ms. lynch beginner service as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york in 1990 where she rose quickly to serve as chief of the long island office and then deputy chief of general crimes and chief of intake and arrangements. for 15 years she's been a prosecutor in the u.s. attorney's office for the eastern district of new york and since to attention served

admirably as united states attorney for the eastern district of new york. in that position just demonstrated a superior sense of judgment and remarkable legal expertise. ms. lynch is dealt with an impressive array of cases on subjects ranging from civil rights to organized crime to terrorism. these are each issues at our new attorney general have to engage with constantly from day one of her tenure. ms. lynch his experience as a federal prosecutor in new york will undoubtedly serve her exceptionally well in washington. she is extraordinarily well-qualified and i believe she deserves a quick confirmation process. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator gillibrand. it's now just as soon as the table is cleared it's going to give ms. lynch and opportunity to come, and before --

[inaudible conversations] >> before you seek yourself would you take an oath please? would you raise your hand, and i'll give the oath. you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you. the committee welcomes you and i know that it's an honor for all of us to have you before us but it's also an honor for you to be selected by the president and it's quite an honor for your

family. so i would ask if, before you make a statement, if you would like to introduce anybody to the committee, and speak about them anyway you want to. and then if there's people that are not introduced by you that you would like to have their name in the record, and you'd submit the names i'd be glad to improve that -- included in the record. so would you proceed as you choose to? [inaudible] >> i think the microphone is not automatic. >> thank you. let me introduce for the record, i'm delighted to welcome numerous family and friends here with me today. i do like to first and foremost my father, the source of my inspiration in so many ways. he is to my immediate left them the reverend lorenzo lynch. to his left is my husband steven hargrove supported in all of my endeavors no matter how poor

they make us. [laughter] immediately to his left is my younger brother the reverend leon solution was the fifth generation of ministers in a direct line in my family. and my sister-in-law nicole lynch. ammostly with several other family members and friends whom i would love to introduce but i am informed that you have a scheduled for the afternoon. so i will keep to that. but let me say to all of them how tremendously gratified i am for the support not just today but over the years. chairman grassley, senator leahy, distinguished members of this committee, i'm honored to appear before you in this historic chamber, so many dedicated public servants. i want to thank you for your time this morning and i also want to thank president obama for the trust he has placed in me by nominating me to serve as attorney general of the united states. the particular in which we

joined today by numbers of my family that i introduced as well as the other numerous family and friends who have come to support and whose travel and service i am so appreciative. mr. chairman, one of the privileges and, in fact, one of my favorite things in my position as united states attorney for the eastern district of new york is welcoming new attorneys into the office at administering to them the oath of office. it is a transformative moment in the life of a young prosecutor and one that actually remember well. and as they stand before me prepared to pledge their honor and their integrity come i remind them they are making their oath not to me not to the office, not even to the attorney general, but to our constitution. the fundamental foundation for all that we do. it is to the document and the ideals embodied therein that i devoted my professional life. senators, if confirmed as attorney general, i pledge to

you today anti-american people, that the constitution, the bedrock of our system of justice, will be my lone star as exercise the power and the responsibility of that position. i owe so much to those who have worked to make the promise of that document real for all americans, again with my own family. all of them and so many others have supported me on the path that has brought me to this moment. not only through their unwavering love and support which is so beautifully on display today, but through their examples in the values that shaped my upbringing. my mother who was unable to travel here today is a retired english teacher and librarian for whom education was the key to a better life. she still recalls people in a rural north carolina community pressing a time or incorporate into her hand to help support her college education. as a young woman she refused to use segregated restrooms because

they did not represent the america in which she believed. she instilled in me and abiding love of literature and learning and taught me the value of hard work and sacrifice. my father lorenzo with me today as a fourth generation baptist preacher who in the early 1960s open miscreants were charged to those planning sit ins and marches. standing with them will carry me on his shoulders. he has always matched his principles with his actions come encouraging me to think for myself but reminded me that we all gain the most when we act in service to others. it was the values my parents instilled in me that led me to the eastern district of new york, and from my parents i can do tenacity and resolve to take on violent criminals, to confront political corruption and to disrupt organized crime. they also give you insights into compassion to sit with the victims of crime and share their

loss. their values have sustained me as i've twice had the privilege, indeed the honor, of serving as united states attorney from leading an exceptional office, staffed by outstanding public servants and their values guide and motivate me even today. senators, should i be confirmed as attorney general my highest priorities will continue to be to ensure the safety of all of our citizens, to protect the most vulnerable among us from crime and abuse, and to strengthen the vital relationship between america's brave law enforcement officer and the communities they are entrusted to serve. in a world of complex and evolving threats protecting the american people from terrorism must remain the primary mission of today's department of justice. if confirmed i will work with colleagues across the executive branch to use every available tool to continue disrupting the

catastrophic attacks planned against our homeland, and to bring terrorists to justice. i will draw from my extensive experience in the eastern district of new york which has tried more terrorist cases since 9/11 than any other office. we have investigated and prosecuted terrorist individuals and groups that threaten our nation and its people, including those who have plotted to attack new york city subway system, john f. kennedy airport the federal reserve bank of new york, and u.s. troops stationed abroad. as well as those provided in to support to foreign terrorist organizations. and i pledge to discharge my duties, always mindful of the need to protect not just american citizens, but american values. if confirmed, i intend to expand and enhance our capabilities in order to effectively prevent ever evolving attacks in cyberspace to expose the wrongdoers and bring those perpetrators to justice as well.

in my current position i'm proud to lead an office that has significant experience prosecuting complex international cybercrime, including high-tech intrusions at key financial and public sector institutions. if i am confirmed i will continue to use the combined skills and experience of our law enforcement partners, the department's criminal and national security decisions, and to united states attorney community to defeat and hold accountable those who would imperil the safety and security of our citizens through cybercrime. i will also do everything i can to ensure that we are safeguarding the most vulnerable among us. during my tenure as u.s. attorney the eastern district of new york has led the to prosecution against financial fraudsters are callously targeted hard-working americans including the death, the elderly, install and not just the trust but their hard earned savings. we've taken action against

abusers in over 100 child exploitation of child pornography cases. and we are prosecuted brutal international human trafficking rings that are sold sold victims as young as '14 and '15 into sexual slavery. if confirmed as attorney general i will continue to build upon the department record of vigorously prosecuting those who prey on those most in need of our protection and i will continue to provide strong and effective assistance to survivors who we most -- both support and empower. senators, throughout my current as a prosecutor it has been my signal honor to work hand in hand with dedicate law enforcement officers and agents who risk their lives everyday in the protection of the communities we also. i served with them. i have learned from them. i am a better prosecutor because of them. few things have painted me more

than the recent reports of tension and division between law enforcement and the communities we serve. if confirmed as attorney general one of my key priorities would be to work to strengthen the vital relationship between our courageous law-enforcement personnel and all of the communities we serve. in my career i have seen this relationship flourish you guys seen law enforcement forged unbreakable bonds with community residents, and i think violence ravaged commuters come together to honor officers who have risked all to protect them. and as attorney general i will draw all voices into this important discussion. indexing spirit i look forward to fostering a new and improved relationship with this committee, the united states senate and the entire united states congress. a relationship based on mutual respect and constitutional balance. ultimately i know we all share

the same goal and commitment, to protect and to serve the american people. now i recognize that we face many challenges in the years ahead, but i've seen in my own life and in my own family how dedicated men and women can answer the call to achieve great things for themselves, for their country, and for generations to come. my father, that young minister who carried me on his shoulders, his answered that call. as has my mother, that courageous young teacher who refused to let jim crow definer. standing with him are my uncles and cousins who served in vietnam, one of whom is here to support me today. and my older brother, a navy seal. all of them answered that call with their service to our country. senators, as i come before you today in this historic chamber i still stand on my father's shoulders.

as well as on the shoulders of all of those who have gone before me, and have dreamed of making the promise of america a reality for all, and worked to achieve that goal. i believe in the promise of america because i have lived the promise of america. and if confirmed to be attorney general of the united states, i pledge to all of you and the american people that i will fulfill my responsibilities with integrity and independence. i will never forget that i served the american people. from all walks of life, who continue to make our nation great, as well as the legacy of all of those whose sacrifice is have made us free. and i will always strive to uphold the trust that is then placed in the to protect and defend our constitution. to safeguard our people, and to stand as the leader in public servant that they deserve. thank you all once again for your time and your consideration. i greatly appreciate this

opportunity to speak with you today. i look forward to questions, and to all that we may accomplish in the days ahead. together, in the spirit of cooperation come shared responsibility, and justice. thank you for your time today. >> and thank you ms. lynch, for the state and. before my 10 minute start for the first round i'd like to talk to my colleagues just a minute, because of the 18 votes that are coming up this afternoon and because of chaotic situation, and the most important thing is getting this hearing over in one sitting, ma in one day, even if it goes into the evening i hope my colleagues will be cognizant of what we normally do. senator leahy and i were fairly liberal on letting people go overcome and whether we have five, seven or 10 minute rounds, in any hearing, my practice is a generally if you got one second left you could ask the question and, at this time i would prefer

that you kind of stick to the 10 minutes, and i'm not very good at handling people down, -- gavel in -- so take care of my committee, will you, please? idm before the first 10 minute start at like to make something clear just for myself. i can't speak for my colleagues and it takes off on two things. one, what you said about you wanted to improve relationships with the committee and with congress. we welcome the very much and that will be very, very helpful particularly in regard to our responsibilities of oversight. secondly taking off on something senator schumer said, and just speaking for myself, if i use this subject on that subject or another as the basis of may be questioning what the president or an attorney general has done, i want to clear that that's not the issue for me now.

the issue is whether or not the constitution or the laws have been violated or whether the justice department has acted in an appropriate way. so now i would start with my questions. on november 20 last year president obama announced that he would defer deportation of millions of individuals in the country undocumented. not only is this action contrary to our laws it's a dangerous abuse of executive authority. if you confirmed as the next attorney general before you take office, you will take an oath. you will raise your right hand and swear quote, support and defend the constitution of the united states, anti-their true and false true faith and allegiance to the same end of quote. your duty as attorney general is not to defend the president and his policies. your duty is your oath to defend

the constitution. so my first question, without oath in mind i ask you, do you believe that the president has the legal authority to unilaterally deport, deportations and a blanket man for millions of individuals in the country illegally and grant them permits and other benefits regardless of what the u.s. constitution or immigration laws say? >> a defer the question, senator. and you raise a very important issue of how we manage the issue of undocumented immigrants here in our country while still welcoming those who bring such great value to our shores and to our business community and to our culture. certainly i was not involved in the decisions to led the executive actions that you referenced, and i'm not aware of at this point at the department of homeland security have set forth regulations to actually implement that. so i can't comment on the particulars of what will happen. i have had occasion to look at the office of legal counsel opinion through which the

department of homeland security sought legal guidance affair, as well as some of the letters from constitutional scholars have looked at the same issue. and certainly it seems to be a reasonable discussion of legal precedent, the relevant statute, congressional action along with enforcement discretion of the agency. and i don't see any reason to doubt the reasonableness of those abused. i do think however, that the ultimate responsibility of the department of justice is to always present with issues by the white house or any agency to review the issues carefully, to apply the relevant law, and to make a determination as to whether or not there's a legal framework that supports the requested action. and i found interesting it interesting as i was reading the legal counsel opinion that some of the proposal that were set forth in the past about, the office of legal counsel opined in fact did

not have legal from adult refills are actually implemented. so i do think it is important that from the department of justice to any of its agencies the office of legal council or in a direct conversation with the president or any other member of cabinet, always ensure that they are operating from a position of whether or not there's a legal framework that supports the requested action. and the advice provided must be thorough, it must be objective and it must be completely independent. >> let me take off on one word used, discretion, and i presume that may apply to the prosecutorial discretion was part of the president's rationale. if this is lawfully exercised on an individual basis, depending on the facts of a specific case it is, in fact case-by-case pics of this is not so much a philosophical question as a practical thing. what it doesn't allow anybody to is tell whole categories of

people that the law will apply to them going forward. no one seriously -- won't apply. no one disputes the these principles committee for the office of legal council opinion of the president's executive action except that. so let me ask you this. what are the outer limits of the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion? and why don't the presidents actions exceed those boundaries we were talking about millions of people? how does this action realistically allow for a case-by-case exercise of discretion? >> senator, as i reviewed it in and look at the issues presented therein, from the perspective my career as a prosecutor and as a united states attorney and applying the principles of the exercise of discretion, i viewed it as a way which the department of homeland security was seeking legal guidance on the most effective way to prioritize the removal of large numbers of individuals given that the

resources would not permit removal of everyone who fell within the respective category. and that certainly was the framework from which i viewed event. and looking at it from that perspective, the department of homeland security's request and suggestion that they in fact prioritize the removal of the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us, those who have criminal records, those who were involved in national security and terrorism, those involved in gang activity can violent crime along with the people who have recently entered and proposed a threat to our system seem to be a reasonable way to marshal limited resources to do with the problem. as a prosecutor, however, i've had experience in doing similar things in finding the best way to attack a serious problem with limited resources. but as a prosecutor i always want the ability to still take some sort of action against those who may not be in my initial category as the most

serious threat. and i didn't see anything in the opinion that prevented action being taken from individuals who might otherwise qualified for the deferral. again i'm not aware of how the department will actually go forward and implement by regulation does not appear to an education to study that and i don't know in fact those are patrick certainly if confirmed as attorney general as affordable and more about that process and making sure that we're using all of our resources to protect the american people particularly against the dangerous offenders who rightfully stand at the top of the removal list. >> well, i think you're telling me that you can do it for a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of people, that maybe have committed a crime or something, but it seems to me to be common sense would dictate that it's impossible to do prosecutorial discretion to its traditionally been done on an individual basis for the millions who are left over.

let's move on. i'd like to move away from the president refused to enforce the law and talk a little bit about this administration's failure to apply the law in an evenhanded way. according to, this goes to the irs. according to the treasury department, inspector general, that's not me, the inspector general. the irs used inappropriate criteria to deny tax-exempt status to predominantly conservative organizations ask unnecessary questions and lastly slowed approval of the application initially, president obama remark that any irs actions to target conservatives would be quote outrageous. than last february the president said there wasn't quote, even a smidgen of corruption in what occurred at the irs. a smidgen of corruption unquote. yet a few months later in june the director of the fbi,

director comey testified before the house judiciary committee that there was a quote very active ongoing criminal investigation into the matter. so this brings me to these questions. i'd like to know how to reconcile these two statements. if what the president said was accurate, and why in the world withwould the fbi be conducting an ongoing criminal investigation? a rhetorical question. with the fbi investigation he just for show? i'm going to take director comey at his word. so if there is an ongoing criminal investigation at the fbi, and how could it be possible, be appropriate for the president to reach the conclusion about the facts before director comey speak with thank you, sir. and let me say at the outset that with regard to the actions of any of the agencies of our government there is certainly no place for bias or favoritism or anything other than the evenhanded application of the relevant laws and regulations.

certainly that has always been my goal as a prosecutor and would be my continued gold should it be confirmed. with respect to the irs investigation, i am generally a were that it is an investigation going on but it's not a matter that is either being conducted by my office or that i'd been briefed on as united states attorney so i'm not able to comment on the status now. >> based on what you said that i can shorten this up by asking you this question. you spent a career in law enforcement. wind would ever be appropriate for any president to know the results of a criminal investigation and then comment on it publicly while the investigation is still ongoing? >> senator, with respect to this investigation or any other i'm not aware of the content or the basis for the president's remarks on not able to determine whether or not they were in fact, i'm after any devaluation of the investigation or whether they were a matter of opinion. so i'm not able to comment on that specific remark.

certainly as part of the department of justice exercise of its powers, was at the u.s. attorney level board in washington, investigations are handled independently and without provision of materials of information about them before the conclusion to others in the executive branch or other agencies. >> senator leahy. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've been fortunate in my native state of vermont has allowed me to serve there for four decades. i have listened to several different committees i have been on to a lot of statements by nominees. i cannot think of one who is so moving as your statement. i intend to make sure i have several copies to all members of my family and friends. my years in law enforcement as state attorney in vermont gave me a lot of respect to the

difficult and dangerous work we ask police office to do every day. i know the toll it can take not only on the officer but oftentimes on their families. i have tried to support the work of law enforcement to keep our communities safe. that after the resources they need whether it's bulletproof vests of funding for innovative criminal justice efforts. i've also been deeply moved by the tragic events in ferguson and new york. they have focus on what we know is already on oftentimes, or sometimes, strained relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve. i appreciate your reference to that in your statement. but you worked very hard as a u.s. attorney bringing both law enforcement and the communities

together. could you elaborate on that a little bit more? >> yes. thank you, senator. i think you raise one of the most important issues facing our country today which is a need to resolve the tensions that appear to be discussed and appear to be rising between law enforcement and the communities that we serve in my experience as a prosecutor and a united states attorney these tensions are best at what by having discussion between all parties so that everyone feels that the voice has been heard. with respect to our brave law enforcement officers we ask so much of them. we ask them to keep us safe. would ask them to protect us literally from ourselves and ask them to do it often without the resources that they need to be safe and secure themselves. yet they still stand up everyday and risk their lives for us. many of our community residents, because of a host of factors, feel disconnected from government in general today, and when they interact with law enforcement transfer that feeling to them as well, even if

someone is there to know. what-most effective is getting people together and simply listening to their concerns, being open helping tennessee that, in fact, we are all in this together and that the concerns of law enforcement a safe society, a free society, or the exact same concerns that every resident of every community there. >> would you agree that that something has to be considered by not only federal law enforcement by state and local law enforcement? and that the federal government can help the state and local law enforcement in that respect? >> absolutely. one of the most important roles that the department of justice place is not necessarily its most visible role but it is the support we provide to state and local law enforcement partners through a grant program and through our training program. we try our best to provide them with the resources that they need to carry out their jobs safely and effectively.

>> we all know that no prosecutor's office has the resources to prosecute every single crime before it. you have to decide which ones have priority. let me talk about one. in state court in there is a case where a child rapist received two years. you obviously disagreed with it. you brought federal charges, and i think bill o'reilly on fox called you a hero and said quote, you should be respected by all americans for standing up to gross injustice. and i agree. i agree with bill o'reilly on that. how do you make well let me back up. more and more of the justice department's budget as i said earlier is going not only indoor federal prison system so you have limited resources. how do you make these kind of

judgment? how do you determine which cases are the important ones you have to go out and also the very difficult thing, realizing if you go after certain cases it means you don't have the resources to go after others. >> certainly, senator. one of the privileges of being the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york has been the ability to work with some of my united states attorney colleagues across the country. all of us engage in this process every day, and we start with a full and frank evaluation with our law enforcement partners of the crime issues facing our particular district. we try and determine what are the greatest threats to the people that we have sworn to serve. and that is what i do in the eastern district of new york every day. we can look at our resources and set priorities and goals to achieve a status communities that we can to senator, we do have to always, always maintain flexibility to look at specific

cases such as the goodman case and determine if a federal interest exists, and if, in fact, a victim has not been protected and has not been heard and used federal resources there as well. >> let me go into one that takes resources, but we've had some people say terrorists lock them up in guantánamo, even though we know what that has cost the american people both in respect of broadband in dollars. he successfully prosecuted a number of the terrorism cases in the eastern district of new york. the case against individuals accused of plotting against john f. kennedy airport in reserve bank and so on. just this month you charged you al-qaeda members are attacking american troops in afghanistan and iraq. i've been impressed not only in your district but other parts of the country who have brought

these terrorists to trial in our federal courts. we have shown the rest of the world we can do it. there's been convictions. osama bin laden's son-in-law being one. then they had been locked up. now, do you find the criminal justice system i think i know your answer, as an important counterterrorism tool? >> senator, it is certainly an important counterterrorism tool in the arsenal of tools that we have to deal with this ever-growing and ever evolving threat. let me say at the outset, my view is that if tears threaten american citizens here or abroad they will face american justice. we work with our counterparts throughout the executive branch to determine based on every case the most appropriate venue for bringing terrorists to justice. as our primary goal is to incapacitate them and prevent further destruction. certainly within my own career as u.s. attorney when the

decision has been made that the case should be handled by u.s. attorney's office, we proceed in that fashion. we also work closely, however, with the office of military commissions and consult with them and share information to make those decisions as to what is, in fact, the best way to manage every case. >> as these cases come to you i want to ask you a question i've asked each of the most recent attorney general nominees. i say this because i think of the tremendous effort of the senator from california senator feinstein to saving your, her tremendous efforts to confront acts of torture carried out in our country's name. do you agree that waterboarding isn't torture and that it is illegal to speak with waterboarding is torture senator and thus illegal. >> i know you will be asked a lot about immigration.

it makes me think we should be focusing on your qualifications for this job. many asking those questions might speak also to some of the qualifications of congress. we work for months and this committee night in take out hundreds of hours hearings markups, debate, and we passed by a strong bipartisan majority and immigration bill that reference so many of these things that we now are here to discuss. my opinion, there were votes enough to pass it in the house back but their leadership decided not to bring it up -- house of representatives but i think that was a mistake. now we do with the question of executive action. you didn't write the executive action to you were not consulted them or you? >> i was not aware of it until it was rendered.

>> would you say if you have millions of people in this country who may not be in a valid or legal status that perhaps the strain on resources to think about how we would deport 10 to 12 million people would that be a fair statement? >> i believe that statement is there, sir. >> senator hatch is the next one but i wanted to inform all the committee members that since everybody on the committee with you at the fall of the gavel, it will be done on a seniority basis as opposed to first come first serve basis. senator hatch is next. >> well, tremblant. i appreciate it. ms. lynch, welcome to the judiciary committee. appreciate the service should give into this country and i'm impressed with your qualifications and i hope i can support her nomination. it's important to hear what you understandable and duty will be. do you agree that when the constitution of the law is challenged, the attorney general has a duty to defend that law if

legal argument communities speak with i believe one of the first and foremost duties of the department of justice is to defend the law as it is passed by this body. >> i'm trying to get through a number of them. i think you can answer most of them yes or no if you can. if you are confirmed we commit to enforcing and defend the laws of the constitution of the united states regardless of your personal and philosophical views on any matter? >> absolutely spent am glad you said that the attorney general hold and that same question in the same way. the justice department had made risible argument that the defense of marriage act is constitutional but then the attorney general chose to stop making those items because of personal views. by breaking his promise he cast doubt about others who make the same commitment as you did today. i don't doubt your sincerity. we have met together and i have a high opinion of you.

is there any more assured you can give us on something like that? >> senator, it's my view that when it comes to the position of the attorney general and the role of the department of justice and defend the statute as passed by this congress can the issue is not my personal view or in each of bias or policy even but it is the duty and responsibility of the department of justice to defend the statute. certainly as we've seen there may be rare instances where come and again i thought involved in that analysis, but there may be certain circumstances where careful legal analysis raises constitutional issues. but i anticipate those would be few and far between. i also think that she would reach that point if there is a matter, it's been that i would prefer to have discussion about. >> okay. i appreciate that answer. i'm concerned that the administration has exceeded its lawful authority and subways in an effort to avoid working with this up in congress. i understand why they might not

want to work with congress from time to time but, unfortunately the constitution requires us to work together. and that the department of justice has facilitated pattern of behavior some people believe. the department has done so in a number of ways in acceding and even contravening lawful authorities in the programs that helps administer such as with the latest executive action on immigration, in purporting to provide legal justification for other agencies to ignore the law as apparently occurred with the transfer taliban terrorist out of guantánamo without notifying congress which is an obligation comeobligation, and then taking some extreme litigation positions which by my count the supreme court has unanimously rebuked a record 20 times. given these disturbing patterns how can you assure us you will be independent, that you say no to the white house or other executive branch agencies when they wish to act beyond the law as it is written?

>> i think when the most important function of the department of justice is to provide a legal framework if it exists when questions are raised the but consistent with that every good lawyer knows you must also provide the information that indicates that the legal framework may not exist for certain actions that someone may want to take. every lawyer has to be independent the attorney general even more so and i pledge to you that i take that independence very seriously. >> you did that in my office i do appreciate that because i think you'll be a great attorney general if you'll do that. last august he gave a speech in switzerland in which he praised attorney general holder's initiative to limit mandatory minimum sentences to own some of the criminals who congress said should receive them. but prosecutors included giving the attorney general does not have authority to decide that an entire category of defendants will not receive a sentence that the congress has mandated. isn't that another example of

using prosecutorial discretion to build an effective change the law without congress of? >> santa to come with respect to the materials you are referring to when i did give a speech i was referring to the department's smart on crime and mission which seeks to manage another intractable problem of a large number of narcotic defendants and the limited resources we have to handle those -- >> i want to help you without. >> and prosecute them effectively. in fact, in my own experience both as an assistant united states attorney and united states attorney, we've had to deal with similar issues in the eastern district of new york. we veterans issues with narcotics implementation over the years and we've had to work out ways of resolving those cases, many of them go to trial but we also have had to prioritize the cases that we will seek mandatory minimums for and those which we will see guideline sentences for. but important with respect to the smart on crime initiative has pushed out and has been

implemented in the field, every prosecutor from the united states attorney on down to line assistance, are encouraged to still consider cases that might fall into a category were initially you would not seek mandatory minimum of consider whether they would be appropriate. those cases have occurred and will continue to occur. >> i understand. it's for a written the electronic imitations privacy act requires only a subpoena for law enforcement to access e-mail that has been open even though a search warrant would be required for a print out of the same communications sitting on a desk. to make matters more complicated, ecpa on the privacy standard for accessing data stored abroad. without an actual legal framework in place, this puts the privacy of american citizens at risk of intrusion by foreign governments. in the coming days i intend to reintroduce the leads act which will promote international

cooperation. we commit to working with me on this important subject because it's important we solve these problems. >> the subject of electronic privacy essential to so many of our freedoms and as you point out in an era of ever-changing technology would have to be vigilant to make sure that we're not only providing law enforcement the tools it needs but protecting our citizens privacy. i certainly commit to you to working with you on this important legislation, and all the issues that will flow from it. >> thank you so much. trade secrets are among the most vital assets for american companies that are currently protected under federal criminal law under the economic espionage act. there is no federal civil liberty for trade secret owners to reintroduce the defendant trade secrets act in the coming days with senator coons to provide an efficient federal

remedy for trade secret owners. do you agree that trade secret owners should have the same access to a federal remedy as owners of other forms of intellectual property? >> senator tom i think the issue of trade secrets again particularly as american technology becomes ever more complex and becomes ever more a target from those both in the u.s. and without it would seek to steal it is an increasingly important issue, and i look forward to working with you to consider statute. i'm not for me with a provision that you raised but it is touching on an important issue of making sure that our companies and their technology are protected. >> well, they do so much. i'vei'm introducing legislation to victims of child pornography received the restitution that congress has always had they deserve. the supreme court said last year that the current restriction statute enacted more than 20 years ago does not work for child pornography victims and this legislation will change

that. i am joined by more than 30 senators on both sides of the aisle, including 14 on this committee. do i have your commitment and your leadership the justice department will aggressively prosecute child pornography and use tools like this legislation to victims get the restitution they need to put their lives back together? >> throughout my career i have expressed a commitment to prosecuting those who would seek to harm our children. be it through child pornography or the actual abuse of children which often go hand in hand. used to raise important issues about how can we make these victims whole, and i look forward to working with you and the members of this committee in reviewing that legislation as will. >> thank you so much. i recently read a powerful book read it in one day. it's titled license to lie, uncovering corruption and the department of justice. the author writes about many things including the debacle that occurred in a misguided prosecution of senator ted stevens come which i thought was

out of this world and. i was one of the -- he was a person of great character. passion he lost the senate race because this type of prosecution. i know that case. ted stevens was a dear friend of mine and i testified as i said understand the only after he was convicted in we were that the justice department prosecutors intentionally hid exculpatory evidence that could have helped his case. there were not these were not mistakes. they were cropped ask that violated every prosecutors duty to turn over exculpatory evidence so that the trial will be fair. now i recommend that you read this book because if if even half of it is true and i believe it is true, you have a lot of work to do to clean up that department. will you consider doing that for a? >> thank you, sir. i will. >> i appreciated. pics mr. guerre. >> before i called senator feinstein, i'm going to ask just

ask the finance committee convenes will offer amendments so i would ask the most senior republican to watch the time and call on the next person in seniority order to senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. lynch, i sat through six opening statements by potential attorneys general, and i just want to tell you yours was the best. >> thank you. >> i see the combination of steel and velvet. i see your effectiveness before a jury. i see your love for the constitution, and i see the determination which is in your heart and i think you're being. it's very, very impressive. i want to thank you for really 30 years of service. >> thank you senator. >> had hoped it would be a lot longer. mr. chairman, i'd like to place in the record los angeles police

departments chief charlie beckwith written testimony on the subject of a president executive action on immigration. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you very much. ms. lynch, i'm going to ask you three questions. the first is on x. firing provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which will come to this committee before june of this year and also before the intelligence committee on which i serve. a question about office of legal council opinions a question on the state secrets act. let me begin with fisa. the three provisions that are going to expire on june 1 our first the roving wiretap authority. this provision enables the government to maintain surveillance on a dark when he or she switches phone numbers or e-mail addresses without seeking a new court order.

the second is the lone wolf authority, which enables the government to conduct surveillance of a non-united states person engaged in international terrorism without demonstrating that they are fla with a particular international terrorist group, such as isis or al-qaeda. and the third is the business records authority which carries with it section 215 of the national security administration. this enables the government to obtain a court order directing the production of quote any tangible thing end quote that is relevant to an authorized national security investigation. can you describe for us the importance of these three provisions, and what would be the operational impact if the three were allowed to sunset in june? >> thank you senator. you certainly raise important

issues about the need to have a full panoply of investigative tools and techniques to deal with the ever evolving threat that terrorism presents against us. with respect to the provisions that you refer to, i think i've on the most interesting that the roving wiretap provision is actually provision that was incorporated into the fisa statute after being utilized extensively for several years and narcotics prosecution which i was for as a young prosecutor has been my colleagues across the country were as will the and the ability to describe to a court the nature of the offense the nature of the activity and the use of attempts to shield one's self from electronic surveillance, part of what must be set forth an application have been invaluable to the all of us must go to a court obviously in the narcotics area but that is

judicial review for this and it has been an important part of the techniques we have used in the war on terror, as have the other two provisions that you mentioned. i do think however, that with respect to fisa there's always the ability always the need to make sure that we are current not just with technology but with most effective way to protect privacy as we go forward in this important act. i know that's something that you has been a great deal of time on as well as many other colleagues on this committee as well as on the intelligence committee. i look forward to continuing those discussions with you shouldn't be confirmed. with respect to the lone wolf provision, can i think we have to obviously examine it carefully but recent events, however, have underscored the importance of this as an issue in the war on terror. as i would hope we could move forward with any proposed changes to fisa with a full and complete understanding of the risks that we are still facing

and if any changes need to be made, again after full and fair consideration with this committee, with the intelligence committee, and the discussions we need to have, making sure we can still provide law enforcement with the tools that they need. similarly with section 215 i believe that the court order provision in there is an effective check, and certainly a necessary check as we gather data from all types of sources. as i have always said, i'm certainly open to discussions about how they can be best modified if we need to modify inconsistent with the goal of protecting the american people. and i commit to you and to all of this committee that i will always listen to all those concerned, be it about the fisa statute or any of the techniques we are using in the war on terror. >> thank you very much. as a member of both the judiciary and intelligence, we have on both committees sought access to office of legal council opinions called olc

opinions. these opinions often represent the best and most comprehensive expression of the legal basis for intelligence activities. congress is actually charged with overseeing. so without these opinions you don't really know the legal basis upon which an administration has made has faced certain activities. and it's been very frustrating to us your in particular executive branch officials have previously advised of the committee of the existence of a seminal olc opinion written by ted olsen decades ago governing the conduct of collection activities under executive order 12333. my question is could we have your commitment that you will make a copy of this olc opinion

available to members of both the intelligence and the judiciary committee? probably your first tough question. >> senator, i think that with respect to the olc opinions, you are correct they do represent a discussion and analysis of legal issues on a wide variety of subjects. when you arrive at come to the department for the independent advice, that we must provide them. certainly i'm not aware of the discussions that have been at about the previous opinion in terms of providing it. certainly i will commit to you to work with this committee as well as the intelligence committee to find a way to provide information that you need consistent with the departments of law enforcement investigative priorities. >> thank you very much. this particular opinion is important, and it would be useful if we could review it. so thank you. on state secrets, on

september 23, 2009 the attorney general issued a memorandum establishing new procedures and standards to govern doj's defense of an assertion of the state secrets privilege and litigation. among other things the memorandum stated that the doj would provide periodic reports to congress on the exercise of these state secrets privilege. since 2009 only one such report from april 2011 has been provided. that report discussed to cases in which the privilege had been in vogue under the new policy, but those are no longer the only two cases. so i'd like to ask you if you could provide the appropriate oversight committees with the second periodic report on the exercise of state secret privilege is that discusses of those cases which the privilege

has been invoked on since april of 2011. >> senator, you raise the important issue of the need to work with the oversight committees b. davis committee on intelligence, in return to actions of the department of justice not just so committees can carry out their work but so that the american people can be aware of how the department carries out its work. i'm not familiar with the reports that you referred at this point. i certainly look forward to reviewing this issue and document the i will do my best to ensure that the department lives up to its obligation that is set forth. >> good, and i will come back. this is an important question to ask, so i will come back and hopefully can get this get an answer yes or no within the next couple of weeks. so thank you very much. >> i look forward to them about the issue and look forward to sharing it with you shouldn't be confirmed, as was in issues of concern that this committee or

other staff. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. now it is senator sessions turn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is great to have you. i appreciate the opportunity to have a good discussion i think come in our office and having had, i think i just passed my time in the senate longer than i spent and the department of justice. it was a great honor to serve that end i have high ideals for this department. we understand that the attorney general is the premier law enforcement officer from the senior law enforcement officer in america. he or she sets the tone for law in america, the commitment to law and both politicizing law and do the right thing on a daily basis. on occasion you are called upon to issue opinions. olc works for you the office of legal council, who issued a

these opinions, and you'll have to tell the president yes or no on something that he may want to do. are you able and willing to tell the president of the united states know if he asks permission or a legal opinion that supports and actually believe is wrong speak with senator, i believe you touched upon one of the most important responsibility of the attorney general. let me say also i appreciated very much the opportunity to meet with your anti-discuss these important issues to the attorney general's position as a cabinet member is perhaps unique from all of the cabinet members. yes, a member of the president's cabinet but the attorney general has a unique responsibility to provide independent and objective advice to the president or any agency when it is sought. and sometimes perhaps even when it is not sought. with respect to the office of legal council -- >> and just so you understand natural is such that on occasion you have to say no to the person actually appointed you to the

job and do you support? >> senator, i do understand that that is, in fact the role and responsibility of the attorney general. and, in fact, a necessary obligation on their part. >> well, you know, people have agendas and attorneys general sometimes do and had to guard against that can and be objective, as you basically said to me now in committee. on april 24 of 2013 attorney general holder said this and i'm raising is fundamentally because i think there's a lot of confusion about how we should think about immigration in america, what our duties and what our responsibilities are. he said this quote creating a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in our country is essential. the way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and moved

out of the shadows transcends the issue of immigration status. this is a matter of civil and human rights. so let me ask you do you believe that a person enters the country unlawfully, that is perhaps used false documents or otherwise interfere as a civil right to citizenship? >> senator, i'm not for me with the context of his comments. i sorely think that you do touch upon the difficult issue of how do we handle the undocumented immigrants who come to our country. i believe for the life that we often are ugly because of the founders that -- >> i don't want to interrupt you but the question is you agree with that statement? ..