for obama's unconstitutional actions. a call from oregon city, oregon. sharon you're first through, go ahead. >> i did not get to see the entire proceeding. i'd like to know what the attorney general, if she's confirmed, would intending to do about the overreach of executive orders. and the unconstitutional acts of the president. eric holder has refused to prosecute. i want to know if she'll follow up on that. >> certainly a lot of questioning about those immigration executive orders and more to come as they've just about wrapped up their first round of questioning. the new senator from north carolina is next in line. walters is next in our line -- walter's next on our line. go ahead. >> yes. i just want to say that ms. lynch put out one of the best

exhibitions of being a professional in her line of business and if she's not confirmed it would be a shame to the congress and it would be a shame to america. this is a very sharp, intelligent woman who is very professional who answered all their questions. and came across as an excellent, excellent candidate for attorney general. and if she is not confirmed, everybody in the senate ought to just resign their positions is what should happen. >> on to alexander in pennsylvania on our republican line. this is barry of the just make sure folks, you turn down your television or radio when you call in. barry, go ahead. >> i think one of the top priorities for any attorney general should be able to distinguish and define the word illegal and making a statement that illegal aliens have as much right to work as citizens i think crosses the line of not being able to distinguish or to

determine the definition of the word illegal. i've watched -- unfortunately not all of this questioning. but i think that's an important issue that needs to be handled and i think also the prosecution of eric holder should be answered simply yes or no. >> loretta limpling's father is on the center of your screen. he went to school and college and to law school at harvard. loretta lynch's mother was not able to make the trip to washington. some comments on facebook as we wait for the judiciary committee to gavel back in. and your thoughts on what you'd like to see, your priorities, for the next attorney general. here's one from tracy who says that the priority should be to continue to investigate and charge the grand jury -- says change the grand jury system to push independent investigaters in the case of the shooting of unarmed americans by police.

>> before the hearing got under way today, we were able to be outside of the hearing room as people lined up to be in the audience today. we talked to a couple of those people including one who is a relative of loretta lynch. >> standing in line here for this hearing. tell us about it. >> well this is a tremendous honor. not only for our family but also for the african-american race, that she's been recommended and nominated for this important position. we think it's going to be super and we're going to try to support her. >> i hear you're a cousin? >> i am a cousin to her. yeah. my name is quinton lynch. we grew up in north carolina. she was very studious and went on to harvard and distinguished herself there. >> some of the commeblets ahead of today's hearing. the senate judiciary committee hearing about to gavel back.

in they've taken a short break as a number of senators have gone over to the senate floor to cast votes. amendment votes in keystone x.l. pipeline debate. this is merit island, florida. independents line. hello to mike. >> yes. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> i know there's a lot of issues politically with the american people with the attorney general. and i came a little bit late to the hearing and i think she's professional but right now the political body seems to be unfavorable to her based on the majority, whether she's confirmed or not i do not know. but i was curious whether she had stipulated any responses to or any questions asked to the current medical marijuana with certain states legalizing it

and how -- any response she had on that. if you could help me out with that. i greatly appreciate it. >> she did have questioning on marijuana, the legalization of marijuana in some states. and you can find all of that testimony on our website at cspan.org. we'll show all of it to you later tonight beginning at we think 8:00. of course it depends how late the judiciary committee wants to stay in had. one more thing, we didn't want to remind you that the chairman -- did want to remind you that the chairman of the committee will be our guest tomorrow morning on "washington journal." your chance to speak to the chairman, 7:45 eastern here on c-span and c-span radio. it's chesapeake, virginia, diana on our democrats line. >> yes, good afternoon. i've been watching the hearing from beginning to this point. and i believe that no matter what party you're affiliated with, just to keep in mind that, number one she's still an exemplary job of -- with all the questioning and everything. but she has ruffled feathers on

both sides of the aisle in the past. she's very even-handed and very consistent and i think that's who we need to replace eric holder at this time. >> seeing a number of women in red dresses, the favorite color of the sorority that loretta lynch belongs to. she was a charter member of the black sorority at harvard. terry's up next, morse bro, north carolina. and this is the republican line. >> yes. i'd like to make a comment more than anything. i believe ms. lynch would be the same kind of attorney general that eric holder was. they have a specific agenda, the same as president obama. and i believe that is where it's coming from now. i hope the democrats and the republicans do not confirm her. she does have the education but as far as that goes she

believes in more illegal aliens taking away from american workers. also veterans, which i am one. thank you. >> thank you, terry. john's up next in new jersey. sorry about that, john, are you there? go ahead. >> yes, i am. thank you. watching the hearings i did not get to see the whole thing from beginning to end. she seemed like a very eloquent woman in per person, forget her gender. i've been impressed with her the short time i've been watching. but some of the comments -- if she did say that illegal aliens have just as much of a right to work in this country as citizens, i have a problem with that statement. but also i would like to know what she would do about the laws that eric holder has said that he would not follow. even though they are laws of the land. what would she do? would she not follow the same

rules or laws or would she decide which ones she's going to implement or which ones she's not? i would like an answer. i wish somebody would ask her that question. >> you and others too can find out all -- you can follow all of the testimony from earlier, you can go to our website, cspan.org, and see the video there. what's more is if you type in a key word like immigration and the transcript is right there, it can take you right to that point in the video or points where she's being asked about issues like immigration or marijuana or cybersecurity. the audience is beginninging to fill back in as we did earlier. we had a producer up on capitol hill talking about -- talking to some of the folks gathering there to attend today's session. and they're not just friends and family and reporters, they are also interest groups in washington, interested in hearing from the potential new attorney general. here's one. >> you were the first person in line this morning. you were here early with us. tell us why you're here and what are you expecting to learn

from the hearing today? >> i represent an organization called the judicial crisis network. i've been following this nomination for my organization for the last several weeks. this is an incredibly important nomination because the department of justice has a lot of power, has an enormous influence on how the rule of law and the constitution is applied in the united states. we think it's particularly important that this nomination be one that is going to preserve the integrity of the department of justice, that's going to apply the rule of law and the law itself, along with the constitution with the highest levels of professionalism and integrity. >> what priorities are you lookinging for for the next attorney general? >> there's a lot that the next attorney general can do in terms of reducing what we consider an overcriminalization problem. the overcriminalization of innocent or socially beneficial behavior for a variety of means. i can go into great detail about. this but that would be one problem. another one would be reducing

the politicalization aspects of the department of justice. a lot of critics have accused the current attorney general of criticizing the department. whether that's fair, the next attorney general needs to do a lot to rehabilitate the reputation of the department. >> those comments from before the hearing started this morning. they got under way at 10:00 eastern. they took a lunch break and took another short break here just about 15 minutes ago. that's due to votes on the senate floor. and the keystone bill. we'll continue to take your calls and comments until just about when they gavel back in, so let's go to boston and this is margaret on the democrats line. >> hi. i think the answers and the questions were very very impressive. they seem to appreciate her answers and they seem to -- and also wants to work very closely with them. and i think this is the best hearing i've heard since there was a nominee appearing before

them. i think it's going to work out well for her. >> and new hampshire's next. republican line. russell, good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i agree with the last two guys that talked about the illegal immigration. illegal immigrants taking the jobs over here. i don't believe they have a right to -- you know, what part of illegal doesn't she understand? i don't think she should be confirmed. she's an eloquent speaker and very well educated but i think she's another puppet for obama's agenda. and they pretty much are getting voted out as we go. that's my opinion. thank you. >> it was on this day, january 28, six years ago that eric holder was approved by this senate judiciary committee though a very different look. they passed his nomination 17-2. here's california, charles is on the independents line. >> hi. how are you? >> doing fine. go ahead. you're on the air.

>> i've been watching this confirmation -- >> i'm going to let you go there had. it looks like another charles, charles grassley has come back to the room and will -- we'll wait for the hearing to resume. thank you for your call.

>> just as soon as the room quiets, i'm going to recognize the senator. i think it's quite enough. would you proceed? >> thank you, mr. chair. and ms. lynch congratulations.

it's quite an honor to be in the place that you are today. i want to compliment you on your distinguished career and i've also noted over the course of your testimony just how much pride is in the eyes of your friends and supporters here. congratulations. i had a question for you and it stems from -- oh i also want to thank you for dealing with last week when we had to move the venue and the time around for the meeting. i appreciate your graciousness and spending some time with me last week. i really want to maybe start where we left off, with some of the discussions. and i think that senator flake and senator lee and senator schumer have also echoed the concerns about the limited resources and how you would prioritize things within the -- within your future perspective new responsibilities. -- prospective new responsibilities. i guess something that strikes home for me has to do with certain elections laws.

and in north carolina, i'm not familiar with how much you know about the elections. the law was more or less the foundation of that law, with the indiana law which was upheld by the supreme court 6-3, but given the limited resources within the a.g.'s office and the department of justice, what are your thoughts on pursuing laws that are likely end to up in the same state, particularly laws like north carolina that went much further than the law that was upheld? >> certainly, sir. i believe that the right to vote obviously is the corner stone of our democracy. >> as do i. >> certainly i think that states obviously have an interest in protecting that right to vote also, as well as regulating it and making it safe and free and open for everyone. and i believe in many states

they're acting with exactly that view in mind. certainly with respect to the north carolina statute and case, i know it's under litigation now. i believe there will be a trial at some point in time. i'm not familiar with the status of the case now. so i can't comment on that specific case. or that specific statute. but what i can say is that with respect to how the department will look at voting rights issues it will on the view toward protectinging the right to vote and hopefully working with the states to ensure that all the interests are met. certainly all voter i.d. laws are not problematic. as you noted, the court has outlined situations in which they are useful and serve a fundamentaly important purpose. and the department has, under the previously utilized doctrine about free clearance, actually approved voter i.d. laws. so i don't think that we can at this point without knowing how a case will be presented, say which way the department will go in viewing it.

but given the fundamental importance of the right to vote should an issue be raised it is something that the department of justice has an obligation to review and consider whether or not it should get involved. >> in the example of the law that was passed by north carolina and the case that was brought against north carolina. in fact i was named in the case because at time i was speaker of the house. i'm just curious how, as you go forward and you're dealing with the challenges in this office, as i believe senator schumer said, trying to focus your resources on the bad actors, the hardened criminals, the difficult challenges that the department faces, and a case that has 10 attorneys on it, focused on no less than 10, i believe, focused on that, i would hope that there would be

some focus on is that the best and highest use? if given the merits of the case and other laws that have gone to the supreme court, that it's likely to end in a situation where it's going to rule in favor of the state and at the expense of those resources could be used for other purposes. i mean, what is your thought on going into this role and taking a look at cases like that and maybe determining priorities based on the likely outcome? have you given any thought to that? >> certainly as we review a case, both throughout my career as a prosecutor and as u.s. attorney, we always look to the possibility of how a court will view a particular matter. but first and foremost, whether the case involves voting or any other important right, is the issue of what is the evidence that's presented and what is the relevant law, what is the interest being protected. and if it relates to a core function of the department of justice, such as protecting the right to citizens, keeping our citizens safe, or protecting

the right to vote, it is a matter that we would be obligated to look into. whether or not a matter would result in litigation would of course depend upon a variety of factors which are not in front of me today. about the nature of the law and how it was written and essentially whether it comported with those laws that were previously approved both by the department and by courts. certainly with respect to the north carolina case, i believe the matter is in litigation. it's not something that i'm intimately familiar with. i have not been involved in the management of that case to date. i look forward to learning more about it should i be confirmed and i believe the matter will proceed to court and we will await the results there. >> ms. lynch, i do have a question just based on the final comment that you made there. with respect to the case. because it gives me some sense of whether or not we can look at this objectively and make sure that we're using the resources of d.o.g. -- d.o.j. in the most effective way. i think in january of 2014 you

said that people try and take over the state house and reverse the goals that have been made and voting in this country. i presume since i was the person who took over the state house i would be included by reference. and you go on to say, and in my home state of north carolina has brought lawsuits against those voting rights changes that seek to limit our ability to stand up and exercise our rights as citizens. so in my limited time, i know i'll have another opportunity to ask questions, i had some sense that maybe perhaps you were somewhat familiar with what had been done in north carolina and, again, with the backdrop of other laws that seem to have disposed of whether or not what north carolina has done, i took great care to make sure that we made heroic efforts to preserve everyone's right to vote. i may come back around and ask you a few more questions to that -- to this effect.

but i want to move on to something that's completely out of there and it has to do with something that's very important to me. one of the reasons i ran was on veterans issues and on taking care of those who have taken care of us. and one question that i have, i hope that you will look at and perhaps consider in my follow-up questions, giving me a response if you have time to speak, but the public safety officers benefits program is a problem. we have people who are making claims there who are not getting their claims resolved on a timely basis. and i've heard a number of reports where -- this is in the event of a death -- that i would like to think that we would place a priority on are resolving these claims and clearing the backlog. if you have an opportunity and you won't have a lot because you'll be sittinging right there, but if i could get some sense of what that will be as a priority, if you are confirmed as attorney general, that's something that's personally important to me. i think it's the least we can do for the families. one other thing i'll tell you that i think that we're going to find a lot of common ground,

should you be confirmed, is on the issue of cybersecurity. i consider this to be something that the attorney general, all law enforcement, all prosecutorial districts across this nation need the tools to make sure that we get control of this quickly. i'd like some idea based on your knowledge of how we're currently doing, if you have any sense of where we would go as a priority should you be confirmed. >> certainly, senator. with respect to cybersecurity, there are a number of areas in which would be my focus should i be confirmed. within our law enforcement commuvente, i would working to -- community, i would work to ensure they have the technological resources they need to stay ahead of this front. from a human resource perspective as well as computers and the like, with respect to the u.s. attorney community and the department of justice community, i would make sure that our prosecutors receive the appropriate training to manage the this important issue. as i've seen in my practice as u.s. attorney, cyber issues are

now in every area of practice that we have. that will continue to be the case. and i'm sure that should i become confirmed as attorney general i will see that throughout the department of justice. i will work to strength the resources in the criminal division and the national security division that deal with these cases. but another thing that i think is very important as we combat cyberattacks and deal with cybersecurity is the relationship between government and private industry. i believe that there's a very, very important collaborative relationship to be built there. it is being built. i've seen it. i've participated in conferences with both financial sector parties as well as pharmaceutical industry parties on this important issue. and we've had very, very good, positive collaborative results involving the reportinging of cyberattacks as well as law enforcement's ability to work with private industry to gain knowledge of their systems, to

prevent attacks as well. so i think we also, should i become attorney general, one of my priorities would be strengthening this connection between government and private industry as well. >> thank you very much. senator schumer mentioned earlier, i meant to mention in my opening comments, that we have a number of very capable basketball teams in north carolina, beyond the blue devils and the tar heels. many of whom i think this year could beat the knicks. [laughter] >> well. as an early carolina fan, i have to say that that is likely true. [laughter] >> the various staff of both republican and democrat give us some inventory of the number of people that want a second round. and the second round will be eight minutes. i'm going to take about five minutes of that eight minutes and then go vote and i'll have to recess, if nobody else is

back here. so you can do what you want to do during that period of time. >> thank you, senator. >> the first question was going to be a question, now it's just going to be a statement. so i'd appreciate if you'd listen to my point of view. you suggested earlier that prosecutorial discretion allows the administration to prioritize removal of criminal aliens from the country. yet in fiscal year 2013 the administration released from its custody $36,000 aliens who had been -- 36,000 aliens who had been convicted of a crime instead of removing them. according to the department of homeland security, 1,000 of these aliens have already been convicted of another crime since their release. just today i received a 38-page document from the department of homeland security that lists each of the offenses underlining those 1,000 post -release convictions, including things like assault with a

deadly weapon, terrorist threats, failure to register as a sex offender, lewd acts with child under -- lude acts with a child under 14, aggravated assaults, robbery, hit and run criminal street gang rape spouse by force, child cruelty, possible injury and death. i'm going to put this in the record. but so my statement is this for you to consider -- you don't have to respond to it now. i could go on but for the sake of time, that copy's in the record so anybody can review it. this suggests the administration is not prioritizing the removal of criminal aliens very well, so 1,000 out of 36,000 have committed further crimes. and who knows, maybe others. so if confirmed, my statement to you would be simply, you need to take a look at that

policy. i had two points in my second question. but senator tillis asked about the public safety officers benefits. he's heard the same thing from my constituents -- the same thing that i've heard from my constituents. in iowa alone, there are three families who have been waiting for over three years and another that's been waiting since 2013 to receive benefits. two weeks ago i wrote the department about the delays and requested a reply by this friday. obviously you won't be in a position that you can request that or answer that by friday. but i hope to get an answer because way back in 2004 the attorney general at that time made a decision that these claims should be processed within 90 days of receiving all the necessary information. so then i would go to the

second one, which is just -- well, let me go to it and then i'll ask you the question. there's a brandon he willington of iowa, you wouldn't know about --elington of iowa, you wouldn't know about this because he's an iowa student and a college student who drowned while handcuffed after state troopers arrested him in may of 2014. i've discussed the case with attorney general holder, had a couple telephone conversations, i'm very satisfied with his personally looking at it. it has gotten his personal attention. he's assured me that the department will look into the unanswered questions in this case carefully to see if there are any federal laws involved. so all i'm asking you to do, if and when you're approved, will you be able to talk to attorney general holder and if he doesn't make a decision by

then that would you personally examine brandon ellington's case? >> i would certainly continue that resolve, senator. >> now i'm going to go and i'll recess for a while and then i'll come back and finish my second round. thank you. >> thank you, senator. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> this is the senate judiciary committee hearing for lore et' lynch. they're in the -- loretta lynch. they're in the center of your screen. she's been nominated by president obama to be the next attorney general a hearing which got under way at 10:00 eastern this morning. several breaks in the ones this afternoon mainly due to the series of amendment votes on the senate floor this afternoon.

dealing with the keystone x.l. oil pipeline. so the schedule this afternoon anyway getting a little bit hectic. but we'll open up our phone lines during this break and hear from you, your thoughts on the hearing, your priorities for the next attorney general. 202-585 -- excuse me, 202-748-8920 for democrats. for republicans, 202-748-8921. and for all others, that's 202-748-8922. mute your television or radio when you call in. we'll also look at comments on facebook and the hashtag on twitter is #c-spanchat. we're expecting the committee to come back in. most of the members have had at least one round, if fact, all of the members have had one round of questioning and senator grassley was gauging how many other members wanted a second round of questioning. also want to let you know that grassley will be our guest tomorrow morning on "washington journal" at 7:45 eastern. let's get to your calls. as loretta lynch is remaining

in the room with friends and family gathered there. we'll stay here too and hear from you, new freedom, pennsylvania. this is collar he's. go ahead. >> first of all, thank you for taking my call. and what i would ask all americans to do who are looking at this, it seems to be ma a lot of callers are call -- it seems to be that a lot of callers are calling in. let's be respectful with this. ms. lynch deserves this. she's not the president and she's not mr. holder. and i'd like to congratulate all of the senators that have been respectful of that chamber because she deserves it and we deserve it as americans. and i agree with closing gitmo because if our soldiers had been kept in a unit someplace without a trial, we would be in an uproar. and a lot of these prisoners

have been held there, have not been given the due process and that is not our country. thank you for letting me give my opinion. >> an update on when the committee will gavel back in we'll let you know. houston, texas. hello to zwreen who -- gene who is on our republican line. >> yes. thank you for taking my call. >> you bet. >> got a couple of comments. but i was trying to -- >> i think they've gaveled back in. we'll hold you right there. >> thank you all. sorry that we're in this unfortunate circumstance of having a hearing interrupted rather repeatedly. it's not the best way to do business, ms. lynch. i'm sorry that that's occurred. we have been working hard in the senate.

thursday more votes were cast in one day than the entire year last year. and senator mcconnell promised that members would be able to offer votes and so there's 18 more i think going to be cast today and maybe that will bring -- come close to bringing the end to the legislation that's out there. but i think it's part of our heritage as congress to have individual senators be able to offer an amendment and get a vote on it. so i think it's the right thing but this hearing i wish could have been conducted more respectfully. so i'm sorry about that. i have to have a clear answer to this question, ms. lynch. do you believe the executive action announced by president obama on november 20 is legal and constitutional? yes or no? >> as i've read the opinion, i do believe it is senator.

>> this is very troubling to me. because it goes way beyond prosecutorial discretion, i think. it goes clearly to allowing someone to work who is unlawfully in america. to take jobs that the statutes say they're not entitled to take. it gives people the right to participate in social security and gives them a number as part of their work authorization to participate in other actions like medicare. and i believe this is a fundamental question. it's been a part of the national debate and the american people are very concerned about it. the polling number is very high. they do not believe, in fact the american people are shocked that we are seeing this action from the president. after congress was asked to pass legislation to this effect and congress rejected it. do you believe that the president has a right to take action in violation of law just

because congress refused to pass a law he asked them to pass? >> i believe, senator, that the president is as limited by law as every citizen and it is certainly the responsibility of both the president and the department of justice to follow the laws as passed by this body. with respect to other actions the president may take, depending upon the action taken, there may be a basis for certain actions or they may -- there may not be a basis for legal actions and that's where i believe that the department of justice must apply its own independent, thorough legal analysis and as with this particular opinion, aser dane whether or not there was a legal framework -- ascertain whether whether or not there was a legal framework for action or not. and decline to provide a legal basis for that. >> well, what it did approve i think clearly goes beyond the law.

congress authorized -- has passed certain laws that control entry into the united states. we expect you as a chief law enforcement officer, the president who has taken an oath to see the laws are faithfully executed, to execute those. and i read the opinion. and it suggests that -- it suggests that faithfully executing means you use your resources as best you have to carry out the intent of congress. is that fundamentally -- >> yes, sir. >> it goes beyond just enforcing every single law. if you don't have the resources you should try to use the resources you have to effectively carry out the law. >> certainly sir. >> well, what i would contend is absolutely plain. i would contend that you've gone far beyond that. you've actually created a new system of law. a new system of qualification. a new standard for who can work

in america. a new standard for who can have social security and medicare. this is a fundamental matter of great importance. i just have to tell you, i'm worried about it. the "wall street journal", mr. rifken who served two white house counsels and law professor foley concluded their piece this way. the legal counsel who reports to mr. holder and would report to you, that you're now affirming, rendered a valid opinion which you associate yourself with. this is what he said. the l.l.c.'s memo endorses a view of presidential power that has never been advanced by even the boldest presidential advocates. if this view holds, future presidents can unilaterally gut

tax, environmental, labor and security laws by enforcing only those portions with which they agree. this is a dangerous precedent and cannot be allowed to stand. and thankfully the attorney general of the united states should have told president obama that urged him and -- to back off. the president's got head strong. and he didn't do. it now you're here defending this -- do it. now you're here defending this. i believe it's indefensible. i want to tell you, that's a big problem with me. now, do you believe and do you support legalization of marijuana? >> senator i do not. >> i know the head of the d.e.a. is a little bit out of step with some in the administration i think agreed with you on that. the president said this in january of last year.

quote, i smoked pot as a kid and i view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very difficult from -- different from the cigarettes that i smoked as a young person person up through a big chunk of my adult life. i don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol. closed quote. do you agree with that? >> well, senator, i certainly don't hold that view and don't agree with that view of marijuana as a substance. i certainly think that the president was speaking from his personal experience and personal opinion, neither of which i'm able to share. but i can tell you that not only do i not support legalization of marijuana, it is not the position of the department of justice currently to support the legalization nor would it be the position should i become confirmed as attorney general. >> do i think that there's been a lot of silence there. i know the head of the d.e.a. did push back and testified here pretty aggressively but i

think she felt like she was out of step within the administration. and i hope that you will cease to be silent. because if the law enforcement officers don't do this, i don't know who will. and in the past attorneys general and other government officials have spoken out and i think kept bad decisions from being made. it's good to see senator leahy here. not many attorney generals have you presided over. more than a few -- how about a rough number? >> i'm trying to think who president ford's -- go back to -- not presided but being a part of it. >> it's been a pleasure to work with you on this committee on a number of years. ms. lynch, this is a big issue this immigration. because it represents, in my view a presidential brute

decision that was rejected in congress and i do not believe and totally reject the idea that if congress fails to act, then the president is entitled to act. any more than i think if congress fails to act, judges can just act. because congress, by not agreeinging to pass a certain piece of legislation, has acted. it is made -- it has made a decision. and that's where we are. there's still opportunities and still legislation moving that will be considered as the year's to come on all questions related to immigration. there will be a lot of debate and that kind of thing. but under our system, it is not justified in my view. just one more thing i would say to you. i do hear a lot of talk, a lot of loss of confidence in the justice department, a belief from professionals prosecutors

and citizens that there's too much politics and not enough law. and i do think if you achieve this office, you need to know that. i shared that with you i think in a meeting. you need to make it a central part of what you do, to reverse that trend and restore confidence, that this attorney general's office serves the law and the people objectively. and not a political agenda. thank you and i'll recognize senator leahy. >> let me state i'll be brief, but when i was a young law student, i was invited into the attorney general's office, he was recruiting me to come to the department of justice. i asked the attorney general how independent they were, i said for example, suppose you had a prosecution that you knew was justified but the white house you knew might take a different view. he said, i'd have to prosecute because that's my job.

that attorney general was robert kennedy. he later prosecuted a man who was critical to his brother getting elected president. i contrast that to another attorney general in the last administration who testified here that, he's a member of the president's staff, so therefore he takes order frts white house. i kind of exploded on that. i said, it's not secretary of justice, it's the attorney general of the united states not for the republicans, not for the democrats, but the united states. i think from what you told us, you'd be that kind of an independent attorney general. i heard somebody criticize this morning on the prosecution, ed stevens. i feel he should not have been prosecuted. it was neglected to mention that was during the last administration and it was attorney general holder who got the conviction obtained in the last administration.

i assume from things you said before, we are concerned in vermont about the increase in heroin, that you will continue to work with communities as the justice department does now, i mean communities not just at the federal level but the state and local level, to combat this problem that's facing so many parts of the united states. not just my own state of vermont. >> senator should i be confirmed as attorney general, certainly the issue of the growing numbers and amount of heroin abuse is of grave concern to me. i've seen it happen in my own district and in talking with my colleagues in the u.s. attorney community across the country. they have expressed similar concerns. as you point out however, we are most effective when we work in partnership with our state and local law enforcement partners and often when dealing

with the issue of addictions, in working with our public health community as well to find treatment for the offenders and possibly break the cycle of addiction. many of my colleagues have been engaged in efforts of exactly that type, that have been very effective in lowering the addiction rates and in fact lowering the crime rate associated with heroin abuse. these are efforts that we can study and that we can share. we have to have a strong law enforcement response also but we must involve state and local counterparts. we must involve families. we must involve treatment centers as well. in dealing with this seemingly intractable problem. >> thank you. if there's no objection, i would reserve the four minutes and 46 seconds left in my round of questions because there's another roll call. >> we'll save that and we'll

stand in recess. >> thank you sir. >> until somebody returns. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> another break in the hearing for loretta lynch, the confirmation hearing, day number one of the confirmation hearing. they're taking breaks this afternoon. the senate judiciary committee, due to a whole series of votes on amendments on the senate floor. these are amendments to the keystone x.l. oil pipeline bill. senator mcconnell trying to get work done on that bill and finished by the end of the week. so thus the interruptions. we'll once again open up our phone lines and hear from you. 202-748-8920 for democrats. republicans it's 202-748-9 1 and for independents and all others that's 202-748-8922. a couple of other notes, we will re-air all of this this afternoon beginning at 8:00 eastern here on c-span.

day number two is coming up tomorrow, it will fee cur witnesses testifying in favor and opposing the nominee. that also will be live here on c-span at 10:00 eastern. if you want to join the conversation online, facebook.com/cspan. and twitter the hashtag is # cspanchat. >> we're going to go back to the hearing room. looks like senator schumer is going to ask questions.

>> senator chuck schumer of new york back in the hearing room. this is the hart senate office building where all of these big judiciary committee hearings, the nomination hearings in particular, are held. they won't gavel back in until ms. lynch, loretta lynch, comes back into the room. and again want to remind you that the hearing will re-air tonight here on c-span and tomorrow morning resuming at 10:00 eastern, here on c-span and on c-span radio. loretta lynch served in the clinton administration as the

u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york from 1999 to 2001. and she was reappointed by or nominated by president obama to serve that position after being in private practice for a bit. and she's been in that position since 2010. "the washington post" reports that if she is approved as the attorney general, she not only will be the first african-american woman to hold the position, she would be the first u.s. attorney to hold that position since 1817. the last one was william wurt who was attorney general under president james monroe in 1817. it may be a minute or two here. so let's get to those calls. to catalina who is in baltimore, maryland. independent line. go ahead. baltimore, hello.

all right. clark is in beacon, new york. on our democrats line. go ahead. >> yes, i'm here. thank you. i find the questions pertaining to our nation's financial crisis in the senator's questions reflect the fact that the source of the crisis lies largely in the laws passed by the new york political party pertaining to rating agencies' conduct in 2004. in sum, the political support of these new york politicians by member banks of the new york fed led the board of governors subject to the questions as to why the seven-member board was allowed to operate as five with a majority of three, in sum, allowing the resettlement of financial matters in the order of trillions to a committee of three as constructively stated

in tim geithner's book. in light of tim geithner's disavowing participation and the trustee of a corporation in his book, clearly a misstatement of fact, in light of the fact that half the trustees mp directly involved in the creation of the financial crisis, why wunalt the charge of is he dishes conspiracy be raised by the senators to the bank and politicians who createsed the crisis, coming from political crutchings of the new york state political parties? >> that's clark from beacon, new york, and his comments reflected in a post on facebook from mark. facebook.com/cspan. priorities for the next attorney general. he says -- >> new york senator chuck schumer is at the dais and likely the next questioner. he and senator gillibrand introduced loretta lynch to the committee earlier today.

indiana, this is rodney on the republican line. >> i understood that charles grassley was going to have catherine engel break and cheryl atkinson and jonathan turly and others testify today. will you be broadcasting that testimony? i wonder why there have been no questions about the justice department prying into atkieson's computer and engelbr crembings, t's business and other things. >> you're right that cheryl will be testifying but she's testifying tomorrow. the former cbs journalist also testifying tomorrow. professor jonathan turly of the georgetown law school and a number of others. a reminder, our coverage gets under way tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern, nominees back in the room. so we'll stay here live on c-span and c-span radio. . . >> the hear willing come to order.

first i want to thank my republican colleagues for the courtesy here. we're all going back and forth voting. it would be rare to have a third ranking democrat chair the committee, but we're all going in voting and i appreciate that. i'll try to be as quick as i can because of my need to vote. so, first ms. lynch, i read this morning that on the news you have something special from your late brother who was a navy s.e.a.l. with you today. tell us a little bit about that. >> i have with me my late brother's trident, the insignia of the navy s.e.a.l. it is something that i usually have with me in my office, but i often bring with me when i come down to the department of justice. and i had it with me here today. it ensures that i have both of my brothers with me here today. >> yeah. well having read and seen and met the seals, it's an amazingly difficult thing to achieve. and then like you, in a different way, he was defending

our country in one of the best ways you can. so we really appreciate that. appreciate your thoughts about your brother. ok, now i'd like to go to the next area. this morning both you and senator sessions and i talked about a topic seems like a long time ago this morning. so i'd like to just talk a little more about that. absent appropriate authorization from d.h.s., i just want to ask, is there any federal right for an immigrant who's not a lawful -- not in lawful stat to us work? >> no, there's not, to my knowledge. >> i think earlier you said you had a preference that all individuals here in the united states work regardless of status. i think a lot of us would share that preference. i think this is confusing for people because they're literally -- there literally are nearly 100 categories of statuses or stati, whatever the

right word, is they didn't teach that at james madison high school. for people because you've got to count green cards nonimmigrant visas spouses of individuals on certain visas, parole asylum, applicants for green cards non-immigrant visas, immigration visas. many people who are not u.s. citizens have a legal right to work for example green cardholders. we admit people to work on a work visa. so let me ask you, just what did you mean by -- when you said you think everyone should work regardless of status? >> well, certainly, senator, when i made that comment i was really making more of a personal observation and i must admit i have to be careful here because my father is here and my mother is watching. but certainly in my family, as we grew up we were all expected to try and find employment as part of becoming a responsible adult and as part of becoming a responsible member of society.

so i was making a personal observation based on the work ethic that's been passed down to me by my family. not a legal observation. >> so again, to reiterate, you don't believe that there's a federal right for an immigrant who is not lawful here to work? >> no, sir, not at all. >> ok. i just want to clarify that. i wish senator sessions were here. i think he wasn't certain about what you said. i think now the record is 100% clear. one final question this is about a myth another of the myths that's outer there. generally deferred action policy eliminates case by case consideration is therefore illegal. that's what some people are saying. deferred action is actually like many federal policies, it sets eligibility criteria but requires case by case consideration. so only a limited set of individuals, those with deep ties to this country, and without a criminal record can apply for deferred action under

the president's proposal. but that's not all. after they register, pay a fee, undergo criminal background and national security check, the president requires d.h.s. officers to scrutinize every single case individually, to make absolutely sure the person is not someone we should prioritize for deportation. so i have two questions in regard to that. doesn't it makem nent sense for a program to set out guidelines at the front end and then still require careful individual consideration at the back end before anyone is approved? >> certainly sir. that would make imminent sense and would provide for a careful review of every applicant. >> and i believe that's what the president is intending to do. we haven't seen all the regulations yet. but that seems to me what he said. couldn't one argue that other discretionary guidelines and programs like federal contract bids take a similar approach? we lay out broad criteria but then they review each contract, contract by contract.

>> contract by contract and with rigorous application and screening. >> ok. i want to thank again my colleagues for deferring and i will pass not only the questioning but the gavel to senator graham. >> a dream come true. [laughter] >> a dream come true. your brother was a navy seal. that is a major accomplishment. probably the hardest thing to be in all the military. do you agree with me that one of the worst possible outcomes is for the united states to release somebody from guantanamo bay to go back to the fight to kill an american seal or anyone else. we should make sure we don't do that unless which absolutely have to. >> anyone coming from guantanamo bay or any of our facilities, we

should take appropriate steps that they do not place americans in harm's way. >> we have a 30% release rate and from the seal point of view, they are usually the guys capturing these folks. has to be bad for morale that ends up killing your buddy down the road. the policy we have at guantanamo bay needs to be reviewed and reviewed closely not just for seals but all who have been fighting. do you believe we are at war? >> we are at war. >> i have a military lawyer and you have been a prosecutor for a long time. i believe that military commissions have a place in this war and article 3 courts have a place in this war do you agree with that? >> i do agree with that principle. >> under military law the main objective is to gather

intelligence. does that make sense to you? >> that is one of the important objectives under military law. i would add with respect to the article 3 prosecutions that i have been involved in through my office, a primary goal is also to obtain cooperation and thereby valuable intelligence. >> here's what i would suggest to you. this is the 300 pages and helped write the detainee act to make sure torture we don't -- we don't torture people. not one time does it suggest that you should read the enemy combatant miranda rights. >> the manual is an effective way of handling high target

detainees. >> all i would suggest that anybody in the military would reject out of hand that it's a good way to gather intelligence by providing the enemy combatant a lawyer. in world war ii, even though miranda didn't exist no one has suggested to our military that once you capture an enemy combatant as a lawyer. here's my recommendation to you that we have caught several high-value targets. we have read them miranda rights within days or hours of capture. i want to talk to you about this and have more flexibility than we have in the current system. if we do not hold these people for questioning as an enemy combatant, we are going to lose the ability to gather intelligence and only way to

protect this nation is to interrupt the next attack because the people we are fighting do not mind being killed. can an american citizen be held as an enemy combatant? >> with respect to an american citizen there would be a prohibition against us holding them an enemy combatant. >> that is not true because we have held several enemy combatants. i want you to read because we have a case where an american citizen col baiting with the nazis landed in long island to try to attack. they have to go into article 3, but we have under our law in this case, the idea there is no bar this nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy

combatant. what recommendation -- i want you to read those cases and see if that changes your mind. what recommendation would you give an american citizen when it comes to joining al qaeda or isil. >> with respect to anyone who seeks my opinion on joining those groups, my recommendation would be do not do it because you will face american justice. >> you will get killed. >> you may get killed before we find you. >> if we find you, we could kill you. do you think the president acted within his con -- constitutional authority? >> he figured in the radicalization who have come before the eastern district of new york and active al qaeda leader.

i'm not familiar with the ways in which the decision was made to use the drone against him. >> there is an executive process with the executive agencies that evaluate the threat that every individual presents to the country, in the case of an american citizen, there are strict criteria but if they meet those criteria, the president can use the order of lethal force. american citizens have decided to side with the enemy and have been viewed as an enemy combatant. i think the president correctly authorizeded the drone attack. are you comfortable with that process? would you like to look at that process and get back with me? >> i'm comfortable with the process as you describe it. what i think it illustrates as what you put at the beginning of the discussion use all of the tools available to combat this

war. >> as the attorney germ of the united states, you understand what are the tools to combat this war is to use lethal force against an american citizen who our government has determined to be part of the enemy force. the second tool is to hold an american citizen or non-american citizen. those are two tools in our tool box that have been used for decades and as an attorney general, i want you to recognize those tools are available. read these cases and get back with me if you could. >> absolutely. >> online gaming, are you familiar with the decision by the office of legal counsel in 2011 to basically say that the prohibition in the wire act was limited to sporting events and contests? >> i'm germly familiar. >> you gee with that decision? >> i haven't read that decision

so i'm not able to analyze it for you. it was one interpretation of the wire act. >> would you agree with me that one of the best ways for a terrorist organization or criminal enterprise to be able to enrich themselves, as to have online gaming that would be very hard to regulate? >> i think certainly what we have seen with respect to those who provide material support and financing terrorist organizations, they will use any means to finance those organizations. >> i'm going to send you some information from law enforcement officers and other people who have been involved in this fight and their concern where online gaming is undergoing this interpretation. thank you very much. i do appreciate if you would look and be able to answer my questions about enemy combatant status for american citizens and use of legitimateal force. i will turn it over to senator lee.

>> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for staying with us and even through the hectic vote schedule. i would like to go back to civil for at this time tur if that's all right, which was the topic we were discussing earlier before i left for the last vote. first of all, i want to get back to the question i asked at the outset, do you think it's fair, is it fundamentally just that someone can have their property taken from them by the government without any evidence that they have committed wrongdoing based solely on a showing by the government, probable cause standard, that their property might have been involved in the commission of a crime, perhaps without their own knowledge, own consent or awareness, do you think that's

fair? >> we have a very robust asset for at this time tur program both criminal and civil. with respect to civil for at this time tur, i looked -- forfeiture. i conducted a resue and with respect to civil for at this time tur, there are legal safeguards. and my understanding by my u.s. attorney colleagues. there will be judicial review before attachment or seizure as well as an opportunity to be heard. that standard must be met before the seizure warrant can be issued. >> i understand. a lot of americans don't believe that's fundamentally fair and that's why in my states there have been laws enacted that restrict the use of civil forfeiture and impose additional requirements which is why i raised the concern of the process the department of justice has in occasion in the past used known something as

adoption and take something that could not be forfeited under state law in state court and they'll utilize the resources of the u.s. department of justice to assist in the forfeiture, u.s. department of justice retains 20% and 80% back to the law enforcement agency. this is troubling and you appear to be aware when i asked you about this, you appeared to be aware of an order that attorney general holder issued just about a week and a half or two weeks ago, january 16, restricting that. so i assume you are familiar with that order. >> there was an order or a policy directive from the attorney general and to the field and i did receive that and essentially ends the adoption program. as you point out, senator, a number of states do now have a robust asset forfeiture program on their own.

when the federal program was being instituted, many states did not have this program. so a lot of the local law enforcement agencies that have been using the adoption program initially did not have a venue to if he can you tate legal seizure of property that had been used in a crime. the adoption program began several years ago as a response to that. that has changed. that legal landscape is very different and one of the reasons set forth in our discussions when the policy change was made. >> this order that the attorney general issued on january 16 you refer to it as ending the adoption program the program which the federal government can assist state and local law enforcement agencies. but when you read the order, you see it is subject to several exceptions. one exception applies with respect to and i think you referred to this briefly before when you and i spoke a few hours

ago, one exception relates to property that directly relates to public safety concerns. fair enough? then you turn the next page and look at the second to last paragraph which contains some additional carveouts. this order does not apply to seizures by state and local authorities working together with federal authorities in a joint task. two, seizures by state and local authorities that are the result of federal and joint investigations or with federal authorities, or three, seizures pursuant to federal seizure warrants obtained from federal could you tell us to take custody of assets originally seized under state law. so as i see it, ms. lynch, this order while purporting to end this adoption program as you say is riddled with loopholes and riddled with loopholes that effectively swallow the rule which seems to be a theme today

which is something that concerns me greatly. i understand this order was issued. has been issued prior to your conformation -- after your nomination prior to any confirmation vote on your nomination. but take into account these concerns and to work with me moving forward on making sure that our civil forfeiture programs don't get out of control. would you agree with me that we ought to find ways to stop federal law enforcement agencies from helping state governments to circumvent their own state law restrictions on civil forfeiture? >> i believe the policy change that ended the adoption program is certainly the problem that had been raised. these were situations where local law enforcement made an

initial stop or seizure and the seizure wasn't begun by a federal agent or partner and then the -- brought to the process through the sharing system. the other situations which you refer where there is a federal-state task force or joint investigation really are situations where there is a federal case from the outset and there would not be the issue of having to resue the state laws and they would not be an option in that case, because the case would be under federal jurisdiction from the very beginning. so as you pointed out the initial adoption program did raise concerns and i understand that those have been discussed in the public discussion venue as well as law enforcement circles as well about the issue where the state has a robust system of asset forfeiture, but that system is not being used and the federal system is being

used instead. the adoption program ends that practice. >> it ends it, but there are very large loopholes. i ask you to be aware of that. before my time expires, i want to get back to another question i asked earlier. just indulge me in this hypothetical scenario. imagine you are in a state in which there is a 55 mile-an-hour speed limit. there are a lot of people who want that speed limit raised. imagine that the governor really wants it raised to 75 miles an hour. there is a lot of support within the legislature and among the public at large that there needs to be some reform to the speed limit law. they can't get to any one proposal and then nothing happens. the governor decides that he will announce that anyone who

wants to drive faster than 55 will not be ticketted and they can apply for certification that they won't be ticketted if they want to drive up to 75 miles an hour. he says i can't guarantee it forever but the next three years. would that under that hypothetical scenario would not be tanta mount to usurpation? >> i would want to understand not just the factual framework that you outlined but the relevant laws governing the situation as well as any prior state action, any action that had been sampingsed, all the things that would go into rendering a legal opinion. i'm a careful lawyer and i would want to have all of that information before i could give you a legal opinion as to your hypothetical situation. >> i understand and respect the great care that you devote to answering questions.

and i would respectfully submit that at some point, there is a limit to what a chief executive can do whether we are talking about a governor at a state level or chief executive who is the president of the united states. at some point i would hope you would agree with me there are limits to what a chief executive can do. at some point, one thing, i'm not going to enforce this law, let's say it's taxes, a future president of the united states, whether republican or democrat says i don't think we need to have a tax rate above on 25% and at some point the president can't get congress to agree and he says i'm not going to enforce any tax rate above 25%. at some point there is a limit. and i hope that you'll recognize that and hope that moving forward should you be confirmed

that you be one who is willing to point out to the president of the united states that you do have a client, your client is the united states of america. the chief spokesperson might be the president but the people of the united states and the constitutional restraints that fall upon every officer who is sworn to defend and uphold the constitution. i see my time has expired and i recognize mr. blumenthal. >> as a careful lawyer, which i know your i want to try perhaps set your mind a little bit at ease but a question you were asked earlier. the question related to a statute that purchase port he hadly -- purportedly saying who could take deferred action. one of my colleagues suggest

that the president's executive order is illegal because it is being implementeded by the department of homeland security and not the attorney general as the law he quoted seemed to suggest. just to clarify, the statute that was quoted to you actually was amended in 2002. it no longer assigns responsibility for immigration policy to the attorney general, the provision he quoted and another provision which directly authorizes what president obama has done are to be implemented by the secretary of homeland security. so good news, the president has done nothing wrong and you don't have to run home and look up the statute. and get ready to implement a whole new area of law. you will have enough to do already. i want to personally say that i appreciate that my colleagues

are not making immigration policy be kind of turning point for their decision or put it a different way, they're not making this nomination a referendum on the merits of the president's immigration policy and decision. and i must say that i agree with the president's action and support him. and so do sheriffs and chiefs of police across the country and i'm going to ask if there's no objection that letters that i have from march shal town and south bend indiana be made part of the letter and the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women both -- all these letters make the case that the president's executive action not only helps

immigration officials target resources but also secure cooperation between immigrant companies and identify potential criminals within their jurisdiction. the beneficiaries of the president's policies are not just the immigrants, but also law enforcement officials and people who are better protected by virtue of the activities that those law enforcement officials take. if there is no objection, i would ask that these materials be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> i want to turn briefly to another area where you have some very profoundly valuable experience in the wake of the events in ferguson, missouri and new york city of last year. many of us around the country

who have backgrounds in law enforcement are deeply concerned with making sure the public understands the vital role that our police and law enforcement officials play as well as proper training and discipline that should be provided to those police and law enforcement. and i wonder if you could talk about your experience in addressing the concerns about law enforcement in the wake of the case where you had a professional involvement and i think how you feel that that experience and new policies at the department of justice might better help the department of justice and state and local police. i would mention that i led an effort to pass during the last

session a statute relating to death in custody. it's a death in custody reporting act that requires local and state police to report deaths in custody. it is a re-authorization of a law that expired in 2006. just a modest step toward imagining more facts. but i think there are obviously two sides to this kind of issue. and i would very much appreciate your perspective on it. >> certainly. thank you, senator. with respect to my work on that case, i was privileged to be part of the trial team that handled that case. and i think what often is not commented on and perhaps it is not even widely known is how essential the support and contributions and the actual work of the nyd was to the prosecution and investigation of that case. our team was comprised of f.b.i.

agents and new york city police officers, who knew that unless we held each other accountable, that unless law enforcement acted to hold bad actors accountable, all of law enforcement would suffer. and one of the most painful things to watch during that case was as is happening now the understandable anger and tension, but the backlash against larger groups of police officers. that is one of the dangers of not addressing police misconduct is not only are the officers who work hard every day and work to not only follow the rules, but to enhance the relationship between law enforcement and the community, those officers are not rewarded, but they often get painted with the same brush as officers who may cross the line. and that is one of the greatest harms that you see from these types of cases. i have been privileged to work with dedicated agents and police

during my career and there are no greater teachers than an experienced police officer. one of the things we found useful was encouraging community policing, which the nypd was doing on its own and a number of officers did very, very well. i have seen situations where when i was handing out awards to officers and agents for working on a case in a mostly minority area cleaning out a housing project, the residents asked if they could also come and hand out plaques to the same officers and agents and they did so with plaques that said thank you for giving us back our safety, security and houses, because there was a collaboration there. there was a recognition that this is a joint effort. this is a shared project that we all have between law enforcement and all of the communities that we serve to keep all of us safe. we also have to work more and

certainly if confirmed as attorney general one of my priorities will be to ensure that police officers have the tools they need to do their jobs and to do them safely. senator, i spent several weekends this past month attending the funerals of the detectives of ram oost and liu and to use the word heart wrenching -- this crime that touched new york city was palpable and can't allow our officers to be targets like this. we must provide them the protection they need to do their jobs as well. it is a priority of mine and look forward to working with you to address the legislation that you describe because the more we can get adequate information about these deaths in custody the more we can put effective regular like -- regulations and

rules in place to effectively address them. >> the grief over the assassination of those two police officers was shared in connecticut. as a former united states attorney and state attorney general, my own experience has been that some of the strongest condemnation of improper conduct or impresentence report on the part -- impropriety of law enforcement comes from officers themselves and they have one of the toughest jobs that exist in public service and i hope the public appreciates it and as attorney general, you will work with congress to try to educate and make the public aware of the tremendous challenges they face day in and day out and courage strength that they demonstrate. so i thank you for that answer and thank you for being here today.

thank you, mr. chairman, whoever the chairman is. [laughter] >> it's a flexible answer. >> i know the chairman -- it's the senator from texas. >> that's a nice answer to that question. ms. lynch, thank you for your endurance in what has been a long extended hearing. i would ask in this round of questions if you could try to keep your answers brief, because we've got to return to votes on the floor. in the prior round, you and i had a conversation about the o.i.c. opinion and the president's executive amnesty and you stated your agreement with the legal reasoning in that opinion. and i would like to explore the limits of that reasoning. as you know, any legal theory that is being put forth to justify government power

naturally raises the question, what are the limits of that power. and one of my greatest concerns about the holder justice department is that at every turn when asked what are the limits on government power, the answer have been there are none there are none there are none. so let's talk about the limits of the prosecutorial power. the memo describes executive amnesty based in part on prosecutorial discretion and that was limited to some 800,000 people in the original daca and in the next one it extended to four, five million people. in your understanding of prosecutorial discretion is there anything to expand it to 11 million or 12 million people who are here illegally.

>> as i read the legal opinion it was focusing on how the department of homeland security could best execute its executive discretion in removing the most dangerous. and with respect to those who would be a low priority, it focused on the legal framework for setting up a did he ferrell program and as i read the opinion, it went through a legal analysis that indicated that part of the request did not have the legal framework and should not be implemented and my understanding is that that particular part of the request was not implemented. so i think with respect to any action certainly should i become confirmed as attorney general, i would undertake a careful legal analysis based on all of the facts presented to me by the white house or whatever agency raises the issue. we would look at all the precedent, congressional action

and relevant action and whether the requested action did have a legal framework. if theres was a reasonable basis for it, that information would be provided. but as was outlined in the opinion that i read where the legal framework did not exist to support the request or the proposed action, that would have to be told to the requesting department. >> ms. lynch, let me try again, because you described the memorandum but i asked a pretty straightforward question. would prosecutorial discretion allow the president to decline to enforce immigration laws against all 11 million to 12 million people here illegally? >> prosecutorial discretion as a tool certainly as i have used it as a career prosecutor and u.s. attorney, would focus on which cases to prosecute and which types of charges to bring.

it would not apply to the situation that you have outlined and i'm sorry if i'm not able to answer your hypothetical question. as i used prosecutorial discretion, it has been with the presentation of cases before me and determining the best way to focus limited resources. >> and of course, this is not simply prosecutorial discretion, because in addition to stating that federal immigration law would not be enforced with respect to somewhere between four million and five million people. the president announced that the administration would be printing work authorizations indirect contravention of federal law. are you familiar in your practice as u.s. attorney, where you have declined and used prosecutorial discretion to prioritize prosecuting one crime versus another. have you ever engaged in printing up authorization for one set of individuals to

affirmatively violate the law which is what these work authorizations consist of? >> in my career as a career prosecutor and u.s. attorney, i have brought the strongest cases based on the facts that have been presented to me. in referring those cases to other law enforcement agencies -- >> ms. lynch, i'm sorry to interrupt but we're on limited time and i asked if you ever issued authorizations to violate the law. and i'm certain the answer is no but am i correct in that? >> certainly, in my practice, i focus on building the most strongest, most effective cases against the perpetrators who come before me and referring them to other jurisdictions if i'm not the appropriate venue. it is not part of my responsibility to make a determination in the matter you are referring to. >> you are a very experienced

prosecutor, you have been asked questions and had witnesses decline to answer. this is a simple question. has your office issued authorizations for individuals to violate federal law? >> senator, as the u.s. attorney, our office is not involved in issuing authorizations for anyone to work or not work or engage in various activities. we are not a licensing authority. i can't answer the question you put to me. >> are you aware of a precedent for the federal government doing what the administration is doing right now, taste hired over 1,000 people and printing authorizations for individuals to violate federal law. that is a remarkable step and it is a step that goes much further than prosecutorial discretion. are you aware of hiring 1,000 people who issue authorizations for individuals to violate federal law? >> i'm not aware of the practices you are referring to

now or the particular remaining portion of the executive action are being implemented and i'm not able to comment on the hypothetical or the particulars you have given to me. i'm sorry i don't have the information to answer your question. >> let me understand the limits of the theory you are putting forth. you embraced the prosecutorial discretion argument. senator lee asked you about a hypothetical. if a subsequent president, let's say president cornyn is sworn in in january of 2017 and if president cornyn decided that he was going to instruct the secretary of treasury not to collect any taxes in excess of 25%, to exercise prosecutorial discretion and not collect the taxes. in your legal opinion, would that be consistent with the constitution? >> senator, before i could render a legal opinion on the hypothetical as presented to me

i would want to know the entire scope of the action and also have the time to gather all of the legal precedent, the cases congressional actions, any other similar or dissimilar actions where that particular type of action might have been considered. so i would want to have all of that before i provided a legal opinion in terms of the hypothetical that you presented to me. >> so you are unable to give any legal judgment to this committee today on whether a subsequent president could decline to enforce the tax laws as they're written? >> i think with respect to current or subsequent presidential action, there would have to be as in every case, a thorough review of the relevant law, the precedent, congressional press dent in the conjunction -- precedent to see if there was a basis or not a legal basis for the action proposed.

>> your understanding of prosecutorial discretion, would allow a subsequent president, president cornyn, to state that there are other laws that the administration will not enforce labor lawyers. would it allow a president to say every existing federal labor law shall not apply to the state of texas, because i'm using my prosecutorial discretion to refuse to enforce those laws. in your judgment would that be constitutional? >> i can't imagine president cornyn taking that step, but with respect to the hypothetical you present, i would have to know what legal basis was being proposed for that and i would review that law and if i were the person providing advice to future president cornyn and advise him as to whether or not there was a legal framework for it or not a legal framework. if there was not, that would be the advice i would provide to

him. >> i find it remarkable that you are unable to answer that question. i could answer it, it would patent lr unconsconstutional to refuse to enforce the labor laws and immigration laws. just like the president refusing to enforce the laws. and someone who is about to be confirmed cannot answer that question. senator. >> i'm a little shook up about this president cornyn thing. [laughter] >> your worst nightmare. >> i got here and suddenly, cornyn was president. [laughter]

>> my world had changed. i would like to ask you ms. lynch, about something that's been a focus of mine since i first got to the senate. i got there a little early. it took me a while to get seated. and it's about the financial meltdown of how it happened and how it caused the great recession. and it's about the credit rating agencies and their business model. and basically what happens in the leadup to the meltdown was that banks would put out a structured financial product subprime-back mortgage

securities. and they would choose a rating agency, like standards and poors or moody's or fitch to rate it. and they would pay them. but they would choose them and it turned out that a lot of junk got aaa ratings. and this is all kinds of -- not just subprime mortgage-backed securities but then bets on those, derivatives and then bets on the bets on the bets. the reason you had a house of cards collapse is because you had all these bets based on the original piece of junk. and there was an incentive, a total conflict of interest which the credit rating agencies

knew if they gave a aaa rating, they would get the next gig. so that's what they did. and then chairman levin of the permanent subcommittee on investigations got -- subpoenaed some emails from within s and p and e mailing that we have to give these things that aren't good these financial products, better ratings so we can keep our share of the business. and i have been fighting to get the -- i had actually a bipartisan piece in the senate side of what's now called dodd-frank to fix and it's not totally fixed, but the department of justice has a big lawsuit against s and p and i think it's for about $5 billion

or $6 billion and it's my understanding it may be settled. i don't want it to stop with s and p, with the one agency. so what i'm -- i'm concerned and s.e.c. did a settlement with s and p on the same practice that still exists. will you take an aggressive approach to holding these rating agencies, inclooded but not limit todd s and p accountable for their role in the financial crisis from before and in their current role what they are doing? >> with respect to the financial institutions including the rating agencies, if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, i look forward taking a very aggressive stance in reviewing their conduct not

just past conduct but current and prospective so we can prevent these types of harms from occurring again. >> people in minnesota lost their homes, their savings and jobs and millions of americans because of these guys. and i don't think they have learned their lesson and i don't think they have been incentivized in learning their lesson. i want to talk transparency in n.s.a. -- i have one minute. that took a minute what i did. i want to encourage us to work together if you should be attorney general on transparency in government surveillance, because i think americans have

the right to know to the extent that it's not harmful, obviously, what the -- what surveillance is like. for example, how many americans' data was captured and how much was actually accessed. and i think that had we done that and i voted against these two programs, 715 and 702 originally because they didn't have enough transparency and i think it is absolutely essential that americans know to the greatest dre possible without jep diesing our -- jeopardizing our safety. >> absolutely, senator. >> mr. president. [laughter] >> how are you holding up? >> i'm fine.

>> forgive me for jumping around a little bit. but there are a number of areas that you have taken questions on and i want to fill in some of the gaps. first of all do you recognize the second amendment right to keep and bear arms as an individual right? >> yes, senator, and i believe that has been decided by the supreme court as well. >> the current attorney general and department of justice have been involved in a program known as operation choke point that you are probably familiar with to some extent, but this is a collaboration by the department of justice and the federal deposit corporation to discourage banks and other financial institutions from doing business with certain types of businesses, including lawful firearms dealers. documents from operation choke point obtained by the house oversight committee showed that

the d.o.j. and fdic used intimidation tactics and categorized law-abiding gun dealers as having been engaged in high-stakes activity. i would like to ask you do you agree it was inappropriate for the department of justice and fdic to associate license and law-abiding businesses with these types of other obvious illicit activities. >> i appreciate your concerns over any department initiative. my familiarity with the choke point initiative is based on my ufpk that it focuses on payment processing companies that are defrauding consumers. i don't know what businesses that the consumers may have been

buying from. certainly with respect to any initiative that the department of justice engages in should i be confirmed as attorney general, there is no room for improper bias or even personal views. we must follow the law where it leads us. and i certainly hope should you have concerns about this program or any other, that you would feel free to share them with me and i would look forward to working with you to provide information about them. >> i appreciate that. i have heard from constituents back home in texas from financial institutions that they have been unable to continue long standing banking relationships with their own lenders because of some of these tactics and i will take you up on your offer to visit with you more on the specifics of those cases as well as the topic i mentioned earlier at a later date. i appreciate that. senator leahy who just arrived

and i have joined in an unlikely partnership on freedom of information areas. he and i both agree that it is absolutely critical of the functioning of our democratic form of government that the people have access to as much information as they can possibly get so they can make their consent to the laws that are passed by congress, informed consent. and so i want to ask you, in the department of justice's evaluation in the eastern district of new york under your management compliance with the freedom of information act was one of the few areas to receive criticism. in fairness to you, one of the few areas in which there have been critical comments. do you believe that the government should operate under a present sudges that information should be open to the public unless otherwise

precluded by law? >> senator, i am share that the freedom of information act, including the department of justice. with respect to my tenure as u.s. attorney, during the evaluation system which i found very helpful, i specifically asked the evaluators to look at our management system and support staff systems to make sure we were in compliance and bring any issues to our attention. this raised this issue which was great concern to me. we took steps to rectify the issues that we found within our own office functioning. we hired more personnel and work closely with the department of justice to make sure they are handled as expeditiously as possible. and i find that i have learned the most when someone has pointed out to me an area which

i might improve. >> you took corrective action? >> absolutely. immediately. >> president obama in 2009 mandated that government agencies, executive branch agencies should operate under this presumption that information should be open unless otherwise prevented by some rule or some other law. the current department of justice has taken the position that that information should be withheld if released of the information will cause foreseeable harm. they articulated a different standard than the president himself called for in 2009, which is this presumption of openness, absent some legal prohibition against disclosure. senator leahy and i have been working on legislation that would codify the president's

mandate, the presumption of openness. is that a standard that you could support and would you work with us in your administration if confirmed to make sure this presumption of openness applies across government agencies and that information would only be withheld from the public if some law or other rule or regulation precluded? >> i share your view in the importance of the freedom of information act and transparency. certainly, i look forward working with both you and senator leahy to review the legislation. i hope in the exchange that i believe we will have we can discuss ways within which to make as much information available possible while protecting vital interests. i certainly feel with respect to the department of justice should i be confirmed as attorney general one of the areas we have to be concerned about are ongoing investigation and witness safety and security.

but i feel that discussing these issues, it is something we could work together on. >> and finally, i know the chairman alluded to the gun walking program known as fast and furious which was the subject of a lot of oversight efforts by this committee and others in the house. and then to our surprise, the attorney general attorney general holder claimed executive privilege as to certain communications and documents, even though the documents in question did not involve the president or his staff. and the president himself confirmed that claim of executive privilege. as you may know, that claim is currently in litigation and i would ask your commitment to take a look at that with a pressure set of eyes to see whether you believe -- the

department's defense and continued refusal to deny congress access to these documents is justified under a claim of executive privilege. would you pledge to take a fresh look at that and render your own independent judgment about that? >> well, certainly, senator, with respect to that matter, it is the subject of ongoing litigation and i do not know when it will be resolved. i don't know what stage it should be in should i be fortunate to be confirmed. i look forward to learning about it once i'm able to, again should i be confirmed and reviewing that again as well as other matters. >> just so we understand each other, if you are the next attorney general, you can decide to settle that case if you decide that the claim of executive privilege was not well taken. in other words, if there's no legal impede meant based on the

claim of executive privilege, you as the next attorney germ could resolve that couldn't you? >> the abuilt to resolve a number of cases should i be lucky enough to be confirmed the next attorney general. >> i hope when we're done here that you don't get this attitude that the way this chaotic place is run why should you be working with the congress of the united states. it doesn't always work this way. little tongue in cheek. >> senator, it has been a privilege to watch the peaceful transfer of power going on this afternoon. [laughter] >> here we go. before i read my question, i want to tell you my view is that

there's very legitimate reason for between a counsel that's advising the president for that to have a very tight counsel relationship. then we get into fast and furious and then 64,000 pages that i will go into some detail that i want you to comment on, that is maybe an argument that was privileged, but is it really privileged. so let me go to where you maybe not had a direct role, but you chaired the attorney general's advisory committee. so you had a chance to watch your predecessor closely in the job you are now seeking. and i assume that you learned lessons from that experience. what's the biggest mistake that attorney general holder made in the handling of the fast and

furious controversy, which involved this privileged information that we're talking about, and what would you have done differently? >> with respect to the privileged litigation which is ongoing, as the chair of the attorney general's advisory committee and a member before that i was given information about the nature of the investigation itself and the problems that lay therein. the focus in terms of providing information to the u.s. attorney community was more on the problems with the actual underlying firearms investigation. so i was not privy and have not been privy to the decisions, discussion or rationale behind the litigation or documents or privilege. that is something that has not been shared. so i'm not able to answer one way or the other as to how that's been managed. i think the attorney general himself has said he made mistakes in germ and he has been

open and frank about that. with respect to that litigation, i don't have information about that. i did receive information about the underlying case because it involved an investigation, the inspector general's report was not handled in the best way and not the way in which those of us in the community would have wanted to see operate at all. >> you have probably answered half of that in this sense. would you have done anything differently? >> with respect to the firearms investigation? >> the way that the attorney general handled it? >> i think having the inspector general review the firearms investigation itself and come up with the issues that occurred within the office and the handling of the case was something that i think will be useful to the department of justice as it seeks to prevent

similar mistakes being made in improved training and the like. with respect to the litigation over the documents, i have not been involved in those decisions. so i'm not able to say what the options were that the attorney general had that i would have chosen in a different manner. i'm sorry i cannot provide you with a direct response. >> let me go back to the privilege and i want to read my question any way. one of the attorney general's biggest mistakes is not following through on the president's promise to be the transparent. he was the first to be held in contempt of congress that included 17 democrats. attorney general delivered 64,000 pages of documents to the house three years after the house subpoena, two years after the contempt vote and only after the house went to court. so when push came to shove he didn't even try to argue to the

judge that those 64,000 pages were privileged. now, do you think it's appropriate to withhold so many documents for so long, especially even if the justice department admits that there was no valid privileged claim? and if so, why? and if not, please explain why you would do it differently. . >> certainly in documentary form should i be confirmed as attorney general, i would carefully review the request and work to provide as much information as could be provided consistent with our law enforcement and investigative responsibilities. that would be my pledge to you going forward with respect to every issue of oversight that you would bring to my attention and i certainly hope that you would bring those issues to my attention. >> can i ask the same question if my own way, in the sense of -- in my own way, in the sense

of the way it might be talked about at a town meeting? so people are mad about, you know, a lot of things the president might do that you call executive edicts or in this case withholding information. in this case the attorney general decided to withhold it. ok, if somebody asks me about fast and furious at a town meetinging then i get into the fact that as far as i know the president knew nothing about it and this is between me and the attorney -- or the attorney general and the congress, i should say. i only say me because i started this investigation before the house took it over. then when they withhold 64,000 pages, as opposed to a few pages, maybe the president really knows something about something that you can legitimately withhold it, then i say to my town meeting, you know, when 64,000 pages are supposedly privileged, then i

wonder, what does a president know about it? if they can be protected that way. well, now the attorney general didn't argue that they were privileged. they were just given up. so you see the problem it causes for me? and how far does executive privilege go? and it surely doesn't go to 64,000 pages. if it doesn't does, can't you assume -- does, can't you assume the president says he knew a lot about fast and furious when he says he didn't know anything about it? do you see the problem i have? >> i can understand the frustration when any party is seeking to discover or information and another party's not able to provide it, based upon the claim of privilege or whatever that claim may be. particularly a body that has oversight responsibility over the department of justice and is seeking to fulfill that obligation and that mandate.

certainly with respect to the volume of documents, not knowing the documents i'm not able to comment on how appropriate or not that would be, and certainly fortunately it was not civil litigation when it might have been a larger number of documents, as my experience as a young attorney. >> i hope you at least understand why it's frustrating to me. the way this whole thing was handled. let me move on. as senator graham mentioned, in 2006 you co-signed a supreme court brief on partial birth abortion. i believe you told him your primary concern was the impact of the law on law enforcement if up-- law enforcement if upheld. that brief argued the federal partial abortion ban was unconstitutional and the partial birth abortion, quote procedures are sometimes the best means to preserve a woman's health, end of quote. the supreme court along with a majority of americans disagreed with any position taken in opposition of that legislation.

i assume as well as your position. the supreme court held there is quote, uncertainty in the medical community over whether the barred procedures -- procedure's ever necessary to preserve a woman's health. just one question. judging by your question here, it doesn't look like you've added your name to a lot of supreme court briefs. of all the cases that you could have become personally involved in why did you pick this particular case? was that the only case that raised the concern you mentioned to senator graham? i would like to get this on record because i assume you read the brief, otherwise you wouldn't have signed it, would that be right? >> yes, senator, that would be correct. >> ok, then can you say why did you pick this particular case, if you haven't done it very often, and was in the only case that raised concerns that you mentioned to senator graham? >> thank you, senator. with respect to the brief, i

joined a group of former department of justice personnel, former united states attorneys, as well as former assistant attorneys general, and our focus was on our concern that the way in which the law would be implemented might put prosecutors at variance with doctors and their medical treatment. and might raise an issue that prosecutorial discretion had been constrained in some way by the political debate. we were not focused on the actual issue involving the procedure itself. in fact, it was our concern that as lawyers we did not have medical information or the medical capability to evaluate that procedure and could be dealing with a situation where a doctor may say something different from what the law might require us to do. and that was the concern that was being raised in that brief. the supreme court did resolve the issue on the part of the statute itself and certainly that is the law of the land

now. >> ok. senator leahy. >> thank you very much. >> and for your benefit and for the nominee's benefit i've been told that two additional members want to come over to ask a second round. they're going to come just as soon -- yes, i'm going to make sure they come today. just as soon as the vote's over, i've been told. and you and i will have to go vote too. >> ok. why don't we just recess and we'll go vote and then come back. >> ok. we'll recess. thank you for being patient. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> it has been an afternoon of stop start and stop for the senate judiciary committee. in day number one of their confirmation hearing for loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. nominated by president obama at the end of 2014. and here on day number one, loretta lynch testifying tomorrow, they'll hear from witnesses testifying in favor and against the nomination. while they're in this recess, and they've been in these recesses this afternoon for votes on the senate floor, we'll open up our phone lines. the numbers are on the screen.

>> obviously when they come back into session, we'll continue our live coverage here on c-span and on c-span radio. just a note too we plan to re-air all of today's hearing, all put together without the stops, starts and stops and the recesses in between. that will get under way probably about 8:00 eastern tonight here on c-span. what's more is the committee comes back tomorrow. we'll have that live for you as well at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we're also taking your comments on facebook and twitter. the hashtag on twitter is #cspanchat. let's get to your calls. john's waiting in el paso, texas, on the republican line. what did you hear this afternoon from loretta lynch? >> i have more of a comment to make. so far she started out real strong and things i could agree

with. but then toward the end she has to come another obama left dog and another puppet like eric holder. she had a real strong real good i agreed with her, but at the end she waffled up. >> when you say that, how did she start to sound more like eric holder? what did you hear that made you say that? >> i heard some of the last one you had, about the partial birth abortion decision and the group that she joined. and that was one of the big waffles. but there were several others ahead of that. and right off hand, that is the one that came right out to me because that's what i'm watching now. it's just one of the things, the other comments she's made. some of the questions that were asked in reference to some of the decisions that attorney

generic has made, like the fast and furious connection. and some of the other issues that eric holder failed to prosecute. and she just didn't have any answers that satisfied me. my would-be for the attorney general of the united states. she just didn't give any answers that i'd like to hear. >> eric holder is step still the attorney general and will be until she's approved by the committee and then by the full senate. and "the new york times" had indicated in one of their reports that there are some members who feel that because of the senate's schedule, that may not happen for a number of weeks, perhaps as late as march. the witnesses back in the room, loretta lynch, that means the hear willing get back under way shortly. let's take you back live here on c-span and c-span radio.

>> welcome back. >> thank you senator. >> in exchange we just had earlier this afternoon you detailed a very broad understanding of the president's potential authority , and try as i might, i couldn't find a hypothetical that you considered to be beyond the power of the president.

i'd like to ask you now a question that i've asked attorney general holder and that he repeatedly declined to answer and it's in a different context. it concerns the civil liberties and privacy rights of americans. and drone policy. and my question to you is, in your legal judgment, is it constitutional for the federal government to utilize a drone strike against an american citizen on u.s. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat? >> senator, certainly i'm not aware of legal authority that would authorize that, nor am i aware of a policy seeking authorization to do that. if could you share more information with me? >> my question is about the constitutional limits on the federal government's power. attorney general holder

repeatedly declined to answer the question about whether it is constitutional for a drone to use lethal force against an american citizen on u.s. soil if that individual doesn't pose imminent threat. now, let me be clear, i think the answer to this is very easy. my question to you is, is it constitutional for the federal government to do so? >> senator, i think with respect to the use of lethal force by any means, one would always want to look at the law enforcement issues involved there. and certainly if could you provide more context there i could place it in the scope of a case or an issue that i might have familiarity with. >> it is in the nature of a hypothetical. but you are certainly aware that the federal government is currently using drone strikes overseas. the federal government also maintains drone surveillance domestically here at home. the senate had an extended debate on the limits of federal government authority with

respect to the privacy and civil rights of american citizens. and i'm asking you, in your view, does the constitution give any protection to american citizens does the constitution allow the federal government to do what it has done overseas utilize lethal force from a drone could it do so against an american citizen here at home if that individual did not pose an imminent threat? >> senator with respect to the use of -- again, as i said before, of lethal force by any means, be it drone or someone on the street, the use of lethal force is generally regulated by either police guidance or by the nature of the interaction. based on what you are describing to me, i don't see interaction between the american citizen that you are referring to and anyone to generate the type of lethal force you're referring to. >> i'm disappointed that, like attorney general holder, you are declining to give a simple

straightforward answer and in fact what i think is the obvious answer of no, the federal government cannot use lethal force from a drone to kill an american citizen on american soil if that individual doesn't pose an imminent threat. i don't view that as a difficult legal question and indeed it demonstrates what i think has been the consistent failing of this administration's approach to constitutional law, is that it always, always, always ops in favor of government power. let me ask you a different question. this administration's department of justice went before the united states supreme court and argued that law enforcement could place a g.p.s. on any american citizen's automobile with no probable cause and no suspicion. in your legal judgment, is placing the g.p.s. on the automobile of the men and women gathered here, with no probable cause or suspicion, is that consistent with the fourth amendment's protections of

american citizens? >> i believe the supreme court has resolved that issue senator, and i believe that law enforcement agencies seeking to use that type of technique would need to obtain a warrant. >> you are correct. the supreme court resolved that issue. it resolved it unanimously. 9-0 it rejected the holder justice department's position. my question is, if you were attorney general at the time, would you have agreed with that argument that law enforcement can place g.p.s.'s on any american citizen's car? >> certainly i wasn't involved in the legal analysis or discussion then, based upon the practice prior to the supreme court argument and the fact that law enforcement had used various techniques this was a new technique that was being evaluated and had been used in a variety of ways. so my understanding was that after a careful consideration of precedent and practice, the department made a strong argument, the supreme court has reasoned and has ruled that a warrant is required and certainly that is the law of the land. should i be confirmed as

attorney general, that's certainly the practice that i would follow. >> the obama justice department 22 times has gone before the supreme court arguing for broader government authority. and 22 times it has been unanimously rejected. 9-0 the court has rejected those claims. another case was a case where the obama justice department argued before the supreme court that the first amendment has no relevance, says nothing about whether a church may select its own ministers or pastors. do you agree with that position that was put forth by this justice department? >> i have no read the briefs on that so certainly i'm not aware of the full articulation of that position. but i believe the supreme court has spoken and has resolved that issue. certainly should i be confirmed as attorney general, i would follow that precedent. >> you are correct again, the supreme court resolved that 9-0. rejecting the opinion, and i would note justice kagen, an appointee of this president, said from the bench in that

argument to the department of justice's lawyer, i find your position amazing, that the justice department would argue the first amendment does nothing, says nothing about a church's ability to appoint its own ministers and pastors. let me ask you, if you are confirmed as attorney general, will you commit to this committee to provide greater scrutiny to the positions the justice department takes before the supreme court, and in particular to stop the practice over and over again of advocating for broad government power which has resulted in 22 times the supreme court unanimously rejecting that argument? >> senator, should i be so fortunate as to be confirmed as attorney general, i will take every case that comes before the department of justice seriously. i will consult with the career prosecutors there also with

any solicitor general's office on the facts of the case, the relevant law and in conjunction with them give -- provide my best judgment as to the approach to take. >> is it your understanding of the role of the attorney general that the department of justice should always advocate greater government power? >> senator my view is that the department of justice advocates to defend statutes as passed by congress and that its greatest function is to represent the american people. with respect to specific cases again, i will always do as i have done throughout my career as a lawyer, i will carefully examine the facts of the case, the relevant law, precedent and make the best reasoned argument that there is to support the position that's being advocated. >> let's shift to another area where this department of justice has not been, in my view faithfully enforcing the law. in may of 2013 the inspector general of the treasury department concluded that the i.r.s. had wrongfully targeted citizen groups for their

political views. when that news broke, president obama publicly said he was outraged. he said he was angry and he said the american people had a right to be angry. ms. lynch, do you agree with what president obama said then that the american people have a right to be angry at the i.r.s. targeting citizens for their political views? >> senator my view is that political views or bias have no place in the way in which not only the department of justice, but all agencies carry out their duties. and certainly when people hear of something that raises that issue, i can understand their concerns. >> in the nearly two years that have transpired, the individual who led the i.r.s. office in

question, ms. lois learner, has testified twice before congress and has pleaded the fifth. which, as you are well aware, means she raised her hand and said, if i answer your questions, it means i may incriminate myself in criminal conduct. in the nearly two years since that time has transpired, not a single person has been indicted. in the nearly two years since that time has transpired, many of the victims of the illegal targets have yet to be interviewed. and in the nearly two years that have transpired, we've discovered that the department of justice appointed to lead the investigation a partisan democrat who has been a major donor to president obama and the democratic party. indeed, she's given over $6,000 to president obama and the democratic party. in your view, is it consistent with fairly and impartially enforcing the law to have an investigation into the abuse of power by the i.r.s. headed by a major democratic donor? >> senator, my understanding of that investigation is really from public records. i'm not familiar with the specifics of it.

i can certainly tell you that complex vexes often do take several -- complex investigations often do take several months if not a year or two to resolve. i'm not able to provide you information on that point that you raised. with respect to how an investigation is staffed, again, i believe that while i'm not familiar with the details of this, certainly my view is that the department has career prosecutors who are devoted to the constitution and to the fair and effective exercise of their judgment and that the department has made the decision as too how to best staff the case and manage -- as to -- as to how to best staff the case and manage the case. should i be confirmed, i look forward to learning more about the matter. i appreciate you raising concerns with me and i hope you will continue to do so should i have the opportunity to work with you in the future. >> one of the terrific things about the department of justice is that it has a long and

bipartisan tradition of remaining above the fray. from partisan politics. of demonstrating a fidelity to law, so that when serious accusations of abuse of power, and in fact of abusing the i.r.s. were raised against richard nixon, his attorney general, eliott richardson, a republican, appointed an independent counsel to investigate those -- council to investigate those allegations free of any tainted propriety or partisan bias. likewise when serious allegations of wrong doing against clinton were raised, his attorney general made the same determination to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the matter free of partisan bias or taint. the question i would ask you if you're confirmed as attorney general, would you commit to this committee to appoint a special prosecutor to

investigate the i.r.s. abuse of power who at a very minimum is not a major obama donor and who can be counted on to actually investigate the facts and follow them wherever they may lead? >> senator again, i'm not familiar with the investigation in great detail at this point. my understanding is that that matter has been considered and that the matter has been resolved to continue with the investigation as currently set forth. should i be confirmed as attorney general i can commit to you that i will take seriously every allegation of abuse of power brought to my attention and in conjunction with career prosecutors and this body where appropriate, make the best decision about how to handle that investigation. >> you're correct, the matter has been considered. indeed, i sent a letter to attorney general holder laying out the facts and asking him to follow the bipartisan tradition of his predecessors and uphold the rule of law. and he responded in writing that he was declining to appoint a special prosecutor. and that the basis of his

declining to do so was the, quote, discretion of the attorney general. so despite the internal d.o.j. rules that require recusal if there's even an appearance of bias, the attorney general refused to appoint a special prosecutor. you say you're not familiar with this investigation. i think that's unfortunate because when you and i visited over a month ago in my office, we talked about this investigation. i told you it was a very serious concern of mine and i asked before your hearing if you would take the time to familiarize yourself with what had occurred. and yet your answer today is that you're not aware of what's happening. let me ask a more general question. would you trust john mitchell to investigate richard nixon? >> you're referringing to former attorney general mitchell? >> yes. >> again senator, based on the

hypothetical, i'd have to know what the issue was and what you were requesting him to do. >> would you trust john mitchell to investigate the allegations of wrong doing in the break-in at watergate against richard nixon? would you trust john mitchell, who had run richard nixon's campaign to investigate the allegations that ultimately led to richard nixon resigning the presidency? >> well, i think that matter has been resolved. >> indeed. [laughter] >> certainly with respect to how that matter should have been handled and attorney general mitchell's involvement in it, i believe his role in it has been resolved as well. so i'm sorry, i don't think i'm understanding the basis of your question, sir. >> ms. lynch, there are many of us who are alumni of the department of justice. who have most respected the department when it demonstrated independence from the president. when the department was willing to stand up to the president, when the attorney general

behaved not as if he or she were the personal lawyer for the president who appointed them, but rather when the attorneys general in both parties have behaved as independent, impartial law enforcement officers who owe a fidelity to the constitution and the laws, prior to becoming attorney general eric holder had a reputation as a u.s. attorney, of upholding the law. and i was hopeful when he was appointed that he would carry that reputation forward as attorney general. it has saddened me greatly that he has not done, so and i will say it is disappointing in this hearing that try as i might there has been nothing i have been able to ask you that has yielded any answer suggesting any limitations whatsoever on the authority of the president. that does not augur well for this committee's assessment of

your willingness to stand up to the president when the constitution and the laws so require. do you agree with that characterization? >> senator, as i've indicated before i believe that the role of the attorney general is to provide their most objective, well researched, independent legal advice to the president or any agency who may come before them with a respect for -- with a request for opinion and where there is a legal basis for the request being made, to indicate so. but where there is not, to also tell the president or any other executive agency that what they are asking for is not within the flamework -- framework of the law. i believe that that's the role of the attorney general. i believe the attorney general must represent the people of the united states and should i be so fortunate as to be confirmed, they will be my client and they will be my first thought.

>> the they that you refer to as your client, for clarification, to whom did the they refer? >> to the american people. >> and yet, and i'll ask again, can you articulate any limitations on the authority of the president that as attorney general you would be prepared to stand up and tell the president no, there is some modicum of power you do not have? >> senator i believe that the role of the attorney general does encompass the role of advising the president of when actions do not have the appropriate legal framework and when they may not be undertaken. that is something that i believe is an important part of the functions -- functions of the attorney general and certainly should i be so fortunate as to be confirmed it is something that i would not hesitate to do. it is part of the function of the attorney general, even of a

cabinet member, to be independent of the president. and to provide their best independent legal judgment on any issue presented to them. >> i hope that you will very much carry through on that. it is discouraging that in the course of this hearing you have been unwilling to say that the president lacks the authority to refuse to enforce tax laws, labor laws, environmental laws, immigration laws. that you have declined to say that the president cannot order a drone strike on an american citizen on u.s. soil. and that you have refused to commit to a fair and impartial investigation of the i.r.s. abuse of power by a special prosecutor. i hope if you are confirmed that your conduct in office differs from the answers you have given at this hearing. my time has now expired. i see senator leahy is here.

so i recognize senator leahy. >> senator tillis is here too. i withhold my time i have. >> thank you, senator. ms. lynch, i wanted to go back to, and i do apologize for all this cycling, if you saw the activity over in the senate chamber, you know why we're going through. it certainly not for a lack of -- through it. certainly not for a lack of interest in this topic. i want to go back to the idea of the limited resources within the d.o.j. and some matters that i'd like to get some sense that if you should be confirmed, that you would take a look at it and potentially reconsider some of the priorities of the current attorney general. i'll give you one example. in north carolina we did change the election law, early voting. we went from 17 days to 10 days. in that law though, we made it by law you could never offer fewer hours of early voting

than the highest number that you'd ever offered in that particular county. what that had the effect of in this last election cycle is historic turnout. even among minorities. and so i've got -- we've got a lawsuit filed by this department of justice where i'm named in it questioning that. but then we have 12 states that have no early voting whatsoever. and i'm wondering why -- it seems to be inconsistent, when have one state that's preserving the most that it's ever had been, other states that have never offered it, that we would -- in a time of limited prosecutorial resources, that we would actually allocate that way, given all that's been said today about the limits of resources and the need to allocate them to their best and highest use. can you give me some sense of your thinking on that? >> with respect to the current litigation that's been filed, i haven't been involved in it to date. i do know that it is proceeding through the courts and i

believe there will be further action this summer. there may be a trial, i'm not sure. so i think we will have to wait and see the judicial determination on the impact of the changes in the north carolina state law. as i indicated earlier states obviously have a great interest and a great interest in both preserving the right to vote and protecting the integrity of the vote. and many of them do so in ways that are effective throughout several states. the department of justice will always have a concern if the matter is raised as to whether or not there is a negative impact, that is to say a foreclosing of their right to vote, and certainly people can differ on the impact that will be had. and that will always be the issue in a case to be brought along those lines. certainly nothing -- i don't believe anything would have been personally -- personally aimed at you, sir. so with respect to that, when

the issue is whether or not a change in statutes somehow infringes upon this, our most important right, it is something that the department of justice will always review. but certainly, sir, i look forward to having discussions with you about the nature of, not this case, because it's under litigation, but other matters in which the department is taking an interest and getting the views of you and others on this committee on them. >> i think it's very important because should you be confirmed, i think again we will always be in this state of not enough resources for all the things that we want to do. and it just seems to me that this may be one example where if you look objectively at the supreme court case, states that are doing everything that they can to respect and promote a citizen's right to vote, that to spend or additional time and resources reprosecuting laws doesn't seem to be the best use of resources in the context of

the limited resources that we've discussed and several members on this panel have discussed today. i would look forward to -- should you be confirmed, to having a discussion with you about how we can be sure that we are putting it to the best purposes. for the good of the american people. that you're trying to serve or that will you try to serve. >> thank you sir. >> thank you. >> senator sessions. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm honored to serve with you and also to have served with former chairman and i appreciate the opportunity today. i just want to pursue, to me, some legal rights here. it seems to me that if there are two people applying for a job as a truck driver, one of them is a lawful immigrant or a citizen, and another is not

under the president's order, the person unlawfully here magically at moment becomes eligible to compete against an unemployed american truck driver. i think that's bizarre. and the idea that there are rights attached to someone here unlawfully, that they can take jobs from americans, is antithetical to common sense. so i think that somebody needs to be asking themselves who is protecting the american worker, the people who are paying the salaries, you, the president, and all of us? and as a matter of law, the people who elect us are the people we are most directly accountable for and that's the citizens of the united states.

so i'm worried about that. what kind of lawsuit -- what kind of claim you have thought about this that might somebody who loses out to a person who claims that they're legal to work now, because of the president's order and they didn't become a truck driver and the person that was renlt rye -- recently legalized did get the job? >> well, senator, at the outset i do want to state that it's my understanding that, and there is no right to work for an undocumented immigrant in the country, so they would not have the right to work -- >> they would under the president's -- >> for those people who can obtain documentation, be it a green card or visas or other cards, they would have the ability to apply for positions. with respect to -- >> could i ask you about that? the president's going to give work permits to five million. they would be, under his theory, entitled to work.

he would have created five million persons to compete against five million americans for a limited number of jobs. right? >> senator i believe that if the process were to be implemented, what i reviewed, there would be criteria set up for people to apply for work permits, they would apply, they would have to be a decision as to whether or not they would receive them and then i do not know what level of employment they would be able to apply for, but assume that they could apply for positions. >> the estimates are, i think, from the white house, it would be as many as -- a total of five million. and they would be given work authorization, photo i.d.'s, social security numbers and the ability to participate in social security and medicare. are you aware -- and to me i find no lawful basis for this. as the attorney general and the

person who supervises the office of legal counsel, whose opinion you basically affirmed here today then you become in a sense the point person for this effort. and some have suggested, well it's homeland security. but homeland security asks your department attorney general holder's department the office of legal counsel, an opinion that would allow them to do so. so in effect had the department of justice said no, that this is not appropriate and cannot be justified, homeland security would have been bound by that rejection, would it not? >> homeland security would have been bound by that opinion as i believe they were with respect to the portion of their proposal to which the office of legal counsel did say no, there was not a legal basis for another portion that they sought toimplement and i believe they did not implement that.

>> i'm only talking about what they did agree to. that apparently would be the -- to create this new number of workers. are there plans to -- what if somebody not in the five million is arrested for speeding next week, would they be deported? >> senator, i don't know how the department of homeland security would manage the removal. certainly a criminal record, if there would be an arrest and a conviction, would place someone at jeopardy of -- in jeopardy of losing their deferential status, if that's what they initially had. >> well, the point is that you're not going to deport any of the seven million either. that's the policy that's become clear in the last few years. so the administration i would suggest quite plainly is nullifying american immigration law, to a degree that's breath taking in effect.

for example, you're saying that not only will we not find the resources, ask for the resources, nobody's asked for more resources to enforce the law if they need them. the president isn't asking for it, because he has no intention, if it was given to him, to use that money for that effect. so that's the problem we've got. that's why the american people are wondering who's going to defend them, who's going to defend their children who are out trying to find a job. african-americans have the highest unemployment rate among young people, the data's clear. this large flow of immigration at this time, low employment is hurting the poor, the -- is hurting the poor the most. so i would say to you that i'm not raising this just to make an argument about what kind of

immigration policy we need. i'm raising this as a constitutional and legal question of incredible importance. as i read to you, professors have said this is perhaps the greatest presidential overreap reach in history -- overreach in history. congress refused to pass what the president wanted to do. i'm not saying that you made that decision, you didn't. but your department gave the legal opinion that justified it. after he 28 times said he didn't have authority to do it. it's really an amazing event. so mr. chairman, i respect the nominee. she's got a good family. i know was raised right. and i appreciate that. maybe you're just in a difficult position that's not necessarily your fault. but i am not satisfied that we at this point in history can just slide by and let this go.

i think we need to confront this issue as a congress that nieced -- needs to use the powers that it has and that's why i have difficulties with your nomination. i respect you and appreciate your appearance today and your willingness to answer questions. >> before i go back to senator tillis for three or four minutes, let me assure everybody that senator tillis, senator leahy, i've got a couple requests of you. and then i think we're done. >> thank you. another roll call vote has started up. i'll be leaving soon. i'm sorry there's been so many questions that have nothing to do with your qualifications. you were shown a book and told

-- [inaudible] the prosecution of ted stevens is the last administration. this administration exonerated. be that as it may, we talk about immigration, we've had millions of people here that every administration knows you can't just remove 10 million, 12 million people. as president reagan said, both president bushes said, i've been here since president ford, they've all taken that same position. as far as jobs are concerned, the chamber of commerce strongly supported the immigration bill that this committee passed two years ago and the senate passed by a bipartisan majority. grover norquist, a very conservative economist, said it would add billions of dollars billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars to our

economy. it would increase jobs, not dee crease -- decrease them but increase jobs. i wish the speaker of the house had allowed it to come to a vote over in the other body. it would have passed. but that's not an issue for you. the issue is are you qualified to be attorney general. i've seen a lot of attorneys general in the -- going on to my 41st year. some were very good in both parties. i think i've had levy in jerry ford's administration. others i remember one that all my republican colleagues voted for. when he was here before this committee and asked questions we'd give him questions in advance and he answered, i

don't know the answer or i'm not sure, i can't answer that, even though he'd had the questions weeks in advance. they voted for him. i must say that i cannot think of anybody in all these years i've been here who has struck me so much as being qualified to be attorney general as yourself. you're a prosecutor's prosecutor. i think the attorney general is the attorney general of the united states, there for all of us. i refer to my days as a young law student, being recruited by the then attorney general robert kennedy. but i was too home sick for vrt so -- vermont so i didn't stay. i'm not going to have further request questions because i'm satisfied -- questions because

i'm satisfied with what you said so far. you'll have my vote and my strong support. and i hope in the remaining part of this administration you'll be there to enforce the laws of the united states. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have nothing further to say. i'll put the rest of my statement in the record. >> thank you senator. >> thank you senator. i apologize, i should have taken care of this question. but my final question, ms. lynch, is really around the philosophy that you may bring to the department of justice. in december, 2014, the government accountability office issued a report that was titled the department of justice can strengthen procedures for disciplining its attorneys. there were a couple of examples going back to even i think the handling of new orleans police officers related to the katrina -- hurricane katrina where either misconduct or they had perjured themselves. would you agree with me that the department of justice employees who would engage in this sort of activity, either through prosecutorial misconduct or through perjuring

themselves in court, are they the kind of personnel that would i -- that you would allow to continue to be employed in the d.o.j.? >> with respect to personnel issues, i take very seriously the integrity of every member of my staff and would also take very seriously the professionalism of the members of all the staff of the department of justice. all of whom i have found to have been a privilege and a pleasure to work with and to be dedicated career professionals and dedicated to not just improving their skills, but the highest standards of professional conduct. when they cross a line, they are dealt with. and that will continue to happen, should i be confirmed as attorney general. but i will say that wrpts to the staff and the attorneys at the department of justice, they are some of the most effective and professional individuals that i've had the pleasure to be affiliated with. >> should you be confirmed, since this report was just dated last month i hope that it's something that you would take into account as you go into the organization and look

at the resources that you've inherited responsibility for. thank you very much and thanks to the family in particular. i know it's a long day and those seats aren't that comfortable. so thank you all and again congratulations on the honor that you have from the president's nomination. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. >> i changed my mind. i'm not going to ask you two questions. i'm going to submit them for -- along with some other questions for you to answer in writing. i thank you very much for being patient today. it's been a long day and i suspect some members of the committee were more impressed with your answers than others. we're going to recess for the day and have our second panel tomorrow. i think you should -- i hope you'll count yourself lucky, let's say compared to judge mckasey. when he testified he was forced to come back for a second day of questions.

finally, i'd like to note that after tomorrow's panel i'm going to give everyone one week to submit questions for the record. that's standard practice on this committee. and once again thank you for being so patient and putting up with the chaos that i form early referred to. thank you and we are recessed now. thank you. >> thank you, senator. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> so the first day of the confirmation hearing for attorney general nominee

loretta lynch has wrapped up before the senate jirn' committee. we're going to take your calls in just a few minutes. get your comments on what you think about what you've seen so far and what you think the priorities for the next attorney general should be. the numbers are on your screen. >> again today the first day of two days of confirmation hearings. loretta lynch, the nominee to replace eric holder. before the senate judiciary committee most of the day today, the hearing began at 10:00 a.m., just wrapped up. tomorrow we'll hear from those for the nominee and against the nominee. that hearing will air at 10:00 a.m. as well. we'll have live coverage of that here on c-span. by the way, if you missed any of today's hearing, we will re-air it in its entirety with

testimony from loretta lyncha at 8:00 tonight here on c-span. 8:00 p.m. eastern time a re-air of today's hearing in its entirety. we're going to take your calls in just a moment or two. but first we're going to show you one of the folks who is in line this morning. we spoke to several people who were waiting to attend, take part, participate, see the hearing, the confirmation hearing before the senate judiciary committee today. we'll show you one of those folks we talked to in line this morning and then take your calls. >> i am here to provide support for loretta lynch. she has been a personal and professional mentor of mine. she was a charter member of my sorority. at harvard college. i've gotten to know her both personally and professionally and would love to continue to see her grow professionally and lead the department of justice. it's definitely a historic

moment being that she will be the first african-american female attorney general of the united states. and so she will continue i think to lead the path and lead the way on voting rights and immigration reform and the policing reforms and the rest of the issues that the department of justice handles. certainly my organization and also the leadership conference on civil human rights stand behind her and will continue to support her in her professional career. >> [inaudible] >> i have been to several hearings. i'm currently a senior counsel with the leadership conference and in my professional capacity i do attend and provide support, policy and legal support for a number of hearings, including labor and employment, public transportation and policing issues which i mentioned before is a critical piece of the work that -- for loretta lynch will be handling at the het am at the department of justice -- helm at the department of justice. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> now that you've had an opportunity to see u.s. attorney loretta lynch answer question by members of the senate judiciary committee,

give you a chance to call with your thoughts on what you've seen or what you think the priorities for the next attorney general should be. we'll go right to the phones and michael in manhattan beach on the line for independents. go ahead. >> i was callinging, i just wanted to say, i think ms. loretta lynch did an outstanding job. she was very dignified, very calm, very balanced and fair. and i think that she is a great nominee and republicans and democrats, americans in general should be happy to have someone of this character be considered for this position. i think that the way she handled partisan questions from the republicans in particular show how fair and balanced she is and that they really weren't looking for her to answer questions in terms of the law, but they wanted to basically drag her in this mudslinging in that they were so enarmored with attacking attorney general

eric holder and president obama that they -- it really negated to me their arguments, which really they didn't have any arguments. i think also the calls that we're getting from people stating that illegal aliens, quote-unquote, take the jobs of americans is absurd. when you have so many people that are here, they're not working legally number one. and, two, how come these people that are upset at these people that are illegal aliens, from the potential to have jobs, aren't upset with these many american companies that employ people overseas and have really abandoned america and american workers to get cheap labor overseas? when you look at these great companies that make billions and billions of dollars they're not employing americans . >> ok, another call from arizona, on the line for democrats. ryan's on the line with us. >> yeah. the caller before me really

actually hit the nail on the head. i think that lynch was really dignified in her responses and i think that the american people should be proud that president obama has put forward such an experienced person to fill eric holder's shoes when he decides to retire and we all need to remember that her office the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york, has successfully tried more terrorism cases than any other federal prosecutor's office since the attacks on september 11 which means she gets the job done. . >> chuck grassley asking questions to loretta lynch, the attorney general nominee. chuck grassley joins us tomorrow morning on "washington journal"

and you can watch it live on c-span. will be talking about today's hearing and what's ahead tomorrow. our coverage continuing tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. back to the phones. line for republicans. joe is in alabama. go ahead. >> she did a very good job today and hopefully will do a better job tomorrow. >> and she was just a wonderful person. i watched the hearing all day and i don't think anyone could not confirm her. however, i just wish the hearing was in reference to her being considered for the supreme court

of the united states because african-american females, i think have been overlooked. we have been in this country for over 400 years and never given the opportunity. we are always the last on the tote empole. i would like to see her put on the supreme court. her being given a chance as an attorney general with only two years' tenure is ok, but i would prefer to see her put on the supreme court. >> what do you think the priorities should be for the next attorney general nominee. and been getting some responses on twitter. susan said holding law enforcement accountable and backlash over possible police misconduct. susan tweets -- you can join the

conversation on twitter. use the #cspanchat. carolyn in newark, new jersey on the line for democrats. what did you think of the hearing? >> she did marvelously well including the questioning by senator cruz, but what can we expect. in terms of priorities, hopefully she will have the opportunity to keep heat on the banks and the financial institutions that have and are still creating such havoc. they have not learned the right lessons. they are continuing to pursue the same kind of illegal maneuvers they were doing earlier and hopefully she will have the opportunity to keep her

foot on their neck. thank you very much. >> doris joins us from norsigian town pennsylvania. what do you think? >> i think she will mirror eric holder. apparently she wouldn't answer simple questions that the republicans asked. she evaded by going long winded with her answers. and only answered the democratic questions. and she was very -- she wasn't decisive enough on what her views are. i think it will be status quo. same as having eric holder. i'm sorry, i say no. that's it. >> david you're next independent caller from scranton, north carolina? >> yes, sir. i want to make a comment real quick. she is taking a tough position

if she gets to be the attorney general and a lot of things need to get cleaned up like the i.r.s. and things that -- illegal problems that aren't getting eric holder attention. i wouldn't want to be in her position but i wish her luck. and thank you for taking my call. >> our coverage starts at 10:00 a.m., day two confirmation hearing loretta lynch. a number of the folks testifying tomorrow both for and against, an investigative journalist. jonathan turly at george washington law school and true the votes in houston, texas who will testify. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. here

in c-span. chicago next on the line for democrats. frank. >> am i on? >> yes. >> the lady was tremendous. i never watched this before, but i couldn't believe it. she should have let the committee know that president obama is her, her record. she really made cruz look like a nut. thank you. >> thank you mark. you are next. republican from palmdale, california. >> i thought she did a good job and she is president obama's appointee and i think she should be confirmed. and only two more years. hopefully she will be less partisan than eric holder and uphold the constitution and not

allow the executive agency on which laws to enforce or not enforce. i don't think that's up to him. >> a long day for the nominee today. loretta lynch began her testimony shortly after 10:00 this morning and wrapping up shortly before 6:00 and a number of breaks during the day because the senate voted on numerous amendments on the keystone pipeline. work on that bill continuing through this week. you can watch it on c-span2. back to your calls in malibu, california. robert, an independent call. >> i appreciated her time and testimony, professionalism and commitment and going to be status quo. she is committed to performing her job for the president, not for the american people. that's the way i see it and comes across.

i have analyzed behavior for years. i'm a specialist. thank you. >> stephen in des moines, go ahead. you're next. steven, you next? >> i would like to get some say that i thought she did a great job. she needs to work on enforcing police brutality and making sure that that stops and police officers need to be held accountable. i also think that campaign finance is a big issue and needs to be reformed and lots of shady stuff going on there and i think -- i would like to hear them talk about marijuana and voter suppression. she would be a great attorney general. >> jeff sessions and the nominee in a back and forth from today's confirmation hearing on your screen now. the hearing reairs in its

entirety at 8:00. loretta lynch, the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york. she served there from 1999 until 2001 in the clinton administration and since 2010, she attended harvard and is 55 years old and would replace eric holder as attorney general if confirmed by the full senate. janet in springfield, missouri, a republican, you're next. >> hi, thanks for taking my call. i was very impressed with ms. lynch. i felt like she was very sincere in her comments. i appreciated the fact that at the very beginning stated that she was going to uphold the constitution. that that was very important for her to follow that as the basis for decision making so to speak

in the office of attorney general. i also feel like she -- she was very impressive, like i said before. the other thing is, you had a caller on who was talking about the republicans bringing upperic holder and everything. and i think the comment that i appreciated was the fact that some of us maybe look at eric holder as being obama's wing man and i think sometimes that used to say hey, i got your back, i usually think of that in a social setting. in this case, ms. lynch does seem like she is committed by her words at least to upholding the law to not inserting herself personally or becoming politically intertwined. but her job is to evaluate and

to make decisions based on fact and based on law. and so what i heard today, i'm leaning towards saying i think she would be a great attorney general. now there is a caveat to that. a lot of people you can say a lot of things but let's see if she will walk the walk. and almost anything would be better than eric holder at this point. so i appreciated you taking my call. thank you. >> time for maybe two or three more calls and get your thoughts on what you saw today, the attorney general nominee loretta lynch before the senate judiciary committee today, a long day of testimony, day one of two days of hearings. today was her day. tomorrow starting at 10:00 at eastern. live coverage of day two and

will have testimony from those in favor and against the nomination of loretta lynch. go to an independent caller. janice in lebanon, connecticut. >> i think she should be called the woman with no opinion. i didn't know what she stood for. she did a lot of double talking and passing the buck about not knowing the facts and i listened further and found out she met with these senators and knew what they were going to ask what was on their minds, so she should have been prepared. i came across feeling that i knew what was more going on with the i.r.s. and the gun situation in mexico -- i forget the name of that. i knew more things than she did. so she didn't voice her opinion. i came away. i had an open mind being an independent, but i came away not

knowing what the woman stands for other than she is going to be another eric holder. thank you for taking my call. >> colorado springs democrat line you're on the air. >> my primary reaction is she is an outstanding candidate. but i hope the american public is perceiving what i'm perceiving in terms of senator ted cruz and his mania for the presidency. he was extremely out of line and he didn't ask questions appropriately and proposed hypotheticals that were loaded for certain answers. i'm all for her. and i thank you for considering that. >> marissa from new jersey. >> yes.

i think ms. lynch was charming, articulate, forthright and i think the american people would be fortunate to have her as our attorney general. thank you. >> and kathy in green valley arizona, an independent. you will get the last word here. last call this evening. >> thank you for taking my call. i was very impressed with ms. lynch. i think she has impressive credentials, however my concerns were several of her unwillingness to directly answer some questions. to hot button issues obviously the i.r.s. and it was said on national television that was the most concerning things for america today is the i.r.s. she did not answer that

directly. so i do like her. i'm impressed with her, but i'm a little bit concerned, like many callers have said. the country does not deserve another eric holder, although i don't think that's who she is. but i'm impressed with her at the same time. >> you got the last word. thanks to all our callers. the proceedings from today's senate judiciary committee confirmation hearing reair in their entirety at 8:00 eastern time with attorney general nominee loretta lynch and her testimony throughout the day today. and tomorrow on "washington journal," the chairman of the judiciary committee, chuck grassley, will be joining us to talk about loretta lynch and what's ahead at tomorrow's hearing. senator grassley joins us thursday morning at 7:45 a.m.

east coast time on washington journal and after that, we move into live coverage of day two of the attorney general confirmation hearing by the senate judiciary committee again live here on c-span. now we are going to reair opening statements. you are going to hear from chuck grassley and senator leahy and the nominee herself. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> restoring respect of the co-equal branches of government and taking care that the law is executed and not rewritten. how about the department of justice honoring its long standing duty to defend our nation's laws even when political apointees disagree with the policy. then there is the office of legal counsel. i'm interested in returning that office to its rightful place as the impartial crown jewel of the justice department. its opinion should be firmly rooted in the constitution. neutral interpretation of statutes and sound judicial precedent. they shouldn't be transparently self-serving attempts to justify whatever the president or an

attorney germ wants to do for political reasons. and let me say it right here. the office of legal counsel should be sharing with the american public, the opinions it's providing to the president especially when they supposedly sanctioned beyond unprecedented authority that the president claims to possess. and i'm going to work to see that it does. the public's business ought to be public. transparency i believe and in fact does bring accountability. these ideals and principles are foundational to the republic. but ideals and principles aren't simply academic and don't exist in a vacuum. over the last few years public confidence has been shaken with good reason. it's not just republicans who see the problem or who recognize it as a real world affects on our own fellow americans. the department's own inspector

general listed as one of its top management challenges, quote restoring confidence in the integrity, fairness and accountability of the department, end of quote. the i.g. cited several examples including the department's falsely denying facts in the fast and furious controversy. quote, resulting in an erosion of trust in the department. our government knowingly allowed firearms to traffickers and led to the death of a patrol agent brian terry. and then after congress called on the leadership of the department to account for this foolish operation, what did they do? did they apologize to the family and race to uncover the truth? they denied, spun and hid the fabts from the american people.

they intimidated whistleblowers and others who had the audacity to investigate and uncover the truth. the department has also failed to hold another government agency accountable, the internal revenue service. we watched with dismay as it was turning against individual citizens. why. what did these fellow citizens make their government target them? they had the courage to get engaged and speak out in freedom and in support of our constitution? they were targeted by the i.r.s. what was the justice department's reaction to the targeting of citizens based on political beliefs? well, they appointed a campaign donor to lead an investigation that hasn't gone anywhere and then call it a day. that simply isn't good enough. the department stopped the litigation. the solicitor general is arguing

in case after case for breath-taking expansion of federal power. i would like you to consider this. had the department prevailed in some of the arguments that it pressed before the supreme court the last several years, there would be no limit on what the federal government could order states to do as a condition for receiving federal money. another case, environmental protection agency could be fine a homeowner for not complying with an owner and then deny the homeowner any right to challenge the order or those fines in court when the order is should. the federal court could ban books that expressly advocate for the election. fourth amendment wouldn't have anything to say about police attaching a g.p.s. device to a citizen's car and tracking their every moment for months and

years. these positions aren't mainstream in my judgment. at the end of the day, the common thread that binds all these challenges together in my judgment is the department of justice that is very deeply politicized. but that's what happens when an attorney general of the united states views himself and these are his own words, as the president's wing man. i don't expect ms. lynch and i will agree on every issue, but i, for one, need to be persuaded that she will be an independent attorney general and i have no reason to believe at this point she won't be. the attorney general's job is to represent the american people not just the president and not just the executive branch. so today, we will hear from ms. lynch. as far as i know, ms. lynch has nothing to do with the department of justice problems that i just outlined. but as new attorney general, she

can fix them. tomorrow, we'll hear from a second panel of witnesses, many of whom who will speak to the many challenges facing the justice department. as i listened to both panels, i will be considering what it takes to fix the obama justice department. we need to get back to first principles and that starts with depoliticizing the department of justice. so i hope ms. lynch can fix these flaws. senator leahy. >> i won't speak as long, because i want to focus on loretta lynch and all the problems that some may see in this country. it is a pleasure to welcome her to this committee. she's smart, she's tough hard-working and independent.

she's a prosecute's prosecute. and her qualifications are beyond reproach. unanimously confirmed by the senate twice before and served as the top federal prosecutor in brooklyn new york. i hope we have another swift confirmation for ms. lynch. as u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york has brought terrorists and cyber criminals to justice and obtained convictions from both political parties. fought against violent crime and financial fraud and remained determined to protect the rights of victims. ms. lynch has worked hard to improve the relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve. and part of that is one of the reasons why her nomination enjoys strong support from both.

she has prosecuted those who have committed crimes against police officers as well as police officers who have committed crimes. her record shows that as attorney general miss lynch will enforce the law. i hope we all remember that she is the nomination for attorney germ and that's why i'm focusing on her. she was born in north carolina. daughter of a baptist teacher and school librarian and we are honored to have members of her family with us today and i know you will be introducing them later. she grew up hearing her family speak about the jim crow south and never lost it. her nomination is historic. when she's confirmed as the 83rd attorney general of the united states, she will be the first african-american woman to lead the department of justice.

i can't think anyone more deserving of that honor. she will lead a justice department that faces complex challenges. nearly one-third of its budget goes to the bureau of prisons and that drains vital resources from all public safety priorities. a third of the budget goes to prisons. and it's a significant factor that leads into this budget. unnecessary creation as more and more minimum mandatory septemberenses. they become a convenient way for lawmakers to claim they are tough on crime even though there is no evidence that the keeps us safer. we have the largest prison population in the world. that's why i oppose mandatory minimums. i hope we can face this incarceration problem. it needs strong leadership to keep up with the rapid development of technology.

stay ahead of the curve to fight threats to cybersecurity and data privacy. think of what it would have been like the last few days in the northeast if a cyber terrorist could close down all of our electrical grids. the growing threat of cyber crime is very real, but also the specter of unchecked government intrusion into our private lives, particularly drag nets or programs directed at american citizens. intelligence community faces a critical deadline this june. three sections of the act are set to expire. we have to protect our national security and we have to protect our civil liberties that makes us unique as a country. so we have to reform our nation's surveillance laws so we can realize both goals. and she needs to protect americans, all americans.

the president's selection for attorney general, no matter who the president is deserves to be considered swiftly fairly and on the nominee's own record. i believe americans realize that the role this important cannot be used as one more sound bite of washington political football. i'm confident that if we stay focused on her qualifications and fierce independence, she is going to be confirmed quickly by the senate. she deserves a fair, thoughtful and respectful confirmation process and the american people deserve an attorney germ like ms. lynch. i look forward to your testimony. >> for those of you who are new to our hearing, it is tradition that senators from home state.

>> a proud new yorker and nominee to be the next attorney general of the united states. born in north carolina, her father was a fourth generation baptist minister. a man who grew up in the segregated south and her mother picked cotton when she was a girl, so her daughter would never have to. well their daughter to grow up one of the keenest legal minds our country has to offer, someone who has exceled at every stage in her education and career while cultivating a reputation who is fair and likeable. if there is an american dream

story, ms. lynch is it and adding to the american dream story, ms. lynch's late brother was a navy seal. still, despite her intellectual and career achievements, she has always been a nose to the grindstone type, rarely seeking a claim, only a job well done. she has earned a reputation for keeping her head down and avoiding the spotlight, just like me. [laughter] >> at just over five foot and with her consistent understated approach to the public spotlight, some might underestimate ms. lynch, but as hundreds of criminals have learned the hard way, looks can be deceiving and ms. lynch packs a powerful punch. when you look at the breadth and depth of the cases she has handled, it is clear she is law

enforcement's renaissance woman. one case, where she convicted police officers who abused a haitian immigrant. these types of cases can create tension between the police and the community but despite the emotions, ms. lynch was praised by lawyers on both sides as well as community leaders and police officials for her judicious balance and careful approach. mr. chairman, members of this committee in this age of global terrorism, the a.g.'s role and national security has never been more important. it makes apparent that the confirmation of a new attorney general cannot and should not be delayed any longer. today we have already heard and we'll hear a lot more about issues completely unrelated to her experience and her qualifications. if anything, that just goes to

show how qualified she is. no one can assail loretta lynch and no one has, who she is, what she has done and how good an attorney general she would be. some are trying to drag executive orders on immigration the i.r.s. into the fray to challenge her nomination, because they can't find anything in her record to point to. let me be clear. attempts to politicize this nomination, to turn this exceptional nominee into a political point scoring exercise are a disservice to the qualified candidate we have before us today. i originally recommended loretta lynch for the position of u.s. attorney in 1999, because i thought she was excellent. sure enough she was. when president bush took office she went to the private sector to earn some money. but when i had the opportunity to recommend the candidate to

president obama, i was certain i wanted ms. lynch to serve again. i called her on a friday afternoon. she was happy with her life in the law firm. but i was confident that with the weekend to think it over, she would be drawn to answer the call to public service. and sure enough, her commitment to public service was so strong that she called me back on monday to say yes. she pass he nan mousely out of the senate twice already. isn't it nice if we could pass her out of the senate a third time. based on her record, we should. mr. president, if we can't confirm loretta lynch, i don't think we can confirm anyone. i would like to remind my colleagues that the president's immigration policies are not seeking confirmation today. loretta lynch is. when we move to vote, you won't be voting for or against the president's policies but voting

on this qualified law enforcement professional, first-rate legal mind and someone who is committed in her bones on the equal application of justice for all people. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator gillibrand. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member leahy. i'm happy to introduce to loretta lynch. as president obama's nominee to serve as the next attorney general of the united states. to serve as united states attorney general requires deep experience in the field of law and a brilliant intellect and a steady moral compass. i have met with ms. lynch two months ago and she meets all of those criteria. she is strong. tough, independent and fearless and as one of our country's most accomplished and distinguished women serving in law enforcement, i urge my colleagues to support her

nomination. she is an outstanding candidate for the job. ms. lynch began her service as u.s. attorney in 1990 where she rose quickly to serve chief of the long island office and deputy chief of criminal crimes and chief of intake of criminal arraignments. she has been a prosecute for the district of new york and since 2010, she has served as united states attorney for the eastern district of new york. in that position, she has demonstrated a superior sense of judgment and remarkable legal exeter -- expertise. she has dealt with an impressive cases, civil rights, to organized crime to terrorism. these are each issues that our new attorney general will have to engage constantly from day one. her experience as a federal prosecutor in new york will serve her well in washington. she is extraordinarily well

qualified and i believe she deserves a quick nomination process. thank you, mr. chairman. >> it's now just as soon as the table is cleared, it's going to give ms. lynch an opportunity to comment before.

>> the committee welcomes you and i know it's an honor for all of us so have you before us, but it's also an honor for you to be sleggetted by the president and it's quite an honor for your family. so i would ask before you make your statement, if you would like to introduce anybody to the committee. and speak about them any way you want to. and if there's people that aren't introduced by you, that you would like to have their name in the record and submit their names, i would be glad to include it in the record. would you proceed as you choose.

i think the microphone is not automatic. >> thank you, senator. let me introduce for the record, i'm delighted to welcome numerous family and friends with me today. i would like to introduce my father source of my inspiration in so many ways. he is to my left. . immediately is my husband. who supported me in all my endeavors, no matter how poor they make us. [laughter] immediately to his left is my younger brother, the reverend leon lynch who is the fifth generation of ministers in a direct line in my family. and my sister-in-law nicole lynch. i'm also here with several other family members and friends whom i would love to introduce but i am informed you have a schedule for the afternoon. i will keep to that. let me say to all of them how tremendously gratified i am for their support not just today but

over the years. chairman grassley, senator leahy, distinguished members of this committee, i'm honored to be here -- to appear before you in this historic chamber. i want to thank you for your time this morning and i also want to thank president obama for the trust he has placed in me by nominating me to serve as attorney general of the united states. it's a particular privilege to be joined here today by the members of my family that i have introduced, as well as the other numerous family and friends who have come to support me and who -- whose travel and service i'm so appreciative. mr. chairman, one of the privileges and in fact one of my favorite things in my position as united states attorney for the eastern district of new york is welcoming new attorneys in my office and administering to them the oath of office. it is a transformative moment in the life of a young prosecutor and one that i actually remember well.

as i stand -- as they stand before me prepared to pledge their honor and integrity, i remind them that they are making their oath not to me, not to the office, not even to the attorney general, but to our constitution. the fundamental foundation for all that we do. it is to that document and the ideals embodied therein that i devoted my professional life. senators, if confirmed as attorney general i pledge to you today and the american people that the constitution, the bedrock of our system of justice, will be my lodestar as i exercise the power and responsibility of that position. i owe so much to those who have worked to make the promise of that document real for all americans beginning with my own family. all of them and so many others have supported me on the path that has brought me to this moment. not only through their unwavering love and support, which is so beautifully on

display today, but through their examples and the values that have shaped my upbringing. my mother, who was unable to travel here today, is a retired english teacher and librarian for whom education was the key to a better life. she still recalls people in her rural north carolina community pressing a dime or quarter into her hands to help support her college education. as a young woman, she refused to use segregated rest rooms for they did not represent the america in which she believed. she instilled in me an abiding love of literature and learning and taught me the value of hard work and sacrifice. my father, lorenzo, who is here with me today, is a fourth generation baptist preacher who in the early 1960's opened his greensboro church to those planning sit-ins and marches standing with them while carrying me on his shoulders. he has always matched his

principles with his actions, encouraging me to think for myself, but reminding me that we all gain the most when we act in service to others. it was the values my parents instilled in me that led me to the eastern district of new york. from my parents i gained the tenacity and resolve to take on violent criminals, to confront political corruption, and disrupt organized crime. they also gave me the insight and the compassion to sit with the victims of crime and share their loss. their values have sustained me as i have twice had the privilege, indeed the honor, of serving as united states attorney. leaving an exceptional office staffed by outstanding public servants and their values guide and motivate me even today. senators, should i be confirmed as attorney general, my highest priorities will continue to be to ensure the safety of all of our citizens. to protect the most vulnerable among us from crime and abuse,

and to strengthen the vital relationships between america's brave law enforcement officers and the communities they are entrusted to serve. in a world of complex and evolving threats, protecting the american people from terrorism must remain the primary mission of today's department of justice. if confirmed, i will work with colleagues across the executive branch to use every available tool to continue disrupting the catastrophic attacks planned against our homeland and to bring terrorists to justice. i will draw upon my extensive experience in the eastern district of new york, which has tried more terrorism cases since 9/11 than any other office. we have investigated and prosecuted terrorist individuals and groups that threaten our nation and its people, including those who have plotted to attack new york city's subway system, john f. kennedy airport, the federal reserve bank of new york, and u.s. troops stationed abroad, as

well as those who have provided material support to foreign terrorist organizations. i pledge to discharge my duties, always mindful of the need to protect not just american citizens, but american values. if confirmed, i intend to expand and enhance our capabilities to effectively prevent ever evolving attacks in cyberspace, to expose wrongdoers and bring those perpetrators to justice as well. in my current position, i'm proud to lead an office that has significant experience prosecuting complex international cybercrime including high-tech intrusions at key financial and public sector institutions. if i am confirmed, i will continue to use the combined skills and experience of our law enforcement partners, the department as criminal and national security divisions, and the united states attorney community to defeat and hold accountable those who would

imperil the safety and security of our citizens through cybercrime. i will also do everything i can to ensure that we are safeguarding the most vulnerable among us. during my tenure as u.s. attorney, the eastern district of new york has led the prosecution against financial fraudsters who callously targeted hardworking americans including the deaf, elderly, and stolen not just their trust but hard-earned savings. we have taken action against abusers in over 100 child exploitation and child pornography cases, and we have prosecuted brutal international human trafficking rings that have sold, sold victims as young as 14 and 15 into sexual slavery. if confirmed as attorney general, i will continue to build upon the department's record of vigorously prosecuting those who prey on those most in need of our protection, and i will continue to provide strong and effective assistance to

survivors who we must both support and empower. senators, throughout my career as a prosecutor, it has been my single honor to work hand in hand with dedicated law enforcement officers and agents who risk their lives every day in the protection of the communities we all serve. i have served with them. i have learned from them. i am a better prosecutor because of them. few things have pained me more than the recent reports of tensions and division between law enforcement and the communities we serve. if confirmed as attorney general, one of my key priorities would be to work to strengthen the vital relationships between our courageous law enforcement personnel and all of the communities we serve. in my career, i have seen this relationship flourish. i have seen law enforcement forge unbreakable bonds with community residents, and i have seen violence ravished

communities come together to honor officers who have risked all to protect them. and as attorney general, i will draw all voices into this important discussion. in that same spirit, i look forward to fostering a new and improved relationship with this committee, the united states senate, and the entire united states congress. a relationship based on mutual respect and constitutional balance. ultimately, i know we all share the same goal and commitment to protect and to serve the american people. now, i recognize that we face many challenges in the years ahead, but i have seen in my own life and in my own family how dedicated men and women can answer the call to achieve great things for themselves, for their country, and for generations to come. my father, that young minister who carried me on his shoulders, has answered that call.

as has my mother, the courageous young teacher who refused to let jim crow define her. standing with them are my uncles and cousins who served in vietnam, one of whom is here with -- to support me today. and my older brother, a navy seal, all of whom answered that call with their service to our country. senators, as i come before you today in this historic chamber i still stand on my father's shoulders, as well as on the shoulders of all of those who have gone before me and dreamed of making the promise of america a reality for all and work to achieve that goal. i believe in the promise of america because i have lived the promise of america. and if confirmed to be attorney general of the united states, i pledge to all of you and the american people that i will fulfill my responsibilities with integrity and independence. i will never forget that i serve the american people from all

walks of life who continue to make our nation great, as well as the legacy of all of those who -- whose sacrifices have made us free. i will always strive to uphold the trust that has been placed in me to protect and defend our constitution, to safeguard our people, and to stand as the leader and public servant that they deserve. thank you all once again for your time and your consideration. i greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today. i look forward to your questions and to all that we may accomplish in the days ahead together in the spirit of cooperation, shared responsibility, and justice. thank you for your time today. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> see all of her hearing tonight on c-span at 8:00 eastern time. not long after the opening statements a democratic member of the senate judiciary committee, spoke briefly with

reporters. >> she did an amazingly fine job. the reason she has been such a great u.s. attorney, the reason that she has such an impeccable record and why she would make a great attorney general was apparent during the three hours of her testimony, her answering of questions. i really don't think anyone laid a glove on her. she basically was so good she just knocked it out of the park. she handled all of the questions with respect and handled them forth rightly and i think that at least as far as this morning goes, it bodes well for her confirmation. i would hope republicans would not delay her nomination. this is one of the terrorism -fighting positions in the united states and the world.

and to have -- to delay her coming in would be a disservice. after this morning, i don't see any reason why they would delay. >> what do you have to say -- [inaudible] >> sort of an element of a stalking horse here that republicans were trying to put eric holder -- >> it's loretta lynch who is being nominated for attorney general and these attempts to say that well, this is a hearing about eric holder, barack obama or a hole myriad of issues which she has had nothing to do with isn't going to fly. given her strength and how good she was, i think the republicans who answered questions sort of saw she is so good and i think

they understood they weren't going to really lay a glove on her. ok. >> senator schumer -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> watch today's confirmation hearing with attorney general nominee in its entirety tonight. tom morning, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee chuck grassley joins us on "washington journal" and will take your phone calls. live at 7:45 eastern again here on c-span. on facebook, we have been asking you what should be the priorities of the next attorney general. join the conversation at foose become.com/cspan. some of the comments from our facebook page from tracy --

>> until then, some of the questions from earlier today, we start with texas senator ted cruz. >> congratulations to your family who are proud of you for being the nominee. a number of my friend and colleagues who practice law in new york have reached out to me with words of praise for you. describing your tenure as u.s. attorney there and as that of a

no-nonsense prosecutor and as a u.s. attorney who honored and respected the law. and so, for that, i congratulate you. you began your remarks by describing how with new attorneys in your office, you remind them that they take an oath, not to the attorney general, but to the constitution. that same thing is true for the attorney general of the united states. and i have long expressed my very deep concerns with the conduct of the current attorney general, eric holder. the attorney general has a long bipartisan history of being willing to stand up to the presidents who appointed them. attorneys general in both parties have demonstrated fidelity to the law and the

constitution, even when it meant telling the president of their own party, no. that is never easy to do. but part of what's made the department of justice special is that attorneys general both democrat and republican, have honored that commitment, as you noted to your young lawyers to the constitution not to the president who has appointed me. my my single greatest concern with the tenure of attorney germ eric holder has not upheld that tradition. it has behaved as a partisan operation for the president than an impartial law enforcement agency. and so i want to ask you at the outset the simple question if confirmed, how would your tenure ziffer from attorney general eric holder's.

>> you have raised an important issue of the role of attorney general. the attorney general is a cabinet member, unlike other cabinet members in that the obligation of the attorney general is first and foremost to represent the american people, to protect and defend the constitution and faith tlly execute the laws passed by this body. in interacting with the white house or any agency, if confirmed as attorney general, i would do so in the manner which i conducted myself as united states attorney with a full and fair evaluation in every matter brought to me and fair and full review of the laws, with zugs, with career prosecutors and even the most junior people who i have found to have the best insight into matters and only then will i make the determination as to the steps to be taken. going forward, every attorney general creates their own path. you ask me how i will be different. i will be loretta lynch and i

led my office through two terms as united states toirn focusing solely on the protection of the people. and if confirmed, protection of all the american people. with respect to the issues that you raised, i greatly appreciate you sharing them with me both now and during the discussion we had in your office. i look forward to more discussions with you and your colleagues and i want to pledge to you now that i will always listen to your concerns and will consult with this body as appropriate because there is collective wisdom and experience both prosecutorial and legal. and i look forward to crafting a positive relationship, not just with this committee, but with congress. >> i thank you. that commitment is welcome and would mark a sharp break from the practices from the current department of justice. one of the frustrations is that

the department has not been responsive to this committee's requests. and with that to change that would be highly welcomed. let me focus on one if time allows, two specific areas where i believe the department has gone with partisan politics instead of upholding the law and let's start with immigration which has been the topic of much discussion already. you mentioned in your opening statement that you had now taken the opportunity to review the o.l.c. opinion on the president's executive amnesty. do you agree with the analysis in the o.l.c. opinion? >> i have had occasion to review the opinion that dealt with the department of homeland security's request for a legal framework in how to prioritize removal of illegal undocumented immigrants. i did not see a grant of amnesty

or pathway to citizenship. as i resue the opinion as well as the letters from scholars who wrote in support of it, it seemed to be a way to look for the legal framework based on case law, precedent, prior action of congress, as well as the discretionary authority of the department of homeland security to prioritize its removal and certainly placing those most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants at the top of that list seemed to me to be a very reasonable exercise. i would want to hope -- i would hope that the protection of those communities where undocumented immigrants involved in violent crime, gang activity, terrorism, would be at the top of the list. >> ms. lynch, you said now and before in your opening statement that you found the legal analysis reasonable. o.l.c. operates in the place of

the attorney general of the united states. an o.l.c. opinion operates as the legal judgment of the attorney general as the chief legal officer for the united states. so my question is quite simply do you agree with the legal analysis in that memorandum? would it have been your legal analysis had you been asked the same question? >> senator, certainly i'm not able to say at this point what my -- if my legal analysis would have taken the same pathway and same steps because i have not reviewed all of the cases and reviewed all of the memorandum that i'm sure went in to that. but what i can say again, as the opinion seeks to talk about the exercise of executive discretion, it seemed to be looking at precedent, actions of congress, as well as the immigration laws to see if there was a legal framework for the requested actions. what i noted was that for some of the actions, the office of legal counsel found there was a legal framework for some of the actions that the department of homeland security wanted to set in place. but for some of the requested actions the office of legal counsel found there was not the appropriate legal framework for some of those actions, and

instead, my understanding, advised the department of homeland security that they should not proceed along certain ways. my understanding is that that advice was taken. i do believe that the office of legal counsel has the important obligation to look at the law, look at the facts, look at the action that is being brought before it, and say where there is an appropriate legal framework, as well as there is not an appropriate legal framework. >> ms. lynch, i would note that i twice asked you if you agree with the analysis. you are a very talented lawyer. i suspect it's not an accident that twice you have not answered that question. you have described what o.l.c. did but not given a simple answer. do you agree with that analysis or not. >> senator, i told you i did find the analysis to be reasonable. i did find it to recognize the issues. and it did seem to provide a reasonable basis. >> in 2011, before the last

election, president obama said quote, with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. do you agree with what president obama said in 2011? >> senator, i don't know what legal opinion he was relying on at the time. certainly the subsequent legal opinion talks about the temporary deferral of deportation in a way that does provide a legal framework for it, but i don't know if the president was speaking of this exact same issue or not. i simply couldn't provide a legal opinion about the president's comments at this time. >> now, the executive action, in my view, the o.l.c. opinion has no legal basis whatsoever. it hinges upon the notion of prosecutorial discretion, and you rightly described how any prosecutor will prioritize some cases over others for example, focusing on more violent criminals.

in your office as u.s. attorney you certainly exercised prosecutorial discretion. was it your practice for any category of crimes to suggest to those who may have violated the criminal laws they can come into your office and seek a written authorization, exonerating them of their past crimes and authorizing them to continue carrying out crimes for a large categorical group of offenders? >> senator, we would not have that type of direct dealing with offenders. they would come to our attention as part of an investigation or part of an issue where they would already be under suspicion of some sort of wrongdoing. we would not have that type of discussion with someone who might be represented or might have other rights, we would not have that type of discussion with someone. >> that's not anything you ever did. >> no. we do have priorities within my office. we do have guidelines within my office. those are shared with our law enforcement colleagues. we also share them with many of our state and local colleagues as we discuss where to best

place certain types of cases. >> thank you very much. we'll continue. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on being the chairman. >> i'm glad to be chairman. i can tell you that. >> i know you are. ms. lynch, congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you, senator. >> it was great meeting with you. your reputation for smart and tough precedes you and you didn't disappointment in our meeting. thank you for the wide ranging conversation -- how was lunch? >> excellent, thank you, sir. >> enjoyed lunch? >> yes, sir. >> good. i want to -- i discussed a couple things, number of things when you were in my office, and i want to bring them up again. one is our prison system.

>> i'm sorry? >> our prison system. i want to talk about our prison system. we have united states has 5% of the world's population, 25% of the prison population. i think one of the biggest problems is that we used our criminal justice system as a substitute for a well functioning mental health system. we have a lot of people in prison, in jails in this country who shouldn't be -- probably shouldn't be there. and who -- it's not serving anybody any purpose. we have young people with -- and others with mental illness who are in solitary confinement and just makes their mental health worse. what i want to do to address that is something called the justice mental health collaboration act.

it's a re-authorization of my -- my mentally ill treatment act which has been very bipartisan in the past and should be -- it is bipartisan. it's been carried by a republican in the house. i just want to ask you for your support as we go forward in making sure that our criminal justice system isn't -- not just wasting money, but wasting lives. and that you will work together with me on that. forward to working together with you on that as well as other important issues i think you have highlighted one of the most important developments in criminal justice research and literature has been the ongoing research that has been done into

the root causes of so many -- so much of our criminal activity. in particular where the mentally ill are involved, we continue to learn more and more about how that illness impacts them as they make their way through the criminal justice system. and i look forward to taking advantage of that new knowledge with you and working with you on that and other important issues. >> some of this involves -- i don't know if you heard of crisis intervention training. but crisis intervention training is teaching both police on the ground, and corrections officials in prisons to recognize when they are seeing someone with a mental health problem. to deal with it in the correct way. >> certainly. certainly. i think the research has shown and certainly anyone with experience with a family member or friend who has a mental illness, knows that sometimes conditions may manifest themselves in ways that appear to be disruptive but are a

reflection of the illness. >> what i'll be doing with this is doing mental health courts so that if a prosecutor an arresting officer, and the defense attorney and the judge say this person belongs in a mental health court and not -- so they can be treated and not go to prison where it's going to enclosing up the prison system and make -- clog up the prison system and neighboring this person's position worse. then we'll do that. and also veterans courts. we have so many veterans that are coming back with invisible wounds. sometimes those invisible wounds will be medicated. by drugs or alcohol. and instead of going to the prison, maybe it's time -- we can go to veterans court. >> certainly, senator. i know some of my u.s. attorney cloogs have been instrumental in working on the concept of

veterans courts in particular as part of the department's strong commitment to protecting all of the rights of veterans. you are so correct. we ask so much of our men and women in uniform and they come back to us often different from how they left with wounds that we can see and wounds that we often cannot see. i believe we have an obligation to provide them the best treatment to thank them for their service to our country. >> fabulous. i look forward to working with you on that should you be confirmed. which i hope you will. let me move on to something kind of specific. i was chair and now will be ranking member of the privacy technology and the law subcommittee. there's a lot of technology out there that's new that we are learning about some unforeseen consequences of it. there's a thing called stalking apps. we discussed this.

and incredible when i first did location privacy subcommittee hearing, my first hearing, i got some testimony from minnesota coalition for battered women, and they told a story of a woman who had an abusive partner and she went to a county building in -- it was in st. louis county in northern minnesota, and while she was there on her phone, she got a text from her abuser, why are you in the county building? are you going to the domestic violence place? it scared her so much they took her to the courthouse to get to file an order against him. while she's there she gets from him saying why are you at the courthouse? are you getting a restraining order against me? it's terrified her. it turns out this is very common. now, d.o.j. does have the authority under existing wiretap

laws to prosecute apps that allow people to listen to the victims' phone calls, intercept text mention or otherwise intercept content from victims' phones. d.o.j. has prosecuted i-a pp developer who created an app. and i ask you continue to do that. but looking ahead, would you work with me, i have a bill to stop these things. to stop the marketing the -- manufacture of stocking apps. and also -- stalking apps. and also ask that d.o.j. keep data on this. the last real data we have on this is like from 2006. i don't know how much you keep up with technology, but since then a lot more people have these smart phones. this is a real problem. >> senator, you have outlined a very important issue as it relates to the victims of domestic violence or anyone who fears that someone that they

thought was close to them might turn on them instead. certainly i look forward to working with you and keeping you apprised not only of the department's efforts and continued prosecution of these matters, but look at the statute with you and provide whatever assistance we can. >> thank you. look forward to that as well. one last thing about two minutes, i am very concerned about the telecommunications industry consolidating and i'm specifically worried about comcast and -- the largest cable provider and the largest internet provider and third largers internet provider. this is just too big. they would have unprecedented power in the telecommunications industry.

i have -- there's been a lot of comment on this, including my comment on this to the antitrust division. will you commit to reviewing the serious concerns about the proposed comcast-time warner deal that i and so many others have raised and just do all that you can to ensure that the antitrust division is empowered to stand up to telecommunications giants likecome cast? if that's necessary? >> certainly, senator, the antitrust division plays an extremely important role in keeping our markets competitive and open for everyone. i look forward to learning more about this case, to reviewing those issues and making sure that all the concerns about this are brought to our attention so they can be dealt with by the antitrust division as we move

forward. >> ok, then, i'll probably vote for you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator from minnesota. now senator. >> thank you ms. lynch. appreciated hearing your life story, appreciated the meeting we had in my office a few months ago as well. i brought something up there and i'll brick it up again with regard to the border situation in arizona. we have had obviously ongoing problems with the border, we share a large border with mexico, but there have been some considerable successes. one of the successes in the last several years has been in the so-called yuma sector where we've seen apprehensions go from about 140,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about 6,000 last year. so considerable success. that contrasts with tucson

sector which has seen a drop, i think because of the economy, we've seen a drop anyway, but not nearly as significant. there were about 87,000 apprehensions in the tucson sector. one of the things that i think just about everybody attributes the success in the yuma sector to is something called operation streamlined and it allows so-called consequences program to be implemented where first-time crossers are met with consequences and it has -- it's pointed to by, certainly law enforcement organizations in yuma and along that sector and just about everyone else recognize it's been successful. the problem is, just last year, it looks like d.o.j. has said that they're no longer going to implement parts of that. and that for the -- and that first time offenders unless there's some other circumstance, they will not be prosecuted. what are the specifics of this new policy as you understand it

with operation streamline? >> certainly senator, i've had the opportunity to know somewhat about this matter from my discussions with my colleagues, the u.s. attorneys, not just along the arizona border but also in texas and california and they work hard every day to keep our borders safe and essentially to protect the people in their districts but also to deal with this ever-growing problem. i believe that again i'm not familiar with the current status of operation streamline but as it relates to first-time prosecutions of individuals, individuals are still being prosecuted. and to the extent that a first-time crosser would not be prosecuted they still would be subject to just pure removal without there being a criminal case involved. i believe that the issues in managing the program have had a great deal to do with resources particularly with the budget constraints that offices have found themselves under in recent years.

but i can assure you, senator that the commitment to protect the border is strong, not only among u.s. attorneys who work on the border but throughout the u.s. attorney community and the department and would be one of my priorities also as attorney general. >> i mentioned this is what distinguished the yuma sector from the others is the success with this program. if you're saying now it's a budget issue, why haven't we seen concern about the budget or those budget aspects? why hasn't d.o.j. come to congress and said, we are having issues here? and so in order to continue with this program, we're going to need additional funding. to your knowledge, has that happened? >> i'm not aware of what's gone into the specifics of the department's budget. i'm generally aware of the budget as it relates to u.s. attorneys generally but not the department as a whole or as it relates to specific programs i'm not able to provide that information to you. it's certainly something i would be working closely on should i

be confirmed as attorney general. >> i'll put it this way, barring budget issues is this a program you're committed to or do you have other issues with it? >> it's a program i think has been effective. there have been concerns raised about resources, about the way the program has been managed from the judiciary and others, we're always trying to be responsive to all the parties involved in these but with respect to the issue itself, i am certainly committed to work on that issue with you and members of the committee, be it through operation streamline or in an equally effective program. >> the record, we've not, to my knowledge, received any concerns about budget issues with regard to operation streamline. it seems to have been another decision that was made and i will be following up with you. we want to make sure that, you know, step back, i believe we need to do a lot with regard to immigration policy. i'm a sponsor of the comprehensive bill that went

through the congress last -- two years ago, through the house -- i'm sorry, through the senate, didn't get through the house. this isn't all we need to do but it is a significant part of what we need to do and arizonans have paid the price a disproportionate price for a long time for the federal government's failure to have a secure border. and so when we have programs like this that work and we see, you know, success in one sector, and everybody can point to that it's very disturbing when d.o.j. pulls back on that and we fear that yuma sector, as the economy kicks up again, crossings are more frequent, that we're going to have the same problems that we had a few years ago and that just, we can't go on with that. secretary johnson is in arizona or just visited arizona, visited the border, he's done that a few times. met with ranchers, with some of their concerns particularly in

the tucson sector. and there's still a lot that needs to be done. it's going to require a real partnership between a lot of people to make sure that it works. switching gears, some of my colleagues mentioned trade secrets and economic espionage, but just to focus specifically on the theft of trade secrets and foreign governments last may, the department of justice announced indictments of five chinese military hackers for foreign theft of trade secrets, and espionage among other crimes. when announcing these charge attorney general holder said the dcht will not tolerate actions that undermine the integrity of the free market this case will serve as a wakeup call to the seriousness of ongoing cyberthreat he, said. would you agree with secretary -- i'm sorry, attorney general holder's statement as well as

other statements by the executive branch that this is a growing and persistent threat? >> senator, i would agree with those statements and add that i have seen through cases in my own district that this is a growing and increasing threat my office has also worked on matters involving foreign nations attempts to -- attempting to obtain technology. we've worked closely with our colleagues in other agencies to bring these cases to fruitionings and we're proud of the work we've done. it's an ever-growing concern and has been expressed by the f.b.i. not only under the current director but under director mueller. i look forward to working closely with our law enforcement partners to deal with the numerous ways we have to fight this problem. >> last congress i introduced the future of america innovation research act fair act, that provides companies with a legal remedy when their trade secrets are stolen from abroad. the concern is that you know,

since the economic espionage act was enacted in 1996, i think there have only been 10 convictions under section 1831. that's a lot of time for just a few convictions. since the f.b.i. can't investigate and d.o.j. can't prosecute every single theft of trade secrets, does it make sense that there might be a, you know federal civil action, cause of action that could help these companies through another remedy? does that make any sense? >> certainly, senator from my experience in advising companies, boards, and general counsel, i understand the importance of corporations being empowered to act on their own behalf and protect their intellectual property and trade secrets. i haven't had the opportunity to study the bill that you discussed but i certainly look forward to doing so and having further discussions with you. >> i appreciate that. victims' services, another area that has been of some concern.

last year congress passed the victim of child abuse act re-authorization. i was pleased the sponsor of the bill agreed to include an important provision that clarified congress' intent that the money from the crime victims' fund should only be used to assist victims of crime. will you commit to follow that new law and direct the victim advocates in the u.s. attorneys' offices that this money only be used for victims? in the past we've seen it used for witness travel and other administrative duties and not actually focus on the victims. >> certainly the management of the issue of how to provide not only restitution but support of victims is an important one to the department and to me as united states attorney. i think that we have to work to implement the law that you have discussed. my understanding is that it is being implemented certainly the guidance has gone out to ensure

that the victim, victim advocates and offices are being appropriately focused. i know in my own office, victim advocates who work closely with the victims of crime families who suffer through loss and provide support to them. i support empowering those professionals. i believe that you -- that the law you mention is one that is being implemented, i certainly will commit to ensuring that it is so. >> thank you and should you be con firled i look forward to working with you. >> thank you, sir. >> next person is senator blumen that will. when senator co-hence comes back, i skipped over him, we'll come back to him as the next democrat. >> thank you, senator. thank you, ms. lynch for being

here today and having your family here today. i think the two most common words used to describe you are smart and tough and i can see from your dad and i'm sure it's true of your mom that you come by those qualities honestly. in the best sense of the word. and you should be very proud of your daughter your testimony has been among the most accomplished and impressive that i've seen as a member of this committee and i'm sure you've done yourself a lot of good today, not that younesly needed it but thank you for your very forthright and erue diet answers. i want to din -- ander diet answers. -- and erudite answers. i want to begin by focusing on

human trafficking. you have a great record on human trafficking. i count 10 major prosecutions that you've done while united states attorney, focusing particularly on targeted sex trafficking while also pursuing labor trafficking. and in a case that you brought against the 7-eleven franchise, you stated publicly that the defendants were running a modern day plantation system and the system looked a lot like modern day slavery. you brought the case relying on statutes relating to immigration enforcement and identity theft and wire fraud, not on the statutes that specifically focused on criminalizing human trafficking. i wonder whether you could relate to us whether you think those statutes need to be strengthened, if you couldn't in a sense rely on them to bring

those cases based on human traffic, whether we should perhaps strengthen them, and in particular the trafficking victims protection act of 2000 provided mandatory restitution for trafficking victims, a provision that is unfortunately more unenforced than enforced. in fact, rarely enforced, i think, to provide for restitutions a recent study by the human trafficking pro bono legal center took a look at how the requirement works in practice and found that only about 36.6% of the cases did prosecutors bostonner to request restitution. so my question is really two-fold. number one, do the statutes need to be strengthened and number two, can you and would you do more to make sure that restitution is provided to victims of human trafficing? >> certainly senator. the issue of restitution for the victims of human trafficing is an important one particularly as we do increase the number of

cases that we bring. certainly sometimes there are situations where a court may not impose restitution because the funds are not there or for other legal reasons, but where we can, we always do seek a restitution order for the victims. we in particular have worked with other governments to provide them information where we have found, for example, that certain small cities in mexico have been a prime source of those who would traffic women into the united states into the eastern district of new york we worked with the mexican government to provide them information so that they could possibly affect seizures that we could not under our particular laws. so it's a very, very important issue to me as united states attorney and should i be confirmed as attorney general would be one i would look forward to working with you on to make sure all the laws involving victim protection are as strong as possible. with respect to the 7-eleven

case we did not have the evidence that the workers had been moved across state lines to effectuate the crime so therefore we would not have been able to use the trafficking laws per se. but as with that case work every case, we look at the relevant facts and laws and bring the strongest case we can. certainly where we had seen numerous, numerous incidences of children and women being trafficked from within the united states sometimes even simply crossing one state border as well as from overseas we have never hesitated to act and should i become attorney general it will be one of my priorities. >> i would welcome that priority very much as the co-chairman of the human trafficking caucus in the senate. it's a very bipartisan one, the co-chairman is senator portman of ohio. i look forward to working with you on it. let me ask you, and first of all, welcome your comments about the invisible wounds of war, thank you to your uncles and

cousins for their service in vietnam and to your brother for his service i say that as a dad of a marine corps reserve veteran who served in afghanistan and another son who is currently in the navy and i would hope that you will continue to focus on those issues relating to post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury as they may be a cause of certain kinds of conduct that may be unwelcome, may even be criminal, because what we found is a better understanding of those invisible wounds of war and the inner demons that many of our veterans bring back with them can lead to more thoughtful and humane treatment through our criminal justice system. i want to ask you, finally, in the time that i have, about one of the criticisms that has been made of the department of

justice in its allegedly too lenient treatment of certain corporate defendants as being too big to jail, so to speak, in remarks that you made after the department at the department of jus -- after the department of justice entered into a settlement with hsbc for money laundering you said the settlement had detered that company but you weren't sure it would deter other companies. so my question is whether more can be done to more aggressively prosecute white car crime, corporate crime, to dispel at least the widespread impression or perception that perhaps the department of justice has been too lenient, and in particular would you work with me on a bill

that i've authored that would make certain corporate officers criminally liable if they are aware of significant potentially deadly risks to workers workplace safety problems, and fail to act or make it public. so this bill is called hide no harm, a bill designed to protect workers on their job and it focuses on that part of the potential wrongdoing that may be committed by corporate officers but also again two-part question, would you consider pursuing more aggressively criminal laws that may be applied to corporate officers who are involved in malfeasance or violations of federal criminal laws generally? >> certainly, senator. when it comes to white collar crime or any kind of crime, as a career prosecutor and as u.s. attorney, i've been very

aggressive in pursuing those types of cases. with respect to, should i become confirmed as attorney general, i would continue that and direct that the department of justice continue its focus on examining the facts of every case, following the law wherever it took us, at the outset, no individual is too big to jail. no one is above the law. there are certain situations where we come to a different resolution or may decide a civil resolution is appropriate but that is only after a full and fair analysis of all the facts and the law and the relevant burdens under the criminal justice system or the civil system. that being said, senator, i believe if you look at the record of the eastern district of new york, we have prosecuted a number of corporate officers for insider trading with respect to the brooks case and corporate malfeasance in other cases as well as the violations of the scpa we have struck significant -- wrung significant concessions from corporations and made major

changes in the way in which corporations and financial institutions are structures and -- structured and operate that as act as a deterrent. we have been clear with respect to the industries within which we are looking that should a corporation not engage in preventive behavior or should they not take seriously the type of investigation we bring, the criminal charges will be brought. >> thank you and i know of your very aggressive and distinguished record in this area. it's one of the reasons why i strongly support wow and i look forward to voting for you and working with you on all these topics and also reform of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. as you know, i've advocated a public advocate to defend and advocate constitutional liberties in the course of this proceeding, foreign intelligence surveillance court. i'm not going to ask you to commit on that issue but i hope that you will work with me on it as well as these other issues

and i very much appreciate your being here today and your public service and your family service. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. now i go to senator visiter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam u.s. attorney. thank you for the meeting in my office. as i told you at the time i was very disappointed and frustrated because you didn't respond directly to any of my big topics and you said you'd look into these matters and consider them and as i promised, i restated the big questions in writing and i was further disappointed when yesterday, i got a letter saying there would be no response to that. but maybe the third time is a charm for me asking them so we'll try here. as i told you in my office, like many, many citizens and members of the senate, i have a huge concern regarding what i think is the president's illegal

unconstitutional executive amnesty. and i have a huge concern of the fact that you think it is within the law. and we were talking about that. so i'm going to put up what is the central statutory argument that the president's lawyers point to in terms of his allegedly having authority for this executive amnesty. and it talks about granting parole only on a case-by-case basis. so i guess one of my key questions which we talked about in my office is, do you really think his granting this amnesty this new status, to about five million illegal aliens, is acting on a case-by-case basis

as mandated by the statute? >> senator, i greatly appreciate the question as well as the opportunity that we had to discuss the matters in your office. with respect again to my review of the opinions supporting the department of homeland security 's request for taking legal actions and prioritizing removal i did find it to be reasonable that we would prioritize removal of the most dangerous undocumented immigrants with our limited resources. particularly those who were involved in violent crime terrorism, recent crossers, those with criminal records. that seemed to me to be acting in the interest of public safety and appropriate. with respect to other individuals who may not be as high on that priority list, my understanding is that that is a status they'll have for a brief period of time. as you look at the issue of executive discretion or prosecutorial discretion, you always want to have the ability to still look at individuals and

make a determination as to whether or not they should be in that lower priority. >> as we've talked about in my office though, his action goes well beyond setting prosecutorial priorities doesn't it apart from that, he goes further in -- and then he takes another affirmative step in giving them a work permit. so those two steps are going beyond setting priorities for prosecution, are they not? >> certainly, senator, as relates to how the department of homeland security manages the removal process, for those in the low priority category, however they may be determined to be, again i'm not aware if those regulations have been set forth yet so i can't comment on how they'll be implemented -- >> does this plan go beyond setting priorities for prosecution or not? does it -- doesn't it in fact go

beyond that by granting these folks a parole status and giving them a work permit? isn't that something additional to simply setting internal priorities for prosecution of these cases? >> senator, i just one minor point at the outset i believe that the department of homeland security action referred to removal and not necessarily prosecutions. certainly with respect to prosecutions there's still a robust prosecution under the immigration laws and in my own district they are a tool i use quite frequently. with respect also to what would happen to those individuals who would be in a lower priority status for lack of a better word, again, i'm not sure how the department will go about implementing that. my understanding is that the issue was there a legal framework for establishing such a program? and the opinion indicated that there was. >> do you agree with that opinion? >> i believe individuals still

have to apply at which point they would have -- there would have to be a review of their eligibility and the like. >> fundamentally, do you agree with the legal pb? >> i thought that the opinion was reasonable. i also thought it made distinctions. >> going back to that legal opinion, put that back up. s that key element of it. do you think that action applied to about five million illegal aliens is operating on a case-by-case basis. >> i'm not familiar with how the department of homeland security will be actually implementing the orders that it will be reviewing and the applications it will be reviewing so i'm not able to vide you with specifics. >> but you've read the orders. do you think that lays out a system that is operated on a case-by-case basis? >> with respect to my review of the office of legal counsel opinion, it did provide a reasonable basis for the removal and prioritization of certain people as it came to removal. when it came to the issue of

whether or not there could be a program for deferral, it seemed to refer to legal precedent, to the statute itself, and to actions by this body among others. so it certainly seemed to provide a legal framework for it. i believe also what i thought was note worthy, with respect to the opinion, some of the requested actions by the department of homeland security the office of legal counsel found did not have the appropriate legal framework that would have made them something that could be carried out under the current legal system. so the advise was not to go forward. >> i take it as a yes that this is operating on a case-by-case basis and i just think that's really a clear, obviously stretch to say that this action that's going to affect five million people is following the law on a case-by-case basis. the law also says new york fact, this same specific citation, it says, this decision on a

case-by-case basis has to be made by the attorney general. now is it your understanding under the president's plan that if you're the attorney general, you're going to be in the middle of that process making those decisions? >> senator i'm not aware of the regulatory framework and rules that have come out around this statute as to how that authority can be dell gate or exercised so i'm not able to give you an exact answer right now as to how that would -- >> aye read the plan and the plan as i read it is for all of that to be done in the department of homeland security system of my question would be, what is the statutory basis to allow that when under the statute, not some order, not some legal opinion the statute the law, word by word it says the attorney general is in the middle of that decision on a case-by-case basis. >> again senator, as presented to me by you, today, and thank you for that information, again

i'm not familiar with the ways in which that particular authority has been exercised by the attorney general. whether it's been dell gayed or how it is share -- delegated or how it is shared with the department of homeland security, so i'm not able to provide you with specifics. >> again i'll have to follow up for a fourth time but that will be a central question. the plan is not for the attorney general to be in the middle of this at all. the statute says that the attorney general is. why aren't we following the statute. let me go to another case that goes to following the law which senator hatch brought up earlier, which is your comments regarding the department of justice's initiative, smart on crime initiative. now as i read it, based on what i know, this is just a way to

clearly ignore mandatory minimums. there are crimes that have mandatory minimums we can have a good debate about whether those should be lowered in some cases or not, but they are what they are. they're in the statute. so why aren't we following the statute with regard to crimes with mandatory minimums? >> senator with respect to the enforcement of the narcotics laws that contain those mandatory minimums, laws which i have had occasion to use on numerous occasions as an sent to u.s. attorney, as a career prosecutor and as u.s. attorney, those laws are being followed. not just by my office but throughout the u.s. attorney community. the issue with smart on crime, as well as by a number of offices who sought to prioritize how to handle those cases in an area -- in an era of limited resources is focus odden when is it best to use the mandatory

minimums and when do we not necessarily have to use them but every office still retains and in fact exercises the discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence should someone who may not fall into that category but upon review of the case clearly does. >> so when is it best to use the mandatory minimums? so the mandatory minimums aren't mandatory? >> when you get done with that answer i'll cull on senator coons. >> as we handle these in the eastern district of new york, we rely on mandatory minimum when dealing with drug kingpins, many of whom have been extradited from foreign countries or operating within our district. my fellow u.s. attorneys use the statutes in a similar way. we all look however at the nature of the crime problems in

our district. and the nature of the narcotics problem in particular in our district. and a case that may require a mandatory minimum in my district may not occur in another part of the country. another part of the country may have a a different type of narcotics problem and a different population of defendants than you would find in brooklyn subject to the mandatory minimum statutes but they are being used. >> i just observe that -- i mean that is taking all meaning out of the word mandatory to replacing your and your colleague's judgment for the judgment of folks who wrote the law and that's what this whole discussion today is about. thank you. [inaudible] >> for the witness we, there's nobody here, you want to take a break, take a break. but as soon as somebody gets

here, i hope you can come back right away. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman grassley. ms. lynch congratulations on your historic nomination and your very fine conduct in the hearing today. the attorney general of the united states, one of the most important offices for which this committee has oversight responsibility and consent responsibility. the current attorney general eric holder has served with distinction under trying circumstances. for better or worse the attorney general often serves as a lightning rod for those in this body with complaints about the administration and i think it takes special mettle to deal with that incoming fire while remaining composed and focused on a forward-looking agenda. i'm interested in hearing how you plan on carrying forward on issues related to rivity -- privacy, i.t. protection, and voting rights, racial profiling. as successful as attorney general holder has been, there remains important progress to

make in just two years in this -- and just two years in this administration to make it. first if i could about state and local law enforcement. given my previous experience, i'm pleased that someone with your experience in law enforcement is nominated for this position. i serve with co-chair roy blunt in the law enforcement caucus. cab youb just comment for me if confirmed, on the importance you would place on the partnership between federal, state and local law enforcement, including such programs as the bulletproof vest program, the violence reduction network which is particularly important to me and information sharing and then second senator flake asked about this previously but could you talk about the thm -- about the victims of child abuse act programs and comment on the experiences you had with child javo kacy centers and how they function as one of the partnership undertakings? >> certainly senator. with respect to the important partnership between the department of justice and state

and local law enforcement counterparts, it will be one of my highest priorities to ensure there's not only collaboration and cooperation but active and ongoing discussion about the needs that we can help fulfill but also, senator what we can learn from our state and local counterparts. it has been my experience, having had the benefit of frankly learning from some of the best law enforcement agents and police officers around, that no one knows the crime problem like the cop on the beat. no one really understands what's going on in the community like the officer who walks those streets every night and knows those residents and understands those issues. similarly, our federal law enforcement agency partners have outstanding background effort and ability to manage complex cases and when we combine those two, we have been table achieve tremendous results for victims of violent crime, of terrorism, of cybercrime, along with the cases you mentioned involving

vulnerable victims of child abuse system of certainly i feel that there has to be a collaborative relationship but i want to essentially assure you that in my view it would be one where we would not just provide assistance and training and grants. that is very, very important. but we would also listen and learn as well from our local law enforcement partners. >> thank you. that's both a good answer and great attitude. i look forward to working with you on this area going forward. the u.s. patriot act is often thought of of -- of as a spy program which in some ways it is. but it also is and can be a tool that d.o.j. and f.b.i. routinely use in the course of domestic law enforcement and its mission. does the d.o.j. use section 215 as a collection tool and could the department continue to make effectives you of section 215 if the enhanced privacy protections, the limitations on bulk collection set forth would be adopted?

>> section 15 is not a bulk collection tool in and of itself, but the way in which the government, using court authority, can obtain information already gathered that might be useful in ongoing national security investigations. but certainly i understand that as we work to protect our country from terrorists who seek to attack us here and abroad that we have to be mindful of our civil liberties and the privacy rights of anyone who may be impacted by our collection procedures. and certainly i look forward to as the renewal of section 215 comes up, i look forward to discussions with you and other members of this committee about the best way in which to keep that useful tool and also reassure this body and the american people that it is being used in the most effective way. >> i'm also concerned about i.p. intellectual property protections, as we talked about previously and trade secrets. my understanding is several other senators have also asked about the issue, so i'll try to

be brief. i'm concerned about the huge transfer of wealth going on through trade secrets and the federal crime under the espionage act is estimated to be responsible for up to $500 billion annually in terms of losses to the united states yet there's only one or two cases a month, federally, brought by prosecutors. is as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district, what's been your experience in investigating or prosecuting trade secret theft and would you be interested in working together to strengthen the resources and strengthen the legal authorities for protecting america and our inventions and innovations and ensuring we stem the loss of theft of trade secrets? >> in my experience, i don't believe we have any specific indictments around the trade secrets act. we do, however, have a numb of cases where we have intercepted foreign actors trying to obtain u.s. information and we have prosecuted them under other statutes.

we deal with very, very similar issues. i will note these cases tend to be complex and long-term. they do require an investment in resources, the devotion of time on the part of prosecutors, but also technological resources on the part of our law enforcement agencies. so i would look forward to, should i be confirmed working with you and this committee to ensure that we have the >> the entire attorney general confirmation hearing is coming up in about phi minutes here on c-span. to get a preview of the hearing we spoke with a capitol hill reporter. >> paul ruger is covering the nominee, the nomination process and today's roll call who is loretta lynch and what are her qualifications to be attorney general? >> good morning. loretta lynch currently is the u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york, that's based in brooklyn.

she has been there since 2010. she was approved by the senate without a hearing for that spot. she has been a lifelong prosecutor and attorney. she previously worked for about a decade in that same office and she has prosecuted a large number of civil rights cases, gang-related casesened other crimes and worked -- cases and other crimes and worked a lot with police, f.b.i. and other agencies. she was born in north carolina and -- to parents who had humble beginnings and worked her way, very smart up to harvard law school, got her law degree and started her career there, basically a law and order type of prosecutor. >> we mentioned eric holder was approved almost unanimously.

what will this committee be like with the new chairman? >> last time it was a democrat-controlled judiciary committee, this time with republicans, they're in charge of what happens and how it will go and i expect them to use this ask about a lot of obama's policies that are controversial a a -- that they don't like. for instance immigration, part of the justice department gave the legal ok for the administration to do his latest executive action. so they're going to want to know about that. they're going to be setting the agenda on that and a bunch of other issues. it's going to be a less friendly crowd she might have gotten than she might have gotten if it was still controlled by the democrats. >> after the president made the announcement senator visiter said he wouldn't -- visiter said he wouldn't support the -- vitter said he wouldn't support the nomination. what are the numbers that have

to support her? >> to get it through committee, they need a majority, and there's 20 members of the judiciary committee. senator vitter did say last december he was a no vote and would be strongly pushing against her in connection with that immigration executive order. senator ted cruz and senator mike lee have also expressed concerns about what ms. lynch will say at this hearing about the immigration order. they both say that this is unlawful thing that the president has done to overstep his executive authority and that the justice department allowed that to happen system of they're going to be looking to press her about this immigration issue and why it's legal for the president to do it. they're not -- if they're not satisfied, they could be no votes as well.

talking about whether or not they should bring suspected terrorists to trial in american civilian courts. the republicans would much rather see a policy where they use military tribunals and detain those people themselves. >> the democratic side hasn't changed much. patrick leahy, now the ranking member, any other changes there? >> no, they lost one member but it's mostly the same crew and they are very experienced lawmakers. they've done a lot of these hearings before. senator leahy and the democrats are going to be looking to focus on her story as a person and qualifications as an attorney which are pretty much without question at this point and she has a great story. they're going to want to focus on that. and then any questions -- chance they get to ask questions, they may try to rehabilitate any answers she may have misstepped on earlier. she's going to have to defend the obama administration's policies from questioning by the republicans but at the same time she wasn't there in the justice department headquarters making a lot of these decisions so she

does have some distance and the democrats will want to focus on her as a person rather than policies of the obama administration. >> as we wait for the hearing to get underway, we have been seeing audience members arrive. >> she will be introduced by the senators from new york. her father will be here and one of her brothers. another one of her brothers was a navy seal and has since passed away. she will have his navy seal pin with her today according to the justice department. >> todd ruger with c.q. roll call.

here's an argue from politico on today's hearing. "loretta lynch pledged a fresh start with congress on wednesday." while republicans repeatedly sought to tie her to current attorney general eric holder. multiple g.o.p. senators used lynch's confirmation hearing to press her on obama's executive actions on immigration although she said little beyond calling the administration's legal rationale for the actions reasonable. her refusal to weigh in much further visibly frustrated some republicans who have been the biggest critics of the president's efforts to stop deportations for nearly five million immigrants who are here illegally. that article from politico's journalist joining us tomorrow on "washington journal." the chair of the senate judiciary commi