ls if not most of our elected officials that deal with this every day. the concerns that are raised are that acts that are taken when the goal toward protecting and preserving the integrity of the vote act in a different way and act to suppress the vote or prevent people from exercising the franchise. i would hope that at the first outset through the political discourse and discussion that we could have conversation about that and come to a resolution of practices and procedures that would ensure the right to vote for all citizens while still protecting the integrity of every ballot. absent that, when the laws are passed, the department of justice has to look carefully at their impact with how to proceed. there were instances when voter i.d. laws had received pre-clearance because they sought to protect the ballot as

opposed to act in a different way. but where there is an indication that the vote will somehow be harmed, i believe the department of justice certainly has the obligation to review that matter and look carefully at all of the facts and evidence and proceed accordingly. >> i couldn't agree with you more. and i find it ironic and painful that at this moment in our history, as we celebrate with the movie selma and talk about 50 year anniversary of the voting rights act that many states are making it more difficult for americans to vote, without any evidence of voter fraud to back up those changes. in one southern state it is estimated that 600,000 voters were basically precluded from voting in election because of new voter i.d. requirements. in that same state a 93-year-old veteran was turned away. a 73-year-old doctor turned

away, people who were proud and wanted to vote turned away by new laws, people who had a right to vote and it troubles me that amidst all of the celebration of the civil rights movement we are finding a reversal of the most fundamental principle in preserving the right to vote. i appreciate you have to say about it. i would say a word about the smarter sentencing act who i prepared with senator lee, with 32 co-sponsors in an effort to take a look at the reality that not only does the united states have more prisoners per capita than any other nation, but in many instances lengthy prison sentences do not serve the cause of justices and deny us resources we need to keep our community safe. attorney general holder who has not been held in high regards has been outspoken by this bipartisan measure and i hope

you would consider sponsoring it too. but i wouldn't put you on the spot without looking at it. and as chairman as the constitution of the civil rights committee, which was the name before this congress, and we had a hearing on the solitary confinement. the united states has more prisoners in solitary confinement than any other country and we had testimony from those who spent ten years in death row in solitary confinement in texas and even longer on death row in the state of louisiana and ultimately exonerated and found not to be guilty and the devastating impact that has on the human mind and spirit for so many of these people who served time in solitary confinement, many of whom are going to be ultimately released is something the forward bureau of prisons is now

addressing. you've been a prosecutor for many years, what is your view when it comes to incarceration and segregation and solitary con confinement confinement. >> senator, you raise many issues for repository about those that have hurt humans but are responsible and protect the safety of those that are responsible for guarding them and as we look at the issues one of the benefits of discourse like this and that i hope to have going forward with this committee is continued discussion on those issues. there are a number of municipalities for example looking at this very same issue. new york city is looking at it with respect to juvenile detention and looking to remove solitary confinement as an

option for juvenile detention based on the studies you are talking about. i believe we have to look at those studies and listen to the evidence that comes before us and make the best determination about how to handle what can be a dangerous prison population but handle it in a way that is constitutional and effective. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator graham is next. >> thank you very much miss lynch and congratulations on being chosen by the president. this is truly an honor i'm sure. do you support the death penalty? >> i believe the death penalty is an effective penalty. my office was able to achieve a death verdict there. >> how about yes? >> so we have sought it yes. >> that is good from my point of view. i don't know about other people. sequestration, have you had a

chance to look at the impact sequestration will be on your agency, all of the people that work for you. >> i have had an opportunity to look at that very closely on the advisory committee and also as united states attorney dealing with the budgetary limits that came down with sequestration. as you are familiar with the history far more than i, it did constrain the federal budget greatly. >> is this a fair statement, if congress continues to implement sequestration it will devastate the department of justice's ability to effectively defend this country. >> senator, i believe that is not only a fair statement but one that warrants fair discussion about how we manage budgets in a responsible manner which is important to this body but giving us the tools to protect the american people. >> in your time in this

business, have you seen more threats to our country than presented today. >> certainly throughout my career as a prosecutor and attorney we are seeing an increased number and the highest number of threats i have seen, not just from terrorist activity but the increased activity in terms of cyber crime that has increased numerically but qualitatively. >> so we need to up our game in terms of cyber activity. >> we do need to have the resources to keep up with cyber crimes in terms of detection and even before the apprehension of cyber crimes. >> and that is more than it. >> and the cyber crime of a terrorist entity is one we take

great pains to prevent to detect and to disrupt but it is an emerging threat and it calls for resources beyond personnel but in terms of our own technology also. >> does it also cry out for congress to take a comprehensive approach to our cyber problems in past legislation that would modernize our ability to deal with that threat. >> a comprehensive approach is necessary. in my experience, in the district of new york and talking to my colleagues. all of us are struck by the prevalence of cyber issues in every time of case we prosecute now. much more than even five or ten years ago. so we must have a comprehensive approach but one that allows us to work with private industry as well and then comes up with a way to deal with this threat. >> can you give us a cost to

deport 11 million people. >> certainly i couldn't give you that information now. but we could see if that could be provided to you. >> do you have with people here illegally or any role there? >> in terms of deportation the role is handled by the department of homeland security and there are the immigration courts through which individuals can seek asylum or redress that are handled by the department of justice but that would be simply further along in the process. >> but that is part of the process? >> yes, it is. >> if you could give us an estimate of what it would take to deport 11 million people from your lane, call the department of justice and see what they say, i think it would be instructive for us to see what the bill would be. now do you think the national

nsa terrorist [ inaudible ] surveillance program is constitution? >> i'm sorry. >> do you think that the nsa terrorist surveillance program is constitution today? >> i believe it is effective and there are court challenges to it but it is an effective tool. >> but you are okay for it to be constitutional from your point. >> certainly constitutional and effective. >> marijuana, there are a lot of states legalizing marijuana for personal consumption. is it a crime at the federal level to possess marijuana? >> marijuana is still a criminal substance under forward law and it is still a crime not only to possess but to distribute under federal law. >> under the doctrine of preemption preemption, would the federal law preemption states that are trying to legalize the substance. >> i think you raise questions

about the federal system with the states and their ability to regulate criminal law that they also have, as there is concurrent jurisdiction and matters in which citizens of various states have voted, with respect to the marijuana enforcement law it is still the policy of the administration and my policy if confirmed as attorney general to continue to enforce the marijuana laws particularly with the money laundering aspect where we see the evidence that marijuana laws brings with it not only organized crime activity but great levels of violence. >> do you know a michelle lynn hart, the dea administrator. >> she is the administrator of the drug enforcement administration. >> have you had a discussion with her about her views of legalizing marijuana. >> we have spoken but not on that issue. >> could you have that

discussion and report back to me. >> i look forward to speaking with her and you on this issue. >> on [ inaudible ] i believe mr. cole advised all attorneys that state marijuana laws would not be enforcing the state marijuana laws. >> i believe the policy seeks to try and work with state systems that have chosen to take admittedly a different approach from the federal government with respect to marijuana and to determine the most effective way to still pursue marijuana cases consistent with the state's and the choses they have made. the deputy's policy still requires federal prosecutors to seek prosecution of marijuana cases in cases where children

are at risk and where marijuana is crosss state lines particularly where it is being trafficked from a state that has chosen a legal framework into a state that has not chosen a legal framework and those driving under the influence of this. a great concern certainly within the department and those of us who are looking at these issues is the availability of the edible products and the risk of those falling into the hands of children and causing great harm there. >> if a state is intending to try to legalize personal consumption at a small left of marijuana, what would your advice be to that state? >> well certainly i'm not sure if a state were to reach out to the department for its views and i don't know if that has happened or what advice has been given, the department would have an obligation to inform them of the current forward status of the narcotics laws and the department's position that the

federal narcotics laws will still be enforced by the department of justice. >> in 2006, you signed an ameek us brief supporting planned parenthoods to partial birth abortion plans is that correct. >> yes. although the ameek us brief we signed was focused on the issue of the facial issues of the law and how it might impact the perception of law enforcement's discretion and independence. >> the only reason i mention that is if there is a republican president in the future, and the attorney general nominee takes an opposite view on an issue like abortion, i hope our friends on the other side will acknowledge it is okay to be an advocate for a law and that doesn't disqualify you from

serving. same-sex marriage, this may go to the supreme court very soon. and if the supreme court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and it violates the constitution for a state to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that is clearly the law of the land, unless there is a constitutional amendment to change it what legal rational would be in play that would prohibit polygamy, what is the legal difference between a state -- a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being unconstitutional. could you explain how one could be a ban under the constitution and the other not. >> i have not argued under the cases before the supreme court and i'm not comfortable about

analysis without the relevant facts and the precedent there so i would not be able to provide you with analysis at this point in time but i look forward to continuing the discussions with you. >> before the senator from rhode island asks his questions, this would be my plan and you tell me if this will give you enough time. the rhode island senator, senator lee and then senator cloebishar and that will take us until 12:45 and then come back at 1:30. is that going to give you enough time? >> yes. thank you. >> mrs. lynch, thank you. congratulations on your nomination. i look forward to working with you as we go forward. since there is a significant amount of commentary about the president's immigration measures, the ranking member has asked me to put into the record

letters from law enforcement leaders in ohio, utah iowa, indiana, and wisconsin supporting the president's policies and concluding, while the executive reforms improve a broken immigration system and we continue to recognize that what our broken system truly needs is a permanent legislative solution and urge congress to enhance comprehensive immigration reform. and a similar letter from the national task force and sexual and domestic violence and a letter from stan merrick, from the president and ceo of merrick companies and i'm asked those be made part of the record. without objection.

and there has also been considerable commentary about attorney general holder in a hearing at which he does not have the opportunity to defend himself and it is my view that a significant amount of that commentary would not with stand his ability to defend himself if he were here. so let me say, in response to that there are legal arguments and policies that fall out side a particular political ideology that does not make them outside of the mainstream and it does not politicize a department to make those arguments or pursue those policies. i would argue it is the effort to constrain the department within that ideology that would be politicizing. i would further note as a former united states attorney that the

department that attorney general holder inherited was in a very grave state of disarray and that is not just a matter of opinion. the office of legal counsel wrote opinions that were so bad, so ill-informed and so ill-cited to the case law that when they posed to review, they were widely ridiculed and withdrawn. the united states attorney caused a rebellion among sitting u.s. attorneys at the time and drew in past u.s. attorneys appointed by both republican and democratic presidents. we were exposed to hiring practices within the department that were on their face overtly political and had political litmus tests, a first in the

department's history, never gone that way before and ultimately a series of other issues as well that led to the resignation of the attorney general of the united states. so it is easy to critique attorney general holder and blame him for politicizing the department but i think history's calm and dispassionate judgment will determine that this brought the department back from a place it was sadly politicized and i can say first-hand that a lot of my u.s. attorney colleagues from republican and democratic administrations were very, very concerned about what was happening to the department back then. so i shouldn't waste the time of this hearing on that but with all of the things that have been said about attorney general holder without him having a opportunity to defend and rebut i wanted to say that. so some of the areas we need to work together, when you are confirmed, as i hope you will

be, senator graham raised the issue of cyber security and he has been extraordinarily helpful and forward-leaning helpful member of the senate from the dangers of cyber activity or whether it is the theft of wholesale on behalf of chinese industries or the really dangerous threat of laying in the cyber sabotage traps that can be detonated later on in the event of a conflict. i'm concerned about the structure within the department for handling cyber security. at an investigative level it spread across the fbi and then secret service and to a degree homeland security and it falls in the criminal division and the

national security division and i hope that with the assistance of the office of management and budget, you and i and the office of management and budget and other interested senators can continue a conversation about what the deployment of resources and structure should look like against the cyber security threat in the future. will you agree to participate in such a process? >> certainly, senator i think you outlined an important issue and if confirmed as attorney general i look forward to working with you and all of the relevant partners on this committee and throughout congress in making sure that the department is best situated to handle this growing threat. >> there is considerable bipartisan legislation in the senate on the subject and i hope there is one where we can get something serious accomplished in the months ahead. another area where there is considerable bipartisan legislation is on sentencing reform. senator durbin mentioned his and

senator lee's legislation that is at the front end, the sentencing end and senator cornin and i have a para little bill that relates to the end of the sentence and how to encourage incarcerated people to get the type of job training, drug and alcohol rehabilitation anger management, mental health care, family reconciliation and whatever it is they need, so when they are put in society they have a less of a chance of crime, or recidivism and i hope you and the department will continue to be supportive of our efforts. >> certainly, senator. you have raised, i think the next challenge as we look at how to manage our prison population and crime which is how to help

people that are released return to the communities from which they came and become productive citizens as opposed to returning to criminal behavior that returns them to the system and creates new victims and that is my focus. within the eastern district of new york we have strong participates in the programs that are sponsored by our colleagues at the brooklyn district attorney's office in my district in brownsville. we work with the re-entry efforts and the re-entry efforts focus on job training and building skills so those out of prison can become productive members of society as opposed that continue to harm others in society. so you have raised very important issues and i look forward to continuing the discussion with you and people on this committee and throughout this body on those issues. >> thank you. >> another piece of legislation

we are working on thanks to the court he issy and care of our -- courtesy and care of senator grassley is the juvenile justice and delinquency act which has been 12 years since the last reauthorization and i appreciate very much that the chairman has been willing to work on this and has made it one of the priorities for this committee obviously the way in which juveniles are treated in our correction system and as they are detained has been an important issue for the justice department and i would ask for your corporation and active support of our process going forward to reauthorize the jjdpa. >> certainly, senator. the way in which we handle juveniles in the justice system is something of great concern to me in both my practice in the eastern district of new york and in talking to my colleagues, the other u.s. attorneys across the country that face these issues. i believe it is incumbent upon all of us to look at the latest

research on issues of how juveniles develop and manage themselves in certain environments. and always be open to reviewing those. i look forward to looking forward with you and others in discussing that statute. >> in my last seconds, you and i have both had the experience of being united states attorneys and i suspect we both had the experience of finding people who were targets of our criminal enforcement efforts, who, if we look back into their past might have avoided their attention, had they managed drug or alcohol addiction or gotten the mental health treatment they needed. >> certainly. >> and it is sort of a -- it is a societal sorrow when someone doesn't get the justice they need and a great burden for the taxpayer. we have other legislation, the comprehensive addition recovery act that i hope you will work with us on to see where we can

intervene with appropriate addiction treatment and mental health treatment we with move people with a more appropriate treatment rather than burden people with the prison system which is a more appropriate treatment. >> certainly. we are more forward-thinking when great support for people and enabled them to provide temperature and become productive members of society and escape from being trapped into a spiral of criminal behavior. >> thank you. and now senator lee. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you mrs. lynch. thank you for your service to our country. i appreciate our visit recently when you came to my office and i'm grateful to you for your support for sentencing reform. the bipartisan legislation that i'm working on with senator

durbin that he referenced a few minutes ago is important and i appreciate your views on that as well. i want to speak with you briefly going back to the prosecutorial discretion. as a former prosecutor, i assume you agree there are limits to prosecutorial discretion, it is an exception to the rule and not to swallow the rule itself. would you agree with me that far? >> certainly. i believe in every instance, every prosecutor has to make the best determination of the problems presented in their own area. in my district then set priorities and then within those priorities exercise discretion. >> and so prosecutors have limited resources and so it is understandable why they would choose when they have to prioritize to perhaps put more resources into punishing for example, bank robberies than

pickpocketers or more resources after pick pocketers than going after people that exceed the speed limit. but at some point there are limits to this and that doesn't mean it is okay that it would be a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion to issue permits for people to speed, right? >> special, sir. if a prosecutor were to come to the view they had to prioritize one crime over the other, you still want to retain the availability, even if it was an area of not an immediate priority, because it became one because a particular neighborhood was being victimized or to use your issue of speeding, deaths resulting from that, you would want to have the ability to still if you could take resource and focus on that issue. it might not be the first priority, but you would want to have the ability to go back and deal with that issue. >> and for that reason, prosecutorial authorities or law enforcement authorities

typically don't go out and say we're only going to punish you for a civil violation involving a traffic offense if you speed and then it results in an accident with injuries. they leave open the very real possibility and indeed the likelihood that someone can and will be brought to justice in one way or another for any civil violation they commit while speeding? >> well certainly i can't speak to all law enforcement agencies. i know that depending upon the agency, sometimes the priorities are known, sometimes they are expressed. every office has guidelines. certainly the law enforcement agencies are aware of certain guidelines in terms of a dollar amount involving certain types of crimes. >> if someone went out and said i'm going to issue a permit to someone saying they may speed, going up to 100 miles per hour without getting a ticket, that

would be illegal to our laws that were made. >> again, without knowing more about it i'm not able to respond. it doesn't sound like something that a law enforcement official would engage in but without knowing more of the facts i'm not able to respond to your hypothetical. >> okay. thank you. let's shift gears. do you agree that citizens and groups of citizens should not be targeted by government should not be the recipients of adverse action by the government based on their exercise of their first amendment rights? >> certainly i think that the first amendment is one of the cornerstones of a free society and i believe that our jurisprudence has set forth great protections for individuals as well as groups in the exercise of their first amendment rights to make sure that they are protected and not target targeted.

i would also say that certainly as a career prosecutor and u.s. attorney, there is no place for bias or personal view in terms of how we approach the types of crimes that we pursue. >> and presumably you would say the same with respect to someone's rights under the fourth or the fifth or the sixth amendments or the eighth. someone shouldn't be punished by government for exercising their rights under those provisions of the constitution. >> there are safeguards in place to prevent that. i think we have to balance that with the possibility of an extreme situation in which we may have to move quickly, for example, to protect someone or there is an imminent threat there therein but there are rights set up for that purpose. >> second amendment rights. >> i believe the supreme court has set up clarity on that issue so regardless of the amendment that certainly that is a protected right.

>> are you aware that there is a program called operation choke point within the department of justice and through this program, the department of justice and other federal law enforcement agencies have on some occasions put financial pressure on legal businesses including hard-working americans who happen to be involved in the business of selling firearms and ammunition by essentially telling banks not to do business with them? >> i'm generally familiar with the name operation choke point and my understanding of it with respect to the department of justice current work again i haven't been involved in either the implementation or the creation of it but my general understanding is that it looks to target financial institutions that are involved in perpetrating frauds upon consumers in where there might be a financial institution that is instilling consumer bank

accounts being looted or consumers that are the target of that. i'm not familiar enough with the specifics about it to know the underlying businesses that the transaction might have originated from but that is my understanding of the program. >> i assume it is safe to assume should you be confirmed you will work with me to make sure that legitimate law abiding americans aren't targeted for their rights. >> on that and any other issue i look forward to hearing your concerns and working with you on them. >> i want to talk about civil forfeiture for a moment. do you think it is fundamentally just and fair for the government to be able to seize property from a citizen without having to prove that the citizen was guilty of any crime and based solely on a showing that there was probable cause to believe that that property was in some way used in connection with a crime?

>> senator i believe that civil and criminal forfeiture are important tools to the department of justice as well as our state and local counter parts through state laws in essentially managing or taking care of the first order of business which is to take the profit out of criminal activity. with respect to civil forfeiture, certainly as implemented by the department, it is done pursuant to supervision by a court, it is done pursuant to court order and i believe the protections are there -- sorry. >> what if you just ask the average person on the street whether they thought the government could or should be able to do that, shut the government be able to take your property absent of showing you did anything wrong. thereafter requiring you as a condition for getting your property back, whether it is a bank account seized or frozen, whether it is a vehicle that has been seized, that you would have to go back and prove your innocence.

so you are guilty in essence, until proven innocent. at least guilty untilin the sense of your property. >> i certainly understand there has been a lot of discussion and concern over -- over asset forfeiture as a program as expressed by a number of people. >> and particularly at the state level, such that some states have adopted in response to a widespread citizen outcry laws significantly -- restricting the use of civil forfeiture proceedings for that very reason. which leads to why i raise this with you. it is my understanding that the department of justice has in many instances been used as a conduit through which law enforcement officials at the state and local level can circumvent state laws restricting the use of

forfeiture in the state court system. in other words under the state law established system that forfeiture is prohibited. people with go through the department of justice and the department of justice will take out a fee, maybe 20% of the value of the assets received and those can be returned. it is a process known as adoption. don't you think most americans would find that concerning if the federal government is facilitating efforts to circumvent state laws that are designed to prohibit the very thing they are doing. >> i think that a number ever people would have questions about how the department of justice manages its asset forfeiture program and my understanding is that those questions have been raised about various aspects of it. my understanding is that the department is undertaking a review of the asset forfeit program and as u.s. attorney i'm aware of the fact that the adoption program you have just described which did raise significant concerns from a

number of parties has been discontinued by the department. that is the guidance we've recently received with the exception of items of danger with explosives an the like. but it is part of the on going review of the asset program and should i be confirmed i look forward to continuing that review. and i would also say senator that i look forward to continuing these discussions with you as you express concerns and interested on behalf of constituents or others as an important part of the department as being transpatient as possible in explaining how it operates. asset forfeiture is a tool. we return assets to victims and we want to make sure we are being as responsive as possible for those people were serving. >> thank you. i look forward to those discussions. i see my time is expired. >> thank you senator. and to senator klobuchar. >> i understand i am the only

thing that stands between you and your lunch and this entire room and your lunch. i think your dad liked that. you have an impressive resume and one thing that was brought up about you as we have this old saying in our family is obstacles in our path, and no one represents about you, and when i read about you scoring so well on a test in elementary school, they didn't believe you had taken that test and scored even higher, the obstacles are the path. or the time you became the valedictorian of your class and the principal said it would be too controversial so they added other students. and i think in this room there

would have been other valedictorians, and i don't think that would have happened to them. so i thank you for your courage and your parents' courage. and i know you touched with on senator schumer. and i'm a former prosecutor and i worked with about 400 and some of them you worked with, todd joeps, now head of our alcohol, tobacco and firearms and todd heckle finger who is the u.s. attorney under bush and now andy lugger who you are aware of and it is important, the relationship with the local prosecutors and the u.s. attorney's office and i wonder if you would talk more with how you would view that as the attorney general in terms of how you would like your u.s. attorneys to work with prosecutors who can be inundated

with a lot of cases and we would see the u.s. attorney's office getting the luxury of working on cases as we would work with tens of thousands of cases coming in the door. >> well, thank you senator. one of our benefits is getting to know the prosecutors not just my fellow attorneys but the local and state prosecutors with whom we work so well. i'm so privileged in brooklyn to have a strong relationship with the district and into manhattan and the bronx and beyond. we talk often on issues affecting the community and issues effecting the entire district. i was privileged to be able to share starting my prescription drug initiative with the brooklyn district attorney's office and work closely with district attorneys in nassau and suffolk county in handling the problem of prescription drug

abuse which has spiked and led to violence and deaths. >> i think you know the stats lately are that four out of five heroin users started with prescription drugs and then turned to heroin. i think people are shocked by that, but you see that connection with the heroin as well. >> we do. because of the opioid substance of both drugs and we are seeing a resurgence in heroin, not just in my district but across the country. this problem like so many others must be dealt with in a cooperative and collaborate manner and i'm proud to say that all of my united states attorneys, colleagues take seriously the privilege of working with state and local counterparts in crafting prescription initiatives and heroin and violent crime initiatives and work closely with our state and local counterparts to determine where is the best place for a case to be brought. we look at things like the type of sentence that can be achieved or the type of evidence

admissible in the different proceedings and we cannot have those discussions without building on the positive working relationship and it is really a hallmark of this u.s. attorney community. should i be confirmed as attorney general, i intend to draw upon that strength of my u.s. attorney colleagues and all of my state and local counterparts throughout the country. people who are at the ground zero of these problems often come up with the best solutions. they pull in the health care community, they pull in parents they pull in community leaders and they come up with the solution that works that can often be replicated in other places. i've seen that happen with my u.s. attorney colleagues, particularly in the area of heroin abuse and some of the initiatives they are working on as well. so if confirmed as attorney general, i intend to rely very heavily on my prosecutorial colleagues. >> well thank you very much for that answer and at some point i think we talked about this before, but certainly core win

and i did the drug take-back bills and we've gotten the rules out on dea on that and look forward to working with you on that. and something else i think i'll talk to you later about your work in rwanda but the fact you've done important international work and you've done prosecution of international terrorists here at home. and what lessons have you taken from those cases. i'll tell you why this is important from home state perspective. as you know, our u.s. attorney's office in minnesota indicted and prosecuted al shabab over in somalia and the first person with isis was from minnesota and our u.s. attorney has issued indicts against others that are over in syria. and there is an indictment involving l.a. boston and minneapolis, st. louis and there

is an extremist conference coming up but can you talk about your experience with these kind of cases and, two, how this pilot program can be founded, because we are concerned it is coming out of general funds and if you can confirm some sort of specific funding for the program. >> talking about combatting violent extremism, one of the most difficult things to see are young men and increasingly young women, many of them american citizens who are turning to this radical brand of terror. and being recruited to go overseas and become trained and are being sent back to perpetrate threats against the homeland. and the sources of this and the reasons for this are debated endlessly and i think we need further discussion about that. but we must take steps to combat this and understand the level of disaffection that these individuals are feeling with their current society and also help them and their families understand the risks they are

facing. some of the most difficult conversations i've had have been when i have visited the mosques in my district and had frankly wonderful interaction with the participants there and wonderful interaction with the residents there. but we've talked about violent extremism and talked to parents who said to me, i don't understand why the government is targeting my youth. and we've had very frank discussions about how it is difficult for any parent to know what their children are seeing on the internet and how they are responding to what is being put forth on the internet and the harm it does to our society but to those families because they lose their children. they absolutely lose them when thur sucked -- when they are sucked up by this radical extremism and only to come back when they will be, to be

determined and dealt with. and they start off as relatively peaceful individuals and were caught up in radicalism and recruited and then return to the u.s. and perpetrate attacks there. we've seen that on more than one occasion. >> and the funding. you are aware of the pilot program in the twin cities? >> yes. a very important program given the nature of the problems that have emanated from that community and the devastation that it has wrought within those families and within that community. i think those issues are very, very important. i certainly look forward to working with you on finding the most effective way to fund those programs because they have a lot to teach all of us working on this issue. >> thank you. and the last thing i'll ask about it sex trafficking and i know you've done an impressive job of involving the

investigation and trafficking cases. this is something certainly cornin and i have again that created laws for sex trafficking and we think we can build cases so those will come and testify against those running the sex rings. can you talk about about your work in this area and how you view these safe harbor laws. >> i think the safe har lor laws are the next step in helping the victims of this horrible scourge. my office has been privileged to lead the way in prosecuting numerous individuals who have essentially tricked women through lies, deceit also coercion and duress, even rape before they are brought to this country and forced to work here as sexual slaves.

it is a tremendously degrading process to these women and one they find it difficult to escape because of a language barrier or the fact that sadly often their children are being held in their home country to force them to behave and to force them to continue this activity. and certainly it is some of the work i'm most proud of is the efforts my office has undertaken with the number of organizations that help victims of human trafficking and with other governments to reunite these children with their mothers after the cases are over. thank you. and i also look forward to working with you. we have a number of domestic victims that i think 80% are from the u.s. as well. >> absolutely. >> especially when you get to the oil patch of north dakota where the attorney's office has taken control. and thank you for your grace and i hope the chairman will let you get some lunch. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. >> is it going okay for okay for

you president bush. >> >>? >> yes, and thank you for inquiring. >> we will now adjourn until 1:35. >> we will have more coverage of the hearing in a moment and a reminder that we will have more coverage tomorrow.

before the hearing began, we spoke to people who were waiting in line to get into the hearing. >> you were the first person in line this morning. why are you here and what are you expecting? >> i represent an true organization called the judicial crisis network, i have been following this nomination for the last several weeks. this is an true important nomination because the department of justice has a lot of power and entry in enormous influence on the way laws are applied intro the united states. we think it is particularly important at this nomination will preserve the integrity of the apartment of justice -- department of justice, along with the constitution with the highest levels of professionalism. >> what priorities are you looking for? >> there is a lot that the next

attorney general can do intro terms of reducing and true over criminalization problem. we want to teach socially unofficial behavior through a variety of means. another one would be reducing a certain aspect of the department of justice. a lot have accused attorney general of criticizing the department and the next attorney general needs to rehabilitate the reputation. >> i was in school with her mother and her father. intro north carolina. i am also here because i'm a member of delta sigma beta which is the sorority that she belongs to. when i saw her in the newspaper and heard she was being confirmed, i figured it was important to get here and to be a part of it. >> i know you guys are interns

what are you doing here today? >> my office sent me here and i'm looking to see the qualifications of loretta lynch. for senator chuck. >> my office sent me i am the and i am a programmer and i am here to learn more about mrs. lynch astro policy -- approach to foreign policy. >> i am an tro intern with the drug policy alliance and i am looking forward to see how miss lynch feels about the administration astro drug policy . >> we will have more live coverage tomorrow. the journalist, legal and us it -- legal analyst are among those testifying. stay tuned for the judiciary committee. senators mark current and robert

menendez have introduced legislation to impose new sanctions on iran. the senate banking committee mocked up legislation life, 10:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span three. >> more now from attorney general nominee astro loretta lynch -- nominee's loretta lynch's nomination hearing.

a woo welcome back, ms. lynch. hope you're ready to continue. >> thank you senator. >> according to the seniority arrangements we are doing, senator cruz of texas is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, ms. lynch. >> good afternoon, senator. >> congratulations on your nomination. congratulations to your family who i know are justifiably proud of you for being nominated. >> thank you, sir. >> i'll note a number of my friends and colleagues who practice law in new york have reached out to me with words of praise for you.

describing your tenure as u.s. attorney there and that of a no nonsense prosecutor and as a u.s. attorney who honored and respected the law. and so for that i congratulate you. you began your remarks by describing how with new attorneys in your office you remind them that they take an oath not to the attorney general but to the constitution. that same thing is true for the attorney general of the united states. and i have long expressed my very deep concerns with the conduct of the current attorney general, eric holder. the toirge -- attorney general has a long and distinguished history, a bipartisan history, of being willing to stand up to the presidents who appointed

them. attorneys general in both parties have demonstrated fidelity to law and the constitution even when it meant telling the president of their own party no. that is never easy to do. but part of what's made the department of justice special is that attorneys general, both democrat and republican, have honored that commitment, as you noted to your young lawyers, to the constitution not to the president who has appointed me. my single greatest concern with the tenure of attorney general eric holder is that i do not believe he's upheld that tradition. i believe the department of justice has behaved more like a partisan operation for the president than an impartial law enforcement agency. so i want to ask you at the outset the simple question, if confirmed, how would your tenure as attorney general differ from

that of eric holder's? >> senator i think you have raised an important issue of the role of the attorney general. as we discussed, it is an incredibly important cabinet member, but the attorney general is a cabinet member he unlike other cabinet members in that the obligation of the attorney general is first and foremost to represent the american people. to protect and defend the constitution, and to faithfully execute the laws as passed by this body. interacting with the white house or any agency, if confirmed as attorney general, i would do so in the manner in which i conducted myself as united states attorney, with the full and fair evaluation of every matter brought before me, with a full and fair review of all of the relevant laws, with discussion with career prosecutors, as well as even the most junior people whom i have found often have the best insight into matters. and only then will i make the determination as to the step to be taken. going forward, every attorney

general creates their own path. you asked how i will be different from eric holder. i will be loretta lynch. i will be the person i have always been as i have lead my office through two terms as united states attorney, focusing solely on the protection of the people of my district. and if confirmed as attorney general, on the protection of all of the american people. one thing i do wish to say, senator, is that with respect to the issue that you raised, i greatly appreciate your sharing them with me both now and during the discussion we had in your office. i look forward to more discussions with you and your colleagues, and i want to pledge to you now that i will always listen to your concerns. i will consult with this body where appropriate because there is a great collective wisdom here and experience, both prosecute torial and legal, and i look forward to having a dialogue with you and crafting a positive relationship, not just with this committee but with congress. >> ms. lynch, i thank you for that. that commitment is welcomed. and would mark a sharp break from the practices of the

current department of justice, one of the frustrations of a number of members of this committee is that the department has not been responsive to this committee's requests and indeed that -- were that to change, that would be highly welcomed. let me focus on one and if time allows two specific areas where i believe the department has gone with partisan politics instead of upholding the law. let's start with immigration, which has been a topic of much discussion already. you mentioned in your opening statement that you had now taken the opportunity to review carefully the o.l.c. opinion on the president's executive amnesty. do you agree with the illegal analysis in the o.l.c. opinion? >> i have had occasion to review the o.l.c. opinion that dealt with the department of homeland security's request for legal framework in how to prioritize removal of certain undocumented

immigrants, really all the undocumented immigrants under their jurisdiction. i did not see a grant of amnesty there or pathway to citizenship. certainly as i reviewed the opinion as well as the letters from scholars who wrote in support of it, it seemed to be a way to look for the legal framework based upon case law, precedent, prior action of congress as well as the discretionary authority of the department of homeland security to prioritize this removal. certainly placing those most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants at the top of that list seemed to me to be a very reasonable exercise. i would want to hope -- i would hope that the protection of those communities where undocumented immigrants involved in vie hadn't crime, gang activity terrorism, would be at the top of the list. >> ms. lynch, you said now and before in your opening statement that you found the legal analysis reasonable. o.l.c. operates in the place of the attorney general of the

united states. an o.l.c. opinion operates as the legal judgment of the attorney general as the chief legal officer for the united states. so my question is quite simply do you agree with the legal analysis in that memorandum? would it have been your legal analysis had you been asked the same question? >> senator, certainly i'm not able to say at this point what my -- if my legal analysis would have taken the same pathway and same steps because i have not reviewed all of the cases and reviewed all of the memorandum that i'm sure went in to that. but what i can say again as the opinion seeks to talk about the exercise of executive discretion, it seemed to be looking at precedent, actions of congress as well as the immigration laws to see if there was a legal framework for the requested actions. what i noted was that for some of the actions the office of legal counsel found there was a legal framework for some of the actions that the department of homeland security wanted to set in place.

but for some of the requested actions the office of legal counsel found there was not the appropriate legal framework for some of those actions and instead, my understanding, advised the department of homeland security that they should not proceed along certain ways. my understanding is that that advice was taken. i do believe that the office of legal counsel has the important obligation to look at the law, look at the facts, look at the action that is being brought before it, and say where there is an appropriate legal framework, as well as there is not an appropriate legal framework. >> ms. lynch, i would note that i twice asked you if you agree with the analysis. you are a very talented lawyer. i suspect it's not an accident that twice you have not answered that question. you have described what o.l.c. did but not given a simple answer. do you agree with that analysis or not. >> senator, i told you i did find the analysis to be reasonable. i did find it to recognize the

issues. and it did seem to provide a reasonable basis. >> in 2011, before the last election president obama said, quote, with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. do you agree with what president obama said in 2011? >> senator i don't know what legal opinion he was relying on at the time. certainly the subsequent legal opinion talks about the temporary deferral of deportation in a way that does provide a legal framework for it, but i don't know if the president was speaking of this exact same issue or not. i simply couldn't provide a legal opinion about the president's comments at this time. >> now, the executive action, in my view, the o.l.c. opinion has no legal basis whatsoever. it hinges upon the notion of prosecutorial discretion, and

you rightly described how any prosecutor will prioritize some cases over others for example focusing on more violent criminals. in your office as u.s. attorney you certainly exercised prosecutorial discretion. was it your practice for any category of crimes to suggest to those who may have violated the criminal laws they can come into your office and seek a written authorization exonerating them of their past crimes and authorizing them to continue carrying out crimes for a large categorical group of offenders? >> senator, we would not have that type of direct dealing with offenders. they would come to our attention as part of an investigation or part of an issue where they would already be under suspicion of some sort of wrongdoing. we would not have that type of discussion with someone who might be represented or might have other rights, we would not have that type of discussion with someone. >> that's not anything you ever did. >> no. we do have priorities within my office. we do have guidelines within my

office. those are shared with our law enforcement colleagues. we also share them with many of our state and local colleagues as we discuss where to best place certain types of cases. >> thank you very much. we'll continue. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on being the chairman. >> i'm glad to be chairman. i can tell you that. >> i know you are. ms. lynch congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you senator. >> it was great meeting with you. your reputation for smart and tough precedes you and you didn't disappointment in our meeting. thank you for the wide ranging conversation -- how was lunch? >> excellent, thank you, sir. >> enjoyed lunch? >> yes, sir. >> good. i want to -- i discussed a couple things, number of things when you were in my office, and

i want to bring them up again. ones are our prison system. >> i'm sorry? >> our prison system. i want to talk about our prison system. we have united states has 5% of the world's population, 25% of the prison population. i think one of the biggest problems is that we used our criminal justice system as a substitute for a well functioning mental health system. we have a lot of people in prison, in jails in this country who shouldn't be -- probably shouldn't be there. and who -- it's not serving anybody any purpose. we have young people with -- and others with mental illness who are in soltrarery confinement and just makes their -- soltrarery confinement and just makes their meant -- solitary confinement and just makes their mental health worse.

what i want to do to address that is something called the justice mental health collaboration act. it's a re-authorization of my -- my mentally ill treatment act which has been very bipartisan in the past and should be -- it is bipartisan. it's been carried by a republican in the house. i just want to ask you for your support as we go forward in making sure that our criminal justice system isn't -- not just wasting money, but wasting lives. and that you will work together with me on that. >> senator, i look forward to working together with you on that as well as other important issues i think you have highlighted one of the most important developments in

criminal justice research and literature has been the ongoing research that has been done into the root causes of so many -- so much of our criminal activity. in particular where the mentally ill are involved, we continue to learn more and more about how that illness impacts them as they make their way through the criminal justice system. and i look forward to taking advantage of that new knowledge with you and working with you on that and other important issues. >> some of this involves -- i don't know if you heard of crisis intervention training. but crisis intervention training is teaching both police on the ground, and corrections officials in prisons to recognize when they are seeing someone with a mental health problem. to deal with it in the correct way. >> certainly. certainly. i think the research has shown and certainly anyone with experience with a family member or friend who has a mental

illness, knows that sometimes conditions may manifest themselves in ways that appear to be disruptive but are a reflection of the illness. >> what i'll be doing with this is doing mental health courts so that if a prosecutor an arresting officer, and the defense attorney and the judge say this person belongs in a mental health court and not -- so they can be treated and not go to prison where it's going to enclosing up the prison system and make -- clog up the prison system and neighboring this person's position worse. then we'll do that. and also veterans courts. we have so many veterans that are coming back with invisible wounds. sometimes those invisible wounds will be medicated. by drugs or alcohol. and instead of going to the prison, maybe it's time -- we can go to veterans court.

>> certainly, senator. i know some of my u.s. attorney cloogs have been instrumental in working on the concept of veterans courts in particular as part of the department's strong commitment to protecting all of the rights of veterans. you are so correct. we ask so much of our men and women in uniform and they come back to us often different from how they left with wounds that we can see and wounds that we often cannot see. i believe we have an obligation to provide them the best treatment to thank them for their service to our country. >> fabulous. i look forward to working with you on that should you be confirmed. which i hope you will. let me move on to something kind of specific. i was chair and now will be ranking member of the privacy technology and the law subcommittee. there's a lot of technology out there that's new that we are learning about some unforeseen

consequences of it. there's a thing called stalking apps. we discussed this. and incredible when i first did location privacy subcommittee hearing, my first hearing, i got some testimony from minnesota coalition for battered women, and they told a story of a woman who had an abusive partner and she went to a county building in -- it was in st. louis county in northern minnesota, and while she was there on her phone, she got a text from her abuser, why are you in the county building? are you going to the domestic violence place? it scared her so much they took her to the courthouse to get to file an order against him. while she's there she gets from him saying why are you at the courthouse? are you getting a restraining order against me?

it's terrified her. it turns out this is very common. now, d.o.j. does have the authority under existing wiretap laws to prosecute apps that allow people to listen to the victims' phone calls, intercept text mention or otherwise intercept content from victims' phones. d.o.j. has prosecuted i-a pp developer who created an app. and i ask you continue to do that. but looking ahead, would you work with me, i have a bill to stop these things. to stop the marketing the -- manufacture of stocking apps. and also -- stalking apps. and also ask that d.o.j. keep data on this. the last real data we have on this is like from 2006. i don't know how much you keep up with technology, but since then a lot more people have these smart phones. this is a real problem. >> senator, you have outlined a

very important issue as it relates to the victims of domestic violence or anyone who fears that someone that they thought was close to them might turn on them instead. certainly i look forward to working with you and keeping you apprised not only of the department's efforts and continued prosecution of these matters, but look at the statute with you and provide whatever assistance we can. >> thank you. look forward to that as well. one last thing about two minutes, i am very concerned about the telecommunications industry consolidating and i'm specifically worried about comcast and -- the largest cable provider and the largest internet provider and third largers internet provider.

this is just too big. they would have unprecedented power in the telecommunications industry. i have -- there's been a lot of comment on this, including my comment on this to the antitrust division. will you commit to reviewing the serious concerns about the proposed comcast-time warner deal that i and so many others have raised and just do all that you can to ensure that the antitrust division is empowered to stand up to telecommunications giants likecome cast? if that's necessary? >> certainly, senator, the antitrust division plays an extremely important role in keeping our markets competitive and open for everyone. i look forward to learning more about this case, to reviewing those issues and making sure that all the concerns about this are brought to our attention so

they can be dealt with by the antitrust division as we move forward. >> ok, then, i'll probably vote for you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator from minnesota. now senator. >> thank you ms. lynch. appreciated hearing your life story, appreciated the meeting we had in my office a few months ago as well. i brought something up there and i'll brick it up again with regard to the border situation in arizona. we have had obviously ongoing problems with the border, we share a large border with mexico, but there have been some considerable successes. one of the successes in the last several years has been in the so-called yuma sector where we've seen apprehensions go from about 140,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about 6,000 last year.

so considerable success. that contrasts with tucson sector which has seen a drop, i think because of the economy, we've seen a drop anyway, but not nearly as significant. there were about 87,000 apprehensions in the tucson sector. one of the things that i think just about everybody attributes the success in the yuma sector to is something called operation streamlined and it allows so-called consequences program to be implemented where first-time crossers are met with consequences and it has -- it's pointed to by, certainly law enforcement organizations in yuma and along that sector and just about everyone else recognize it's been successful. the problem is, just last year, it looks like d.o.j. has said that they're no longer going to implement parts of that. and that for the -- and that first time offenders unless there's some other circumstance,

they will not be prosecuted. what are the specifics of this new policy as you understand it with operation streamline? >> certainly senator, i've had the opportunity to know somewhat about this matter from my discussions with my colleagues, the u.s. attorneys, not just along the arizona border but also in texas and california and they work hard every day to keep our borders safe and essentially to protect the people in their districts but also to deal with this ever-growing problem. i believe that again i'm not familiar with the current status of operation streamline but as it relates to first-time prosecutions of individuals, individuals are still being prosecuted. and to the extent that a first-time crosser would not be prosecuted they still would be subject to just pure removal without there being a criminal case involved. i believe that the issues in managing the program have had a great deal to do with resources

particularly with the budget constraints that offices have found themselves under in recent years. but i can assure you, senator that the commitment to protect the border is strong, not only among u.s. attorneys who work on the border but throughout the u.s. attorney community and the department and would be one of my priorities also as attorney general. >> i mentioned this is what distinguished the yuma sector from the others is the success with this program. if you're saying now it's a budget issue, why haven't we seen concern about the budget or those budget aspects? why hasn't d.o.j. come to congress and said, we are having issues here? and so in order to continue with this program, we're going to need additional funding. to your knowledge, has that happened? >> i'm not aware of what's gone into the specifics of the department's budget. i'm generally aware of the budget as it relates to u.s. attorneys generally but not the department as a whole or as it

relates to specific programs i'm not able to provide that information to you. it's certainly something i would be working closely on should i be confirmed as attorney general. >> i'll put it this way, barring budget issues is this a program you're committed to or do you have other issues with it? >> it's a program i think has been effective. there have been concerns raised about resources, about the way the program has been managed from the judiciary and others, we're always trying to be responsive to all the parties involved in these but with respect to the issue itself, i am certainly committed to work on that issue with you and members of the committee, be it through operation streamline or in an equally effective program. >> the record, we've not, to my knowledge, received any concerns about budget issues with regard to operation streamline. it seems to have been another decision that was made and i will be following up with you. we want to make sure that, you know, step back, i believe we

need to do a lot with regard to immigration policy. i'm a sponsor of the comprehensive bill that went through the congress last -- two years ago, through the house -- i'm sorry, through the senate, didn't get through the house. this isn't all we need to do but it is a significant part of what we need to do and arizonans have paid the price a disproportionate price for a long time for the federal government's failure to have a secure border. and so when we have programs like this that work and we see, you know, success in one sector, and everybody can point to that it's very disturbing when d.o.j. pulls back on that and we fear that yuma sector, as the economy kicks up again, crossings are more frequent, that we're going to have the same problems that we had a few years ago and that just, we can't go on with that. secretary johnson is in arizona or just visited arizona, visited

the border, he's done that a few times. met with ranchers, with some of their concerns particularly in the tucson sector. and there's still a lot that needs to be done. it's going to require a real partnership between a lot of people to make sure that it works. switching gears, some of my colleagues mentioned trade secrets and economic espionage, but just to focus specifically on the theft of trade secrets and foreign governments last may, the department of justice announced indictments of five chinese military hackers for foreign theft of trade secrets, and espionage among other crimes. when announcing these charge attorney general holder said the dcht will not tolerate actions that undermine the integrity of the free market this case will serve as a wakeup call to the seriousness of ongoing

cyberthreat he, said. would you agree with secretary -- i'm sorry, attorney general holder's statement as well as other statements by the executive branch that this is a growing and persistent threat? >> senator, i would agree with those statements and add that i have seen through cases in my own district that this is a growing and increasing threat my office has also worked on matters involving foreign nations attempts to -- attempting to obtain technology. we've worked closely with our colleagues in other agencies to bring these cases to fruitionings and we're proud of the work we've done. it's an ever-growing concern and has been expressed by the f.b.i. not only under the current director but under director mueller. i look forward to working closely with our law enforcement partners to deal with the numerous ways we have to fight this problem. >> last congress i introduced the future of america innovation research act fair act, that provides companies with a legal

remedy when their trade secrets are stolen from abroad. the concern is that you know, since the economic espionage act was enacted in 1996, i think there have only been 10 convictions under section 1831. that's a lot of time for just a few convictions. since the f.b.i. can't investigate and d.o.j. can't prosecute every single theft of trade secrets, does it make sense that there might be a, you know federal civil action, cause of action that could help these companies through another remedy? does that make any sense? >> certainly, senator from my experience in advising companies, boards, and general counsel, i understand the importance of corporations being empowered to act on their own behalf and protect their intellectual property and trade secrets. i haven't had the opportunity to study the bill that you discussed but i certainly look forward to doing so and having further discussions with you. >> i appreciate that.

victims' services, another area that has been of some concern. last year congress passed the victim of child abuse act re-authorization. i was pleased the sponsor of the bill agreed to include an important provision that clarified congress' intent that the money from the crime victims' fund should only be used to assist victims of crime. will you commit to follow that new law and direct the victim advocates in the u.s. attorneys' offices that this money only be used for victims? in the past we've seen it used for witness travel and other administrative duties and not actually focus on the victims. >> certainly the management of the issue of how to provide not only restitution but support of victims is an important one to the department and to me as united states attorney. i think that we have to work to

implement the law that you have discussed. my understanding is that it is being implemented certainly the guidance has gone out to ensure that the victim, victim advocates and offices are being appropriately focused. i know in my own office, victim advocates who work closely with the victims of crime families who suffer through loss and provide support to them. i support empowering those professionals. i believe that you -- that the law you mention is one that is being implemented, i certainly will commit to ensuring that it is so. >> thank you and should you be con firled i look forward to working with you. >> thank you, sir. >> next person is senator blumen that will. when senator co-hence comes back, i skipped over him, we'll come back to him as the next democrat.

>> thank you, senator. thank you, ms. lynch for being here today and having your family here today. i think the two most common words used to describe you are smart and tough and i can see from your dad and i'm sure it's true of your mom that you come by those qualities honestly. in the best sense of the word. and you should be very proud of your daughter your testimony has been among the most accomplished and impressive that i've seen as a member of this committee and i'm sure you've done yourself a lot of good today, not that younesly needed it but thank you for your very forthright and erue diet answers. i want to din -- ander diet answers.

-- and erudite answers. i want to begin by focusing on human trafficking. you have a great record on human trafficking. i count 10 major prosecutions that you've done while united states attorney, focusing particularly on targeted sex trafficking while also pursuing labor trafficking. and in a case that you brought against the 7-eleven franchise, you stated publicly that the defendants were running a modern day plantation system and the system looked a lot like modern day slavery. you brought the case relying on statutes relating to immigration enforcement and identity theft and wire fraud, not on the statutes that specifically focused on criminalizing human trafficking. i wonder whether you could relate to us whether you think

those statutes need to be strengthened, if you couldn't in a sense rely on them to bring those cases based on human traffic, whether we should perhaps strengthen them, and in particular the trafficking victims protection act of 2000 provided mandatory restitution for trafficking victims, a provision that is unfortunately more unenforced than enforced. in fact, rarely enforced, i think, to provide for restitutions a recent study by the human trafficking pro bono legal center took a look at how the requirement works in practice and found that only about 36.6% of the cases did prosecutors bostonner to request restitution. so my question is really two-fold. number one, do the statutes need to be strengthened and number two, can you and would you do more to make sure that restitution is provided to

victims of human trafficing? >> certainly senator. the issue of restitution for the victims of human trafficing is an important one particularly as we do increase the number of cases that we bring. certainly sometimes there are situations where a court may not impose restitution because the funds are not there or for other legal reasons, but where we can, we always do seek a restitution order for the victims. we in particular have worked with other governments to provide them information where we have found, for example, that certain small cities in mexico have been a prime source of those who would traffic women into the united states into the eastern district of new york we worked with the mexican government to provide them information so that they could possibly affect seizures that we could not under our particular laws. so it's a very, very important issue to me as united states attorney and should i be confirmed as attorney general would be one i would look forward to working with you on to make sure all the laws

involving victim protection are as strong as possible. with respect to the 7-eleven case we did not have the evidence that the workers had been moved across state lines to effectuate the crime so therefore we would not have been able to use the trafficking laws per se. but as with that case work every case, we look at the relevant facts and laws and bring the strongest case we can. certainly where we had seen numerous, numerous incidences of children and women being trafficked from within the united states sometimes even simply crossing one state border as well as from overseas we have never hesitated to act and should i become attorney general it will be one of my priorities. >> i would welcome that priority very much as the co-chairman of the human trafficking caucus in the senate. it's a very bipartisan one, the co-chairman is senator portman of ohio. i look forward to working with you on it. let me ask you, and first of all, welcome your comments about

the invisible wounds of war, thank you to your uncles and cousins for their service in vietnam and to your brother for his service i say that as a dad of a marine corps reserve veteran who served in afghanistan and another son who is currently in the navy and i would hope that you will continue to focus on those issues relating to post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury as they may be a cause of certain kinds of conduct that may be unwelcome, may even be criminal, because what we found is a better understanding of those invisible wounds of war and the inner demons that many of our veterans bring back with them can lead to more thoughtful and humane treatment through our criminal justice system. i want to ask you, finally, in the time that i have, about one

of the criticisms that has been made of the department of justice in its allegedly too lenient treatment of certain corporate defendants as being too big to jail, so to speak, in remarks that you made after the department at the department of jus -- after the department of justice entered into a settlement with hsbc for money laundering you said the settlement had detered that company but you weren't sure it would deter other companies. so my question is whether more can be done to more aggressively prosecute white car crime, corporate crime, to dispel at least the widespread impression or perception that perhaps the department of justice has been

too lenient, and in particular would you work with me on a bill that i've authored that would make certain corporate officers criminally liable if they are aware of significant potentially deadly risks to workers workplace safety problems, and fail to act or make it public. so this bill is called hide no harm, a bill designed to protect workers on their job and it focuses on that part of the potential wrongdoing that may be committed by corporate officers but also again two-part question, would you consider pursuing more aggressively criminal laws that may be applied to corporate officers who are involved in malfeasance or violations of federal criminal laws generally? >> certainly, senator. when it comes to white collar

crime or any kind of crime, as a career prosecutor and as u.s. attorney, i've been very aggressive in pursuing those types of cases. with respect to, should i become confirmed as attorney general, i would continue that and direct that the department of justice continue its focus on examining the facts of every case, following the law wherever it took us, at the outset, no individual is too big to jail. no one is above the law. there are certain situations where we come to a different resolution or may decide a civil resolution is appropriate but that is only after a full and fair analysis of all the facts and the law and the relevant burdens under the criminal justice system or the civil system. that being said, senator, i believe if you look at the record of the eastern district of new york, we have prosecuted a number of corporate officers for insider trading with respect to the brooks case and corporate malfeasance in other cases as well as the violations of the

scpa we have struck significant -- wrung significant concessions from corporations and made major changes in the way in which corporations and financial institutions are structures and -- structured and operate that as act as a deterrent. we have been clear with respect to the industries within which we are looking that should a corporation not engage in preventive behavior or should they not take seriously the type of investigation we bring, the criminal charges will be brought. >> thank you and i know of your very aggressive and distinguished record in this area. it's one of the reasons why i strongly support wow and i look forward to voting for you and working with you on all these topics and also reform of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. as you know, i've advocated a public advocate to defend and advocate constitutional liberties in the course of this proceeding, foreign intelligence

surveillance court. i'm not going to ask you to commit on that issue but i hope that you will work with me on it as well as these other issues and i very much appreciate your being here today and your public service and your family service. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. now i go to senator visiter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam u.s. attorney. thank you for the meeting in my office. as i told you at the time i was very disappointed and frustrated because you didn't respond directly to any of my big topics and you said you'd look into these matters and consider them and as i promised, i restated the big questions in writing and i was further disappointed when yesterday, i got a letter saying there would be no response to that. but maybe the third time is a charm for me asking them so we'll try here. as i told you in my office, like

many, many citizens and members of the senate, i have a huge concern regarding what i think is the president's illegal unconstitutional executive amnesty. and i have a huge concern of the fact that you think it is within the law. and we were talking about that. so i'm going to put up what is the central statutory argument that the president's lawyers point to in terms of his allegedly having authority for this executive amnesty. and it talks about granting parole only on a case-by-case basis. so i guess one of my key questions which we talked about in my office is, do you really think his granting this amnesty this new status, to about five

million illegal aliens, is acting on a case-by-case basis as mandated by the statute? >> senator, i greatly appreciate the question as well as the opportunity that we had to discuss the matters in your office. with respect again to my review of the opinions supporting the department of homeland security 's request for taking legal actions and prioritizing removal i did find it to be reasonable that we would prioritize removal of the most dangerous undocumented immigrants with our limited resources. particularly those who were involved in violent crime terrorism, recent crossers, those with criminal records. that seemed to me to be acting in the interest of public safety and appropriate. with respect to other individuals who may not be as high on that priority list, my understanding is that that is a status they'll have for a brief period of time. as you look at the issue of

executive discretion or prosecutorial discretion, you always want to have the ability to still look at individuals and make a determination as to whether or not they should be in that lower priority. >> as we've talked about in my office though, his action goes well beyond setting prosecutorial priorities doesn't it apart from that, he goes further in -- and then he takes another affirmative step in giving them a work permit. so those two steps are going beyond setting priorities for prosecution, are they not? >> certainly, senator, as relates to how the department of homeland security manages the removal process, for those in the low priority category, however they may be determined to be, again i'm not aware if those regulations have been set forth yet so i can't comment on how they'll be implemented --

>> does this plan go beyond setting priorities for prosecution or not? does it -- doesn't it in fact go beyond that by granting these folks a parole status and giving them a work permit? isn't that something additional to simply setting internal priorities for prosecution of these cases? >> senator, i just one minor point at the outset i believe that the department of homeland security action referred to removal and not necessarily prosecutions. certainly with respect to prosecutions there's still a robust prosecution under the immigration laws and in my own district they are a tool i use quite frequently. with respect also to what would happen to those individuals who would be in a lower priority status for lack of a better word, again, i'm not sure how the department will go about implementing that. my understanding is that the issue was there a legal framework for establishing such

a program? and the opinion indicated that there was. >> do you agree with that opinion? >> i believe individuals still have to apply at which point they would have -- there would have to be a review of their eligibility and the like. >> fundamentally, do you agree with the legal pb? >> i thought that the opinion was reasonable. i also thought it made distinctions. >> going back to that legal opinion, put that back up. s that key element of it. do you think that action applied to about five million illegal aliens is operating on a case-by-case basis. >> i'm not familiar with how the department of homeland security will be actually implementing the orders that it will be reviewing and the applications it will be reviewing so i'm not able to vide you with specifics. >> but you've read the orders. do you think that lays out a system that is operated on a case-by-case basis? >> with respect to my review of the office of legal counsel opinion, it did provide a

reasonable basis for the removal and prioritization of certain people as it came to removal. when it came to the issue of whether or not there could be a program for deferral, it seemed to refer to legal precedent, to the statute itself, and to actions by this body among others. so it certainly seemed to provide a legal framework for it. i believe also what i thought was note worthy, with respect to the opinion, some of the requested actions by the department of homeland security the office of legal counsel found did not have the appropriate legal framework that would have made them something that could be carried out under the current legal system. so the advise was not to go forward. >> i take it as a yes that this is operating on a case-by-case basis and i just think that's really a clear, obviously stretch to say that this action that's going to affect five million people is following the law on a case-by-case basis. the law also says new york fact,

this same specific citation, it says, this decision on a case-by-case basis has to be made by the attorney general. now is it your understanding under the president's plan that if you're the attorney general, you're going to be in the middle of that process making those decisions? >> senator i'm not aware of the regulatory framework and rules that have come out around this statute as to how that authority can be dell gate or exercised so i'm not able to give you an exact answer right now as to how that would -- >> aye read the plan and the plan as i read it is for all of that to be done in the department of homeland security system of my question would be, what is the statutory basis to allow that when under the statute, not some order, not some legal opinion the statute the law, word by word it says the attorney general is in the middle of that decision on a case-by-case basis.

>> again senator, as presented to me by you, today, and thank you for that information, again i'm not familiar with the ways in which that particular authority has been exercised by the attorney general. whether it's been dell gayed or how it is share -- delegated or how it is shared with the department of homeland security, so i'm not able to provide you with specifics. >> again i'll have to follow up for a fourth time but that will be a central question. the plan is not for the attorney general to be in the middle of this at all. the statute says that the attorney general is. why aren't we following the statute. let me go to another case that goes to following the law which senator hatch brought up earlier, which is your comments regarding the department of justice's initiative, smart on

crime initiative. now as i read it, based on what i know, this is just a way to clearly ignore mandatory minimums. there are crimes that have mandatory minimums we can have a good debate about whether those should be lowered in some cases or not, but they are what they are. they're in the statute. so why aren't we following the statute with regard to crimes with mandatory minimums? >> senator with respect to the enforcement of the narcotics laws that contain those mandatory minimums, laws which i have had occasion to use on numerous occasions as an sent to u.s. attorney, as a career prosecutor and as u.s. attorney, those laws are being followed. not just by my office but throughout the u.s. attorney community. the issue with smart on crime, as well as by a number of offices who sought to prioritize how to handle those cases in an

area -- in an era of limited resources is focus odden when is it best to use the mandatory minimums and when do we not necessarily have to use them but every office still retains and in fact exercises the discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence should someone who may not fall into that category but upon review of the case clearly does. >> so when is it best to use the mandatory minimums? so the mandatory minimums aren't mandatory? >> when you get done with that answer i'll cull on senator coons. >> as we handle these in the eastern district of new york, we rely on mandatory minimum when dealing with drug kingpins, many of whom have been extradited from foreign countries or operating within our district.

my fellow u.s. attorneys use the statutes in a similar way. we all look however at the nature of the crime problems in our district. and the nature of the narcotics problem in particular in our district. and a case that may require a mandatory minimum in my district may not occur in another part of the country. another part of the country may have a a different type of narcotics problem and a different population of defendants than you would find in brooklyn subject to the mandatory minimum statutes but they are being used. >> i just observe that -- i mean that is taking all meaning out of the word mandatory to replacing your and your colleague's judgment for the judgment of folks who wrote the law and that's what this whole discussion today is about. thank you. [inaudible]

>> for the witness we, there's nobody here, you want to take a break, take a break. but as soon as somebody gets here, i hope you can come back right away. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman grassley. ms. lynch congratulations on your historic nomination and your very fine conduct in the hearing today. the attorney general of the united states, one of the most important offices for which this committee has oversight responsibility and consent responsibility. the current attorney general eric holder has served with distinction under trying circumstances. for better or worse the attorney general often serves as a lightning rod for those in this body with complaints about the administration and i think it takes special mettle to deal with that incoming fire while remaining composed and focused on a forward-looking agenda. i'm interested in hearing how you plan on carrying forward on issues related to rivity -- privacy, i.t. protection, and

voting rights, racial profiling. as successful as attorney general holder has been, there remains important progress to make in just two years in this -- and just two years in this administration to make it. first if i could about state and local law enforcement. given my previous experience, i'm pleased that someone with your experience in law enforcement is nominated for this position. i serve with co-chair roy blunt in the law enforcement caucus. cab youb just comment for me if confirmed, on the importance you would place on the partnership between federal, state and local law enforcement, including such programs as the bulletproof vest program, the violence reduction network which is particularly important to me and information sharing and then second senator flake asked about this previously but could you talk about the thm -- about the victims of child abuse act programs and comment on the experiences you had with child javo kacy centers and how they function as one of the

partnership undertakings? >> certainly senator. with respect to the important partnership between the department of justice and state and local law enforcement counterparts, it will be one of my highest priorities to ensure there's not only collaboration and cooperation but active and ongoing discussion about the needs that we can help fulfill but also, senator what we can learn from our state and local counterparts. it has been my experience, having had the benefit of frankly learning from some of the best law enforcement agents and police officers around, that no one knows the crime problem like the cop on the beat. no one really understands what's going on in the community like the officer who walks those streets every night and knows those residents and understands those issues. similarly, our federal law enforcement agency partners have outstanding background effort and ability to manage complex cases and when we combine those two, we have been table achieve tremendous results for victims

of violent crime, of terrorism, of cybercrime, along with the cases you mentioned involving vulnerable victims of child abuse system of certainly i feel that there has to be a collaborative relationship but i want to essentially assure you that in my view it would be one where we would not just provide assistance and training and grants. that is very, very important. but we would also listen and learn as well from our local law enforcement partners. >> thank you. that's both a good answer and great attitude. i look forward to working with you on this area going forward. the u.s. patriot act is often thought of of -- of as a spy program which in some ways it is. but it also is and can be a tool that d.o.j. and f.b.i. routinely use in the course of domestic law enforcement and its mission. does the d.o.j. use section 215 as a collection tool and could the department continue to make effectives you of section 215 if the enhanced privacy

protections, the limitations on bulk collection set forth would be adopted? >> section 15 is not a bulk collection tool in and of itself, but the way in which the government, using court authority, can obtain information already gathered that might be useful in ongoing national security investigations. but certainly i understand that as we work to protect our country from terrorists who seek to attack us here and abroad that we have to be mindful of our civil liberties and the privacy rights of anyone who may be impacted by our collection procedures. and certainly i look forward to as the renewal of section 215 comes up, i look forward to discussions with you and other members of this committee about the best way in which to keep that useful tool and also reassure this body and the american people that it is being used in the most effective way. >> i'm also concerned about i.p. intellectual property protections, as we talked about

previously and trade secrets. my understanding is several other senators have also asked about the issue, so i'll try to be brief. i'm concerned about the huge transfer of wealth going on through trade secrets and the federal crime under the espionage act is estimated to be responsible for up to $500 billion annually in terms of losses to the united states yet there's only one or two cases a month, federally, brought by prosecutors. is as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district, what's been your experience in investigating or prosecuting trade secret theft and would you be interested in working together to strengthen the resources and strengthen the legal authorities for protecting america and our inventions and innovations and ensuring we stem the loss of theft of trade secrets? >> in my experience, i don't believe we have any specific indictments around the trade secrets act. we do, however, have a numb of cases where we have intercepted foreign actors trying to obtain

u.s. information and we have prosecuted them under other statutes. we deal with very, very similar issues. i will note these cases tend to be complex and long-term. they do require an investment in resources, the devotion of time on the part of prosecutors, but also technological resources on the part of our law enforcement agencies. so i would look forward to, should i be confirmed working with you and this committee to ensure that we have the appropriate resources we need to handle these cases. >> as a member of the appropriations subcommittee responsible, i look forward to working with you on that. i think it's vital that we strengthen the protections for america's inventions and inventors. one last d -- i want to last ask about criminal justice reform, an issue i think is front and center in importance for our country an justice system. we have seen in a number of ways that our criminal justice system is broken in terms of how it deals with mass incarceration and its impact in particular on

drug offenders and on the african-american population of our country. it's not just a civil rights problem but also a fiscal problem and social problem and if you look at the numbers of who is incarcerated and how long and under what charges, i think there's a significant quality that needs -- inequality that needs to be addressed. i think we need legislation through this committee and in this body to help rationalize overly mandatory overly long drug sentences for nonviolent offenders. attorney general holder took an important step forward two years ago when he issued revised guidance directing prosecutors not to automatically file the mandatory minimum charges. i wonder if it's your intention to keep in place the 2013 memorandum or whether you'd look for other or additional ways, within law within the constitution, to promote equal and just application of our criminal laws to every person

regardless of background, of sex, of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, and nationality? >> senator, you touch on the important issue of making sure that our criminal justice system protects the american people but does so in a way that's fair and effective and also protects the individual rights of everyone who has to pass through it. it is the responsibility of a prosecutor not just to win conviction bus to bring justice to every case, no matter what the result. certainly with respect to smart on crime, i found it similar in many ways to the way misdistrict has had to manage an ever increasing problem of narcotics prosecution of low 46 level offenders and work with an ever growing docket of narcotics users also and i found it a reasonable approach to do so and look forward to continuing that initiative but i look forward to further discussions with you and your colleagues on these issues as to how to ensure that our criminal justice system is

effective and yet also protects the people who have to go through it. that is a dual response -- duel responsibility of the -- a dual responsibility of the prosecutor. it's one i've taken seriously throughout my career and should i be confirmed i look forward to working with you as we explore that together. >> thank you, ms. lynch. senator leahy remarked that nearly a third of the department's budget at this point is dedicated to the bureau of prisons. i think we have a pressing civil rights issue nationally for us in terms of our criminal justice system. but i've also long been a supporter of law enforcement and believe that you are uniquely position, qualified and prepared to help us balance these twin obligations of ensuring that our communities are safer and stronger and ensuring that our justice system delivers on justice. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> u.s. attorney, this is david perdue we met the other day, senator from georgia. >> yes, thank you for your time. >> i want to thank you for your

perseverance and patience with us today. i hope it wasn't anything i said that cleared the room for you. i hope you're doing well. >> i hope it wasn't anything i said. >> thank you so much for again your perseverance. i just want to join my colleagues in welcoming you before the judiciary committee and also thank you for your years of public service, as we talked the other day. am very impressed with your career and thank you for upholding the law in your career. i congratulate you on this nomination. you spoke about, this morning, your oath and the required commitment to the constitution. i applaud that. you've demonstrated that in your career. you were just talking about mandatory minimums if i'm correct. i just have a quick question. relative to a case that you had in your jurisdiction recently, i want to ask abo