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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who was convicted by your office in the late 1990's, his name was francois holloway, i believe i hope you remember him. there was a lot of press coverage on this case during your current tenure as u.s. attorney. in 1995, mr. holloway rejected a 10-year plea and was convicted after a trial on three counts of armed carjacking and possessing a gun during a violent crime. those subjected him to consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and he received a total ofic 57 years. -- total of, i think, 57 years. in 2013, judge gleason, the district judge in brooklyn, who sentenced mr. holloway, began a campaign on mr. holloway's behalf and sent you a request to vacate two orders of mr. holloway no one argued holloway was innocent or wrongfully convicted or that his sentence was unlawful.

no one claimed there was a problem with the trial. all mr. holloway's appeals were reject the case went to the supreme court which upheld the convictions. in fact, everyone agreed that the sentence he received was lawful under title 18 of the sentencing -- sentencing guidelines. judge gleason didn't agree with the sentence the law required him to impose and was asking you to help him do it. in february 20 13, to your credit you refused to vacate the carjacking convictions. you suggested to judge gleason that mr. holloway could contact the office of the pardon attorney and submit a petition for commutation of the sentence. i think that was the appropriate resons, i -- response, i congratulate you on that i think every prosecutor would have responded that way. in may of 2013, judge gleason again urged you to vacate two of mr. holloway's armed carjacking convictions. he said your suggestion that he seek clemency wasn't realistic

because the fact that he committed crimes of violence would disqualify him. the judge was a passionate advocate for this defendant. this time, however you backed down and consented to the judge's order to vacate the carjacking convictions. i want to note that he was a violent offender -- offender, who along with an accomplice stole three cars at gunpoint. as the top law enforcement officer, i have a couple of questions relative to that case and your perspective. my first question, what caused you to change your earlier position in that case? >> senator, with respect to the holloway case, there was a matter that had been of long standing it was long standing case from the office. it did predate my tenure -- my second time but not first time as u.s. attorney. it was a case in which it was the defendant who had made a

motion to allow the judge to revisit his sentence. so there was in fact a judicial proceeding before the court at that time and think court wanted us to take a second look at it. we did consider it numerous times. ultimately the matter was before the court and while the judge indicated he would like to have the opportunity to review that, our view was that we had to look at the case consistent with many of the initiatives that were being put in place now by the department of justice. certainly with respect to clemency and with respect to how we look at offenders who have served a significant time and whether or not they would be eligible for that. of note to me as i reviewed the matter was that mr. holloway was the second person in that carjacking incident and was not the individual with the gun but was of course legally liable for that and while he received the sentence of 57 years, the main actor received a sentence

shortly under two years. there was incredible disparity in the sentence there. the real issue for us, was there a legal proceeding in place, and there was, essentially, did we have the ability to let the judge review the sentence again by keeping it in the court system and we felt that we did. but before we did that, it was important to me to consult with every victim in that case. and certainly we found all of the victims but one, after extensive research, all the victims also felt that the jubbling should have the opportunity to reconsider mr. holloway's sentence without a guarantee of what that sentence would be. based on that information, based upon mr. holloway's record in prison, based upon his role in the offense, we looked at how we would have handled the case under current times. again, given that there was a court proceeding, we were able to go to court and tell the judge we would not stand in the way of him reviewing the sentence again, which judge

gleason kid. mr. holloway was resentenced, he then went into state custody to finish a matter so i do not know his current status. but we did ecertain rblely allow the judge to take another look at that and through the judicial process the judge imposed a different sentence. that sentence was still significant and it was still, i would say, twice as long as what mr. holloway would have gotten had he accepted a plea deal. >> thank you. you know as the attorney general you have great discretion, just as you did as district attorney. the question i would have is illustrated by the case, i think, is where do you draw the line? how do you see the balance between the law and your personal position in a case? your personal opinion in a case? >> senator, i don't believe that my personal opinion is the governing factor in a case. be it mr. holloway's case or any case in which i would review either as u.s. attorney or should i be confirmed as

attorney general. i will take a look at every case and i will commit to you that i will review every matter brought to me with a full and fair examination of the facts and application of the law but also with a view toward, in mr. holloway's case, whether or not there's a judicial proceeding there and the current status of that. but we will take every effort and i will make every effort should i be confirmed to always act consistent with the law. >> thank you. just one last question in this vein. there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of violent offenders in our federal custody serving sentences based on consecutive mandatory minimums you spoke about, like those imposed on mr. holloway's case. if you're confirmed and during your tenure as attorney general it comes to your attention that there are cases like mr. holloway's would you consent to early release. >> it was not my -- it would not be my place to consent to early

release, our posture was to consent to allow the judge to revisit the sentence and impose the sentence he felt appropriate. as u.s. attorney i would not be making the decisions to whether someone should be released. should i be confirmed as attorney general i would not be making those decisions either except as people go through the clemency process or pardon office and those matters come under review by the department of justice. we would then apply our best judgment to the situation but the ultimate decision on release would not be made, i believe by me. >> since i'm the only one up here, i guess i'm the presiding officer and my time is almost up. i have one other question for you. i'd like to move on to national security if i might. i'll remind the chairman i didn't go over on my allotted time just in case. the d.o.j. announced that two yemeni nationals charged with conspiring to murder american citizens abroad and providing

material support to al qaeda will be prosecuted in your district court in new york. i'd like your thoughts on bringing terrorists onto u.s. soil. is there any rule for military tribunals or should civilian courts be used exclusively for these prosecutions? >> thank you for that question. the case that you mentioned is being handled by my office and at the outset i would note that throughout the process of reviewing that case and deciding how to best prosecute it and where to appropriately venue it, we consulted extensively with the office of military exhibitions as we do with all the cases involving national security defendants who may be brought to u.s. shores and may be brought to the eastern district of new york. certainly i would say at the outset that my position is, if terrorists threaten americans here or abroad, they will face american justice.

we have done that successfully in the eastern district of new york and i look forward, should i be confirmed as attorney general, to continuing that strong practice, utilizing all the tools in our arsnell and that includes the military commission process. essentially, senator, should i be con firled as attorney general, i look forward to working with the military and the other executive branch divisions in government to make the best determination about where each case should be brought. should that determination be in article 3 court, i anticipate that the receiving u.s. attorney's office would handle it with skill and dedication that my prosecutors do every day. similarly should it be a military commission, they will also handle it with the skill and dedication that they have also shown. i have been honored to host general martens in my office and have a positive working relationship with him. should i be confirmed as attorney general i look forward to continuing that relationship

with him. and with all our partners in the war on terror. >> i would like to thank you for your patience, professionalism today. you've run out of senators almost. in the absence of our chair, there's only one other senator available for questioning. i know they're on the floor now voting. i would suggest we take a 10-minute recess if you're amenable, and we'll find out from the chairman, if senator till liss, who is the last remaining person to ask questions and see where we go from there. enge we'll stand in recess for 10 minutes and thank you again for your graciousness and perseverance today. >> thank you, senator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

looks sheryl atkinson will testify. that's live at 10:00 eastern. the senate judiciary committee here on c-span. coming up this hour, we talk to charles grassley about yesterday's attorney general confirmation hearing for loretta lynch. and get a preview of today's hearing. then conversation on proposed changes to the criminal justice system, with mark mauer of the sentencing project.

then we talk about the senate confirmation process. we also take your facebook comments and tweets. ♪ host: good morning, everyone, on this thursday, january 29. "if confirmed, i will be myself," that is what the red of lynch -- loretta lynch told the confirmation hearing yesterday. nearly eight hours, republicans repeatedly asked the nominee to differential rate -- differentiate yourself from attorney general eric holder. she said she supported the executive decision to ease the threat of deportation for mi