more than tinkering around the edges. if you look at t km, the largest operator in the country, they have all of some 13 states and if each of those different states as a different plan, you can imagine they're trying to make sure they can dispatch our each of those new states if it requires significant changes in the way we run our market. your mind goes to the obvious solution, why don't they get together and agree, then you don't have to run state-by-state. you could give extra credit regional operation and regional cooperation will help regional markets make adaptations to the clean power plan. that itself will require considerable change and copper mise. you've seen some success with the regional carbon markets and

the california market -- but putting those together -- i was there when reggie negotiated requiring volunteer agreements by states to come together and deciding on the goal, who gets what allowances, who puts what in and who gets what out -- the difference is, they put together states with substantially different portfolios and substantially different epa targets that might not naturally agree and will require a little bit of a negotiation to get there. , we have states like texas and indiana that are served by multiple rto's. the markets themselves are going through a lot of transition as the generation mix in the country changes, and ferc is is doing a lot of work that it

needs to continue to make sure the market rules in the market designs are written to support the investment and resources. we put out a few will assurance order earlier this year, that is one example of that effort and we have been doing a lot on the capacity arc it. working all this out so we can -- markets. working all this out so we can meet climate goals, while keeping these big regional markets, won't be easy, and it's going to require exactly the kind of open dialogue i spoke of earlier this week. fortunately, this is the kind of hard touring unsexy, dirt under the fingernails work that ferc does. we work on the underbelly of every energy issue and this is where our work is going to be in making those markets work. because if we don't, we'll either lose the markets, and take a giant step back in how we run our grid or we won't

achieve our climate goals. despite all our work, we still have reliability problems. reliability will have to be maintained by mechanisms like reliability contracts or extensions or keeping things on longer than they are supposed to stay on, that can be expensive or unpopular or both. that is not fun. plan a is to get it right up top. our final job is to serve as an honest broker as the work is finalized and implemented. i believe we do this effectively with restraint -- respect to the mercury in air toxic role. admittedly, that is a straightforward rule but i think we did a good job to bring together states, federal agencies and state regulators to

and sure that was protected. with respect to the clean power plan, we are getting started on that next month. with four conferences in february and march, two in d.c. and two in other regions. we'll be hearing from our state government partners, our federal government partners, like the epa, people from industry and environmental groups to help address the issues that ferc is going to have to tackle. our objective is to hear from a wide range of entities about how compliance might impact them and start to dig into the things that work will have to do. based on how many people have asked to speak, we may have a lot more than four days, but it is just the beginning of the dialogue. we have to continue our engagement with agencies especially the epa, but also the state regulators to share information, lend expertise, and

help develop constructive suggestions. we have to continue to be an independent and honest broker. living within the bounds of our authority but keeping up with trends and where possible, get in front of emerging issues. we cannot be afraid to say unpopular things, some people say we need more gas pipelines is unpopular, saying we need more electric transmission is unpopular and saying the markets don't automatically change, but we have to say the hard things and make the difficult policy changes that won't please everyone all the time. sometimes i would be happy to please anyone, any of the time. [laughter] i strongly leave this is why this work has been assigned to an independent, appointed commission of technical experts. i'm honored to have the

opportunity to be part of this work -- i will only be chairman for three more months, but i expect to be a commissioner for five more years, working to balance and maximize reliability, cost and the environment. i'm sure that i were here five years from now, the issues i worked on, some of them i probably would not even know now, but i am sure there will be five years of change, challenge and progress. thank you and i will take your questions. [applause] if i put on my glasses i can read them as you read them. >> thank you, chairman. starting with some questions related to the epa. epa appears to have held only a handful of meetings with ferc staff about the clean power plan, or the 111 d rule.

given the extraordinary outreach effort when developing the rule and the huge changes it will require, were you disappointed to have not had more input? >> well, recently, in a letter that i sent to the hill on december 3, i really listed all of the meetings we had, which i think are more than a handful. i was not disappointed and i think we had quite a lot of opportunities for input. i wish we it seen the rule a lot earlier but that would have required that they had written it a lot earlier. but now we are seeing that we have a full year or more before they finalize it. >> do you think that aggressively implementing the clean power plan on epa's proposed timeline might cause difficulties for reliability? >> well, as i said, i think that

we need to build the infrastructure and adapt the markets to be able to have both the reliability we take for granted and the progress on the climate. the timeline for the epa goals has really been one of the most controversial things we have been hearing about. what should be the. over which the ultimate 2030 goals are phased in. i think the epa has been hearing about that as well. when they asked for more comments last fall, that was one of the main things we heard about. i think we will have to get started early and put our shoulder to the wheel. >> some of your colleagues on the commission think ferc should sign off on state plans to comply with epa's rule. is that something that you can support?

>> i'm not 100% sure that's how they would articulate their views, but putting that aside, i don't -- i'm looking right at the head of the state commissioner association. [laughter] i try to ram or that our first name is federal. [laughter] sign off is a bit strong. i think we should be engaged in the state plans, because they all operate, for the most part, as a part of regions. but ultimately the state will have the control. >> so, as the utility industry moves over time to retire coal plants, and substitute in renewables, are higher consumer prices for electricity inevitable?

>> i kind of divide prices into two dimensions. the long run price depends on the long run costs of these things. once it's built, nuclear renewables, can be very affordable once the initial investment is made. the long run price of coal and gas depends on the long run cost of the fuel -- that we don't know. if there is one thing i know in my life, i cannot reject gas prices, since i have seen them go up and down and everywhere in between. in the long run, i think that ultimately depends on the mix of cost but it is not at all clear to me that cost will go up. we are seeing gas be very affordable and competitive.

certainly nuclear and hydro renewables are competitive once they are built. the other dimension of cost is transition. change costs money. no matter how you do it. so, i think, will it cost to make this change? yes. it has to. when you are building something new, it cost money. if in the long run it will cost more depends on the fuel cost. >> as we've seen this rapid transformation occur in the nation's energy sector, is it frustrating for you that congress has refused to consider any meaningful energy legislation or policies? >> i used to have a mug that said like something like, god grant the serenity prayer. god grant me the wisdom to fight the things i can fight and not fight what i can't fight, and the wisdom to know the difference. you probably know. whatever it says. [laughter] i try to not to spend too much

mental anguish on what congress does or doesn't do. there's a whole blogosphere out there complaining about congress. i live by the rules they have given us, if they pass new legislation we will live by that, but i think we are doing a pretty good job hobbling through with what we have now. if there is new legislation, i will welcome it. >> you mentioned the need for additional gas pipelines, yet we see so much public frustration and public opposition to these sorts of projects. how can that need for more pipelines be addressed, given the level of opposition out there? >> well i think -- not speaking of any specific pipeline, i would kind of put the opposition

into different buckets. there's concern about the environmental impact of the pipelines themselves. i think that has to be addressed by making sure they are constructed and the ads -- extraction and everything is done using the most current technology and as environmentally advanced as we can. everything as a consequence and nothing is free but as a society we need to do this right. the second set of opposition is local opposition, where people just don't want it going through their town, or county. sometimes for reasons that have to do with specific things -- people tend to not want infrastructure going through where they are. i think we need to sight these things as carefully as we possibly can and try to make the

best decisions. we cannot please everyone but that is something we do well, to ensure environmental risks are mitigated. very few pipelines come out the same route when they went in. the third set of opposition are people that don't want pipelines at all, and i think they're the policy makers. the state regulators, the state environmental people, ferc and other regulators have to have the dialogue and decide -- i have said my view, other people have other views -- that is a bigger picture than a specific sighting thing. >> fracking is such a significant issue in in so many ways. last year, ferc approved construction of a huge liquefied natural gas facility on the chesapeake bay. some critics have said the decision encouraged the environmental harm that they say results from fracking.

how would you respond to the criticism? >> well, we don't regulate the extraction and we don't -- the permitting statute, the need the -- the nepa statute, the national environmental policy act that we use -- we just try to make sure, if you will, that what we permit is done in the right way safe and environmentally sound. fracking is regulated at the state level and by the epa. i think it is essential that the regulated closely. >> we were mentioning the level of protest that we've seen. has the level of protests and activism at all surprise the commission, or commission members? this questioner wonders, how

that plays out as far as going to the filing process, the level of protesting and activism on the filing process. >> well, the fact that people have things to say does not surprise us. these are important issues. our secretary's office does a great job handling thousands millions of documents that come in and getting them into files. some of the things that have surprised me recently are more of the techniques. when i first had a twitter account, i thought i was cool. and then it says, you have eight new entries and i think, people are writing to me. [laughter] a lot of them were people tweeting about pipelines and dockets and so forth. that is new to the way i think about things. a lot of the techniques people used our new techniques.

>> here in d.c., a coalition of environmental, political, and consumer groups called power d.c. has emerged to oppose the pepco exelon merger. the coalition says the merger will result into poor reliability and higher prices for consumers. are these concerns justified? >> well, ferc approved the exelon pepco merger, although i knew, and i was just reminded that it's still pending rehearing. [laughter] but, just looking at what we did. what we do in mergers is we look at, under the federal power act, the effect on rates. are there protections for the so, we've talked about wind and -- for the wholesale rates we regulate, can the state regulators still have their power and the effect on competition, using or millis to

see how concentrated the market is. that is what we do in our dockets. rate freezes, where the headquarters will be, how many employees will have jobs and what promises they have to make -- some of those are still pending. >> so, we've talked about wind and solar power, but what about the oldest renewable resource: hydropower? is there potential to significantly expand hydropower as a source of electricity and if not why? >> well, there's definitely the potential to expand the hydropower as a source of electricity. there are thousands of dams in the country that are constructed, so the river is dammed but does not have an electric generating set attached.

you can look at the website of the national hydro association they will give you the exact number. there are many thousands of opportunities. we have a couple potential applications in places like alaska for big new hydro. i will just say based on some the early commentary, they're not in the filing stage yet some of what we hear -- things like grand coulee dam or the hoover dam would be difficult to do in 2015. but small hydro has tremendous potential. >> huge topic of discussion nowadays also is the risk of cyberattacks. how concerned are you that a successful cyberattack on a portion of the nation's power grid is inevitable?

>> well, i'm vigilant. there are people who attempt to hack into the bulk electric system every day. in fact, nccic, whatever that stands for. national cyber communications control center? part of the department of homeland security. more than half of the hacking attempts in the whole of the united states are on the electric grid. i know it is an important issue. part of what we try to do with first of all, the way all the owners construct the grid, but the way ferc regulates the reliability standards is to make sure the grid is constructed to be resilient. so there is redundancy at cyber protection built-in. perimeter security and password security -- is something happens at one place it does not cascade

to another place. the electric grid and the nuclear facility is one of the only places in the country that has national cyber rules. i think they deserve them. those rules are designed so that if something happens, it does not lead to a cascading outage. should we be vigilant? absolutely. >> would you say that cyber threats are far and away the the foremost challenge? or are physical acts of vandalism, terrorism enough of a threat that they reach equal level of the cyber concern and how does the utility industry or tech itself from these threats? >> oh, my gosh. this is like when you were kids, it was like would you rather boiled in oil or would you rather be drowned? [laughter] both sets of threats are important.

i tend to worry about more about cyber threats because i know i don't understand them. i don't think anyone over 50 does really understand what goes in a computer. that's probably unfair. i'm sure there are middle aged techies who are wonderful. [laughter] but i don't really understand how someone can be in north korea on the other side of the globe, and do something on a laptop that affects the grid. something that you cannot see and readily sense and you do not understand the mechanism is more frightening, whereas physical security -- i understand it and you have to be within the physical proximity to do something. it is a threat as well and what we did in the last year was for the first time we would mandate protections for the most important parts of the bulk electric system.

we have more physical protection so that while we are worried about 21st century threats we don't forget about the old-fashioned threats as well. >> this questioner just passed up a question that says should fighting climate change be part of ferc's central mission? well, i think i said in response to a couple questions ago, if congress changes our responsibilities, they are the boss. i think we are well served by having the epa and the state environmental regulators whose job is environment, which we understand to include climate in the first whose job is reliability and pricing, that is a healthy responsibility.

>> industry people say that one of the biggest threats to the electric grid is the wave of baby boom retirements at utilities. [laughter] and these are now hitting in full force. are there enough new workers coming into the industry? and, if not, why don't young people want to work with lecture city -- electricity? [laughter] >> well, i was already a baby boomer in retirement age when i left the utility. they seem to have managed without me. [laughter] this is a big issue across many sectors. i used to be on a hospital board about nursing, about teaching, about other sectors. there is the big population spike of the baby boom and then a valley and then the millennial's. i think it is of concern in the electric sector because it takes a while to train somebody, or a control room operator, that

makes a lot of retirements all at once a concert -- concern. i think a lot of important work is going on with the community colleges and others to really try to develop -- there are always plenty of lawyers and all -- it is the people who work on electricity who are hard to find, to develop those trades and get people interested, i lot of companies are working on that. and military hirings is natural for the utility industry. with so many veterans coming back now a lot of them are a wonderful source of tomorrow's energy people. >> have you heard from any grid operators or state regulators that there will be difficulties in implementing the clean power plan? >> yes. [laughter]

we've met with almost all the grid operators. they have different levels of concern, but because they are the ones who are trying to keep the lights on, they are the ones working through some of these issues. as the generation evolves, what transitions have to be built and how the markets have to work. i cannot speak for them, but they are focused on some of the things i talk about in my speech. state regulators, their views vary very, very much by what's the resource mix now in their state? some states have a much more challenging goal for various reasons -- we certainly have not hold -- heard from all 50 state regulators. >> do you envision a broader role for ferc's enforcement initiatives in the implementation of the cpp? or will rule making be the methodology for addressing

it. >> whoa, that's an interesting question. to the extent that the clean power plan changes market rules, enforcement is one part of making sure markets are fair. it is also -- although ferc only gets involved in the biggest reliability issues, multiple them -- most of them are done by nerc under our oversight. i tend to think of the rulemaking -- writing the standards, or approving them in our case, or approving market rules, as the first phalanx and then enforcement make sure they are complied with. i don't think that is what you lead with, you need to make the

rules first and then enforce it. >> this questioner says that traditionally politics has not played much of a role at the commission, even though are there appointees from both political parties. this person says, but that seems to be changing with this debate over the ferc and the epa. does this concern you? is ferc becoming more political? >> well, the vast majority of work that ferc does does not divide along partisan lines. even when we have dissents, or splits between the commissioners, they are not frequently a long party lines. that is good. we are all looking at the law and the record, we might have different views but they are not knee-jerk party views. that is how ferc has been for a long time.

when it comes to environmental rules, they tend to be very controversial so this area of our work has become more ideological than some and i think that is just the reality of washington. >> to what extent do you see distributed generation transforming, and perhaps, disrupting the electricity system? >> well, i think that distributed generation is a huge trend. particularly the rooftop solar which seems to have kind of gone over the -- the barrier of affordability and ubiquity and is a big piece of the grid. it seems like i have been hearing -- in the 80's they said everyone would have combined heat and power in their basement and no more power plants and most of those trends did not manifest the way it were

expected. rooftop solar is different. it is here and has crossed the divide to being economic. it is a big part of our grid. i don't personally see it as disruptive, it is a part of the ecosystem. we will still have the transition grid and maybe some of the other technologies become that economic. >> i know that you put your ferc regulated electricity transmission to good use at ferc headquarters, because i'm sure you have many wonderful coffee pots that keep the ferc staff alert and awake, so therefore it is my pleasure to present you with the annual, honorary national press club coffee mug. i hope it is of good use back at headquarters to keep everybody alert and watchful. [applause]

one more question before you sit down. you have been wonderful answering so many questions, we want to wrap up with this one. everyone in the energy sector one question says, seems to be so male-dominated. and what do you say to girls to get them to be interested in careers in energy? and what can we do to sort of turn that around to make it more of a career for more women. >> well, that's a great question. i think we are seeing more and more women in energy. and i think that maybe as far as getting more women in some of the blue-collar jobs and the engineering jobs where it lags

the most, and a lot of it comes down to stem education, getting little girls interested early, math and science programs for young girls. i used to be in the stem program -- to try to get girls interested in that. i think that is an important effort. they are good jobs and good paying jobs to support families and we want more young girls to be interested in them. at the same time, i'm living proof you don't have to be -- i'm a -- we are the parents of a physics teacher, but i am not a stem nerd at all. i was a politics major who went to law school and i am in electricity. [laughter] so, i think there's jobs for people across the spectrum of interest. so, i don't -- it's not all about stem. it's a we need people of all the different disciplines. >> how about a round of

applause? [applause] thank you so much for being first in -- at the national press club. we hope that many future ferc chairman follow your lead, and come here and see us at the national press club. i would also like to thank the national press club staff, including its journalism institute, and the broadcast center for organizing today's event. and finally, here is a reminder that you can find more information, not only about today's event, but all of our activities at the national press club website. press.org. also if you would like a copy of the program, you can also go to that website. thank you very much, we are adjourned.

[applause] >> this week, house democrats are meeting at their policy retreat and vice president joe biden will be speaking to the group at 10:30 a.m. eastern. democratic leaders will be holding a news conference as they lay out your strategy for the next two years. we will have that at noon eastern. from some of the headlines on the second day of congressional testimony on president obama's attorney general nominee. in u.s. news and world report, congress members aren't afraid of loretta lynch. the nominee opposes legislation

but they do not see her as a threat. we will be watching all the hearings from yesterday, nine witnesses testified before the senate judiciary committee.

>> for the members who are present, except for the ones that are here already, it will be on seniority, then other people that come in, you'll be called on according to how our respective staff keep track of you in the order of your appearance. before chairman leahy and i give our opening statements, i'd like to go over some things i said yesterday. first of all, we welcome everybody back to this second day of hearing on ms. lynch's nomination to be attorney general. as i said yesterday and everybody abided by this, and i want to thank everybody that was

here yesterday for their courtesy i want everyone to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction and if people stand up and block the view of those behind them or speak out of turn it's not fair considerable to the others. so officers would remove those individuals. that's what i want to thank because we didn't have any of those incidents yesterday. before we begin the opening statements take care of a couple housekeeping items and explain the process, first of all i want to thank everyone for their patience yesterday. looks like we are going to have more votes today, so again i'm asking for your flexibility. after opening statements, the plan is to start the first round of questions then recess so members can vote. we would then return after the first series of votes and i am

assuming that will be around 12:45. you folks answering questions for us, you can't necessarily count on that. then we would keep going through -- there's four votes this afternoon. we won't adjourn at that particular time, we'll do like we did yesterday. we will take time to -- take turns going and voting. senator leahy then and i will now give our opening statements. then we'll return -- turn to our witnesses for their opening statements. following their statements, we'll begin with the first round of questions in which each senator will have 10 minutes after the first round. then we'll go to eight minutes of questions. and -- so then i will give my opening statement. obviously welcome everybody audience as well as witnesses, to our second day of hearings on ms. lynch's nomination to be attorney general. yesterday we heard from the

nominee. i thought she was very engaging, very confident. there's no question about her competence from what she's done as far as her legal background and her work as u.s. attorney. we appreciated her willingness to stay here through it all so we could get done with her in one day. everybody that wanted to ask questions verbally could do it. of course there's going to be a lot of questions in writing for her to answer in time. she's clearly a skilled and competent lawyer. we asked questions yesterday, but i have to say at least from my standpoint, i'm not speaking for any other member, it seemed like indirect answers. so i suspect that those will be followed up with questions for the record. today we will hear this second panel in front of us right now. many of these will speak to many

ways -- in many ways the department of justice under its current leadership has failed to fulfill some of the most basic aspects of its mission. the question for me and a lot of members on this side is whether ms. lynch is committed leading the department of justice in a new direction. there's obviously people here that are going to speak about the direction the department in a different way, and we'll listen courteously to that as well. we'll hear from sharyl attkisson as one example of a personal who was an investigative journalist who's been bullied, threatened, and literally blocked from entering the department of justice because she had the guts to report on issues like fast and furious and benghazi. that's one example of something we'd like to have a new attorney general fix. we'll also hear from katherine

engelbrecht who was targeted by the i.r.s. simply because she's a conservative who's had the courage to stand up in the defense of freedom and the constitution. the department has paid lip service to the investigation that is supposedly leading. so i would like to know how ms. lynch will take seriously the targeting of fellow citizens based on their political views. then we have sheriff david cooke, milwaukee who will testify about how thousands of local law enforcement officers across this country feel as though their current leadership doesn't fully appreciate the work their law enforcement does every day. that's important to see how ms. lynch might do to mend the broken relationships. and then we'll hear from professors turley and rosenkrantz who will address how the department of justice under eric holder has rubber-stamped the president's lawless actions

from the unlawful recess appointments in the unlawful executive action, specifically on immigration. those people will bring up points that we have made not quite as directly as they have or personally as they have. in hopes ms. p lynch will restore -- ms. lynch will restore the office of legal counsel to the impartial role it used to play on the check of the president's authority. i look forward to the hearing today. now it's senator leahy's turn to give his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a second day of the committee's consideration of loretta lynch to serve as our nation's attorney general. we had a long day yesterday. today we'll hear testimony from outside witnesses about ms. lynch, i would especially be interested in testimony from those who actually know her.

yesterday we heard directly from her. for nearly eight hours of testimony. she testified about the values and independence she would bring to the office of the attorney general. she testified how she would make its priorities national security and public safety, but still preserve the values that we as americans, i hope all of us, hold dear. i was encouraged when republican senators on the committee agreed with me that the key question for voting for a nominee to be attorney general is independence. some of us remember past attorney general who told us he's a member of the president's staff. and we all had to remind him, no he's not. he's not like the secretary of justice. he's the attorney general of the united states. and is supposed to be independent.

responded to questions on issue after issue. it is clear that ms. lynch is an independent lawyer, strong character. and obvious abilities. i also want to take a moment to thank chairman grassley for his handling of yesterday's hearing. it was no easy feat, especially when you had 18 votes i believe it was yesterday afternoon, and kept it going. he made sure that every senator who had a question on his side of the aisle, they were given the time to ask the question and be heard. i commend him for that. i appreciate the tote -- way you're handling this hearing. i was not surprised that we have been friends for decades and i know you well. we are going to hear from law enforcement officials who actually worked with ms. lynch. these are the people who have

the best knowledge of her. they strongly support her nomination. their presence today will speak of the support ms. lynch has among republicans and democrats similar to the letter that one of the finest f.b.i. directors we've ever had has submitted on her behalf, louis freeh. barack obama is not the nominee. that may come as a surprise to some who lettered some of the questions. eric holder is not the nominee. loretta lynch, the daughter of lore reason and reverend lynch, twice unanimously confirmed by the united states senate, has been applauded for her law enforcement work, that's who is being called upon to consider. i'm confident after hearing her testimony before the committee and after reviewing her record, knowing in good faith -- no one in good faith could question her integrity or her ability. she said yesterday she looks

forward to working with congress to confront the many issues facing americans today. she's met with over 50 senators in both parties. so i hope we can come together in the senate, support this historic confirmation. for an outstanding public servant and move quickly doing it. thank you. >> can i ask you there is no reason to make these people stand for an oath. can they do it sitting down? >> sure. >> i want to know what's legal -- do you affirm that the testimony -- would you raise your hand, please. do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the whole truth -- let me start over again, please. do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. thank you. i'm going to introduce everybody at the table all at once instead

of separately when one person gets done speaking. be patient with me. sharyl attkisson is an investigative journalist and author for over 20 years she worked for cbs news, winning multiple emmy awards for her investigative journalism pieces. including her reporting on the 2012 benghazi report and fast and furious. next we have david bar low -- barlow we know well. he served as u.s. attorney for the district of utah, 2011, 2014. prior to his tenure as u.s. attorney, he served on this committee as senator leahy's chief counsel. he's now a partner of sydney, austin washington, d.c. next is reverend newsome. reverend clarence newsome is president of the national underground railroad freedom center in cincinnati, ohio.

next is janice, she served as assistant director in charge of f.b.i.'s new york division, 2010-2012. she currently runs a consulting firm in washington, d.c. i know i pronounced it wrong. next we have steven, professor at john s. lehman university professor at washington university school of law. next we have jonathan turley, j.b. and morrisy shapiro professor of public interest law, george washington university law school. david clarke, sheriff, milwaukee county and served for over 36 years as a law enforcement

professional. next, nichlas rosenkrantz is a professor of constitutional law and federal jurisdiction, georgetown university law center and a senior fellow at the kato -- cato institute. finally, we have katherine engelbrecht. she's the founder and chairwoman of truth the vote, an election integrity organization, the founder of king street patriots, a citizen led liberty group, and the co-owner of engelbrecht manufacturing, a small business she owns with her husband in her home state of texas. now we will start with ms. attkisson. >> thank you. >> if i didn't maybe i should say i think you have all been informed but we'd like to have five minutes. go ahead. >> i have been a reporter for 30 years at cbs news.

i have been a reporter for 30 years at cbs news pbs cnn, and local news. my producers and i probed countless political, corporate charitable, financial stories ranging from iraq contract waste and fraud under bush to green energy waste under obama to consumer stories relating to the drug industry. some of these reports have been recognized for excellence in journalism, most recently investigative emmy nominations and awards for reporting on tarp benghazi, green energy spending, fast and furious, and a group of stories including an undercover investigation into republican fundraising. the job of getting at the truth has never been more difficult. facets of federal government have isolated themselves from the public they serve. they covet and withhold public information that we as citizens

own. they bully and threaten access of journalists who do their jobs, news organizations that publish stories they don't like and whistle blowers who dare to tell the truth. when i reported on factual contradictions in the administration's accounts regarding fast and furious, pushback included a frenzied campaign with white house officials trying to chill the reporting by calling and emailing my superiors and colleagues using surrogate bloggers to advance false claims. one white house official got so mad he cussed me out. the justice department used its authority over building security to handpick reporters allowed to attend a fast and furious briefing, refusing to clear me into the public justice department building. advocates had to file a lawsuit to obtain public information about fast and furious improperly withheld under executive privilege. documents recently released show emails in which taxpayer paid white house and justice department press officials complained that i was out of

control and vowed to call my bosses to stop my reporting. let me emphasize my reporting was factually indisputable. government officials weren't angry because i was doing my job poorly, they were panicked because i was doing my job well. many journalists have provided their own accounts. the white house made good on its threat to punish c-span after c-span dared to defy a white house demand to delay airing of potentially embarrassing interview with the president. 50 news organizations, including cbs and "the washington post" wrote the white house objecting to unprecedented restrictions on the press that raised constitutional concerns. a "new york times" photographer likened the white house practices in some cases to the soviet news agency tass, former "washington post" executive editor len downy called the obama war on leaks by far the most aggressive he's seen since nixon. david sanger of the "new york times" called this the most closed control freak administration he's ever

covered. "new york times" public editor said it's the administration of u.n. precedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press. months before we knew that the justice department had secretly seized a.p. phone records and surveiled fox news' james rosen before director of national intelligence director james clapper incorrectly testified under oath that americans weren't subject to mass data collection, i was tipped off that the government was likely secretly monitoring me due to my reporting. three forensic exams concerned the intrusive long-term remote surveillance. that included key stroke monitoring, password capture, use of skype to listen to audio and more. getting to the bottom of it hasn't been easy. it's unclear what if anything the f.b.i. has done to investigate. the justice department has refused to answer simple, direct written congressional questions about its knowledge of the case. it has stonewalled my freedom of information request, first

saying it has no responsive documents, then admitting to 2,500 of them but never providing any of them. in 2013, reporters without borders downgraded america's standing the global free press rankings, rating the obama administration as worse than bush's. it matters not that when caught the government promises to dial back or that james rosen gets an apology. the message has already been received. if you cross this administration with perfectly accurate reporting they don't like, you'll be attacked and punished. you and your sources may be subjected to the kind of surveillance devised for enemies of the state. for much of history, the united states has held itself out as a model of freedom democracy, and open accountable government. freedoms of expression and association are of course protected by the constitution. today those freedoms are under assault due to government policies of secrecy leak prevention, and officials contact with the media, combined with large scale surveillance

programs. the nominee if confirmed should chart a new path and reject the damaging policies and practices used by others in the past. if we aren't grave enough to confront these concerns, it could do serious long-term damage to a supposedly free press. thank you. >> if i'm accurate, professor rosenkrantz, you recently had a back operation and you need to stand. we would not object. whatever you have to do. mr. barlow. >> i would ecothat sitting here -- eco that, sitting here recovering from two fractured vertebrae. i know how important it is to be able to stand. >> mr. barlow. >> thank you chairman grassley ranking member leahy members of the judiciary committee. it is my privilege to appear before you here today in support of the nomination of my former colleague, loretta lynch, to

serve as attorney general of the united states. i would be remiss if i did not first thank this committee for the strong support i received in 2011 when my own nomination to serve as united states attorney was before you. it was a tremendous honor to serve as u.s. attorney in the department of justice. i always will be grateful for the trust you had in me when you supported my nomination. it's now my privilege to recommend ms. lynch to you. you already heard and read much about her storied 30-year legal career. so instead of elaborating on her many credentials i want to take just a few minutes to share a couple of personal observations about my former colleague. i first met loretta at a conference of united states attorneys several months after i was sworn in. what i remember most vividly about her was the way she handled a portion of the gram where u.s. attorneys were asking questions of the executive office of the united states attorneys. loretta moderated the session.

some of the discussion regarding budgets, resource allocation hiring authority and other issues understandlyback intense as my colleagues and i argued our various views and articulated the many needs our districts had during lean budgetary times. but loretta was calm and unruffled. she asked hard questions, but she did so in an unfailingly dignified and respectful way. where strong feelings created the risk of bringing more heat than light to the conversation, loretta brought only light. she was clearly tough, but also fair and gracious. that impression of loretta was confirmed and deepened as i served with her on the attorney general's advisory committee. the agac is a committee of roughly a dozen united states attorneys who serve as a voice of their colleagues to the department of justice and provide counsel to the department leadership on various management policy, and

operational issues. loretta was the chair of the agac during the time i served as a member of it. i know that you already know the united states attorneys are not attendant group. all are in accustomed to being in charge, all are used to expressing their view, all are at least in part the products of very different backgrounds experiences, and places. if you put 12 or so united states attorneys together in a room as the agac does, you will get a wide variety of ideas and perspectives, often very strongly held. it takes someone very special to lead that kind of group. for the agac to work well, as intended, that someone needs to be smart insightful, organized articulate inclusive, and experienced. loretta was and is all those things and more. she was always well prepared. she made sure that all points of view were fairly and fully

considered. she listened far more than she talked. she facilitated consensus wherever possible, and made space for dissent when consensus could not be reached. by her example and her conduct, she elevated the discourse and refined the exchange of ideas in our committee. through these experiences, my initial impressions of loretta lynch were fully confirmed. she's tough fair, gracious, smart, and independent. in conclusion, during my time as united states attorney, i had the privilege of serving with a truly outstanding group of u.s. attorneys throughout the nation. i learned much from them. i was inspired by their service and their commitment. but of all these dedicated and talented public servants, the honorable loretta lynch truly stood out. if confirmed by the senate, i am sure she will make an excellent attorney general of the united states. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: reverend newsome. >> mr. chairman and mr. ranking member and members of the judiciary committee, it is my pressure and honor to appear before you to support the nomination of attorney loretta elizabeth lynch for position of united states attorney general. i have known loretta virtually all of her life. our family relationships cover a period of 40 or more years. her family has been associated with several branches of my family by way of the baptist church connection, and the network of educators of the great state of north carolina. her grandfather was a highly regarded and respected clergyman. the same can be said of her father and her brother, both of whom have been distinguished

leaders at the state and national level for some time. for many years her father was a key leader in the life of the general baptist state convention of north carolina, and the national baptist convention u.s.a. her brother continues in that tradition of leadership even now . her father and i have been ministerial colleagues, we have been ministerial colleagues since the 1970's. it was my privilege to teach her brother during the years that i served on the dukedy vinity school faculty. i have been able to maintain a warm personal association with her mother, an esteemed church leader and educator in her own right for decades. through her father, brother, and mother and mutual family friends, i have been able to stay abreast of loretta's impressive and remarkable rise to a position of pre-eminent leadership in the life of our nation. loretta is the product of one of

the most outstanding families in the state of north carolina. to the degree that virtue counts in our society i'm bold to say that she is the product of one of the most outstanding families in the united states of america. the members of the lynch family are known for their exemplary character, integrity excellent achievement, civic mindedness, commitment to the common good, and deep and compelling sensitivity to the well-being of all people. over the years it has been my privilege to witness the development and emergence of the best of who we are as a nation in the person of loretta. in the religious educational, and social circles which our families have moved, she has had a reputation for being stellar in everything she has done. as a teenager she drew the admiration of adults and more

significantly her peers as well. she stood out among them without alienating herself from them. she stood out in many, many ways. she was as approachable then as she is now. even then she enjoyed a reputation for being levelheaded, balanced in her thinking, and wise in her judgments. she evidenced a level of maturity that was out of the ordinary but only in those ways that garner the respect of young and old alike. as a teenager, loretta was the daughter every parent would love to have. early in life the quality of her character was evident. this is why the cities of greensboro where she was born, and durham, where she graduated from high school with honors claims her as a daughter who has made them proud. all of more proud we north carolinians will be if she is appointed the first u.s. attorney general in the state's

history. as a student during her precollege years she performed such a high level that it only seemed natural she would attend and graduate from harvard university and harvard law school. in fact, her career trajectory is consistent with the extraordinary intellectual ability and prowess, discipline, even courage she demonstrated during her youth. early on she dared to dream to become the best of the best, and she has accomplished this in the field of law and jurisprudence. as her professional record shows, she has become the best of the best without qualification. in the way that her career has taken shape, i discern several attributes worth noting at a time such as this. first of all, she is an informed independent thinker who listens well and studies hard. second, he she has the capacity to maintain the strength of her own convictions. third, she is morally grounded and principleled -- principled. highly principled. fourth she acts decisively and

judicially. and fifth, she is a public servant of the highest order, the type that works well with others to bring about good results with positive outcomes. thank you very, very much. >> chairman grassley, ranking member leahy, and members of the committee, it's my pleasure to appear before you this morning to speak about my association with the attorney general nominee, loretta lynch. i wholeheartedly endorse her confirmation from the vantage points of someone who worked closely alongside loretta in her role as the united states attorney of the eastern district of new york during my two years as the assistant director in charge of the f.b.i.'s new york office. i served in that capacity for two years, retiring in 2012 after 25 years of service in the f.b.i. i was responsible for the largest field office in the f.b.i. and inherent to that are the most complex and sensitive

investigations in all of this nation's law enforcement. new york was and will remain the target for the terrorism activities of individuals and groups that espouse their violent agenda. from world trade center one in 1993, to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and beyond, we continue to see this terrorist agenda manifested against new york. as a result, the f.b.i.'s resources and the considerable talents of the united states attorneys in both the eastern and southern districts of new york are almost in a daily undertaking to protect this nation's security. i think it's also important that the committee appreciate the magnitude of the criminal violations the new york office works. these violations range from the complicated and pervasive financial crimes the insidious and debilitating effects of organized crime and public corruption, and the violence associated with national gangs and other violent offenders. given this challenging environment, it was a necessity to establish a substantial and seamless partnership with

loretta and her office. over the course of the next two years, we formed an effective partnership to address not only the national security in criminal threats but also to engage in outreach and liaison to make a positive impact in the community. the basis for my unquestioned support for loretta's nomination is founded upon the numerous success her office has achieved, the close professional and personal relationship that provided me extraordinarily insight into loretta both as united states attorney and as a person. i was privileged to observe her commitment to commission, her personal involvement in issues that invariably arose in our work, as well as those within the broader law enforcement community. in supporting loretta's nomination as the next attorney of the -- attorney general of the united states, i would like to comment on three areas that form the foundation of my recommendation. sound judgment, legal acuemen, and independence. in all of my interactions with loretta, her approach to addressing and resolving issues invariably involved gathering information to understand the issue, obtaining input from

stakeholders, and making a decision based upon the facts and law. as you heard ms. lynch yesterday commit to a collaborative and clib brat approach, i can assure you that she will follow through. while not an attorney, i do recognize that loretta was nominated and confirmed twice as united states attorney in the eastern district of new york, served on the attorney general's advisory committee, and was named as a chair of the committee in 2013. and her favorable reviews by the executive office foreunited states attorney which called her exceptional any-- exceptionally well qualified. i never known her to base a decision on politics. she showed fairless, respect for others, and deep sense of duty. her office embraced those qualities in their work. as i previously stated, a multitude of criminal investigations including the arrest of approximately 138 mafia figures that represented the largest single day operation against the mafia in history,

but other notable accomplishments span the spectrum of the national priorities and are an example of her successes in the eastern district including international terrorism public corruption gang violations, violent offenders, etc. ms. lynch's recognition that task force has brought the best of interagency investigative resources to bear on entrinched crime problems was integral to broader and deeper successes than would have been the case for any one agency or department to achieve alone. these task forces included the nation's largest joint terrorism task force violent gang task force, long island gang task force, health care task force, and financial fraud enforcement task force to name a few. in closing abraham lincoln said character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. the shadow is what we think of it. the tree is the real thing. ms. lynch is the real thing. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: --

>> thank you very much. professor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. honorable members of the committee. thank you for the privilege of testifying this morning. i'm here to focus on the concerns that some have expressed about the president's recent executive actions on immigration. i do sincerely appreciate that reasonable minds can and do differ about the policy decision as to precisely what the enforcement priorities ought to be. it is clearly within his legal authority. that is not just my opinion. 135 immigration law professors and scholars signed a letter just this past november expressing that same view in strong terms. this is the mainstream view among those of us who have spent our careers teaching and researching immigration law. the president has not just one but multiple sources of legal authority for these actions and

i submitted a detailed written statement that documents how each of these. the written statement also identifies every legal objection i could think of that the president's critics offered and explains why in my view none of them can withstand scrutiny. with limited time i'll hit a few key points and refer you to the written same. we all now agree in a world of limited resources, prosecutorial discretion is unavoidable. you can't go after everyone, you have to prioritize. in the case of immigration, congress has made this explicit. it charged the secretary of homeland security with, and i quote, establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. priorities. that alone would seem to suffice, but in addition, year after year, congress knowingly gives the administration only enough money to pursue less than 4% of the undocumented population. that to me is the clearest evidence possible that congress

intends for d.h.s. to decide how those limited resources can be most effectively deployed. congress has effectly required d.h.s. to prioritize three things -- national security, border security, and the removal of criminal offenders. those are exactly the three priorities that these recent executive action memos incorporated. on top of all that, we have the 2012 supreme court decision in arizona v. u.s. where the court struck down most of arizona's immigration enforcement statute precisely because it would interfere with the federal government's immigration enforcement discretion. the court went on at some length to emphasize the breadth. some critics claim if the recent executive actions are legal, that would mean there are no limits at all and therefore some future president could suspend enforcement of some other law. but dacca and dopa don't even approach the sort of hypothetical nonenforcement that that argument conjures up.

if the president were to refuse to substantially spend the resources congress has appropriated, then i believe we would have a serious legal issue. that's not even close to the present reality. even after daca and dopa are fully operational, the president still will have only enough resources to go after a small percentage. as long as he continues to use those enforcement resources that congress has given him it's hard for me to see how that can be called an abdication. for deferred action specifically, the program has been around for more than 50 years. not only has congress never acted to prohibit it or even restrict it, congress has affirmatively recognized it, by name, in several provisions. the formal agency regulations also recognize it, by name. a long line of courts, including the supreme court, have recognized it by name. not one of these legal authorities, not one, says or even inat this mates that it's legal if the small number of people but otherwise not. the same is true for work permits. the statute authorizes d.h.s. to

grant permission to work, and the regulations specifically make deferred action recipients eligible for them. some extent deferred action is ok on an individual basis but not for a whole class. first of all, nothing in the law actually says that. in fact, almost every modern president has granted reprieves for removal and work permits to large, specifically defined classes of undocumented immigrants. at any rate, the secretary november memo is filled with clear, careful repeated instructions to officers that even if the general criteria in the memo are all satisfied, they still have to make individualized case by case discretionary judgment. in fact, the very form the officers are required to use when they deny deferred action, and denied it more than 32,000 times on the merits, contains a list of the reasons. one of those specific reasons listed is discretion. i think this is the way an agency should work.

it arparticular late general criteria. and expects officers to use the judgment in applying those criteria to individual cases. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member leahy, members of the senate judiciary committee. i thank you for the honor appearing before you. it's a historic moment. looking for the confirmation of the 83rd attorney general of the united states. i want to begin by saying i have great respect for ms. lynch. as i have said before, her extraordinary career as a prosecutor pays great credit to her. and to her nomination. indeed if confirmed, and i hope she is, i believe that she could be a truly great attorney general. if great leaders are shaped at great moments in history this could be such a moment for loretta lynch. the justice department is at the epicenter of a constitutional crisis. a crisis that consumed her predecessor and his department. my focus, therefore, of my

written testimony and my oral testimony today is less on ms. lynch than the department she wishes to lead. as my academic writings indicate i have been concerned about the erosion of lines of separation of powers for many years, particularly the erosion of legislative authority of this body and of the house ups -- house of representatives. that concern has grown to alarm in the last few years under barack obama. someone that i voted for. someone with whom i happen to agree on many issues, including some of the issues involved in these controversies. we are watching a fundamental change in our constitutional system. it's changing in the very way that the framers warned us to avoid. the justice department has played a central and troubling role in those changes. in my view attorney general holder has moved his department outside of the navigational beacons of the first and second articles of our constitution. in that sense, ms. lynch could be inheriting a department that

is floundering. the question is whether she can or will tap back to calmer waters. as discussed in my written testimony, the framers focused on one defining single danger in our system and that is theing a a diesment of power in any one branch or hands. they sought to deny every branch the power to govern alone. our system requires consent and compromise. it goes without saying that when we are politically divided as a nation, as we are today, less things get done. but that division is no license to go it alone as the president has suggested. you have only two voices in the mad sownian system. you -- madisonian system. you can seek to replace your adversaries, you don't get to go it alone. there is nothing noble about circumventing the united states congress because it means you're

circumventing the united states constitution. and any person who claims that they can get the job done alone is giving the very sirens call that the framers warned us against, and one that i hope this body resists. in my testimony, i have laid out examples of how this change is occurring. i have divided it between obstruction of legislative authority and the use of patient legislative authority. the obstruction ever legislative authority includes the blocking of the contempt siteation nondefense of federal statutes, usurpation includes many of the legislative changes that we will be talking about today and has been discussed by others. the american people in my view have been poorly served in recent years by the justice department. the balance that has been sought in recent years has been lost precisely as the framers have feared. the rise of a dominant executive within our system, a type of

uber presidency. it is certainly true that the framers expected much from us, but no more than they demanded from themselves. they expected this institution to fight jealousy over its own authority. they gave you that authority not to protect your power, the separation of power is designed to protect liberty from the concentration of power. it doesn't matter what party we are from and it doesn't matter if we agree with what the president has done, in my view he he has chosen unworthy means under the constitution. and the justice department has been the catalyst for that. in exercising the power of confirmation, this body has an undeniable interest in confirming the nominee will address these relational breaches. these unconstitutional actions. i can only imagine the pride that ms. lynch's family will

have when she raises her hand to take the oath of office. when that moment comes, however there should be a clear understanding as to what she is swearing true faith and allegiance to. as the 83rd attorney general of the united states of america. the department that she leads should be the embodiment not the enemy of the separation of powers. it's a convenant of faith that we have with each other. and i sincerely hope that she regains that faith. as she takes over, as she may, the department of justice. >> chairman grassley and members of the senate judiciary committee. and ranking member leahy. i'm honored to address you this morning about a frequent news topic, american policing at the local level. these hearings are focusing on the confirmation of possibly the next attorney general of the

united states, ms. loretta lynch, and i wish her well. i want to spend some time critiquing outgoing attorney general eric holder's tenure at the united states department of justice and use it as the framework as a way forward. the mission statement of the u.s. d.o.j. says to enforce the law and defend the interest of the united states according to the law. let me repeat that, according to the law. to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic. provide federal leadership and preventing and controlling time. to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior and ensure impartial administration of justice for all americans. in my 36 years in law enforcement, i viewed the united states department of justice as an ally in pursue of justice. local law enforcement has always been on the frontlines of preventing and controlling crime and seeking just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, as the mission of the d.o.j. implies. what i have witnessed from the department of justice under the leadership of attorney general eric holder has been almost

hostility towards local law enforcement. i have seen this in both public statements made about the profession and some of the policy decisions that treats police officers as adversaries instead of allies in the pursuit of justice. partnering with local law enforcement agencies and ensuring the fair treatment of all americans in the pursuit of justice are not mutually exclusive. what we all witnessed in ferguson, missouri, back in august was a tragedy. an unfortunate incident for officer darren wilson and citizen mike brown. what followed however compounded that tragic situation as people across the united states converged on ferguson to exploit the situation for self-serving purposes. suffice it to say that was not america's finest hour. in the days and weeks that followed in ferguson missouri, the police related use of force was forefront in the national news. what was called for at that moment when the u.s. d.o.j.

inserted itself early into the process was an appeal to reasonableness, responsible rhetoric and cautioning against a rush to judgment. instead some very powerful people made statements that only heightened rising tensions. unfortunately, race is has been, and will always been an explosive issue in america. the incendiary rhetoric used by eric holder create add pathway for a false narrative that then became the rallying crying for cop haters across america. it sparked unjustified hatred toward america's law enforcement agencies and its officers. without a shred of evidence a broad brush has been used to unfairly malign the reputation of the profession of policing in the united states. the accusation has been made that our community's finest systematically engaged in the practice of targeting young blackmen because of the color ever their skin. that claim is patently false. and i reject out of hand the mere suggestion of it. if i'm wrong, then someone needs to show me the evidence.

officers at the local level put on their uniforms and go out every day to make their communities better and safer with which to live. without them, our communities would collapse into utter chaos. the world that our officers operate is complex, dynamic, uncertain, and one where unfortunately things can and do go wrong. when that happens, the american law enforcement officer needs to know that after a thorough and transparent investigation the facts and evidence of a particular case will be applied to the rule of law standard for a decision about their actions. after putting their lives on the line, they do not deserve a standard of false narratives preconceptions misconception emotional rhetoric, or racial demagoguery. author and scholar, thomas soul, said in a thought provehicling piece on the rule of law, if police -- who are told they are under arrest and refuse to come with the police cannot be forcibly taken into custody, then we do not have the rule of law when the law itself is

downgraded to suggestions that no one has the power to enforce. so where do we go from here? how do we get beyond this frayed relationship between local police and the u.s. d.o.j.? my suggestion is for the next u.s. attorney general to articulate clearly a renewed commitment to rebuilding trust with local law enforcement. that involves open lines of communication with an emphasis on listening to the suggestion of law enforcement executives and for the nation's sake, please stop undermining the character and integrity of the american law enforcement officer. next, resist at the federal level to interfere with local police training standards. are cops perfect? no, far from it. but they are community's finest. every community is unique and what will work and what will not work. we already have state standards. finally, i want to speak on two emerging issues on the radar screen in criminal justice.

sentencing and prison reform. any discussion about reform in these areas that does not include a counter view about the consequences of this short-term technical fix and impact on crime victims will have a catastrophic consequence on an already stressed black and hispanic communities. the recidivism nature of criminals will cause more minorities to be victimized by violence similar to what happened in milwaukee, a 10-year-old girl shot in the head and killed on a school playground. the shooters were career criminals. the black community does not have the support structures in place for an influx of career criminals sent back into the community or to deal with the habitual criminals who currently rain terror in neighborhoods. adding more crimes and violence in that mix will bring more misery to the overwhelming number of decent black law-abiding citizens just trying to get through life against already great odds.

reform simply lowers the bar is nothing more than normalizing criminal behavior. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman, ranking member leahy, members of the committee. i thank you for the opportunity to testify at this momentous hearing. the committee's rightly focused decided to explore not just the qualifications of the nominee, but also the proper role of the office. i myself take into position on the ultimate question whether the nominee should be confirmed. rather i offer observations about the proper role of the attorney general and comments, alas, on the ways in which the current administration has fallen short of its constitutional obligations. you explored at length the attorney general's weighty responsibility to supervise the various components of the department of justice, but as you know the most important responsibility of attorney general is not the supervision of the tens of thousands who

work beneath her, it's the solemn counsel that she gives to the one who works above. her most important job is giving sound legal advice to the president of the united states. and perhaps the most important dimension of this function is to advise the president on the scope of his executive powers and duties. the attorney general should rightly explore all legal options for the president to achieve his goals, but at the end of the day, if no legal options are available, the attorney general must be prepared to say no mr. president, you have no constitutional power to do that. the fortitude, the rectitude required to say no to the president is perhaps the single most important job criterion for attorney general of the united states. i'm afraid it's particularly important now in an administration that is inclined to press the outer bounds of executive power and skirt the

obligation to take care of the laws be faithfully executed. i hope the committee will thoroughly explore the nominees' conception of the faithful excuse of the laws and advise the president when he runs afoul of this constitutional obligation. the constitution provides that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. first, notice that this is not a grant of power. it is the imposition of a duty. the president shall take care. this is not optional. it's mandatory. second, note that it is personal. execution of the laws may be delegated, but the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed is the president's alone. third, notice that the president is not required to take care of the laws be completely executed. that would be impossible. but -- so the president does have power to make enforcement choices, but he must make them faithfully. finally, it's important to remember the historical context

of the clause, english kings claimed the power to suspend laws unilaterally, the framers rejected this practice. these principles in mind, we can turn to three recent examples, alas there are many more one could choose. first, the obamacare suspension. so on july 2, 2012 just before the long weekend, the obama administration announced the president would unilaterally suspend the employer mandate of obamacare. notwithstanding the unambiguous command of the law. the statute is perfectly clear. it provides that these provisions become effective on january 1, 2014. this blog post written under the breezy orwellian tighting, continuing to implement the a.c.a. in a careful thoughtful manner, makes no mention of this deadline. now, whatever it may mean to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, it simply cannot mean declining to execute

a law at all. second example immigration is almost an exact mirror of the first. in this context rather than declining to comply with the duly enacted statute, the president has decided to comply meticulously but with a bill that never became law. so congress repeatedly considered a statute called the dream act, which would have exempted a broad category of aliens from the i.n.a., but congress declined to pass it, so on june 15, 2012, the president announced he would simply not enforce the i.n.a. against the precise category of aliens described in the dream act. . he announced that the dream act would have been enacted into law though it had not. now, this is clearly not an effort to conserve resources. after all the solicitor general went to the supreme court to forbid arizona from helping to enforce the i.n.a. exempting more than 1.76

million people from the immigration laws goes far beyond any traditional conception of prosecutorial discreppings. now, professor legomosky cited an unsurprising consensus of liberal imdwration law professors approving the most recent action. i'll cite one authority the president of the united states just a few years ago, quote, america is a nation of laws which means i as the president am obligated to enforce the law 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, there are enough laws on the books by congress in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me through executive order ignore these congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. i would hope that nominee would agree with this statement.

my final example is i.r.s. targeting. i'll be happy to answer constitutional questions on that topic as well. thank you. >> good morning, mr. chairman, members of the committee. i'm the founder of "true the vote," a national nonprofit initiative to protect voters right and promote election integrity. i'm here today because i was targeted by this government for daring to speak out. i'm one of the thousands of americans who have become sadly, living examples of this kind of trickle down tyranny is actively endorsed by the current administration and rigorously enforced by the department of justice. over these past few years the department of justice has made their presence very well-known in both my professional and personal life. since filing for tax exemption from the i.r.s. in 2009, my private businesses, my nonprofit organizations and i

personally have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit, inquiry or investigation by federal agencies, including the i.r.s., osha, a.t.f. and the f.b.i. all of these inquisitions began after filing for tax exemption. there is no other remarkable event or rationale to explain how for decades i went unnoticed by the federal government but now find myself on the receiving end of interagency coordination into and against all facets of my life. i shared that same timeline as a part of testimony given in february of 2014 at had a hearing before the house oversight and government reform subcommittee. time did not permit then nor does it now to give a full account of the cast of characters and confluence of events that fill a binder with over 800 pages worth of government subter huge but the department of justice has found its way into almost every aspect of my story. in my attorney's testimony last

year's house hearing she spelled out before the committee why we believe that department of justice investigation into the i.r.s. targeting scandal was in fact a sham. within hours of her filing, she received a phone call from the department of justice. now, suddenly wanting to interview me. it was the first time we had been contacted in approximately nine months after the investigation purportedly commenced. an arrangement was made by the department of justice public integrity division but we were then told that civil rights division would also be participating in my interview. now, this is significant because at the time that same civil rights division was fighting against true the vote in a courtroom back in texas trying to prevent us from becoming an intervening party for the state in voter i.d. litigation that the department of justice had brought against them. the d.o.j. told my attorney that unless i was willing to waive my rights and obligations

to involvement -- to the involvement of the civil rights division that they would not interview me at all. and to date they still have not. a handful of months later we met the department of justice in court again. this time as they represented the internal revenue service in a lawsuit true the vote filed against the i.r.s. in 2013. the d.o.j. assured the judge that there was no more evidence that could be recovered from any of the hard drive crashes that had befallen i.r.s. employees named in our suit. all of the contents from all of the hard drives was certainly irrevocably lost. this purported dead end in discovery became the judge's ultimate decision to miss our case. yet, just one month later the treasury inspector general's investigation turned up an additional 2.5 million emails of which 30,000 were lois lerner's. is there the will to ever get to the truth behind this nightmare of citizen targeting?

for six years the department of justice has operated as an increasingly rogue agency where personal liberties runs a district distant second of preservation of political power. will this new leadership be any different? as a leader of a voter rights organization i was extremely dispinted to hear ms. lynch's comments in a speech she made in los angeles last february when she said that voter i.d. laws were passed in the deep south so that, as i quote, minority voters would be disenfranchised. and further, that she applauded d.o.j.'s lawsuits filed against those states having i.d. programs and promised that those lawsuits would continue. 70% of americans believe that showing photo identification in order to vote is a commonsense safeguard to our electoral process. should we count on continued resistance from the department of justice led by loretta lynch? in fact, the most significant voter disenfranchisement threat

currently facing our country was made possible by the president's recent order of executive amnesty. states are not prepared to deal with the coming influx of illegal aliens wanting social service programs like medicaid, medicare and federal driver's licenses. they say they offer voter registration opportunities which is a wonderful thing for american citizens but these programs were not designed to verify citizenship leaving states without the necessary fire walls to ensure that noncitizens do not end up as registered voters. and every vote cast by a noncitizen disenfranchises the vote of a citizen. we know mr. holder is a proponent of amnesty. where will ms. lynch stand on the issue? in a 2009 speech, general holder called america a nation of cowards. well if you remember nothing else from my comments, please remember this. i am not a coward and i'm not a

victim. i'm a messenger for all of those americans who love our country, love our fellow countrymen and pray for a better tomorrow, and i'm here to say our country right now is at a tipping point. we have replaced rule of law with moral relatively, we've removed truth with political correctness and in all of the double speak and double think we have become increasingly unsteady about how we the people factor into a future left into the hands of our current leaders. so please be bold, please choose wisely because america's watching. thank you. >> and now ms. engelbrecht, i'll call in just a minute or 30 seconds i'll call on professor -- not professor. chairman leahy to ask the first questions because he can't come back this afternoon but would you go ahead senator hatcher?

>> i want to say that we're thoroughly investigating this. the only issue we have to report so far is that the, as you mentioned, there were 30,000 more emails finally discovered. and the investigative arm of i.r.s. has not yet released those to us and we're going to have to go through those before we issue a final report. you have my total sympathy for what you've gone through. >> thank you, senator. >> he's speaking as chairman of the finances committee. -- of the fn committee. >> senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your courtesy. i'd ask consent to put in the record -- >> without objection. >> former f.b.i. director, we all know very well supporter of loretta lynch and congressman john lewis. a number of justice department officials, both the bush

administrations and various democratic administrations, f.b.i. agents association. i won't list all of them but they could all be part of the record. >> they will, senator leahy. >> we have nine witnesses here today. with those who oppose loretta lynch as f.b.i. director would they please raise their hand? i mean as attorney general, i'm sorry. i was thinking of lieu eye. those who oppose her as f.b.i. -- as attorney general, will they please raise their hand? no hands were raised.

it's amazing your record, you started off as a beat cop in nevada joined the f.b.i. and 23 years later you're heading up the f.b.i.'s largest field office. and like many here, i was briefed during that time with some of the investigations you had under way, especially in the terrorist area. remarkable in their complexities. you also dealt, as you said with loretta lynch during that time. do you believe she has a temperament and the demeanor to be the attorney general? >> senator my two years exposure working alongside loretta -- and i say alongside because it truly was a seamless partnership, i think gives me a little bit of background and experience to be able to say that i firmly believe that loretta lynch possesses all of

the necessary attributes that the nation should demand of an independent attorney general and i wholeheartedly support her nomination and confirmation. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth. would you say she would make independent judgments? >> yes sir. in fact, that was part of my opening statement, the fact one of the three atributes that i wanted to touch upon was the fact that she operated independently, did not bow to outside influences, looked at the facts, looked at the issues . when she was confronted with an issue, she gathered input from share -- stakeholders solicited their input, took a look at the law, made sure that her decisions were wholly based on the facts and the law and independently arrived at.

>> your career in law enforcement is a lot longer than my career in law enforcement, but i know during my years in law enforcement what we wanted was was independence and i appreciate that. mr. bar low, nice to have you -- mr. barlow, nice to have you back here. usually we see you in the other committee room. do you believe that loretta lynch has the independence to stand up to others in the executive branch including the president, if she feels she is in the right and has to stand up to do her job as attorney general? >> yes, senator, i do. in my experience working with her and working through any number of different issues, seeing her in a variety of different circumstances, i have always known her to be thoughtful, well prepared and someone who is interested in the facts and the law. i don't believe the president or anyone on this earth could get her to make a decision that

she did not believe was right and had a firm basis in where her duty was at that moment. >> in louie's letter, he said her being part of the group of going to italy for the funeral of one of the top mafia fighters someone that both director free and i had known and she was there with him for that because of -- organized crime. as i've known her peripherally over the years and more since the nomination, but dr. newsome, you've known her longer than all of the rest of us. do you believe she would stand up for what she believes is right no matter who she might be getting pressure from, president, me, senator grassley or you? >> or me. [laughter] >> absolutely, senator.

>> use your mic please. >> absolutely senator leahy. she would demonstrate independence in the most constructive of ways. one of her greatest atributes, as already been noted, is her ability to hold forth with the strength of her own convictions, having prepared herself thoroughly, thought through matters very, very comprehensively, having identified the issues in a way that she could communicate her position in a way that would garner nothing but the highest of respect. >> i talked about yesterday about as a young law student being recruited by the then-attorney general of the united states to come to work for him and i'd asked him whether he would stand up to the president of the united states if need me, he assured me he would. later he did when he prosecuted a man who was essential to the

election of the president as president. and when i asked him later about that, i said, attorney general robert kennedy, what was the reaction? i stayed away from family gatherings a little while. and president turley, i've seen you many, many times. the house republicans have hired you to sue the administration in another area and taxpayers will pay your fee . this could cost as much as $3 million. they're not paying you $3 million, are they? >> i'm certainly open to that, senator leahy, but, no, no one's offered me $3 million. >> what is the hourly rate you do charge? >> i think it's -- the hourly rate's set by the contract, not

by me, it's top at $500. i seem to recall that. i want to correct something. i'm actually working not for the house republicans but for the house of representatives. they voted to approve the -- >> republican vote. partisan vote, you know. not to put two -- do you get paid for your testimony here today? >> oh, no, of course not. >> thank you. i thought it had -- actually, the question i asked first was probably the one that i appreciated the answer the most when no hands went up and i hope we can move on. many of you have questions about past operations of the department of justice. i have some disagreements with that but i think we're talking about the remaining time of

this administration department of justice. as a former prosecutor and as the longest serving member of the senate and one who has voted on a lot of attorneys general, both republicans and democrats, i feel very, very confident in voting for loretta lynch as attorney general and again, i thank you, mr. chairman, for your courtesy. >> you bet. >> i'm going to start out with ms. attkisson. i don't know what's wrong with this microphone. can someone fix it? in your testimony, you say you have a long career of the best -- i'm sure you dealt with

pushback from powerful people before. what makes the last few years different? >> i defer somewhat to some of my colleagues that i voted in my opening statement who said this was in their experience, which is longer than mine, the most difficult administration they've dealt with. ann compton, another correspondent, said this is the most closed president she's dealt with in seven presidents she's covered. i say it as a high point on a trajectory and continuum meaning every administration seems to be worse than the last. although they come in promising openness and transparency, they seem to pick up where the last one left off. and there hasn't been as much pushback, i think, from congress and the media in some cases, to keep that balance because of course the government tends to for whatever reason covet

information, separate itself from the public and treat itself as one and apart. but we're supposed to help create a balance so it doesn't get out of whack. and i think we haven't done a very good job at that in the last couple of years. additionally, this administration has employed very aggressive techniques that have available to it that were not available years ago such as using social media and surrogate bloggers to put out false information to controversialize any reporters who dare to do the normal oversight reporting that we've done in other administrations and i think that's been somewhat successful. >> you say in your testimony that you were once -- briefing a justice department. what reasons were you given? >> a briefing was called on fast and furious and i was sent over to the office, but tracy, the press officer, called back immediately and said, don't bother to come, that she wouldn't clear me in the building. although i have press pass, i have bean cleared to the f.b.i. to walk up to the president of

the united states, but she wasn't going to clear me through building security. she didn't give a reason other than to just say they only wanted the normal beat reporters to attend. i can't tell you how improper that is, in my view, how improper it is that government officials who control public assets would misuse their authority to in essence hand pick the reporters who get to cover the story i think in essence the way they'd rather it be covered and keep out in some cases more knowledgeable reporters who've been covering that particular issue. that had never happened to me before. i never tried to go there afterwards. it didn't happen to me afterwards, but i think that was a very important thing that was done and i think it was very improper. >> do you think any of your colleagues and fellow journalists pull punches because they think they might be barred? >> i don't personally know. i think the reporters on the ground do a great job, but i do know there are managers and editors and i've spoken to

executives from three networks who have given instances in which they've been civically threatened with loss of some sort of access if the news organization takes a particular news course. so that threat of access is definitely felt. >> my next question gets to the fact that we aren't here to talk about her qualifications. i don't think anybody questions that, but whether she can make changes in the department of justice. what do you think needs to be done to correct the chilling effect on the press over the last few years? >> sometimes i think it's more than just the physical steps that are taken. it's an action that's seen and a message that's perceived. right now regardless of steps that have been taken to mitigate damage that's been done, there's still a large distrust of the justice department. in some cases government in general. there are members of congress and staff and whistleblowers and other journalists who commonly talk about the idea

that they believe, whether it's true or not, that they believe they're being monitored on their phones or computers and /or computers. how you get past that suspicion that's been created by the actions that we've seen, it's going to be difficult. one very tangible thing that can be done and i think needs to be done and i won't belabor it but has to do with freedom of information law which is pretty much pointless and senseless now in its application at the federal level. it does no good. it's been used instead of facilitate the release of information. it's been used to destruct and delay the release of public information. it's no good. even if you do go to court to get your public documents, that's a taxpayer expense. it still serves the purpose of delay, that the bureaucracy wishes to serve. and at the end, even if they have to play the plaintiff's fees, it's done with our tax dollars, and basically the federal agency gets rewarded for a job well done because they've been able to obscure and delay the release of these

public documents. so foia is extremely broken at the federal level. >> just to make clear, you felt your computer was hacked, you filed for information on it and you still don't have an answer, is that right? >> that's right. the f.b.i., i think, something like -- i filed a request just in general for information 540 days ago. response is due in something like 20 business days but this is typical of foia responses. i got a very partial incomplete response last night to a foia request that i made at the department of justice inspector general which did not include the forensics that supposedly came along with some conclusions and summaries they made so that will be a process that who knows if i'll ever get the documents i've been asking for for months. but this is very typical, reporters will tell you and citizens and consumers, of their efforts to obtain easily accessible public information or information that should be easily accessible. >> ms. engelbrecht may 20,

2013, general holder announced that he ordered the department of justice conduct a criminal investigation within the i.r.s. of targeting conservatives at the time. the attorney general called the i.r.s. practices quote-unquote outrageous and run acceptable. when did the department of justice first reach out to you or your lawyer to learn the details of your ordeal? >> we heard nothing from the department of justice right up until the day before we were to testify before the house subcommittee. my attorney and i were both prepared to testify. my attorney filed her testimony in which we were very critical of what had happened at that point and it was not hours later that the department of justice called for the first time to ask to speak with us. so nine months, approximately. >> so after nine months, general holder ordered the investigation, reach out to you and what prompted them to do so? do you have any idea? >> i think it was -- i think it

was that testimony that was filed that left no stone unturned about what we already experienced. >> so let me get this straight. attorney general holder announces an investigation into the i.r.s.'s targeting of tax-exempt groups like yours and nine months later it takes a congressional hearing for you to be contacted by the attorneys at the department of justice. you just said yes to that. >> yes, sir. >> that's disgraceful. to your knowledge, who did they talk to before they reached out to you? >> certainly we saw over the news they were talking to lois lerner and others inside the department. i was in very regular contact with lots of other leaders of other organizations that had been targeted. best of my knowledge, no one has been contacted, still, by the department of justice. >> mr. chairman, i would note that the alabama tea party

leader who was victimized has still not been investigated, even been interviewed even though i directly asked the f.b.i. director to do so a long time ago. >> then, so to date, you've not been interviewed by the f.b.i.? >> no, sir. they did ask about nine months ago but it was upon the contention that they would be allowed to have the civil rights division in and i was not -- i was not willing to do that because the civil rights division had already been on record opposing my organization. >> ok. well i don't blame you for declining to speak to the department of justice. if i had been subjected to 15 audits and inquiries from four different federal agencies in less than three years, i would only want to meet with a neutral and fair investigator and certainly not a person who had been appointed to do this investigation, who also had an outstanding record as president

obama's campaign donor. one final question. has the department of justice or anyone else for that matter, advise you why four powerful federal agencies descended upon your doorstep? >> no, sir, but i'd sure like to know. >> you know, i'm at a loss here. let me check from my staff if i need to -- ok. senator hatch. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i really appreciate what you've gone through. i can't say much about it because of 6103 authority, but we are going to get to the bottom of it. >> thank you sir. >> we've already gotten quite a bit to the bottom of it. i want to come back for at least a few minutes to thank this panel of witnesses for contributing to the confirmation process regarding ms. lynch's nomination. i'm going to be a strong supporter of her nomination. and i believe she's not only qualified but exceptionally

well qualified and a very good person. i especially want to recognize david barlow, who's here today that served as a u.s. attorney in my home state of utah for three years, and before that worked on this committee as chief attorney for my companion here in the senate, senator lee. professor turley welcome back. >> thank you senators. >> yesterday, i asked ms. lynch whether the attorney general has the duty to defend the constitutionality of duly enacted laws, if there are reasonable arguments to do so. you discussed this in your prepared statement and i want your comment on one specific issue that i raised. attorney general holder did not decide never to defend the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act but to stop defending its constitutionality. his own justice department lawyers had already been making reasonable