ile i was president in front should be changed host: the former president talking about the 1994 crime bill, saying it should be revisited. that is our topic this morning, the criminal justice system, what reforms you think are needed? fred patrick is our guest -- the bureau institute for justice director of their center on sentencing and corrections. ralph in new york, an independent caller. caller: i have a couple of comments before i have a question. i was in prison and i know a lot of folks in jail. what happens to --

>> 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. [applause] 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 -- k mikulski. i look forward to working with all of you, today, and in the days ahead as we seek to protect and serve the american people together. 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 truck the laws of congress rump 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 quest, 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 -- froaud 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 as -- 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, mad at attorney general,, of the many programs you have at the local level, in baltimore, we have a top-notch u.s. attorney's office it 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 berico 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 lower-level offenders who need to be punished, but at a different scale. sentencing reform is a way to make sure these efforts continue. 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 pfizfisa -- 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 weren't further -- 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 i understand you cannot get into any detail of ongoing criminal investigation. as a consequence i would simply ask you, will you evaluate these allegations and coordinate with the existing three federal investigations to determine if there are additional criminal investigations that are warranted an appropriate in this particular case? attorney general lynch: i think you this -- thank you for raising this important issue. i think those that use the veteran administration's hospital is a priority, but for our country. as someone whose family has uses hospitals i am well aware of how vital resource they are. and to those who need help. i'm aware of the situation.

i will commit to their request -- to requesting a briefing on the matter and all letter supported are being undertaken. senator baldwin: i thank you for that. one additional matter, again given the urgency with which we respond to the opioid abuse problems we have throughout our nation. i want to make you aware of some impediments in the dea investigation into drug diversion at the tome of the eight. --toma v.a. they have different interpretations to the scope of patient privacy laws. which might be limiting the ability of v.a. personnel to

investigate -- interviews about patients. it certainly would be an incredible obstacle to a thorough investigation. if you have previously been briefed i would ask you what is the status of the department's efforts 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 me and my staff. attorney general lynch: as i indicated i have not yet been briefed on this matter. although i am aware of the dea investigation into the situation and fully supported. we will also look into whether or not there are impediments to the dea being able to view this as a current matter. thank you. senator shelby: senator alexander. senator alexander: welcome.

i was at my reunion at nyu this weekend. my classmates were very confident are you. i want to begin by thanking you for something. it is my understanding that sometime today the drug enforcement industry should -- administration -- certify industrial hemp seeds for research purposes. that might be a small matter that it is important. the seats had to be planted in may. i thank you for moving along. i would like to call somebody to your attention that is been called to my attention. i think it deserves really the attention of the attorney general and the management. it has to do with prescription drug abuse in the relationship between the drug enforcement initiation and the wholesalers

or pharmacies who distribute controlled substances. here is what seems to be the problem. the dea requires wholesalers to track and report "suspicious orders." it restricts how those orders can be filled if they are flagged as suspicious. there is no guidance or clarity about what is a suspicious order. and when the log it's too vague sometimes there are risks and problems associated with that. one risk his someone goes in and if a wholesaler refuses to send a controlled substance to a drugstore, and some and goes to the store there out a lot. the other risk is that it develops another serial relationship between the drug enforcement agency in the wholesaler over this issue.

my request is simply this. would you please take a look at the words "suspicious orders" in the relationship between the dea and wholesalers and pharmacies and see if they need to be additional guidance so we do not have an adversarial relationship between people who really should be in a partnership to make sure controlled substances are not sent to the wrong people of the corner drugstore? attorney general lynch: i can't commit to that in niagara your concern -- i can commit to that -- legitimate needs for pain medication to obtain them which is not our intention. it is something i'm willing to undertake a review. senator alexander: my final question is that my state of tennessee is the third in the nation for meth labs.

especially in rural areas. because the demand for forstmann exceeds the funding, our state developed a central storage container program. they found a way to clean up meth labs for $500 per lab instead of $2500 per lab. that is progress. if you do something for 20% of that used to do it for. we were pleased to see the budget request had more for the method cleanup program this year. -- meth lab cleanup program. but the department did not include funding for the competitive grant programs for its state anti-meth task force is. given that the epidemic is one of the biggest drug charges we face, especially in rural areas, what was the thinking especially as it affects rural communities with less resources and not expanding or continuing the program for state -- four

states? attorney general lynch: my understanding of the competitive program is that it is the anti-methamphetamine program is that funding that exists is to your funding. t --two year funding. the program as enacted last year would cover this fiscal year. it is not a desire to end or any way diminish the program. it is also my understanding that the solicitation for this fiscal year will be released in may. i regret the appearance that the department may have pulled back or withdrawn from that. because we have two0-year funding for that we will have to come back in the next fiscal year. senator alexander: thank you for that extra nation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> welcome, attorney general

lynch. congratulations on your confirmation. i had a few broader questions to ask but i would to begin with a rather specific question to the northeast region and connecticut. we have historically had a women's correctional the silly again very, connecticut. in july, 2013 the federal prison up euro -- prisons announced it would be closing. it was the only facility for women in the northeast we had a number of positive discussions with the department of justice and with the bureau of prisons and he reversed that decision understanding it would be incredibly detrimental to women who are incarcerated in the northeast and that be transported hundreds, if not thousands of miles to other facilities. the solution was to build a new facility in dan barry.

the initial schedule was for to be completed by this month. in the interim, all these women are being spread out amongst jails in the northeast. deals that are not equipped to handle the things that these women need. especially drug counseling in the long run. i wanted to ask you if you had an update on progress of the construction of the new facility and whether we can expect construction will be completed as soon as practically possible so we can transition these women who are now in places like brooklyn philadelphia, back to a more long-term suitable's facility? attorney general lynch: i share your concern over that important issue. when i began my career in the early 1990's, fci dan barry was not a women's facility in most women who work prosecuted in the

federal surgeon -- system warehouse in west virginia. the facility was fine. but for women for the northeast it presented a significant negative impact on their ability to be near their families. it harmed their relationship with their children. those collateral consequences of the type of thing we seek to avoid. having fci danberry in the northeast is been a positive step. my understanding is that the environment so impact studies were completed quite recently and that there are additional matters. i believe there is some pricing material being resolved this month. i am told by my team they construction should begin this summer. i do not have an anticipated completion date for you. having seen several government construction progress -- progress -- projects in my day,

i'm told it should begin this summer on the facility. ike share your concern that it is an important resource of the northeast. senator murphy: thank you for your personal attention to this. i look forward to talking with you about it as it moved towards the construction schedule. this is really a developer of a positive series of conversations . not easy to reverse course on something like this and i think the bureau of prisons are considering the impact of settling women prisoners -- shuttling women prisoners to far sections of the northeast. one of the query. i represent newtown connecticut. sandy hook, a community that is still dealing with the rebels of trauma that still exist there. i understand realities of this place, that we are not likely to get a bill expanding back on checks. the 90% of americans support the notion that everyone is not of

-- should prove they are not a criminal before they buy a gun. the atf position is open. a very important position for existing laws. the existing national background check system can be made much better turn sure that all the data is being uploaded into it, making sure the information is situated. a hundred thousand individuals every year or prohibited from buying guns because of the background check system. it works. i asked for your commitment to work with us to make sure that the atf has the resources they need in order to carry out existing laws and your commit to work with this on making sure that our national back from check system has the resources it needs to continue to do the good work it is for decades. attorney general lynch: certainly, senator, i'm committed to that important goal of strengthening the atf. as well as making sure their processes and existing systems are as efficient as possible

because that is how we protect our citizens. senator murphy: thank you very much. senator shelby: senator? senator mikulski: welcome and thank you. i would to point out the aspects of your budget that focus on tribal law enforcement. this is an issue that is very important in my state. we have had opportunity to discuss it in your pre-confirmation meeting that we had and i know you had conversation with julie kiska. the public safety challenge that faces alaska native villages run the gambit. everything from the absence of full-time law enforcement officers in some villages. inadequate resources devoted towards community-based prevention and restorative

efforts. we have a tribal court system that is struggling because it is just really in an embryonic stage. we have human trafficking of native women. the heroine issues you have heard discuss your today are not just limited to the cities. they are out in our villages. i know you have got a lot on your plate. it is clear from the discussion here this morning, but i would like your commitment that you will work with me and the alaska federation of natives to be involved. -- with some of the challenges we are facing as it relates to rural justice in our native areas -- our rural areas.

i have been asked by afn and i'm going to be speaking to them by teleconference this afternoon to their board for an opportunity to sit with you and some of the native leadership to discuss some of these issues that are just so very troubling to us right now. i would like your commitment that we can have that meeting and perhaps quickly your observation based on your conversations with not only me but ms. kitka about some of the substantive issues about rural alaska. attorney general lynch: i would look forward to such a meeting and welcome it. i think the commitment the department of justice have made to indian country over the last several years has shown great promise, but it is one that must be sustained, maintained, and improved upon.

we have several requests in the budget they go directly to the issues of tribal justice. the office of violence against women for example. it is such an important issue to me. we are asking for an increase of $100 million. part of that money we go for travel grants. -- tribal grants. $20 million we go to tribal assistance programs. money would go to violence against women. domestic violence jurisdiction program. we recently had great success in enabling tribal courts to deal with offenders who commit violence against women and children on native lands on the offenses are non-native. that is been a bar for some time. it is bench or medically helpful to given that jurisdiction to the tribal courts. we are for money to address environmental problems in indian country, as well as to maintain current positions. i firmly believe this commitment was not only the maintained but

expanded upon. we do risk sliding backwards senator with all the issues faced by tribal lands. as least -- as we discussed with alaska having such a large land laminadmass. we have to put in place systems level work and be maintained. senator murkowski: i look forward to those conversations with you and your team. on the heroine issue, you're for repeated several times here today but i will reiterate that in our very remote rural areas areas that are islands. areas not accessible by road, we are seeing the impact of heroine. whether it is telling him or in kodiak. we have meth issues in the community of kodiak and law enforcement is focusing on that so they are not able to focus on

some of the smaller villages that are out there. you mentioned the heroine taskforces in place. i would ask that you not forget the smaller communities where we see an addiction and the devastation truly taking our communities, -- just wiping them out. it is a fighting thought that the resources they be there and available for the cities, but are smaller communities we are losing young people and it could be so significant to the health and safety. i would ask that you work with us on that. mr. chairman, i do have other questions i would like submitted for the record. more specifically with the codification of the grady

obligation is statute we talked about. i would like further follow-up on that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you attorney general lynch for your service and your testimony today. i want to congratulate you as begin your important service in the interest of our nation. last year congress demonstrated -- unanimously we authorizing the act in both chambers. children advocacy centers funded under the law conducted interviews with ways that are respectful of the delicate -- nature of victims of child abuse. i was disappointed to see the president's fy 16 budget request only asked for half the amount needed to fund these crucial programs. $11 million out of the $21 authorization. what is been your experience with children's advocacy centers and your role? you expect to be

an advocate for them? attorney general lynch: my experiences are based by merely with my a spirit of the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york. we found that the children advocatcy centers to be empowering for us. it is for children related to the victims of human trafficking. that is a huge problem we have seen in the new york area. i know there are other issues in other parts of the country and i look forward to learning more about those. it is definitely a program i feel is extreme the important. the overall budget request is part of our overall request for juvenile justice programs. it is our hope that the programs they offer will in fact provide a valuable safety net for the children in need. senator coons: thank you. there are many challenges and are budget environment. let me next reference the

violence reduction network which is an effective program for cities like my hometown of wilmington to address violent crime in to connect local law enforcement with cutting-edge law enforcement resources. mostly federal resources. i want to thank the very hard-working team of bureau adjusted -- of justice assistance. i would hope to commit that the program is maintained and supported for the necessary resources so he can continue to serve as a valuable connection between doj and a number of communities that have seen dramatic increases in violent crime. is this something you are inclined to support? attorney general lynch: i supported wholeheartedly. wilmington has been one of the flagship cities in this. wilmington has been a model, frankly, for the level of cooperation between the wilmington police department and the fbi and also the state and local and federal law enforcement as well.

my understanding is that we are actually have identified five additional cities for the next fiscal year to be involved in this program. again, not a distinction they would see but one we think is an area where we think we can provide assistance. beyond the brn, we have other resources for violent crime for cities that might not be in such extremists. we are committed to those programs as well. senator coons: thank you. i continued to work on partnerships and reduce violent crime. let's turn to the collaborative reform initiative. we have seen strained relationships between law enforcement and communities and cities across the nation. most recently, tragically, in baltimore. i am particularly interested in the cri initiatives that are underway in baltimore and i would like to know what is on the table for the project and how it would be sustained and

whether recent events in baltimore have affected the cri timeline. attorney general lynch: with respect to baltimore, the collaborative reform was begun last fall. actually at the request of the baltimore police department. and our cops service office when in and has been very active in working with police in the community to work on ways to improve the baltimore police department. as we have discussed earlier today, and throughout my most recent visit to baltimore recent events have certainly made as cognizant of concerns that both the city, the police, and the community have about the efficacy of a collaborative reform process. we are listening to all those voices in we're certainly considering the best way as we move forward to help the baltimore police department. it is important to note that collaborative reform has been a very successful tool throughout the country. we not only provide technical

assistance and training to police department's around the country, but we connect them with other police departments with themselves been through the process or who themselves have very positive law enforcement practices. we try to make a peer to peer relationship in terms of work and training. it is a tool. as you will note, our budget is request an increase in that of about $20 million to support these important reforms. senator coons: i will submit a question for the record about forensic hair analysis. i would look forward to hearing what doj will be doing to provide meaningful relief to those convicted on the strength of this stated or inaccurate testimony. attorney general lynch: we are very committed to working on that issue. senator shelby: senator bozeman? senator bozeman: i apologize

running back and forth to you in our attorney general. there are two things that are important in arkansas. this and the sense of combating violent crime. also reauthorizing the child nutrition program. there is a subcommittee going on in that regard. both of those things go together. if you have hungry kids, at all flows together. -- it all flows together. in this mark crime initiative, i know you have talked a lot about that and how important it is that in your request you have stated the initiative will spend $247 billion on disparate impacts of the criminal justice system on communities. that is important to arkansas. but my understanding is that i'm hearing from attorney generals throughout the country that the reality is that there seems to

be a directive coming down that terrorism and cybercrime is the number one terrorism -- terrorism and cybercrime are the number one things that they devote the resources to. can you talk a little bit about that? i know that is so important. we have so many communities now that are experiencing violent crime that is increasing. attorney general lynch: thank you for the opportunity to address that issue. obviously, national security and cybercrime are important areas. they represent not only ongoing threats to public safety and to american citizens that new and emerging threats. so our budget does ask for funding for that. with respect to find a crime, i will reiterate the departments commitment and my and commitment to that it -- issue has not wavered. one think i think is very important as a former u.s. attorney is to recognize that

every prosecutor knows best of crime problems other area. but we tried to do with the department, as i look at policies and interact with not just people here in washington but also in the field, is make sure that we maintain the flexibility that allows u.s. attorneys working in conjunction with their state and local counsel -- counterparts 25 the crime problems in their areas and focus their resources on the. for example, my former office has both a strong national security practice and a large violent crime program. every office is not going to be similarly situated. it is my goal to get my prosecutors the flexibility that they need to deploy their resources to best address the crime problem at hand. with respect to violent crime, the department anti-violent strategy for several years has been focused on three main issues. law enforcement effective

vigorous, and strong is the first part of that. we are attempting to look at prevention as well as reentry programs. it is been very gratifying to see members of this body also addressed those issues at the statutory level as well. as you mentioned with respect to the food services program not a doj program, but one that certainly impacts into the crime rate of an area because it impacts the poverty rate of an area in the health of the children and the opportunity that they half. it is interdisciplinary. it is holistic. i can assure you that there is not an overemphasis on one type of priority over others. if the u.s. attorney feels that the largest problem in their area is one of violent crime, we have a number of ways in which we deal with that. we will concentrate resources for them. we will provide assistance from other offices in maine --

maintain justice for them. i have detailed attorneys for my office to others to help on cases, capital cases and the like. you will find a very, very strong commitment to crime prevention and enforcement within the department. senator bozeman: another huge issue is opiates and heroin. there are reports of doubling tripling things of that nature. can you talk a little bit about addressing that problem? the other thing i think is so important other drug courts. i think for the first time you actually have something in your budget for that. can you talk a little bit about -- are you and i forget, lukewarm, or whatever? if there is a solution that is one of the key components to it. attorney general lynch: one of the key components is certainly in the reduction of

reincarceration as well as crime prevention, they have been drug courts. at the federal level we are focused on expanding our network of veteran's drug courts because we see that our veterans are returning with a number of problems for which the criminal justice system by not be the best method to treat them. for lack of a better phrase. we are trying to expand opportunities to provide treatment as well as crime prevention for our veterans, as well as other low-level offenders. they have been tremendously successful. in my former district, they have a very strong pretrial diversion program as well as a pretrial opportunity program. we tried to pair this with reentry programs. i think that that is an important tool. it is really been the states that if showing us by example how effective drug courts can be

in reducing crime, reducing recidivism. the real goal is to make productive members of society out of those individuals who we otherwise would incarcerate for way too long. senator bozeman: thank you mr. chairman. senator mikulski: i just have a few -- about the need for reviewing citizen reform. the prison population -- your appropriation request for prisons is $7 billion. a significant amount of money because it constitutes almost one third of your appropriations. i would hope because there is bipartisan effort in this area

in terms of looking at what we need to do to safely reduce the prison population. we have excellent -- an excellent facility in maryland. our concern would be the public safety. second, safety for the correction officers because you have significant challenges in prison with overcrowding. i worry about their safety. third, what are the issues of prisoners who are either really old or really sick? how can we begin to do an evaluation of who is in prison and should they be in prison? and madam attorney general, i would hope as you begin your term here you also look at those with significant age or significantly ill where they would know posted to the general public. but seven ongoing conversation about it. i look forward to your

recommendation. a republican governor and 90% congressional democratic delegation we are team maryland and wanting to deal with this. we ask that your task force which i initiated when i was chairman with the support of senator shelby, is that it not only be in internal to the justice department, but it be across the board involving the department of education, the department human services, the department of homeland security. is that the nature of the task force or is it internal to the justice department? attorney general lynch: the task force had its first meeting last week and i have not been fully briefed on that. but i will confirm the level of participation to you. even if it is focused on the department of justice, that is

not preclude us from reaching across the street to those agencies and pulling them into the debate. we think this is a big issue. senator mikulski: it is a big issue. the third point i'm going to make his juvenile justice. there are several grant programs here in the area of juvenile justice. i would hope in the days ahead we could work with your department on what you feel would have as you work with the mayor and the community-based groups, what would be the effective juvenile justice programs that we could either bring additional resources in or appeal for these grants? china speaking for the delegation and speaking for the leadership of our city, not only government but our private sector as well as our community-based faith-based leaders, we received this situation in which there could be an opportunity to do something very germanic --

dramatic and significant in terms of our young people. for those that are on track, we help them stay there. for those that you get back on track, we help them get their. for those that constitute significant risk to our community, we also do the right intervention. we look forward to ongoing conversation. you are always welcome back in our hometown. we also appreciate the availability and accessibility and the professionalism of your staff. senator shelby: thank you senator collins? senator collins: i want to associate myself with the remarks of the senator from arkansas about the value of drug courts and the special veterans courts. i have seen firsthand the difference these courts can make in helping people straighten out their lives. avoiding imprisonment, and

really change the direction of their lives. i know this is not happen in every case but i have to believe that these are cost effective. that is why i am disappointed that the administration budget cut $5 million from the drug court program. compared to last year when it was funded at about $41 million. and also cutting millions of dollars in the veteran treatment courts. i hope our subcommittee will take a look at that. i wonder if the department has done any sort of cost-benefit analysis because this is a case where i think we are being penny wise and pound foolish. attorney general lynch: i'm not aware of any cost-benefit analysis to that. but i will ask if that was done. i do not know the basis for that

particular allocation of funding their. i would certainly should your commitment to the efficacy of drug courts and the veterans treatment courts. like you, i have seen them literally change lives. senator collins: several years ago i hired someone who had gone through the drug court program successfully. i will admit that i was somewhat apprehensive, but she turned out to be a wonderful employee and i wanted to give her a chance. without the drug court, her life with a gun in a very different direction. i've also spoken at a graduation ceremony for drug court. it was really inspiring to see largely younger people being reunited with their significant others, there's thousands, the children.

and know that they really were committed to turning their lives around. i have also heard of cases that were not successful but that is the beauty of the drug court. i think this is something that deserves our support. attorney general lynch: i agree. thank you, ma'am. senator collins: let me end with one other successful program and my sister -- state that also unfortunately has been cut quite severely indian ministries and budget. -- in the administration budget. i know we are not involved in formulating this budget so i'm not certain whether you are familiar with this program, but it is called the regional information sharing system. and i hear repeatedly from police officers, detectives, sheriffs, law enforcement at all levels in maine -- state, local

county about how essential the risk program is in their efforts to fight violent crime, drug activity, human trafficking, and a host of other criminal enterprises. i want to give you a specific example. it is active in franklin county, a rural part of our state, told the recently about a fascinating case involving counterfeit silver dollars from china. he used the risk databases to discover that the suspect was committing this crime throughout the state of maine. he was also able to determine whether the same crime was occurring in other states. what was at first just a one incident case became a statewide investigation with the help of the risk network and tools which

are especially final in april state like maine -- a rural state like maine. that is why i am disappointed that the president's budget has slashed funding for this program. it is such an important tool for rural law enforcement to use. so i hope looking forward that you will take a look at programs that encourage that kind of collaboration at all levels of government and allow a local sheriff who has arrested someone to find out that this person has been committing crimes, not only throughout his or her state but in other states as well. in the us build a stronger case. attorney general lynch: i share your view that that the system is particularly efficacious. my understanding is that the request of the budget this year

mirrors the request last year which was increased by $5 million. it was not viewed as cutting the program, but maintaining it. we do feel it is so important. senator collins: it is my understanding that we lost up the program -- plussed of the program and the appropriations committee and it had bipartisan support. but the administration and its budget request went back to the previous level. i may be mistaken about that. we would certainly welcome any additional information. attorney general lynch: we will provide additional information on that issue. thank you, mr. chairman. senator shelby: attorney general lynch thank you for appearing here today and being patient with all these questions are at we look forward to working with you to make sure that the justice department is properly funded. if there are no further questions here to this afternoon the senators miay submit

additional questions for the hearing record. we request the department of justice responses to those questions come back within 30 days. now the subcommittee stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. committee adjourned. attorney general lynch: thank you mr. chairman. [indiscernible]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> loretto lynch testifying before congress, the first time as attorney general on her 2016 budget request for the justice department. you can see it later on the c-span network and www.c-span.org. she was asked about the nsa data and phone records. "the new york times" writing

that the once secret national security agency program that has systematically collected the phone records in bulk is illegal. it comes as a fight in congress is intensifying over to replace the program or extended. lots of comments from members of congress on that ruling. a joint statement from the member on judiciary and senator mike lee, republican of utah saying "congress should not reauthorize a bulk collection program that the court has found to violate the law. we will not consent to any extension of the program." find more at twitter.com. more life coverage coming up this afternoon. 2:00 p.m. eastern, secretary ashton carter and the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs will brief reporters. they are voting in britain today. parliamentary elections close at 10:00 p.m. local time.

our simulcast of the election 2015 in the u.k. begins here on c-span. here is what is ahead on election day in the u.k. >> this is one of the closest in decades. how close is it? caller: it is great to be with you. it is actually fascinating. i'm riveted from afar. cedar rapids iowa covering another election in the 2060 primary. i think it is so close because the british public has lost confidence in the major political parties, the conservative party and the right in the labour party on the left. they just said five years of conservative liberal democratic governments. i think if you could pole for none of the above, it would probably a win -- win today.

the polls are showing it is an extra nearly tight contest, with the conservatives having about 34% labor about 34% as well. i'm looking at the united kingdom independent column for movements on into immigration anti-european union. it is somewhat to the tea party here. here the liberal democrats. give the scottish national party. it looks like they are displacing the labour party in the traditional heartlands of labor in scotland. we are almost certainly going to see tomorrow is that no party will reach the magic number of -- there was some dispute over what that number is, 300 and 23 seats -- 323 seats in a 500 seat chamber.

that means you'll have a lot of horse trading. you'll have david cameron, the current prime minister, trying to form a new coalition government or minority government. and you will have ed miliband from labor, the opposition leader trying to do the same in cobble together some sort of arrangement will form a government. really anybody that tell you they know what is going to happen is not telling the truth. hsoost: what role could the scottish national party play than? if there is no clear majority then they will have to try to build a coalition here. what role could the scottish national party play? guest: they are fascinating. the only poll at 5%. but because they are the first

past the poll system in the u.k. , they could get 48 seats. if you look at the way that works, the u.k. independence party could get 12 seats -- they're likely to get two or three seats. there are much the socialist left of center party. it will be a sort of natural alliance if you could envision the between labor and scottish national party. however, the labour party once coalition with the scottish nationalist. but you might get is some kind of loose arraignment -- arrangement where the scottish national party props of a nordic government -- minority government. if you add up the labour party seats in the scottish national party seats, that could result in some kind of government. very, very uncertain and he would be very, very vulnerable to a vote of no-confidence or

the scottish national party trying to exact a price that would be too great for labor. it could be very unstable situation if you get this to parties in power. host: how long does all the sickest right now? guest: we don't know. in 2010, it took about two days. we have parallel sets of horsetrading going on. you have the labour party talking to the liberal democrats. yet the conservative party talking to liberal democrats. you have the scottish national party sort of in the mix as well. in the end, it was the tories, and conservatives and liberal democrats of antigovernment. a relatively sort of stable arrangement that lasted five years. this time it looks like it is going to be much less tenuous. it could take many, many days.

the big thing on the calendar is made on a seven which is the queen's speech when the new government's agenda is laid out. some people are saying we could get a situation where that speech where the queen is asked to make a speech in which you have a person trying to become the prime minister but not even sure whether the queen's speech could be passed by civil majority. host: florida, and that. -- more to come on that. thank you very much. >> we will have live simulcast coverage from itv just before the polls close in the u.k.. 4:55 eastern live on c-span. there is a look at some of our feature program for this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday morning at 10 a clock eastern on c-span, we are live

from greenville, south carolina for the gop freedom summit. speakers include scott walker, ted cruz, carly. , ben carson and senator marco rubio. on sunday, starting at noon, members of america's first families for member first ladies . including the daughters of jacqueline kinney, will that he ford, and laura bush. humble tvs afterwards, author john krakauer on sexual assault in the u.s.. focusing on missoula montana. and done what he over the first feel force or general talks about her life in the military and on american history tv on c-span3, saturday afternoon at 4:45 eastern, on oral histories -- remembering not to concentration camps with an interview with kurt cline who escaped the german persecution of jews by coming to the united states. he lost his parents at auschwitz and as an interrogator for

the u.s. army western hitler's personal driver. and the city of -- 70th anniversary of the end of world war ii in europe. get our complete schedule at www.c-span.org. >> from washington -- focus mainly on crime, policing, and prison. the discussion on trends in juvenile cursor is. host: our conversation is continuing about the criminal justice system. we are joined by j correlates --jake horowitz here to talk about juvenile incarceration. where are the trends right now with juvenile incarceration? what is going on with that? guest: since the late 1990's, the rate at which they are put behind bars has been cut in

half. we hear negative stories about how things are getting worse. there is actually some good news in the field of criminal juvenile justice. it is a win-win that the state policies are looking for. host: what is happening that we are seeing less crime and incarceration? guest: we see a convergence of a lot of different trends. the first is the research. really clear about the high cost and low return of juvenile incarceration. we spent up to $200,000 per year to walk up an individual. the return of that spending is quite poor. a lot of recidivism rates are between 50% and 75% for rearrest or read you dictated. -- re-adjudicated. the third is public opinion. when we asked voters what they want out of the juvenile justice system, they are saying we want

outcomes. we want to see kids who are able to rejoin society. who are able to graduate high school. and are able to avoid future involvement in the criminal justice system. host: voters care less about how long they are incarcerated than preventing crime. guest: get polling numbers to the roof year. nine out of 10 p voters -- what matters is when they come out they are less like the committee crime. the fascinating thing is this is not democratic voters. this is nine out of 10 voters agreeing. both republicans, independents and democrats. we see it in households that identify as having been a victim of violent or nonviolent crime. we also see law enforcement. these user nonsense all but one portion of the public. host: what are the alternatives

to incarceration. what are the states doing what is working? guest: state policy leaders are looking to put together packages are performed that hit three primary goals. first, they want to focus this residential correctional as they do have on the most chronic, most violent youth. second, they want to build a true continuum of supervision of sanctions, and services in the community. he hear from judges often that the kid might not be the biggest of its safety risk but there's nothing for else for me to do. i even give them nothing for some away to a juvenile correction facility. states are trying to fill in the middle there and provide an alternative. the third-place that policymakers are focusing on, is to hold government agencies accountable. this is about transparency of decision-making or if is about focusing on the outcomes we want. how many kids into the correctional facilities. but when they cannot, how do they perform? host: take a look at this chart.

most youth supervised in the community have lower recidivism rates. what is going on here? guest: what we've learned over the past several decades is that we're not careful we can make them worse. even though we might have good intentions and say i'm going to help that can by putting them into a juvenile correctional facility, we might be very misguided and that. that is what the research there is a. you look at moderate risk youth. what it shows is that the youth that are kept in the immunity at a recidivism rate of just over 20%. those in the gray bar that were put in a department of youth services facility had a recidivism rate of over 50%. it is only for the very highest risk youth where placement in a correction facility will lead to better outcomes than a community placement. host: why is that? what is

happening at these correctional facilities that have led to higher recidivism rates? guest: one, we are removing a child from their home in timidity. this can break bonds. the other -- the second is, this looks at the low and moderate risk of youth in particular. if you look at a low risk youth and put them at high risk youth there is a school of crime affect. they can be exposed to more antisocial activities. finally, we know a lot more about what deters behavior. this is consistent across juveniles and adults. we know that the certainty of a sentient matters and whole lot more than the severity of the section. placing a kid out of home and holding them for 12 or nine months has little impact if there are there only three months. they are not thinking three

months -- 12 must on the line. -- months down the line. host: this chart there is that what you are saying. longer stays do not yield consistent reductions in juvenile recidivism. rearrest rates remain steady for offenders with longer placements. the longer they were in, the more likely they were to come back? guest: the longer there and there was no effect. you're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in getting the same results as if you are only held them there for 0, 1 2, 3 months. philadelphia and phoenix have some more high risk youth. this is not even looking at the lower-level kits. --kids. host: there is a certainty that they are going to be punished, but not for a long? guest: exactly. host: daily cost exceed normal sections here at this is an south carolina.

a cost 30 times that of intensive probation. what is that? geust:uest: they need to pay for food and health care and many other things. this drives the cost of residential placement on the low and. $70,000 a year. on the high and, approaching $200,000 a year. oftentimes with treatment, it looks like -- you have heard of probation and what you have is a supervisory officer. oftentimes caseloads are too high. -- make this probation more personalized and more intensive by reducing caseloads. even spending more money on it. it is so cheap by comparison. if you are only spending $2000 to $5,000 for probation, even if

you quadruple the cost of that, it would be a fraction of the cost of locking up kids. supervision with two services and intermediate sanctions in the community can do just as well. host: we are talking about juvenile incarceration in the country. we want to hear from you. (202) 748-8001 for parents. (202) 745-8002 for law enforcement officers. (202) 748-0003 for everyone else. in detroit, you are up first. caller: yes, i would like to see -- say grace and peace be yours. all things that pertain unto life through the knowledge of him has called us to glory and virtue, whereby given unto us --

that by these you might be partakers in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through love. the reason that i'm saying this is that in the prison system, juvenile and older, people are allowed to have a bible and learn more about god to find out about themselves. in our school system, that is not there. we need to learn who we are. man is a spirit. we possess a soul. our intellect, our emotions. and the house we live in is our body. people need the word of god set into their spirit in a way that they can receive it and understand it to that is where -- understand it. that is where our creativity comes from. that is why our country is facing some of the problems because of the supreme court has taken the word of god out of the school system and the children do not have parents who take

them to church where they are learning the word of god to host: -- host: -- learn the word of god. host: ok, i think we got your point. guest: the different viewers and stickles that come to this issue is with the caller has had on. what we are seeing across the country is that -- this is a moment of great convergence on the issue. it is key opinion influences coming from different respect to its to the issue. i just will highlight a few things the caller mentioned. there are strong supporters of reform in the juvenile justice system. second businesses looking for a better return on investment. what we really care about is the returns it provides. the third is the conservative voice. national conservative leaders from across the country are leading on this issue in many states.

we have governors, including the governor in georgia and south carolina -- south dakota. and governor tom in west virginia saying i see the research, i see the high cost of returns in the juvenile justice system. what's they are saying is one thing. we want better returns from our system. host: and are they check a are they doing that -- are they? are they doing that? guest: i think they are. there has been a massive reduction in both juvenile crime and juvenile incarceration. part of that is policy driven. what we are seeing right now is, again, that convergence -- and we are talking about governors saying this is the issue i want to prioritize in the next legislative session here they are looking at the research -- session. they are looking at the

research. it is really not one or two. from georgia to tell -- south the kota, this is the -- south dakota, this is the perspective. host: -- tell us your story. caller: hi. i want to tell you that i was incarcerated as a juvenile. i have been in and out, in and out, in and out. imo 60 years old now. and growing up in washington dc, having to face poverty and prerelease -- police brutality we know this is true. we know what is right, we know what is wrong. do you know what i'm saying? there is still a lot of prejudice. and unequal distribution of wealth. that is the main thing. this is why the terrorists is going crazy over there because

they see americans having this and having that and they can't have it. but they don't understand that all the americans don't have it. boston and d.c., you see? the problem is the distribution of wealth and that comes from the white hands and politics. and i say that because it is from that old blueblood money and rednecks -- i am not prejudice but this is the problem. host: ok. guest: i pick up on a few great points she made there. first, we know that 87% of the kids who are locked up in this country are boys. there are a substantial share of girls. this is not just an issue of boys facing time behind bars. the second, i think she picked up on, is this issue of race.

everyone has to acknowledge what is going on here. we -- about six out of 10 kids behind bars are minorities. about 41% of those are black 22% hispanic. and the disparities are quite stark. this is an important sub context that she mentioned. the levels of juvenile commitment have been cut in half since the late 1990's. it is actually a tale of two trends here. we have white and black and hispanic rates of incarceration all decreasing very substantially. what happens is the white rate has decreased faster. i think there are really two trends here. we also survey knowledge that overall levels of incarceration have limited to half of -- have plummeted.

half of what they were in the 1990's. host: do we know that these alternatives are working? guest: yes, the research is very strong here. they have brought together all the best research to say, what is the best impact of these policies? the other thing is that it is not just a question of is it effective, it is a question of, is it cost-effective? and this goes back to how we build a public portfolio for juveniles. if, by freeing up some portion of residential beds, we can reinvest. what can we buy for those dollars? we have freed up a lot of public resources. the public sure it's quite strong. we know what programs cost. and we can monetize those and think about what returned we are going to get to -- going to get. host: greg is in alabama. go ahead, greg.

caller: good morning. i have coached for 30 years end up with a lot of young men. and i have noticed a trend. i have coached and a lot of different areas. i primarily just go where programs are having trouble and try to correct their issues. but i have noticed -- i have recently, about six or seven years ago i was on a predominantly african-american team, a lot of trouble, a lot of discipline issues. and i just couldn't understand what the issue was. kids were going to jail. kids were breaking into stores and doing things and getting into trouble. anyway, i kind of took a look to see why they were having so much trouble. i was having a hard time even getting them to come to practice. we improved the team, the team got better. a lot of kids have played ball through high school. a couple of them are extra going to college, got scholarships. but one of the problems -- we

went back and did a little research. 71% of african-american households are single parents. out of the single-parent households, 69% of them are multiple father households. it is a stressful environment regardless of the race. but when you look at the number of the poverty level of african-american households, it kind of explain some of the stress, the lack of parenting in all neighborhoods, in all communities, in all races. it seems to be after 30 years it seems to be a huge contributor to the problem. i am not sure locking kids up will correct those problems. host: ok, greg. guest: first, i just want to thank greg for doing the volunteering to sometimes -- volunteering. sometimes we want schools parents -- asking who should bear responsibility and step up

to the plate. i think your point to another really important issue here, and that is the concentration of crime and system involvement in the communities. we know these things are not spread evenly across the country, even by neighborhood, so i think there is a good way to think about this, which is that if we are successful, we will reduce not only the levels of incarceration and a number of his removed from their families -- there is a very disproportionate share of victimization. if we can help turn this is the around -- this system around, if we can advance policies that are based on research, it will help clear up not just the victimization, but the later involvement of children and families. host: we will hear from gary next in no caps on appeared kerry, -- in north carolina. gary, tell us your story.

caller: i noticed it was a lot more blacks than whites. the story that i see for myself is the way we got in trouble. the white kids tend to be more inside the houses or in their cars. and our black counterparts were standing out on street corners and riding their bikes. and they were a lot easier to get picked off. it was just the way their neighborhoods were set up and targeted. it is not so much that there was actually an imbalance. it was just the way they deal their drugs and stuff. and it was easier for them to be picked up in more numbers. guest: thank you gary, for the call. as mentioned earlier, there certainly is racial disparity. it shows that while there is disparity, levels of juvenile to -- incarceration have fallen for

all groups over the past 15 years. we are talking about double-digit percentage reductions in the rate of commitment and the overall number of youth behind bars. and one thing i want to pick up on is, what are these kids actually behind bars for? what we see is that 60% of youth who are placed in a state-funded residential facility are there for nonviolent crimes. a quarter our property offenders, of stancil -- substantial share of future violent probation, public order offenses, and drug offenses. then about 30% are in for violent offenses. again, -- then, there is the defense. there is also the level. what we see in states is a shocking number of these youth behind bars for misdemeanor level offenses.

there are some states where if you look at the top 10 leading offenses, eight of them are misdemeanor level offenses. host: next call comes from troy in florida. troy, you were an employee of a juvenile correctional facility? caller: yeah, i got my ba in criminology. i worked with the salvation army and also with a behavioral health care institute in the area, so i have seen a couple different experiences on the juvenile justice system and how it is structured. and i kind of wanted to just focus on some things that i observed that could benefit the children because again, it really has to be about the kids. it is the juvenile justice system because these kids are under the age of 18. and i think one of the ways they have failed, greta, is sometimes

replacing children that are 7 8 in the same environment -- i think your guest had indicated that he percent of these kids are doing valid crimes. we are putting these younger kids in an younger environment with older kids who have committed, and all likelihood, more aggressive, more than just property crime, or they just, say, stealing a car or a petty arson or small drug possession kind of charges. i think by doing that, we really put a lot of these kids in harms way. because so many of these -- you know, so many of these programs around the u.s., they are all independent, all differently structured, all trying very hard to staff them. many times with staff that don't have the experience, the training, the tools necessary to really impact these kids' life. host: ok, you kind of touched on

this a little bit earlier that there is this crime effect. guest: absolutely. and backing up, where he started that comment is a really important observation. from its founding, the juvenile justice system had a different goal. it was explicitly meant to be rehabilitative and not used as a punishment. this was the underlying, motivating principles of the system. so, when we see you think sent to the state-funded -- youth being sent to these state-funded facilities, the question is, are they being rehabilitated? what we see any studies -- we talked further about the phoenix and philadelphia studies. there is another fantastic one out of chicago. and what we see, time and again is the vast majority of youth placement in out of home residential facilities failed to reenter. the goal is rehabilitation, and

the research is saying, for these kids, it is not working. host: mike in san antonio. good morning. caller: hey, good morning. hi, c-span. just to piggyback on what tori was saying -- troy was saying, kids are going to go to jail. but once they are in there, we need to train them. we need to train them with marketable skills. they are probably not going to go to college. they are probably going to, you know, back to the streets or the environment they come from, but if we all have them some training where they are a mechanic, a cook, whatever, i think that will help with them going back to a life of crime and going back to prison. host: we will take that point. thanks, caller. guest: certainly, lockable skills are important. the other part is that it is not

just about skills, in terms of what trade you can do. it is about skills of thinking, thinking about the future and not only thinking about what is in front of you right now. a lot of them are now focused on not only the marketable skills, but the skills of how you live your life and interact with others. i think bringing those two together, the cognitive along with the marketable, is what is really going to help. host: markets in winchester virginia. go ahead mark. caller: yeah. the whole system, from the beginning, needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and there needs to be people -- there was a movie a long time ago, it awarded that was going to take -- a warden that was going to take over in prison. but before he went in there, he was put in as an inmate to see what was really going on. it is basically like cookie-cutter's. if a kid comes in there, one

might be a lot more hard to get through than the other, but it is like, hey, if you don't want to, slap him up in lockdown and the good ones, we put them out here. it is one-on-one. it is either they have to do this -- and a lot of these kids, they are not used to a whole lot of having to listen to somebody. host: ok, mark. i want to hear from brian in evansville, indiana. he also has experience in the juvenile justice system. caller: as a juvenile and adult offender, it starts with the parents. instead of taking the children, help the parents get the tools. a lot of people don't trust the people who should help them, as in the cps, the police because of the threats of taking the children. when you take the children, it affects the children for life. god and love should prevail.

host: what did you hear from those two calls? guest: the first is this idea of building the system over from the ground up. i don't know if any state is really going to that level, but they are showing that they are willing to take a fresh issue -- look at this issue. they are looking at the data and the research. they are asking the questions what are we currently doing? how does this compare to other states? and then looking for consensus-based solutions that we think are going to reduce both crime and the levels of incarceration. and from the second caller -- none of this is to say that folks who work in the system have bad intentions. i, personally, started working in the juvenile justice system about 15 years ago. and i think it is important to note that the folks who work in their are almost always there for the right reasons. they really do want to help the

kids. the question isn't if their intentions are good, it is whether or not the outcomes are there. i think we have to come back with this lens of folks are probably there for the right reasons, but again if the youth emerges from a residential facility and commit crimes at the same rate, what was all that intent and work for? host: and money. we will go to harriet in florida. caller: yes. i have been in the juvenile system. i am grown now and i have my own home. and it did me great. the individuals have to do -- have to want to do better for themselves. so i did good and i'm thankful. host: ok, harriet. q is next in pencil -- hugh is next in pennsylvania. you worked in a juvenile

correctional facility, is that right? caller: no, i set up a juvenile service committee project. host: ok, tell us about that. caller: -- 460 boys who weren't incarcerated, they were working off their fines. i chose not to know why they were there. so i think i was more successful than over the 20 years of the 60 boys i worked with, i have only seen i've of the names in the police reports. i think that the community service, rather than incarceration, is a much better system. guest: his point is fantastic. the research has the age crime curve. most of the offending occurs in the late teens and early 20's. most youth will desist from crime without -- with intervention. i think he points to a great point here, which is we need to resist the urge to bring kids into the system if it might do harper them. we need to provide opportunities

to change their lives, if they want to, like the earlier caller mentioned. and the research bears out that a lot of these kids will go on to their streets regardless of how to intervene -- we intervene in their life. host: marybeth is next in pennsylvania. caller: my comment is, i am from lucerne county. this is the county where the juveniles were, for really no reasons at all, some of them very small and minute things, children as old as several -- seven years old being put into a juvenile system by two judges and a builder who built a large detention center for them. and one in west in pennsylvania. i kind of really believe and think that a lot of times, our system alone is not just a problem. the problem can be the 12 hour work shifts that a lot of parents work, some two parents working. there are a lot of judge and being left alone at home,

becoming friends with people that get them in trouble because they have no one to guide them. i completely believe the 12 hour work shift system has done great damage. thank you so much. host: ok, marybeth. guest: i think that store, which has seen quite a bit of coverage of really troubling story. that said, i don't think it is a dominant storyline in juvenile justice in this country today. crime incarcerations are way down. they are focusing on this as a priority policy issue. the researcher stronger about telling us what works and what doesn't. the public supports reform in these directions. host: on twitter, my personal opinion is that once served time, the record of the individual should be cleared. we are talking about the criminal justice system. we have a couple minutes left here.

the director of the project vocus and on juvenile incarceration. let's hear from martha in illinois. you are a parent, martha. go ahead. caller: yeah, my son started getting in trouble when he was in eighth grade. and he was in in out of juvenile -- and out of juvenile detention. host: we are listening, martha. caller: oh, sorry. and -- the problem that i had when he was in ju-v, he ended up serving privateers -- serving five years in prison as an adult. but when he had community service, since his crime was classified violent, he couldn't do -- the only kind of community service he could do would maybe be like, wash a cop car or

something like that. so the kids that are labeled violent are doing community service that does not help them one bit. host: ok, let's take that point, martha. guest: the first, this issue of how we define offenses, as opposed to how we talk about kids. so, a kid might be presenting as a violent offense, but as the caller points out, there is a lot of violation -- lot of variation within that. the second is the risk level in youth. it is not just what crime is committed, it is about the history and what they might do in the future. and thinking about, is the thicket who has built up a criminal history, or is this a kid who made it bad mistake on one day? and another thing, a fascinating model. a lot of callers have pointed to

money in the system. i just think it is private interest. the other financial incentive here is a misalignment between state and county incentives. it is a niche issue, but really important for how the system works. judges, and community service are almost always funded at the county level. states that want to reduce their levels of juvenile incarceration have a far -- hard time moving the money to where it needs to go. so, what illinois did it develop a great model, which is in statute and actually channels savings from juvenile incarcerations to the state level to the county that help achieve a reduction in crime and incarcerations. it now spans across the state in the juvenile and adult system. and it has spread to other

states. ohio has a similar program. george and others are now adopting it here -- adopting it. host: let's hear from walter. walter, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: yes, it is more about the contact the juveniles have with the system, which i see is normally from -- [indiscernible] -- being put in jail. then bailing them out or the expenses associated with it. and the police officers don't show up. this happens repeatedly with children. they develop a record, so whenever they go look for a job they ask, have you ever been arrested? it is something petty that shows up on the record that prevents

them from getting a job. the causes their family and additional expense. host: walter, it is difficult to hear you, but i think we got your point. guest: sometimes, rather low level offenses will bring a child into the juvenile justice the system. but then they are under the watch of the juvenile justice system. so a youth that comes in for what is called status offenses curfew violations, truancy, they might pick up the court record and now they are under supervision. if they do something that breaks the rules of that supervision skipping school, using drugs otherwise violating the court order, they can then end up on the deep end of the system. we see a non-negligible share of kids in the deep end of the system who have come in for initially rather modest offensive, felt of a continuing record, and then end up in a residential facility.

the research those, they are therefore a long. -- a long all this data, all this research, can people find on your website? guest: yeah, many of these research pieces, a recent refund length of state will show how your state compares. host: all right, thank you very much for talking to our viewers about it. appreciate it. >> a federal appeals court today ruled that the bolt collection of records exceeds what congress has allowed. the second u.s. court of appeals in manhattan issued the decision. a three-judge panel says that the case brought by the american civil liberties union illustrated a complexity of balance and privacy issues with the nation's security. it is something congress will have to take up for extending the provisions of the patriot act. the issue came up today

actually, with loretta lynch testifying on the justice department budget. >> two questions -- one, are you aware of any significant travesty violations that have occurred since the president instituted these reforms, and second have the justice department made a decision yet on appealing this decision by the second circuit? i realize that just came down. ag lynch: thank you, senator. i realize it is a vital twill in our national security arsenal, but our department has come as you note, been operating under a new directive by the president with a view toward modifying the program to keep its efficacy but preserve privacy interests. i'm not aware at this time of any violations that have come to light. i will certainly seek a briefing

of that, and if i learn of any, i will advise the committee of that if my knowledge changes on that, but as of now, i have not been informed many violation under the policy. with the respect to the decision of the second circuit my home circuit, actually, we are reviewing that decision, but given the time issues involving the expirations of it, we also and have been working with this body and others to look for ways to reauthorize section 215 in a way that does preserve its efficacy and protect privacy. >> the attorney general this morning on the house i come of the chairman, bob goodlatte ranking member john conyers, and a number of other members put out a memo -- bulk collection of data is not authorized under the law and is not accepted by the american

people. it also reaffirms debt a straight we authorization of the bulk collection program is not a choice for congress. next week, the house of representatives will vote on the usa freedom act, which contains the most sweeping set of reforms on government surveillance in nearly 40 years. you can find it on c-span. look for the members of congress list. under an hour from the pentagon we will hear from the defense secretary, ashton carter, and also the general martin dempsey. later today as the poll's begin to close in the u.k., they close it and what p.m. local time, 5:00 p.m. eastern, our live simulcast of itv's coverage will begin at 4:55 eastern here on c-span. you are is at some of the candidates and issues in the u.k. parliamentary elections. host: toby harnden. this is one of the closest in decades. why is it so close, and how close is it?

guest: hi, greta, it is great to be with you. it is fascinating and riveting from afar. another election in 2016, a presidential election or the primaries anyway. i think it is so close because the british public has lost confidence in the major political parties, the conservative party on the right, and the labour party on the left. we have had five years of conservative, liberal democrats coalition government, and i think if you can poll to vote for none of the above, then they would probably win today, but what the election polls are showing is an extraordinarily tight contest with the conservatives on about 34% labour on about 34% as well, and then going down the list, the looking at the united independence party, this new kind of movement anti-immigration, so similar to your tea party here in some

ways. you got the liberal democrats, you've got the scottish national party, which could be a huge factor because it looks like they are displacing the labour party in the traditional heartland of labor in scotland. what we are almost certainly going to see tomorrow is that no party will reach the magic number of -- there is actually some dispute over what the magic number is, but 323 seats in the 650-seat chamber to get an absolute majority. so what that means is you are going to have a lot of horse trading, a lot of -- david cameron, and the current prime minister and certain party , leaders trying to form a new coalition government or minority government, and you will have ed miliband, the labour leader, the opposition leader, trying to do the same, trying to cobble together some sort of

arrangement, which would form a government. anybody who says they know what will happen is not telling the truth. host: toby, what role could the scottish national party play then, given what you are talking about, if there is no clear majority? they will have to try to build a coalition here. what role could the scottish national party play? guest: the scottish national party is fascinating. they are only 5%. of course they are outstanding in scotland. but in the u.k., they could get 48 seats. if you look at the way that works, the u.k. independence party is about 12%, and they are likely to get two seats or three seats, so the scottish national party are very much a socialist left of center party, as is the labour party, so they will be a sort of natural alliance, if you like, between labour and the scottish national party, however, the labour party that

said it will not go into the coalition with the scottish national. so what we made under some kind of loose arrangements whether the scottish national party will prop up a labour party that has finished second and has got only the second highest number of seats behind the tories. you add up the labour party seats and the scottish national party seats, that could result in some kind of government. very uncertain and very vulnerable to a vote with no confidence or the scottish national party. trying to exact a price could be too great for labour, so it could be very, very unstable if you can get those two parties in partnership. host: toby harnden, how long does this take to straighten out? guest: [laughs] well, we don't know. last time in 2010, it took about two days, and you had a parallel sector, horse trading going on you have the labour party

talking to liberal democrats you had the conservative party talking to liberal democrats. you had the scottish national party sort of in the mix as well. in the end, it was the tories, and the liberal democrats with a shared agenda, a relatively stable arrangement, which had indeed lasted five years. this time, it looks like it will be much less tenuous, or much more tenuous. it could take many, many days. the big date on the calendar is may 27 when the queen's speech which is when the new government agenda is made out. but some people are saying we could even get a situation where that speech or the queen is asked to make a speech in which you have a person in miliband or david cameron trying to become the new prime minister, but not even sure whether the queen's

speech will be passed in the simple majority in the house of commons. host: all right, more to come on that. toby harnden, the washington bureau chief of the "sunday times," thank you. appreciated. guest: thank you. >> a reminder, our coverage on itv begins this afternoon, east coast town 4:55 eastern. the bulk of today's "washington journal" program focused on crime, policing, and prisons. next a discussion on social and racial economic justice. host: we are back. our conversation continues today about the criminal justice system. and we are joined now by lester spence here to talk about racial and social economic factors. let's begin talking about the divide in this country, of long, racial, economic factors. describe it. where is the divide, and how big is it?

describe it. where is the divide and how big is it? guest: you think about all the resources governments allocate that kind of state hallowell we are able to live, they shape our access to government and a range of things. black people and nonwhite people in general are usually at the bottom. you think about health issues. black people are usually sicker. if you think about education issues black people have less access to quality education than whites do. if you think about wealth issues, housing issues, black people have less access to quality housing. it is particularly important in understanding what is going on in places like baltimore in detroit and the st. louis area and ferguson. host: you wrote recently in a

piece that baltimore is a time bomb. before freddie gray's death that was the spark, the city was dangerously divided. how so? guest: i'm a professor at johns hopkins university. tuition is somewhere around $40,000 a year. there are only three public high schools in baltimore that have kids that can routinely be strong enough to go to hopkins. baltimore has dozens of high schools. so if you are talking about a set of policies going back to the 19th century they have kind of put their foot on black people's next. over time, in a couple of instances in the last 50 years that has generated significant pushback. when martin luther king was assassinated and then most

recently last week ago, we had an uprising in reaction to freddie gray's's death. a lot of people focus on attitudes. black people are thinking one thing and white people are thinking another. it is important to understand there are an array of resources routinely withheld from black populations and nonwhite populations in general. host: i want you to respond to the former governor of maryland. the former maryland governor argued more money is not the answer to fixing baltimore's problems. take a look. >> i would indulge to some extent the idea of healing. who is against healing? we have to go. but, if it is healing on familiar terms, if it is the same old mo the same old

paradigm you heard out of the president's mouth and others -- we need more money, $22 trillion -- if that is the premise, i will not play. those folks in those neighborhoods should not play. policymakers should not play. we should not indulge it because if it is just that nobody should be surprised if we see a repeat in three months, six months, nine months, three years, 10 years. i would not be surprised to see the same conditions if it is the same paradigm. hopefully, you pray that something good can come of this. host: what is your reaction? guest: certainly, if you think

about municipal spending, there are ways in which throwing more money at the problem has made the problem worse. proximally 1991, baltimore's's city spent approximately $37 million in parks and rec. 2015 they spent about $37 million on parks and rec. 1991, they spent about 170 million on police. 2015, they spent about $450 million on police. the vast majority of that money being kind of on zero tolerance basically anti-black strategy. if that is what he is talking about, then yes, throwing more money on the problem makes it worse. host: the washington times editorial, they write that the liberal mantra is to transform these areas must be refuted by colfax. president obama's law assigned

$1.8 billion to the city of baltimore including 26.5 million dollars for crime prevention. guest: there has been like a sweep of government policies that have basically extorted wealth from black people and moved it, whether you're talking about housing policies that took black neighborhoods and label them is not worthy of investment whether you are talking about policies that routinely cause black people to get less bang for their buck as far as taxes and education, the only way to deal with that is policy that kind of puts money behind innovative solutions. there is not a way around that. it is interesting. you think about baltimore city and baltimore county or detroit

where i am from, those suburbs those areas were created by the g.i. bill, millions of dollars spent. it was also created by the national highway defense act. millions and millions of dollars in spending. i do not see how we all the sudden say government does not work when it comes to deal with liberal and radical needs. host: let's get our viewers involved. we're talking with lester spence professor at johns hopkins university. if you're living in an urban area, you can call -- marielle is in brooksville, florida. go ahead. you're on the air. caller: i would like to know if they did not destroy their own

neighborhood which is a shame they're asking people to help them rebuild their neighborhood when they destroyed it. i could see a hurricane or something like that, but not when you destroy your own neighborhood, if they did not destroy, people would build stores there and people would have jobs. there would be walmart and other places and people would not mind building places there for people to work. host: we got your point. go ahead and respond. guest: it would be interesting to show pictures of baltimore. a lot of the viewers, maryland into -- included, probably soft pictures of what they thought was baltimore the whole city, like oh my gosh, the whole city is on fire. there were only a few hotspots.

if you go to the neighborhoods where the hotspots were, and take pictures of them just two weeks ago, you see if they suffer from this -- for decades. it is not a new thing, first of all her second of all i just -- it is important to understand the issue people rebelled against. you are talking about an issue in which a kid, freddie gray, basically had his spine broken by police. so police are supposed to serve and protect people in the neighborhood, but the people in the neighborhood tend to view police as an occupying force. if we think about them in their own neighborhoods without taking the political dynamic, what we end up doing is rendering them less than human and it ends up being really difficult to understand their actions as

being one of a long set of actions of people basically prevail -- rebelling against resident government. host: leon, go ahead. caller: morning, united states. my name is leon. i am 58 years old. in 1965, the great society program was directed toward my generation. we had a lot of youth programs at times crying prevention for the full year's of funding from congressman rangle as well as professor clark, who started what they called -- it lasted until about 1965 all the way through 71, and it was money in the pipeline that put 2500 young black american men on the path

of the straight and narrow. many of them have gone on to college. we have all talked about it. why is this program not being funded at the state federal and local areas of crime prevention? i saw a segment where the governor says he is not planning on giving any money to crime prevention programs. but we put more into incarceration than we put into education for children, and students. i have estimated by looking at it, for whatever we put in for education, new york as an example, $15,000 per child to get educated. if that child goes to jail for a year, the taxpayer has to pay $60,000 per year to have that person set up in jail and do absolutely nothing. so we are talking about the area

of crime fighting as opposed to prevention. you are saying, professor, that some of the money has been spent. a lot of the money has been spent wrongly and i agree. because when they had a welfare program that started out in the 1960's and went through the 1970's, it just estimated -- it just decimated the black community. guest: i agree with what the caller is saying. i want to go back to that figure from earlier -- $37 million. there has basically been no change in 30 years. police presence has increased almost 300%. we have two re-shift our priority, and what happened in baltimore, what happened in ferguson, and to a certain extent in new york, i am hoping that it generates more political will from the grassroots going up for spending programs we know work. host: why does it work? what

does the money go for? guest: for providing an array of programs that allows kids to spend more time in community centers. they go toward the building of community centers themselves. baltimore used to have somewhere around 60, 70 community centers. that number has been cut in war than half. -- in more than half. it goes into a number of programs designed to make parts better, so you have green space where people can interact in. that creates better relationships between individuals and developed trust in government. most of the people and places like winchester where freddie gray was killed, the only government is in the form of a fist that expands their trust in government. that has all types of outcomes going for it. that education versus incarceration number just does not make sense that in a nation

that professes to be one of the best in the world, one of the best on the planet, that it spends more incarcerating people on average than it does educating. host: we hear from craig next from maine. go ahead, craig. caller: i wanted to tell mr. spence -- i certainly did not want to call this morning and ruin his morning but i completely am shocked as to where this country is going. i think we are on the path to finishing this country. he is complaining about money going to the inner cities. billions upon billions of dollars go to these areas. hundreds of billions of dollars get funneled to these corrupt inept school unions. people are graduating that cannot even read. people have to step over drug

addicts -- these kids have no chance. there are seven out of 10 children born out of wedlock with no parent or little parenting, and mr. spence you are complaining about what you do not get in the cities. well, let me tell you about the rural parts of america. we have to hold bake sales to get football uniforms. we have to have car washes to get cheerleading uniforms to be able to have baseball fields. we get scraps. the bulk of america's money is poured into the cities. if you are willing to really take a hard look at where this money goes and how it is spent there is not one american that would not lock arms with you and wish you well. do you think we want to see

these children with no hope and no future? you are pointing your weapons at the wrong people. it is the system, the political framework that you have in these areas. there is not a republican in miles. there is not a conservative anywhere near these areas, and yet instead of building to the foot a government there saying you have let us down, where is all this money going, you sit on tv and complain that it is somehow america's fault. host: i want to give lester spence a chance to respond. guest: here is where craig has a really great point, that a number of the problems that people face in really hard hit urban neighborhoods are shared by their rural counterparts. but the challenge is that unlike our rural counterparts,

people in cities, in hard-hit urban neighborhoods, they tend to have a sense that government actually has a role to play in solving problems that they created. to a certain extent, craig evinces the idea that government itself is a problem. that is the first thing. the second thing is that it is important to understand that i am not making a claim necessarily that resources are spent that we are not getting enough money. what i am making an argument for is the type -- that we are not getting enough government. the type of government that we actually are getting. that area where freddie gray was killed, they spend $47 million a year in incarcerating. that is government spending. that government that nobody needs. and, yes, part of it is about

kind of political representatives that do not represent, that do not represent their constituents. to that extent it is about developing a political culture where individuals can say you are not doing what we wanted you to do. in fact, i would argue that that is why marilyn mosby is in office right now as opposed to the person she ran against area that is a bipartisan dynamic but it is not like we are looking on millions upon millions of dollars spent progressively to the with these issues in these cities. what they are getting is policing. host: lester spence, political science associate professor at johns hopkins. temple hills maryland, high, jason. caller: i get it. i am from pg county. i have lived on both sides of the spectrum. i came up in a rough area.

it is not as bad as baltimore some parts but some of what is missing -- and i think you are really misconstruing -- some people are just trifling. i am pretty sure he understands that. you could be broke but you do not have to be -- yeah, trifling. that is a mindset. trifling is not black or white it is just the person. you have choices in life. i am going to wake up and brush my teeth. you can go to a dollar store. some stuff is basic common sense. what are you going to do day to day, and some people are going to do good and some people are not. i am still doing what i am doing. i have three kids and i am married and i make $90,000 a year now.

guest: talking about how much you make on c-span, people are going to come get you. caller: and that is fine. i graduated school with a e average, but when i greatbatch i had a b average. but when i graduated, i had choices. what are you doing with life? you complain they do not give us enough money. on the street level, we don't even see that. we make choices. when you make the wrong choices you get -- i have gotten pulled over many times because i was black and i knew that -- i knew what that was. but when i got pulled over, i talked to him and you see, that is not what it was. when a cop is in an urban area, a cop does not know who is who. it is hard because --

guest: can i interrupt you just for a second? for real, for real, here is an issue. you take those choices, and you made a brilliant point. you are like, black people, white people, brown people, are all random and trifling. it is about the same, pretty much. so how are we to explain -- is our rambling and trifling is the same -- if for example black people are less likely to use drugs than white and less likely -- but the arrests are much higher, where does choice play a role in that? we can say that choice plays a role as an individual. i was about to say a name. you could point to that single

random and trifling person and say you got what you deserve. but when you talk about a neighborhood full of them and you go to another neighborhood where people make a little bit more loot, where people have a little bit more education, they do the same rambling and trifling stuff, but do not get arrested for it they are still able to go on with their lives. that is politics. that is not individual choice. caller: i get what you are trying to say. guest: i am not trying to say. i am saying it. caller: i hear exactly what you are saying. a code red area -- yeah, i am most likely going to get arrested than in the suburbs because i look like the same thing. that is just common sense. guest: that is political. caller: if i am in an area that is not known for drugs, but i go into another area that is known for selling crack, you know where the crackheads are at, you know where the strip is. if you have crack on you, that is a problem. if you do not, you are let go. guest: i feel you. i grew up in a neighborhood like

that. i got five kids, three of them boys. what you are kind of saying is that it is ok for my kid in that neighborhood to have to be fearful of the police -- not just fearful of the gangs -- but fearful of the police, that we pay taxes to. no, no. we have been hearing that -- one of the narratives that has been produced and reproduced for over 150 years is this narrative that for black people, for black people together citizenship right, they actually have to act right. there's nothing in the constitution that says, for example, you only have free

speech if your pants are right. what we have to do is combine the individual responsibility narrative that i can give to my kids with the larger political critique that, no, if we have this span of gaps -- there are people for whom life is consistently hard, and they are random quotient is average there rambling and trifling is about average but they are still consistently hard, we have to point to government because government is usually the culprit. this is not the way things are supposed to be done and we can do it another way. host: let's go on to ira in lewisburg, north carolina. former law enforcement? go ahead. caller: good morning, professor spence. i am former law enforcement, and i'm going to give you a story. i am former law enforcement in a town called wilmington, north carolina. the second or third night i went out with my field training officer, he said, do you know what they call in nightstick? i said, what?

he said we call it an n-knocker. i will not say it on c-span. that gave me an insight into the attitude that law enforcement has towards black people. now, how can we have this conversation outside the historical context of black people's experience in this country is beyond me. slavery is an injury black people have suffered that has never been redressed. also, wilmington, in another period of time that has never been discussed, reconstructions, they have a majority of black citizens. the white citizens decided they did not like having black folks,

so they overthrew the local government. black people had to leave wilmington on the backs of horse carts, bales of hay. black people in wilmington north carolina, have never recovered. there might be less than businesses in that city until today. guest: i think what we are talking about is a set of public policies going back from slavery and going forward that consistently prevent blacks from getting access to wealth, that prevents blacks from building the types of institutions they need to get a full suite of citizenship rights from government. that nightstick thing -- that is real. i have been talking about anti-black police. it is important to understand that there is a significant difference. we are not talking about

anti-black policing, we are talking about anti-black working-class policing, policing that shows people the fist of government consistently in neighborhoods like winchester, where freddie gray was killed, and that is something that we have to -- he is absolutely right. i do not see how we can talk about these incidences without talking about racism, without talking about racism and class. host: oscar, good morning. caller: i would like to ask craig to download yesterday's "washington journal." you had an excellent piece. i commend you. you had a great piece with mr. eisenberg. he broke it down specifically. he broke it down so perfectly yesterday morning. he explained how the inner

cities have been subjected to redlining and even home purchasing. i encourage you to look at that "wall street journal" from yesterday morning. when i grew up in washington d.c., we had a great mayor. it was not marion barry at the time. he became mayor around late 1969. when i was 17, we had a program called pride incorporated. you may have heard it. i am 57, so a long time ago. in the 1960's, 1973, 1974, he would give jobs, summer youth programs. we had blue jumpsuits. we would enjoy ourselves cleaning the streets, like team players. these guys got together and we cleaned the streets. i would recommend that this

mayor in baltimore, she should listen and capture a little piece of marion barry's policies in washington, d.c., and learn and implement these policies. and the city council -- you can be black, all 12 of you can be black on the city council, but if you do not have a leading mayor, a leader in that office who will implement policy change for the inner city youth strategically putting down these boarded-up houses, putting in a starbucks, a subway, and getting these kids jobs, that is how it should be done. guest: so it is kind of a broad national context. there was a moment where cities in general got money directly from the federal government to deal with social service provisions. but after 1970's support for

that dwindled, and then with the election of reagan, you see that money significantly cut, and then the city's ability to do that was curtailed, and the city is engaging in entrepreneurial activities that give tax cuts for downtown development in the hopes that would trickle down -- in the baltimore context -- what, camden yards? i think it cost around $110 million or so to build -- the orioles only spent $9 million. the rest of that came from taxes. going back to using detroit, they are about to build a red wings stadium, $400 million stadium. it is all tax money. what you see is this use of city resources, government resources, to reproduce the gap between the haves and have-nots.

because blacks tend to be part of the have-knots, they are significantly losing out. in the baltimore case, we have a strong mayor system where mayor stephanie rawlings-blake holds a lot of cards. what would be really positive would be if mayors like stephanie rawlings-blake actually spoke clearly about the need for more investment in these neighborhoods and started pushing corporate investors like under armour to give resources to be corporate citizens. host: from columbus, ohio, you are on the air. caller: there are two things i would like to address. the fact that historically we had destroyed the best leader we ever had, and that was in booker t. washington. professor spence, i really would like for you to read "death in 60 days: who silenced booker t. washington" by paulette davis

horton. i am going to read something out of the book that she had wrote. she had stated that "the american white power structure opted for someone who shared the views of a social philosopher such as w.e.b. dubois. the social collegiate of the black group structure started replacing the practical teachers of science and industry. president luther foster got rid of the trades, which was something booker t. washington felt strongly was the best way for blacks to secure their destiny. my other concern is what dr. julianne malveaux said on a panel on "face the nation."

and with the panel of others whom i do not recall their names, but i just wanted to know how you feel about police being more trained than just two months at a police academy, but having a two-year associate's degree or a four-year college degree would make a difference. guest: we will have lester spence respond. guest: i think police training is a significant issue of contention from the data i have. baltimore spends 57 times more on swat teams than on police community relations. that is something that is really important. police, as far as their training on how to deal with violence they are trained consistently to be punitive as opposed to more nonviolent approaches. so there are a whole suite of policies that we can implement in order to make police act more humanely. as far as the booker t.

washington thing, i have seen a bit on the washington versus dubois piece. creating businesses owned by the workers, and there has been a push in baltimore from a number of activists for more worker cooperatives as opposed to kind of business development where you might have a black capitalist make money, but black workers make less. the worker cooperative can provide a range of needs for those communities. one of your charges about incarceration is that once you

have a record, nobody wants to hire you. in a neighborhood where a lot of the folks have record, it even for minor things, they're basically unemployable. so developing worker cooperatives can help employ them and build capital and build civic and economic capital. host: we talked a little bit about the whole band in the box movement. we are not done yet. we go to daniel in milwaukee. caller: thank you. in october of 2012, four milwaukee, wisconsin, policeman were indicted for cavity searches. one officer received 26 months for a felony.

another received a several hundred dollar fine, and the other two were returned to duty. how can a community have any trust in the police when this exists and has not been addressed? guest: that is it. in fact, an argument can be made that you need to build a healthy distrust of police. when we think about it, we have not had a lot of conservative callers. but one thing conservatives are known for articulating is that healthy distrust of government. they rarely apply that when it comes to policing of black communities. a healthy conservative skepticism of the police is warranted. that skepticism is not just about individual officers, how we deal with individual officers. it also deals with the police as an institution. that skepticism can cause us to say, you know what, i do not think it is a good idea that we give police 300% more resources when all they are doing is

basically anti-black policing. host: what about black police officers? there was a piece about how people in freddie gray's neighborhood will tell you it is a black police officers that come down on them just as hard. guest: there is a ice cube quote, "black police coming out for the white cop." racism is about the subject. it is about -- i'm sorry, the object. it is about these black kids who are being policed. it is not adding more black police officers. we want black people to be employed, that could be a good look. what we are talking about is systemic change. what we are talking about is change, simply adding more police officers is not going to do a thing.

host: kevin in randallstown, maryland, law enforcement. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a 22-year veteran of the baltimore city police department, lived in baltimore city all of my life. i am a pastor now. i was on the front line when we were protesting and trying to quiet down the community in baltimore. what i would like to say is that the police officers that i have worked with in the neighborhoods that i have worked for our good -- are good neighborhoods, good officers. certainly we do have some officers who abuse their authority and abuse their power. but the citizens that i served in the predominantly african-american neighborhoods do not see police or law enforcement or being occupied. it is the media that is portraying law enforcement with

a black eye, because all across the country there are thousands of citizens who have been helped by law enforcement officers who love doing their job and love serving. there are a few, just as in c-span, johns hopkins, politics, education -- there are a few people who just think that they can take advantage of the disenfranchised. so when we paint the picture in law enforcement, let's not paint it with a broad brush that says all law enforcement is corrupt and evil. that is not the case. because i can give you thousands of people that i have dealt with in the inner city who love police. that is all i want to say. guest: so some of my fraternity brothers are cops here in baltimore. i am sorry, back home in baltimore, back home in detroit.

a number of my radical colleagues are -- i am not necessarily one of those. but at the same time, i am not one of those folk who say that police problems are a problem, is a bad apple problem. i think it is a combination of -- i think it is a public policy issue. you can take when governor o'malley, former governor o'malley was the mayor of baltimore -- and i think a four-year period, he arrested more people than baltimore has. he made approximately 700,000 arrests, and baltimore has 640,000 people. those arrests were later found to be illegal, and they were changing people's lives, changing people's orientation towards police in general. yes, there are some people who are interested in doing their jobs and upholding to the best

of their ability their badge, to the stand that i could make it to a good look, to enhance our ability to live our lives. but there is a set of public policies that incentivize police to perform poorly. when you think about the law enforcement officers bill of rights that maryland has, when they are caught performing poorly, police, over 100 people died in police custody it is very hard to indict them. you do not want a circumstance even if everybody -- even in the vast majority of police officers are really good folk, going back to that conservative sense of skepticism, i would argue, give a institution like that too much power, and even good folk are going to go bad. host: lester spence, associate professor of political science at johns hopkins university. you can follow him on twitter and go to lesterspence.com.

thank you for watching "washington journal. >> a live look at the u.s. capitol. news from new york, that is affecting the debate ahead in the u.s. capitol "new york times" writing the one secret national agency program that is collecting phone records in bulk is illegal. this intensifies the fight whether to extend the program. "the times" writes the ruling will increase the tension in congress. the news was breaking this morning as loretta lynch was on capitol hill testifying about the justice department at you. she was asked about the ruling from maine senator susan collins's. senator collins: are you aware of any significant privacy

violations that have occurred since the president instituted these reforms and second, has the justice department a decision yet on appealing this decision i the second circuit? -- by the second circuit? ms. lynch: section 215 has been a vital tool in our national security arsenal, but the department has been operating under the new directives by the president with a view toward modifying the program to keep it efficacy by preserve privacy interests. i am not aware at this time of any violations that have come to light. i will certainly seek a briefing on that, and should i learn of any, i will advise the committee of that. if my knowledge changes on that, but as of now, i have not been informed of any violation of the new policy. with respect to the decision

from the second circuit, my home circuits come this morning, we are reviewing that decision, but given the time issues involving the expiration of it, we are also and have been working with his body and others look for ways to reauthorize section 215 in a way that does preserve this efficacy and protect privacy. >> from the judiciary committee patrick leahy and republican senator mike lee of you talk released a statement on that ruling, saying -- coming up in under 10 minutes on c-span, we will take you live to the pentagon, a briefing with defense secretary carter and outgoing chairman of the joint

chiefs general martin dempsey. and looking at the british elections, the polls close in local time in u.k. at 10:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m. eastern. we will start our coverage at 4:55 eastern. host: why is it so close and why is it? guest: hi, greta. it is great to be with you. it is fascinating and riveting from afar. i'm covering another election in 2016, a presidential election or the primaries anyway. i think it is so close because the british public has lost confidence in the major political parties, the conservative on the right, and the labour party on the left. we have had five years of conservative, liberal democrats

coalition government, and i think if you can poll to vote for none of the above, then they would probably win today. but what the election polls are showing is an extraordinarily tight contest with the conservatives on about 34% labor on about 34% as well, and then going down the list, the united independence party, this new movement, anti-immigration similar to your tea party here in some ways. you got the liberal democrats, you've got the scottish nationalist party, which could be a huge factor because it looks like they are displacing the labour party in a traditional heartland of labour in scotland. what we are almost certainly going to see tomorrow is that no party will reach the magic number of -- there is actually some dispute over what the magic

number is, but 323 seats in the 650-seat chamber to get an absolute majority. you have a lot of horse trading, a lot of david cameron and conservative party leaders trying to form a new coalition government or minority government, and you will have ed miliband, the labour leader, the opposition leader, trying to do the same, trying to cobble together some sort of arrangement which will form a government. anybody who says they know what will happen is not telling the truth. host: toby, what role could the scottish national party play then, given what you are talking about, if there is no clear majority? they will have to try to build a coalition here. what role could the scottish national party play? guest: the scottish national party is fascinating.

they are only polling 5%. of course they are outstanding in scotland. but in the u.k., they could get 48 seats. if you look at the way that works, the u.k. independence party is about 12%, and they are likely to get two or three seats, so the scottish national party are very much a socialist, left of center party, as is the labour party, so they will be a sort of natural alliance, if you like, between labour and the scottish national party, however, the labour party that -- the labour party said it will not go into the coalition would be scottish nationalists, so what we made under some kind of loose arrangements whether the scottish national party will prop up a labour party that has finished second and has got only the second highest number of seats behind the tories. you add up the labour party seats and the scottish national party seats, that could result in some kind of government.

it's very uncertain and very vulnerable to a vote with no confidence or the scottish national party trying to exact a price too great for labour. it could be very, very unstable if you can get those two parties and partnership. host: toby harnden, how long does this take to straighten out? guest: well, we don't know. last time in 2010, it took about two days, and you had a parallel sets of horse trading going on you have the labour party talking to liberal democrats you had the conservative party talking to conservative democrats. you had the scottish national party sort of in the mix as well. in the end, it was the tories, and the liberal democrats with a shared agenda, a relatively stable arrangement, which had indeed lasted five years. this time, it looks like it will

be much less tenuous -- or much more tenuous. it could take many, many days. the big date on the calendar is may 27 when the queen's speech which is when the new government's agenda is made out. but some people are saying we could even get a situation where that speech or queen is asked to make a speech in which you have a person in miliband or david cameron trying to become the new prime minister, but not sure whether the queen's speech could be passed in the house of commons. host: toby harnden, thank you. >> live coverage with itv coverage of the 20 15th election results beginning at 4:55 p.m. eastern. we will take you live to the pentagon and a report from politico saying the defense

department audit has found a number of pentagon employees use their government credit cards to gamble and pay for adult entertainment. stern new warnings. we will take you live to hear from the defense secretary ashton carter and from the chairman of the joint chiefs general martin mc. we are live from the pentagon. the briefing will [no audio]

[no audio] >> live at the pentagon waiting to hear from the secretary come ashton carter and the martin dempsey appy. also going on at this hour, the senate under way with the procedural vote and final passage on an iranian nuclear bill that would give congress review of any nuclear deal made with iran. the vote coming up shortly. the vote is underway. you can follow that on c-span2.

[no audio]

>> we are life at the pentagon waiting to hear a joint briefing from ashton carter and martin dempsey. -- live at the pentagon.

speaking of the senate, they're working their way towards final passage of a measure that would allow congressional review of any nuclear deal between the u.s. and iran. the vote is underway and you can follow that on c-span2. later today, the british elections are underway. parliamentary election. we will be simulcast coverage of itv. our coverage getting underway at 4:5 eastern. -- 4:55 eastern. [no audio]

secretary ashton carter: good afternoon. it has been a busy week, so let me provide a few updates. first, earlier today, i met with iraqi kurdistan regional president -- we talked about our progress in the fight against isil, recognized the sacrifice that all iraqis have made in this struggle and congratulated him on retaking territory lost to isil. we reaffirm our commitment to working together by, with and through the government of iraq.

to deliver a lasting defeat to isil. i understand that some on capitol hill would like to bypass the iraqi government and directly arm the kurds and some iraqi tribes. we oppose such a move because we believe a unified iraq is critical to the long-term defeat of isil and because it could put some of our personnel at risk. we are announcing today that combat training has begun for company sized group from the new syrian forces. this program is critical and complex part of our counter isil efforts. we expect a second group to begin training next week. the chairman and i testified

yesterday before the senate appropriations committee subcommittee on defense. given that the current budget approach is, as i said yesterday, a road to nowhere we need members of congress to come together, as they have done in the past, including in 2013, and agree to a multi-your budget agreement that provides the stability dod needs and the resources our troops deserve. fourth, to change gears a bit, i want to commend seven former secretaries of defense and 10 retired four-star general officers for releasing a letter today encouraging congress to pass the trade promotion authority or tpa so that the president can finalize two critical trade agreements. the transpacific partnership and the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. this important letter builds upon what i said last month at

arizona state university and i encourage every member of congress and all of you to read it. as the letter says "the stakes are clear." while both agreements would boost our economy, they also make strategic sense for our country. they would help us promote stability and security in critical regions, deepen our alliances and partnerships abroad and bolster a global order that reflects our interests and our values. that is why we need congress to pass tpa. finally before your questions come i want to say a few words about the officer and gentlemen beside me. we have a lot of work to do in the months ahead and i know chairman dempsey will sprint through the tape with this characteristic humility, courage and expertise. i want to thank him for his strong leadership and his thoughtful advice to me and to the president during an

immensely challenging time. the chairman has made our country and the world safer. he has also made sitting before congress on little more comfortable. he is a great friend to me and stephanie. we came into theis building at the same time. i will really miss him in the same goes for sandy when filled as well. -- sandy as well. i have complete confidence in their successors. general dunford met all the criteria of the president and i wanted and our next chairman and vice, we saw the same strategic perspective, operational experience, sound judgment and total candor we value every

day in current leadership. as much as we will miss chairman dempsey, noi know their responsibilities will remain in excellent hands. give our chairman a round of applause. [applause] chair martin dempsey: thank you. that is a first from this group, i will tell you that. [laughter] thanks, mr. secretary for the kind words. i, too welcome the nominations of joseph dunford and paul selva. i have complete confidence and trust in them. i appreciate the fact that both of them and their families have agreed to continue to serve their country at this important time in our history. as the secretary said, there is plenty to do in the months ahead, or me. yesterday, i appeared with the

secretary in front of the congress in what may have been my last budget hearing to briefly recap where we have been with the budget since i became chairman. when i came into the job come i knew we would be facing significant cuts after 10 years of incredible support for those periods of highest activity in iraq and afghanistan. we have faced significant cuts. over the last five years, we have cut three quarters of a trillion dollars from the defense budget. that is significant, but combined with a lack of long-term budgets certainty and the lack of support to make the reforms that are necessary we are a routing our technological edge and our military readiness is declining -- eroding our technological edge. soldiers are serving faithfully across the globe and they deserve better. our allies and partners are watching what we are imposing on ourselves through our budget process.

our adversaries are paying attention, too. they are investing and adapting. if the trajectory continues especially of sequestration returns, we will be looking at dramatic changes to how we protect our nation and promote national interests. on the syrian train and equip mission, we started the program and we will grow it in a measured way. this program is very complex. it will not be easy, but emphasized that it is one part, one component of a much broader approach. tomorrow marks a significant day in our history. 70 years since the victory in europe day, the end of the second world war in europe. we know we are a better nation for the courage and sacrifice of the brave men and women who served in that conflict. with that come i will be glad to take your questions. >> you talked last month about

the importance in iraq -- there is lost ground there. can you talk a little bit about -- is this more difficult because of -- what does this say about the goal of retaking mos ul? you said a company sized -- can you be more specific about how many you expect? and if you have any concerns about the safety of the trainers . chair martin dempsey: it is part of iraq's critical oil

infrastructure. it sits on the core door that runs from baghdad -- core ridor that runs from baghdad to mosul. it is geographically significant and significant, economically. it's an important place. the iraqis are under pressure and have lost some control of the perimeter and some of the road network that leads to it. we have been working with them and have conducted 26 airstrikes since the fifth of may. we have been working with a mobile training team in baghdad airport to assist them in rigging airdrops and recently they conducted an airdrop to resupply the force. very successfully.

18 of 18 pallets landed on the intended target. the iraqis understand the significance and are working to win short they retain control of the area. secretary ashton carter: there are about 90 of the trainees in this company sized to unit. these are highly vetted individuals. the training takes place in a secure location. our people who are participating in the training are very experienced in this kind of training, including in security procedures. >> i would like to start with general dempsey. in the last couple of days, we

have seen the moderate opposition in syria make some gains against assad and assad came out yesterday and publicly acknowledged that he had suffered some losses. what concerns do you have if the battlefield inside syria looks like assad could be getting shaky, that isis might be again rising or gaining strength and destabilizing the situation? what risk does that pose? mr. secretary, one has to ask about texas -- just to get you on the record, if i may, your response to the governor of texas who expresses concern that the united states military -- arter: we have

given information to authorities in texas. any information they have requested were pure and we are very open and upfront about our training activities. we are very grateful for the support of communities around the united states in all of our treating facilities, we count upon people's desk the support of americans in our training areas and around our bases and are very grateful for the hospitality that we have received. >> would you review his concern that this could be an issue -- refused his concern that this could be an issue that's -- refute? secretary ashton carter: we are

very transparent. we have tried to be very transparent. we give all information -- i want to express appreciation that we have two communities across the country who host our troops. it's very important. >> the destabilization -- if assad gets shakier, does that pose a new set of challenges here? chair martin dempsey: yes, it would. if you recall, two years ago sod was at a point where we thought he was at a disadvantage. the opposition was on the rise and that situation reversed itself. we had been through the rigor of what this might mean. what it would mean for the nation of syria is further instability. it could mean an even increased

humanitarian crisis. for us in our counter isil strategy, it would not change the dynamic. we still have the fundamental challenge of finding moderate syrian opposition to train and be a stabilizing influence over time. on the side of our diplomacy there is the issue of finding moderates to establish a political structure to which the military force we are building can be responsive. the challenge would not change for us, but it would certainly make the situation for syria or copyrighted. -- more competent. -- more complicated. >> [indiscernible] change the dynamic for him? chair martin dempsey: the regime's momentum has been slowed. therefore, you can certainly from that take that i do believe

the situation is trending less favorably for the regime. if i were them, i would find the opportunity to look to negotiate here. >> i want to get back to the combat training for syrian rebels. you talked about two companies being trained in turkey. secretary ashton carter: i would rather not talk about the location. there are several locations. we will keep that to ourselves. >> when will these trainees go operational? do you have to get with certain level before they go operational? what responsibility does the u.s. once they do go operational? advisers on the ground medevac? secretary ashton carter: the question of the first disposition of those forces will be divided -- decided later by the commander of that training

operation and by us. that decision has not been made yet. >> six months, nine months, a year? secretary ashton carter: a few months. the other part was? >> what responsibility -- secretary ashton carter: very good question. of course, we would have some responsibility to protect forces. their mission is to fight isil. that is the combat we expect them to get involved in. we do support them in that regard. if they are contested by regime forces, we would have some response ability becauseut we have not decided how we would exercise that responsibility.

we definitely would work to protect them. with that kind of help potentially air support help, yes. it depends on where they are. we have some obligation to these people. they're fighting for their own country. on the other hand, we have a knowledged that we have an obligation to their safety and their effectiveness and we would exercise that. >> [indiscernible] >> i interviewed the head of the syrian opposition. his description of u.s. support was too small and too slow. he talked about 5000 and he would be 30,000 to make a battlefield difference.

they want anti-aircraft weapons to fight back against syrian airstrikes they want support for a no-fly zone over there protected areas. he left washington disappointed. i want your reaction to that criticism. could the u.s. make any hard commitments on sophisticated weapons? secretary ashton carter: this is a complex program. it will have to evolve over time. it is fair to say to that kind of concerned that it will have to prove itself. we are starting with the people that we have that we have embedded very carefully. -- prevented veryvetted very carefully. we expect that to be successful and therefore to grow, but you have to start somewhere and this is where we are starting. >> [indiscernible] secretary ashton carter: the main arms they are provided will be small arms, small unit arms

and so forth. there is a limit to the kind of sophistication of arms that troops trained in this way will be provided with. >> before i ask you to sing an irish song come iranian activity in and around the gulf that required a u.s. aircraft carrier, that has stopped. in light of the negotiations going on right now, if you have any concern that the guard units are not under the control of the government of rouhani, that they are operating freely and there is a great deal of independence, you have to move significant assets to respond to that.