anybody in the anteroom. senator cruz is next at bat. >> i want to thank each of the members of this panel, a very distinguished panel to come together and address some very important issues facing this country. i want to at the outset extend my apology that earlier in the hearing the senator from rhode island characterized the testimony that we have heard from witnesses on this panel as, "conspiracy theories and soundbites for fox news." i do not think that is an accurate characterization of the learned testimony that this panel of witnesses has given to this panel, and i apologize that you are subjected to having your character impugned in that manner by a united states senator. this panel has focused on some

very important issues that need to be highlighted. i would note the constituent is a friend, i have long thought highly of your commitment to public engagement, your volunteer efforts to make a difference in our political discourse, and i wanted to ask you as a citizen who engaged in the political process, how did it make you feel to be targeted by the government for persecution? >> it takes your breath away when you don't know quite where true north is, and it begs the bigger question, what is this country and where am i raising my children, where is their safe harbor?

this panel and questions are critical. we have to understand what we have just come through. i hope we want to head in a decidedly different direction. >> president nixon attempted to use the irs to target his political enemies. he did not succeed, but he was roundly decried in a bipartisan manner. in this instance, the attempt sadly bore fruit. it has been well over a year since the news broke. do you feel in the over a year that has transpired, do you feel that the truth has been uncovered and justice has been served? >> no. just the fact alone that i have still not been interviewed or met with, nor have any of the

other groups i know of that were part of this targeting scandal. how you can continue on under this ruse that that is ever going to arrive at any kind of conclusion is mystifying to me. we seem to continue to find more and more evidence, and he continues to get further and further buried. that's why i keep showing up. i hope they don't forget. >> yesterday i asked ms. lynch if she thought it was appropriate to have the department of justice investigation into the irs targeting an abuse of power led by a major obama donor and democratic donor who has given over $6,000 to president obama and the democratic party. she said she found nothing objectionable about that, and she flat out refused to appoint a special prosecutor, much as eric holder has refused to appoint a special prosecutor. do you have faith in the impartial administration of justice with an investigation being led by a major democratic donor?

>> i take so much exception to that appointment and to the way that division has conducted itself that i don't even know where to begin. i think there's an awful lot wrong with it and it is sad they are not held to account to explain their actions. >> senator, i might just mention the constitutional dimension of this particular scandal. discriminatory enforcement would have horrified the framers, and this kind of discrimination would have horrified them more than any other, discrimination on the basis of politics. the single most erosive thing that can happen is for incumbents to use the levers of power to stifle their adversaries and to entrench themselves. it casts doubt on everything that follows.

it would have been their deepest concern constitutionally. >> thank you, professor rosencrantz. i agree with that observation. discriminatory prosecution is often intended to have the fact and has the effect of stifling further speech. ms. engelbrecht, have you heard concerns of citizen activists that they too might be targeted? >> absolutely. the irs is arguably the most feared agency and possibly the -- feared agency in possibly the world, and there are an awful lot of folks who just packed up their tents and stop their community organizations because they did not want to be a party to what they saw unfolding. >> it was disappointing yesterday that ms. lynch also expressed no concern about the

first amendment rights of citizens, the effect of the irs targeting citizen speech, and the effect of bias and conflict of interest and the appearance of bias and conflict of interest on the impartial administration of justice. i want to shift to a different set of issues, the pattern of lawlessness of this administration. i want to focus on a line of inquiry we had yesterday with ms. lynch regarding prosecutorial discretion. i want to address this question to professor turley. i commend you for having the courage to speak out about your concerns about the constitutional dimensions of the conduct of the executive. i recognize that that has not been easy for you to speak out and i suspect you have heard

more than a little grief in the faculty lounge for having done so. thank you for having the courage of your convictions. i wish we saw a lot more members of this body with similar courage of convictions. yesterday i asked ms. lynch if she agreed with the reasoning of the office of legal council that under the theory of prosecutorial discretion, the administration could decline to enforce immigration laws against 4 million to 5 million people and could print documents that purport to authorize them to violate federal law. ms. lynch said that she found that olc reasoning persuasive. do you agree with that assessment? >> i have serious problems with the reasoning for a couple of reasons of my own.

first, much of what we do when we look at separation of powers is to look for limiting principles. we're in a system of government shared unlimited in its nature. part of the problem i have with the administration's position on things like immigration is it lacks that type of limiting principle. to respond to my colleague, i'm not sure if it does mean what my friend said, why they bothered even saying it. that would make it a standard prosecutorial discretion of people who are boots on the ground. i don't know why you would even issue this, if it meant what my friend has said. second, if you look at that letter from immigration faculty as i did, and once again it raised this issue, what is the limiting principle? the letter seems to suggest that as long as you are deporting one person, everything before that point is a matter of discretion.

i can't believe that could possibly be true. if that were true, any law could be shut down except for one case, in which you could argue you are executing discretion. i think if i want to prosecutor and said, i would like you to give my guy a walk because this whole category he's a member of really should not be subject to this type of enforcement, i think most would look at me like i had two heads. they certainly would not give me much help on that. there is a legitimate question of prosecutorial discretion, but this is not one i recognize. my concern as a constitutional scholar is if this is prosecutorial discretion, i don't know what would not be prosecutorial discretion, and this notion that has developed from prosecutors would swallow the obligations of the president. any discretion by fred talked about in terms of setting policies and priorities has to

be defined within the context given to the administration by congress. >> i agree, but i want to ask one final question. i agree with you that the question is where do you draw the line, if the president can through discretion simply refuse to enforce a major portion of immigration laws as it concerns millions of individuals, what other laws can the president unilaterally refuse to enforce? yesterday i asked ms. lynch about a couple of examples. one, could a subsequent president instruct the secretary of the treasury, do not collect taxes in excess of 25%, and two, could a subsequent president instruct the department of labor, you should not enforce

any of the federal labor laws on the books against the state of texas? the state of texas is hereby him in from every federal labor law ever passed. to both of those hypotheticals ms. lynch refused to answer, refused to say what i think is the obvious constitutional answer, which is of course a president cannot do that. i want to give an opportunity for anyone on this panel who wants to engage -- does anyone on this panel disagree that it would be unconstitutional for the president to refuse to enforce the tax laws or the labor laws or the environmental laws? and if you think that would be unconstitutional, does that not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the president's executive amnesty is likewise unconstitutional? >> i believe those examples would be unconstitutional if the president claimed that authority. >> i agree with both senator cruz and senator lee, but there's a difference between saying we simply will refrain from prosecuting and saying we will give you different action

-- will give you deferred action and a work permit. on the specific question you asked just now, i do think a decision to not enforce the entire immigration laws are not enforce the entire tax laws would clearly exceed the president's legal authority, but that's not close to what we have here. even after these new policies are fully operational, there will still remain in this country 6 million to 7 million undocumented immigrants to which these laws will not apply, and the president will only have so many resources to go after fewer than 400,000 of them. >> let me ask clarification on your example. the reason you said the executive amnesty is constitutional is because there exists some substantial subset of people against whom the laws are enforced.

let's take the labor law example. if texas were exempt, there would be 49 states, whole bunch of people you could enforce labor laws against. would that satisfy the test you put forth? >> in the interest of time, we will have to turn this over to frank. >> i want to make sure i understood the hypothetical correctly. the president enforcing the law in one state but not in the other state, and vice versa. one of the limitations is that the particular priorities have to be rational, and discrimination against the president for one state would fail that test. my friend says that the law professor's letter was making the claim that as long as even one person is deported, it is ok. there was no such claim in the letter. there was certainly no implication in a letter that all you would have to do is deport one. the president is fully spending

all the enforcement resources congress has provided. the president is not a magician. he can't spend resources he doesn't have, and that is why that example is very different from the ones that have been hypothesized. >> thank you very much. mr. franken? >> thank you. i want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and for your testimony and your patients. i want to talk to some of you who know ms. lynch. mr. barlow, thank you for your service to the justice department, and for coming here today to speak on behalf of ms. lynch. the attorney general must be both an excellent leader and open-minded collaborator. the attorney general must develop and coordinate policies among the various components of the justice department with other agencies. based on your experience serving with ms. lynch, the attorney general's advisory committee how would you characterize her leadership style? >> she's a leader among leaders senator.

i would describe her style as being inclusive, thoughtful, careful, deliberative, and she is someone who is seeking consensus wherever it may be found. i have also seen her recognize that occasionally consensus cannot be reached, and when it could not be reached, making sure there was space for dissent so all parts of the issue could be fully examined. >> thank you. thank you for your service to the fbi and for being here today. you served with the fbi's new york office for 25 years, and have worked with many u.s. attorneys. in your testimony you noted a wide range of cases that you worked on with ms. lynch, and the window that this gave you into her legal acumen, her

leadership style, her character -- how would you rate ms. lynch's performance as u.s. attorney, and can you elaborate on the skills that you have observed that would speak to her ability to serve in the role of attorney general? >> thank you, senator. i was in new york for two years before i returned. i had the opportunity to work with loretta in her capacity as the united states attorney. we undertook any range of significant and complex investigations, ranging from national security through the complex financial frauds all the way through the criminal violations that include violent gangs and other types of violent offenders. i had a very close opportunity to observe loretta during the course of these investigations

but also beyond the conduct of making decisions about cases and timelines for takedowns and the operational considerations although those were extraordinarily important, clearly, because the symbiotic relationship is such that the new york office, and the fbi cannot do its job without that kind of symbiotic relationships with the u.s. attorneys. my observation of loretta in that role was that she led from the front, she instilled qualities within her office, gave them the resources, the opportunities to take on and grow themselves as leaders within the office, but she was not afraid to become intimately involved because she wanted to know what was going on with the cases and not to micromanage. that is one quality of a true leader, to empower her people to do a great job by backing off a

little bit but still staying involved with the cases and knowing what is going on within her office. one of the other characteristics i noticed that i don't think i see a lot in executives is her ability to understand vertical organization, but at the same time develop horizontal relationships, particularly within the community. in a very structured environment, she was very comfortable, whether she was talking with an executive or all the way down to a brick agent or line police officer, the ability to talk to individuals, make them feel at ease, make them feel they are contributing and she is listening to what she's talking about and what they are talking about. likewise, when we talk about a horizontal view across the community, she was very engaged with not just the law enforcement community from

local, state, tribal, federal, but also the communities we were serving. that leadership, leading her office to understand the concerns of these communities was integral to supporting the successes of the offices. >> let me ask you about that. that's about community engagement. let me ask you about that style. that's very important with the u.s. attorney. i see how important it is in minnesota. what was her style of engagement in terms of the community? >> very engaged, and someone who was not afraid to engage many different community groups and have very frank discussions about concerns and issues, giving everybody an opportunity to provide input, and that's is

incredibly important because understanding the community you serve is part and parcel of representing the system of justice and making sure that if there are disparities in those communities, if there are issues in those communities, that you understand what they are so you can help drive change to make the system of justice better in addressing those concerns. with respect to the law-enforcement community, she was actively involved in many of the task forces, very supportive of them as a concept that brought departments and agencies large and small together to tackle entrenched crime issues terrorism, and would personally attend executive briefings, and her philosophy was that we were all in this together, that it was incumbent on law enforcement across the board to work shoulder to shoulder to really protect this country and tackle issues that no one agency could do by themselves.

i personally thought her leadership skills were outstanding. i viewed her as somebody i could go to for sound judgment as a sounding board, and receive reasoned advice in return. >> i'm getting the picture of a very impressive leader with those kinds of impressive skills, but you came and testified today on where that comes from in a moral sense. can you speak to where that comes from in terms -- >> thank you, senator, for the opportunity. let me try to be as succinct about this as i can. we worked on a project when i was dean of the howard school of

divinity. the word "impressive" doesn't get it. she is a rare individual. i study people from the standpoint of a religious biographical perspective so that when you begin to look at what i might call the genius of character, it has come down through the generations. i mentioned in my written statement that her grandfather was a baptist minister, but three grandfathers before then. they served their congregations and their communities with daring, with distinction, and above all wisdom. and that wisdom was born of a depth of insight into human

nature as to how leaders should best behave and be effective in garnering a following and leading them in a way that works for the good of all. loretta -- i have seen this throughout the years -- is the kind of person who can relate transparently enough to inspire trust and confidence so that you don't have to work a long time wondering if what you are seeing is truly honest. this plays its way out in the sense that she is a due diligence kind of person. i understand the hypothetical kinds of issues and questions, but my own background as a scholar would say at best a hypothetical only approximates a real-life situation. in a real-life situation character really comes forth when you do the kind of due diligence that puts you in a position to make the quality of judgments that makes for a positive difference.

this is in her bloodline line. this is in her spiritual dna. i don't know if her father is still in the room, but i can tell you that it has played out in the way that he has provided leadership in north carolina whether he had to stand alone or stand with 1000, it was the truth, the right thing, and the right thing, and character, and character, and character all over again. i don't want to trivialize this process by using a sports metaphor, but i am an old, broken down football player who played at duke when we were still winning games. >> that was quite a while ago. >> quite a while ago. [laughter] but we tend to think in terms of a franchise kind of player. she is an exceptional human being, and i cannot avoid the sense of passion i feel right now for the good that would come

to our nation in having a person who would be good, absolutely superb, and even healing our nation through the responsible discharge of her duties as the u.s. attorney general. >> so you would be for her? >> i would be for her. >> that was very powerful testimony. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator franken, senator sessions? [inaudible] >> thank you for recalling for us that a lot of people we have disagreements with can be wonderful people. i do sense that about her. she was raised right. i can tell that. sometimes you just get caught up in things. issues become big and an individual becomes the focus of

a controversy. sheriff clark, thank you for your leadership. i have a piece put out saying there were 36,000 convicted criminal aliens in detention the -- that were released, and a group of people were convicted of crimes such as homicide sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. i noticed one individual was just arrested for murdering a 21-year-old convenience store

clerk on january 22 of this year after having been in custody on a drug and gang-related felony burglary conviction, but was released on bond after a few days. if you release 36,000 people who have been convicted of crimes, based on your experience in law enforcement, can't we expect that group is likely to commit the kinds of crimes i just mentioned? isn't that predictable? >> thank you, senator. yes, if for no other reason because of the recidivist nature of crime, regardless of what demographic is involved with it. i would say releasing 3600 into communities that don't have the

support structures is at best dangerous policy. they don't have the support structures in place. we start talking about criminal aliens, the first thing they will do is flee. my experience in working with ice -- we do cooperate with federal agencies in the pursuit of justice like we do any other federal agency -- they come with many aliases, difficult, and it takes a long time to identify them, but they realize the individual released on bail, they realize it is in their best interest to flee. then they turn up in another community. we have had those same horror type stories, individuals who have been brought to ice's

attention, and for whatever reason they decided not to put a detainer on them or had a detainer and released. then goes on to engage in even more heinous acts. the easy ones are the ones who are involved with murder, sexual assault. those folks are probably not going to get out on bail. we don't have to worry too much about them. >> well, this report indicated a number of them, like 193 of the 36,000 that were released were homicide convictions. you are right to assume that serious crimes would be almost unbelievable if they were being released, but data shows that a lot of them are the most serious crimes that are being released. >> sometimes some of the reports

or some of the rhetoric used in the discussion is on the lenient side. they call them low-level offenders, but some of the stuff that i see are not literally low-level offenders. >> you're responsible for protection of people in milwaukee and that area. the federal statute says someone convicted of a serious felony shall be deported. it doesn't say ice has an opinion about this. it says they shall be deported. does it make your lives more difficult? does it place the people of milwaukee at greater risk if the officials are not following the law and deporting people who have been convicted of serious crimes? >> sure it does. in my limited knowledge of legal language, it is not discretionary.

>> do you think it is common sense and just that if a person is in the country illegally and they commit a serious crime, they should be deported? >> yes. it's beyond common sense. we have a duty to protect people. >> and the law requires that. >> senator, i think sheriff clark just made one of the strongest arguments in favor of the president's executive actions. the main point of the new prosecutorial priorities is to be able to focus resources on precisely the individuals whom he is describing, and hopefully it will have that effect. i don't know why in this case the state authorities released a person while the person was pending trial.

they must've thought it was safe to release them. i'm not sure why the onus is shifting to ice. >> this isn't a matter of discretion. i know you served with the uscis. this part is mandatory, the point i'm raising. nothing congress passes, apparently, has the ability to be effectuated in reality. that is a problem. congress will pass things, and they don't happen. we mandated a fence, 700 miles. it did not happen. we said there should be an exit-entry visa. it still hasn't been completed. are you aware that the group that you work with, the federation of government employees who represent ucsis, has opposed this bill vigorously

and say it will not work and is not helpful? >> this is the very same group whom some people are suggesting will refuse to obey the secretary's instruction to exercise discretion and will instead rubberstamp these cases. >> professor eastman, in his testimony before the house on discretion, says there is nothing in the memo to suggest that immigration officials can do anything other than grant deferred action to those meeting the defined eligibility criteria. indeed, the overpowering tone of the memo is one of woe to align immigration officers who do not act as the memo tells them they should, a point that has been admitted by the department of homeland security officials in

testimony before the house. in the house, chairman goodlatte of the house judiciary committee said, "dhs has admitted to the judiciary committee if an alien applies and meets the daca eligibility criteria, they will received deferred action. in reality, the immigration officials do not have discretion to deny daca applications if the applicants meet these criteria." professor rosencrantz, you indicated it might be an illusory thing here. isn't that proof that it really is illusory discretion, in fact, it is mandatory? >> absolutely. >> the memo says the opposite. it says these are cases that "present no other factors that in the exercise of discretion make the granting of deferred

action inappropriate." "the ultimate judgment as to whether an immigrant is granted deferred action will be determined on a case-by-case basis." the memo refers explicitly to discretion. >> we said we will do an exit-entry visa. the officials are going to approve the people if it meets the memorandum standards. >> the important thing to notice is it flips a presumption. the presumption is that the law will not be enforced and somebody might have discretion to enforce the law in a particular case, but this is turning prosecutorial discretion on its head. the presumption is that the law will be enforced and discretion will be used to exempt some to create an exception to the rule. here the enforcement will clearly be exception to the rule if it happens at all.

>> except that the memo lays out an exception. if you meet the following criteria, uscis has the discretion on a case-by-case basis -- >> if the people don't meet the standards and someone does get turned down, the projection is less than half the people, 5 million out of 11 million -- what if somebody is turned down? are they going to be deported? >> generally i would think yes. if they bring their presence to the attention of the enforcement authorities and if it fits within the prosecutorial discretion priorities, i can't think of any reason -- >> they are not going to be deported. the only ones being deported today are people who commit serious crimes and we found that even they are not being deported. we've reached a lawless stage in immigration. the american people are not happy about it. they have a right to demand that their laws be enforced, and the president's actions are some of the most dramatic steps to

violate plain law that i've ever seen in my experience. thank you, mr. chairman. my time is over. >> as we were preparing for yesterday's hearing, i found a quote i would like to talk about in a minute, a quote from a speech given by ms. lynch about a year ago in which she made the following statement that caught my attention because it raises some alarm bells. it says, "50 years after the march on washington, 50 years after the civil rights movement, we stand in this country at a time when we see people trying to take back so much of what dr. king fought for. we stand in this country and people try and take over the statehouse and reverse the goals that have been made in voting in this country, but i'm proud to tell you that the department of justice has looked at these laws and looked at what is happening

in the deep south and in my home state of north carolina, has brought lawsuits against those voting rights changes." when i read this, i became concerned. i was wondering what was she was talking about, what laws were out there, what legacy of the civil rights era that was trying to be overturned. ms. engelbrecht, can you guess as to what she might have been talking about, referring specifically to her home state of north carolina? >> i can't. i reviewed the same comments that you referred to, which i think was taken from a speech in february in los angeles. what continues to boggle the mind is that the vast majority of americans want, understand, and appreciate the need to

try to safeguard our elections. the thought that asking a voter to prove they are who they say they are is somehow discriminatory -- it seems to me to be more about pushing a political agenda than protecting the people. >> i wondered about this, so i asked one of my colleagues on this committee with me, senator thom tillis, who at the time she gave this speech was the speaker of the house in north carolina. i asked him what she was referring to. these are pretty bold statements, and if someone is going to accuse a state legislative body of moving to undo the legacy of dr. martin luther king and trying deliberately to diminish voting rights in this country, i feel like we need to know what that is. he suggested to me that it might have been directed towards a voter i.d. law passed by the state of north carolina at the time senator tillis was the speaker of the north carolina

house of representatives. i asked him about this law and he told me that when it came forward, there was concern about voter fraud, the risk of voter fraud in north carolina. he said, i want to find the most fair statute that there is on the books anywhere in this country and i want to make it that much fairer. i want to put the belt and suspenders and another belt and another set of suspenders on it, make sure no one's voting rights are diminished at all. they started with the model of an indiana statute, a model that was itself quite cautious. it continues to allow no excused absentee voting without an i.d. it accomodates and pays for an i.d. issued by the department of motor vehicles without any charge to the voter. they started with that as the model, then they added additional protections that neither indiana nor any other

state that has adapted and evolved like this has had. a two-year ramp-up period, a program designed to allow homebound individuals to vote, but also allows for documents for a register of deeds or the department of health and human services that can be used to verify i.d. it establishes a $1 million trust fund to reach out to those people who might not have i.d.'s. this is the most cautious, carefully protective statutory scheme i can imagine in this area. if this was the target of this description, do you think it's fair to describe this legislation this way, as an attempt to undo the gains of the civil rights movement and the gains of martin luther king and those who fought with him valiantly to protect voter rights in america? >> absolutely not. i don't think it is appropriate or fair.

if that is truly the believe -- the belief that is held, we need to understand what's behind that. it belies anything you have just read in making sense. >> with your involvement in efforts to prevent voter fraud what would you say to those who have made the argument that there is no such thing as voter fraud and therefore we need not be concerned about it and the only reason somebody could push for it would be because they subjectively want to undermine voting rights? what would your response to that be? >> i think our history is replete with examples of voter fraud. it is something we should take very seriously. you don't need a whole lot of fraud, you just need a little bit in the right places. the less that you create a system that secures everyone's votes, the more open it is to these kinds of manipulations

that further divide our country in ways that serve no purpose. >> thank you. >> sheriff clark, i wanted to talk to you about the relationship between the department of justice and law enforcement right now. how would you describe the relationship between law enforcement and the department of justice? >> thank you, senator. frayed. i'm not going to engage in hyperbole or exaggerate, but we cannot even have a frayed relationship. the mission statement i cited early on talks about partnerships. and just from the milwaukee experience anyway, we need the help of the u.s. attorney's office in the eastern district of wisconsin to deal with instances of the violent crimes

of repeat offenders. we are not talking about the first-time offender. we are not talking about people who may deserve some sort of remedy for some transgression they made. i talked about both of those individuals, convicted felons the prohibition of not being able to be armed, a firearm anyway, as a convicted felon means nothing to them. the state has not shown a willingness at the state level -- i think the question to be asked is what are they doing at the state level with some of these cases? too much leniency. from a deterrent standpoint, senator, criminals fear the federal system. they just do. and so if we would have, for instance, cases of -- there was

a creative case in milwaukee where jim sentelle, the assistant u.s. attorney, who we have a great relationship with use the hobbes act to charge career hold up men who had gone on a robbery spree. i believe one of them received a 15-year sentence, plus they used a firearm in commission of those crimes. but they don't have to charge all of them. i know we've heard about prosecutorial discretion, but i think if we take this elephant and try to eat it one spoonful at a time, the elephant being the violent crime strategy, if we take the worst offenders and subject them to federal sanctions that is going to, first of all, ensure a better

chance at a conviction, a better chance at a more lengthy sentence. for the person who just has not cared, if you will, about state sanctions that have been applied. so that is the sort of help that we need from the federal prosecutor's office. strong purchases is another. i will not really wrap the was attorneys office for this. law enforcement is not bringing cases. the ones they do go very well. but the armed violent offender is one that i would like to see more federal on. >> thank you. today we have heard from an number of witnesses who testified as to both ms. lynch's qualifications, which are themselves impressive. it is great to see my friend david arlo.

i know of no finer lawyer or human being than david. as always great to see you. each of you have put a lot of thought into your testimony. i appreciate your written testimony in what you have spoken to was on today. the record for this hearing will remain open for one week for members to support -- to submit questions for the record. the hearing will be adjourned. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> wrapping up some of the second day of testimony for the red arranged -- for loretto lynch. we will have the entire hearing tonight on c-span. also today, house democrats started their retreat in philadelphia. president obama is scheduled to speak to the conference tonight at 7:10 p.m. eastern. we will bring that to you live. before the president's remarks here is some of our discussion with iowa senator charles grassley, the chair of the judiciary committee that is holding the hearings on the lynch nomination. with chuck grassley from iowa. you led the confirmation hearing

of the red a. and you are quoted in the papers as saying, "i, for one, need to be persuaded she will be an independent attorney general." did she persuade you yet? guest: not yet, but she will respond over the next week or so. we will look at the entire record. we have one more day of hearings today. five people that the republicans have chosen and for that the democrats have chosen. we will is to them, and they will probably not mention much about her qualifications, because there is no question about her qualifications, her confidence. she has a record of being a vigorous prosecutor in new york city, two different times being appointed by two different presidents. she is just very eloquent. what we are probably going to hear today is the same thing i tried to bring out in my opening date me yesterday -- my opening

statement yesterday, and my questions. we republicans more than the democrats feel that we have politicized the department of justice, and that we have a department of justice that is broken. the question comes back, can she fix it? you have to feel somewhat sorry for her going into a department where a lot of us feel the president made some unconstitutional decisions, and immigration is not the only one. in fact, he made a decision on nlrb, and 9-0 his own employees overturned him. but the point is, she's in a situation that is broken and politicized and she's got to fix it. that is what is important. host: why don't you have 100% confidence that she can fix it? guest: she gave answers

yesterday and did not really answer it. that is not just loretta lynch. a lot of democrats and republican nominees come before us and waffle around and don't really answer the questions. if you heard her and were outside the political system you might not detect that. but when you have strong feelings for my let's say -- let's just say, on immigration. we are not arguing the immigration issue. we are just saying that the president acted against the will of congress in that area and the president does not have the authority to act in that area. she has to defend that. and it was difficult for her to straddle the fence on that. host: how do you plan to vote on her, her mission? guest: oh, you'll have to ask me in a couple of -- on her confirmation? guest: oh, you will have to ask me in a couple of weeks. we were there with her for nine hours just say, but you don't

get all of the questions out. maybe in a week he would not even get all of the questions answered. we will look at the entire record. and today's hearing will be important. we will be hearing from people that were treated rudely by the irs and the justice department prosecuting people there that broke the law. we will hear from people never -- that were not treated well by the justice department when they were trying to get information on the fast and furious. and we will hear from people who will defend the justice department, and defend loretta lynch as the person who can fix it. but i think we did not release you from her yesterday that the department was politicized. we did not hear from her that there was a broken. -- anything broken. you expect everybody that takes

the of the profits to abide by the constitution. -- that cap. office to abide by the constitution. -- that takes the oath of office to abide by the constitution. host: chairman grassley, do you think she can get three republicans to clear the judiciary committee? guest: i think there is a feeling among most people to give some deference to view president of the united states -- to the president of the united states. and with the attorney general's vision even if there was not a majority to vote for out, it would still go to the senate floor, not just to have 20 senators decide her fate. let hundreds -- all 100 senators decide.

and it's not just president obama i'm talking about all presidents. i'm reading about calvin coolidge. he had attorney general's voted down twice and he finally picked someone who passed. this is something that the senate ought to deal with like it has historically. host: you want someone you can clear the jet it -- the judiciary committee. guest: you want me to read the record even before the record has played. i'm telling you how i normally do things. and you are about a week or 10 days ahead of time. host: we will wait and see. one of our collars c --allers has said he opposes her. they disagree with the executive

action on immigration. do you disagree with them? guest: whether she is confirmed or not confirmed, what is going to stop the president on his actions on immigration is one of three things. either stop money going for that , and we will take that up next week. the senate and the united states house passing an immigration bill that will override the president. or like several states have gone to court now to have the judicial branch to hopefully say he acted constitutionally. there are more balls in the air than just loretta lynch. and stopping loretta lynch is not going to cause the president to turn around. it's going to make a statement that we can all make any time on the floor of the united states senate. i have made the statement that i think the president acted contrary to law, contrary to the

constitution. more important, dividing the spirit of this is -- the separation of powers. what is this all about? the colonies were tired of george the third making all of this decisions for them. we set up a government divided so wondrous and did not have all the power. we cannot -- so one person did not have all the power. we cannot let the president have all of power. that is what this is about host: -- that is what this is about. host: let's get to the callers. mississippi, democratic dollar. --caller. caller: i have been watching use in 1992. i believe, mr. grassley, the people that cut your grass and work on your forms are illegal.

you don't want those guys to come in -- you don't want those guys to be known, because they are working for you guys. don't tell me that none of you politicians don't have illegals working for -- for them. host: let's get a response. guest: first of all, can i look at you incident the camera? host: absolutely. guest: he said i hire people to cut my grass. i hope you will read the march edition of "virginia farming," that shows me on my john deere. i'm oh -- i mow 100 inches at a time. i don't hire anyone to mow my lawn. he could be right in this sense that i say there are two groups of interest groups in this country that don't mind having

porous borders. undocumented workers coming in. people that want another generation to vote democratic so that is a political reason. and then people that want cheap labor, and that is a lot of business interests in this country that do not mind a porous border because of cheap labor. that i am not one of them and most members of congress probably are not. host: chris republican, you are next. caller: thank you for c-span. i am sorry, i have a little bit of a fluke. i would like to say thank you very much for your service. i have been watching c-span for a long time. you are a great guy even though you are just a farmer and not a lawyer, as was said last time. every year, 20,000 people come to new york to take my job as

new lawyers. illegal areas -- aliens in california -- i do not need that kind of competition. but my question to you is, can you please press her on the executive issue? i understand eric holder is claiming that e-mails between himself and his wife, executive privilege, it is a very important thing, sir. the democrats did that to robert john, the secretary of defense. thank you for your service, sir. i like farmers and thank you again. >> yes. executive privilege in one of my latter question yesterday. i am not sure i got an answer, but i darted out my congress nation with nonlawyer language.

but i think you will appreciate i am trying to understand there is a client lawyer relationship that seems to me would be very limited, but when you go from the white house all the way down to the justice department, and 60,000 something pages, the declared executive rivulets, then it seems to me, it is ridiculous. i did not get an answer to that pair that is what we will press her on. i agree with you. i never thought the president had anything to do it fast and furious and i do not want you to to -- to conclude that i have concluded he does. for the first time, when he says there is executive for a voyage to some 65,000 pages of documents, then i have to say to myself well, was the president involved with fast and furious?

i do not think so. i just there was a sweeping use of executive privilege, and unconstitutional use of the active privilege and a violation of separation of powers when we have a constitutional ability to do oversight. we have to get information and then we do not get in her mission now. they did not even argue that was executive religion the courts just before or just after the election, they dumped 65,000 pages on us they had been holding back. so here we are. i do not know what the answer is on executive average. i may get an answer on the written response. >> to let our viewers know, loretta lynch will you meet with her behind closed doors? how does it work? >> if we want to meet with her, one-on-one or a group of us, she will come.

she tries to avoid answering the questions. >> ted cruz said yesterday it is up to the majority leader mitch mcconnell whether or not he comes to the floor. he -- he called what she said yesterday dangerous when it was said the president positive action was reasonable and that the majority leader should not allow confirmation of a or. >> that is a decision the majority leader can make. he has recognition. he can do for the caucuses he wants to and he can do for the individual members. i probably will not have such a discussion with them until he gets out of committee. >> with that point, if he gets out of committee would you push the majority leader to have a vote?

>> i would look to history and the history would show -- this would not may be applied to a subcabinet, but a cabinet position. i would not want to say there has never been a buddy -- somebody, but usually the the president might withdraw it and use a new name, if there is a legitimate reason other than politics. >> why would the senate not confirm her for this? >> there is a heck of a lot of difference. nobody questions that she is a good prosecutor. we have got a broken department of justice. can she fix it? we have been looking for answers yesterday. was she fix it? the lines of better cooperation on grass. if that happens, that is a good

step and it helps us with our oversight work. what about the office of legal counsel? it ought to be the crown jewel agency in that department. it has given political decisions, we believe. worse than that, they will not even make public their decisions of why the president can or cannot do something. they did kind of relief that one. for instance, they have not released the opinions on why the training guantanamo prisoners for one person who presumably left the military. >> cori, an independent, you are next for the judiciary committee. go ahead. caller: my statement

[indiscernible] a question to the senator i will save my question for last. however, i guess my statement is we have not heard of the president or anyone in the executive ranch levying a case -- or the judiciary branch for all senators and/or congressman that except these bribes and things of that nature for 5000 plate dinners and the judicial bank -- the judicial ranch ready to sue the congressmen or senators. we are threatening to sue our president, the leader of our free world, which we elected for a second term. my question, i guess, is when will we start governing again?

i am sad with the politicians we have an office. we turned this into a bickering match as far as whether or not she is actually acceptable for the position. when you apply for a job, your resume speaks for you whether or not you get the position. her resume has hoping for her already. host: i will have the chairman jump in. guest: nobody is questioning her competence. i made that clear when i first started talking to you. good answers. she is well educated and competent. the question is, would she change things from the way eric holder ran those things? the other thing he said, when will he start crossing it in

congressman? there are congressmen in prison right now. a couple in california had been there for five years because they did something wrong. there was a louisiana congressman who was evicted. he needs to know the executive branch is checking the illegal activity of congress here the other thing is, when will we start governing? i'll give you a perfect example of when the last few weeks -- of in the last few weeks when we started covering. democratic majority leader allowed 17 18, maybe as many as 20, but no more than that, votes on amendments. basically, he shut down the united states senate being an amending body because the house of representatives does not have to find consensus.

we are the consensusbuilding body under the constitution. in one week, we have had more than 20 roll call votes on one bill, one amendment, that includes half of republican amendments. you would not even let bipartisan amendments, in some instances. you can see we are governing now, whereas in the last four years, the senate was shut down from being a nonproductive ranch of government. wesley will go to chicago next democratic caller. close good morning. i was listening. you guys are doing too much argument amongst each other and not getting much done.

i washed and her answers were very intelligent and i believe she will get the job done. when will congress get the job done and pass laws for the american people. we sent you to do a job because we believe you care about us. but on the news and what we're hearing from you guys, it is despicable. when is the fighting going to stop? guest: she obviously was not tuned into my last comment. all last year, the senate -- i can quantify that for the most recent caller, about 20 times, we had roll call votes on amendments when normally, you would have maybe 200.

with the new leadership of the united states senate, the senate will govern, unlike senator reed ran the united they senate. already, we have had debate -- last week, 23 amendments and yesterday, 14 amendments. else invited have a tween republicans and democrats. now if our running the senate, taking up half the democrat amendments and half the republican amendments is not finding consensus, i do not know the name of the caller and what he wants, he needs to compare this last two weeks with the way the democrats ran the senate last year. >> jerry in alabama, independent caller. >> first of all, thank you for c-span. senator grassley, it is good to see you. >> thank you.

>> here is my question. on november 11 of last year, loretto valid she would challenge all of the voter id laws. i never understood why a voter's identity process why does anybody have a problem with that? the excuse you usually get is it she's people out of their right to vote or it is too expensive to get a government issued photo id card. that is ridiculous especially when you have provisional ballots when you do not have to have anything to vote, you just come back later and verified who you are. has that come up in the hearing and if so, will it? i will take your answer off the air and thank you for being a solid patriot guest: -- patriot.

guest: on three different occasions yesterday, he had three solid questioning -- he spent a great deal of that time on voter laws and asked her very pointed questions and got answers like, probably in this case, a legitimate answer -- it is in the courts, maybe it should not be there. what you say that's what the senator will tell us. speaker of the house in north carolina was one of the people brought to court, i guess. anyway, she says it is in the court and we will have to let it play out in the courts. you might have a hard time winning that because it has been a recent 6-3 decision by the supreme court saying that certain changes of certain laws in certain states have not

violated the voting rights act. i think -- yes, it came up, and the senator did a very good job of going deeply into that. host: our caller from connecticut. the line for democrats. go ahead and talk to the senator. caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak. i want to go from a historical perspective. grassley mentioned -- at that time, african-americans were basically marginalized and it was white men who basically had control of the power. dna, everything is passed on. the problem we are having is asking questions relative to the safety of this country, ok? that is the issue. these people in congress, i wish

i could get rid of all of them. they're basically bought and paid for and they do not represent us. this test only represented a portion. if they got all the voters, we find the percentage of people who voted it was not the majority of americans. it was the minority of americans who put the senators in power. classes you will wait until 100% of americans vote, you will never have any legitimacy of government. you have got to go by what has been the case. would you mind repeating for me his main point so i can comment on it? he rambled on. host: i apologize, i do not know what he started out with for you to answer. i think he was just making the point that you are saying republicans now control the congress and we will govern, and he is saying, this last election, not enough google

showed up for you to have a mandate. >> i could repeat the number of amendments we worked on equally devalued between republican and democrat, when we only had 20 roll call votes all last year where we would normally have maybe 200 or 300. host: one issue not talked a lot about in the hearing was the decision in ferguson, new york in those cases. why is that and what should be the focus of the justice department on those issues? guest: there are laws, that if law-enforcement people violate the laws, they could be sued. and the justice department has plenty of authority to go in there and do investigations to see if the civil rights of people have been violated.

they're doing that now in ferguson. they're doing that in staten island. also, i even initiated something ford island to visit, just one individual. it does not deal with the racial issues of whether or not there should be a federal investigation. in the case of a person arrested in a boat, handcuffed, did not have a jacket on the way he -- the way it should be on, he drowned. they are up in the air about it. they are pursuing that both that the state level and adjust his level. >> do you think there needs to be a reform to the grand jury process? question would be very difficult for me, --guest: it would be very difficult for me not being

a lawyer to study that -- without studying that. i do not think there is a reason for changing the grand jury system. let me say historically, i do not think there have been very many questions raised about the grand jury situation. you have got staten island or ferguson and is that a reason to do it? it is a reason to look at it again, but i do not think you ought to take a position right now but you have to dramatically change things. >> frank. you are next. caller: it is a great day in south carolina. republican here, i am looking for my sheet now because you caught me offguard. anyway, i will not be long. i am in the hospital right now. i had three back surgeries.

i had an injury. but i worked at the first two and i am not sure if i will be able to go back to work this time. but i want to go over a couple of things real quick. one caller who said he had not been working and he is talking about people from other countries working in this country and talking about wealthy people using them, everybody uses them. a big reason is, issue people do not want to talk about. that is, a good job was done. try to get a job if you are on welfare. in our county, and is industry based county.

tourism. all the service workers now tend to be of foreign descent whether legal or illegal. the reason they are there is we have got people, you can go down to any city in the country 10 times as worse -- host: frank, i need you to get to your point. caller: the point is americans are not worried about immigration. they are worried about their country. they want welfare reforms. health care reform, american people were against it and a bill was passed and that happened. host: frank, i have got to run

at that point because we need more voices. guest: i do not think so. he did not ask a simple -- a question. host: let me go on to jim in michigan, independent caller. are you there? caller: yes. thank you very much. senator grassley my perception of yesterday is that there was an all-out effort to get your guest to commit to being a part of an attack on the president. i do not understand why your committee did not ask her if she will be keeping an i out on all branches of government. i am especially concerned about lobbyists who can go to the offices of members of congress

and have unlimited access to members of congress, and yet the american people do not have that. they are not privy to that access to congress feared i think if you're going to be fair you will ask if she will investigate all branches of the government, and not just focus on attacking the president. guest: she will do that. she is an outstanding prosecutor. you do not have to worry about anyone violating the law and she will take care of that. i cannot speak for 99 percent of centers, but monday through thursdays, the 42 weeks we are in session and not holding town meetings, i reserve 3-5 four 815 minute appointments and the iowans have priority in that time. a lobbyist in this town gets paid a lot. if they're doing

their work right they are not coming to bother chuck grassley. they have their members in iowa. the manufacturing association. power windows, or premier manufacturing in iowa. have those people contact me. they are my constituents and obviously, i will pay more attention to mike and issuance because there is not a lobbyist in town who could both meet. host: danny, alabama, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like for you to clarify something for me about who was obstructing congress, the senate . you also a bus or it about 400 different bills.

senator mcconnell filibustered one of his own bills that he put in their. as far as loretta lynch, she asked the question pertaining to the law. she stated what the law was saying about whether or not that was reasonable. i would like for you to clarify that for me. >> let me ask you the first point and then clarify what you meant on that point. clarify this, 400 filibustered. let me tell you why there are not 400 filibusters. because senator reed, when he was majority leader for six years, he stands up he says he will bring up bill 100. he immediately files a motion to stop debate even before there

was a debate. he calls that a filibuster. no. you have not even had debate and he follows a motion -- files a motion. then he fills an amendment can i will not going to that process. when you feel that, no one can offer an amendment unless harry reid will offer you an amendment. that is why we only had 20 roll call votes on amendments last year. that is not the way the senate has operated 200 years and i hope i clarify for you, if you have been watching the rest of the hour, the republican majority under mcconnell has already had 35 amendments, half republican and have democrat peer the senate is doing what the senate is supposed to do being an amendment body, and citing consensus, because the house of representatives, a majority that is republican or democrat, they can ignore the minority. the senate did not function now

under new leadership. >> the second part was about loretta lynch's answer where she said "the homeland security department was looking for guidance on how to prioritize deportations of unauthorized immigrants, and that she found the guidance that it got from the president reasonable. guest: i would disagree with the second part that it is reasonable. lawyers and nonlawyers feel like it violate the constitution. that will be a legal issue and will be cited by congress if we pass immigration law, override him. on the other question, her answer is legitimate. the department of homeland security has not figured out exactly how they will process 5

million people the president has presumably legalized or at least given some protection from deportation, because they are undocumented. doing this on prosecutorial discretion, which typically is looking for this person how should they be handled, versus this person. it is practically impossible to do it with five my people and that is the point we are trying to make. she is right they still do not know exactly how they're handling it. host: it was said, congress only give the department of money to deport the millions of -- thousands of the millions of immigrants here. they have to make decisions that have to prioritize. as part of the burden way with congress? >> don't call it prosecutorial discretion. call it amnesty.

5 million people on a case-by-case basis, how are you going to process them? that is the excuse the president gave for his unconstitutional actions. host: a couple more calls for you. janice. caller: good morning. good morning to you. >> good morning, janice, how are you doing? caller: i am doing fine. i have a few questions. host: can you pick your top one question because we only have a couple of minutes left. caller: ok. the president, what is that all about? i would like to know where it come from. you talk about immigrants making laws. i am against anyone being in

this country illegal. guest: suing the president kind of force this way. the house of representatives and i feel the same way, the house voted to sue the president on actions he has taken that they feel is either illegal or >> you can find the rest of the conversation online. we will take you live to philadelphia where president obama will be speaking shortly. >> those of you who were fed dinner, i agree to. -- i greet youu. i am ordered to welcome our president -- honored to welcome our president. last week, the president told congress "we have

risen from recession freer to write our own future than any nation on earth. it is up to us to choose what we want to be for decades to come." working with a democratically led congress, president obama oversaw the. over economic recovery -- oversaw a period of economic recovery. under president obama, the unemployment rate has dropped from over 10% to less than 6%. the budget deficit has been halved. our country is now the largest producer of oil and natural gas making us less dependent. manufacturing and export are rising. that is because we are making it

in america. [applause] i am surely president is listening -- the president is listening. [laughter] millions of previously uninsured americans now have health coverage. [applause] by almost every indicator, our nation is doing better than it has since the president's inauguration, except for one. a critically important one. was president obama talked about in the state of the union which is the focus of this conference which is the state of the middle class. each of us has her stories from our constituents of a middle-class status is slipping further and further from too

many people's grasp. it is our responsibility and our mission to create the future that amount of by working together to ensure that the games we have made will make the middle class and all who aspire -- gains we have made will make the middle class and all it was by the middle class more confident and more secure. president obama laid out a blueprint to do just that. the middle-class economic agenda" forward, which includes that you -- he poutut forward is a common sense and compelling agenda that will give working families more and more security. this is not a partisan role.

-- goal. and we hope republicans will work with us to bring the proposals to the floor for a vote. if republicans choose partisanship over progress, the american people must see us fighting for what we believe is this children's future -- this country's future. country were being laid off does not been a lost decade for you when your family. -- and your family. the country were if you work hard, -- a country where if you work hard, you get a living wage. [applause] getting sick does not mean worry. the future will retirement does not need to be posed -- a future where retirement does not need to be postponed again and again.

we believe the future is one that we can and must achieve for the american people. so what is up to us and the president, as one democratic team to work together to accomplish these objectives and his vision for our country and all of those who strive to realize america's promise and dream. on the night that he was elected in 2008, president obama said this. "let us some of a new spirit -- summon a new spirit of patriotism and responsibility, where each of us pitches in and looks after each other. in this country, we rise and fall as one nation, one people." he went on to say "what we have already achieved on that night

gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow." our for a better tomorrow, barack obama -- our partner for a better tomorrow, barack obama. [applause] >>. thank you. hey. hello. hello, democrats. hey. thank you so much. thank you. everybody sit down. it is good to be with you democrats. it is good to be in philadelphia.

my understanding is we still have our host, the mayor here. there he is, right there. [applause] i want to just remind the new england and pacific northwest contingents that this is the city of brotherly love. so regardless of what you think about sunday, i want you to keep it clean. i have not taken sides on that one. i want to begin by -- in your own football -- bring it your own football? ow. [laughter]

and you are, what, a giants fan? you see, that is why he is so resentful. [laughter] let me begin by just acknowledging your outstanding leadership, starting with someone who somehow can travel for 17 hours, call off the plane -- com off the planee -- come off the plane perfectky coiffed at the as a clam. -- happy as a clam. comeback and go straight to a retreat of her caucus and never miss a beat. i do not know what she brings along in that chopper, but

i want some of it. your outstanding leader, nancy pelosi. [applause] joe crowley also went on that trip and did not look perfectly coiffed. but give joe crowley a round of applause as well. [applause] i want to say uniformly gracious -- thank you for the gracious introduction. javier made this happened and is providing leadership. jim clyburn one of my favorite

people, and extraordinary gentlemen and leader. we love them. debbie wasserman schultz chairwoman of the dmc. -- dnc. thank you so much. [applause] and the guy that i saw before i came out, just to let him know that he should not feel overly disappointed when his hair gets great, because in this job it will, the chair. i used to be youthful. and attractive like him. [laughter] we will see how long that lasts. [laughter] going to have hair like steve. [laughter] you know, i am not going to give

a long speech because i just you. -- just gave one. i want to spend time on question. like me summarize what i said last week. we have been through an extraordinarily challenging journey. the worst financial crisis in our lifetimes. we have seen the incredible courage and sacrifice but also the costs of two difficult wars. there has been ups and downs in every region of the country and people feeling the economy is turning in ways -- learning in ways that do -- churning in ways that defy their control.

despite all the challenges and difficulties, but we have seen is the american people fighting their way back. and because of them, because of their resilience and their great in their artwork, -- grit and greater hard work, and because you and i together made choices sometimes politically unpopular choices, america has come back. we have seen 11 million jobs created, the best growth since the 90's, the best job growth in manufacturing since the 90's. the steepest drop in the unemployment rate in 30 years. deficits cut by two thirds, over 10 million people without insurance that did not have it before. -- with health insurance that

did not have it before. [applause] high school graduation is up, more young people attending college than before, number one in oil production, number one in natural gas production, double clean energy production, solar power up tenfold, wind power up threefold. carbon pollution down. there is no economic measure by which we are not better off than when i took office and that is because of the extraordinary will and dedication of the american people but also because all of you have done a terrific job and i am proud of you for that. [applause] now, won't we also know as we now have some choices to make -- what we also know is we now have some choices to make.

are we going to be in the economy in which a few do well or an economy in which everybody is given a fair shot and john succeeded -- can succeed? are we going to be an economy that continues to invest in innovation and infrastructure, all the ingredients that are necessary to power this economy through the 21st century or are we going to be neglectful of those very things that have made us an economic superpower? are we going to do what is necessary to make sure everybody gets the tools they need to succeed? education, the childcare the hope when it comes to minimum wages and paid sick leave -- help when it comes to minimum

wages and paid sick leave that gives people stability and help them to adapt to a changing world. that is the set of choices that we now have to make. and because the economy has gotten better, wages are beginning to pick up, people are starting to feel better about the economy. but what everybody here understands is that the ground that middle-class families lost over the last 30 years still has to be made up. and delete friends but have -- the trends that have squeezed middle-class families those trends have not been fully reversed. as much as we should appreciate the progress that has been made, it should not be a cause for

complacency, because we have a lot more work to. do. in my state of the union i laid out specific proposals that would allow us to continue to control our deficit but would also ensure we are investing in the kind of quality education including free community colleges that is so necessary for people to move forward. [applause] specific proposals to make sure that we provided some relief to middle-class families in the form of a childcare credit and additional higher education credit so that somebody that is working hard and doing their best february little relief, a little help -- can get a little relief, a little help.

we talked about how important it is to rebuild infrastructure and put people back to work, something that everybody knows we need to. we have specific ways of paying for it, by closing loopholes that send jobs overseas and rewarding companies that are investing in the united states of america. [applause] so, you know, i summarized all of us as middle-class economic -- this as middle-class economics, and what we know is that middle-class economics works, but has been the history of this country. that has been the past six years where we implemented middle-class economics and the other side was saying that health care costs would explode and none of that happened. that is pretty rare were you have two versions -- where are you have two versions, a

vigorous debate, and then you test who is right. end of the record shows -- and the record shows that we are right and middle-class economics does work. [applause] so, bottom line is this. we have got to make sure that continues to work. we should protect the progress we are making. the republicans are holding their 50th or 60th vote next year to undermine the affordable care act, i have lost count at this point. if this bill ever reaches my desk, i would happily veto it. [applause] is they try to unravel the rules that we put in place to make sure wall street recklessness

does not hurt american families, i would be happy to veto it. [applause] it is rather than try to solve the problem of a broken immigration system, they compound the problem, i will veto it. [applause] but my hope is that they join us and one good piece of news is i noticed that even though policies have not caught that, the rhetoric is starting to sound -- caught up yet, the rhetoric is starting to sound democratic. present home -- chris was telling me about a republican senator who will remain unnamed but does not agree with the, he was shocked that the top 1% is doing well and everyone else is getting squeezed and we need to do something about it and i will come back, i consider imitation the highest form of flattery. let's get something done. [applause]

we have got a former presidential candidate on the other side who suddenly is deeply concerned about poverty. [laughter] that is great. let's go. let's do something about it. i am glad that the rhetoric has shifted. let's now make sure that the policies match up with the rhetoric. let's make sure that americans are able to upgrade skills for higher wages. which will be world's most competitive economy -- let's b the wolves's most competitive economyuild -- build the world's most competitive economy. let's end of the sequester. make sure we are funding the things that help american families succeed. that is the smart thing to do. [applause]

i disagree with any republican that says that letting funding for the department of homeland security all ca is not -- lapse is not the end of the world, that is a quote from one of them. these guys are saying they are concerned about the borders they are concerned about terrorism, who do you think helps monitor the borders? what do you mean it is not the end of the world, that is all you have been talking about? now suddenly you think we can afford to have the department of homeland security not functioning because of political games in washington? we can pay for all of the proposals that i forward by fixing it -- put homework by fixing a tax code riddled with special interests. if republicans do not agree with my approach for paying, then they should go forward their own

proposals and i am happy to engage them on that, i am eager to engage them on that. it is fair for them to say that is not the right way to fund higher education, that is not the right way to help companies with -- help people with childcare. we cannot suggest is that childcare is not important or that higher education costs are not relevant to folks were in the middle class or kind to work their way into the middle class -- who are in the middle class or are trying to work their way into the middle class. the good news is that i think there are some that won't to work with us -- want to work with us. and maybe the fact that i have run my life do -- last election means they might want to get things done. it will be attacking the next democrat that is ok.

ultimately what this is about the reason we are here, the reason so many of you make extraordinary sacrifices and your families make sacrifices to be here is because the story of we people that i've mentioned of the state of the union people like rebecca who i talked about from minnesota those people are, those people are us. verythey are our moms and dads and neighbors and coworkers and friends. and we remember some point in time where somebody gave us a bit of a handout. -- andhand up.

we remember the scholarship that let us go to school. we remember what it was like to try and find childcare when you have two folks working and trying to pay the mortgage at the same time, just like michelle and i had to do. we remember those things. the reason we do this is about those folks have the sick -- so those folks have the same opportunities that we did nds about our children and great-grandchildren have those same opportunities. [applause] and it is our obligation to make sure we are crystal-clear about what we stand for. obviously we were disappointed by the outcome of the last

election. there are a lot of reasons for it and i am happy to take on some of the blame. one thing i am positive about is, when we are shy about what we care about, when we are defensive about what we have accomplished when we don't stand up straight and proud instead, yes, we both -- and say, yes we believe everyone in this country should have health insurance and we are proud. yes, we believe family should not be torn apart and we are fighting for immigration reform. yes, we believe in middle class economics and we do not apologize for making sure that a wonderful young man or woman can afford to go to college. we need to stand up and go on offense and not be defensive about what we believe in. that is why we are democrats.

[applause] and i promise you, i am not going out the last two years sitting on the sidelines, i will be making the case every single day and i hope you join me. thanks. [applause] all right, everybody sit back down. fired up? [cheers] ready to go. >> mr. president, the mayor spoke to us the afternoon that we got here, yesterday. -- and what government can do in making a difference. -->> president obama speaking at a retreat of house democrats in

philadelphia. we will be hearing comments from vice president joe biden tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span followed by a news conference with democratic leaders as they lay out a strategy for the next two years and look ahead to 2016. we will have that at noon eastern on c-span. >> here are some of our future programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. i'm c-span twos book tv saturday night at 10:00, white house correspondent april ryan hunter more than 25 years in journalism and her coverage -- on her more than 25 years of journalism and her coverage of three president. then isaac abramson. on american history tv, on

c-span three, on the civil war heather talks richardson -- cox richardson on how the cowboy became symbolic of unified america. then we won't were the house that was the headquarters of the american red cross and learn about the life of its -- will tour the headquarters of the american red cross and learn about the life of its founders. carlos, e-mail us, -- call usm e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the season conversation or it like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> this sunday on "q&a," franced js jensen on the teenage brain. >> consequences of actions are

not clear to them because their frontal lobes are not at the ready, they have them about the connections cannot be made as quickly for split-second decision-making. and also, google forget that the hormones are changing a lot in the bodies of young men and women and the brain has not seen these yet until you hit teenage years. so the brave is trying to learn how to respond to these new hormones that are rolling around -- arraignment is trying to bash --- brain is trying to learn how to respond to these new hormones that are rolling around in this contributes to the roller coaster experience. >> sunday on c-span's "q&a." >> the two testimony for loretto lynch and the senate -- day two testimony for loretta lynch.

also the national secretary strategy. here's a look. >> good morning, all. >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crime. >> could i -- >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. >> could we restore order here? >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes.

arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. >> could someone find [indiscernible] >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. >> in the name of vietnam. in the name of the people of vietnam. >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes. >> in the name of the people of chile, in the name of the people of vietnam, in the name of the people of used to more -- houston more, -- east timor, in the name of the people of laos. >> i would like to say to my colleagues and to artist it was witnesses this morning -- our

distinguished witnesses this morning, i have been a member of this committee for many years and i have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place. you know, you are going to have to >> if we can't get the capitol hill police in here immediately. get out of here at you lowlife scum. [applause] so henry dr. kissinger, on behalf of all the members of this committee and both sides of the aisle. i would like to apologize for allowing such a disgraceful to