Children with their mothers after the cases are over. Thank you. And i also look forward to working with you. We have a number of domestic victims that i think 80 are from the u. S. As well. Absolutely. Especially when you get to the oil patch of north dakota where the Attorneys Office has taken control. And thank you for your grace and i hope the chairman will let you get some lunch. Thank you. Thank you senator. Is it going okay for okay for you president bush. . Yes, and thank you for inquiring. We will now adjourn until 1 35. A woo welcome back, ms. Lynch. Hope youre ready to continue. Thank you senator. According to the seniority arrangements we are doing, senator cruz of texas is next. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, ms. Lynch. Good afternoon, senator. Congratulations on your nomination. Congratulations to your family who i know are justifiably proud of you for being nominated. Thank you, sir. Ill note a number of my friends and colleagues who practice law in new york have reached out to me with words of praise for you. Describing your tenure as u. S. Attorney there and that of a no nonsense prosecutor and as a u. S. Attorney who honored and respected the law. And so for that i congratulate you. You began your remarks by describing how with new attorneys in your office you remind them that they take an oath not to the attorney general but to the constitution. That same thing is true for the attorney general of the United States. And i have long expressed my very deep concerns with the conduct of the current attorney general, eric holder. The toirge attorney general has a long and distinguished history, a bipartisan history, of being willing to stand up to the president s who appointed them. Attorneys general in both parties have demonstrated fidelity to law and the constitution even when it meant telling the president of their own party no. That is never easy to do. But part of whats made the department of justice special is that attorneys general, both democrat and republican, have honored that commitment, as you noted to your young lawyers, to the constitution not to the president who has appointed me. My single greatest concern with the tenure of attorney general eric holder is that i do not believe hes upheld that tradition. I believe the department of justice has behaved more like a partisan operation for the president than an impartial Law Enforcement agency. So i want to ask you at the outset the simple question, if confirmed, how would your tenure as attorney general differ from that of eric holders . Senator i think you have raised an important issue of the role of the attorney general. As we discussed, it is an incredibly important cabinet member, but the attorney general is a cabinet member he unlike other cabinet members in that the obligation of the attorney general is first and foremost to represent the American People. To protect and defend the constitution, and to faithfully execute the laws as passed by this body. Interacting with the white house or any agency, if confirmed as attorney general, i would do so in the manner in which i conducted myself as United States attorney, with the full and fair evaluation of every matter brought before me, with a full and fair review of all of the relevant laws, with discussion with career prosecutors, as well as even the most junior people whom i have found often have the best insight into matters. And only then will i make the determination as to the step to be taken. Going forward, every attorney general creates their own path. You asked how i will be different from eric holder. I will be loretta lynch. I will be the person i have always been as i have lead my office through two terms as United States attorney, focusing solely on the protection of the people of my district. And if confirmed as attorney general, on the protection of all of the American People. One thing i do wish to say, senator, is that with respect to the issue that you raised, i greatly appreciate your sharing them with me both now and during the discussion we had in your office. I look forward to more discussions with you and your colleagues, and i want to pledge to you now that i will always listen to your concerns. I will consult with this body where appropriate because there is a great collective wisdom here and experience, both prosecute torial and legal, and i look forward to having a dialogue with you and crafting a positive relationship, not just with this committee but with congress. Ms. Lynch, i thank you for that. That commitment is welcomed. And would mark a sharp break from the practices of the Current Department of justice, one of the frustrations of a number of members of this committee is that the department has not been responsive to this committees requests and indeed that were that to change, that would be highly welcomed. Let me focus on one and if time allows two specific areas where i believe the department has gone with partisan politics instead of upholding the law. Lets start with immigration, which has been a topic of much discussion already. You mentioned in your Opening Statement that you had now taken the opportunity to review carefully the o. L. C. Opinion on the president s executive amnesty. Do you agree with the illegal analysis in the o. L. C. Opinion . I have had occasion to review the o. L. C. Opinion that dealt with the department of Homeland Securitys request for Legal Framework in how to prioritize removal of certain undocumented immigrants, really all the undocumented immigrants under their jurisdiction. I did not see a grant of amnesty there or pathway to citizenship. Certainly as i reviewed the opinion as well as the letters from scholars who wrote in support of it, it seemed to be a way to look for the Legal Framework based upon case law, precedent, prior action of congress as well as the Discretionary Authority of the department of Homeland Security to prioritize this removal. Certainly placing those most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants at the top of that list seemed to me to be a very reasonable exercise. I would want to hope i would hope that the protection of those communities where undocumented immigrants involved in vie hadnt crime, Gang Activity terrorism, would be at the top of the list. Ms. Lynch, you said now and before in your Opening Statement that you found the legal analysis reasonable. O. L. C. Operates in the place of the attorney general of the United States. An o. L. C. Opinion operates as the legal judgment of the attorney general as the chief legal officer for the United States. So my question is quite simply do you agree with the legal analysis in that memorandum . Would it have been your legal analysis had you been asked the same question . Senator, certainly im not able to say at this point what my if my legal analysis would have taken the same pathway and same steps because i have not reviewed all of the cases and reviewed all of the memorandum that im sure went in to that. But what i can say again as the opinion seeks to talk about the exercise of executive discretion, it seemed to be looking at precedent, actions of congress as well as the immigration laws to see if there was a Legal Framework for the requested actions. What i noted was that for some of the actions the office of Legal Counsel found there was a Legal Framework for some of the actions that the department of Homeland Security wanted to set in place. But for some of the requested actions the office of Legal Counsel found there was not the appropriate Legal Framework for some of those actions and instead, my understanding, advised the department of Homeland Security that they should not proceed along certain ways. My understanding is that that advice was taken. I do believe that the office of Legal Counsel has the important obligation to look at the law, look at the facts, look at the action that is being brought before it, and say where there is an appropriate Legal Framework, as well as there is not an appropriate Legal Framework. Ms. Lynch, i would note that i twice asked you if you agree with the analysis. You are a very talented lawyer. I suspect its not an accident that twice you have not answered that question. You have described what o. L. C. Did but not given a simple answer. Do you agree with that analysis or not. Senator, i told you i did find the analysis to be reasonable. I did find it to recognize the issues. And it did seem to provide a reasonable basis. In 2011, before the last election president obama said, quote, with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, thats just not the case. Because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. Do you agree with what president obama said in 2011 . Senator i dont know what legal opinion he was relying on at the time. Certainly the subsequent legal opinion talks about the temporary deferral of deportation in a way that does provide a Legal Framework for it, but i dont know if the president was speaking of this exact same issue or not. I simply couldnt provide a legal opinion about the president s comments at this time. Now, the executive action, in my view, the o. L. C. Opinion has no legal basis whatsoever. It hinges upon the notion of prosecutorial discretion, and you rightly described how any prosecutor will prioritize some cases over others for example focusing on more violent criminals. In your office as u. S. Attorney you certainly exercised prosecutorial discretion. Was it your practice for any category of crimes to suggest to those who may have violated the criminal laws they can come into your office and seek a written authorization exonerating them of their past crimes and authorizing them to continue carrying out crimes for a large categorical group of offenders . Senator, we would not have that type of direct dealing with offenders. They would come to our attention as part of an investigation or part of an issue where they would already be under suspicion of some sort of wrongdoing. We would not have that type of discussion with someone who might be represented or might have other rights, we would not have that type of discussion with someone. Thats not anything you ever did. No. We do have priorities within my office. We do have guidelines within my office. Those are shared with our Law Enforcement colleagues. We also share them with many of our state and local colleagues as we discuss where to best place certain types of cases. Thank you very much. Well continue. Senator franken. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Congratulations on being the chairman. Im glad to be chairman. I can tell you that. I know you are. Ms. Lynch congratulations on your nomination. Thank you senator. It was great meeting with you. Your reputation for smart and tough precedes you and you didnt disappointment in our meeting. Thank you for the wide ranging conversation how was lunch . Excellent, thank you, sir. Enjoyed lunch . Yes, sir. Good. I want to i discussed a couple things, number of things when you were in my office, and i want to bring them up again. Ones are our prison system. Im sorry . Our prison system. I want to talk about our prison system. We have United States has 5 of the worlds population, 25 of the prison population. I think one of the biggest problems is that we used our criminal Justice System as a substitute for a well functioning Mental Health system. We have a lot of people in prison, in jails in this country who shouldnt be probably shouldnt be there. And who its not serving anybody any purpose. We have young people with and others with Mental Illness who are in soltrarery confinement and just makes their soltrarery confinement and just makes their meant solitary confinement and just makes their Mental Health worse. What i want to do to address that is something called the justice Mental Health collaboration act. Its a reauthorization of my my mentally ill treatment act which has been very bipartisan in the past and should be it is bipartisan. Its been carried by a republican in the house. I just want to ask you for your support as we go forward in making sure that our criminal Justice System isnt not just wasting money, but wasting lives. And that you will Work Together with me on that. Senator, i look forward to working together with you on that as well as other important issues i think you have highlighted one of the most important developments in criminal Justice Research and literature has been the Ongoing Research that has been done into the root causes of so many so much of our criminal activity. In particular where the mentally ill are involved, we continue to learn more and more about how that illness impacts them as they make their way through the criminal Justice System. And i look forward to taking advantage of that new knowledge with you and working with you on that and other important issues. Some of this involves i dont know if you heard of crisis intervention training. But crisis intervention training is teaching both police on the ground, and corrections officials in prisons to recognize when they are seeing someone with a Mental Health problem. To deal with it in the correct way. Certainly. Certainly. I think the research has shown and certainly anyone with experience with a Family Member or friend who has a Mental Illness, knows that sometimes conditions may manifest themselves in ways that appear to be disruptive but are a reflection of the illness. What ill be doing with this is doing Mental Health courts so that if a prosecutor an arresting officer, and the defense attorney and the judge say this person belongs in a Mental Health court and not so they can be treated and not go to prison where its going to enclosing up the prison system and make clog up the prison system and neighboring this persons position worse. Then well do that. And also veterans courts. We have so many veterans that are coming back with invisible wounds. Sometimes those invisible wounds will be medicated. By drugs or alcohol. And instead of going to the prison, maybe its time we can go to veterans court. Certainly, senator. I know some of my u. S. Attorney cloogs have been instrumental in working on the concept of veterans courts in particular as part of the departments strong commitment to protecting all of the rights of veterans. You are so correct. We ask so much of our men and women in uniform and they come back to us often different from how they left with wounds that we can see and wounds that we often cannot see. I believe we have an obligation to provide them the best treatment to thank them for their service to our country. Fabulous. I look forward to working with you on that should you be confirmed. Which i hope you will. Let me move on to something kind of specific. I was chair and now will be Ranking Member of the Privacy Technology and the law subcommittee. Theres a lot of technology out there thats new that we are learning about some unforeseen consequences of it. Theres 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 shes there she gets from him saying why are you at the courthouse . Are you getting a restraining order against me . Its 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 ia 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 dont 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 departments 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 im 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 theres 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 comcasttime 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 thats 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, ill 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 ill 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 socalled yuma sector where weve 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, weve 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 socalled Consequences Program to be implemented where firsttime crossers are met with consequences and it has its pointed to by, certainly Law Enforcement organizations in yuma and along that sector and just about everyone else recognize its been successful. The problem is, just last year, it looks like d. O. J. Has said that theyre no longer going to implement parts of that. And that for the and that first time offenders unless theres 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, ive 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 evergrowing problem. I believe that again im not familiar with the current status of operation streamline but as it relates to firsttime prosecutions of individuals, individuals are still being prosecuted. And to the extent that a firsttime 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 youre saying now its a budget issue, why havent we seen concern about the budget or those budget aspects . Why hasnt d. O. J. Come to congress and said, we are having issues here . And so in order to continue with this program, were going to need additional funding. To your knowledge, has that happened . Im not aware of whats gone into the specifics of the departments budget. Im 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 im not able to provide that information to you. Its certainly something i would be working closely on should i be confirmed as attorney general. Ill put it this way, barring budget issues is this a program youre committed to or do you have other issues with it . Its 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, were 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, weve 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. Im a sponsor of the comprehensive bill that went through the Congress Last two years ago, through the house im sorry, through the senate, didnt get through the house. This isnt 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 governments 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 its 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 were going to have the same problems that we had a few years ago and that just, we cant go on with that. Secretary johnson is in arizona or just visited arizona, visited the border, hes done that a few times. Met with ranchers, with some of their concerns particularly in the tucson sector. And theres still a lot that needs to be done. Its 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 im sorry, attorney general holders 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. Weve worked closely with our colleagues in other agencies to bring these cases to fruitionings and were proud of the work weve done. Its an evergrowing 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. Thats a lot of time for just a few convictions. Since the f. B. I. Cant investigate and d. O. J. Cant 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 havent 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 reauthorization. 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 weve 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 cohence comes back, i skipped over him, well 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 im sure its 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 ive seen as a member of this committee and im sure youve 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 youve 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 7eleven 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 couldnt 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 TraffickingPro 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 twofold. 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 its 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 7eleven 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 cochairman of the Human Trafficking caucus in the senate. Its a very bipartisan one, the cochairman 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 posttraumatic 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 werent 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 ive 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 twopart 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, ive 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. Its 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, ive advocated a public advocate to defend and advocate constitutional liberties in the course of this proceeding, foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. Im 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 didnt respond directly to any of my big topics and you said youd 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 well 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 im 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 casebycase 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 casebycase 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 theyll 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 weve talked about in my office though, his action goes well beyond setting prosecutorial priorities doesnt 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 im not aware if those regulations have been set forth yet so i cant comment on how theyll be implemented does this plan go beyond setting priorities for prosecution or not . Does it doesnt it in fact go beyond that by granting these folks a parole status and giving them a work permit . Isnt 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 theres 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, im 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 casebycase basis. Im 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 im not able to vide you with specifics. But youve read the orders. Do you think that lays out a system that is operated on a casebycase 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 casebycase basis and i just think thats really a clear, obviously stretch to say that this action thats going to affect five Million People is following the law on a casebycase basis. The law also says new york fact, this same specific citation, it says, this decision on a casebycase basis has to be made by the attorney general. Now is it your understanding under the president s plan that if youre the attorney general, youre going to be in the middle of that process making those decisions . Senator im 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 im 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 casebycase basis. Again senator, as presented to me by you, today, and thank you for that information, again im not familiar with the ways in which that particular authority has been exercised by the attorney general. Whether its been dell gayed or how it is share delegated or how it is shared with the department of Homeland Security, so im not able to provide you with specifics. Again ill 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 arent 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 justices 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. Theyre in the statute. So why arent 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 arent mandatory . When you get done with that answer ill 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 colleagues judgment for the judgment of folks who wrote the law and thats what this whole discussion today is about. Thank you. [inaudible] for the witness we, theres 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 forwardlooking agenda. Im 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, im pleased that someone with your experience in Law Enforcement is nominated for this position. I serve with cochair 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 theres 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 whats 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 EnforcementAgency 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. Thats 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. Im 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 ill try to be brief. Im 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 theres only one or two cases a month, federally, brought by prosecutors. Is as the u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District, whats 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 dont 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 longterm. 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 its vital that we strengthen the protections for americas 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 africanamerican population of our country. Its 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 theres 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 its your intention to keep in place the 2013 memorandum or whether youd 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 thats 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. Its one ive 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 departments 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 ive 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 wasnt anything i said that cleared the room for you. I hope youre doing well. I hope it wasnt 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. Youve demonstrated that in your career. You were just talking about mandatory minimums if im 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 1990s, 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 10year 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. Holloways 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. Holloways 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 didnt 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. Holloways armed carjacking convictions. He said your suggestion that he seek clemency wasnt 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 judges 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. Holloways sentence without a guarantee of what that sentence would be. Based on that information, based upon mr. Holloways 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 dont believe that my personal opinion is the governing factor in a case. Be it mr. Holloways 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. Holloways case, whether or not theres 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. Holloways case. If youre confirmed and during your tenure as attorney general it comes to your attention that there are cases like mr. Holloways 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 im the only one up here, i guess im the presiding officer and my time is almost up. I have one other question for you. Id like to move on to National Security if i might. Ill remind the chairman i didnt 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. Id 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 a