ral reserve bank so on. just this month you charged two al-qaeda fighters for attacking american troops in afghanistan and iraq. i have been impressed not only in your district but other parts of the country, where we have brought these terrorists to trial in our federal courts. we have shown the world we can do it. there have been convictions. bin laden's son-in-law being one. and then they have been locked up. >> senator it is certainly an important counter terrorism tool in the arsenal of tools that we have to deal with the every evolving threat. my view is if terrorists threaten american citizens here or abroad they will face american justice. we work with our counterparts

throughout the executive branch to determine the most appropriate venue for bringing terrorists to justice. our primary goal is to imcapacitate them and bring them to justice. certainly in my own career when the decision has been madehat a case should be handled by the office we work in that fashion. we work closely with the military commissions to consult with them and share information to make the decision of what is the best way to handle every case. >> and then in any case i want to talk about the most recent nominees. the senator from california senator feinstein who is sitting here, her tremendous efforts to confront acts of torture carried out in our country's name.

do you agree that water boarding is torture and is illegal. >> water boarding is torture, senator. >> and thus illegal? >> and thus illegal. >> thank you. and i know you are going to be asked a lot about immigration. it makes me think you should be focusing on your qualifications for this job. i might even -- asking those questions might speak also to some of the qualifications of congress. we worked for months in this committee, night and day, hundreds of hours, hearings mark-ups debate and we passed by a strong bipartisan majority an immigration bill that -- so many of these things that we now hear discussed. my opinion there were votes enough to pass it in the house of representatives, but their leadership decided not to bring

it up. i think that was a mistake. so now we deal with the question of executive action. you didn't write the exsec -- ex -- executive action did you? >> no i was not aware of it until it was rendered. >> and considering there are millions of people in this country who may not be in a valid legal status would perhaps strain our resources to think about how we would deport 10 to 12 million people. is that a fair statement? >> i believe that statement is fair. >> thank you. >> i want to inform all of the committee members that since everybody on the committee was here at the fall of the gavel it will be done on a seniority basis as opposed to first come first serve basis. senator hatch is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman i appreciate it. ms. lynch welcome. >> thank you. >> appreciate the service you

have given in this country. it's important to hear what you understand your role and duty will be. do you agree that when the constitutionality of the law is challenged the attorney general has a duty to defend that law? >> senator i believe that one of the first and foremost duties is to defend the laws as passed by this body. >> okay. i would like you to answer these questions. i'm trying to get through a number of them. i think you can answer most yes or no if you can. if you are confirmed will you commit to enforce and defend the laws and the constitution of the united states regardless of your views on them in any manner? >> absolutely sir. >> thank you. the justice department made reasonable arguments that the defense of marriage act is constitutional, but then the

attorney general chose to stop making those arguments because of his personal views, and then cast doubt about others who make the same commitment as you do today. i don't doubt your sincerity. i have a high opinion of you, but is there any more assurance that you can give us on something like that. >> senator it's my view when it comes to the position of the attorney general and the role of the department of justice in defending the statutes passed by the congress the issue is not my personal view or issue of bias or policy even but it is the duty and responsibility of the department of justice to defend those statutes. certainly as we have seen there may be rare instances where -- and again, i was not involved in that analysis but there may be certain circumstances where careful legal analysis raises constitutional issues but those would be few and far between. and should we reach that point

it would be a matter i would prefer to have discussion about. >> okay. i appreciate that answer. i'm concerned that the administration has exceeded its lawful authority in many ways in an effort to not work with us here in congress i understand why they might not want to work with congress but fortunately the constitution requires us to work together. in exceeding and even contravening lawful authority in the programs it helps administer such as with the latest executive actions on immigration, providing legal justification for oversees to ignore the law has occurred with the transfer of taliban terrorists out of guantanamo without notifying congress and in taking some extreme litigation positions which my count the supreme court has unanimously rebuked a record 20

times. given these disturbing patterns how can you assure us that you will be independent that you will say no to the white house or other executive branch agencies when they wish to act beyond the law as it's written. >> senator i think one of the most important functions of the department of justice is to provide a legal framework if it exists when questions are raised. but consistent with that every good lawyer knows you must also provide the information that indicates that the legal framework may not exist for certain actions that someone may want to take. every lawyer has to be independent. the attorney general even more so and i pledge to you, that i -- i take that independence very seriously. >> you have did that in my office and i appreciate that. because i think you will be a great attorney general if you'll do that. last august you gave a speech in switzerland in which you praised attorney general holders initiative to limit mandatory

sentences. but prosecutors including even the attorney general did not have authority to decide that entire categories of defendants will not receive a sentence that the congress has mandated. isn't that another example of using prosecutorial discretion to really in effect change the law without congress. >> senator with respect to the material that you are referring to when i did give that speech i was referring to the department's smart on crime initiative, which seeks to manage another intractable problem of the large number of narcotic defendants and the limited resources we have to -- >> i want to help you with that. >> yes, and prosecute them effectively. in my own experience we have had to deal with similar issues in the eastern district of new york. we have had tremendous issues with narcotics importations over the years, and we have had to

work out ways of resolving those cases. we have had to prioritize the cases we will seek mandatory minimums for. but with respect to the smart on crime initiative as pushed out and implemented in the field, every prosecutor from the united states attorney on down to line assistants are encouraged to still consider cases that might fall into a category where initially you would not seek a mandatory minimum, but consider whether they will be appropriate. >> okay. understand. as currently written, the communications privacy act requires only a subpoena for law enforcement to access email that has been opened even though a -- a search warrant would be required for a printout of the same communication sitting on a desk. and they were silent on the privacy standard for accessing

data stored abroad. without a legal framework in place, this puts the privacy of american citizens at risk for intrusion by foreign governments. i intend to reintroduce the leads act which will reinforce the issue. will you commit to working with me on this issue? >> the issue of electronic privacy is central. and we have to be vigilant that make sure we are providing law enforcement the tools it needs and commit to privacy. and i certainly commit to working with you on this issue. >> thank you very much. trade secrets are among the most valuable assets by companies. and are currently protected by the economic espionage act, and

other forms of law. however, there is no federal civil remedy for trade secret owners. i will reintroduce the defend trades secrets act in the coming days to provide an efficient federal remedy for trade secret owners. do you agree trade secret owners should have the same access to remedy as owners of other forms of intellectual property. >> i think trade secrets particularly as american technology becomes ever-more complex and ever-more a target from those within the u.s. and throughout is an increasingly important issue. i'm not familiar with the provision you raised but it certainly touches an important issue of making sure our companies and their technology are protected. >> well thank you so much. i am today introducing legislation to help victims of child pornography receive the

restitution that congress has already said they deserve. the supreme court said last year that the current restriction statute, enacted more than 20 years ago does not work for child pornography victims, and this legislation will change that. i have joined by more than 30 senators on both sides of the aisle, including 14 on this committee. do i have your committee that under your leadership the justice department will aggressively aggressively prosecute child pornography users. >> i have always aggressively sought to prosecute these criminals. i look forward to working with you and the members of the committee in reviewing that legislation as wells. >> thank you so much. i recently read a powerful book

in one day. it's tighted "license to lie." uncovering corruption in the department of justice. the author rights about many things including the debacle that occurred in the prosecution of senator ted stevens, which i thought was out of this world bad. i was one of the people who testified as to his character. and he was a person of great character, and he lost the senate race because of this type of prosecution. i know that case and i testified on his behalf only after he was convicted did we learn that the justice department prosecutors intentionally hid exculpatory evidence that could have helped his case. they were corrupt acts that violated every prosecutor's duty under the maryland decision to turn over exculpatory evidence so the trial would be fair. i recommending you read this book because if even half of it

is true and i believe it is true you have a lot of work to do to clean up that department. will you consider doing that for me? >> thank you, sir, i will. >> i appreciate it. >> before i call on senator feinstein, i'm going to ask -- just so the finance committee convenes, i'm going to offer an amendment. i will call on senor to feinstein. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. mrs. lynch, i had through six opening statements by potential attorneys general, and i just want to tell you, yours was the best. >> thank you. >> i see the combination of steal and velvet. i see your love for the constitution and i see the determination which is in -- in your heart, and i think your being, and it's very very

impressive, so i want to thank you for, really 30 years of service. >> thank you, senator. >> and i hope it will be a lot longer. mr. chairman i would like to place in the record los angeles police department's chief's charlie charlie beckett's written testimony on the subject of the president's executive action on immigration. >> so ordered. >> thank you very much. ms. lynch i'm going to ask you three questions, the first is on expiring provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which will come to this committee before june of this year and also before the intelligence committee on which i serve. a question about office of legal counsel opinions and a question on the state's secrets act. let me begin with fisa. the three provisions that will expire on june 1st, are first

the roving wiretap authority. this provision enables the government to maintain surveillance on a target when he or she switches phone numbers or email addresses without seeking a new court order. the second is the loan wolf authority, which enables the government to conduct surveillance of a non-united states person engaged in international terrorism without demonstrating that they are affiliated with a particular international terrorist group, such as isis or al-qaeda. and the third is the business records authority, which carries with it section 215 of the national security administration. this enables the government to obtain a court order, directing the production of quote any tangible thing, end quote.

can you describe what would be the operational impact if the three were allowed to sunset in june. >> thank you, senator. you certainly raise important issues about the need to have a full planplea of threats that face us. the roving wiretap provision was incorporated after being utilized extensively for several years in narcotics prosecutions. it is one with which i was familiar with as a young prosecutor. and the ability to describe to a court the nature of the offense, the nature of the activity and the use of attempts to shield

oneself from electronic surveillance which is part of what must be set forth in an application, have been invaluable tools. and all of this must go to a court, obviously in the narcotic's area it was an article 3. but there is judicial review for this and it has been an important part of the techniques we have used in the war on terror as have the two other provisions that you mention. i do think, however, that with respect to fisa there's always the ability, and need to make sure that we are current, not just with technology but with the most effective way to protect privacy as we go forward in this important act. i know that is something you have spent a great deal of time on. and i look forward to continuing those discussions with you, should i be confirmed. with respect to the loan wolf provision, again, i think we have to examine it carefully.

recent events however, have underscored the importance of this as an issue in the war on terror. i so i hope we could move forward with any proposed changes to fisa with a full and complete understanding of the risks we have facing. and as changes need to be made after full and care consideration with this committee, the intelligence committee and the discussions we need to have, making sure we can still provide law enforcement with the tools they need. and with regard to provision 17 there is necessary checks in there as we gather data. i'm certainly open to discussions about how they can be best modified if we need to modny them. and i commit to you, senator, and indeed to all of this committee, that i will always listen to all of those concerns be it about the fisa statute or any of the techniques we are

using in the war on terror. >> thank you very much. as a member of both judiciary and intelligence we have on both committees sought access to office of legal counsel opinions. and these opinions often represent the best and most comprehensive expression of the legal basis for intelligence activities. congress is actually charged with overseeing. so without these opinions you don't really know the legal bases upon which an administration has made certain -- has based certain activities and it's been very frustrating to us. in particular executive branch officials have previously advised the committee of the exsense importance of a seminole opinion written by ted olson

decades ago, governing the conduct of activities. my question is can we have your commitment that you will take a copy of this olc opinion available to members of both the intelligence and the judiciary committee, probably your first tough question. [ laughter ] >> senator, i think with respect to the olc opinions you are correct, they do represent a discussion and analysis of legal issues on a wide variety of subjects when a variety of agencies come to the department for that independent advice that we must provide them. certainly i'm not aware of the discussions that have been had about this previous opinion in terms of providing it. certainly i will commit to you to work with this committee and the intelligence committee to find a way to provide the information that you need

consistent with the department's own law enforcement and investigative priorities. >> thank you very much. this particular opinion is important, and it would be useful if we can review it. so thank you. on state secrets, on september 23rd, 2009 the attorney general issued a memorandum establishing new proceed procedures and standards on the state's secrets privilege and litigation. the memorandum stated that the doj would provide the periodic reports to congress on the exercise of these state's secret provisions. only one such report has been provided. that report discussed the two cases in which the privilege had been invoked under the new policy but those are no longer the only two cases. so i would like to ask you, if

you could provide the appropriate oversight committees with the second periodic report on the exercise of state secret privileges that discusses those cases, which the privilege has been invoked on since april of 2011? >> senator, you raise the important issue of the need to work with the oversight committees be they this committee or intelligence in reviewing the actions of the department of justice, not just so that committees can carrying out their work but so the american people can be aware of how the department carries out its work. i'm not familiar with the reports. i certainly look forward to reviewing this issue, and i will do my best to ensure that the department lives up to its obligations that it has set forth. >> good. and i will come back. this is an important question to us so i will come back and hopefully can get this -- get an

answer yes or no within the next couple of weeks. so thank you very much. >> senator i look forward to learning more about the issue, and i look forward to sharing that with you should i be confirmed as well as any issues of concern that this committee or others have. >> thank you very much. >> you are listening to al jazeera's continuing coverage of the confirmation hearings for loretta lynch. that is her on the right. if she is confirmed -- so far there is nothing to indicate that she will not be confirmed. she will become the nation's first african american female attorney general, succeeding eric holder in that position. we're going to take a quick break.

>> hezbollah attacks an israeli ♪ welcome back to our continuing coverage of the confirmation hearings of loretta lynch to be the nation's next attorney general. the man speaking right now asking the questions is alabama senator, jeff sessions. the topic, immigration. >> -- as a civil right to citizenship. >> i'm not familiar with the context of those comments. i certainly think you touch about the difficult issue of how do we handle the undocumented immigrants that come to our country -- >> i don't want to interrupt you, but the question is do you agree with that statement, that -- that it's matter of

civil rights and citizenship and work authority, a right to work in america for someone who enters the country unlawfully that's a civil right? >> senator, i haven't studied the issue enough to come to a legal confusion -- conclusion on that. i think people that come here can rehabilitate themselves and apply. but that would have to be answered on a case by case basis. >> i would like to hear you answer that. is it a civil right for someone who entered the country unlawfully, who would like to work and be a citizen, demand that contrary to the laws of the united states and when congress doesn't pass it is that a right that they are entitled to demand? >> i think that citizenship is a privilege. certainly it's a right for those of us born here. i think it's a privilege that has been to earned. and within the panoply of civil

rights earned i don't see one such as you are describing. >> i certainly agree. i'm surprised it took you that long, but the attorney general's statement was breathtaking to me. peter responded to that sometime ago and here is what we said quote, to equate amnesty for breaking the nation's immigration laws with civil rights betrays an incoherent and ahistoric understanding of the civil rights movements. law-abiding black citizens of the united states were not seeking ex-search shun from law, they were seeking application of such laws in the same manner that was applied to whites close quote. would you agree with that analysis? >> certainly i think with respect to the civil rights movement it certainly was a movement designed to assure equal access to the law and equal application of law.

>> on the 50th anniversary of the selma march, people were denied systematically civil rights. and that was an historic event, it changed america. and i think it's important that that be remembered. but it is quite different as i think this man points out to demand your lawful rights as an american and to ask for -- insist that civil rights apply to those who enter the country unlawfully to have these benefits. well, the president's action would give people who came here unlawfully the right to work the right to participate in social security and medicare when congress has not done that allows them to stay for at least a period lawfully. let me ask you this in the workplace of america today, when we have a high number of

unemployed, we have had declining wages for many years, we have the lowest percentage of americans working, who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful immigrant who is here a citizen, or person who entered the country unlawfully? >> senator, i believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here and certainly if someone is here i would prefer they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace. with respect to -- >> now -- that was -- so you think that a person -- anybody that is here lawfully or unlawfully is entitled to work in america? >> senator i'm not sure if i understand the basis for your question as to whether or not there's a legal basis for them to work or not. >> i ask you who -- we're talking about rights who has the most rights?

a lawful american immigrant or citizen have the right to have the laws of the united states enforced so that they might be able to work or does a person who came here unlawfully have a right to demand a job? >> certainly the benefits of citizenship confer greater rights on those of us who are citizens, than those who are not. >> well do you think a person that is here inlawfully is entitled to work in the united states when the law says that employers can't hire somebody unlawfully in america. >> i believe -- go ahead. >> go ahead. >> sorry, sir. i think certainly the provision you refer to regarding the role of the employer in ensuring the legal status of those he employs is a lawful one. and we have to look at the issue in terms of documented workers

who are seeking employment. but we have in place at this point in time a legal framework that requests -- or requires employers to provide information about citizenship as well as not hire individuals without citizenship. >> all right. do you think that someone given -- i understand that you support the -- the executive order and olc's opinion; is that correct? >> i don't believe my role at this point is to support or not support it. my review of it was to see whether or not it did outline a legal framework for some of the actions requested. and as noted it indicated there was not a legal framework for other actions that were requested. >> let me wrap up by asking this are you -- if -- if a person comes here and is given a lawful right under the president's executive amnesty to have soesh -- social security

and work authorization card what if someone prefers to hire an american citizen first? would you take action against them? do you understand these people are entitled as much as anybody else to compete for a job in america? >> i don't believe it would give anyone any greater access to the work force. and certainly an employer would be -- >> would you take action against an employer who said no i prefer to hire somebody that came do the country lawfully rather than someone given amnesty by the president. >> when you answer that i'll move on. >> thank you, sir. with respect to the provision about temporary deferral i did not read it as providing legal amnesty, but a temporary deferral. with respect to whether or not those individuals would be able

to seek redress for employ discrimination if that is the person of your question again, i haven't studied that issue. you certainly raise an interesting point. and i look forward to working with you to consider that point. >> thank you senator session. now senator schumer. >> thank you. and i think even in the short while here it's clear to my colleagues why you are such a tremendous -- why you have been such a tremendous u.s. attorney in my home state of new york and why you would make such a great attorney general. you are -- you know you are just knocking them out of the park. [ laughter ] >> and speaking of sports analogies, there is another testament to your perseverance to your loyalty in the face of incredible adversity, you are not a tar heel or a blue devil,

you're a knicks fan. [ laughter ] >> anyway i have a couple of -- i would like to go over a couple of points some of my colleagues made. first of prosecutorial discretion, there is a myth out there that they are tantamount to an illegal enforcement of the law. my friends -- some of my friends across the aisle seem to be suggesting that the president's announcement of the enforcement policies for the department of homeland security is tantamount to an announcement that we won't enforce our immigration laws but that's absurd. we have 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the united states. congress only allocates enough money to deport 400,000.

11 million illegal immigrants enough money to deport 400,000. obviously you have to make some choices here and i'm sure when my dear friend jeff sessions and he is a dear friend he used prosecutorial discretion. we want our prosecutors to go after the highest-level crimes if they don't have the resources to do all of them. doesn't it make sense to have a general rule to prosecute -- in a prosecutorial office with limited resources to go after bank robbers before you go after shoplifters? as you mentioned the president's executive order allows for an occasional exception, but having an office go after the higher-level more dangerous

crimes first is part of how law enforcement has gone on for hundreds of years and it should. so i don't even get this idea that this is an illegal act by the president. we arm our law enforcement officials with an array of laws but limited resources. they have to make hard choices, and a straightforward allocation of resources is not political activism. it's what prosecutors are doing in every jurisdiction of this land right now. immigration is like any other issue. we have limited resources. it makes eminent sense to go after the hardened criminals before going after lower-level offenders. don't u.s. attorney's offices all over the country have to make these decisions on a day-to-day basis, and how do you? >> yes, senator. with respect to the exercise of discretion and setting of priorities, one of the

privileges i have had of being the u.s. attorney in eastern district of new york and working with my colleagues across the country has been getting to know them and learning how different every district is. how a crime problem in brooklyn may not even appear on the west coast, and how a crime problem in the midwest, that has seen an increase in crime due toe increased oil reserves may prevent issues that i would never face in an urban environment. we work together and share our thoughts on the best ways to deal with the crime problems in our districts. my colleagues may have different issues, but they just as committed and focused on keeping their citizens safe as well. so we work closely with our law

enforcement partners in looking at how they have determined the nature of the threat be it terrorism, narcotic those that target children. we work closely with our state and local counterparts, and prosecutive counterparts in the district attorney's offices. many times i will have a matter in my office that is subject to both federal and state jurisdiction and it may be more appropriate for the district attorney to prosecute that type of crime because of the nature of the sentence that can be achieved because of the impact on a particular community. or because of a legal issue involving proof and the admissibility thereof. all of these things go into the consideration of how we manage individual cases, but also how we set priorities and then deploy our limited resources to best protect the people of our district. >> exactly. every prosecutor whether it's the justice department the u.s. attorney's office sets priorities and has to and

that's just what the president did in my opinion in the executive order. next one, we're hearing a lot about executive action being unconstitutional, and so i would like to just talk about that. that's another myth that's out there. no federal court has struck down executive action. the most recent federal court to hand down a decision supported it. i have heard it suggested federal courts have declared executive action unconstitutional. dated back to chief justice ren kwis, the supreme court has repeatedly bolstered executive action and refused to review action within the law. there have been two federal cases filed here. one by sheriff arpaio. that's been dismissed. the second suit was filed in texas and is still pending. so no courts have struck down executive action. now we're hearing that speaker

boehner and house republicans will be suing the president on this executive action. i don't think that is a good use of taxpayer dollars, but if the republicans disagree with president obama over the legality of this policy they can sue him and let the courts decide. the confirmation of america's highest law enforcement officer is not the time or place to event frustration. so let me just ask you a couple of questions. you have answered them but i want to underscore them because some people are concerned that the quote rogue obama administration is lawless. will you commit to following court decisions and legal process. >> comblooutly. >> and specifically if a court happens to strike down executive action will you respect that court decision? >> i will respect that court decision. >> and let's imagine congress -- i don't think this will happen -- i would try to prevent it but let's say

congress were to pass a bill explicitly prohibiting president obama's actions, if that such a bill passed will you commit to following the new law? >> i will commit to following all of the laws dually executed by this body. >> thank you. just one other issue since i have a little more time. work permits which my good friend again, senator sessions brought up. some have suggested it's a illegal for the administration guess who did it in 1982? ronald reagan. they published ins regulations authorizing work permits for recipients of deferred action. 1982. the reagan administration. that's not to say that workplace

enforcement isn't necessary. it is. and isn't in true you have a strong record of enforcing workplace immigration rules, sell us about the 7-11 stores case you brought. >> thank you. the case against the 7-11 stores was very important to my office because it was one in which we saw a corporate entities deliberately flouting the labor laws. individuals of a particular ethnic group who owned fran franchises of 7-11 were reaching out to their own community members and hiring them in their stores. this would have been an opportunity for individuals to become part of the american dream. instead, however, the workers were systematically victimized. they were forced to work double and triple shifts yet only paid for working part-time hours. they were given their money in a

7-11 debet card or cash as deemed appropriate by the manager. even worse the stores were aware they were violated the labor laws and simply flouting them. they also required the workers to all live together in company-sanctioned housing. we essentially were creating a modern day plantation system on long island and throughout the virginia area with coconspirators of these franchise owners. we spent a long time working on the investigation. the matter is still being reviewed with respect to other states and wherever we find workers being victim miez miez -- victimized my office has never hesitated to take action. >> thank you. >> i would offer for the record that the consent from an article from the atlantic headline from

reagan and bush offer no precedent for obama's amnesty order, and i think that's crystal clear. senator cornen is next. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> congratulations again to you on your nomination and thank you for coming to my office last -- i guess it was last friday to visit about this hearing and -- and i should say congratulations to you for outstanding career as united states attorney. the challenge i think that people have when they come to washington, d.c. and assume jobs that have political implications is that they sort of forget their basic moreing in the law, and they become politicians masqueradeing as law enforcement officers. and that has been a challenge for democrats and republicans as well.

but i am concerned -- well let me -- senator schumer's benefit, let me just stipulate, you are not eric holder are you? >> no, sir. [ laughter ] >> no one is suggesting that you are, but of course attorney general holder's record is heavy on our minds now, and i -- i agree with the chairman about his concerns when the attorney general refers to himself as the president's wing man, suggesting that he is not -- does not exercise independent legal judgment as the chief law enforcement officer for the country. you wouldn't consider yourself to be a political arm of the white house as attorney general would you? >> no senator, that would be a totally inappropriate view. >> and you would be willing to tell your friends no if in your judgment the law required that? >> sir, i think i have to be willing to tell not just my

friends and acquaintances but colleagues no if the law requires it. >> and that would include the president of the united states. >> i think the obligation of the attorney general is to provide a full thorough independent substantive legal analysis and give the president the best independent judgment that there is, and that may be a judgment that says that there is a legal framework for certain actions, and it may be a judgment that say there is not a legal framework for actions. >> and while we stipulated you are not mr. holder mr. holder's record is certainly on our minds, because i can't think of an attorney general who so misevaluated the independent role of the chief law enforcement officer and taking on that aspect of the president's wing man and operated as a politician using the awesome power conferred by our laws on the attorney

general. the attorney general has been openly contemptuous of the oversight responsibilities of a coequal branch of government. he has stone walled legitimate investigations by the congress including though investigation into the fast and furious episode that senator grassley referred to earlier, making bogus claims of executive privilege in order to keep congress and the american people from finding out the facts. we know the attorney general has repeatedly made legal arguments that have been rejected as unconstitutional by the united states supreme court. and he has harassed states like mine and i suspect you'll hear from another colleague about his state on matters like voter id when the itself supreme court has upheld the validity of voter id as a means to protect the integrity of the ballot for people who are qualified to vote. and at the same time the

president -- the attorney general has failed to implement laws that congress has passed in order to provide -- to protect the voting rights of our military deployed overseas. he has also politicized the war on terror he has declassified top secret legal memos, exposing those in the intelligence community to threats for performing actions that they were told by the highest legal authorities were legal and necessary to save american lives. and indeed he reopened a criminal investigation into those same members of the intelligence community after a previous investigation had not revealed any basis for criminal charges. so how do we know you're not going to perform your duties of

office as attorney general the way eric holder has performed his duties? >> senator if confirmed as attorney general i will be myself. i will be loretta lynch. and i would refer you to my record as united states attorney on two occasions as well as a practicing lawyer to see the independence that i have always brought to every particular matter. i certainly think that going forward, while i'm not familiar with the particulars of the issues that you raise, they clearly are of concern to you and perhaps to this committee, and i do pledge to this committee, that i want to hear your concerns listen to your concerns and i will always be open to discussing those issues with you. senator, i'm sure as we go forward, should i be confirmed, while it will be wonder to think you would agree with everything i do that will not be the case but senator i will always be open to discussing with you why i have done something and the

basis to which i have made an action. i have found that to be the most effective way of -- not just for me in terms of learning from those with whom i disagree but working with people with whom i disagree on various points but with whom i share a common goal. >> i have been married 35 years, and i can guarantee you 100% agreement is an impossible standard for anybody to comply with. [ laughter ] >> so we don't expect that obviously. i want to ask you about your commitment with working with the committee and congress in respecting our congressional oversight authority. a recent letter sent to senator leahy on behalf of attorney general holder was dated december 5th, 2014, and it responds to questions for the record that arose in an appearance before this committee

on march 6th, 2013. so obviously about -- roughly a year -- more than a year and a half later. can we expect a more timely response from you and the department of justice to the legitimate inquiries of this committee in >> certainly, senator. i believe the oversight responsibility of this committee is important not just for the functioning of the committee but also to the american people in helping them understand the way in which the department operates. i commit to you, absolutely that i will work with this committee to ensure that we provide as timely a response as possible. i'm not sure of the particulars of the matter that you raised so i'm not able to comment on that but certainly i would hope to be able to provide you with the information that you need in timely as manner as possible. consistent with the department's litigation enforcement. >> i think it would make it possible for you to be a more effective attorney general and

make it possible for us to exercise our responsibilities as well. i want to ask you a little bit about prosecutorial discretion. my only regret from this hearing is the senior senator who introduced you wasn't available for cross-examination by members of the committee, but he seemed somewhat dismissive of concerns about this massive -- what i would consider in essence refusal to enforce existing law; that is involved in these executive actions. there is a difference to your mind isn't there, between a case by case exercise of prosecutorial discretion and a refusal to enforce the laws on the books? >> senator there is a difference and i do not view the department of justice, certainly in my own practice as refusing to enforce laws but rather attempting to set

priorities and exercising discretion within those priorities. >> isn't it imcoupleant on the defendant of justice to ask congress for the resources to do the job that congress has said the department must perform, before you can come back and say, well we're just not going to pursue those crimes and offenses because we don't have enough money? won't it be your responsibility to come to us and ask us for those resources? i can't imagine if attorney general holder or the president of the united states or secretary johnson or others had come to us and said we don't have the resources to enforce the immigration laws so we're going to have to in essence decline to enforce those? >> certainly, senator, i'm not aware of the department of homeland security's budget

request for this body or congress in general. with respect to the department of justice i have been involved in reviewing the budget as part of my work on the attorney general's advisory committee, and certainly during sequestration spent a great deal of time looking at the budget to ensure that we did maintain the appropriate resources to carry out our core mission of protecting the american people within the constraints that were placed upon us at that time. and it's my understanding that respect to budget requests that the department of justice makes, that those requests do include information about goals and priorities across the board as a way of explaining to congress why specific resources are needed. >> so you do need more money? >> i would probably join all of my agencies in saying that sir, but i can't speak for them. [ laughter ] >> that's what i thought. >> thank you, senator -- >> you are listening to our continuing coverage of the confirmation hearings of loretta lynch. so far she has been pressed on a

number of issues including the nsa, and domestic surveillance she has also been pressed on the issue of immigration, and wlonth she sees herself as in the same prison. and congress sees her predecessor, eric holder. she answers that i am loretta lynch, and i will be myself. we're going to take a brief break, and we will right back. you are watching al jazeera america.

s live. >> welcome back. you are watching our continuing coverage of the confirmation hearings of loretta lynch, to be the nation's next attorney general. so far the questions have been pointed but poll light. lynch indicating that she is the daughter of a preacher, the sister of a preacher and pointing out that she recognizes the law enforcement angle of her job, as her brother is a navy seal.

her older brother. right now, we are listening to questions of her on a number of topics. let's listen in. >> most of our elected officials who deal with these issues every day. the concerns raised, senator are when acts that are taken with a goal towards protecting and preserve be the integrity of the vote act in a different way and act to suppress the vote or in some way prevent people from exercising the franchise. >> 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 everyone's ballot. absent that, i believe that when laws are passed, the department of justice has to look carefully at their impact in making a decision about how to proceed. certainly there have been instances