occur. >> i understand. it's currently written the electronic communications privacy act requires only a subpoena for law enforcement to access e-mail that has been opened, even though a search warrant would be required for for a print out of the same communications sitting on a desk. to make matters more complicated, the privacy standard for accessing data stored abroad. without an actual legal framework in place, this puts the privacy of american citizens at risk for intrusion by foreign governments. in the coming days, i intend to reintroduce the leads act which will promote international cooperation. will you commit to working with me on this important subject? because it's important we solve those problems. >> the subject of electronic privacy is central to so many of our freedoms. we have to be vigilant to make

sure we are not only providing law enforcement the tools it needs, but protecting our citizens' privacy. i certainly commit to you to working with you on this important legislation and all the issues that will flow from it. >> thank you so much. trade secrets are among the most valuable assets for american companies and currently are protected under federal criminal law by the economic espionage act and by an array of state civil laws. unlike other forms of intellectual property, there's no remedy r for trade secret owners. i will reintroduce the defend trade secrets act in the coming days to provide an official remedy for trade secret owners. do you agree they should have the same access to a federal remedy as owners of other forms of intellectual property? >> senator, i think that the issue of trade secrets, again, particularly as american technology becomes ever more complex and becomes ever more a target from those both in the

u.s. and without who would seek to steal it, is an increasingly important issue and i look forward to working with you to consider that statute. i'm not familiar with the provision that you raised, but it touches on an important issue to make sure our companies and their technology are protected. >> thank you so much. i am introducing legislation to help victims of child pornography receive the restitution that congress has r already said they deserve. the supreme court said last year that the current restriction statute enacted 20 years ago does not work for child pornography victims and this legislation will change that. i am joined by more than 30 senators on both sides of the aisle, including 14 on this committee. do i have your commitment that under your leadership the justice department will aggressively prosecute child pornography and use tools like this legislation to help victims get the restitution they need to put their lives back together?

>> throughout my career, i have expressed a commitment to prosecuting those who seek to harm our children, be it through child pornography or the actual abuse of children which often go hand in hand. you certainly raise important issues about how can we make these victims whole and i look forward to working with you and the members of this committee in reviewing that legislation as well. >> thank you so much. now i recently read a powerful book read it in one day. "license to lie: uncovering corruption in the department of justice." the author writes about many things including the debacle that occurred in the prosecution of senator ted stevens which i thought was out of this world bad. i was one of the people who testified as to his character and he was a person of great character. he lost the senate race because of this type of prosecution. i know that case. ted stevens was a dear friend of mine and i testified on his behalf. only after convicted did we

learn that the prosecutors intentionally hid exculpatory evidence that could have helped his case. these were not mistakes. they were corrupt acts that violated every prosecutor's duty under the decision to turn over exculpatory evidence so the trial will be fair. now i recommend that you read this book because if even half of it is true, and i believe it is true you have a lot of work to do to clean up the department. . will you consider doing that for me? >> thank you, sir, i will. >> before i call on senator feinstein, i'm going to ask just as the finance committee convenes, i would ask the most senior republican to watch the time and call on the next person in seniority order. senator feinstein? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. mrs. lynch, i sat through six

opening statements by potential attorneys general and i just want to tell you yours was the best. >> thank you. >> i see the combination of steel and velvet. i see your effectiveness before a jury. i see your love for the constitution, and i see the determination, which is in your heart and i think your being. it's very, very impressive, so i want to thank you for really 30 years of service and i hope it will be a lot longer. mr. chairman, i'd like to place in the record los angeles police department's chief's charlie beckett's written testimony on the subject of the president's executive action on immigration. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you very much. ms. lynch, i'm going to ask you three questions. the first is on expiring

provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, which will come to this committee before june of this year and also before the intelligence committee on which i serve. a question about office of legal counsel opinions and a question on the state secrets act. let me begin with fisa. the three provisions that will expire on june 1 are first the roving wiretap authority. this provision enables the government to maintain surveillance on a target when he or she switches phone numbers or e-mail addresses without seeking a new court order. the second is the lone wolf authority, which enables the government to conduct surveillance of a non-united states person engaged in international terrorism without demonstrating that they are affiliated with a particular international terrorist group, such as isis or al qaeda.

and the third is the business records authority, which carries with it section 215 of the national security administration. this enables the government to obtain a court order direct inging the production of, quote, any tangible thing, end quote, that's relevant to an authorized national security investigation. can you describe for us the importance of these three provisions and what would be the operational impact if the three were allowed to sunset in june? >> thank you, senator. you certainly raise important issues about the need to have a full panel of investigative tools and techniques to deal with the evolving threat that terrorism presents against us. with respect to the provisions that you refer to i think i have always found it most interesting that the roving wiretap provision is actually a

provision that was incorporated into. the fisa statute after being utilized for several years in narcotics prosecutions. it was one with which i was familiar as a young prosecutor as many of my colleagues across the country were as well. and the ability to describe to a court the nature of the offense, the nature of the activity and the use of attempts to shield one's self from electronic surveillance, which is part of what must be set forth. all of this must go to a court, obviously in the narcotics area it was an article 3 court. the fisa area goes to the fisa court but there's review for this and it's been an important part of the techniques we have used in the war on terror. as have the other two provisions that you mentioned. i do think, however, with respect to fisa there's always the ability, always the need to make sure that we are current

not just with technology but with the most effective way to protect privacy as we go forward in this important act. i know that's something that you have spent a great deal of time on as well as many of your colleague colleagues on this committee as well as on the intelligence committee. i look forward to continuing those discussions with you should i be confirmed. with respect to the lone wolf provision, again, i think we have to obviously examine it carefully. recent events, however, have underscored the importance of this as an issue in the war on terror. so i would hope we could move forward with any proposed changes to fisa with a full and complete understanding of the risks that we are still facing and if any changes need to be made, after full and fair consideration with this committee, with the intelligence committee and the discussions that we need to have, makeing sure we can provide law enforcement with the tools that they need. similarly with section 215 i believe that the court order provision in there is an

effective check and certainly a necessary check as we gather data from all types of sources. as i have always said, i'm open to discussions about how they can be best modified if we need to modify them consistent with the goals of protecting the american people. and i commit to you and all of this committee that i will always listen to all those concerns be it about the fisa statute or any of the techniques we are using in the war on terror. >> thank you very much. as a member of judiciary and intelligence, we have sought access to opinions called olc opinions. these opinions often represent the best and most comprehensive expression of the legal basis for intelligence activities. congress is actually charged with overseeing. so without these opinions you don't really know the legal

basis upon which an administration has made -- has based certain activities and it's been very frustrating to us. in particular, executive branch officials have previously advised the committee of the existence of a seminole olc opinion written by ted olsen decades ago governing the conduct of collection activities under executive order 12333. my question is can we have your commitment that you will make a copy of this olc opinion available to members of both the intelligence and the judiciary committee? probably your first tough question. >> i think with respect to the olc opinions, you are correct, they represent a discussion and an analysis of legal issues on a

wide variety of subjects. when a variety of agencies come to the department for that independent advice that we must provide them. certainly i'm not aworry of the discussions had about this previous opinion in terms of providing it. certainly i will commit to you to work with this committee as well as the intelligence committee, to find a way to provide the information that you need consistent with the department's own law enforcement and investigative priorities. >> thank you very much. this particular opinion is important and it would be useful if we can review it so thank you. on state secrets on september 23rd 2009, the attorney general issued a memorandum establishing new procedures and standards to govern doj's defense of an assertion of the state secrets privilege in litigation. among other things the

memorandum stated that the l doj would provide the periodic reports to congress on the exercise of these state secrets privilege. since 2009 only one such report from april 2011 has been provided. that report discussed the two cases in which the privilege had been invoked under the new policy, but those are no longer the only two cases. so i'd like to ask you if you could provide the appropriate oversight committees with the second periodic report on the exercise of state secret privileges that discusses those cases which the privilege has been invoked on april of 2011. >> senator, you raise the important issue of the need to work with the oversight committees, be they this committee or intelligence, not just so committees can carry out

their work ubut so the american people can be aware of how the department carries out its work. i'm not familiar with the reports that you referred at this point. i certainly look forward to reviewing this issue and i certainly commit to you i will do my best to ensure the department lives up to its obligations it has set forth. >> good, and i will come back. this is an important question to us, so i will come back and hope hopefully can get this -- get an answer, yes or no, within the next couple weeks. so thank you very much. >> senator, i look forward to learning more about the issue and sharing that with you should i be confirmed and any issues of concern that this committee or others have. >> thank you it, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. it's great to have you here. i appreciate the opportunity to have a good discussion, i think in our office and having had -- i think i just passed my time in

the senate longer than i spent in the department of justice. it was a great honor to serve that and i have high ideals for this department. and we understand that the attorney general is premier law enforcement officer senior law enforcement officer in america. he or she sets the tone for law in america, the commitment to law and most politicizing law and do the right thing on a daily basis. on occasion you were called upon to issue opinions. olc works for you, the office of legal counsel and you'll have to tell the president yes or no on something that he may want to do. are you able and willing to tell the president of the united states no if he asks permission or a legal opinion that supports an action you believe is wrong? >> senator, i believe you have touched upon one of the most important responsibilities of

the attorney general. let me say also i appreciated very much the opportunity to meet with you and discuss these important issues. the attorney general's position as a cabinet member is perhaps unique from all of the cabinet members, yes, a member of the president's cabinet, but the attorney general has a unique responsibility to provide independent and objective advice to the president or any agency when it is sought. sometimes perhaps even when it is not caught. with respect to the office of legal counsel -- >> just so you understand that your role is such that on o occasion you have to say no to the person who actually appointed you to the job and who you support? >> senator i do understand that that is, in fact, the role and the responsibility of the attorney general. in fact, a necessary obligation on their part. >> well, you know people have agendas and attorneys general sometimes do and they have to guard against that and be

objective, as you basically said to me now in committee. on april 24th of 2013, attorney general holder said this, and i'm raising this fundamentally because i think there's a lot of confusion about how we should think about immigration in america, what our duties and what o our responsibilities are. he said creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in our country is essential. the way we treat our friends and neighbor who is are undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows transcends the issue of immigration status. this is a matter of civil and hooum rights. so let me ask you, do you believe a person who enters the country unlawfully perhaps use false documents or otherwise entered here has a civil right

to citizenship? >> well senator i'm not familiar with the context of those comments. i certainly think you do touch upon the difficult issue of how do we handle the undocumented immigrants who come to our country. i believe for the life that we offer. i believe because of the values that wes a pous? >> i don't want to interrupt you, but do you agree with that statement that a man of civil rights and citizenship and work authority a right to work in america for someone who enters the country unlawfully that's a civil right? >> i haven't studied the issue enough to come to a legal conclusion on that. i certainly think that people who come to this country in a variety of ways can rehabilitate themselves and apply but that would have to be decided on a case by case basis. >> i just like to hear you answer that. is it a civil right for a person who enters the country

unlawfully, would like to work and be a citizen to demand that koun trar to the laws of the united states? is that a right that they are entitled to demand? >> sir, i think citizenship is a privilege. it's a privilege that has to be earned. within the civil rights that are recognized by our jurisprudence, i don't see one that you are describing. >> i certainly agree. i'm a little surprised it took you that long, but the attorney general statement was breathtaking to me. a member of the u.s. commission on civil rights responded to that some time ago and here's what he said. quote, to equate amnesty for breaking immigration laws with civil rights betrays an incoherent and historical understanding of the civil rights movement. law-abiding black citizens of

the united states were not seeking exemption from law. they were seeking application of such laws in the same manner that was applied to whites, closed quote. would you agree with that analysis? >> certainly i think with respect to the civil rights movement and the role of african-americans in it, it certainly was a movement designed to assure equal access to law and equal application of law. >> on the 50th anniversary of the selma approach marches approaching, people were denied civil rights. that was a historic event. . it changes america and i think it's important that that be remembered, but i will just tell you it's quite different to demand your lawful rights as an american and to ask for and insist that civil rights apply to those who enter the country

unlawfully to have these benefits. well the president's action would give people who came here unlawfully the right to work, the right to participate in social security and medicare. when congress has not done that, allows them to stay a a period lawfully. in the workplace of america today, when we have a high number of unemployed, declining wages for many years, we have the lowest percentage of americans working, who has more right to a job in this country? a lawful immigrant or a person who entered the country unlawfully? >> i believe the right and the only kbags to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. if someone is here regardless of status, i would prefer they be participating in the workplace

than not participate inging in the workplace. >> now so you think anybody that's here lawfully or unlawfully is entitled to work in america? >> i'm not sure if i understand the basis for your question whether there's a legal basis for them to work. >> we're talking about rights who has the most rights. does a lawful american immigrant r or citizen have the right to have the laws of the united states enforced so they they might be able to work or does a person who came here unlawfully have a right to demand a job? >> certainly, the benefits of citizen citizenship confer greater rights on those of us who are citizens than those who are not. >> well, do you think a person here unlawfully is entitled to work in the united states when the law says that employees can't hire them legally in

america? >> i think that certainly the provision that you refer to regarding to the role of the employer in ensuring the legal status of those who are here is an important one and that we have to look at in conjunction with this issue in terms of preventing undocumented workers, who you have indicated before are seeking employment. we want everyone to seek employment, but we have in place at this point in time a legal framework that requests or requires employers to both provide information about citizenship as well as not hire individuals without citizenship. >> do you think that someone -- i understand that you support the executive order. is that correct? >> i don't believe my role at this point is to support or not support it. my review was to see whether or not it did outline a legal framework for some of the action

actions that were requested. as noted it indicated there was not a legal framework for other actions that were requested. >> let me wrap up by asking this. if a person comes here and is given a lawful right under the president's executive amnesty to have social security and a work authorization card, what if somebody prefers to hire an american citizen first? would you take action against them? do you understand this to mean that those who are given executive amnesty are entitled as much as anybody else in america to compete for a job in america? >> i don't believe it would give anyone any greater access to the workforce. certainly an employer would be looking at the issues of citizenship in making those determinations. >> would you take action against an employer who says no i

prefer to hire someone who came to the country lawfully? would the department of justice take action against that? >> with respect to temporary deferral, i did not read it as providing a legal amnesty, but a temporary deferral. with respect to to those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if that is the purpose of your question i haven't studied that legal issue. i certainly think you raise an important point and would look forward to discussing it with you and relying upon your thoughts and experience as we consider that point. >> thank you senator. now senator schumer. >> well, thank you, and i think that even in the short while here, it's clear to my colleagues why you have been such a tremendous u.s. attorney in my home state of new york and

home bureau of brooklyn and why you'd make such a great attorney general. you're just knocking them out of the park. speaking of sports analogies, there's another point i'd like my colleagues to know another testament to your perseverance to your loyalty in the face of incredible adversity. with all due respect to mr. tillis, you're not a tar heel or blue devil you're a knicks fan. it's a lot tougher being a knicks fan than going through these questions here today. i'd like to go over a couple points some of my colleagues made. first on prosecutorial discretion. there's a myth out there that policies are amount. to an illegal force of law. we know that you have enforced the law aggressively and will continue to do so as has the administration. some of my friends across the

aisle seem to be suggesting that the president's announcement of the enforcement policies for the department of homeland security is amount to an announcement we won't enforce our immigration laws, but that's absurd. we have 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the united states. congress, this body, only allocates enough money for dhs to deport 400,000 of them. 11 million illegal immigrants, enough money to deport 400,000. obviously, you have to make some choices here. and i'm sure when my dear friend jeff sessions, and he is a dear friend, was u.s. attorney in alabama he used prosecutorial discretion. i know he did a good job going after violent drug dealers and criminals. we want our prosecutors to go after the highest level crimes if they don't have the resources to do all of them. doesn't it make sense to have a

general rule to prosecute in an office with limited resources to go after bank robbers before you go after shoplifters? now, obviously there can be an occasional obsession. the president's executive order allows for that exception, but this idea that going after -- having an office go after the higher level, more dangerous crimes first is part of how law enforcement has gone on for hundreds of years and it should. i u don't even get this idea that this is an illegal act by the president. we arm our law enforcement officials with an array of laws but limited resources. they have to make hard choices. and a straight forward allocation of resources is not political activism. it's what prosecutors are doing in every jurisdiction of this land right now. immigration is like any other issue. we have limited resources, it

makes imminent sense to go. after the hardened criminals before going after low-level offenders. so let me ask you a couple questions here. don't u.s. attorney offices all over the country consistently have to make these general type of prosecutorial decisions on a day-to-day basis? and how do you? >> yes senator. with respect to the exercise of discretion and the setting of priorities, one of the privileges that i have had as being the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york and working with my colleagues across the country has been getting to know them and learning about how different every district is. how a crime problem in brooklyn may not even appear on o the west coast. and how a crime problem in the midwest that has seen an increase in crime due to the happy accident of increased oil reserves may present issues that i would never face in an urban environment. my colleagues and i work together and we share our

thoughts on the best ways to deploy our limited resources to deal with the crime problems in our districts. my colleagues that have a large number of large number of native americans have a different base of problems than i do but they are just as committed and just as focused on keeping those citizens safe as well. so all of us look at the crime problems in our districts. to do that we work closely with our law enforcement partners in looking at how they have determined the nature of the threat, be it terrorism, be it narcotics, be it those who target children. we also work closely with our state and local counterparts. not just the law enforcement counterparts, but our counterparts in the district attorney's offices. many times i will have a matter in my office that is subject to both federal and state jurisdiction and it may be more appropriate for the district attorney to prosecute that type of crime because of the nature of the sentence that can be achieved, because of the impact on a particular victim or

community, or because of a legal issue involving proof. all of these things go into the consideration of how we manage individual cases but also how we set priorities and then deploy our limited resources to best protect the people of our district. >> exactly. every prosecutor whether it's the justice department, the u.s. attorneys office sets priorities and has to and that's just what the president did, in my opinion, in the executive order. next one, we're hearing a lot about executive action being unconstitutional. and so i'd like to just talk about that. that's another myth that's out there. no federal court has struck down executive action. the most recent federal court to hand down a decision supported it. i heard it suggested that executive action unconstitutional. so happens in fact, dating back to chief justice reine kwis, the supreme court has repeatedly

bolstered executive discretion and refused to review agency decisions in the law. with respect to this action, there have been two federal cays filed. one filed here in washington that's been dismissed. the second suit was filed in texas and is still pending. now we're hearing that -- so no courts have struck down executive action. now we're hearing that speaker boehner and house republicans will be suing the president on this executive action. i don't think that's a responsible use of taxpayer dollars, but at least we agree on one thing. if republicans disagree with president obama over the legality of this policy, they can sue him and let the courts decide. the confirmation of america's highest law enforcement officer is not the time or place to vent frustration. so let me just ask you a couple questions.

i want to underscore them because some people are concerned that the, quote, rogue o bam administration is lawless. >>. absolutely, senator, that's my first point of reference. >> and specifically if a court happens to strike down executive action will you respect that court decision? >> i will respect that court decision. >> and let's imagine congress i don't think this will happen i would try to prevent it as best i could, let's say congress were to pass a bill prohibiting president obama's immigration actions, a bill i find hard to imagine the president would sign. let's imagine for the sake of argument happened. if that such a bill passed will you commit to following the new law? >> i will commit to following all the laws duly executed by this body. >> thank you. just one other issue, since i have a little more time. work permits which my good friend brought up. some have suggested it's illegal

for the administration to issue work permits for deferred action. it's misleading. guess who did it in 1982? ronald reagan. they published ins regulations authorizing work permits for recipients of deferred action. 1982, the reagan administration. that's not to say workplace enforcement isn't necessary, it is, and in fact, you have a strong record of enforcing immigration rules. tell us about the 711 stores case you brought on long island. >> thank you, senator. the case against the 7-eleven store and various franchises was an important one to my office because it was one in which we saw a corporate entity deliberating flouting the labor laws. individuals mostly of a particular ethnic group who owned franchises were reaching out to own community members and

hiring them to work in the stores. this would have been an opportunity for individuals to earn money for their families and to essentially become part of the american dream. instead however, the workers were victimized. they were forced to work double shifts triple shifts, yet only paid for working part-time hours. they were only given their money in either a 7-eleven debit card or cash as deemed appropriate by the manager. even worse than this was the evidence that we uncovered that the stores were aware that they were violating the labor laws and simply flouting them. they also required the workers to all live together in company-sanctioned housing. we essentially were creating a modern day plantation system on long island and also throughout the virginia area with co-conspirators of these franchise owners. . we spent a long time working on the investigation in conjunction with our law enforcement

partners. the matter is still being reviewed with respect to other states and wherever we find workers being victimized and being discriminated against certainly my office has never hesitated to take action. >> thank you my time has expired. >> thank you. i would offer for the record a consent that the article from the atlantic saying head line of reagan and bush offer no precedent of obama's amnesty order and i think that's crystal clear. justice cornyn is next. >> good morning, ms. lynch. congratulations again to you on your nomination and thank you for comeing to my office last friday to visit about this hearing and i should say congratulations to you for an outstanding career as a united states attorney. the challenge i think that

people have when they come to washington, d.c. and assume jobs that have political implications is that they sort of forget their base. ic moring in the law and become politicians massacre raiding as law enforcement officers and i won't claim it's only a challenge for democrats. it's been a challenge for republicans as well. but i am concerned -- let me for senator schumer's benefit you're not eric holder are you? >> no i'm not. >> no one is suggesting that you are, but attorney general holder's record is heavy on our minds now. i agree with the chairman about his concerns when the attorney general refers to himself as the president's wingman suggesting that he does not exercise independent legal judgment, as

the chief law enforcement officer for the country. you wouldn't consider yourself to be a political arm of the white house as attorney general, would you? >> no, senator, that would be an inappropriate vup of the position of attorney general. >> i'm sorry, you'd be willing to tell your friends no if in your judgment the law required that? >> i think i have to be willing to tell not just my friends but colleagues no if the law requires it. >> that would include the president of the united states. >> i think that the obligation of the attorney general is to when presented with matters by the president is to provide a full, thorough independent legal analysis and give the president the best independent judgment that there is. that may be a judgment that says that there is a legal framework for certain actions and it may be a judgment that says there is not a legal framework for certain actions. >> while we have stipulated you're not eric holder, mr.

holder's record is certainly on our minds because i can't think of an attorney general who is so misevaluated the independent role of the law enforcement officer and taken on that aspect of the president's wingman and operated as a politician using the awesome power conferred by our laws on the attorney general. the attorney general has been openly contemptuous of the co-equal branch of government. he's stone walled legitimate investigations by the congress, including the investigation into the fast and furious episode that senator grassley referred to earlier making bogus claims of executive privilege in order to keep congress and the american people from find inging out the facts. we know that the attorney general has repeatedly made legal arguments that have been

rejected as unconstitutional by the united states supreme court, and he's harassed states like mine, and i suspect you'll hear from another colleague about his state, on matters like voter i.d. when the united states supreme court has upheld the validity of voter i.d. as a means to protect the integrity of the ballot for people who were qualified to vote. and at the same time, the attorney general has fail eded o to implement laws that congress has passed in order to provide -- to protect the voting to rid cruel and threats, legal and otherwise for performing actions they were told by the

highest lel authorities that were legal and necessary to save american lives andreopened a criminal investigation into the same members of the intelligence community after a previous investigation had not revealed any basis for criminal charges. so how do we know you are not going to per forth your duties of office as attorney general the way eric holder has performed his duties. how are you going to be different? >> senator i will be myself, loretta lynch. and on two occasions as well as a practicing lawyer to see the independence i've brought to every single matter. while i'm not familiar with the particulars you raise, they are clearly of concern to you and this committee and i do pledge

to this committee i want to listen to your concerns and i do want to be open to listening to your concerns. while we go forward, i may not agree with everything you do. >> and you pay not agree with everything we do. >> but will be open with you and i have found that to be effective, from learning with people with whom i disagree on various points with whom like you, we share a common goal, mrs. lynch i've been married 35 years and i can guarantee you that 100% agreement is an impossible agreement is an impossible agreement. so we don't expect that obviously.

but i want to ask you about your commitment to working with congress and respecting our congressional over site authority. a recent letter sent to mr. layhe by senator holder dated december 14th and it was in response to this committee on march 6th 2014 so about roughly a year and a half later can we expect a more timely response from you and the department of justice to the legitimate inquiries of this committee. >> i believe the over site of this committee is important not just for the functioning of this committee but to the american people in terms of helping them understand the way in which the department operates and the way in which we work to keep them safe. i commit to you that i will work with this committee to ensure that we provide as timely a

response as possible. i'm not sure of the particulars of the matters that you raise so i'm not able to comment on that but certainly i would hope to be able to provide you with the information that you need in as timely a manner as possible in response to the enforcement. >> and i think it would make you a more effective attorney general and as us as members of congress in exercising our responsibilities as well. and i want to ask you about prosecutorial expression. my only regret from this morning's hearing that senator schumer, wasn't available by cross-examination but we'll talk later, but he was dismissive about this concern of massive what i would consider in essence refusal to enforce existing law

that is involved in these executive actions. there is a difference to your mind isn't there, to a case by case exercise of prosecutorial execution and the rules on the books. >> there is a difference. and i do not view it as refusing to enforce laws but attempting to set priorities and executing direction within the priorities. >> and let me ask you about that. isn't it incumbent upon the attorney general to ask about the job you must perform before you can come back and say we're not going to pursue those crimes and offenses because we don't have enough money. isn't it your responsibility as the next attorney general to come to us and ask us for those

resources. i can't imagine if eric holder or the president of the united states or others have come forward and said we don't have the resources for the immigration laws because we are going to have to decline to enforce them because we don't have the resources, don't you ask for those resources before you don't enforce those. >> with respect to the department of justice, i have been involved in reviewing the justice as part of the work on the advisory committee and looking at the budget to make sure we did maintain the appropriate resources to carry out our core mission of protecting the american people within the constraints placed upon us at that time. it is my understanding that with regard to requests from the

department of justice do contain goals across the board to explain to congress why specific resources are needed. >> so you need more money. >> i would probably join all of my agencies in saying that, but i would need to wait to answer that. >> and next would be senator lindsey graham. >> thank you for being here. i am deferential to people called loretta. when your father lifted you up on his shoulders at that greenboro church you were a young girl and a witness to something that changed america forever and literally changed your life. there was no way you could know that. one of the central issues raised during the civil rights movement

was the right to vote, a right which chief justice roberts said sitting in that same place and in quoting a court decision is preserveive of all rights. we are now in a unique position some 50 years later about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act. the supreme court in shelby county versus holder struck down major provisions, the voting rights act and congress which historically had renewed the voting rights acts is now split along party lines as to whether or not there will be a renewal in some sections. we are finding states that are changing the requirements for voting. i chaired the constitution sub-committee of judiciary and i took the sub-committee to public hearings in ohio and in florida

where there were new restrictions placed on voting by state legislatures. i called the election officials of both political parties in those states and asked them if there was any evidence of voter fraud or voter abuse that led to the legislative changes and to a person they said virtually none. what has happened is the department of justice has stepped in in some cases they consider to be extreme and unfair, and worked to stop the implementation of the state laws that restricted the right to vote. as you embark on the possibility of making that decision as attorney general, how do you view the state of voting rights in america today and what do you view as your responsibility, should you be our next attorney general. >> thank you, senator. certainly, i believe the right to vote is the cornerstone of a democracy and every citizen has

the right and some would argue the obligation to exercise. with respect to how voting rights are being handled in the country now, i think we are in a time of great debate over those issues. those are important issues and i'm certainly open to hearing all sides of it. and there is a responsibility and obligation to regulate the voter rules and to make sure the vote is carried out freely and openly and fairly. and i believe that is the goal of many of our elected officials 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.

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