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. fully 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 reun