i want to make a point here, and then move on to a broader one. some years ago i went through an exercise of what is congress obligated to do under article iii? this has to go back to the 18 or do wonder a federal district that were polished by congress and happened to read through all that debate and to begin to ask this question, but we are obligated to do is produce a

supreme court of the united states. we could conceivably abolish all of the federal districts and the only thing left would be the supreme court and the own obligation we have there since it calls for a chief justice is to have a chief justice but we don't have to fund the building or its death. he could be at his own card table with his own candle. that's what congress is obligated to do. so i would suggest that article iii is pretty limited if congress decides to assert its power and authority. if nothing else the workload would stack up on chief robert. that was an exercise in constitutional discussion more or less metaphysics. i just went down through article ii, since the president is usurping article one authority what does the president of the united states have under article ii? i went through a number of these things. he's the commander in chief of the armed forces by congress forms the armed forces.

they may not exist, theoretically. he may require everything of the principal officers of each executive office. he made but there may not be departments of him to require an opinion of. and he shall have power to grant pardons and reprieves. and he has with the advice and consent of the senate treaties and appointments but then he is subject to the authority of the united states congress. so in the end of the question comes down to what the numerator powers does the president have independent of congressional approval? that turns out to be six. he may pardon. he shall deliver the state of the union. it's not address commit my the in a letter. he could send a letter to meet that requirement. he shall recommend legislation to he does that without having to be prompted very much. in making in congress. he may adjourn but summit congress adjourned so that's not really a power. he shall receive ambassadors and

ministers. that means that the president then shall be the head of state and conduct the functions of a head of state at least diplomatically. and the last one is this wonderful one, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. so when you look through that the only two that have any power really at all is the power to pardon, which could be significant under certain circumstances, but the power and the obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. and i don't know that i've heard an argument as to how the president might be doing that under the circumstances we are discussing here today. not only is he violating his own oath of office, it's very, very clear that he is that i'm not going to enforce the laws that i don't want to enforce and by the way, i'm going to recommend legislation to you and if you don't pass that legislation then i'm going to implement it but my executive edict. and i'm going to take care that the laws that it don't want to

be executed are not including a section that requires that those who are interdicted by law enforcement and immigration be placed into removable proceedings and with a president who says they shall not. he has ordered his executive branch to violate laws. and by the way, some of this is not under litigation in the court case would talk about over the november 20 but it is under litigation and the crane versus johnson case filed a couple of years, crane versus napolitano. i will would just ask this question, and that is what if congress decided to usurp presidential authority? what if congress decided the president is not keeping his oath, why don't we form a justice department and fund a justice department and direct and order a justice department? i would ask first, professor foley, we could enforce these laws and what would be the consequences? >> yeah, it's a great question.

i have posted this before the last time i testified before the committee on the president's action with regard to obamacare and delaying the implemented. the hypothetical i post is what is the speaker of house decided he wanted to avoid himself commander-in-chief right? but it's the same idea, right? what if article ii supposedly can usurp article i but article i cannot usurp article ii. it doesn't or give away. neither one is constitutional and the point about this being prosecutorial discretion, just ask yourself everybody i think understanding agrees that the $6 million legal question on prosecutorial discretion is in is what the president doing constant with congressional will? you get to control the statute and is to faithfully execute them. so is what he is doing constant with what you want of which are directed pursuant to the ina? i think the answer is patently that it is not coverage is as a

thought experiment again ask yourself this. why didn't previous presidents think they have the authority to do this if this was so politically palatable for such a long period of time for the last 30 or 40 years, why didn't president clinton do a? why didn't president carter do? the reason is no president thought that the fortitude is because they didn't the congress had authorized it which explains why the president went around 20 plus times to say why didn't have legal authority to the supreme court is as much. there was a case called utility versus epa that was decided last summer. and in that case the supreme court basically said look, one of the reasons why the carbon tailoring robe violate separation of powers, and to did violate separation of powers come is because the epa is promulgated a regulation that flies in the face of years of understand what the clean air act was bought to give the

authority to the epa to do as a regulatory matter. it's the same thing, the same form of construction of congresses will should take place in this case. >> in conclusion it's the people that decide the division between the three branches of government and i think you need to declare war on the enemies of the constitution. >> the gentleman from ohio uzbekistan and the gentleman from florida mr. desantis is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. professor, i want to make sure i have the right. obama's statements and fixed it 20 times he didn't have the authority. you're saying he just that he didn't have the authority to suspend all deportation, is that i could? >> i think he went further than that. he said his authority is limited, he doesn't have the authority to suspend all deportations. >> you deny he has disciplined the authority to do what he did in november, correct? >> right. >> i think that's at variance with the facts. february 14, 2013 president of

the united states quote i'm not the temper of the trendy. my job is actually the loss that does. congress white house not change what i consider to be a broken immigration system. what that means is with certain obligations enforce the laws in place even if we think many cases the results may be tragic. we have stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can end quote. september 17, 2013, he said what we can do is then carveout the dream folks sing young people basically growing appear as americans that we should welcome but if we start broadening that's an essential i would be ignoring the law in a way that i think would be very difficult to get in legally. so that is not an option. what i said is it is a path to get there and that is through congress come into court. those are instances that were using the chances been everything. he is specifically saying he has reached his administrative limit. that is reached the limit of what he can do and neither in response to questions that

specifically wanted to address some of the classes of people that he has now addressed with this latest executive action. so to say as you characterize it, completely at variance with the facts and i think it really undermines your credibility. let me talk about the political statements versus legal statements. professor black month, i think you quick to point out in your testimony that this is not just all about the course. congress has a role. the powers we have our political powers and political check. when the president is saying these things activities making legal statements they don't matter when he vetoed the keystone pipeline he didn't go to court to do the. he took a political action based on a power he had in article ii of the constitution and you cited james madison in federalist 51. madison is just a correct any later papers to the power of versus congresses most powerful check, correct? >> right. >> is an executive branch is acting a certain way congress

could always simply remove the funds so the executive could not continue with the actions, right? of its that perfect legitimate the congress would restrict funding if they believe the powers have been infringed upon. >> yes. >> do you also think the advice and consent, that the senate has is a legitimate check on presidential overage? in other words, if the president is putting some indecision is pledged to continue conduct we think infringes on our authority, senators could use it as a legitimate reason to deny some of the port sequence just six months ago the supreme court rebuked so this is a long trend of when congress is in gridlock the president finds ways to bypass it. >> the courts do have a role but it's a limited role and isn't it the case there will be to space between executive and legislative branches that may not give rise to a case for our diversity of this not be right for adjudication in the court's? >> that's right. >> if you expect the court to do everything am reliving a lot of

authority out there that will essentially be and contested if congress isn't willing to act. professor foley, you mentioned that the key issue is that the executives action consonant with the underlying longer is it the case the underline will operate with people are here illegally from having lawful employment in the country? >> yes. in fact, the only way this group are granted work authorization is because the obama administration has decided to unilaterally grant them defer to action which again that remedy, deferred action is around the congress has not statutorily specified for this population. >> and the statute trumps administrative action or executive memos or anything like that. so you have congress was a very clear prohibition on employment now the president is issuing 5 million work permits it to me that is obsolete in conflict with what congress has said.

let me ask you this. in terms of somebody who could be harmed by this if the president issues the work permits and background is that people here illegally are exempt from obamacare meaning if i'm an american citizen applying for a job, somebody here is one of these work permits we have the same skills, qualified for the same wage, the person who's here illegally it will be cheaper for the business to hire because they would have to provide the obamacare they would have to provide for your citizen. so in that instance would a u.s. citizen potential have an ability to bring lawsuit challenging that? >> i think it's possible although i have to confess in terms of standing with the affected your citizen would have to establish but for, the aca non-grant of -- >> let's assume the employed just said look i would argue but in saving $3000. i have to do the. >> i think you get the right facts and circumstances but for he would've argued citizen i

think you could establish standard. >> my time is up and i yield back. >> thank the gentleman from florida. on behalf of all of us this concludes today's hearing. but we want to thank our four panelists for your collegiality with the members of the committee and your collegiality with one another. it has been very educational. felt like we were back in law school, so most of us will be waiting on our c- grades later on this afternoon. maybe not -- the rest of us will be, so without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written question for the witnesses or addition which was for the record. with that our thanks again to each of you, and we are adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> senate leaders have agreed to vote friday morning on the homeland security spending bill. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has offered a substitute amendment. however, there will be procedural vote on a measure from maine senator susan collins to defund the pressures to ever 2014 executive action. the house will vote on a temporary three-week funding bill tomorrow which is also expected before the senate later in the day. the agency runs out of money at midnight. senator collins spoke about are built on the floor today along with senate with john cornyn of texas a&m dick durbin of the only. this is 40 minutes. >> coming up, the senate

judiciary committee vote on loretta lynch's nomination to be the next attorney general. later life to the floor of the senate. >> the c-span's city tours take

c-span on the road to another history and literary love. next weekend we partnered with comcast fortitude to galveston texas,. >> with the opening of the suez canal in 1869 sailing ships really were almost adult a death blow. with the opening of the canal coal-fired ships have a shorter route to the far east india all of those markets. the sailing ships really needed to find a way to make their own living so instead of high-value target they started tearing lower valued at cargoes coal oil, cotton, et cetera. so she found her niche in tearing any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market at a very fast pace. >> the connection to galveston

is really unique in that she sails and arrived here in galveston probably about 100 yards from where we're standing right now back in 1883 with a cargo full of bananas. enchained again a second time it on in the 1880s, in 1886 and it was real important for galveston historical foundation to find a vessel that had a connection. and the fact that she was a sailing vessel was all the more important speed watch our events in galveston saturday march 7 at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv, and sunday march 8 at 2 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> the senate judiciary committee has voted to confirm loretta lynch's nomination to be the next attorney general. by a vote of 12-8. we will show you her confirmation in our committee members also passed to bipartisan human trafficking bills. this runs two hours 15 minutes.

>> good morning, everybody. i appreciate my colleagues willingness to start a little earlier today than the normal 10:00 start. we have a lot on today's agenda, and i would like to make sure that everyone knows how i want to proceed. i've had this discussion with the minority members senator leahy, and our staffs have discussed it as well as i think we're ready to go according to what i will now say. i'm going to make sure that everyone has every opportunity they want to speak on anything on the agenda. that could be on the bills, could be on the attorney general nominee, he to be anything else that you want to speak about and i hope maybe as people get

their turn, that they will speak up on everything they want to say on all these subjects on the agenda. hopefully you'll do this one time for both the nominee and the legislation. i don't want to cut anyone off and senator leahy didn't do that when he was chairman of the committee, but if you could keep, do your very best to keep your remarks around five minutes each, that will help us make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. in a minute i'm going to turn to the ranking member for his remarks on the bills and the nominees on the agenda. from their we will go back and forth from each side for people to speak. i'm going to defer to my colleagues and withhold my remarks until everyone else has

had their say. when i finish my remarks and we returned to the legislation and intake of any amendments that members want to offer and debate those amendments, act we consider the amendment on the first bill i would set that bill aside and take up amendments on the second bill. then after we dispense with all the amendments on both bills will take up the entire agenda in a series of votes. first we would vote on the bills and then will vote on the lynch nomination and finally on the other nominations on the agenda. so just to make sure that everyone understands in order to make sure that we get through the entire agenda, and that is my desire to get through the entire agenda, when it's your turn to speak, please take that opportunity to address any items on the agenda.

i now call on my friend senator leahy. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. and you have discussed this procedure ahead with me which i appreciate and recall the way we discussed about what i was chairman. that makes one of the things we do this week the judiciary committee held a powerful hearing outlining the importance of passing legislation to help eradicate the scourge of human trafficking in this country. i commend you mr. chairman, and senator feinstein for holding the hearing, senator klobuchar for her aid on and others. both sides of the aisle made clear, the commitment to passing meaningful legislation. battled to help existing victims of human trafficking by to protect those in the future who are all too often fall prey to human trafficking.

the children who have run away from home or are homeless and so often they're forced into trafficking. we heard from a great trafficking survivor about her experience of being walking for after she ran away from home. all four senators have testified, senator collins and my build the runway homeless youth and trafficking prevention act. bipartisan legislation was overwhelmingly supported by members of this committee just six months ago. so there is no good reason why it should no longer see that same support. i understand republicans on the committee now have concerns about the anti-discrimination provision. and senator cornyn who has the right would not agree to include our bill in the manager's package. i hope there's going to be a way to come to agreement on this important anti-discrimination language. because senator collins and i will insist on our bill being

considered as a memo on the floor what is reported is brought up for consideration. i support efforts to combat trafficking and to protect all victims. i will continue to work with the office the other trafficking bills and with senator collins to make sure our trafficking provision receives a vote by the full senate. now imported today we will be voting, finally, finally finally on the nomination of loretta lynch to serve as our next attorney general following an unprecedented delay by my friends in the republican party. i had been here 40 years and no attorney general no attorney general has ever had to wait this long for a vote. her nomination is listed today for the second time to be reported today. loretta lynch is a superb

prosecutor. she is prosecuted terrorist cases. she is prosecuted people in the government and out of the government. she is a prosecutors prosecutor. she's earned the respect and admiration of both republicans and democrats. i think of the people who testified them some of who have complaints that the justice department. i.s. everybody who testified whether called by the republicans or democrats i said, is that anybody here who would oppose her confirmation raise your hand. and those of you who were there remember not a single hand went up. her father, the reverend lorenzo lynch of north carolina who stated both days, is here today. reverend, i know how proud you are of your daughter. i want you to know how proud i am as i also told her what i talked after the hearings one of the thrills i had added and was reading you because of all your

efforts during the era of segregation and i admire you for that period ms. lynch has support of law enforcement, the civil rights community numerous letters of statements from individuals and organizations in support of her nomination to serve as attorney general from both republicans and democrats. not a single witness who testified opposed it. she testified before this committee for nearly eight hours but she responded to nearly 900 written questions. none of the men who pursued her were forced to go through all those questions. none of those men were forced to do that. it's unprecedented, but she and check them. the commission to prove her nomination today so the full senate can confirm her without further delay. i hope senators will face a vote on her long and laudable record of public service and not cynically use this process as an

effort to curry favor for the next campaign. our nation's top law enforcement officer deserves no less. she is superb. the committee -- michelle lee deserve a director of the national trademark in adults. she is strong bipartisan support. i hope for support will be taken up quickly. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and let me repeat, because he reminded me that i do want to get to the entire agenda today. before call on senator hatch and then senator feinstein for members who just came in, i was hoping that maybe we could keep our remarks to five minutes, if you can also address anything that's on the agenda that you want to address. senator hatch. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i might be slightly over. i want to thank you. would offer a few comments on two of the nominees on the agenda. today, one to the judicial

branch onto the executive branch. my decision on both nominees begins with the principle that the competition is to the president the power to appoint and to this in the role of checking that power. i believe that creates the rebuttable presumption in favor of confirmation. i want first expressed enthusiastic support for the nomination of jill parrish to the district court for the district of utah. she has a 30 or legal record and has established a record of excellent both before and behind me the bench in both state and federal court in the private and public sector and the both well and appellate courts. during the last 12 years on the utah supreme court judge parrish has participate in more than 900 cases that resulted in a written opinion. she is one respected throughout the utah legal community. they are -- american bar association applique for its highest well-qualified rating. to get this ready and nominate must be at the top of the legal

profession, have outstanding legal ability and the highest reputation for integrity. i cannot agree more than a hope her nomination is confirmed promptly. next i turned to the nomination of loretta lynch to the attorney general. our record includes a legal career that spans 30 years including more than two decades as a prosecutor and to unanimous confirmations by the senate. i will support advancing her nomination because the record shows that she is well-qualified to be attorney general and does not include, and does not include anything sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of confirmation. the case against her nomination, as far as i can tell essential ignores her professional career and focus sold on about six hours that she's been before this committee january 28. i do not believe that it's about what to evaluate any nominees

fitness for any position. i have been around this block many times having spent 38 years serving on this committee and having shared it for nearly eight years. senators have different views about how to participate in a confirmation hearing, and how to evaluate a nominees answers. there have been centered on both sides of the up to ask questions designed to elicit don answers from the nominee so they can oppose the nominee for providing non-interest. i reject three insinuations about this nomination. first, some democrats in sync with the voting against the lynch damage would be applying a quote double standard unquote suggesting that her research and would be the real reasons for opposition. i hope my friends on that side can do better supporting this nomination in such an offensive and patently false innuendo. secondly, it has been suggested by some on the republican side that voting for the lynch nomination shows that a sender does not take his oath of office

seriously. it could just as readily be ignoring a nominees entire professional career gives short shrift to the s.e.m.s. rule to advice and consent and therefore, does not take the oath series of the need of those suggestions would be legitimate. third, letter from some house members claim that a vote for the lynch nomination quote should fairly be considered a vote in favor of the present lawlessness and against the will of the american people unquote. that is ridiculous on its face. no senator has opposed the president's series of laws and overreaching actions that i have on this committee in the finance committee, on the senate floor, in the courts, indie media and in any other venue i could find. mr. chairman, i have concluded that ms. lynch full record including but hard limited to her hearing testimony, shows that she is qualified to serve as attorney general and does

not, and does not include anything sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of confirmation. if confirmed ms. lynch faces a daunting task. i join my senate colleagues who decry what is happened to the justice department. it has been politicized and compromised. it has been weakened and even corrupted. she will have a significant job ahead to restore the integrity and independence of both the attorney general's office and the entire department of justice. and i expect her to do that. there's good reason to believe that ms. lynch will be more independent than the current attorney general and make strides towards recommitting the department to the rule of law. for example, she has committed to me that as attorney general she will abide by the injunction issued by a federal district court to halt the presence recent executive actions on immigration. i will do everything i can to help her restore both the rule of law in our nation and the integrity of the justice department. >> thank you, senator hatch.

now senator feinstein. >> thank you very much. thank you, you want us to speak also on the cornyn bill at the same time? >> would you please? i can't make you but i would appreciate it. [laughter] >> do whatever you want. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i hope you'll give senator feinstein all the time she wants to say nice things. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me begin by saying that i really regret that the vote on loretta lynch is nomination will likely not be unanimous by this committee. because if anyone deserves a unanimous vote i believe she does. she has a character, experience and the determination to be a strong and independent attorney general. which is what i think most of us believe is required for this position. as a matter of fact, not a single negative thing has emerged throughout the course of

this hearing. and as i've pointed out before the civilian panel before us was asked a question by senator leahy, with any of you not vote for her? and no one raised a hand. i thought that was very significant. she was a career prosecutor for nearly a decade. in private practice at the firm which the chief justice practiced at, and she has run one of the largest well, the largest u.s. attorney's office in the country. i guess next you, well, close to los angeles, covering brooklyn queens and long island. our record is her strength. the eastern district of new york has led the nation in terrorism convictions since 2001. and she continued that strong tradition in the office. she oversaw prosecutions and important cases. the six individuals conspiring

as part of an al-qaeda plot planned to bomb the new york subway system. for individuals, including russell the fracas, plotted to attack jfk airport and just yesterday her office announced that three individuals have been charged with attempting and conspiring to provide me to support to isil. and the two that were planning to fly to syria to join isil, as everyone knows, were arrested the day before yesterday. for answers to problems of national security i believe demonstrated that she really has the ability to be a first rate united states attorney, excuse me, attorney general. and i want to compliment senator hatch for his comments. he said at the hearing every lawyer has to be independent to the attorney general even more so. welcome action she said this to him, and i pledge to you that it

takes the independence very seriously. and so i want to just particularly thank him for his comments. let me know move to the legislation on the agenda. this week's hearing on human trafficking was very powerful as the ranking never said. i want to thank chairman grassley for it and chairman or ranking member leahy for allowing me to be ranking at that time. and i particularly want to congratulate senator cornyn, senator klobuchar for really good bills that i am proud to cosponsor. and i want to thank you senator cornyn, for including certain provisions of a bill i introduced called the combat trafficking act. one provision of senator cornyn's bill clarifies that the federal law allows the prosecution of a buyer of sex from a minor. and this is very important because it's going to enable the

justice department to really go after the demand for this horrible crime. the provisions of the bill introduced, and that senator cornyn included of my bill will support that effort. so i think you should talk about his own bill before i say good things about it, but i just want to say thank you. it's an excellent bill, and thank you, senator klobuchar. i hope we will take prompt action on it today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> did i do it within five? thank you. >> senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the wisdom of our founders gave congress certain powers as a coequal branch of government and one of those powers was to confirm or not to confirm a nominee. i have tried to give deference to the president. i supported attorney general holder when he came up for confirmation. at the outset of this process i

expressed my concerns that we should not confirm a nominee to the office of attorney general who supports the legality of the president's executive amnesty. because i think that is an unjustified position. this is the top law enforcement job in america, not a political position, and anyone who holds this position must have total fidelity to the laws and constitution of the united states. they must be willing and able to tell the president know if he overreaches. that is historically been one of the tough response to those of the attorney general of the united states. they cannot be a mere rubberstamp to any idea the president has. the senate cannot confirm someone to this post is going to support and advance a scheme that violates our constitution and this erase congressional authority. congress makes the law not the president as every school child

knows. congress has repeatedly rejected legislation to provide this kind of amnesty, work permit, financial benefit to people who are in our country illegally. we rejected it in 2006 2007 2010 2013 and 2014. president obama's executive order nullifies the immigration laws that we have the immigration and nationality act, and replaces them with the very measures congress refused to enact. but congress in fact rejected. even king george iii lacked the power to legislate without parliament. president obama's executive orders goes far beyond any concept of prosecutorial discretion and provides persons unlawfully in the country who have entered your wrongly with work authorization trillions in those is good and medicare benefits in the years to come

tax credits of up to $10000 a year, and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship. again, all of these measures were rejected by congress. so i discussed these issues with ms. lynch, and she's a very fine person, i'm sure. i asked her plainly whether she supported a legality of the the president unilateral decision to make his own immigration rule. here's a relevant transcript. session, i have to have a clear answer to this question. ms. lynch. deeply the executive action announced by president obama on november 20 is legal and constitutional, yes or no? lynch, i read the opinion. i believe it is senator. she was referring to the office of legal counsel opinion that is a part of the department of justice that reports to the attorney general.

one of the most stunning features of the president's action is a mass grant of work permits, social security numbers, photo ids, up to 5 million illegal immigrants. all of which will be able to take jobs to record from struggling americans and lawful immigrants who are here today. civil rights commission, u.s. commission on civil rights member peter kirsanow has discussed this at length and repeatedly written about how allowing unlawful immigrants to take jobs in america undermines the lawful rights of u.s. workers including african-american workers and hispanics who are suffering from high unemployment. so i asked ms. lynch about what she might do to protect lawful rights of u.s. workers. they are entitled not to have jobs taken from them by some who entered the country unlawfully and here's the exchange. sessions who has more right to

a job in this country and lawful immigrant who is here, somebody with a green card or a citizen or a person who entered the country unlawfully? lynch, i believe that the right and the obligation to work as one shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. and certainly if someone is a regardless of status, regardless of status, i would prefer it be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace. well, i know senator schumer asked her about that and she corrected that and backed off that statement, but i would say to you that this is the president of policy. the president's poll is to allow people unlawfully or to take jobs in america. a policy she has explicitly stated she intends to defend, and we can expect will defend in

every court action that challenges it anywhere in america. that she will intellectually and use the power of the department of justice to defend this action, which is a direct affront to the congress of the united states. so it was not a casual statement when asked her that. this is the policy that the president is planning come is executing right now except courts have stopped him to some degree. so this is i believe colleagues, i wish it weren't so, but i believe it is fair to say, this is a historic moment with regard to the power of congress and the executive branch. professor jonathan turley called many times as a democratic witness testified before this committee, has described the situation we're in today as a constitutional turning point. and i would like to read from his testimony. it was delivered before the

house in february of 2014 nine months before the president issued his order but after some of his other orders. he said this the current passivity of congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president masum legislative power in exchange for insular policy games. the short term, insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. constitutional authority is easy to lose any chance in shift of politics. it is far more difficult to regain. if a passion for the constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. president obama will not be our last president -- however these

acquired powers will be passed on to his successors. when that occurs, members may loath the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. that powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. we are now at the constitutional tipping point of our system. if balance is to be reestablished it must begin before this president leaves office, and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. now, that's what professor turley said to the house committee in his testimony. with that warning in mind, i would vote no on this nomination. and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so everyday we allow this president to erode and destroy the powers of congress we are allowing the president to erode and destroy the voice and the voice of the

rights of people. a votea boat for this nominee, in my opinion, who favors will defend this unconstitutional action does provide support to the president's agenda. and i don't think we should provide that support. and so this is a mad all of us will have to wrestle with. it's not an easy question but i think it's clear it's time for congress to say no and we will not confirm a person as the chief law enforcement officer in the united states. that's the department that provided the legal opinion that allow the president to carry out his agenda, wrongfully, in my opinion. we should not confirm someone to that position who intends to continue to unlawful policy. thank you, mr. chairman for -- >> thank you, senator sessions. now senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm so glad this committee

is finally, finally moving to a vote on loretta lynch's nomination. she's already been pending on the calendar longer than any other attorney general nomination in recent history. and i want to take a moment to commend her on her performance. i thought she was levelheaded courteous and incredibly thoughtful and her responses, from constitutional questions to personal questions, and everything in between. she knocked it out of the park to i am discouraged and disappointed however from what i'm hearing from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about ms. lynch and why they're voting against her. i know some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been waging all-out war against the president's immigration policies. first, they wanted to hold up funding for the department of homeland security and as the president's policies were overturned. fortunately, my colleagues in

the senate are helping us move past that investment help the house will do the same in short order. but now some of my friends on the other side are saying we should hold up loretta lynch to get the president to overturn his immigration executive orders. well, let me be crystal clear. the place for this battle is in the courts. political fights over immigration should not hold up loretta lynch dhs funding, or anything else especially at this crucial and delicate time in our nation's security. but the hard right upset over the president's immigration policies, is grasping at straws to have a fight on any fight over immigration. loretta lynch a supremely qualified nominee, for a vital national security and law enforcement post should never, never have been pulled into the fray. we are happy to debate

immigration on the merits but we refuse to allow a monkey wrench to be thrown into the process of governing and protecting this nation over political disagreements. i have to tell you, i feel a little like i'm in the twilight zone this week. it's like an alternative reality when my colleagues across the aisle who have strong records in history of supporting our national security our first blocking the funding for dhs and second blocking the chief law-enforcement officer. regardless of your views on the president's executive order to loretta lynch has proven jan is reasonable doubt that she'll be an outstanding attorney general. now, the other objection i hear is that ms. lynch has not answered questions. let me be clear. that is a canard. ms. lynch has answered more qfrs over 800 and any other nominee in history.

and her responses have not been substantively different from their predecessors. for example when michael mukasey was nominated for attorney general by president bush, i asked him whether he would investigate the immigration backload and tell us what further authority and resources were needed to solve the problem. in response he said quote, and i'm not familiar with the specifics of the current backlog i cannot give a responsible board informed estimate. i agree that it is critical for the department to have sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities unquote. i also asked not many bouquets ub.net dj needed stronger tools to combat voter intimidation in federal elections and he answered, i have not studied the issue insufficient details to offer comments. these answers are the same as what my colleagues are complaining about ms. lynch is saying. and guess what? i voted for judge mukasey and

did so and so did all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are in the senate at the time. so i don't really think this objection has a lot of credibility. i won't take up any more time trying to but in conclusion i would urge my colleagues not to be fooled by some of the overhyped rhetoric and not to let this nomination get mired in a political fight that is totally, totally unrelated. i want to remind my colleagues that you are not voting today for our against the president's policy. you are voting on this eminently qualified law enforcement professional, a first rate legal blind and someone who is committed in her bones to the equal application of justice for all people. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator schumer. now senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for taking up the justice for victims of trafficking act today, and i

couldn't want to express my gratitude to senator klobuchar widen and kurt for serving as michael authors and sponsors of this important legislation. legislation. senator portman, senator feinstein, senator schumer deserve credit for their great contributions but the truth is this has been a collective effort of a lot of the numbers of the committee. indeed, i would daresay the whole committee. and i hope that we were successful us as we can get the bill to the floor passing this important legislation. the fight against human trafficking is one of the most important human rights issues of our time. in 1865, the 13th amendment was ratified out long slavery in the united states forever. yet nearly 150 years later thousands of american children will wake up every morning to a life of forced prostitution. today, we are here to help them put an end to that nightmare. at its core the justice for

victims of trafficking act is about breaking down the barriers between victims, law enforcement and society by adopting a holistic approach to fighting domestic human trafficking. if we are going to end slavery in the united states we need to think big, and always keep the victims in mind. to this end this legislation will tackle the scourge of human trafficking had on by and acting tough financial penalties for sexual predators and sending these funds directly to services for victims of these crimes. a victim of human trafficking in the united states should never be turned away for the healing services that he or she needs. this bill will put an important down payment down on our commitment to the brave children, and and mentor survivors of some of the most unspeakable acts. a holistic approach to ending modern-day human slavery require us to forcefully break the cycle of violence and exploitation associate with the crime the justice for victims of trafficking act will help us

achieve that by giving law enforcement the additional tools and resources they need. finally this legislation will help to end the culture of impunity responsible for human trafficking by making clear that every individual involved in the for-profit sexual exploitation of human beings should be brought to swift and certain justice. to eliminate human trafficking in the united states, we need this type of comprehensive approach, focusing as senator feinstein said not just on supply but on demand. the days of hollywood commercialized sexual violence must come to an end, and this legislation will take important steps towards that goal. i'm proud that the justice for victims of trafficking act has been endorsed by more than 200 victims rights and law enforcement associations across the country clean the human rights4girls fraternal order of police to the national center for missing and exploited show shared hope international the national children's alliance the national district attorneys

association, the national conference of state legislatures. it's time for this legislation to become law and to urge my colleagues to join in making this a reality. now briefly if i can just turn as the chairman instructed us to the nomination the nominations before us, and particularly the nomination of loretta lynch for attorney general. there is no doubt in my mind that loretta lynch is an accomplished attorney with an impressive record. but our unwillingness to answer directly and completely my question and those of some of my colleagues prevents me from supporting her nomination. i know almost know more about her understand of the law after a daylong hearing and a number of follow-up questions that i did before she appeared before the committee. six years ago i was one of the few to oppose the nomination of eric holder as attorney general, because i was concerned, as it proved to be true, that he would politicize the department of justice in ways that have never been done before. i was concerned at the time that his record betrayed of fealty to

politics above the law and he would be unwilling to serve as a check on the president is the president overstepped his legal boundaries. in my view of attorney general holder 10 has been a disaster just the first attorney general to my knowledge who has been held in contempt of congress for failing to cooperate with the legitimate oversight responsibility of the congress. and he has enabled the president to commit violations after violations of the constitution and our laws. i invited ms. lynch to distance herself from the sad legacy, but regrettably she took a pass on that opportunity. among other things her conclusion that the legal foundation of the president's recent executive action is reasonable demonstrates either an unwillingness to oppose illegal actions by this president or a flawed understanding of the constitution. neither is acceptable. she has failed to acknowledge what the they present themselves at 22 different times publicly

before he issued his executive action last november, and a judgment of united states federal district judge ruling on a case brought by 26 states in brownsville, texas, recently. so i cannot support her nomination. i do wish her well and hope her record will be better than that of mr. holders, but after six years of the obama imagination we've all learned that hope is not enough. finally, i want to acknowledge rolando vera george hanks to serve as judges in the southern district executed and bring the qualifications expensive commitment to public service we need in the federal judiciary. i want to thank the good work of the members of the texas federal judicial evaluation committee appointment senator cruz and myself as well as the white house counsel's office who's worked with us on these nominees. these three fine nominees instead how we can work together to get qualified nominees on the bench regardless of party

efficient so i'm pleased to support these nominees and appreciate your putting them on today's agenda. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cornyn. now senator durbin. >> and give a much better job. before any of us can serve in the united states senate we stand in the well of the senate chamber and publicly take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. i know we all take that seriously as we should. this is not just another government document. it is really the inspiration of this government and its still governs our actions to this day. yet if we do this document with honesty, we know that it was fatally flawed from the start. it got the issue of slavery wrong in addition to some other issues. it got the issue of race wrong. and since the days when a document was drafted and signed, we have struggled as a nation to

right that wrong. it has taken a long long time. we properly celebrate those moments of history where we finally moved beyond the error of the constitution on race and really move on a new path. we celebrate that day 152 years ago when a republican president of the united states abraham lincoln, issued an executive order, an executive order, the emancipation proclamation which freed 3 million slaves in america. it is proper that we celebrate that moment because america stepped forward because of that presidents courage and the use of his executive power. we also are celebrating now on march 7 the 50th anniversary of the march across the edmund pettis bridge in selma alabama. it is fitting and proper that members of president lincoln's party, the republican party, and democratic party members are cosponsoring legislation to give

a congressional gold medal to those marched across the bridge and missed their lives to further the cause of civil rights. it's not only fitting and proper, it is necessary. but it's not sufficient. what we are required to do in our generation is to stand behind those elements and moments of history where we can further cause of civil rights. i'm saddened that what was once a strong bipartisan issue the voting rights act has become a partisan issue but for one brave republican house member. and has become a partisan issue and we have forgotten why they were marching across that bridge in selma but it was about the same voting rights act which is now sadly and politicized. and let's reflect on the moment we have before us today. this is the first african-american woman in the history of the united states it

would serve as our attorney general. this is a solemn, important and historic moment for america. to say that she is unqualified or doesn't deserve a vote for this because she agrees with the president on the issue of executive orders i believe is fundamentally unfair. what else would you expect of her? she is serving at the invitation of this president. the issue of whether one site is right and the other side is wrong on the constitutionality of this executive order will alternately be decided in the courts. it's already started a long that process. and to hold her responsible because she stands by the president? i came away from the hearing with one very clear message. there was just no way to any republican senator on this committee was ever, ever going to vote for the renomination of eric holder for attorney general of the united states. that that wasn't the issue before us. the issue is whether loretta lynch can serve as attorney

general. and i will tell you having watched a lot of witnesses including some extraordinary witnesses like john roberts, i cannot remember a better more professional and complete presentation by any witness before the senate judiciary committee. my friends no one laid a glove on this lady because she is so good. .. i am not going to be labor all of those now but many are similar to those that have been described by colleagues