[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

all officers would then remove those individuals. this isn't the time or place to it. before i turn to our statements i wanted to go over a couple of housekeeping items. centered leahy and i will deliver statements. they will introduce the nominee and following ms. lynches opening remarks we will go to questions. after the first ground were going to do eight rounds of questions. i want everyone to know that i'm prepared to stay here as long as

members have questions they want to ask. i think this is the most fair way to proceed and most importantly to the nominee who has to go through all of this and answer our questions. this is a very important position in the cabinet. we will do what we can to move it along. there is a lot of ground we want to cover and one final note on scheduling i would like it to be about 45 minutes. i know we have a series this afternoon and 15 amendments we have to vote on. the plan is to keep this hearing going even though it may not be

as respectful to the position of the attorney, but i don't know how else to get through the process and address the questions that need to be asked. i asked my colleagues to remain flexible. that may mean some accommodation by members on my side of the air i'll to chair. i'm going to turn to my open statements and immediately go to senator leahy. ms. lynch, i had a chance to talk to privately and i welcome you to the senate judicial committee. it's very good for you and for family and friends who are proud of you. i congratulate you on your nomination.

u.s. attorneys don't even have hearings, let alone one like this. my hope is that we discuss some of the most important matters facing our nation and in the process of doing that will get to know you a bit better. the fact of the matter is, this nomination comes at a pivotal time. that is for the department of justice and for our country. as i discuss some of those things those are things you have probably had nothing to do with, but you've had an opportunity to make some changes. the next attorney general will face some difficult challenges from combating cyber crime and

protecting our children from exploitation, to fighting the war on terror. i'm not just concerned about the tough decisions that come with the office, there are challenges facing the department of justice that go to the heart of our system of government. how about restoring faith in the bedrock principles like respect for the rule of law. how about restoring respect for the political branches of government and taking care of the law that it is executed and not rewritten. how about the department of justice honoring his long-standing duty. we must just defend our nation's law. then there's the office of legal counsel, i'm interested in returning that office to its rightful place as the impartial crown jewel of the justice department. it's opinion should be firmly rooted in the constitution. neutral and her predation of

statutes and sound judicial precedent. it shouldn't be transparently self-serving attempts to justify whatever the president or attorney general wants to do for political reason. let me say right here the office of legal counsel should be sharing with the american public, public, the opinions it's provided to the president especially when they supposedly sanction the unprecedented authority that the president claims to possess. i'm going to work to see that it does. the does. the public's business ought to be public, transparency, i believe does bring accountability. these ideals and principles are foundational to the republic. but ideals and principles aren't simply academic and they don't exist in a a vacuum. over the past few years public confidence in the department's ability to do the job without

regard to politics has been shaken for good reason. it's not just republicans who see or recognize the problem and the effects it has on it our own fellow americans. the inspectors general listed as one of its top management problems, quote reese doering confidence fairness. they cited several examples including falsely denying facts in the fast and furious controversy. the inspector general said there's benny roche and of trust in the department. in that fiasco our government knowingly allowed firearms to land in the hands of international gun traffickers. after congress called on the leadership of the department to account for this foolish operation, what did they do?

did they apologize to family? quite the quite the opposite. they denied it and hid the facts from the congress and american people. they bullied and intimidated members of congress and anyone who had the audacity to investigate or uncover the truth. the department has also failed to hold another government agency accountable. the internal revenue service. we watched what happened is this powerful agency. what did these agencies do to make the government target them? they have the courage to speak out about our constitution, and for what? they were targeted by the irs. what was the justice department's reaction? why did they target citizens on the basis of political beliefs? they appointed a campaign donor to lead an investigation that hasn't gone anywhere and make

simply isn't good enough. they are arguing in case after case about the breathtaking expansion of power. power. i'd like you to consider this, have the department prevail in just some of the arguments that have come before the supreme court in the last few years. there would be essentially no limit on what the government could order states to do in terms of regarding receiving state money. the environmental protection agency could be fined for not the homeowner and then deny the homeowner those orders and court. they could deny things about religious organizations. they banned books that expressly advocate for the election and the fourth amendment wouldn't have anything to say about a

police attaching a a gps device to a citizens car without a warrant and tracking their every movement for years. these positions aren't mainstream in my judgment. at the end of the day, the common thread that binds these together and my judgment as the department of justice that is very deeply politicized. that's what politicized. that's what happens when an attorney general of the united states views himself and these are his own words, as the presidents wing man. i don't expect miss lynch and i to agree on every issue but i i must be persuaded that she will be an independent attorney general and i have no reason to believe she won't be. the attorney general's job is to represent the american people. not just the president or the executive branch. today we will hear from her.

as far as i know, miss lynch i know, miss lynch has nothing to do with the department of justice problems that i just outlined, but as a new attorney general, she can fix them. tomorrow we will hear from a second panel of witnesses, many of whom will speak directly to the many challenges facing the justice department as i as i listened to both panels i'll be considering whether she has what it takes to fix the obama justice department. we need to get back to the first principles and that starts with d politicizing the department of justice because the american people deserve it. i hope she can fix these flaws. senator leahy. >> thank you, i won't speak as long because i want to focus on

loretta lynch and not on the problems of the country. it is a pleasure to welcome her to this committee area she is smart, tough, hard-working and independent. she's a prosecutor's prosecutor. her qualifications are beyond reproach. she has unanimously confirmed the senate as a top prosecutor in new york. i hope we have another swift confirmation for miss lynch. she's brought terrace and cyber criminals to justice. she's obtained convictions against corrupt officials, she has fought tirelessly against crime and fraud she's remained determined to protect the rights of victims. she has worked hard to improve the relationships between lawn enforcement and the communities they serve.

that is one of the reasons why her nomination has strong support from both. she has prosecuted those who have committed crimes against police officers as well as police officers who have committed crimes. her record show that as attorney general she will effectively, fairly and independently enforce the law. i hope we all remember that she is the nomination for attorney general and that's why i'm focusing on her. she was born in north carolina. she's the daughter of a baptist teacher and a school librarian and we are honored to have members of her family here with us today and i know you'll be introducing them later. she grew up hearing her family speak about living in the south but she never lost faith that the way to obtain justice is through the legal system. her nomination is historic.

when she is confirmed she will be the first african-american woman to lead the department leave the department of justice. i can't think of anyone more deserving of that honor. she's going to lead our justice department to face these complex challenges. nearly one third of the budget goes to prisons. that drains resources from all other public safety budgets. a significant factor leading to this budget and balance is due to the more and more maximum mandatory sentences. if became a way for lawmakers to claim they are tough on crime. this this is one of the reasons we have one of the largest prison populations in the world. this is why i oppose mandatory minimums. i hope we can find a way to face

this mass incarceration problem. she has strong leadership to keep up with the development of technology. we must have the ability to fight cyber terrorism and cyber privacy. if the cyber terrorists could have closed down all our electrical grid. the growing threat is very real. there is also government intrusion into our private lives directed at american citizens. they face a critical deadline this year in foreign committee surveillance act and they are set to expire. we have to protect our national security but we also have to protect our civil liberties that make us

unique as a country. we must realize both goals. the next attorney general will play a significant role in protecting all americans. the presidents selection for attorney general, no matter who the president is deserves to be swift, fair and on the nominees record. i believe americans recognize that a role this important cannot be used just as a soundbite to wash in political football. i'm confident that if we stay focused on her impeccable qualifications and fierce independence she will be confirmed quickly by the senate. she deserves a fair, thoughtful, and respectful confirmation process. the american people deserve an attorney general -like miss lynch. thank you for your years of service. i look forward to your testimony.

>> senators from home state introduces candidates from their state. were going to call on the senators from new york to do that. since were under such a tight schedule, if i could ask you to keep it to five minutes it would be very nice. >> nice. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank the members of the committee. it's my great privilege to introduce loretta lynch, a prior new yorker and the nominee to be the next attorney general of the united states. born in north carolina, her father was a fourth generation baptist. her mother picked cotton when she was a girl so her daughter would never have to. well, your daughter grew up to be one of the keenest legal minds that our country has to offer. someone who has excelled at

every stage of her education and her career while cultivating a reputation of someone who is levelheaded, fair and likable. levelheaded, fair, and likable. if there is an american dream story, miss lynch is it. adding to the american dream story, her late brother lorenzo was a navy c seal. despite her career achievements she has always been a nose to the ground type. she has earned a reputation for keeping her head down and avoiding the spotlight, just like me. [laughter] at just over 5-foot and with a consistent understated approach to the public spotlight, some might underestimate her. but as hundred as of criminals have learned the hard way, looks can be deceiving and she packs a powerful punch.

when you look at the breath and depth of the cases she has handled she is a renaissance woman. one i would mention is where she convicted police officers who horribly abused and immigrant. as we have seen, these types of cases can create great tension between the police and the community. despite the high running emotions that accompanied this case, case, miss lynch was praised by lawyers on both sides as well as community leaders and police officials for her judicious balanced approach. members of this committee in the age of global terrorism and national security has never been more important. it makes a parent that the confirmation of the new attorney general attorney general cannot and should not be delayed any

longer. today we have already heard, and will hear a lot more about issues completely unrelated about her experience and qualifications. if anything that just goes to show how qualified she is. no one can assail loretta lynch and no one has. who she is and what she can do. some are trying to drag issues about executive orders on immigration, irs into the fray because they want to challenge because they can't find anything in her record to point to. let me be clear, attempts to politicize this nomination would turn this exceptional nominee into a point scoring exercise is a dis- service to the qualified candidate we have before us today. i originally recommended her for this position in 1999 because i thought she was excellent. sure enough she was.

when president bush took office she went to the private sector to earn some money. when i had the opportunity to recommend the candidate to president obama, i was confident i wanted her to serve again. i called her on a friday afternoon. she was happy with her life in the law firm but i was confident with the weekend to think it over, she would be drawn to answer the call to public service. sure enough her commitment to public services so strong that she called me back on monday to say yes. she passed unanimously out of the senate twice already. wouldn't it be nice if we could pass or her unanimously out of the senate a third time? based on her record, we should. esther president if we can't confirm loretta lynch then i don't believe we can confirm anyone. i would like to remind my colleagues that the president's

policy are not seeking confirmation today, loretta lynch is. when we moved to vote, sooner than later, you won't be voting for or against the president's policy, you'll be voting on this qualified law enforcement professional, first rate legal mind, and someone who is committed in her bones and someone who is committed in her bones to the equal application of justice for all people. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member leahy. i am honored to be here today to introduce the candidate loretto lentz. she is the nominee to serve as the next atty. general of the attorney general of the united states. to serve she must have experience in the field of law a brilliant intellect and a steady moral compass. i have met with her two months ago and i can tell you she needs all of those criteria. she is strong, tough, independent and fearless. as one of our most accomplished

women serving in law enforcement i urge my colleagues to support her nomination. she is an outstanding cut candidate for this job. she began her service for the eastern district of new york in 1990 where she rose quickly to serve as chief as the long island office. for 15 years she has been a prosecutor in the u.s. at atty.'s attorney's office in the eastern district of new york. since 2010 she has served as the attorney for the eastern district of new york. in that position she has demonstrated a superior sense of judgment and remarkable expertise. she has an impressive array of cases on subjects dealing with silver rights, organized hot crime and terrorism. these are issues that the new intern he attorney general will

have to engage with constantly from day one of her tenure. her experience as a prosecutor in new york will serve her exceptionally well in washington. she is extraordinarily well qualified and i believe she deserves a quick confirmation process. >> as soon as the table is cleared it's going to give miss lynch an opportunity to come.

would you take in oath please? would you raise your hand and i'll give the oath. do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. the committee welcomes you and i know it's an honor for all of us to have you before us but it's also an honor for you to be selected by the president and it's quite an honor for your family. i would asked that before you make your statement, if you would like to introduce anybody to the committee and speak about them anyway you want to and if there's people that aren't introduced by you that you would like to have their name in the

record, if you submit those i'd be glad to have those in the record. would you put proceed as you choose? >> thank you senator. let me introduce for the record, i'm delighted to welcome many family and friends here today. i'd today. i'd like to introduce my father, the source of my and inspiration in many ways. immediately to his left is my husband stephen hargrove who has supported me and all of my endeavors. immediately to his left is my younger brother who is a sixth generation in my family.

and my sister-in-law nicole and. i'm also here with other family and friends who i would love to introduce but i was informed you have a schedule for the afternoon so i will keep to that. let me say to all of them how tremendously gratified i am for their support not just today, but over the years. chairman grassley senator leahy, distinguished members of this committee, i'm honored to be here among you. i want to thank you for your time this morning and i also want to thank president obama for the trustee has placed in me by nominating me to serve as attorney general of the united states. it's a particular privilege to be joined here by the members of my family that i've introduced as well as the numerous family and friends that have come to support me and whose travel and service i am so appreciative. mr. chairman, one of the privileges, and in fact my favorite thing in my position as the attorney for the eastern

district of new york, is welcoming new attorneys to my office and administering the oath of the office. it is a transformative moment in the life of a prosecutor and one that i remember well. as i stand before me prepared to pledge their honor and integrity, i remind them they are making their old not to me not to the office and not to the atty. general but to our constitution. constitution. the fundamental foundation for all that we do. it is through that document and the ideals that i have developed my professional life. as confirmed atty. gen. i pledge to you today in the american people that the constitution, the bedrock of our system of justin will be my founding as i execute my job. i make the promise of that document real for all americans

beginning with my own family. all of them have supported me on the path that has brought me to this moment. not only through their unwavering love and support which is so beautifully on display today, but through their examples and values that have shaped my upbringing. my mother lorraine who is unable to travel here today is a retired english teacher and librarian. education was the key to a better life. she still recalls people in her rule north carolina community tossing a dime or a corridor into her hand to help support her college education. as a young woman she refused to use segregated restrooms because they did not represent the america in which she believed. she instilled in me and abiding love of literature and learning and taught me the value of hard work and sacrifice. my father lorenzo who is here today is a fourth generation

baptist preacher who in the early 1960 open his greensboro church to those planning citizens and marches. he has always matched his principles with his actions. he encouraged me actions. he encouraged me to think for myself but reminded me that we all gain the most when we act in service to others. it was the values my parents and instilled in me that led me to the eastern district of new york. from my parents i gained the tenacity and resolve to take on violent criminals, to take on criminals. they gave me the passion to sit with the victims of crime and share their loss. their values have sustained me as i have twice had the privilege as serving as united states attorney. leading an exceptional office staffed by outstanding people their values motivate me even

today. senators should i be confirmed my highest priority will be to ensure that the security of our the american people. and to continue to build relationships between law enforcement officers in the community they in surf. terrorism and security must remain the strongest issue of our focus. i will focus. i will work with all the branches to use all the tools to continue disrupting the catastrophic plans against our homeland and bring terrorism to justice. i will drawn my experience which has tried more terrorism cases since 9/11 than any other 911 than any other office. we have investigated and prosecuted terrorist individuals

and groups that threaten our nation and people including those who plotted to attack the new york subway system, the jfk airport, the federal banks and federal troops stationed abroad. as well as those providing support to foreign terrorists. i am always mindful of the knee not need not just to protect american citizens but also american values. if confirmed i will expand capabilities to prevent heavily evolving attacks in cyberspace to expose the wrongdoers and bring them to justice as well. in my well. in my current position i am proud to lead an office that has significant experience prosecuting complex international cyber crimes. including cyber breaches in large institutions. i will continue to use the skills and experience of our law enforcement partners.

the national security divisions and other offices to defeat and hold accountable those who have attacked our people through cybercrime. i will also make sure we are safeguarding the most vulnerable among us. during my ten years as u.s. attorney, they have led the way against those who have targeted hard-working americans including the death, the elderly. we have taken action against abusers and child x but exploiters. we have exploited trafficking rings that have sold victims as young as 14 and 15 into sexual slavery. i will continue to build on the department's record of prosecuting those who prey on

those most in need of our protection and i will continue to provide strong assistance to survivors who we must support and empower. senators throughout my career as a prosecutor, it has been my honor to work hand-in-hand with dedicated law-enforcement officers and agents who risk their life every day and protection of the communities we all serve. i have served with them. i have learned from them. i am a better prosecutor because of them. a few things have pained me more than the recent reports of tension between law enforcement and the communities we serve. serve. if confirmed as attorney general, one of my key priorities would be to work to strengthen the vital relationships between our courageous law enforcement personnel and all of the communities we serve. in my career i had seen this relationship flourish.

i have seen law-enforcement forge unbreakable bonds with residents and i have seen violent communities come together to honor officers who have wrist all to protect them. as atty. general i will draw all voices into this important discussion. in that same spirit, i look forward to fostering a new and improved relationship with this committee, the united states senate, and the intended states congress. a relationship based on mutual reese backed and constitutional balance. ultimately, i know we all share the same goal and commitment to protect and serve the american people. now i recognize that we face many challenges in the years ahead. i have seen in my own life and in my own family how dedicated men and women can answer the call to achieve great things for

themselves, for their country, and for generations to come. a father a young minister who carried me on his shoulder has answered that call. as has my mother, a courageous young teacher standing with them are my uncle and cousins who served in vietnam. vietnam. one of which is here to support me today. and my younger brother, a navy seal who has answered that call to service to our country. as i come before you today in this historic chamber, i still stand on my father's shoulders as well as on the shoulders of all of those who have gone before me and dreamed of making the promise of america a reality for all and work to achieve that goal. i believe in the promise of america because i have lived the promise of america. if confirmed

to be atty. general of the united states, i states, i pledge to all of you and the american people that i will fulfill my responsibilities with integrity and independence. i will never independence. i will never forget that i serve the american people from all walks of life who continue to make our nation great as well as the legacy of all of those who sacrifices have made us free. i free. i will always strive to uphold the trust that is emplaced in me to protect and defend our constitution. to safeguard our people and to stand as the leader in public servant they deserve think you all for your time and consideration. i greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today. today. i look forward to your questions and to all we may accomplish in the days ahead, together, in the spirit of cooperation shared responsibility and justice. thank justice. thank you for your time today. >> thank you ms. lynch for that statement. before we start for the first round i'd like to talk to my colleagues just a minute because

of the 18 votes that are coming up this afternoon and because of a chaotic situation and the most important thing is getting this hearing over in one sitting and one day even if it goes into the evening. i hope my colleagues will be cognizant of what we normally do between senator leahy and i were fairly liberal about letting people go over and whether we have five seven or ten minutes my general practices if you have one second left you can ask a question but this time i would prefer you stick to the ten minutes and i'm not very good at battling people down so take care of that for me, would you please? before the first ten minutes start i'd like to make

something clear for myself, i can't speak for my colleagues. one you one you said you wanted to improve relationships with the committee and congress. we welcome not very much and that will be very helpful particularly in regard to our responsibilities of oversight. secondly, taking off on something the senator said in speaking for myself, if i use this subject or that subject or another as a basis of questioning what the president or attorney general has done, i want it clear that that's not the issue for me now. the issue is whether or not the constitution or the laws have been violated whether the justice department has acted in an appropriate way. so way. so now i will start with my question. on november the 20th last year, president obama announced that he would defer deportation

of millions of individuals in the country undocumented. not only is this action contrary to our laws, it's a dangerous abuse of executive authority. if you are confirmed as the next atty. gen., before you take office you will take an oath you will raise your right hand and swear to both support and defend the constitution of the united states and to bear true faith and a you allegiance to the same. your duty as the american general is not to defend the president and his policy, your duty is your oath to defend the constitution. so my first question, with that oath in mind old in mind i ask you, do you believe the president has the authority to unilaterally support the deportation for millions of individuals in the country and grant them benefits

regardless of what the immigration laws say? >> thank you for the question. you raise question. you raise a very important issue on how we deal with the issue of undocumented immigrants while still valuing those who bring value to our community. certainly i wasn't involved in the actions of the bill you referenced and i'm not aware thus far how they came up with regulations to manage that so i can't comment on the particulars that will happen. i have had occasion to look at the open young through which the department of homeland security sought legal guidance as well as some of the letters from constitutional scholars who looked at the similar issue. certainly it seems to be a reasonable discussion of legal

precedent, irrelevant statute, congressional action along with the enforcement discretion of the agency. i don't see any reasonable doubt of those views. i do think the ultimate responsibility of the department of justice is to always, when presented with issues by the white house or any agency, to review those issues carefully, apply the relevant law and make a determination as to whether there's legal framework to support the request of action. i found it interesting as i was reading the legal counsel opinion that some of the zero proposals that were set forth and asked about did not in fact have a a legal framework. i don't believe those were actually implemented. i do think it is very important that the department of justice through any of the agencies always ensure they are operating through positions of a legal complaint framework that supports the legal course of

action. the advice must be thorough, objective, and completely independent. >> let me. >> let me take off on one word you said and that is discretion. that may relate to prosecutorial discretion and that was part of the presidents rationale. if this is lawfully exercised on an individual basis depending on the facts of a specific case, it is in fact case-by-case. this is not so much a physical philosophic philosophical question is much as a practical thing. it doesn't allow anyone to tell cool categories of people that allow won't up by to them going forward. no one seriously disputes these broad principles, even the office of legal counsel opinion on the president's executive action excepts them. so let me ask you this, what are the outer limits of the doctrine of prospect tutorial discretion

and why don't the president's actions it follow those were talking about millions of people. how does this actually allow for a case-by-case exercise? >> senator as i reviewed the the opinion and looked at the issues presented therein, from the perspective of my career and the u.s. attorney, i viewed it as a way in which the department of homeland security was seeking legal guidance in the most effective way to prioritize the removal of large numbers of individuals given that the resources would not permit removal of everyone who fell within the respective category. that was certainly the framework from which i view that. looking i view that. looking at it from that perspective, the department of homeland security's request and suggestion that they prioritize

the removal of the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us, those who have a criminal record, those who have national security and terror and terrorism or gaining activity, along with who i believe people who have recently entered and could pose a threat seem to be a reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem. as a prosecutor, however, i had experience dealing with similar things in dealing with the best way to deal with a serious problem with limited resources. i always want the ability to take some sort of action against those who may not be in my initial category as my most serious threat and i didn't see anything in the opinions that said actions should be taken against them. i'm not aware of how they will go forward and

implement information of this order. i haven't had occasion to study that and i don't know if those are out. if i'm confirmed to the atty. general i look forward to learning more about that process and making sure were using all of our resources to protect the american people, particularly against the dangerous offenders who are at the top of the removal list. >> i think you're telling me we can do it for a few thousand were tens of thousands of people that maybe have committed a crime but it seems to me that common sense would dictate that it's impossible to do prosecutorial discretion the way it's been done on an individual basis for the millions that are left over. let's move on. i'd like to move on to the presidents refusal to enforce the law and talk about this administration's failure to apply the law in an evenhanded way. according to the disclose of the irs, according to the treasury department inspector general

the irs used inappropriate ways to deny tax-exempt status to organizations, asked unnecessary questions, and slowed approval of their applications. initially president obama remarked that any irs actions to target conservatives would be outrageous. then last february the president said there wasn't even a smidge of corruption at the irs. yet a few months later in june the director of the fbi testified before the house judiciary committee that there was a quote, very active investigation into the matter.

i'd like to know how to reconcile these two statements. if what the president said was accurate, then why would the fbi conducting an ongoing criminal investigation? a rhetorical question. would it be just for show? i'm gonna take dir. director comay at his word. if there is an ongoing investigation at the fbi how could it be possible or be appropriate for the president to reach the conclusion about the fact before director comay? let me say at the outset there is certainly no place for bias or favoritism for anything other than the evenhanded application of the relevant laws and applications. certainly that has always been my goal is a prosecutor and would continue to be my goal if i was confirmed. with respect to the irs investigation, i am generally aware that there is an investigation going on but it's not a matter of whether it's being conducted by my office or anything i've been briefed on as the u.s. attorney so i'm not

able to's comment on the status. >> based on what you just said then i can shorten this up by asking this question. you've spent a career in law enforcement. when would it ever be appropriate for any pres. to know the results of a criminal investigation and comment on it publicly while the investigation is still ongoing? >> with respect to this investigation or any other i'm unaware of the basis of the president's remarks so i'm unable to say if they were done after any evaluation of the investigation or if they were a matter of opinion. i'm not able to comment on that specific remark. certainly as the department of justice exercised its power, investigations are handled independently and without provision of materials about them before their conclusion to others in the executive branch or other agencies. >> senator leahy, thank you very much.

>> i've been fortunate that my native state of vermont has allowed me to serve here for four decades and serving on different committees a lot of statements by nominees. i cannot think of one that is so moving as your statement. i intend to make sure i have copies to members of my family and my friends. my years in law enforcement in vermont gave me respect for the difficult and dangerous work we asked police officers to do every day. it's not just on the officer but often times on their families. i try to support the work of law enforcement for community sake. they have resources they need whether it's bullet proof vest or funding and criminal justice

efforts. i've also been deeply moved by the travel tragic events in ferguson. we focus on what has been a reality that our strange relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve. i appreciate your reference to that in your statement. but you have worked very hard as a u.s. attorney bringing both law-enforcement and the communities together. can you elaborate on that a little bit more? >> yes, thank you yes, thank you senator. i think you've raised one of the most important effort issues facing our country today. there are to be rising between law enforcement and the communities we serve. in my experience these tensions

are best dealt with by having discussions with all parties. where everyone feels their voice has been heard. with respect to our great law enforcement officers, officers we ask so much of them we asked them to keep us safe to protect us literally from ourselves and we asked them to do it without the resources they need to be safe and secure themselves. yet they still stand up every day and risk their lives for us. many of our community residents because of a residents because of a host of factors, feel disconnected from government in general today. when they interact with law enforcement they transfer those feelings to them as well even if someone is there to help. what help. what i have found most effective is getting people together and simply listening to their concerns. being open helping them see that in fact we are all in this together and that the concerns of law enforcement, a safe

society and a a free society are the exact same concerns of every resident of every community they are. >> would you agree that that's something that has to be considered not only by federal law enforcement but by state and federal as well state and local law enforcement. >> absolutely. one of the most important roles that it plays is not the most visible roles but it's the support we provide through our training program to state and local government. we tried to provide them with the resources they need to carry out their job safely and effectively. >> we all know that no prosecutor's office has the resources to prosecute every crime before it. you have to decide which ones our priority. let me talk about one. in state court there was a case where a child rapist received to

yours. you obviously disagree with that you brought federal charges. i think of bill o'reilly on fox called you a hero and said you should be respected by all americans for standing up to gross injustice, and i agree with bill o'reilly on that. more and more the justice department budgets are going into the federal prison system. do you have limited resources how do you make these kind of judgments? how do you determine which cases are the important ones you have to go -- if you go after certain cases it means you don't have the resources to go after others. >> one of the privileges of being the attorney for the

eastern district of new york has been working with so many of my colleagues across the country. all of us engage in this process every day and we start with a full and frank evaluation, with our law-enforcement partners, of the crime issues facing our particular district. we try to determine what are the greatest threats to the people we have sworn to serve. that is what serve. that is what i do in the eastern district of new york every day. we then look at our resources and set priorities and goals to achieve the safest communities we can. senator we do have to always maintain the flexibility to look at specific cases, such as the goodman case, and determine if a federal interest exists and if in fact the victim has not been protected and heard and use federal resources there as well. >> let me go into one that takes resources but it's something

people say there are terrorist inc. one thanh amo and have cost the american people money. there is a case against individuals plotting the john f. kennedy airport, the reserve bank and so on. just this on. just this month you charge to al qaeda members for attacking a american troops in afghanistan and iraq. we've actually brought these terrorists to trial and we've shown the rest of the world we can do it. there's been convictions bin laden's son-in-law was one. to find the criminal justice system, i think i know your

answer as an important counterterrorism tool? >> senator it is in certainly an important tool in the tools that we have to deal with this ever-growing threat. let me say at the outset, my view is that terrorists threaten citizens here or abroad they will face american justice :

>>

>> my opinion with the house decided not to bring that up and i think that was a mistake. so now we deal with the question of executive action thought you were not consulted? >> i was not aware until was rendered. >> millions of people in this country who may not be in a legal status perhaps may not think about how we could deport a tender 12 million is that a fair statement? >> ee that is bare.

>> senator hatch's next but i want to to remind you it is done on a seniority basis as opposed to forced -- first, first served senator hatch's next. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome to the judiciary committee i impressed with your qualifications i hope i can support your nomination. it is important for you to understand your role. day you agree with the constitutionality is challenged the attorney general has the duty to defend that lot? >> first and foremost, the department of justice's to is to dispense the law passed by this body. >> so let's get the

constitution of the united states. >> absolutely. >> ironclad you said that attorney general holder inserted in the same way there has been reasonable arguments the defense of marriage act is constitutional but then he changed that with his personal views. i don't doubt your sincerity and and i have a high opinion of you but is 30 more insurance you could give us? >> it is my view when it comes to the position of the attorney general with the department of justice with those statutes of congress it is not my personal view or any issue of bias or policy but the duty and

responsibility of the department of justice their babies some rare instances source circumstances where careful legal analysis raises constitutional issues but that would be few and far between but should we reach that point it is a matter i would prefer to have a discussion about. >> i appreciate that balzer. >>, in the effort to avoid working with us in congress but it requires us to work together and it facilitates this pattern of behavior that exceeds even the contravening lawful authority it helps to a minister in reporting to

provide the legal justification with the transfer of taliban terrorist without notifying congress which is the obligation which by my count the supreme court says unanimously has a record to rebuke 20 times given these disturbing patterns have can you assure us your independent to say no to the white house when they wish to act beyond the law? >> one of the most important functions is to provide a vehicle framework but consistent with that every lawyer knows with those certain actions for every lawyer has to be independent the attorney-general even

more so and i pledge to you i take the independence very seriously. >> you did that in my office and i appreciate that. because i the queue are a great attorney general if you do that purple you gave a speech in switzerland to praise mandatory minimum sentences but prosecutors did not have the authority to decide that entire category to have a sentence that was mandated isn't that using prosecutorial discretion? >> with respect to what you are referring to i was referring to the cries initiative that seeks to manage another problem with the larger number of narcotics defendants with the resources we have.

>> i want to to help you with that. as assistant united states richard we had to deal with similar issues with narcotics importation over the years and had to work out ways to resolve those cases going to new trial to prioritize those cases for mandatory minimums to seek guidelines but importantly as is implemented in the field every prosecutor for the united states attorney is encouraged to fall into a category for what would be appropriate they will continue to occur.

>> the electronic communications act requires only a subpoena for law enforcement to access emails even though researchers warned would be required sitting on the desk. so without a free marketplace of puts the privacy of citizens and risk to reintroduce the act that would provoke law enforcement cooperation. >> the subject of electronic privacy is central to so many of our freedoms. to not only providing law enforcement but protecting

citizens' privacy and i commit to the issues that flow from a. >> he was protected by federal criminal law by the espionage act with other forms of property there is known civil remedies. so in the coming days with the senator to provide a remedy for those owners should they have the same access as other forms of intellectual property? >> trade secrets as technology becomes complex

as they are the increasingly important issue rand i am not familiar with that provision that you raised because the technology and companies are protected. >> with the restitution and congress has already said they deserve. the current restriction in statutes more than 20 years ago does not work for child pornography victims'. ice enjoy my more than 30 senators of both sides of the aisle including 40 of this committee to have your commitment under your leadership they will prosecute child pornography to use tools like this to help victims get the restitution they need to put their lives back together? >> throat and my career i

prosecute those says teetoo harm children through pornography or is the abuse of children. how can we make these victims whole? of the accord to working with you to review that legislation. >> we read a powerful book entitled license to lie. with the debacle of the misguided prosecution as the person of great character to lose the senate race because of this type of prosecution. i testified his behalf only after he was convicted but

these were not mistakes iraq said violated every prosecutor's duty all pagan that their child would be fair. because if even half of it is true in and i believe it is you have a lot of work to do in that department. could you consider doing that? >>. >> to offer those amendments to call on the next person senator feinstein? >> i sat through six opening statements from the attorneys general and i want

to tell you yours was the best. ic the combination end your effectiveness before a jury and your love of the constitution and the determination which is in your heart. and it is very, very impressive. thank you for 30 years of service. i hope it is a lot logger. mr. chairman i would place in the record los angeles police department chiefs florida executive action on immigration. >> without objection and so ordered. >> to ask three questions ms. lynch which is on for provisions with the

intelligence committee and which i serve with the question of this state secrets act. with the three provisions that will expire with vice of our though wiretap authority this allows us to maine tain surveillance on a target with the switch from members or e-mail address without seeking a new court order purpose second is so old wolf authority which enables the government to conduct surveillance of the non united states person in engaged in international terrorism without demonstrating that they are affiliated with day international terrorist group such as isis or al qaeda.

section 255 national security administration. to maintain a court order it is relevant to a national security investigation. can you describe for us the importance of these provisions and what is that operational impact if they were allowed to sunset in june? >> you raise the issues and have the panoply of tools and techniques to deal with the revolving credit -- threats of attacks against us. what i found most interesting is the wiretap provision is actually incorporated into the fisa

statute after being utilized in narcotics prosecution's which i was familiar as many of my colleagues were as well. with the ability to describe to a court the nature of the offense a and activity to shield oneself from electronic surveillance which is what must be set forth in the application. a particular importance this must go to a court. in the fisa court but there is judicial review for this. it is an important part of techniques we have used with the war on terror as the other two provisions that we have mentioned. but i do think with respect to fisa there is so is the ability to make sure the

most effective way to affect privacy i know that is what you have spent a great deal of time on as well as the intelligence committee and we will continue those discussions. as with fellow most position we have to examine carefully the recent events underscore the importance of this with the war on terror i is hoping we can afford with any proposed changes to fisa with the complete understanding of the risks that we're still face the if any changes need to be made with the intelligence committee and the discussions we need to have to make sure we could provide law enforcement with the tools that they need. i believe the court order provision is effective as we

gather data from all types of sources. i am open into discussions about how they can be best modified if we need to consistent to protect the american people i will always listen to all those concerns with the fisa statute or any techniques we're using with the war on terror. >> take you very much. with intelligence on both committees rehab the access of legal counsel opinions they often represent the most comprehensive expression of a legal basis for intelligence activities congress is charged to oversee so you don't really know the legal basis upon

which the administration has made and it has been very frustrating to us and in particular the executive branch officials have revised the committee of the existence of another opinion written decades ago with the conduct of collection activities under executive order 12333. could rehab your commitment you will make us a copy of this opinion available to the intelligence and judiciary committee? >> with respect to that opinion you are correct it does represent an analysis of legal issues with a

variety of agencies come to the department for the independent device that we must provide them i am not aware of the discussions previously in terms of providing a but i will commit you to work with this committee as well as the intelligence committee to provide the information that you need consistent with the law enforcement priorities. >> this particular opinion is important and it would be useful if we could review it to. with state secrets september 23rd 2009 the attorney-general issued a memorandum establishing new procedures and standards with the assertion of this state secrets privileges and litigation the memorandum stated that it would provide reports to congress on the

exercise of the state secrets privilege only one such report april 2011 has been reported -- provided that discusses the two cases that it was invoked under the new policy but those are no longer the only to cases. so could you provide the appropriate oversight committee with the second periodic report on the exercise of state secret privileges do discuss that the privilege has been invoked since april 2011? >> to raise important issues to work with the oversight committee to review the actions of the department of justice said the american people can be aware how the department carries out its

work and not a familiar of the reports at this point but i look forward to reviewing this issue and i commit i will do my best that the department lives up to the application it has set forth. >> i will come back it is important question and hopefully i can get this in answer yes or no within the next couple of weeks. thank you very much similar afford to sharing the issue should i be confirmed as well as any issues of concern this committee has. >> now senator sessions. >> it is great to have been here i appreciate the opportunity to have a good discussion in our office. i think i just passed my a

department in the senate having passed the department of justice. we'll understand the attorney general is the premier law enforcement officer in america he or she sets the tone of lot in america and that commitment to do the right thing on the basis. on occasion you are called upon judicial opinions the office of legal counsel in you have to tell the president yes or no on something he may want to do relabel enrolling to tell the president of united states know if he asks permission or a legal opinion that supports connection you believe is wrong? >> you have touched upon one of the most important responsibilities of the attorney general.

i appreciated very much the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these important issues. the attorney general's position is unique from all cabinet members. has to provide independent and objective advice to the president or agency when sought or even when it is not with the office of legal counsel. >> just so you understand that on occasion in you have to say no to the person rashly appointed you to the job. >> i do understand that is the role and responsibility of the attorney general and unnecessary obligation on there part. >> people have agenda is and attorneys general sometimes do and we have to guard against that objective on

april 24th 2013, attorney general holder and i raise this fundamentally because i think there is confusion about how we should think about immigration in america with their duties and responsibilities. >> to create a pathway of burned citizenship for the 11 million authorized immigrants in our country is essential the way we treat our friends and neighbors or undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to renounce citizenship to move out of the shadows for the immigration status it is a matter of human rights. so let me ask you, do you believe if a person enters unlawfully has a civil right to citizenship?

>> i is not familiar with the context of those comments but i do thank you touched upon the difficult issue how we handle the undocumented immigrants to come to a work country. i believe because of our values. >> but to agree with that statement? it is a matter of civil rights and citizenship rand authority of right to work in america for someone who enters the country of lawfully has a civil right? >> have not studied the issue enough to come to a legal conclusion but people come in a variety of ways could rehabilitate themselves that is something on the case became spaces. >> averages like to hear you answer that. has a person who enters a lawfully contrary to its

tough laws of the united states is that right there are entitled to? >> i think citizenship is a privilege it is a right to for those that are born here in the rights that has to be earned with a panoply of civil rights i don't think i can see one the you are describing. >> i am surprised it took a cue that long but it was breathtaking to me. the u.s. commission on civil rights responded to that some time ago and here is what he said. >> to have an amnesty for breaking the nation's immigration law has then incoherent understanding of the civil-rights movement those who are not seeking

exemption they were seeking application in the same manner that was applied. d you agree? research and the with respect to the civil-rights movement with the role of african-americans there was designed to ensure equal access. >> on the 50th anniversary of the march people were denied systematically fundamental rights as citizens of the united states of america. that was a historic event that changed america and that needs to be remembered but i will tell you it is quite different to demand your lawful rights as an american to insist civil-rights to those who enter of unlawfully.

but the president's action but to people who came here unlawfully the right to work or the right to participate in social security and medicare when congress has not done that and allow them to stay for at least of period that is lawful. in the workplace of america today we have a high number of unemployed, a declining wages over many years the lowest percentage of americans working who has more right to a job in this country? sale of all immigrant a us citizen or somebody who enters some awfully? director i believe the right and the obligation is shared by everyone regardless of how they came here but if someone is here i would prefer they participate in the workplace than not.

but. >> sees think anybody that is your is entitled to work? >> i am not sure finders' than the basis of your question if there is a legal basis to work or not. >> we're talking about rights who has the most rights? though lawful american immigrant or citizen that has the right to have the laws of the united states and forced so they might be able to work for the person that comes here unlawfully can demand a job? >> the benefits of citizenship confer greater rights than those who are not. >> you think a person who was your lawfully is entitled to work that employers cannot hire someone unlawfully in america?

>> surly that provision with the role of the employer to reassure the of legal status of those is important we have to look bad in conjunction with this issue in terms of presenting an undocumented workers who are seeking employment we want people to seek employment rehab a legal framework that requires employers to provide information about citizenship. >> i undressed and you support the executive order. is that correct? >> my role is not to support or not support but to see if that outlined a legal framework for some of the actions that were requested

but it is not a framework for other actions. >> i will wrap up by asking this. is a person is given a lawful right under the executive amnesty with the work authorization card what if they hire an american citizen first? would you take action? does this mean those are given executive amnesty are as entitled as anyone to compete for jobs in america? >> dell believe it would give anyone any greater access has an employer for the debt those issues of citizenship. >> would you take action against an employer who says no? i prefer someone who comes lawfully rather than someone

give an executive amnesty by the president. >> with you answer that i will move on. >> with respect to the provision of a temporary deferral i did not read that as a amnesty but a temporary deferral. with respect to whether or not those individuals could seek redress for discrimination if that is the purpose by have not studied that legal issue but you raise an important point of for discussing that with you as we switch the point. it is clear to my colleagues what you have been such a tremendous u.s. attorney in my home state of new york and i would make such a

great attorney general. you not get out of the park. [laughter] with sports analogies. with your loyalty to incredible offers a you are not a tar heel or row blew wr eight next day. [laughter] -- a and expand. i'll play to go for a couple of points. there is the myth that policies are tantamount to forceful law and radio you force of law aggressively or will continue to do so some of my friends across the aisle c. you to be suggesting the president's announcement for the

department of homeland security is tantamount to an announcement to enforce immigration laws. we had 11 million of undocumented immigrants in the united states. there is only enough met -- money allocated to deport 400,000 but there is the lead did million elite - - 11 million and you have to make dorset blood dash choices and when my dear friend sessions was u.s. attorney in alabama he used prosecutorial discretion and did a good job. but we want prosecutors to gore after the highest level crimes if they don't have the resources to do all of them. doesn't make sense to have a general rule to prosecute to

go after bank robbers' before shoplifters? >> there can be an occasional exception to make the president's executive order allows for that but the idea that having an office the higher level were dangerous crimes is our law enforcement goes on for hundreds of years i don't get the idea that this is an illegal act by the president we have limited resources and we have to make hard choices. a straight for word allocation of resources is not political activism but what prosecutors are doing in every jurisdiction right now invigoration is like any other issue with limited resources it makes sense to

go after the hardened criminals. so let me ask a couple of questions don't u.s. attorney offices consistently have to make said general prosecutorial decisions on a day to day basis? how do you? >> yes. with respect to this question of setting priorities one of the privileges i have had to be the u.s. attorney working with my colleagues has been getting to know them about knowing how different every district is how it made at even appear on the west coast with the increase of crime to the increased oil reserves my colleagues and i shared our thoughts deal

with the crime problems in the district in then to have a very different basis of problems but to be just as committed to keeping the save as well. but to do that we work very closely with law-enforcement partners how they have determined the nature of the thread through in a terrorism or narcotics those that target children and rework closely with the state in local counterparts in the district attorney's offices i have a matter in my office that is subject to federal and state jurisdictions and more appropriately to prosecute that type of crime because of the impact of a committee

involve being proof it is with the individual cases how we set priorities to deploy a limited resources to protect the people in my district. >> exactly the u.s. attorney's office but we hear a lot about executive action to be unconstitutional so i would like to do talk about bad no federal court struck down an action the most recent supported it i heard it suggested federal courts declare them unconstitutional baby back to chief justice rehnquist and supreme court has repeatedly bolstered executive discretion in

refused to review agency discretion as with respect to this executive action there are two cases filed here id washington from the sheriff that has been dismissed the second suit was filed in texas sotho courts have struck dead executive action now we hear that speaker boehner will sue the president that is not responsible but we agreed that if they disagree with president obama over the legality of this policy they can let the courts decide that confirmation of the highest law enforcement is not the time or place for frustration. let me ask a couple of questions because some people are concerned the

administration is flawless. >> that is my first point of reference. >> if it happens to strike down executive action we respect that? >> i will of legend congress but don't think it would have been but if congress were to pass a bill for the immigration and actions but imagine for the sake of argument if the bill passed would you commit to following the new law? >> to the executed by this body does. >> work permits that they have suggested it is a legal to issue work permits of deferred action.

they implied this is unprecedented and misleading. who did it 1982? ronald reagan for those of deferred action 1982 the reagan administration not to say that it isn't necessary but it is it is in a true to have a strong record tell us about the 7-eleven case you brought on long island. >> the case against 7-eleven was very important to my office because we saw a corporate entity deliberately sorrentino liberalized individuals of a particular ethnic group who owned franchises were reaching out to to their own committee members and hiring

them so this a be an opportunity for individuals to earn money to be part of the american dream. floor double shift and triple shifts to only have parteras originally given the of money with a debit card or cash deemed appropriate by the manager. but then the evidence that we uncovered that they were aware they violated labor laws but they also require the overtures to live together in company sanctioned housing it was a modern day plantation system throughout the virginia area with those co-conspirators. we spent a long time to work of the law enforcement partners and then to be

discriminated against three never hesitated to take action. the. >> of an offer for the record of consent so with that amnesty order justice senator cornyn is next. >> end congratulations to rand as a united states attorney. coming to washington d.c.

with the political implications is they forget though long a and become politicians masquerading as law enforcement officers and it is a real challenge. >> but we will stipulate you are not eric holder? [laughter] so no one is suggesting that you are but i agree with the chairman but as they referred to is in seoul says though we may and to suggest it has not exercised independent judgment as the

chief officer for the country would not consider yourself to be a political arm of the white house? >> no. that would be totally inappropriate in view of the position. >> you be willing to tell your friends know if it your judgment the law requires it demand not just my friends and acquaintances but colleagues. >> that includes the president of united states. >> the application of the attorney general when presented with matters -- matters by the president to provide a full and thorough independent legal analysis to give the president the best independent judgment that there is that could be one of the says there is a legal framework that there is that there is not. >> we have stipulated you were not eric holder his

record is on our minds because i cannot think of an attorney general who has sold is evaluated the independent role of the chief law-enforcement officer to take on the role of the premium of the president to operate as a politician to use that power of the attorney general his bed contemptuous of the oversight responsibilities of coequal branch up of men and has stonewalled legitimate investigations by congress including investigation into fasted various episodes that senator grassley referred to revere making bogus claims of executive privilege to keep congress from finding help facts. also the attorney general has repeatedly made legal arguments and he has

harassed states like mine and i suspect you will hear from another colleague on voter identification of the supreme court is upheld the validity as a means to protect the of valid and at the same time in attorney-general has failed to implement laws that congress has passed to provide them protect the voting rights of military deployed overseas. he has also politicized of war on terror, declassified top-secret legal memos exposing public officials and the intelligence committee to not only ridicule but threats of legal and otherwise for performing actions they were told were legal and

necessary to save american lives he reopened a criminal investigation into those statements members after a previous investigation did the not reveal any basis for criminal charges. how do we know you will not perform your duties in the office the way eric holder's has performed his? >> how will you be different? >> if confered i will be myself. loretta lynn jedi refer to record as a practicing lawyer that what i have brought to every matter that going for word what i've not to play with those particular issues they are of concerns and died to pledge i went to hear your

concerns and want to listen and i will be open to discuss those issues with you. as we go forward showed it confirmed it is wonderful to think he would agree everything i would do that would not be the case. >> you may not agree everything we do. >> that is appropriate. >> but i am open to discussing why i have done something to this sense i am able to do so that is the most effective way not only to learn from people but also working effectively with people with whom i may disagree on various points but we share a common goal. >> i have been married 35 years i can guarantee 100 percent agreement is the impossible standard for anybody to comply with. we don't expect that obviously. [laughter] for your commitment to work with congress with

congressional oversight authority a senator since on behalf of attorney general holder dated december 5th 2014 response to questions for the record from march march 6, 2013. obviously roughly more than a year-and-a-half later. can we expect a more timely response from you in the department of justice with legitimate inquiries? direct oversight responsibility is important not just for the function but also to the american people the way the department operates that we work to keep them safe absolute will work with this committee to richer we provide a timely response i am not sure the particulars

of that matter and i cannot comment on that but i a can of we provide you with the information you need consistent with the department litigation responsibilities. >> it would be possible to be more effective attorney general and we can be more effective to exercise our responsibilities as well. i want to ask about prosecutorial discretion per kabyle may regret is that senator shimmer the senior senator was not available for cross-examination. but he seemed dismisses the of concerns of what i would consider a refusal to enforce existing law that is involved with these executive fashion -- actions

there is a difference in the case by case exercise and a refusal to enforce the laws of the books. there is the difference? >> there is progress do not need the department of justice to refuse to enforce laws but to attempt to set priorities to exercise discretion within those priorities. >> isn't it incumbent upon the department of justice to ask congress for the resources to do the job congress has said the department must perform before you can come back to say we will not pursue those because we don't have enough money? is it your responsibility to come to was to ask us for those resources? i cannot imagine if the president or secretary johnson or others said we

did not have the resources so we have to decline to enforce them don't you have the responsibility to ask for those resources before you declined to enforce the law? >> i am aware of the budget request that with the department of justice i have been devoid -- involved in reviewing the budget of the advisory committee and during sequestration spend a great deal of time looking at the budget to ensure we did maintain those appropriate resources to protect the american people within the constraints placed upon us at that time. it is my understanding with respect to budget request they do include information

about priorities across the board why specific resources are needed. >> you need more money? >> i would probably join all my agency's. [laughter] >> ms. lynch thank you for being here i will be objective but i am deferential to women named loretta. as is my wife's name way your father lifted you what but his shoulders you were a witness to a moment in history that change america forever. and literally changed your life but no way you could know that. one of those central issues was the right to vote that

chief justice robert said sitting in that very same place is from all rights we're now in a unique position 50 years later to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act the supreme court in shelby county struck down major provisions of the voting rights act and congress passed on a bipartisan basis is now split along partisan lines if there will be a renewal. we're finding states across the nation better changing the requirements for voting the subcommittee have judiciary i took them to public hearings and ohio and florida with new restrictions placed on

voting by the state legislatures thiokol the election officials of both parties in those days and ask them if there is any evidence of a voter fraud or abuse that led to these changes and they said virtual the nine. but what has happened the department of justice stepped in in the case is they consider to be extreme to work to stop the implementation of the state laws that restricted the right to vote for crash to a barchan of possibility to make that decision how to view the status of voting rights in america today and what you view as your responsibility as the next attorney general? >> i believe in the right to vote as a cornerstone of a free democracy that every citizen has the right to or the obligation to exercise

for with respect to how zero rights are handled now i think we are in the time of great debate over these issues and they're open to hearing all sides. with respect to how to regulate the roles to ensure they are carried out freely and openly and fairly and i do believe that is the goal of many elected officials do deal with these issues every day but the concerns raised our when those acts taken to protect and preserve the integrity of the vote act to suppress the vote or prevent people from exercising the franchise. i would hope through political discourse and discussion we could have

conversation and come to practices and procedures to ensure the right to vote to all citizens while protecting the integrity of every once valid. absent that the department of justice has to look carefully at the impact to make the decision how to proceed certain the laws have received approval from the department as clarence to regulate and protect the ballot as opposed to act in a different way. . .

in that same state a 93-year-old veteran was turned away a 70-year-old dr. was turned away and people who were proud but wanted to vote were turned away by new laws. these were people who had a right to vote. a missed all the celebration of the civil rights movement we are finding a reversal of the most fundamental principle of preserving that right to vote. i appreciate what you had to say about it. i would say a word about the smarter sentencing act. senator of