responsibility for building your own radio access network. all states, whether they use firstnet's network or build their own, will connect to our national core. that's what creates the interoperability across the nation. now in terms of the cost, that will be something for your team in montana to determine. we're going to give the governor a plan that will lay out the coverage we have planned based on the consultation we do with your state in terms of the priorities and we will give you what the cost of that is or the pricing to your end users. you will then have that to make a determination as the state and the governor makes that decision as to whether or not you want to take on responsibility. >> you'll have a cost. >> we won't determine your cost. you're going to determine that. you're going to an issue an rfp. we'll tell you what our plan is. you can compare it to what you think building your own radio

access network would cost. >> i'm out of time. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to you and the ranking member for holding this important hearing. as a former prosecutor and co-chair along with senator burr of the 911 caucus in the senate, i know how important it is to support our first responders. i'm also the state that had that bridge collapse and while everyone saw on tv the first responders show up and repeatedly dive into that water to look for survivors and all the work of the emergency responders, what people didn't see were the 77 men and women at the minneapolis emergency communications center who took those calls. while a number of people died, it could have been so much worse because people were able to get to hospitals. there were dozens more cars in there and people survived because of our first responders. i have worked hard to strengthen our country's emergency response network in part by sponsoring and working on the legislation that led to the creation of

firstnet. i think it's critical to our communications infrastructure and congress intended it to be built on a combination of new and existing infrastructure. i know senator thune and senator danes and others have been talking about the rural issues, so i'm not going to focus on that. that's important to me. but ms. swenson, are you committed to making sure that as firstnet launches partnerships that opportunities will be available to entities of all size? i know that new core wireless based in st. cloud is participating in a pilot project with firstnet in elk river and it's a good trial project, but i want to make sure you'll continue to work with entities of all sizes. >> yes, in fact, i think it's important to understand that the process is designed to do that. we have a responsibility to make sure that we deploy a nationwide network at the most effective cost structure. so as we go out and talk to

people who have different assets who want to participate in the request for proposal, everyone will have an opportunity to do that. we will weigh those options and also look at the complexity of the design and also the speed to market. those are the things that we have to consider. but certainly, we're welcoming one and all because this is going to take a really integrated and joint effort to make this work. >> okay. the spectrum act also included an amendment i worked to include that created a funding mechanism for more than $115 million for next generation 911 research and grants koort nated by ntia and nhtsa and i continue to have as my top priority making sure that we not only have the nationwide network in place but we integrate the next gen technologies that are already transforming public safety, realtime video, text messaging.

what involvement has firstnet had with answering points and 911 community? >> actually we're in communications with the 911 organizations very frequently. in fact, i'm planning to go to the conference in the month of june because we know how critical it is to the overall system, so it's an ongoing dialogue. >> thank you, mr. andrews, what are ntia doing to further the next gen 911 operations in coordination with firstnet. >> that's a great question. one of the things we've done is between -- in a partnership between ntia and in senator gardner's state in boulder we've created the public safety communications research program, which is our effort to really push forward into that next generation of public safety communications. as you know as well, the ntia, the next gen 911 program and that's something we're working on. >> we should invite senator gardner to join our 911 caucus. it's a very exciting group. we have a lot of emergencies that we respond to.

my last question miss swenson, i understand that minnesota was the second state to have its consultation with firstnet last september. what are some of the takeaways from that meeting with the stakeholders in minnesota? >> i think as i indicated earlier, i think it's important that we learn from each of the states their individual circumstances. every state has a set of circumstances that are very different. your topography is different. where your priorities are is different, and we're learning in each of those consultations what exactly is unique to your state so we can incorporate that into the rfp process. >> very good. thank you very much. >> senator udall. >> thank you very much chairman thune, and thank you for focusing this hearing on this very, very important topic. and let me first just say i want firstnet to succeed in ensuring

our nation's first responders have the communications tools they need. should be a top priority of this committee. despite lessons learned from the terrorist attacks of 9/11, our first responders still do not have nationwide inner operable communications network. as many of you know in an emergency this can be a matter of life and death. in my home state of new mexico, i'm pleased that the recovery act broadband grant helped upgrade the state's public safety communications. this hopefully puts my state a step ahead as firstnet becomes operable. one concern i have is that congress sometimes makes good policies but then fails to follow through by adequately funding their implementation and i think that could well be a case here. building firstnet is clearly no easy first and i want congress to give firstnet a chance to succeed. it is important first responders have the communications tools

they need to protect all of us. now, many senators have already raised the rural issue. i think rural is tremendously important in new mexico and so i want you to focus on that. miss swenson, you talked in your written testimony, and i think to a question asked by senator daines, about tribal -- the tribal issues and how tribes are going to be included. i want to applaud you on having a person dedicated to the tribes. that's usually the way it works best is somebody that really understands these tribal issues, develops a long-term relationship, and works with them. could you expand a little more on your testimony, your written testimony, about how you're going to make sure the tribes aren't left out in this moving forward? >> certainly. as you know the act really requires that we engage with tribal, so there was no ambiguity about that, so we're very clear about that, but

setting that aside, firstnet really understands the importance of tribes. we -- as you said, we have a person dedicated to that within firstnet and i think that's actually unique for an organization like us to actually dedicate a resource to that. we also have as part of the public safety advisory council a tribal working group, and that is focused on tribal issues so that it's represented within the public safety community and the tribal group. that particular group, small group, had a meeting in washington, d.c., just two weeks ago, and so it is a very high priority for us. in fact, when i was in town hall meeting a couple weeks ago, the representative -- the tribal representative from our organization was there at the town hall. we had tribal representation at the town hall meeting and he was going to meet with as many tribal organizations as possible. one of our board members kevin mcginness, who is from the ems

community, has been taking on that responsibility as a board member to go out and make sure that we're reaching out, making the tribes aware of it and also making sure that the tribal representation is part of consultation because it's really important that they're at those meetings so we can understand their perspective as well. we're very focused on that and consider it a very high priority. >> and as you said the consultation part is tremendously important. i mean, the tribes really look to the federal government to look and see that they're going to be communicated with and consulted with on these kinds of issues, so we appreciate what you're doing and hope we have your commitment to work and make sure they're not left out. >> you absolutely do. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator udall. senator gardner. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and time today. i apologize for coming into the hearing late. i was attending an aumf hearing with secretary kerry downstairs. so just want to thank you all again for being here and want to

thank miss swenson particularly for the work you're doing given a very difficult yet vitally important task to ensure we have a nationwide public safety network. firstnet, if done right can help first responders do their jobs more quickly and more effectively. nobody knows this better than colorado who has endured wildfires and flooding over the last several years of great magnitude. i want to help ensure the state has exactly what it needs to react to disasters such as these in the future and i want the network to succeed. and i'm happy to talk about the 911 caucus too, but i think she's left so we'll have it figure that one out later. miss swenson, one of the concerns that i have had from the state and i have heard from the state is that the current path forward for firstnet does not include the use of public assets that are ready and willing to be utilized by the public safety network. my understanding is you first need to know who the commercial partners are before you move

forward with utilizing public assets. isn't there an argument to be made we should be using this and we should be using these public assets? >> i think it's a very good question and you weren't here earlier but let me state what i stated earlier. in the early days of firstnet we actually thought that getting that information about government assets would be very, very important for building out the network. what we've learned through our projects in l.a. in particular is that this is more difficult than we anticipated in terms of the unique circumstances in every state about coming to a memorandum of understanding about those assets, the leasing of excess capacity on those assets. whatever the circumstances are, they turned out to be much more complex than we had anticipated so what we would like to do is obviously know about those assets, but take that into consideration after we determine who the partner is and then determine what additional perhaps coverage or capability

those assets can add to the existing plan. and so we just think from a sequencing standpoint and from a complexity standpoint as i said earlier, we want to make sure we're dedicating our resources now on getting the national network built, and so it's been a change from what we had originally anticipated, but we're very comfortable with this approach. additionally, if there are assets that an organization in the state would like to be considered as part of the nationwide network, again, i think it's important that we look at speed to deploy am complexity, and cost because we have a responsibility to make sure that this is done in the most effective and efficient way possible. >> and some of the follow-up questions i have on the sequencing, the complexity and then the speed with which we're getting this done, you mentioned i believe it was told to me by the staff you said adams county is functioning and so thank you for that. but if they've met all the international standards and if interoperability is not an issue then, we're looking at three

years, four years maybe down the road. people in colorado need to get this done now. does adams county have to wait until they receive a state plan to proceed? can colorado move forward and build it out and still be a part of firstnet? i mean, i'm concerned that we have places in colorado, significant metropolitan areas, and forested terrain that need to move forward and yet this is taking time and we could build out. how do you respond to that? >> you know again, this is a very complex issue, as you know, and we're very excited about what adams county is doing, and it's become a real -- a good project for people to come and see how this new technology is actually working. i think it's really important for people to understand our focus is getting on the nationwide network, and we have looked at resources at firstnet in order to spend time on these individual projects and so it would dilute our ability to work on the nationwide plan.

and so it's a trade-off very frankly, senator, and it's a difficult one because i'd love to have all the resources in the world to, you know to do a lot more in a lot of different areas, but we have an obligation to move this as quickly as possible. so we've had to make some trade-offs. >> i wanted to shift to the rural conversation that sounds like so many people brought up. in previous experience that we've had with some funding from the federal government that was intended and designed to go to unserved or underserved areas money was spent in areas where it could easily be spent and those areas where money would be spent in difficult areas to reach for networks and others, that money was not spent and then by the time they got to those areas, which were difficult in colorado to reach the money was gone and they had to look elsewhere for an opportunity. are there areas or parts of the country, parts of colorado where firstnet will not be building out into because it doesn't make sense or it's not responsible? >> well, i think that's an excellent question. first of all, i think it's

important for you to know that the funding in the second notice ensures rural buildout. i think if you look at the public notice that we just issued on monday there assurance for rural buildout. the consultation that we do with every state is really talking about the priorities not that we would never build, but we want to understand where your priorities are because obviously a network of this magnitude, we can't just snap our finger and turn it on one day. i mean it's going to have to go in phases but we have rural buildout milestones that we need to accomplish to make sure that we actually do that. the response to the rfp is going to be critical and the folks who respond to the rfp will have to address those issues. that's why we're taking the information from your state consultation and interactions we're having with your state and putting that into the rfp so whoever is responding knows that that's a priority for you. >> from your point of view there is no place in the country that's been sort of labeled as taken off the table, so to speak? >> no, not at all.

i'm telling you, we talk probably more about rural than urban. that's how important it is to us is that we are constantly thinking about and making sure and i would commend you know if you haven't seen it and for anybody who is listening the second notice really assures that, and we took great pains and spent quite a bit of time to make sure that the very description or situation that you described won't happen here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you senator gardner and appreciate the continued emphasis on the rural issues. miss swenson i'm sure you got that loudly and clearly today. >> do you know what? i feel exactly the same way. >> good. this has been a great panel. thank you. i thought this was very -- shed a lot of light on a subject that has, you know, i think we needed to get out and have just this oversight hearing to raise some of the issues ask some of these questions, and we appreciate the panel's willingness to appear today and to respond to those questions, and we'll continue to provide that oversight.

this is an important investment something that has a lot of ramifications for our first responders and our public safety community and making sure that we're able to respond in an effective and timely way when things happen. we want to make sure we get it right, and this committee will do everything we can to stay on top of it. so thank you all for being here today. the hearing record -- all right. okay. all right. the senator from massachusetts is here. >> i apologize, mr. chairman and i appreciate -- and i want to thank you for convening today's hearing. we understand very well how important it is to have a strong, reliable first responder network from the over 100 inches of snow this winter to hurricane sandy to the marathon bombing, we know how critical it is that our emergency responders have dependable communication tools

that allow them to work and to talk to each other safely, and that's why i have always supported firstnet because if fulfills one of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 commission the creation of a nationwide interoperable public safety network. it ensures that our first responders have the tools which they need. so miss swenson, we must ensure that firstnet is reliable across the entire country, however each part of the country faces its own set of difficulties that will challenge the network's resiliency, whether it's blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes the list is endless. we have to make sure that the network has the capacity as it actually responds to each one of these different challenges. so my first question is, it's supposed to establish the advanced network for the 21st

century public safety needs. given that the states and the municipalities already have existing public safety networks how will firstnet work with and utilize these resources in building out and deploying the national public safety broadband network? >> senator, thank you for the question. we are interested, as you are, in making this a reliable network, and we were just talking to senator gardner about similar question but i'll be happy to repeat it. the issue with the current assets within the state, when we started firstnet, we thought that that would be the way to go is to do an inventory of those assets and then build upon those. it turns out that one of our projects in los angeles has informed us and been very useful in helping us understand the challenges with actually using existing assets because of the difficulty of developing memorandums of understanding, leasing excess capacity and it

has been extremely useful in helping us understand it was probably a little harder than we thought to do. now, that doesn't mean we wouldn't utilize those in some fashion but we would go through the rfp process award partners to actually deploy the network and then determine how those assets could be utilized. also those assets depending on who owns them, they could be part of responding to the request for proposal because deploying this network, as you indicate, it's important we do this in an urgent fashion, and that's where we're dedicating our resources is to do that. >> you know, on patriots day 2013 right in the middle of downtown boston with a million people watching the marathon, there really is no other event like this, we then had the marathon bombing attack. >> right. >> and so on the one hand you have the government response. on the other hand you have a private cellular network you also want to have working, and you have a million people all

calling, what's happening to my family member running or even in this instance people who weren't running were also injured. can you talk a little bit about the capacity in emergencies for the private cellular network to be able to also provide the kinds of information which is necessary for people to be able to respond properly? >> sure. as you know the commercial networks today get really burdened when there's an incident, whether it's small or large. and we're -- all of us pick up our phones and make a phone call. so it really prohibits the first responders from being able to use the commercial network. with firstnet it will be a dedicated network, and even with the leasing of the excess capacity for other use the technology today, senator, has something called priority and preemption, and to unlike the networks today, that technology will enable first responders to get access to the network and to remove those folks who are using

the network who are not critical. and so we believe that that particular capability really differentiates firstnet from commercial networks today. that is what commercial networks can't do. additionally, we are working in the state consultation meetings to look at how to harden those networks so assuming we have a commercial partner that partners with us along with other folks, we would actually -- we're going to be in a different band class, and we will harden those networks relative to each particular state. >> excellent. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator markey and, again thanks very much to the panel, and the hearing record will be open for two weeks. during that time senators are asked to submit any questions they have for the record. upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the committee as soon as possible. again, thank you very much for your participation. this hearing is adjourned.

here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks on c-span2's book tv saturday,

author peter wallison said housing policies caused the 2008 financial crisis and it could happen again. and director of the earth institute at columbia university jeffrey sachs on a development plan to counter issues like environmental decay. and saturday morning at 10:30 eastern on american history tv on c-span3, a discussion on the last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king, jr. then sunday afternoon at 4:00 on real america the 1965 "meet the press" interview with martin luther king, jr. find our complete television schedule at cspan.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@cspan.org or send us a tweet at c-span #comments.

the senate judiciary committee is holding a confirmation hearing for deputy attorney general nominee sally quillian yates. president obama formally nominated her back in january. she previously served as the u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. that hearing is set to begin at 10:00 a.m. eastern and will be live here on c-span3. and coming up later in the day, a senate commerce subcommittee hearing on domestic drones and how that technology might impact safety and privacy. that hearing gets underway at 2:30 eastern. live coverage on c-span3. supreme court justices anthony kennedy and stephen breyer were on capitol hill monday to testify about the court's 2016 budget request. they also took questions on other topics, including this one posed to justice kennedy about cameras in the courtroom. >> people suggest that maybe the

court should televise oral arguments, that people could see firsthand what goes on and i know the court has historically rejected that. i think it was justice sotomayor before she went on the bench thought it would be a good idea to televise oral arguments and then once she was on the bench, she changed her mind and thinks it's not a good idea. so i just wondered is any -- do you sense any change -- do you think there will be a day when oral arguments will be on television? do you think that's good or that's not good in the context of education. could you all comment on that? >> the question do i think there will be the day it sounds as if we're more or less behind the times.

if you had english-style debating and you were handed the topic and you had to be either pro or con, could you make a lot of good arguments for television in the courtroom. number one, it teaches. we teach. we teach what the constitution is. we teach what rights are. we're teachers so why don't we go on the television? and it would be very good for lawyers who are preparing -- haven't been before us before who want to see what the dynamic of oral argument is and it's open. the public could see that we spend a lot of time on patent cases and railroad reorganization cases and so forth and so that we have a technical commitment. and they could see, we hope, an argument that's rational and respectful. when we're in disagreement, our

institutional tradition is not to make our colleagues look bad. it's to make the institution look good, and part of that is the way we conduct oral arguments. we are concerned that the presence of a tv camera, the knowledge that we're going to be on tv would affect the way that we behave and it's an insidious dynamic for me to think that one of my colleagues has asked a question just so he or she can look good on tv. i don't want that dynamic. we would prefer the dynamic where we have a discussion in which we are listening to each other, in which we were listening to counsel, and we think the television would detract from that. so you could make good arguments either way, but we -- i think i can speak for most of my colleagues, do not think television should be in the

courtroom. we have audio available and the transcripts are available. the press does a very good job of covering us. the press has the advantage, they know three, four six months in advance what the issue is and they can prepare their background. they can have pictures of the litigants and so forth, and then they're all ready to write the story depending on what we write. so we have good press coverage as well, but i think cameras in the courtroom are not a good idea. >> and you can see all of that hearing with justices anthony kennedy and stephen breyer online at cspan.org. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2 here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events and then on weekends c-span3 is the home

to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts discovering what artifacts reveal about the past. history bookshelf. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series, real america, featuring archival government and educational films from the '30s to the '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. the republican national lawyers association held its annual policy conference friday in washington, d.c. the event included remarks from attorney michael carvin.

he argued the 2012 supreme court case that challenged the health care law's individual mandate and a more recent case on insurance subsidies established by the law. this is 30 minutes. [ applause ] >> yeah, i'm really worried about that introduction for two reasons because this is not going to be entertaining and it's not going to be intellectually stimulating. the reason being this is literally the simplest case i have ever done, that anybody could ever do because the law is so clearly on our side in king versus burwell. as you probably know the relevant provision says that the subsidies for the aca exchanges are available on quote,

exchanges established by the state under section 1311. the obama irs reading that language says that means, of course, they're available on exchanges established by hhs under section 1321. so the issue is whether or not an hhs exchange under 1321 is a state-established exchange under 1311. this is not a complicated question at least for the nonlegal mind. this would be relatively straightforward. and i mean that. if this was a mortgage deduction case if this was -- no judge would say what are you talking about? it's only because we're in this political maelstrom involving the affordable care act that people are taking this argument seriously. i'm not going to bore you with walking through all the various statutory nuances of this, but i will give you the basic pitch on the other side is oh you're just ripping these words out of

context, and what an extraordinarily odd place, why would they ever put, you know, a tax credit in the tax code? so you really can't take this language very seriously and our response is, normally tax credits are in the tax code. we're not hiding any elephants in mouse holes here. the only provision in the affordable care act is this section 36b. that's the only provision in the act that even discusses the subsidies for the exchanges or that limits them. all of the limits on when subsidies are available are contained in 36b. for example, it's quite clear if you bought insurance outside of an exchange, you can't get the subsidies and so everybody seems to understand that and it's found in the name provision and naturally, of course, this would be the place it would be. as to context, i can assure you

we did not stand up at the supreme court and say, please just focus myopically on these words and ignore the statutory context and the purposes of the act. i think we said approximately 7,000 times we implore you to look at the context of the overall act because in each and every particular of the structure and purposes of the act reinforces our argument. the most obvious contextual point is section 1311 of the act states shall. this is in the act, states shall establish the exchanges. so congress chose the strongest possible language it could to convey its deep desire for the states to create these exchanges. so 36b tells you that there are no subsidies available unless the states create the exchange, and 1311 tells you why. why would congress have done that? they did it because they needed to provide an incentive to the

states to undertake the thankless task of creating these exchanges. the only one that would work would be saying if you don't do it, then your citizens don't get the subsidies. this is not some novel invention of the aca. this is medicaid. this is exactly how they get the states to participate in medicaid. they say if you don't do what we want, your citizens won't get the medicaid. this was a key part, as you know, of the aca where they greatly expanded medicaid. my final boring contextual point is the government kept arguing that's because section 1321 says if the states don't establish exchanges, then hhs shall establish such exchange and they said see, it says such exchange, and we're like yes it says such exchange. hhs will establish such exchange. but 36b turns on who establishes the exchange. if it's the state, you get the

subsidies. if it's hhs, you don't. if there's any ambiguity about when they use the word such whether they were trying to somehow magically transform hhs into the state all you have to do is look at the context of the act and look at the provision dealing with territories. now, territories are also required to or authorized to establish such exchange. and immediately after they tell them to do that, it says and shall be treated as a state for these purposes. so we know that such does not connote that hhs or the territories are a state and we know that congress knows how to treat a nonstate entity as a state entity in the aca when it wanted to do so. so the argument on the other side is we're taking this hyperliteral myopic approach and giving this talismanic effect to the effect of the statute.

and while people like scalia might buy that argument no serious person can buy the argument because after all they look at other manifestations of congressional intent, most obviously legislative history and there certainly is a fight between scalia and breyer on whether or not clear text in the statute can be affected by contrary legislative history. and my point has always been however that debate is resolved it doesn't affect this case because you can look through the volumes of legislative history surrounding the aca and you will not see a single expression by anyone anywhere suggesting that subsidies are available on hhs established exchanges. so if you look at any legal materials that any justice has looked at in any context to discern congressional intent. here is what you arrive at. clear text explaining why subsidies are only available

there is they can incentivize states and not a scintilla of contrary legislative history. so as i began this, this is literally the easiest case that a federal court has ever entertained. the response again, is well, secretly congress didn't intend this, and we know this because msn bc keeps telling us that congress didn't intend this. this is not only a legally irrelevant argument, it's difficult to hypothesize an argument that is more insulting. look, nobody in the world wants to insupplement the democratic majority that enacted the aca more than i do but think about how insulting this is to them. people -- english speaking people sat down and wrote the words an exchange established by the state under section 1311. according to my opponents, they

didn't intend to convey that thought. they can't explain to you why a rational person who intended for subsidies to be available on federally established exchanges ever would have written down those words, and more important they're saying not only did they consciously write down the opposite of what they intended, it never even occurred to them that somebody might interpret the words established by the state to mean established by the state. so they went through the entire legislative process, and it didn't occur to anybody to say, you know when we said state we really meant hhs for some reason, but we did say the on sit of what we mean. so this was just a giant mystery that existed throughout. this was some kind of scrivener's error. that's sort of the basic pitch of the opponents. among the many problems with that in addition to the ones i have identified is the phrase appears 11 times in the aca.

11 times this phrase appears. so it's not a scrivener's error. it's some kind of bizarre tourette's syndrome where they keep say wag they don't mean over and over again apparently without any ability to control this. so really what they're arguing and really what everybody in the courtroom knew what they were arguing was the naked policy argument, which is, look, 37 states have said no to the irs' deal, not surprisingly since they would have gotten absolutely nothing out of it for establishing these exchanges, which means that two-thirds of the states won't have these subsidies if you follow the rule of law and this is really really bad, and in addition to the fact, of course, that these policy arguments are for the legislative branch not the judicial branch, irs caused this problem. if irs had told the states, as the drafters of the act

intended, you only get the subsidies if you establish the exchanges, then just like medicaid, they would have established the exchanges. if they knew that billions of dollars would have been deprived to their citizens then they would have done something about it. so now irs has caused this problem, and they come into court and say, sorry, you can't change what we have created through our lawless action. you must perpetuate it which to me is always like the criminal defendant who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he's an orphan, right? he's the one who has created the problem, but he nonetheless needs something. i don't know how this argument is going to be received. i have stopped making predictions a long time ago about how the court is going to behave in any circumstances, particularly with respect to this act. i will identify two or three things that came up at argument that may be of interest to you folks. the first one is justice kennedy

did ask, well, if they did condition the subsidies on them creating these exchanges isn't that unconstitutionally coercive activity use of the funding power? the government has not made this argument. no state that has a stake in this argument is in front of the court. so i don't think -- i certainly obviously think justice kennedy is taking this argument very seriously, but it doesn't have the normal prerequisites for him to actually opine on the constitutional issue. in addition to the absence of anybody arguing this or any entity with a stake in this being in front of the court he really -- to find that this coercive -- to find that this funding scheme is unduly coercive would require them to overturn the nfib decision on medicaid from just three years ago because clearly there they did endorse a form of funding, i

ie you can condition all new medicaid funding on the states upping their he willeligibility requirements. and in the face of precisely the same kind of arguments that we were receiving. the hospitals came in then and said listen, if you don't -- if you accept this argument and we don't get these medicaid funds, then we're going to go bankrupt because the deal in the aca was we get less money for serving poor people, low income people at our hospitals and in exchange we were going to get all of these increased medicaid funds and if we don't get it we're going to go bankrupt. i'll point out 22 of the states have rejected this deal. the hospitals actually are doing fine, but this is exactly the kind of argument that was bothering justice kennedy in terms of the insurance companies. the other practical point is that eight states filed a brief saying, look we are going to reject this exchange deal

regardless, so the notion that it is unduly coercive strikes me as odd. i don't think, therefore that justice kennedy can reach the constitutional question, but what i don't think the liberals who have now embraced federalism for first time understand is if he does, this will result in a worse result for them than if we prevail on the statutory question. why is that? if he says conditioning medicaid funds -- excuse me conditioning subsidies on establishing the exchanges is no good he is not going to say i'm, therefore, going to extend subsidies to all 50 states. he's going to say no states get the subsidies because the deal was unconstitutional. how do i know that? because that's exactly what justice kennedy wret in his nfib dissenting opinion. he said if the deal is too coercive the answer is not to let medicaid funds to go without

the condition, the answer is to eliminate the subsidies entirely. so in these circumstances people who are on the other side of the aisle who are taking heart from justin kennedy's opinion should actually be quite worried. in that regard there's a milder form of the constitutional issue that might influence this decision. there's a canon out there that if you can interpret a statute one way that doesn't raise constitutional issues but if you interpret it the other way it does, go with the one that doesn't raise the constitutional issues. that would be marginally an argument for accepting the government's argument of this. but two statements that justice kennedy made at argument itself and a couple of other points i think refute that that will happen. first of all, in order to do that you need an unambiguous interpretation of the statute that will avoid the question and justice kennedy was pretty clear he didn't think there was any ambiguity about whether state meant hhs.

he also made, and i think this is the key point, there's a basic separation of powers prins. that you can't take money out of the federal treasury unless the custodians of the purse congress itself has expressly authorized the treasury to expend those moneys. so he said therefore, it needs to be very clear that these subsidies were available, and you would lose -- you, the government, would lose if there was ambiguity. well, if you think about that, he can't, therefore, say because there's ambiguity in this statute, i am now going to expend subsidies to all 50 states when congress was clearly imposing some kind of condition on them. in other words, he would be creating a huge separation of powers problem that he himself identified at the argument in order to solve the federalism concern he had. and the final point i did get to make to him in rebuttal was, there's no way to interpret the statute that doesn't raise a serious concern about infringing

on state sovereignty. the government's version of the statute imposes a very serious federalism concern. why is that? the point i didn't make before is it's not just a question of subsidies. the employer mandate the requirement that employers of certain size provide insurance for their employees, is tied to the subsidies. in other words, the employer doesn't have that obligation unless one of his employees goes out and reaches -- and gets one of these subsidies. so if he's saying that now subsidies will be available in all 50 states, that would extend the employer mandate to all 50 states automatically, and the states would have no ability to veto it. whereas they would under our interpretation, so what he would really be saying is the federal government has got the ability to tell states that they have to provide certain kind of health insurance benefits to their own employees, which is the core principle of federalism that you really shouldn't be able to tell

the states how to conduct their relations with their own employees. so either way you interpret the statute it raises these serious constitutional questions. in light of all that, what i think might happen and what i think would be a resolution that really would preserve justice kennedy's constitutional concerns but not affect the outcome of the case is to do what he's done in a number of other cases including under the voting rights act, where he will join the proper -- in my view proper statutory interpretation holding of the court but then write a separate concurrent saying, listen, this gives me grave constitutional concerns and if and when the state wants to raise it, i will certainly entertain it. other than that, you know, i'm not going to make any predictions about how the court is actually going to rule. these things always remind me of, you know, people are like, gee, chief justice roberts didn't say a lot during the argument and sort of like those old kremlinologists write is gorbachev looking to his left at

the general and we're supposed to read these tea leaves. i think it's generally a sucker's game. i think it's really a sucker's game in this context to try to discern the tea leaves and make any sort of predictions about how the justices are going to behave, so my bottom line is since for the reasons i have articulated we're clearly right on the merits, i expect a 9-0 victory in june. some of you who saw the argument who are attuned to nuance may have detected a certain skepticism by four of the justices about my argument but nonetheless, i think one they have read the briefs and considered the plain language of the statute this will be a very short five-page unanimous opinion in our favor. [ applause ] >> well thank you michael, and since today's theme is the imperial presidency i'm going to act imperially and we're

going to extend lunch ten minutes and we can take some questions if anybody has them of michael. hans? >> mike, >> mike, i was at the argument and i have to tell you, you did a fabulous job. i've seen a lot of arguments. in the 14 years i've been in washington. i've never seen as sustained an assault by the liberals in any of the cases. but my question is this. as you know, justice ginsburg let you get out one sentence of your start -- >> a really good sentence. >> yes, it was a good sentence. before she brought up the issue of standing which is such a subtle issue that the government didn't even argue it in their brief. in fact, the first time this was brought up once a month before i think on msnbc, which is a good sign of what ginsburg reads. my question is, i read that as a sign that the

liberals are desperate because they gauged how the other justices were feeling about the case and were hoping they could bring up the standing issue it might dispose of the case without it being disposed of on a substantive grounds. i mean, am i reading -- do you think my reading is off on that? >> i have to disagree with the premise. which suggests that justice ginsburg was not fully reseptember toif my argument on the merits. i just told you she was on my side. sure why are you going to standing? it was bizarre, really. every judge including all the judges who ruled against us on the merits, it was a very vanilla case of standing. nobody even disputed the government affirmatively dropped the argument when we got to the supreme court. msnbc gets involved. there was really no serious issue about it. in a way she was almost doing me a favor, i must say, because i got to i think kill that standing issue in its crib right

at the beginning of the argument so it didn't come back and even the solicitor general was not giving them any solids on this standing argument. i think at the end of the day it was a nonissue. in terms of the vigor of the candidates changed a few points, there was literally the justices were not only interrupting my answers, they were interrupting the reverend's questions. it was a very hot bench and unused to hostile questions. this one was maybe unique because for the first time i've ever seen chief justice roberts just on his own site, you get 10 more minutes. he gave us 10 more minutes because he knew it'd been impossible for us, for me to get to my answer on that. >> let me go to the dark side for a minute and just ask, if

the court somehow rules that the statute means what it doesn't say, are you able to discuss at all what you think that means for the laws of statutory -- canons of statutory interpretation in the future? >> well, if they continue to interpret statutes the way that you would have to interpret this statute to mean north means south, black means white, then there will literally be no law in the united states, right? because it would be quite impossible for you to enact the law that lines the judiciary or the executive agency to mean what it says and says what it means. i take solace in the fact that if we lose it will be only in this case, only for this act and they will revert to when they like the results to honest,

neutral interpretation of law. i think it really would be. there's a lot of obviously issues in terms of policy about, that divide people by policy obligations of the affordable care act at this case is about the rule of law. this case is about whether or not we're going to honestly and neutrally interpret an act of a coequal branch or whether we're going to let policy concerns trump it. there was a very revealing exchange i think during the argument where justice scalia said to solicitor general verrilli, who by the way i thought did a fine job of arguing. he's a very able advocate. but i thought here he made a real mistake. justice scalia said if these policy arguments are so convincing we've got congress across the street and they can fix it. and the solicitor general said this congress? which -- which elicited this kind of snarky laughter. but, i was looking at chief justice roberts and some of the other justices and the notion that the solicitor general of an

administration would say, your deference to congress turns on the partisan composition of who is leading that congress is extraordinarily insulting. it's something that the court's never going to take seriously and i thought they were blanching at that notion. particularly since, my own prediction is this congress will actually take steps in the wake of our victory, numerous op-ed by senate and house leadership saying that there's a way to fix this come a better way to fix this thing but there is a way to fix it. i'm hoping that that assurance, that eventually the law to mean what it says, won't result in these dire policy consequences, should be enough solace for them to do the right thing. >> one more.

>> you mentioned that the chief justice gave both sides 10 more minutes but there was no other case scheduled for that day. did that mean that they were anticipating they're going to give them more time? >> no. but you're right. gave them more flexible because there was not a no one. it was very strange. they had another argument scheduled. did you hear about this? it was a pro se case. the guy was complaining, pro se meaning nonrepresentative, they couldn't find him. he disappeared. so they accepted the case and then they said well, i guess he's not going to be here so they canceled the argument after that. she's got one more. >> assuming you win, a lot of people are going to lose subsidies, government subsidies. how do you sees implications of this playing out politically for the republicans and for the

future of obamacare? >> right. so look, let's put this into a better perspective. they are going to lose subsidies the notion these subsidies are essential to health care is a little exaggerated, right? these subsidies haven't been available except for the last 15 months. these people will be in the exact same position they would have been in at the end of 2014 which was not exactly medieval time where you saw sick people scattered across the sidewalk of d.c. and i think that it's because important to recognize that nobody's arguing the absence of subsidies will drive up insurance premiums. what the proponents of the act are arguing is the other provisions of the act make insurance so expensive right, these pre-existing conditions, that those will drive up insurance premiums, and we need the subsidies to offset them. so i think the republican response at the federal level is one i indicated a minute ago, which is if you've read these op-eds, there's a good way to get people who need the money the money. you give them a tax credit but you don't say to them just buy

insurance on the exchange, and don't buy all of this restricted insurance that the affordable care act -- under the affordable care act you can't buy catastrophic insurance. you have to buy mental health coverage maternity, contraceptive, all those kind of things. go out and buy the kind of insurance you want and i think they're thinking about go out and buy insurance across state lines. so if you live in new york you can go to utah and get a great deal. so the point would be people who need the help are getting it in the same way under this republican alternative, but they're getting it in a way that empowers the consumer to make the choices about the insurance that he or she likes best. rather than listening to what hhs thinks best. my own view is that that should be amenable to a consensus of republicans in the house and senate, and i think it will be very difficult, not that he won't, i think it would be very difficult for president obama to say no, because after all he would be saying no these people are not getting their needed

moneys simply because they're not getting it in the way i want them to get it. i think that's very tough for him, and, of course, if they can't reach a compromise on the federal solution, then he -- prior to this president obama's been perfectly amenable and easy to say no, no no, we're not changing anything. if he maintains the status quo that exists after -- if we prevail in this case, then under his own predictions, there will be a meltdown on exchanges in 34 states. there won't be an employer mandate in 34 states. and i think he would view that as very detrimental to what i assume would be what he would view as his legacy. so i think the normal option that the president's had thus far of just say no may or may not be available to him. so it will be very interesting politics over the summer obviously. but i think the republicans have a relatively straightforward message that would appeal to people who think relatively

low-income people should get subsidies and those who think that the affordable care act goes about it in the wrong way. >> thank you. [ applause ] here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwords author peter wallison says that government housing policies caused the 2008 financial crisis and that it could happen again. sunday afternoon at 5:00 director of the earth institute at columbia university jeffrey sachs on a development plan to counter global issues like poverty and environmental decay. and saturday morning at 10:30 reern on american history tv on c-span3, a discussion on the last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr. then sunday afternoon at 4:00,

on reel america the 1965 meet the press interview with martin luther king jr. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet @c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. the senate judiciary committee is meeting this morning for a hearing on the nomination of sally quilian yates as the next deputy attorney general. we currently serves as the acting deputy attorney general. president obama formally nominated ms. yates on january 8th. she previously served as the u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. the u.s. senate is still in a holding pattern on confirmation of the president's attorney general nominee loretta lynch. the hearing on the deputy

attorney general expected to get under way live here in just a couple of moments from the dirksen senate office building on capitol hill.

-- with respect for congressman lewis, and senator isakson, and i think we're going to let start with congressman lewis. normally we would make opening statements. but, because of your time schedule, i think we'll start with you to introduce congressman lewis and then we'll go to senator isakson and then we'll go to senator purdue and then we'll have our opening statements >> we're honored you're here, congressman. thank you for joining us. [ inaudible ] i'm -- well thank

you for your statement on how important the senate is. but the constitution -- >> we're upper only in our own minds. >> the constitution recognizes as equal but i was going to call on you first because you are the senior member here today. and you've been a respected member of the house of representatives. and you know ms. yates and so i have chosen, right or wrong to start with you. and i hope you'll start. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i'm delighted and forever pleased to be here. i'm honored to be here with my friend from the georgia delegation senator isakson and senator purdue to introduce the united states attorney for the northern district of georgia sally yates, who has been nominated to serve as deputy

attorney general of the united states. you might say sally yates' dedication to public service and the law is in her blood. because both her father and grandfather served in a georgia -- on the georgia state court of appeals, her father was one of the great lawyers in the state of georgia, and in our nation. she is principled, tough for the rule of law, but has used her commitment to equal justice to strengthen law enforcement ties with the community. regraduated with honor from the university of georgia, and began her career in private practice at a law firm in atlanta located in the heart of my congressional district. there she tried 15 cases as the

sole lead counsel. in one of her first noble -- notable pro bono victories she recovered property wrongly taken from the first african-american land owner in barrett county, georgia. in 1989, she began her storied career in the united nations attorney's office. over the next two decades she was known for her aggressive work fighting violent crime, combat be human trafficking cyber crime and gang activities. it was on her watch, mr. chairman that the u.s. attorney captured and prosecuted the infamous terrorist who bombed in 1996 olympics in atlanta. five years ago, miss yates was unanimously confirmed as the

first woman u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. she took a unique approach to leadership. her first action was to go on a listen tour to hear from the people she would serve. she made it clear she made it crystal clear she made it plain, she made it simple that her mandate was simple, evenhanded justice has served the highest interests of the people. her leadership was tough. but fair. and in this time the link between law enforcement and the community has become so strained. sally yates made an effort to reach out, and she continued to reach out. under her leadership u.s. attorney office organized a youth justice summit at georgia state university.

a straight talk student forum initiative with community and schools in georgia. a youth advocate advisory council to meet with high school student leaders. and a street law and mock trial program with atlanta john mar thal law school. she hosted public discussion with georgia's governor and the chamber of commerce on the barriers facing formerly incarcerated individuals. she worked with the urban league, moore high school of medicine and the state board of pardon and paroles to establish a 12-week program to provide job training counseling and interview advice for parolees returning to the community. in the last year, citizens across the country have let the nation know they believe law enforcement is not fair and

reports are now verifying that some of their concerns are valid. long before these problems came to light, sally yates led her office to build community relationships. and she's still doing it every day. she knew it was important, very important, not only to seek out and prosecute crime whenever she found it but to create an understanding of higher justice to serve us all. mr. chairman and ranking members i introduce in this committee a true champion of justice. a true champion of what is right. what is fair and what is just. a leader who is a woman of principle, compassion, and faith. a daughter of atlanta.

a citizen of georgia. miss sally yates who i believe will make an outstanding deputy attorney general of the united states and i support her nomination. thank you. >> thank you congressman lewis. now, senator isakson. >> thank you very much, chairman grassley. and i am pleased to share the dais with john lewis, a georgia hero and his own legend of civil rights in our country. it's a pleasure to be with him. and i'm happy to wish him his 75th birthday which is this saturday night. happy birthday, john. >> thank you very much. >> i hope you have 75 more. >> i hope so, too. >> i hope i do too. you know i've had the chance in 37 years of elected office to introduce a lot of georgians in a lot of different venues. i've never had one i looked forward to more than today in introducing sally quilian yates as the president's nominee for the deputy attorney general of the united states of america. i have known sally yates her husband comber for a long long time. he is here with her today as well as her children kelly and

quill. i'm sure she'll introduce them more fully. sally is a great hero for the state of georgia. for 25 years she's been in the office of northern georgia, prosecuting all kind of things like the olympic park bombing. for five years she's been the chief attorney and proven herself over and over again to be effective, to be fair, to be diligent and to be the kind of person you'd want representing you in the u.s. attorney's office. sally is a graduate of the university of georgia school of journalism, and later a graduate of the university of georgia school of law. she's what we lovingly refer to as a double dog. bulldogs are the mascot of the university of georgia, and she has her two degrees from that school. when she graduated from law school she graduated magna cum laude in her class one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on anyone. she's been referred to by many as tough and tenacious but to introduce her i thought i would quote from mark twain whose famous quote said when confronted with a difficult decision, always do what's right. you'll surprise a few and you'll astonish the rest. sally yates is going to astonish

the united states of america. she is exactly what this country needs in the u.s. attorney's office in washington, d.c. she will be a hero of the american people, a hero of what's right. she'll call them like she sees them and she will be fair and just. she is a lady of impeccable taste, integrity and record and i am very proud to second her nomination today and defer now to david purdue of the committee for his remarks. >> thank you, senator. thank you, mr. chairman. it's my distinct honor this morning, mr. chairman, to join senator isaac son and congressman lewis to welcome sally yates and her family to the judiciary committee this morning. i want to echo their words and my colleagues this morning regarding miss yates' qualifications and her distinguished career in federal service. for years she has prosecuted the most violent criminal organizations in georgia. ms-13. and other notorious gangs. drug cartels human smuggling, sex traffickers. the department and the people of georgia are fortunate to have benefited from ms. yates' work in the service of justice for so

many years. so today i join my colleagues in welcoming her to the judiciary committee, and in congratulating her on the honor of this nomination. it's my privilege this morning mr. chairman that as a yellow jacket to welcome this bulldog to this committee. thank you. >> thank you both senators. and you're free to go if you want to go. otherwise we'd be glad to have you listen to us, as well. ms. yates i welcome you to the senate judiciary committee. it's been a big day for you and your family. congratulations on your nomination. today we will consider the nomination of sally yates to be deputy attorney general i would start by noting that she's already doing the job. she's been nominated for. she's been serving as acting deputy since the beginning of the year. so she already has some experience with leading the department. and has been exposed to some of the challenges the department

faces. before her service as acting deputy attorney general she served in the u.s. attorney's office for northern district of georgia for over 25 years. including five as the u.s. attorney, so she also has experience in running an office and important experience as a prosecutor. too often when nominees appear before our committee they avoid answering questions by claiming that they aren't yet on the job so they aren't in a position to provide responsive answers. however, because ms. yates has already been on the job for a few months, i assume she'll be able to answer questions about the department for us. i won't repeat all of my concerns with the way the department of justice has been run in the past six years because i outlined those concerns very thoroughly in miss lynch's hearing. but my concerns remain. so i'll be interested in discussing these important matters with ms. yates today. she obviously has a lot of

impressive experience as a prosecutor flout her career. she's been involved in a number of discussions on criminal law issues, one thing that i'm going to discuss with ms. yates about today is the position she's taken regarding mandatory minimum sentences. for example, in testimony before the sentencing commission she said, quote, mandatory minimum sentences increase deterrence, and cooperation by those involved in the crime. end of quote. she also called mandatory minimums as, quote, essential -- quote, essential law enforcement tools. end of quote. and argued that mandatory minimum sentences have helped reduce crime rates. finally, let me say just as i'm hoping the next attorney general provides an independent voice and works to depoliticize the department, i have the same hope for the deputy attorney general so i'm looking forward to hearing ms. yates' perspective on the current state of the department as she provides her

testimony, and answers to our questions. i'll be listening in that case for changes that she would make to the department and improvements she'd implement to make it more transparent. the department of justice remains deeply politicized, and i'm hopeful that the next deputy attorney general will have what it takes to make some changes badly needed. with that, i now turn to our distinguished ranking member for today, senator blumenthal. >> thanks, mr. chairman. and thanks for conducting this hearing in such a bipartisan and gracious way. first of all, i hope at some point we're going to clarify all this stuff about bulldogs and yellow jackets, and, i come from a state where we have a school that has a bulldog as a mascot but i don't think you're from that school. we welcome you anyway and today is a very proud one for me as a former united states attorney

and as a former attorney general of my state and one who like a number of us on this committee has a background in law enforcement, because i think you really epitomize the best of a public interest lawyer and a law enforcer fair just honest, as mr. lewis referred to you. and i also think that you have gained the respect of the people who are maybe the most critical judges, the folks who are on the streets, fbi agents, and dea enforcers, and postal inspectors and secret service who have contacted our committee and who have spoken through others to say how much they have respected your work and admired your tenacity, and your toughness. but also your essential fairness in enforcing the law. and those qualities, as you and i have discussed in our private

meeting, will be critically important because the role of a prosecutor is not only to obtain convictions, but to achieve justice. in the words of justice jackson, and i am paraphrasing, not quoting, the department of justice faces enormous challenges ahead. and new leadership will be important to that direction. but i want to to say how much i appreciate the leadership that we've seen from attorney general holder. i think he deserves gratitude from our nation for his leadership during a very tough time. and i'm hopeful that we will confirm his replacement very shortly. loretta lynch is eminently well qualified and i'm hopeful that we will move quickly to your confirmation, as well. i look forward to supporting you and i want to just say finally my thanks to your family, who are here today. comer, kelly and quinn.

i know that your son and daughter may not have always believed that your edicts were to quote congressman lewis right, fair and just. there were perhaps moments when your directions were questioned by them but i know that you're proud of them, as they are extremely proud of you, and i want to thank your husband for his public service, as well as yourself. thank you very much for being here. and thanks for answering our questions today. >> before you speak i would like to swear you, please. do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> okay. you're free now to make any opening statement you want to make, and also to introduce family friends and anybody else that's proud of your nomination that you want to introduce to the committee.

>> well thanks very much -- it is an honor to appear before you today. i'm very grateful for this opportunity, and grateful for president obama's nomination. i'd also like to thank senator isaac son and senator per due and congressman lewis for their kind and generous introductions. i am truly humbled by their confidence in me and am grateful to them for their remarkable lives of service to our state, and to our country. it's particularly meaningful for me to appear today surrounded by my family. my husband comer and daughter kelly and son quill. i'm not only grateful to them for their love and support but i'm also incredibly proud of each one of them. my husband comer, a lawyer by training followed his heart and now runs a school for children with learning disabilities and children who are deaf and hard of hearing. my daughter kelly is in her first year as a special education teacher in north carolina.

and my son quill is a sophomore in college, where he is studying political science and environmental policy. my only regret is that my parents, both of whom have passed away, are not here today. they instilled in me a love of the law, and a call to public service. i come from a long line of lawyers. lawyers and methodist preachers. even my grandmother was a lawyer. in fact, she was one of the earliest women admitted to the georgia law -- to the georgia bar. but law firms weren't hiring many women to practice law back then, so she served as a legal secretary instead. my father and his father before him were state appellate court judges. and they demonstrated by example that the law is an instrument for ensuring that right is done in the world. my father died shortly before i graduated from law school. i vividly recall him counseling me then to think about the job that i was going to pursue when

i graduated from law school. and to make sure that the work that i chose when i graduated was more than just a job or a way to earn a living. rather, he believed that we have an obligation to use our legal education for the greater good. and he encouraged me to find a path where i could make a real difference in the world. that path took me to the department of justice. i joined the u.s. attorney's office in atlanta in the fall of 1989, and the department of justice has been my home ever since. when i joined the u.s. attorney's office i certainly didn't expect that i would still be with the department of justice 25 years later. but once i experienced the privilege of representing the people of the united states, of getting to do what i believe is right and fair and just in every case, anything else would have been just a job. bob barr then the u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia, entrusted me with my

first position in the department, and that was that of a line prosecutor. i began the way all young prosecutors do. investigating and trying cases, working with agents and witnesses, to ensure that those who violated the law in the northern district of georgia were held accountable and that our community was made safe. over time my cases became more complex. and i assume leadership positions within the office. chief of the fraud and public corruption section. first assistant u.s. attorney and first female u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. i carried with me the values that were instilled by my family. that the law can be an instrument for good but only when it's applied fairly and thoughtfully and objectively. i believe that it's a credit to the institution that i love that i have held leadership positions in both democratic and republican administrations, and that i've witnessed career men and women of the department consistently following the facts and the law with great

distinction, and without regard to politics. over the years i've seen the department from a variety of vant ink points. i personally prosecuted public corruption, regardless of party, and led our team to holding accountable the olympic bomber eric rudolph. as a supervisor i've ensured that our office had the expert east and resources and focus to go after the worst of the worst. whether they were international gangs, human trafficking rings, or cyber criminals. and as a united states attorney i was vice chair of the attorney general's advisory committee where i gained additional insight about the challenges that each u.s. attorney's office faces across the country. challenges that i expect that you all hear about from your constituents every day. when the president nominated me a career prosecutor, to serve as the deputy attorney general of the united states, it was the greatest honor that i could imagine. i'm proud to say that in the brief period during which i've served as acting deputy attorney

general, i've seen on a national scale the same skill and care and dedication in our attorneys that i knew back in the northern district of georgia. in taking on the day-to-day operations of the department its $27 billion budget, and 114,000 employees, i also understand that we face critical national security and criminal justice challenges. i believe that we can work together to face these challenges. and in my role as the chief operating officer of the department, i'll be committed to ensuring that the resources that congress provides to the department of justice are used as effectively as possible to protect the public that we all serve. i know that several of you have served previously in the department and share my love of this great institution. as you all know the department of justice is unique among cabinet agencies. it is and must be independent and nonpartisan. we don't represent an ordinary

client. and as the representatives of the people we must always be governed by doing what is just. this has been my life's work. and if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, i can promise you that i will spend each and every moment guided solely by the department's singular mission to seek justice. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> do you want to introduce family and friends? >> yes, certainly. this is my husband comer yates. my son quill yates. and my daughter kelly yates. >> and any friends and family you have here you want their name in the record we'd be glad to include it if you give us that information. >> thank you, senator. >> we'll have seven minute round questions. first round, second round will be five minutes. i will start. in the last year i have asked

the attorney general four times to disclose the office of legal counsel's opinions regarding the lawfulness of the president's various controversial executive actions. in response to my first letter the department refused to provide all olc opinions, but said if i had any concerns about a particular executive action, i could follow up. less than two weeks the president then released five senior taliban commanders. those so-called taliban five without notifying congress as he was required to do by statute. so i took the department up on its suggestion and asked for the legal advice dodge provided before the decision was made to release the taliban five. six months later, the department responded to me and instead of providing olc advice, it provided a document that the department of defense gave the

government accountability office in an after-the-fact effort to defend its actions. of course we all remember the government accountability office had concluded that the administration had acted unlawfully when it released the taliban five. now, that document isn't good enough. it's especially disappointing considering that the attorney general sat before this committee last year and assured me he would look for ways to get this information to congress. so my question on this subject, would you provide this committee with the opinion of the office of legal counsel that had authored on this matter, and whether, in memorandum or less than formal format the information before the senior taliban commanders were released without congressional notification as the law requires? >> thank you, senator for the

question. and your question touches on a critically important issue. and that is the issue of transparency. it certainly is important that the people of the united states, and this body and that congress, understand the basis for actions by various departments of the united states government. and we're committed to getting you the information that you need to understand the basis for those actions. i think traditionally the actual olc, office of legal counsel, opinions themselves have traditionally not been disclosed. and that's for good reason. we want to encourage the agencies and the executive branch to come to the department of justice and to seek counsel, and for there to be a full and frank exchange of information and ideas. and just like a standard attorney/client relationship, don't want to have a chilling effect on that. and so while we are absolutely committed to getting you the information about the underlying rationale, i think we generally follow the position that has been followed throughout the department of justice and many

administrations, to decline to provide the actual olc opinions themselves. >> then i assume that you would not give me the opinion as i requested? >> i'd certainly be happy to work with you and your staff about making sure that you have the information that you need. and that you would like. >> but not the opinion. >> i'd be happy to talk with you about the underlying rationale. >> i won't get the opinion? >> i don't at this point believe that there's a reason to revisit the decision about the opinion itself, senator. >> in other words the decision has been made that congress can't have the opinion, and so we won't get the opinion, is that what you just said? >> i don't have any present intention to revisit that decision now. but would be delighted to work with you and your staff to try to get you all the information about the underlying rationale behind that. >> then let me follow up with this statement. because the administration has released other olc opinions. so i don't accept the idea that

the administration can pick and choose which of these opinions it might release and which it won't based on perceived political interests. the department of justice explained the legal reasoning that it used to justify executive amnesty. we've seen that that's very flimsy argument. it seems to me the department owes the american people an explanation as to why it advised that the president could reach the taliban five without notifying congress as the law requires. so i intend to follow up and ask you about this in my written questions, and citing some sort of vague privilege is not -- is not good enough for me. but, you and i had discussions of how important oversight is for me. and so just so you know, it doesn't -- it isn't reasonable that some olc opinions can be released and others can't.

and you can't -- you don't want to revisit that. now i want to go to another point, because i just have two minutes left this will probably be the last question i can ask you at this point. your testimony before the sentencing commission in 2010 stated that as a result, in part, of mandatory minimum sentences, and abolition of parole crime rates were dramatically reduced. you related that the experience of law enforcement is that, quote there are tangible benefits to law enforcement and public safety from mandatory minimum sentences sentencing laws mandatory minimum sentences increase deterrence and cooperation by those involved in crime end of quote. you called mandatory minimums then a quote/unquote central law enforcement tool. additionally you stated that judges were exhibiting quote, undue leniency for some white

collared offenses and some child exploitation offenses. end of quote. and you recommended that it might be appropriate to create some new manlder to minimum sentences. but at some later time you gave a speech saying we, quote, we can't jail everybody, end of quote. that prison spending was reducing other doj spending and that we can't afford to have so many people in prison. so question, you served as federal prosecutor for over 25 years. do you stand by your 2010 testimony that mandatory minimum sentences are, quote, an essential law enforcement tool, end of quote and that they quote, increase deterrence and cooperation by those involved in crime, end of quote? >> senator i believe that mandatory minimum sentences are an important tool for prosecutors. but i also think that we have an obligation to use that tool as effectively and as efficiently as possible. i'm a career prosecutor as i've

made clear this morning. and i certainly wouldn't support anything that i believe would undermine public safety. but i also know that we have a serious fiscal reality that we are facing now. and that is that our prison population is exploding. and as a result of that, resources that would go to prosecutors, and federal agents to be able to investigate and prosecute crimes, are being diverted to the bureau of prisons. the bureau of prisons now takes up almost two-thirds of the department's budget. that's really untenable and unsustainable. so i believe that mandatory minimum sentences are an important tool. but we -- but that we need to use that tool effectively. >> senator blumenthal? >> thanks, mr. chairman. at the outset i'd like to ask permission to include in the record a statement from senator patrick leahy, our colleague from vermont, in support of ms. yates' nomination. >> without objection. >> and i'd also like to include

a number of letters, i referred to them earlier, from colleagues, law enforcement officials, officials in georgia, in support of that nomination. >> without objection those are included. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just ask you about olc opinions, ms. yates. it's been a tradition common to, i think most recent administration's that olc opinions generally are not released, is that true? >> that's certainly my understanding, senator, yes. >> thank you. let me ask you about the bureau of prisons and mandatory minimums. my understanding is also that the policies on this issue have gone back and forth. i can remember a time when everybody was against mandatory minimums. then they were adopted by many states. my own feeling is that we really need to do more research and study on what is effective in deterring wrongdoers and law

breakers in this area and just use the most effective, cost effective policy and you've rightly cited the costs of incarcerating convicted criminals beyond the point where it makes any difference to rehabilitation or deterrence. i assume you'd be open to that kind of research and study? >> absolutely senator. while i believe mandatory minimums have a place in our criminal justice system, i believe that the most current research indicates that it is the certainty of punishment that really has the greatest deterrent effect. not necessarily the length of the sentence. >> and in particular, you made reference to the very sizable amount of the department's budget that is spent on the bureau of prisons. my understanding is that one of the growing segments of population are actually women

prisoners in the system. in fact, in dan bury, connecticut, the bureau of prisons is constructing a new facility and i'm hopeful that i can follow up with you on construction of that new minimum facility in danbury because in november, 2013 bureau of prisons estimated that the construction of this facility would take 18 months, and the new facility would open in may of 2015. that construction has been delayed. i think in that facility and others around the country there's a question about whether we're providing the kind of environment that makes for not only fair but also effective incarceration, and so i hope that you would be willing to work with me and consult with me on that issue. >> absolutely, senator. i would look forward to that. >> on another issue, that is important i think to the

administration of justice, the department opened a criminal investigation concerns the gm ignition switch and the circumstances surrounding that company's failure to discloesse the defects in the ignition switch which ultimately caused injuries and fatalities. i think the number of fatalities now is approaching 60 according to ken feinberg of the compensation fund. i hope that you will work with me and other members of the committee also in bringing that criminal investigation to a prompt and just conclusion because i think that the decisions to be made by those victims of the gm ignition switch over whether they accept the compensation fund awards will depend on the conclusion of that investigation certainly deterrence of the kind of alleged wrongdoing that

occurred concealment and even potentially fraud against the united states government, really depends on an effective conclusion to that investigation and i hope that you'll work with me on that investigation, as well. >> certainly. and i appreciated your raising this with me when we had an opportunity to talk last week. and if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed i would look forward to working with you on this issue as well. >> let me ask you in conclusion on this first round of questions, as a newcomer to your position, not to the department of justice, let me give you the opportunity to talk about where you think your priorities will be, whether it's human trafficking, or organized crime or national security or terrorist threats to this country, and where you think that the resources of the department could be and should

be enhanced. >> well thank you senator. certainly we face a number of challenges at the department of justice. and national security in keeping our country safe from acts of terrorism always is and must be our number one priority. but we have other challenges, as well. certainly, cybersecurity is a very important issue for us. we are seeing that it impacts really the full specific tum. international security issues critical infrastructure issues. issues with respect to private industry and our own personal privacy, as well. so cybersecurity is certainly a critically important issue for our department. there's another issue that i think that we also need to focus on now and that is really our relationship with law enforcement. i've been fortunate to be able to work with all levels of law enforcement for the 25 years that i've been a prosecutor. both state and local law enforcement officers and federal agents and i think strengthening that relationship will be an important priority for us. i hope that i will be able to

bring the perspective of the field, and assessing our priorities. because using our resources, in the most effective way possible is a critically important priority fof the department of justice. i think we also need to make sure that we are bringing that focus to our investigative agencies. it's important that we not be generating stats that actually having an impact on the communities that we serve to make them as safe as possible. one of the things that i would like to do is to work with our law enforcement agencies to ensure that they are focused on making an impact on the safety of the communities rather than just, as i said, generating stats. >> thank you. and part of aiding local law enforcement is determining what kinds of equipment training really makes a difference to local law enforcement, and assessing carefully and accurately what will be of greatest assistance to them in dealing with the vast variety of challenges they face. >> that's absolutely right, senator.

and, in fact, just last week, i was fortunate to have a meeting with the head of many of the local law enforcement organizations. the purpose of which was not for me to talk, which is sort of a change for a lawyer, but actually to listen to them. and to hear from them their concerns, and their priorities, and how we can work together going forward. in the most effective way possible. >> thank you very much. my time is expired, mr. chairman. thank you. >> before i call on senator cornyn, i want to go to the agriculture committee for 15 minuteses. we've got enough people here to ask questions so would you take over according to -- till i get back? so it's my understanding it will be cornyn, and then durbin if he comes back, and then per due and then lee. is the way i think it works out. >> ms. yates congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you, senator. >> and certainly have an impressive career. in public service and have all

of the qualifications to prepare you for being the deputy attorney general, and i take seriously the advice and counsel of our colleagues, senator per due, senator isakson and their testimonials to your public service and congressman lewis, as well. i guess the biggest problem someone in your position has when they come to washington, d.c. as a prosecutor is the politics. and the ambiguity that seems to exist too often in my view about the role of the chief law enforcement officer of the united states, the attorney general, and i would include high level appointees like you. about where your loyalties lie. and you've been very clear about your dedication of the law and pursuit of justice, and that's very admirable. but sometimes, here at the

highest levels of the department of justice, and this has happened in republican administrations and democratic administrations, because you serve at the pleasure of the president, and you're confirmed by the senate, and you when asked a question about the law, sometimes you get a political answer. could you just explain to me your perspective on where your loyalties will lie? given the fact you are appointed by the president, serve at his pleasure, can you tell the president no? >> well, thank you for the question, senator. because i think you have raised obviously a critically important issue, and that is the independence of the department of justice. i can tell you very simply where my loyalties lie and that is to the people of the united states and to the constitution. that's what i've been doing for the last 25 years. during the time that i was an assistant united states attorney and as u.s. attorney i actually

specialized in public corruption prosecutions. you have to stand up to some powerful people when you bring a public corruption case. and that's what i've been doing the balance of my career. as i said, i've been doing this for a long time and am committed to the department of justice and to the cause of justice and i'm not going to give that up in the last two years. according to a unclassified threat assessment from the texas department of public safety this has to do with cartels that control human smuggling, and drug trafficking according to this unclassified threat assessment, mexican cartels control most of the human smuggling and human trafficking routes and networks in texas. the nature of the cartel's command and control of human smuggling, and human trafficking networks along the border is varied, including cartel members having direct organizational involvement and response iblgtd over human smuggling and human trafficking operations. as well as cartel members

sanctioning and facilitating the operation of human smuggling and human trafficking organizations closed quote. do you agree that transnational transnational criminal organizations control much of the human trafficking in and about the united states? >> well, it was a significant issue for me as a united states attorney and the northern district of georgia. in fact, some accounts indicate that atlanta is the number one city in the country for child sex trafficking. some rank it lower. not sure if we're one or three but whatever it was it was too large. we also are at the unfortunate cross roads in atlanta of another issue. that is in atlanta, we are the east coast hub for the mexican cartels. so, i had an opportunity to have to combat those of these. my experience with the cartels have been that they essentially go where ever the money is. and where ever there is a profit

to be made and we know that human trafficking now is the second fastest growing illegal enterprise in the world second only to drug trafficking, so it's not surprise thag the cartels would want to be involved in human trafficking as well. >> your answer reflects what i believe to be the fakih. they go where are the money is. people, drug, weapon you name it and that ought to cause us a lot of concern. will you make that a priority if confirmed to this office? >> absolutely, senator. this was one of my top priorities when i was u.s. attorney in atlanta and that was ensuring that we weren't just doing the one off drug cases, but rather doing everything we could to actually disrupt and dismantle the mexican cartels and to work our way up as high as we can in the organizational structure of those cartels. >> i hope that the senate gets unstuck on a human trafficking legislation we're on and i'm optimistic that we will

eventually we'll be able to provide additional support to law enforcement and victims to help them heal and return to as normal a life as they can. since i came to the senate i've been very engaged with my friend, senator leahy, the ranking member on freedom of information reform and of course, the department of justice has oversight responsibility for implementation of the freedom of information act. according to a recent report in response to a request regarding the first lady's dresses i don't know why somebody is curious about the first lady's dresses, i guess the question is is who pays for those. the responding agency blacked out the senate's quote, we live in constant fear of upsetting the white house and claimed an exepgs which protects personnel and medical files.

in 2009, the counsel to the president issued a nonpublicized mem random ordering all executive departments and agencies to consult with white house counsel's office on any requested domes involving quote, white house equities, closed quote. i'm not quite sure what white house ek wii theties are but you believe it's appropriate for the white house to review requests that are not directed to the white house but directed to executive branch agencies before responding? >> well, thank you for the question, senator and i think our foy area laws are if place to ensure the kind of transparency that is really the bedrock of our democracy and certainly, the department of justice is committed to ensuring that laws are followed, not just in the letter, but the spirit. i am not familiar with the request for the first lady's dresses and have not gotten deeply into foya litigation in

the eight weeks i've been at main justice now, but i can assure you that going forward, i would be happy to work with you and other members of the committee. >> my question i think it was not who pays for them, i wasn't clear initially. but i appreciate your commitment to work with us on this. i think there's a lot of work needs to be done at the department. and in the federal government generally about transparency, which you referred to in your opening comments and fidelity to the rule of law when it comes to freedom of information. thank you very much. good luck. >> thank you, senator. >> senator. >> thanks mr. chairman and thanks for being here today and coming by my office. let me ask you at the outset about human trafficking and stipulate that i think senator korn's bill is is a good bill. we've been meiered down on one

es aspect, hoping we can break through. you have not only dealt in some capacity with the victims of human trafficking and it strikes me that these victims, many are very, very young. that is one of the tragic aspects of this. and most of them, if not all, are in some state of servitude because of the people controlling their live, which leads me to a generalized question. by classic definition, the victims who are impregnated would apparently are subject to sexual assault would be victims of stat tor rape in some states and voluntary sexual assault by definition in most categories. what we're trying to reach here is a question about how they would be treated the if pregnant and whether they would be regarded as victims of rape.

could you make any observation on that? >> in the time i've been involved the human trafficking prosecutions, which is much of my career at the u.s. attorney's office, and particularly in the last five years. some of the most meaningful work i've done is an opportunity to spend time with the victims of these cases and actually, i'm careful oftentimes to try not to call them victims, but rather survivors because that's what they are. their courage is humbling. certainly, i'm not familiar with the details of excuse me each state's laws, but in my home state of georgia, if you have sex with an underage woman, then she would be certainly or underage girl, wouldn't be a woman, she would be a victim. but to give you a real legal answer on that i would really need to have a better understanding of each state's laws. >> understood and fair. and that is we are kind of tied in to this issue of rape and abortion.

when many of us believe that by definition, the victim/survivors would automatically be characterized as rape victims by virtue of age or circumstances of the sexual assault. but any way, fair enough, but i won't hold you to any strict standard on that. can i ask on this issue that's been raised. senator lee and i are cosponsoring a bill called the smarter sensing act and we have discussed this. it was probably 1995, maybe earlier, congress established mandatory minimums and for those, we were trying to with them, we were trying to e deuce the rate of crime. we were trying to eliminate the uncertainty in variation in sentencing and generally send out a message to those who committed a crime that there was a price to be paid. the net result of it has been a dramatic increase in the number of individuals incarcerated in our federal system.

charged under these mandatory minimum statutes and particularly in the category of nonviolent drug offenses. we've seen a dramatic increase. senator lee and i have introduced a billful we do not eliminate any mandatory minimum crime. the maximum penalty on any crime. what we try to provide is some flexibility to the sentencing court when it comes to the low end of a mandatory minimum. for a narrow category of crime. nonviolent drug offenses. and i guess my question to you is the statement raised by chairman grassley. is this going to make it more difficult in your estimation and opinion for the prosecutor to get the cooperation of the defendant or to basically see that justice is served if such a change were made? >> thank you, senator for that question because this is an

issue that i feel very strongly about. i believe that the smarter sentencing act is going to, if passed, make our country much safer and with specifically with respect to the question that you have asked about the ability for prosecutors to be able to obtain cooperation from defendants. i'm not worried about that either and i can tell you why. in the last year, we have done research on statistics after the passage after the new department policy on the crime initiative. and the way to ensure those sentences are reserved for the defendants who are in most need. now, many of my colleagues and local and line ausas were concerned they wouldn't be able to get cooperation if they

didn't have the minimum of a hammer hanging over their head, but statistics indicate that's not the case. because over the last year, the percentage of defendants pleading guilty in drug cases has remained the same. actually, it's gone up half a percentage as it was prior to the time that we instituted smart on crime. likewise, the percentage of drug defendants who are cooperating in drug cases has remain eded the same. and as a prosecutor who was doing this before we had some of these mandatory minimums or the sentencing glooin sentencing guidelines, i wasn't surprised because the defendant will also have an incentive to get a lower sentence. so not only from a gut feeling did i not think that would be the case, the em per cal evidence indicates. >> i don't want to presume when you said it would make a safer, but you noted earlier the vast