case on the calendar. the court will adjourn. >> the core stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> the court left little doubt of its distaste but it did not

issue an injunction to stop the program. why? >> i think because it's actually going to go away of its own task right now. it's going to expire in less than a month. and likely either congressional action will come in and reconstitute it or it -- the votes won't be there and it will just die. obviously there are different factions in different houses as to what a different bill would look like, but i don't think there's a strong likelihood that this exact bill would be reenacted. >> back to 2011. in your mind was it understandable for the white house and congress to go along or was it wrong? >> i think in the balancing --

it's a tough balancing but i confess, i don't think i would personally have made a different call. think this. at that moment we were looking for a needle in a hey stack. i don't know if we even knew if we had the tools to find a needle in a hey stak. one could program that the program now exists provides that tool. others associated but is there a way to find because of this program? there probably is. >> how significant was today's ruling not necessarily with this program but any future program where the government is trying to collect information on individuals or massive data around the world? >> i think the court is issuing a caution to the congress which is an interesting advisory role which they claim not to be doing but i believe they are clearly offering some

perspective to congress and it is this. if you are going to design a program that collects information, tailor it narrowly so that the average american who has nothing to hide is not concerned that their data is now being kept that some day someone is going to go back and go through. >> what did the court rule today and essentially what happens next? >> the court said that as it now stands this legislation cannot justify the actions as they now are being engaged by the nast. what happens next is very interesting issue. legally it could go back to the district court to make for the findings different analysis. the united states could appeal it either by seeking a review on the d.c. circuit. but none of those thingless happen before the act will

expire. so in all likelihood what happens next is congress will decide either to reconstitute the program in a way that will meet judicial muster or perhaps they will take their chances and keep it as it is and see what the supreme court would have to say about this. >> let me get your thoughts on technology in general because back in 2001-2002 they began by looking at phone data records and now there is so much more out there with twitter and facebook and so much information that the government and essentially anyone can begin to sift through to try to find, as you said, that needle in the hey stack. but today's ruling send a message on other forms of communication, social media and the rest? >> i think it does. i think it would apply with equal force the same kinds of meta data in essence. i think that accompany many of the other forms of social media communication.

not necessarily saying who you are or where you live, but your unique identifier will accompany those conversations and that could be stored probably is being stored. and some day could be retrieved. >> you've spent some time here in washington. how do you think lau makers on capitol hill will respond to this on pending legislation and future debates? >> that's an excellent question. i think on the continuum of the political scale those that are primary pro ponents be view this as a bad decision. the civil libertarians will view it as a good decision. i think the bell curve middle will be troubled by the decision. i believe we need to have the ability to provide some insight into communications that are

going on. but they haven't figured out a way to balance it at least according to this court in a way that gives people as sufficient comfort that their rights aren't being infringed. >> which is the big question how do you strike that middle ground? >> i think one of the other problems is that the courted that reviews these kinds of requests is not a public court. so it's not even going to have reported decisions so that the normal process for a political balancing is courts make decisions, lawmakers make laws the public reacts, there's dialogue there's commentary. you fine tune it. the structure we have now for this doesn't offer the opportunity for that. it's almost going to be a hit or miss thing that the congress will have to give it another go

somehow or another it will get challenged we'll have an incomplete record and we'll continue to feel our way along but it's somewhat blindly.

>> the first dinner i will be quick here. the first dinner we had as a family -- and there's this tension. i don't know if you know notice it when you first go there, you don't know the staff. they've been there for years and you kind of rotate through. and so you're trying to get to know each other and everybody is a little formal. so we're sitting at the family dinner table myself, dad and mom my sister susan, and everybody is a little -- trying to figure it out. and my dad trying to sort of take the edge off. he looks and see's there's a

wonderful fireplace in that room. he says, oh, gosh, when we used to go to vail, colorado for christmas we always loved to have a fire. one of the people that worked there, must be the president telling us to light the fire. so they went over and they lit the fire. it hadn't been used in ten years. now, smoke is billowing out. this is your first dinner with the staff and everything. the smoke is coming back into that dining room. susan and i are coughing. and we're trying to get up. i will never forget my dad looked at me and he says sit back down. and he says betty don't we just love a fire? he had such a good heart to try to make them feel good. it was -- yeah. it was just -- those are my memories of those first days.

she appeared before the senate appropriations subcommittee on justice to review the justice department's 2016 budget request. this is an hour and 40 minutes.

>> committee will come to order. welcome to today's commerce, justice, and science subcommittee hearing examining the department of justice's disco year 2016 budget request -- fiscal year. let me welcome loretta lynch to her first hearing before this subcommittee as she assumes the important spots ability of serving as our nations chief law enforcement officer. welcome. as you begin your two-year term as attorney general, i believe it is critical for you to return the office of attorney general to its constitutional purpose, which is to enforce the laws of the land, not the degrees and winds of the president. the president has a white house counsel and pretty -- plenty of attorneys arguing for his point of view on immigration

environmental regulations and more. the attorney general, i believe, is the servant of the loss and citizens of the united states, not the president. i want to encourage you, madam attorney general, to consider this perspective carefully as you begin your service in a job that is critical to our democracy and to the rule of law. i am deeply troubled by your support of the president's unilateral executive actions which provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. fortunately, the sweeping policy changes undertaken without input from congress has been stayed at the courts while the a detailed review is conducted through the lens of

the law and the constitution. i hope that while this litigation is pending, congress -- progress will be made on key responsibilities that are within the departments jurisdiction, such as executive office for immigration review. the presidents 2016 budget seeks a funding level of 400 -- $482 million, $135 million above the current 2015 funding level, a big increase. significant improvements and reforms are needed in our immigration court system in order to address the approximately 440,000 pending cases, some of which involve unaccompanied children. this backlog equates to a waiting time of several years before a case is heard, i believe and what hope you would agree that this is unacceptable. the needs are great for immigration courts, i have serious reservations about such a large funding increase when

inefficiencies and concerns have yet to be addressed within your office. in your new role as attorney general of the united states i'm interested in hearing your suggestions and recommendations for prioritizing spending for the department's most important missions involving national security, law enforcement, and criminal justice. the president's 2016 budget request for the department of justice totals $29 billion, $2 billion above the 2015 level. while funding for the department of justice is one of the federal government's highest priorities, we cannot afford such an increase in spending while operating under our current budget constraints. i am concerned that, even in the midst of the current fiscal climate, the president has proposed new grant programs and

initiatives that would further stretch the department spending. when it comes to law enforcement, your arrival at the department at a critical time of needed leadership is welcome. since our hearing early this spring, with the department's law-enforcement she is, we have seen the departments that departures of the atf director and the dea administrator. i hope you will pay attention to these law enforcement agencies. to ensure that they faithfully execute their duties during this time of change. as an example, the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms and exposes has a rule pending that would impose burdens -- burdensome and unnecessary regulations regarding firearms lost or stolen in transit.

however, the atf's own statistics indicate this number is insignificant and should not be a cause for concern. it does not warrant such encumbering regulations. oversight and accountability should remain a top priority for this committee, i have consistently expressed my displeasure to your predecessor regarding the departments resistance to cooperating with the department of justice's inspector general. i continue to hear from the inspector general that this office -- his office having difficulties obtaining documents needed to do their job. i urge you to work with the inspector general to make sure he and his staff can successfully complete their reviews and audits of the

department of justice. i have outlined the department. the department faces many challenges that will require fiscal support. the path to making progress runs through the subcommittee. i know that. as you begin your tenure, madam attorney general, i want to express the subcommittee's hope that we will have a constructive working relationship. thank you. senator mikulski: thank you mr. chairman. i want to welcome the attorney general. we are so glad that you were finally, finally, finally confirmed and we could get the on the petty politics that were the obstruction confirmation.

before i go into my statement, i want to remind the committee that yesterday was senator shelby's birthday. could we join in a round of applause and wish them good health -- wish him good health. let's hope that is not the high point of the hearing. you have had an eventful first two weeks, i know this is your first congressional hearing since you have been confirmed. we are looking forward to your testimony. in terms of the justice department's needs for its 2016 budget. we are eager to hear from you about the many ongoing efforts of the many justice department agencies. we want to thank you, madam attorney general, for your work in coming to baltimore and your team coming into baltimore. it was helpful to the mayor, to our police department, and most of all, to the citizens, to have the presence of the justice department. i personally want to thank you on behalf of the entire

maryland delegation for the professionalism of your team and your self. i would like to knowledge the right of the deputy attorney general, mr. ron davis, the director. your outstanding community relations team that came in and provided crucial technical assistance during troubling times. we were in baltimore on tuesday together, as you listened to faith-based community officials and leaders. you reached out to the freddie gray family. i will not be asking you any questions about the freddie gray investigation, because we know it is ongoing. you have gotten a request from the mayor about asking the department of justice to open a pattern and practice investigation into our police department. later on this afternoon, you will beginning a letter from the maryland allegation

supporting that request. that will go forward. i want to say this -- in many cities across the country, including my own town of baltimore, and communities primarily that have significant populations of color, there has been a tattered and broken trust between the community and the police department. we have to restore that trust, we need the police

department. we want to express our condolences to the people and the police department of queens about the death of officer brian moore who was gunned down so brutally. we do need criminal justice reform and we needed with an urgency of now. i intend to ask questions about what you need in the way of resources to do the job that needs to be done. and what reforms are needed that are specific and targeted. we are joined today by an s -- outstanding appropriator and the chair -- raking member of the authorizing committee. we are here to show that the american people have a government on their side and to have a constitutional focus to what we do. we have put money in the federal checkbook, $2.3 billion for grant programs targeting resources for police, local government and communities. arrange for more cops on the beat, to the rape kit backlog, to child abuse. mayors have told us they need help getting more cops on the beat, we had $180 million in doing that. we wanted to help them have the equipment they needed. $376 million in grant programs. now we have to look -- what does that mean? some are crying out for body cameras -- is this one more gimmick or a crucial tool? communities and nonprofits want

to help young people. this is why we will look for your thoughts either today or in the ongoing discussion. prevention, intervention, who help with things like the legacy to the ongoing mentoring we need. -- many civil rights groups and community leaders have called out for criminal justice reform. we are looking forward to your advice to that and know the judiciary committee will also be doing it. i will have questions related to money. and also, training. if you get the money, should you get training? i look forward to asking questions on -- if you get cops money, should there be required training on how to deal with racial and ethnic bias? what about the use of force? the national standards every department needs -- what about body cameras? there are privacy concerns storage concerns, many concerns. what should we do? last but not at all these, i hope for both this conversation

and ongoing comic the issue of the broken window policy. when the broken window policy was initiated by an eminent sociologist, john wilson, i supported it. i supported it as someone who started her career as a social worker, that if you fix the broken window, you intervene when they were doing minor offenses, could we intervene in a way that prevented them from growing up doing major offenses? while we were looking at the broken -- the criminal -- the minor criminal, we would fix the broken window, deal with vacant houses, deal with the truancy problem. now what seems to happen is the policy has deteriorated where we have stopped fixing the broken window and have

escalated the frisking. -- fixing -- last year, 120,000 only stops occurred in baltimore, we are a population of 610,000. that is a lot. i do not know what the appropriateness of that -- but we need to look at it. i sit here as the ranking member of the committee that will fund your department and assume my national responsibility. i am here for the 85,000 kids, all of whom a day of the disturbance went home peacefully, what can we do to help them, the 610,000 law-abiding people in baltimore who obeyed the law and helped to do that. we look forward to working with you on what are the tools needed to restore confidence between our police and community? we would put our arms around our young people and see what we can do to help them.

maybe when we fix a broken window, we have to fix a broken political process we have to get the job done. i look forward to your testimony. >> welcome to the committee, your written testimony will made -- be made a part of the record. loretta lynch: thank you sir. thank you, mr. chairman and remind me to come around on your birthday another day -- quite a celebration. good morning, chairman shelby, vice chairman moguls be -- mikulski. i look forward to working with all of you, today, and in the

i want to take a moment to extend a special thank you to senator mikulski for your leadership over the last three decades, for your support of the department of justice and its employees and for the extraordinary example of public service you have provided to all americans, especially to women. i am honored to have the opportunity to work with you during your final two years in office. as we approach national police week, which begins this week it is fitting that we take a moment to consider the contributions and the needs of law enforcement -- thank you, sir. it seems to be fixed. thank you, mr. chairman. as i noted, national police week will begin next week. at this time in history, it is important we take a moment to consider the contributions and needs of our law enforcement officers across the country. law enforcement is a difficult profession, but a noble

one. over the course of my career as a federal prosecutor and as u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york, i have been privileged to work closely with outstanding public safety officials. i have seen up close the dangers they face every day. as mentioned by senator mikulski, earlier this week, officer brian moore, a 25-year-old new york city police officer died after being shot while trying to lessen a man in queens. just two days ago, sergeant greg moore of idaho was tragically gunned down, also while interacting with a suspicious individual. the tragic loss of these brave individuals serves as a devastating minor that our nations public safety officials put their lives on the line every day to protect they have often never met. their work is the foundation of the trust that must exist between law enforcement officers and the communities we all serve.

that is why, when there are allegations of wrongdoing made against individual officers and police departments some of the department of justice has a responsibility to examine the evidence and, if necessary, to help them implement change. while i was in baltimore on tuesday, i met with the mayor, law enforcement officials, and the community, faith, and youth leaders. i spoke with an officer who was injured amidst the violence and heard a number of ideas regarding ways in which the justice department can continue assisting baltimore as they work to recover from recent unrest. although the city has made significant strides in their collaborative reform efforts with the community oriented policing services office, i have not ruled out the possibility that more may need

to be done. i sure you senators, i am listening to all voices. we are in the process of considering the request from city officials and community and police leaders for an investigation into whether the baltimore city police department engaged in a pattern or practice of civil rights violations and i intend to have a decision in the coming days. the situation in baltimore involves a core responsibility of the department of justice. not only to combat illegal contact, -- conduct, but to prevent circumstances that give rise in the first place. going forward, your support of the department and of our funding and the president's

fiscal year 20 seeking budget request will enable us to build on successes and make further progress in the mission with which we are interested. i am pleased to say that this budget request is in line with my highest priorities. safeguarding our national security. defending the most honorable among us -- vulnerable among us. and strengthening trust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. our most important objective must be protecting the american people on terrorism and other threats to our national security. as you know, under my predecessor, eric holder, the department of justice engaged in an essential efforts to counter filing extremism and domestic radicalization to strengthen counterterrorism measure, promote information sharing and collaboration with the intelligence community. and provide training and technical assistance to our

foreign partners. we must advance on all fronts, we must prepare to meet new and emerging threats and vigorously defend american citizens at home and abroad. the president's budget request will strengthen our national security efforts by investing a total of $4.6 billion in the department's cutting edge programs. this total includes $775 million, an increase of $27 million to address cyber crimes and enhancing the security of information networks. in an age in which criminals have the ability to threaten our national security and our economic well-being from far beyond our borders, is critical that we ban our focus and strengthen our defenses to protect all americans from explication and abuse. i believe that cyber security must be the top priority for the department of justice. this funding will allow us to build on the outstanding work of the department in

identifying new threats, sorting attempted intrusions and bringing perpetrators of wrongdoing, wherever they may hide, to justice. as the department works to safeguard american security, we are equally committed to upholding american values, including the protection of our most vulnerable populations. the fiscal year 2016 budget would provide $103 million in new civil rights investments to address hate crimes, sexual violence, and human trafficking. an area that warrants a renewed focus and efforts. it would allocate $100.4 million to approve the efficiency of the court system by supporting additional immigration judge teams and board of immigration appeals attorneys by expanding the successful legal orientation programs and allowing for additional legal representation for unaccompanied children and deliver $247 million in program increases for the smart on crime initiative, designed to address america's overreliance

on incarceration while reducing recidivism and deploying law enforcement resources more effectively. by all evidence, this program has been a major success as well as an area of bipartisan cooperation and agreement. the requested funds in issues budget will allow us to expand this critical work and amplify our shared commitment to a fair and efficient and effective criminal justice system. the department has made clear, and i support, this innovative approach does not lessen our resolve to combat violent crimes, drug trafficking, and other violations of federal law. we remain determined to investigate and prosecute criminal activity. the president's budget supports our goals by appropriating an additional $43 million to investigate and hold accountable those who break federal laws and harm innocent citizens. from the legal firearm and drug traffickers to perpetrators of health-care scams and financial

fraud. in all of our efforts, we intend to work closely, not only with this body, but with our law enforcement partners on the front lines across the country. that is why the president's request allocates an additional $154 million to support state, local, and tribal partners in their own efforts to counter violent extremism, higher and retain officers, serve the victims of crime, research best practices, improve indigent defense and expand reentry programs. this includes nearly $95.5 million for the community oriented policing services hiring program. the $5 million for tribal law enforcement and $20 million for the collaborative reform initiative, a recently developed pogrom that facilitates collaborations between offices and law-enforcement agencies seeking assistance on a wide variety of criminal justice issues, from use of force practices in the deployment of crisis intervention teams, to building trust with the members of their communities. as we have seen in recent days programs that establish trust

and improve collaboration are essential to carrying out our law enforcement duties effectively. add to the overall safety of the american people. in the days ahead, i hope and intend to bolster our efforts in that area. i'm eager to work with the subcommittee and congress to build on the many achievements of the department of justice and to secure the timely passage of the president's budget request, which provides $28.7 billion in discretionary resources. including $26.3 billion for vital federal programs and $2.4 billion for state, local, and tribal assistance programs. as a former attorney -- u.s. attorney who saw -- who lived through the unsustainability of sequester, i can tell you that this level of support is necessary to ensure that we can continue to protect the

american people and effectively serve the priorities of the united states of america. esther chairman, ranking member, subcommittee, i thank you for the opportunity to meet with you here today and discuss the work of the department and i happy to answer questions you may have. thank you for your time. >> in november of 2014, the president expanded immigration amnesty through executive order he. further, two people over the age of 30, a new arrival. it allows for million additional illegal immigrants who had been in the country for five years and who are parents of u.s. citizens to apply every three years for deportation deferrals. in january of this year, you testified during your confirmation hearing that you believe that the president's executive actions are legal and constitutional, even though the president stated on record many

times he did not believe he had the constitutional power to grant amnesty without authority from the congress. why do you believe the president's executive actions granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants are legal and constitutional? loretta lynch: you have focusing -- have focused on one of the most challenging issues. as i indicated during my january testimony, as a career prosecutor and former u.s. attorney, i focused on the prioritization on the removal of the most dangerous of illegal immigration from our

country. with respect to that issue, i found that to be a reasonable exercise of administrative and prosecutorial discretion. the actions involving the issuance of deferral to new members who would apply for that, i believe that matter is the subject under consideration by the courts, as you have noted, those actions have been enjoying and as i stated during those proceedings, i'm committed to abiding by the injunction and working with the department of homeland security to ensure the injunction is supported while pending. >> as you assume the position, how would you enforce current and -- enforcement laws, given your belief that the recent executive actions trump existing laws? do all executive actions trump the laws of congress? loretta lynch: that result from illegal immigration. the department's own executive office of immigration reform is charged with adjudicating various types of immigration filing. that department has suffered from a backlog of cases and inefficiency that have delayed actions separate and apart from the president's new policies

that have delayed actions for too long. within the new budget request, the department would seek to hire additional judges, 55, to reduce this backlog. also, recognizing that we cannot wait for additional money, we are taking steps to try and make the executive office of immigration reform more efficient. previous to my testimony, the judges have worked to triage the types of cases that need to be adjudicated quickly, judges have been reassigned and redeployed to handle the backlog of cases. as we recognize, that is unsustainable. apart from the immigration

reform, i'm sure the committee is aware, approximately 30% of federal criminal cases that are brought by our u.s. attorneys across the country, relate to immigration offenses. apart from the legal result of the court result of the november policy, the department of justice is moving forward both to prosecute criminal activity resulting from illegal immigration and to support the work of its executive office of immigration reform, which we believe is vital. mr. shelby: financial fraud, you were directly involved in several high-profile financial broad settlements -- fraud settlements. not one of those settlements involved a criminal prosecution. why did you -- i know you were

not the attorney general, not pursue criminal charges and how could you enter into a billion-dollar settlement sometimes with firms guilty of fraud and never see fit to prosecute one person for mortgage or financial fraud? will that change since you are the attorney general? are people buying justice? loretta lynch: with respect to the work i conducted as u.s. attorney in regards to the residential mortgage tax securities initiative, my office was involved in two of the major settlements of that as well as other outstanding attorneys offices across the country. throughout those investigations, the message at

the time, both from the leadership at the time, from all the u.s. attorneys working on that and for myself to my team, the direction was, no entity is above the law, no individual is above the law, no one is too big or powerful to jail or fail. what the department does in every case is follow the evidence. we ascertain the best way of achieving legal compliance when there have been violations and providing redress to victims. we look carefully, in every case, not just rmbs cases, but every case involving a financial institution where american citizens have lost money to determine the best way to bring those wrongdoers to justice and where the evidence leads us, to find evidence that we can prove the on a reasonable doubt that there has been a criminal violation, we go in that direction. i would point you to the number of criminal fraud prosecutions brought by my office on behalf of the they gives of ponzi schemes, mortgage fraud schemes, and real estate teams

involving hard-working americans. where we find evidence that points towards civil liability we pursue that. i assure you, senator, that both in my prior position and going forward, i take very seriously the obligation to protect our citizens from fraud of all types and it is one of my highest priorities as attorney general. mr. shelby: the threshold for a civil case is not as high, and neither should it be -- is that correct? loretta lynch: yes, a different burden of proof. when there is criminal evidence, we proceed. who can provide proof of that. >> mr. chairman, madam attorney general, of the many programs

you have at the local level, in baltimore, we have a top-notch u.s. attorney's office, an fbi field office, joint task force is working with local government going against everything from human trafficking, such a violent, despicable thing, to medicare fraud. which we know, in florida, is a $3 billion, defrauding our government of money that should be in the trust fund, helping sick people. we thank you for what you are doing. the issue is also focusing on criminal justice reform. the cost of the grant program, cops -- go directly to local law enforcement.

you think there should be mandatory training in the areas of ethnic and racial bias as well as on the use of force, and there should be a national standard. in other words, in order to get the money, you have to take the training that that behavior will not had her -- tatter or break the trust -- the community must feel. loretta lynch: as we administer our grant programs, all of the issues are on the table and under consideration. currently, our view is that we feel the grant program is an important tool in bringing offices into compliance with not only federal standards, but community standards they are aware of. we would not use that as a barrier to the grant program but rather as an incentive to work with us and gain training on use of force policies. we have grants targeted toward that. whether a collaborative reform effort, we provide specific

training on best practices involving the use of force. not only do we provide the training, we attempt to link local law enforcement with other local law enforcement offices that received training -- senator mikulski: we will get lost in collaborative reform at all this. we know -- baltimore city -- the mayor and police commissioner and other elected officials have initiated a collaborative reform effort in baltimore. that is a voluntary effort where police departments reach out to you and his or her offices to evaluate the department on how to better improve police and community relations.

that is underway. that is voluntary. there is the pattern and practice investigation, we have asked for that, you will make your determination later on whether you will initiate it. what about where they had not asked for collaborative reform but they have asked for money? there is a lot of, let's get the money, and we supported more cops on the beat, bonnie grants so law enforcement would have the tools they needed. then, -- they took the money but we see other issues -- the community based leaders are saying the relationship is worn. if you get the money, should there be training, deliberate bias, the use of force? do you think -- are part whether they have a

collaborative reform effort underway or not? loretta lynch: separate or apart, and the grant situation we seek to provide training, my only point was -- i do not want to disagree with you because it is an important point, my point is we do not use it as a barrier to obtaining the grant but rather an incentive to work with us and obtain training from different sources. some of the training will come as a result of the grants, some as a result of us connecting police -- senator mikulski: the community feels, they get a lot of money from the feds and we do not have a standard. i would like to have an ongoing conversation. senator mikulski: those are a under -- loretta lynch: those are under consideration because

they are important. senator mikulski: what other reforms do you have to help restore this trust that exists -- to restore our communities? loretta lynch: we have touched a little bit on the collaborative reform process but without community trust it may not be as effective as we would wish. we have other tools to consider. within our programs, we provide program on use of force, we provide training on building community trust. as you mentioned earlier through our community relations service, work with the community to empower them to engage with their local leaders, the police department

and to hold them accountable. we do think community accountability is an important part of that relationship. senator mikulski: if there is a second round, i will focus on justice. >> prosecutions. i understand that countrywide, we have -- assuming 5% of the united states, that means we would have had over 60 rico prosecutors and in our era right now it is about zero, i want to encourage you to work with our u.s. attorney to make sure the rico prosecutions we have -- we can prosecute gangs of national significance. the issue of crime gangs taking over our cities, rico is a statute we should go with. loretta lynch: i could not agree with you more on the efficacy of the rego statues --

rico statues. >> we have added money to combat these gains. -- gangs. chicago has arrested about 344 people in relation to this effort. loretta lynch: i do not have the numbers, i know it is active in chicago. to follow up on your previous point, i could not agree with you more on the efficacy of the rico statutes. the importance of taking out the leadership of a gang, from a law enforcement perspective and the community perspective cannot be overstated. thank you for the discussions you and i had during my courtesy visits with you and i have had discussions with the u.s. attorney in chicago, as well as the head of our criminal division in washington about finding ways to bolster those efforts. both have assured me they are committed to using this

important tool. >> want to make sure we get the word down to leslie caldwell. loretta lynch: i have spoken with them and they are committed to this. thank you, sir. >> senator leahy. senator leahy: thank you. nice to see you. thank you for being here. i agree with what senator mikulski said about baltimore and it is not only important for the community, but to the country. i understand that, as you did in your hearing before the judiciary committee, immigration, executive action, something, since i have been here, every president has done executive actions on immigration, the most extensive by president reagan. also point out, executive

actions are usually done when congress does not act. we spent hundreds of hours putting together an immigration bill in the u.s. senate the past couple of years -- it passed a couple of music you. -- a couple of years ago. a bipartisan effort. the republican leadership in the house, even know -- even know it would have passed the house -- they refused to take it up. i have trouble hearing criticisms of the president finally acting when the congress would not. the congress does not like what the president has done on immigration, past and

immigration bill, we did it in the senate. the republican leadership refused to bring it up in the house. had they, we would not be having this question. if we do not like it, let's pass a bill. we should reform our federal sentencing laws. the bureau of prisons is consuming nearly one third of the department's budget. talk about what we should be doing law enforcement -- we have excessive mandatory minimum sentences. one of the proposals by the senate judiciary committee would reduce mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenses. in your long career as a prosecutor, you prosecuted many drug cases, i prosecuted many

drug cases. do you think we could reduce those mandatory minimums and still keep our communities safe? loretta lynch: senator, we can have sentencing reform that enables us to reduce the mandatory minimums and keep communities safe. the recent effort at sentencing reform that would seek to reduce mandatory minimums do not eliminate them, they recognize the need to provide serious punishment for the most serious offenders. in fact, that we have seen with the smart on crime initiative is that while overall drug cases may have gone down, the longer sentences have gone up. we are trying to focus on those larger offenders, the large-scale traffickers

flooding our communities with poisons, as opposed to the senator leahy: people think we can do a one size fits all california did that with three strikes and you're out, it nearly bankrupted the state. taking money from our enforcement, some people should be in prison, others are wasting time and money. that money could be used in other areas of the criminal justice system. i'm worried about the increase of heroin use and overdoses. in my state of vermont, we have not been spared. between 2000 and 2012, addiction imprimatur rose by more than 770%. last week the state police issued a warning about heroin laced with another drug.

it was late to -- linked to overdose deaths in our state. we will never solve the issue, but the law enforcement agencies, particularly in small states and rural areas need help. a new grant program that supports a antiheroine task force. the justice department was -- to address the rising number of heroin uses. can you tell me how that is going and what you might be able to do to help? loretta lynch: yes, senator, it is the intersection of law enforcement and public health issue. with respect, our budget request additional funds to deal with

this uptick in heroin abuse and other emerging drug areas. there is a senate mandated heroin task force, they held their first meeting last week. the deputy attorney general is actively involved. it deals not only with law enforcement, but the public health issues. it has led and supplemented by u.s. attorneys who, over the past several years, have worked with public health officials and local communities to deal with this as a public health crisis. we are bringing all voices to the table in an attempt to get the policies that have been effective at a local level obligated nationwide -- promulgated nationwide. the budget calls for increases that would support our law enforcement efforts in heroin and opioid addiction in general. we still have a prescription drug crisis that is tied to this. >> thank you.

senator collins: attorney general lynch, just this morning, the second circuit court of appeals held section 215 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act does not authorize government to engage in the bulk collection of phone numbers under the metadata program. one of the president's independent review with look at this law, the former deputy director of the cia, as well as the former director of the fbi robert mueller, had said that, had this program then in place prior to the terrorist attacks on our country on 9/11, it likely would have prevented those attacks. we have a very serious question

of balancing security with privacy rights and the clarity of the law, which is set to expire that provision june 1. since january of last year, this section of fisa -- new procedures instituted by the president. the attorney general provides a semiannual report on privacy violations associated with the law. the new procedures provides that accepted emergencies the court is now record to approve, ahead of time, any questions of phone records, database, because of the changes made by the president. 2 questions -- are you aware of any significant privacy file

nations that have occurred -- privacy violations since the president instituted these reforms? has the justice department made a decision on appealing this decision by the second circuit? i realize it just came down. loretta lynch: section 215 has been a vital tool in national security arsenal. the department has been operating under the new directive by the president with a view towards modifying the program to keep its efficacy but preserved privacy is -- interest. i am not aware of violations that have come to light. i will seek a briefing on that and should i learn of any i will advise the committee of that. if my knowledge changes, but i have not been informed of any violations under the new policy.

the decision i the second circuit, my home circuit, we are reviewing that decision, but giving the time issues involving the expiration of it, we are also and had been working with this body and others to look for ways to reauthorize section 215 in a way that preserves its efficacy and provides -- protects privacy. senator collins: i want to turn to an issue -- the tremendous increase in the number of scams targeting our nations seniors, ranging from the jamaican lottery scheme, the grandparents scam and the irs imposters scam. what we have learned is that these scammers typically operate offshore and rely upon advanced to medication and payment -- communication and payment

technology. the losses are devastating and aggregate in the billions. yet, the federal government has been slow in its approach to going after these criminals. only the federal government can't realistically tackle the international crime networks behind many of these scams. -- can tackle. under your predecessor, the department refused to send to the committee, a witness to testify on the department's efforts, that was appalling to both the ranking members senator claire mccaskill and to me. what can the department do to be more aggressive in prosecuting

these scams which aggregate in the billions of dollars and will you pledge from now on, the department will cooperate with our investigation? loretta lynch: with respect to the very important bill the subcommittee -- roll the subcommittee place in getting information, i will always strive to cooperate and provide either a witness or information, whatever is best for the committee to receive so we can help you learn him a not only about priorities and issues, but to do the important work of the subcommittee. i am not aware of the circumstances around that previous request, but i will always commit to providing this committee with the assistance it needs, either before the committee or at the staff level. with respect to the important matter you raised about these overseas-based fraud schemes the other troubling factor to me is that many of them target

elderly populations. that is a vulnerable population to telemarketing schemes, be they based locally or overseas. very troubling to me and the protection of our vulnerable population is a priority. i'm not aware of cases in our pipeline, i will ask for a review of this important issue our budget asks for funding to continue the fight against fraud. i know all of the agencies involved in this, you mentioned, the irs scandal calls, that agency is very concerned about that. as someone who received one of those calls myself, i can tell you, if one is not aware of the fraudulent nature of them, they can be very disturbing and it is easy to see how seniors -- and other people can get pulled in to that.

>> senator baldwin. senator baldwin: thank you for holding this hearing and welcome madam attorney general, it is great to see you again, this time in your official capacity leading the department of justice. i was pleased to hear you are giving voice to the seriousness of which you take issues of over prescription, addiction, and abuse and diversion of opioids. i want to call your attention to a situation in my state of wisconsin. at a medical facility where there are a number of investigations ongoing relating to these pressing issues.

i called on your predecessor attorney general holder, to investigate potential criminal activity at this facility. my request and my communication to your predecessor was based on multiple sources, including published investigative reports, numerous whistleblowers and citizens who had contacted my office conveying information that, in my mind raised serious questions about criminal activity. currently, the v.a. is conducting an investigation, as is the inspector general. the dea is engaged in an investigation of allegations of drug diversions at the facility. i remain convinced that there are additional elements that

warrent criminal investigation. my letter to your predecessor brought those up. the alarming number of 911 calls made from the facility over the past several years, 2000 reports -- 24 unexplained deaths. allegations of illegal access to confidential patient information and law enforcement records. as a consequence, i would ask you will you evaluate these allegations and coordinate with the existing three of federal investigations to determine if there are additional criminal investigations warranted and appropriate in this case? loretta lynch: i thank you for

raising this issue. i think the security of those who use our veterans hospitals is foremost a priority, not just for me but for our country. my family has used those hospitals. i am aware of how vital a resource they are. i am aware of the situation. i have not had a briefing yet. i will commit to you that i will request a briefing and make sure that we coordinate. sen. baldwin: given the urgency with which we respond to the opioid abuse problems, i want to make you aware of some

impediments in the dea investigation into drug diversion at the v.a.. ithe dea nva have differing interpretations of the scope of patient privacy laws. this may be limiting the ability of v.a. personnel to fully dissipate in interviews, they are told they cannot reveal particular information about patients. it would be an incredible obstacle to a thorough investigation. if you have previously been briefed, i would ask the status of the effort to resolve the confusion and if you need authorization language from the congress to resolve this issue

i would appreciate it if you would provide that to my staff. loretta lynch: i have not yet been briefed on this matter, i am aware of the dea investigation into the situation. i support it. i will look into whether there are impediments to them being able to view this is a criminal matter. sen alexander: i was at my law school reunion it. many of my classmates knew you and were very complementary. i want to thank you for something. it is my understanding that the drug enforcement administration will approve the application to import industrial hempseed score research purposes. that may seem like a small matter, but it was important to our state agricultural this --

department. i thank you for moving along. on the drug enforcement agency i would like to call something to your attention. i don't have a solution for it but i think it deserves the attention of the attorney general. it is the issue of prescription drug abuse and the relationship between the dea and the wholesalers or pharmacies who distribute controlled substances. this: is what seems to be the problem dea requires wholesalers to report suspicious orders. fees would be orders for local drugstores. it restricts how these orders could be filled if they are flagged as suspicious. there is no guidance for what is a "suspicious order to cop."

there is a risk when the law is too vague. someone is out of luck. the other risk is there is an adversarial relationship over the issue. my request is this, would you please take a look at the words " suspicious orders" and the relationship between the dea and wholesalers and see if there needs to be additional guidance so we don't have an adversary all relationship between people who should be in a partnership to make sure that controlled substances are not sent to the wrong people. loretta lynch: i can commit to

that. i echo your concern that in a desire to protect people, we may be inhibiting the ability of people who need pain medication to obtain it. that is something i will undertake to review. sen. alexander: thank you very much. tennessee is third in the nation in math lab seizure. it's a big problem, especially in rural areas. the man for enforcement exceeds the funding. we developed a central storage container program. they found a way to clean up meth labs for $500 per lab and set of $2500 per lab. that is progress. we were pleased to see the budget request of $4 million more for clean up this year.

we were disappointed that the department decided not to include money for the competitive grant program. given that the meth epidemic is one of the most urgent drug problems that we face in rural areas, what was the thinking as it affects rural communities with less resources and not expanding or continuing the competitive grant programming? loretta lynch: my understanding of that program is the funding that exists is to your funding and there was not a need to request funding for this year because the grants as enacted last year would cover this fiscal year. it is not a desire to end or diminish the program. the solicitation for the that

fiscal year will be released soon. i regret the apparent that the department may have back from that. it is because we have two-year funding and we will come back in the next year to request additional. sen. alexander: thank you for the explanation. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. murphy: congratulations on your confirmation. i had a few broader questions. i wanted to begin with a specific question to the northeast region and to connecticut. we have had a women's correctional facility in dan barry, connecticut. in july, it was announced to be closed.

that would be the only facility for women in the northeast. we had a number positive discussions with the doj and the bureau of prisons and they reversed that decision understanding it would be detrimental to women who are incarcerated in the northeast to be transported thousands of miles to other facilities. the solution was to build a new facility for women in dan barry. it was to be completed by this month. i wanted to ask you if you had an update on progress of the construction of that new facility and whether we can expect construction to be

completed as soon as practically possible so we can transition these women who are in places like brooklyn, philadelphia back to a more suitable facility? loretta lynch: i share your concern over that important issue. when i began my career in the early 90's, it was not a total women's facility and most women who were prosecuted in the federal system ultimately were housed in west virginia. the facility was fine, but for women from the northeast it presented a negative impact on their ability to stay connected with their families and it harmed their relationships with their children. those of the things we seek to avoid. having it in the northeast has been a positive step for all of us who work in that area.

my understanding is the environmental impact studies were completed recently and there are additional matters, i believe there is pricing materials being resolve this month. construction should begin this summer. i don't have a completion date for you. i regret to say that i'm hesitant to offer one, having seen government construction projects in my day. construction it should begin this summer. i share your concern and view that it is an important law enforcement resource. sen. murphy: i look forward to talking with you about it. this is a series of conversations that are positive. i think the bureau of prisons for considering the impact of shuttling women prisoners to the far reaches of the northeast.

one other query, i represent newtown, connecticut. we are still grieving and dealing with the rebels of, that exist there. i understand the reality of this place, we are not likely to get a bill extending background checks though 90% of americans support the notion that people should have to prove they are not criminals before they buy a gun. as senator shelby noted, the atf position is open. the existing background checks system can be made much better to make sure that all the data is uploaded into it and making sure that the information is distributed. 100,000 individuals are prohibited from buying guns each year. the background checks work.

we need to make sure the atf has the resources they need. we need to make sure that the background check system has the resources it needs. loretta lynch: i support strengthening the atf as well as making sure that the process is as efficient as possible. that is how we protect our citizens. sen. murkowski: i want to focus on tribal law enforcement. this is important in my state.

we had an opportunity to discuss it in your pre-confirmation meeting that we had. i know you had a conversation with the natives. they run the gamut everything from the absence of full-time law enforcement officers in some villages, inadequate resources devoted to restorative justice. we have a tribal court system that is struggling because it is in an embryonic stage. we have human trafficking the heroine issue that you have heard discussed here. they are not limited to the cities, they are out in our villages. i know that you have got a lot on your plate and it's clear from the discussion here this

morning, i would like your commitment that you will work with me and the alaska federation of natives to really be involved with some of these challenges that we are facing as it relates to rural justice in our native areas. i have been asked by them for an opportunity to sit with you and some of the native leadership to discuss some of the issues that are so very troubling it to us right now. i would like your commitment that we can have that meeting and very quickly your observation based in your conversation with not only me but -- about the issues in

alaska. loretta lynch: i would welcome such a meeting. i think the commitment that the doj and our nation have made to indian country over the last several years has shown great promise, but it must be sustained and maintained and improved upon it. we have several requests in the budget go directly to the issue of tribal justice could the office of violence against women, for example we are asking for an increase of $100 million, or that will go for tribal grants. $20 million will go to the crime victims program printed $5 million would go to the violence against women jurisdiction program. we recently had great success in

enabling courts to deal with offenders who commit violence against women and children on it native land. that had been a bar for some time. it has been tremendously helpful to have given that jurisdiction to the tribal court. we are asking for money to address environmental problems as well as ain't hating current petitions. i think this commandment must be maintained and expanded. we do risk sliding backwards. with all of the issues faced by tribal lands we discussed with alaska having such a land mass and the law enforcement challenges there, we have two have things in place that can be maintained.

on the heroine isen. murkowski: on the issue of heroin we have issues. we have meth issues in kodiak. law-enforcement is focusing on that. they are not able to focus on some of the smaller villages that are out there. you mentioned the heroine task force that is in place, i would ask that you not forget the smaller communities where we see an addiction and a devastation taking our communities, wiping them out.