it undermines the lawful rights of u.s. workers, including african-american workers and hispanic suffering from high unemployment. i ask about what she might do to protect the lawful rights of u.s. workers. they are entitled not to have jobs taken by them from someone who entered the country unlawfully. here is the exchange. who has more right to a job in this country? a lawful immigrant who is here someone with a green card or a citizen or person who entered the country unlawfully? lynch, they believe the right and obligation to work is one

shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. if someone is here regardless of status, i would prefer they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace. i know she corrected that and backed off the statement. i would say this is the president's policy. the president's policy is to allow people unlawfully here to take jobs in america, a policy she explicitly stated she intends to defend. she will use the power of the department of justice to defend this action, which is a direct affront to the congress of the united states. it was not a casual statement when i asked her that. this is the policy the president

is planning on executing right now. i believe this is a historic moment. professor jonathan turlock testified before this committee. he has described the situation we are in today as a constitutional turning point and i would like to read from his testimony. it was delivered before the house in february of 2014 nine months before the president issued this order. he said the current activity of congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular

policy gains. the short-term insular victories achieved by this president will, the prohibitive cost if the current in balance is not corrected. constitutional authority is easy to lose in the shift of holiday. it's far more difficult to regain. if a passion for the constitution does not motivate members or perhaps the sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. president obama will not be our last president. however, these acquired powers will be passed on to his successors. when that occurs, members middle of the day they remain silent -- members may loathe the day they remain silent. the powers will remain.

we're at the constitutional tipping point of our system. if the balance is to be reestablished it must again before this president leaves office, and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. that is what the professor said in his testimony. i would vote no on this nomination and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so. we are allowing the president to erode and destroy the voice and the rights of the people. it does provide support to the president's agenda. i don't think we should provide that support. this is a matter all of us will

have to wrestle with. it's not an easy question, but i think it's clear it's time for congress to say no. the department provided the legal opinion that allows the president to carry out his agenda. we should not confirm someone to that position who intends to continue that unlawful policy. >> thank you. >> i'm so glad this committee is finally moving to a vote on loretta lynch's nomination. she has already been pending longer than any nomination in recent history. i want to take a moment to commend her on her performance. i thought she was levelheaded,

courteous, and incredibly thoughtful from constitutional questions to personal questions and everything in between. she knocked it out of the park. i am discouraged by what i am hearing from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about why they are voting against her. i know some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been waging all-out war against the president immigration policies. first, they wanted to hold up funding for the department of homeland security unless the president's policies were overturned. fortunately, my colleagues are helping us move past that impasse. we hope that house will do the same in short order, but some of my friends on the other side are saying we should hold up loretta lynch to get the president to overturn his executive orders. let me be crystal clear. the place for this battle is in the courts.

political fights over immigration should not hold up loretta lynch, dhs funding or anything else -- especially at this crucial and delicate time in our nation security but hard right, upset over the immigration policies, is grasping at straws to have a fight over immigration. loretta lynch, a supremely qualified nominee, should never have been pulled into the fray. we are happy to debate immigration on merits, but we refuse to allow a monkeywrench to be thrown into the process of governing and protecting this nation over political disagreements. i have to tell you, i feel i am in the twilight zone this week. it's like enough time to --

alternative reality. they are blocking the funding for dhs and blocking the chief law-enforcement officer. regardless of your views on the president's executive order, loretta lynch has proven beyond a reasonable doubt she would be an outstanding attorney general. the other objection i hear is ms. lynch has not answered questions. let me be clear. she has answered more questions over 800 -- than any other nominee in history. her responses have not been different from her predecessors. in response he said, as i am not

familiar with the specifics of the backlog, i cannot give a responsible or informed estimate. i agree it is critical for the departments to have sufficient resources. i also asked if he thought that he is -- thought the doj muted stronger tools, and he answered, i have not studied it to offer comment. these are the same as what my colleagues are complaining about ms. lynch is saying. i voted for judge mckay's he -- judge mckay ccasey. i don't think this objection has a lot of credibility. i would urge my colleagues not to be folded by some of the overhyped rhetoric and -- not to

be fooled by some of the overhyped rhetoric. i want to remind my colleagues you aren't voting today for or against the president's policies. you averting on this eminently qualified law enforcement refreshable, a first-rate legal mind, and someone committed in her bones to the equal application of justice for all people. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you for taking up the justice for victims of trafficking act today. i particularly want to express my gratitude for serving as my co-authors and sponsors of this important legislation. senator feinstein and senator schumer deserves they. i hope -- thanks.

i hope we are successful in passing this important legislation. the fight against human trafficking is one of the most important human rights issues of our time. in 1865 the 13th amendment was ratified outlying slavery in the united date for ever. yet nearly 150 years later -- united states forever. yet nearly 150 years later people will wake up to forced prostitution. we're here to put an end to that nightmare. at its core the act is about breaking down barrier about victims, law enforcement, and society by developing a holistic approach. if we are going to end slavery in the united states, we need to inc. big and keep the victims and mine. this will tackle human trafficking head-on by enacting tough financial penalties for

sexual predators and sending these to victims of these crimes. a victim of human trafficking in the united states should never be turned away for the healing services he or she needs. this bill will put a down payment down on our commitment to brave children, women and men who are survivors of some of the most unspeakable acts. holistic approach to ending modern-day slavery will require to forcibly and the exploitation associated with this crime. the act will help us achieve that by giving law-enforcement additional tools and resources they need. finally, the legislation will help to end the culture of impunity responsible for human trafficking by making sure every individual involved in the sexual exploitation of human beings should be brought to swift and certain justice. to eliminate human trafficking

in the united states, we need this type of comprehensive approach, focusing not just on supply but on demand. the days of tolerated commercialized sexual violence have come to an end. this will take important steps towards that goal. i am proud the act is endorsed by more than 200 victims rights associations across the country including the human rights for girls, the natural center -- national center for missing and exploited children, the national children's alliance, and the national conference of state legislators. it's time for this legislation to become law. i urge my colleagues to join me in making this a reality. if i can turn to the nominations before us, in particular for attorney general. there is no doubt in my mind loretta lynch is an accomplished attorney with an impressive

record. her unwillingness to answer my questions and those of some of my colleagues prevents me from supporting her nomination. i know almost know more about her understanding of the law after a daylong hearing than i did before she appeared before the committee. six years ago i was one of the few to oppose the nomination of eric holder as attorney general because i was concerned he would politicize the department of justice in ways that had never been done before. i was concerned his record betrayed a fealty to politics above the law and that he would be unwilling to serve as a check on the president if the president overstepped his legal boundaries. in my view attorney general holder's tenure has been a disaster. he is the first attorney general to my knowledge who has been held in contempt of congress for failing to cooperate with the

oversight responsibilities of congress and he has enabled the president to commit violations after violations of the constitution and our laws. i invited ms. lynch to distinguish herself. she took a pass. among other things, her conclusion that the legal foundation is reasonable demonstrated either an unwillingness to oppose illegal actions by this president or a flawed understanding of the constitution. neither is acceptable. she failed to acknowledge what the president himself said 22 different times publicly before he issued this executive order last november and the judgment of a district judge ruling brought by 26 states in brownsville, texas recently. i cannot support her nomination. i do wish her well and hope her record will be better that mr. holders. after six years of the obama

administration we have all learned hope is not enough. i want to a knowledge those who have been nominated to serve as district judges for the district of texas. each of them bring the qualifications, experience, and commitment to public service we need in the judiciary. i want to thank the good works of the evaluation committee as well as the white house counsel's office, whose work with these nominees. these nominees demonstrate how we can work together to get qualified nominees on the bench regardless of party affiliation. i am pleased to support these nominees and appreciate your putting them on the agenda. >> thank you. >> before any of us conserve and the united states senate, we stand in the well of the senate chamber and take an oath to uphold and defend the

constitution of the united states. i know we take that seriously, as we should. this is not just another government document. it is the inspiration and still governs our actions to this day yet if we view this document with honesty, we know it was fatally flawed from the start. it got the issue of slavery wrong in addition to other issues. it got the issue of race wrong and since the document was drafted and signed, we have struggled to right that wrong. it has taken a long time. we celebrate the moment in history where we move beyond the error on race and moved to a new path. a republican president of the united states abraham lincoln

issued an executive order. the emancipation proclamation which freed 3 million slaves in america. it is proper we celebrate that moment, because america stepped forward because of that president's courage and the use of his executive power. we also are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the march across the bridge in selma, alabama. it is fitting and proper numbers of president lincoln's party the republican party, and democratic party members are cosponsoring legislation to give a congressional gold medal to those who marched across that bridge and risked their lives to further the cause of civil rights. it's not only fitting and proper. it's necessary, but it's not sufficient. what we are required to do is to stand behind those elements and

moments of history where we can further the cause of civil rights. i am saddened that what was once the strong bipartisan issue the voting rights act, has become a partisan issue but for one brave republican house member. it has become a partisan issue and we have forgotten why they were marching across that bridge in selma. it is about the voting rights act, which has been politicized. let's reflect on the moment we have before us today. this is the first african-american woman in the history of the united states who would serve as our attorney general. this is a solemn and historic moment for america. to say she is unqualified or doesn't deserve a vote because she agrees with the president on the issue of executive orders i believe is fundamentally unfair.

what else would you expect from her? she is serving at the invitation of this president. the issue of whether one side is right and the other side is wrong will ultimately be decided in the courts. it has already started. to hold her responsible because she stands by the president? i came away from the hearing with one clear message. it was no way any republican senator on this committee was going to vote for the renomination of eric holder as attorney general, but that wasn't the issue before us. the issue was whether loretta lynch could serve as attorney general. having watched a lot of witnesses, including some used ordinary witnesses like john roberts, i cannot remember a better more professional and complete presentation by any witness before the committee. no one laid a look -- a glove on this lady because she is so good.

we cannot join unanimously on a bipartisan basis and celebrate the civil rights achievement today. >> thank you, senator durbin. i have stated previously some concerns i have with ms. lynch. many of them are similar to those described by my colleagues in this committee today. rather than rehash all of those i will refer back to the basic concern i have and it will cause me to vote against this nominee. she is a very bright lawyer. she has had a successful career. i have concerns about her willingness to stand as an

independent evaluator of the legality and comp due to civility of the administration's actions that have caused great concern. i hoped and expected my concerns would be alleviated during the hearings we held. they were intensified at the hearing. that was a source of disappointment for me. as for bills under consideration, and the last congress i was leased to support the important legislation to protect the victims of trafficking. i hope to be able to do so again today, but i think some of that may depend on the outcome of our votes on some of the amendments. i support senator blumenthal's amendment and have unanimous consent. there are some that cause concern, including the proposals

dealing with other grant programs that i can support. i also got concerns with one amendment that will create a strict liability of fence that would carry a massive -- maximum mandatory penalty. we can have debates about the use of maximum mandatory penalties, but i would hope they would have a minimum we could agree about as the substantive injustice and threat to liberty that can be presented i applying severe criminal punishment without requiring the government to prove the defendant acted with intent to commit the crime at issue, acted with a guilty state of mind.

i hope we can stand behind the basic risible that people in our system are innocent until proven guilty and that the government is the one that carries the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding especially where we are talking about a mandatory penalty. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a statement i would like to put in the record if i may have consent to do that. i would like to make two observations prompted by what i have heard today. the first is this is an historic nomination for a country with the record on the issue of race

our country has to now be presented with the first female african-american attorney general nominee in our history is not nothing. it is significant. it significant in our history. how we react to it is also significant in our history. the republican committee staff have had months and months to do their job of crawling through her background and history to look for damaging information. that is the prerogative of the staff. that's what they do. i do not fault them for doing that. what's noteworthy is after all that link the effort, at the hearing not one witness could be produced. not one. to oppose her nomination.

senator leahy made it very clear when we asked the panel if any of you oppose the nomination. it's that we brought those who had grievances against the department of justice but nothing ill to say about this nominee. we have a completely unblemished nominee, yet down the other side of the aisle come the warnings we must vote no. she may disagree with you about the president's immigration policy and i have to say i disagree with you as well. i'm not asking you to change your opinions about the president's immigration policy

but i do think there is something fundamentally unfair about punishing another person for holding another view that your own. there is an element -- another view that your own -- than your own. there is an element of impatience. this country was founded by a gathering that have a lot of disagreements. at the end of that gathering mr. franklin stood, and he asked -- let us gentlemen doubt a little bit of our own infallibility. and adopt this constitution and make this start. i would simply ask each of us

doubt about our infallibility not to punish someone simply for disagreeing with our views. i, too, disagree with your views. i think the position is reasonably held. my last point is there was an anonymous amount of criticism of attorney general holder during the course of the nomination hearing, but i took time to defend him then and take the time to defend him now because i think the criticism is wrong and unfair. it is particularly unfair to suggest the attorney general has politicized the office in ways that had never been done before. immediately before, we had attorney general gonzales, who we cleared the white house counsel from the point of view of independence. we lived through the u.s.

attorney scandal. we lived through the torture memos scandal. we lived through the hiring political litmus test scandal. we lived through the civil rights division's gamble and the scandal of politicization that surrounded the office that even formerly republican appointed united states attorney were horrified and made their views public and the attorney general of the united it was forced to resign. in my view eric holder has done a remarkable job of cleaning up that mess, and it is both unfair and wrong to try to put him in the category from which he pulled the department through his leadership. the rest of my statement i will just have in the record. >> thank you. >> today the committee is set to

consider 11 nominees. i intend to support 10 of those nominees. among those nominees are three judges in the state of texas. judge bennett, judge hanks, and judge olvera. me and all of those of nominees participated in the federal judiciary. a bipartisan committee of experienced practitioners throughout the state of texas. i would note of those nominees, two are african-american, one is an hispanic judge. all three have earned reputation for fairly and impartially applying the law. all three came through the bipartisan judicial evaluation committee with flying colors. all three impressed us with

their record and their intention to remain faithful to the law. i am pleased to see the committee moving forward on those nominations. among the 11 nominees being considered is miss loretta lynch. like many members of the committee i am an alumnus of the department of justice. the department for centuries has built a tradition of remaining above the partisan fray. the remaining faithful to the law and not engaging in partisan battles. like many in this body i have been saddened and horrified to see the current attorney general eric holder break that tradition. to turn the department of justice into a partisan arm rather than an institution

faithfully upholding the law. i would be very happy to see a new attorney general who would remain faithful to the lot leading the department. in her tenure as district attorney in new york she has earned a reputation with practitioners with whom i have spoken. as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor. i came into the hearing with high hopes. i must say however that the answers she gave in this hearing and in my judgment render her unsuitable for the position. i wish that were not the case.

she had apple -- ample opportunity to make clear where she stood. the most difficult thing to do is to stand up to the president who had the courage to a pointer. it was asked, what would you expect her to do? i would expect an attorney general nominee to candidly state she would be faithful to the law and constitution and not simply rubberstamp the authority of the president. the answers she gave at the hearing were nothing short of breathtaking. when she was asked how she would different -- when she was asked about president obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty which i might note, no less a legal scholar than barack

obama, has 22 times noted the lack's the authority to issue an amnesty i would note just last week a federal district court declared illegal. she pledged to support executive amnesty saying she found the legal justification reasonable. it doesn't just stop at that, it is not an attorney general who will carry out this illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty, she went much further. when she was asked, in her legal judgment with the theory of -- would the theory of prosecutorial discretion allow president obama to extend amnesty to all 12 million people illegally, she refused to answer that question. when miss lynch was asked if in her understanding the subsequent president could instruct the treasury department to no longer

collect taxes in excess of 25% she refused to answer that question. when she was asked if a subsequent president exercising her theory of prosecutorial discretion could instruct the federal government that no federal labor law or environmental lot would be enforced in anyway against the state of texas she refused to answer that question. that was by design an absurd hypothetical. the answer is no that is patently unconstitutional. throughout the course of the hearing, miss lynch consistently refused to acknowledge any limitation whatsoever on the authority of the president of the united states. over and over again. which was asked if she were a

greek -- if she agreed with the holder position that the government could place a gps tracker on the automobile of every single american with no probable cause, a position i might note that was rejected unanimously by united states supreme court she refused to answer that question. when she was asked if she agreed with the holder justice department's position that the first amendment provide no protection whatsoever for a church or synagogue selecting its pastor, priest or rabbi, a position also rejected an aunt -- unanimously by the supreme court, she refused to answer. when miss lynch was asked if she believed the federal government could constitutionally use a drone to kill an american citizen on american soil that posed no imminent threat at the hearing, she refused to answer that question.

when she was asked about the irs targeting of american citizens. -- when miss lynch was asked if she would be willing to go a different path than eric holder not to assign that so-called investigation to a partisan democrat who was a major donor of president obama and the democratic party but instead to follow the path that elliott richardson took under richard nixon and that janet reno took under bill clinton of appointing a special prosecutor to faithfully and fairly investigate corruption and an abuse of power, she refused to answer. i would note to my friends on the side of the aisle. every one of us is deeply dismayed by the lawlessness of

eric holder. but there is a difference, he began disregarding the law after he was confirmed. in this instance miss lynch sat in this room and told members of the committee what she intends to do if those answers are not sufficient to vote against a nominee i don't know what answers would be. because of those of us who vote for her, we should not be surprised if president obama comes back trying to grant amnesty to 12 million instead of 4 million. we should not be surprised if over the next two years we continue to see abuse of power and abuse of executive authority, regulatory abuse and the department of justice rubberstamping it over and over. when a nominee for attorney general cannot identify any

limit on the authority of the president each of us are on notice. she has told us our views. in my view no senator who is serious should be willing to confirm any attorney general republican or democrat, who is unwilling to stand up for the constitution in limiting the president who appointed them. for that reasonably the only responsible course of action for the summit -- senate is to reject the nomination. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to all the members. as was listening to our colleague senator cruz talking

about loretta lynch on the sinking of your last statement how people should be unwilling to confirm someone that has somehow, in your view, not upheld the law. i was thinking of one issue which is a major one for colleagues. this is the immigration issue. the fact that the president has issued this executive order and that loretta lynch has said she felt that this was correct under the law. every president since eisenhower has issued such an order and presumably this means they were advised by their attorney general's, many who are confirmed or voted for by people in this room that it was ok to do that. you look at george h.w. bush, 1.5 million immigrants involved in an executive order. for those of my republican colleagues that were around at that time, i assume that his attorney general said that was legal and that the attorney general was voted for by the

committee. i see that senator cruz is getting up right now but i do believe when he said her performance with breathtaking, i thought it was breathtaking as i looked at her father reverend lynch how well she did at that hearing and how well she was able to answer the questions put before her. the other thing, i cannot help but look at this rag manically when my constituents woke up to a video -- pragmatically, when my constituents woke up to a video when a spokesman from house of bob said he would target our mall in minnesota -- from al-shabaab, said he would target our mall in minnesota and across the country. they have the ability to take on those cases. for my constituents that is a real positive.

when i hear my friends for so many years talking about how they don't like eric holder and they say he has been lawless this is answer opportunity to put somebody else into the office. the last thing i would say based on our collies talking about likening this to a business interview in the last hearing, i have done those interviews i was in the private sector and i believe a ceo should be able to put a general counsel in. it's different but the ceo here is the president of united states and he wants to put a counsel in and we waited months and months and the issue was raised how can we make this decision on a 10 minute job interview? it was an eight hour job interview. our colleagues were welcomed to stay for the entire interview and to conduct their own interviews in their own office and look at hundreds of pages of documents and ask whatever questions they wanted.

they may not have been happy with the answers but to say she was somehow disqualified because the process wasn't long enough and there wasn't enough of an interview is wrong. i am very pleased to vote for her today and i'm glad some of our republican colleagues are doing the same. molly's reminded of senator bram's comments who said if john mccain had won that election there would've been different people in front of us but he said, my job is not whether or not i agree with every position they take her every position the president takes, my job is to decide if they are qualified. if they have the ability to make those decisions and i believe that is our job right now with regard to loretta lynch. a woman who is confronted some of the obstacles in her life as only her dad no. a woman who when she took the test was told we don't think you got that score said i will take

it again and score it even higher. a woman who, when she became the valedictorian was asked if she would share it with a white student so it wouldn't be controversial, her parents said ok, fine. she has waded through the confirmation process and she will be a great attorney general. i would like to comment on the bipartisan work done on the sex trafficking bill, i am so grateful that our senators have worked on the agenda for this hearing today and that we are not only -- that we also have my bill and the state harbor bill. i am grateful for all the members of this committee that cosponsored the bill. i want to focus very briefly on my bill which is the safe harbor bill version which is very

similar and already passed the house of representatives and creates incentives for states to look at adopting laws like one dozen states have already done because you will not go after victims of prostitution. just this last week we had a 12-year-old girl who gets attacked at her party. she goes to the parking lot at mcdonald's and the guy puts her in a car and brings her to the twin cities and rapes her. he then takes sexually explicit pictures, threatens to hurt her family, puts those pictures on craigslist and seltzer to two men who also raped her off of craigslist. -- and sells her to two men who also raped her, off of craigslist. that's what happens. that's why it is important that it is supported by many sex trafficking groups across the country.

it creates a national sex trafficking strategy and includes a very important strategy that senator sessions and senator whitehouse worked on together. most importantly it creates incentives for states to do what has been working in so many states and that is treating his young girls as victims, giving them the services they need so they can turn their lives around and making sure they can build stronger cases against the perpetrators that are running these rings. i appreciate republican support for this bill because it is a new approach. it is looking at this differently and it means a lot to me. i want to thank my colleagues for their support and the work that needs to be done going forward. >> senator flake. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will support her nomination today, i have always felt that it is -- i don't agree with

every decision she put forward and i disagree with the president's executive action for example and she thinks it was reasonable to put forward. but like i said my position is not to agree with every position taken. there are differing opinions on this. anyone who attended the hearings were she came forward had to be impressed with her background and experience and the opinions of people who have worked with her in the past and that has been uniformly positive. there is one issue that has come

up since with regard to the executive action on february 17. the judge of the southern district of texas issued an order. since the department of justice has asked the injunction be limited simply to the state of texas, some of us thought it might be important to determine whether or not she agreed with that position and if, more importantly, if the district court rules -- the circuit court to keep this in junction whether she at the department of justice would abide by it. myself and senator hatch and senator ram sent a letter to miss lynch and asked will you commit to follow the district court injunction against the implementation of president obama's november 2000 14

executive action until the injunction is lifted or stayed by the court of appeals? nubber two will you commit to follow the injunction as it is worded specifically as it applies nationwide and not limit the application to the state of texas unless the court of appeals or supreme court limits the scope of its jurisdiction? her answer to us was, in response to her letter, with respect to the preliminary injunction entered by the district court of the southern district of texas regarding the president's action on immigration, the answer to both of your questions is yes. if i am confirmed i commit to follow the injunction as it is where his -- worded unless and until it is state or altered by the court itself, the fifth circuit or the supreme court. i would like to enter the full -- i would ask to enter the full

text of the letter objection. thank you. to those of my colleagues who have been critical in some of the actions the department of justice has taken, i would simply note that the longer this nomination is held up, the longer the current attorney general and department of justice stays in place. i had this time am pleased to support this nomination and i would encourage my colleagues to do the same. >> senator franken -- thank you senator flake, senator franken will be next and because senator lindsey graham has to be at another important meeting i will call on him unless another democrat comes in. senator franken. >> thank you mr. chairman. it is with immense pleasure that i endorse miss lynch's

nomination to be the next attorney general and i am proud to be part of this historic moment as we consider and hopefully confirm the first african-american woman to serve as attorney general. she was easily confirmed twice as u.s. attorney. one of the most prominent offices in this country. i have been continually impressed by her and find that she lives up to her reputation as a smart, tough but fair attorney. the eastern district new york office has flourished under her capable leadership. no one denies that. she has prosecuted cases of terrorism, probably the most of any office. public corruption, white-collar crime, police brutality to name just a few.

she has coupled the courtroom successes with meaningful community engagement and relationship building and the variety of stakeholders. these experiences have given her important insight into some of the most troubling threats our country faces and makes her uniquely qualified to run the department of justice. she is an admirable public servant and i urge all of my colleagues to confirm her. i would just like to make some response to senator cruz about the hypothetical questions that he asked her. i was therefore a lot of those that i do not recall i colleagues on the other side raising an issue when the then attorney general declined to provide senators with his legal opinions based on hypotheticals.

he said it would be irresponsible to provide senators with an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical fact and circumstances. that was exactly what was happening. notably, what he determined was a hypothetical, established facts about the treatment of detainees in u.s. custody. he was unable to offer an opinion of whether waterboarding was torture because such a hypothetical was he said different from real life and the actual circumstances are critical. the point is, there were no issues raised from my good friends on the other side. when mr. mckay z -- mr. mackazie

said he would not answer those hypotheticals and i think that was exactly parallel to what was going on when senator cruz asked those hypotheticals. i'm looking forward to voting for miss lynch. >> the order now will be senator kunz and then senator lindsey graham. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will vote no on the confirmation of loretta lynch because of her views on the apparently boundless authority of the president and including specifically this issue of the recent executive amnesty. let me say that i think any suggestion that somehow focusing on this is far a field of what we should be focused on in this confirmation process is ridiculous. this is at the center of her prospective job.

this is at the absolute center of her responsibility. not for the president, the president has lots of lawyers and others including the white house counsel. being a top lawyer for the country and these sorted issues are at the center of her job. why did i reach that conclusion? i questioned her at length in my office and in committee and in contrast to a lot of other folks who spoke, i was not at all impressed with her responses. they were completely superficial and political. i asked her obviously about the presidential executive order in my office. my first response was she thought it was very legitimate for any executive to set prosecution priorities and that is what he was doing. i followed up and said miss

lynch, i think his orders clearly go beyond setting priorities. they give a new and different legal status to almost 5 million illegal aliens. she had no specific response to that. she just sort of pointed to the administration legal opinion. i said this action goes further than that. it hands these folks a new document made out of the blue with the words work permit on top. where is legal authority? she had no specific response to that. in the hearing i asked her detailed questions in the same vein. saying this sort of thing demands that any action be made on a case-by-case basis. i said do you think that granting amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens is acting on a case-by-case basis?

she had no significant response. that same portion of the law says the attorney general has to make the decision on a case-by-case basis and yet there is no plan for you as attorney general if you're confirmed to be in the middle of that process. what is your position as attorney general in that process and how can it be moved to other people and homeland security. she had no detailed response to that. that really concerns me regarding her views of executive authority. that gets to the heart of her job and what would be her job as top lawyer. not as the president but of the country. i am also concerned by two other issues which i will mention very briefly. as i mentioned previously, miss

lynch is the u.s. attorney of the eastern district of new york negotiated a real slap on the wrist and a deferred prosecution agreement with hsbc and despite their admission that they laundered money on behalf of mexican drug cartels terrorist organizations and other sanctioned enemies or entities, this is truly too big to prosecute in jail and i am concerned about that approach. with regard to fraud allegations in hurricane sandy, i'm concerned about the actions of her office as u.s. attorney. just yesterday in a texas court there was activity that uncovered certain private insurance companies involved in terms of making settlements with homeowners, trying to demand that those homeowners sign

agreements not to cooperate and participate in criminal investigations of them. that is ridiculous and what is more ridiculous is that her office made a motion to keep that proposed settlement document out of the record. which side are they on? why aren't they taking that proposed settlement document and making it part of their criminal investigation, rather than trying to block it from being in the public record. based on those specific reasons. i plan to vote no. >> senator kunz. >> thank you for the opportunity to comment on both the exceptional nominees for service and the two bills related to human trafficking which i hope we will get to today. loretta lynch has been an true exceptional u.s. attorney and as many of my colleagues have mentioned before me, it is also my view she has been an

exceptional nominee. she has endured more than a 110 day weight and it is my hope that this will be the last day before this committee. she answered questions that work appropriate to answer across many topics but declined to answer certain hypotheticals even complex answers. she answered 97 questions for the record which must be some sort of record. she convinced they she is the right person for the job. i also want to thank senator corbin and senator klobuchar who put together their legislation to address modern human trafficking. i think these bills will go a long way toward ensuring victims get the care that they need to

have the best chance of possible recovery and i'm proud to be a cosponsor of each. >> thank you senator kunz and now senator grant. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you very much. i will support miss lynch because i think she is well-qualified. think she is a decent person and has lived a good life and done a good job as u.s. attorney and all things being equal i think the democratic president is well within bounds of choosing her. nobody on i side -- our side would have chosen her but when you win the white house things go a different way. what i like is that she seems to understand the war on terror and will as attorney general nature sure all the tools in the toolbox are available to this -- and will make sure that all the tools in the toolbox are available to this nation.

i do believe her experiences in life and as a u.s. attorney make her qualified. secondly, eric holder is ready to go and i wish him well. [laughter] he is about to go make a lot of money. republicans are into that. [laughter] he will be a 1%-percenter soon. it felt like it would be good to have a new attorney general and look at old issues anew. everything the president said about executive action i associate myself with. on 22 occasions he told people i cannot wait for magic wand and get people legal status. apparently he found a magic want. -- wand. now he has decided to do something that i think is

chilling. this is not about deferring prosecution this is about giving someone a new status. to my democratic colleagues, if you like this and you think this is ok, other people can do similar things on other issues. we are setting in motion a very dangerous precedent here in my view that will have ramifications for years to come in terms of checks and balances. we do have an independent ranch called judiciary. the reason we have independent judges is because if used expect courts and people to decide this where hopelessly lost. judges who are going to apply the law as they view it will eventually decide what is right or wrong about the actions and that is the way it should be. as to the senate, the senate is changing all for the worst. to my colleagues this would be a

good time to go back to the 60 vote requirement, if you're that upset i will vote to change the rules. i will be one of the 60. that is what the 60 vote hurdle required, was to make nominations you think are controversial challenging. i doubt we will do that. to those who really believe this is a constitutional overreach of historic proportions than you have impeachment available to you. that is a process that can control unconstitutional actions. i doubt if anyone on our side will start impeachment. were not going to go down that road because most americans would not like that as the outcome. so we can yell and scream all we like but the courts are the right place for this to be resolved. i am disappointed that the president has done this because

he is thrown a wet blanket over what might the hour best chance to get immigration reform. more worried about the next election in the country as a whole. i have nothing but disdain for what he has done. here is the challenge. do i add fuel to the fire? i don't want to. she is qualified by any reasonable standard. i'm sorry the senate has become so dysfunctional and that the president has created this mess but i will not add to it. i think she is qualified. >> senator tillis. >> thank you mr. chair and thank you for your great leadership on this committee. i cannot help but go back to restate what i said earlier. there has been a lot of discussion about how this has gone on for 100 days or so. i have been a senator for 45 days, if you count the first

week as an organizing week, it seems to me it is consistent with most others. for the record i have been here for 45 days and as far as i'm concerned this confirmation process is within the time envelope. in the north carolina house when i would go to a caucus meeting we would tell everybody if it has already been said, don't say it again. i was prepared to be very brief in my comments. i will come back to the nomination -- actually, first off i would like to thank senator cornyn and the bipartisan support for the sex trafficking act. it is great progress and something we did in north carolina. mr. chair, i would ask unanimous consent to be added to senator blumenthal's amendment. i look forward to it. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> back to the nomination. i said in the last committee meeting that i was looking at miss lynch, who is extraordinary i spent a lot of time watching her family and supporters in the committee meeting beam with pride for the remarkable job she did in the committee and the remarkable track record she has. she was clearly somebody who came up with strong work ethic and has done a great job as u.s. attorney and i would gladly confirm her for that role. the way that i have looked at that role and why i have decided i will not support miss lynch keep in mind she hails from north carolina a lot of her family are proud citizens, this is the most difficult decision i had to make in this job. i look at miss lynch as somebody who will come in as the head of an organization that has more than 100,000 people in it.

an organization that has problems with current management. the attorney general cited several problems that when i asked miss lynch what she thought about the report and some of the management issues, i will not prosecute attorney general holder. what i am doing is trying to look at a chief executive who has to come in and convince me that there is going to be a change in the management philosophy. it's not clear to me that there will be. in that area there was a stark contrast between the discussion i had with miss lynch and the discussion with dr. carter. dr. carter was very clear that there were challenges in the department of defense and was also clear on some instances where he disagreed with the president direction. by contrast -- i will not get

into the policy issues, i would be shocked if she had a divergence of opinions from the president. before we interviewed her, the president did. i will not judge her positions on policy, i will add this purely from the perspective of the chief executive of 100,000 person organization. i do not see someone who will recognize that there are legitimate issues to read is addressed and we need someone who will take that seriously. on that basis i cannot support her nomination thank you. >> before turning to my remarks on the lynch nomination i speak briefly about a process in considering that nomination. this domination arose during a somewhat unique set of circumstances. not only when we did the senate majority change but when a couple of new members joined the senate majority in january.

it was important to me as chairman to an the numbers had adequate time to ensure that nomination and as is often the case with cabinet level appointments. i want to take the opportunity to thank the department of justice for its willingness and cooperation with us. while it is true that we were still gathering documents until a week or two before the hearing, i think it is fair to say the department was working in good faith to get us materials that we needed. since our last executive business meeting, the number of members who submitted follow-up questions and seeking additional clarity and miss lynch responded to these questions last week. one of the topics is some of us myself included, wanted additional information about was

the relation between miss lynch and the hsbc bank. i won't take the time to go into the details but it is important for committee members to know this. had we voted on her nomination during the last meeting, our staffs would not have been able to conduct a bipartisan interview of a whistleblower like they did last week. miss lynch would not have had an opportunity to respond to our questions on this subject. for that reason, have we voted at the last meeting -- that would've been irresponsible. my goal is to move through her nomination in a thorough and respectful way. i know some of you think we took

too long and some of you to my right don't think we have taken long enough. i believe if carried out our constitutional duties. we've also kept the process moving. with that i will turn to my comments on the matter. from the outset, i said what we need from the next attorney general more than anything else is independence. it is true the attorney general is a cabinet officer serves at the pleasure of the president. first and foremost, the attorney general of the united states is the nation's top law enforcement officer. the attorney general may be appointed to the president but the job is not to simply defend the president and his policies. the job is not to be his wing man and those words were used by the present attorney general the job is to defend the

constitution and uphold the rule of law. the attorney general does not represent democrats, republicans or independents the job is to represent all americans. regardless of party and regardless of politics. unfortunately, the current attorney general has permitted politics to drive decision-making. as i have said so often it isn't only republicans who recognize that problem. i quoted the inspector general and i want to put that again. the inspector general listed as one of the top management challenges for the department quote, restoring confidence in the integrity and fairness and accountability of the department. i make these observations about the current leadership as one of the few republicans, only 19 of all the republicans who have

served at that time and i happen to be one of them. our site had a lot of concern regarding his nomination, but i gave him the benefit of the doubt. so i approached this nomination before us today with that vote in mind. on the one hand i feel as though i should learn a lesson, leading the department of justice is an effective and independent way that requires more than impressive credentials and as all of my colleagues have said, the smiths lynch -- so does attorney general -- th us ms. l --ynch

on the other hand i recognize the quickest and most surefire way to replace attorney general eric holder is to use miss lynch as his replacement. as i have said, the point for me from the start has been whether she will take a clean break and take the department in a new direction. after thoroughly reviewing her testimony before the committee and written follow-up questions i remain unconvinced that she will lead the department in a different direction. i am confident that if she had demonstrated more independence she would have garnered a lot of support today. to illustrate why, we need to look no further than a recent confirmation of secretary carter. when he testified before the senate armed services committee secretary carter demonstrated the type of independent streak

many were hoping we would see from miss lynch. most of the media reporting on the two nominations seemed to agree so i want you to compare headlines from several major newspaper outlets regarding the carter nomination. quote, ashton carter nominee for dissents secretary, a change of direction. and of quote. the new defense secretary care's differences with obama over the ukraine and gitmo. washington times. obama picked carter who says he will not bend to pressure to release it moh prisoners. fox news -- to release gitmo prisoners. he casts himself as an independent voice. ". compare those headlines to miss lynch. lynch defends an obama

immigration. new york times. loretto lynch defends obama immigration actions, huffington post. loretta lynch defends obama executive actions and surveillance, and of quote newsweek. attorney general nominee the red lynch detect -- defends obama immigration policies, the times. secretary carter was confirmed with 95 votes, only five senators voted against them. that lopsided vote was reflection of his testimony before the senate and his willingness to be an independent voice. i suspect that miss lynch will be confirmed, but i doubt she will garner 93 votes in support. to the extent her support is not as wrought as secretary carter, it will reflect -- is not as broad as secretary carter's it

will reflect her unwillingness to take meaningful positions on executive power. i hope she is willing to prove me wrong and to stand up to the president and say no when the office of man's it. if she does that -- office demands it. if she does that, then i can tell you i made a mistake today voting no, just like i can tell you i made a mistake voting yes for general holder. based on my view, i have stated my nonsupport. finally let me say just a couple of words about the legislation on the agenda. on tuesday we had an excellent informative hearing. witnesses told us about their efforts to end the crime and help victims. we also learned that some of the obstacles they faced in these

efforts today will take up two bills that should help make progress in the fight against human trafficking. the first bill, s-178 the justice for victims of trafficking 2017 was introduced last month. that bill provides more services to victims while cracking down on those engaging in human trafficking. the other bill the stop explication through human trafficking act which was introduced by senator klobuchar last month. the center piece of that bill is the safe harbor provision is encourages the state to adopt laws that treat children who are trafficking in the sex industry as victims rather than prostitutes. both bills have strong bipartisan support. i have after a amendment i will propose to day and i believe several others have amendments as well.

i have seen senator blumenthal, in -- come in. would you like to speak on any of the bills? senator perdue has showed up would you like to speak? >> thank you, without unduly prolonging this part of our meeting i would like to say i will be strongly supporting loretta lynch for this position. i think she is qualified and uniquely qualified based on her experience, that ground, education and demonstrated skill in the courtroom and her sense of integrity and intellect. i am aware that there is disagreement about her. the chairman has expressed it. she is not eric holder, she is not the current attorney general. she has to be distinguished from him and from the policies she

espoused. many of those policies i hope she will continue. she has been awaiting confirmation since november and i'm hoping she can be confirmed as quickly as possible. the department of justice needs that leadership. that time is more than enough and i hope she will be confirmed expeditiously. i have an amendment on the two bills. >> before senator perdue speaks we do have a quorum here but i would like to note that i would like to go to the amendments and we will able to handle the legislation quickly and then we'll have the vote on this lynch and will have hopefully in block voice vote on all the nominees. >> sorry i stepped out for a minute. i yield my time this morning.

>> thank you very much, i would like to vote. i'm asking all senators, if you have amendments would you offer them at this point. senator cornyn? >> i would like to call up the manager's amendment which is the work of several senators including senator portman and senator schumer. we incorporated the ringing missing children home act and we have incorporated a version of the survivors of human trafficking empowerment act. this amendment addresses the request of several victims rights groups. >> senator leahy. >> mr. chairman, i will speak very briefly because i do not want to hold up the time on the

vote for loretta lynch who is weighted so long, far more time than the men who are confirmed ahead of her for attorney general. on senator cornyn amendment, i told him i will vote for it because i believe it does make important contributions in human trafficking. both he and i expressed concern. i don't think it goes quite far enough. i think we have to prevent victims from falling prey to sex traffickers which means reauthorizing programs for runaway and homeless youth. i told senator cornyn i will create an amendment to that effect on the floor when it comes up. i will consult with him before i do but i will vote for his substitute amendment as is. >> thank you senator leahy, i commend senator corman for working with people on both sides of the isles.

if he is done i would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted. that the manager's substitute be adopted. without objection. are there any other amendments? >> there is -- >> there is another element, ok. -- amendment, ok. >> i would call to guarantee funding it is alb-15274. it authorizes additional funding. for victims of trafficking if the special assessment does not work, senator cornyn's bill does promise more money to victims. i support that but i am concerned that money may not materialize. we're talking about $5,000 fines

in my own state of vermont, those of us who have been prosecutors know that you can have a fine or somebody prosecuted and convicted but oftentimes they are never paid. in vermont this resulted in a net loss of funding for trafficking victims. the fines don't get paid and the victims don't get the services they need. senator cornyn has predicted the funds raised to be $35 million every year. i hope it does but that requires nearly every single defendant pays the $5,000 fine on top of any restitution. i worry that not all of that would happen. so i'm hoping that senator cornyn's works.

what my mm it would do is if it doesn't rave enough -- raise enough money it would authorize further money so we can help the victims. too many times i saw as a prosecutor that you can convict the person who committed a crime but the victim was victimized again because there were no services or money to help the victim. units could spend $35,000 a year to have somebody in prison, and don't have $35 to help the victim. i commend senator cornyn for what he is done for putting in my amendment to say if the money doesn't materialize we can authorize more which would require appropriations anyway. >> mr. chairman am a one of the reasons why this package is a consensus package is because it doesn't appropriate at this point any taxpayer franz.

>> a knot of -- taxpayer funds. >> i am not appropriating -- >> i understand. it authorizes a concept i became familiar with in my state. it authorizes resources for a vast array of crime victim's groups to provide services. based on 2012 data this legislation would hit approximately 6000 predators sex offenders, rapist's, commercial smugglers with a fine that would offset the cost of their crime. i know senator leahy is sincere about his amendment, but i don't believe it helps us tilde the kind of consensus going forward that we need to add additional appropriations -- that -- helps us build the kind of consensus

going forward that we need to add additional appropriations. i'll think senator leahy is suggesting we tie the hands of the appropriations committee at any point but i prefer not to model the message here and to change the crime victim concept and by authorizing additional appropriations. i would successfully -- i would respectfully suggest that i cannot offer -- i look forward to continue to work with them. >> the amendment would be to get more money if the fines don't do it but the problem is you cannot get appropriations without authorization. i support what the senator of texas wants to do but i don't want to sent out a empty promise to victims. i will last for support of my amendment whether it passes a knot is something people have to

decide. my amendment guarantees that victims will get support. we have no problem and spending a lot of money and not enough the people who commit the crimes that we should. i always worry that we end up saying we took care of that and locked up that person, we cannot give you cab fare to get home. >> senator schumer. thank you, i have and try minute -- i apologize, can i call the role? >> mr. chairman if i could interject briefly, i appreciate what the ranking member is trying to do, but i would note that all of these programs are already authorized at higher levels so the only thing lacking is appropriations to add additional money.

certainly the appropriations committee in congress is free to add additional money if we don't hit our benchmarks here. to preserve the bipartisan consensus and get this legislation out of committee and passed him a it is important to vote >> i hope that the committee will defeat this amendment. i asked the clerk to call the role. >> mr. session. >> know by proxy. >> no by proxy. >> mr. perdue. >> mr. leahy. mr. schumer. mr. durbin. mr. franken.

>> mr. blumenthal. >> the amendment is defeated. i turned to senator schumer. >> i thank you carried i have an amendment i would like to offer. it is avonte's law. i want to thank senator cornyn and the sponsors of the legislation for including my missing children's bill in the trafficking legislation. this is not exactly about traffic thing but it is about kids. the legislation is named after avonte attendo. he had autism. as you know, young kids wander. whether they are in school or with their parents, they just wander and get in trouble.

avonte went missing, and it became more than a face on a missing poster. new yorkers were searching for aponte -- avonte. we felt he was a child we knew personally. he had wandered almost 50% of children after age four years old attempt to run or wander. sometimes it is a bright light or a loud noise. we are learning how autism works, and these things that don't affect us that way affect them. i offer the amendment because unfortunately his wandering is not an isolated incident. a few months ago we had a young boy in from white plains who was drowned after he wandered away from his visiting family in california -- in south carolina. our children are too valuable for us to wait another day.

when we can prevent this. i am offering avont'ee's law to provide voluntary tracking devices. if these kids who wander had a tracking the vice on their wrist or put them into their clothes, they can find them right away and save their lives. it would provide services for families and children who have autism spectrum disorder and other disabilities and to -- other developmental disorders to be found when they wander. we have a model for this. we do it for senior citizens. people with parkinson's and alzheimer's. it has worked. we do the same for kids. and the schools, law enforcement, community members are for this. i not going to offer this amendment right now. i know it is an important bill.

it is not quite on-topic and you're trying to keep it focused on the bill itself. i hope mr. chairman, ranking member and my colleagues, we can move this bill. it is not a partisan issue. it is supported by the autism groups around the country. i withdraw the away amendment -- i withdraw the amendment. >> bring it back. >> thank you. i will do that. >> mr. chairman. >> the amendment is withdrawn. >> getting to the amendment briefly. in rhode island, that is putting a chip into an insole of a shoe. so that all you have to do is register and you can keep track of whether it is children who may wander off for elderly folks . this is a wonderful technology and senator schumer is on the right side of this issue. this may not be the time but i

look forward to supporting it. >> i would bring up a grassley amendment after schumer's is withdrawn. my admin that help us make further progress in the fight against domestic human trafficking. it has three objectives. it would encourage that are all agencies to devote grant resources to street-based services for runaway and homeless youth. it would update the authorizing language for the cyber tip line of the national center for missing and exploited children to ensure that the statute specifically references child sex trafficking, third and finally, this amendment would ensure that trafficking victims protection grants can be used to meet the housing needs of trafficking victims and also calls for the government accountability office report and charges an existing task force

with outlining best practices to combat human trafficking. is there any discussion? i would save -- i would ask for a voice vote. >> chairman. my only concern with this is it amends laws that were the authorization has expired. i was trying to think of a time when we have done that. i couldn't find an example of it. so, i just want to -- i'm not going to object to it going forward but, i want your assurance that senator collins and i have a chance to offer our

amendment, which make sure that there is a reauthorization in these bills so we are not just saying something nice but then having a bill that is not authorized any way. >> i know that you have agreed to work with me on the reauthorization. >> we are going to have the runaway and homeless youth trafficking act. i just want to make sure that at some point, we are going to have a vote on that. i do want to make sure we have it done. that we don't amend something that one exist in the end. >> those in favor, say aye. the ayes have it. are there any other votes?

mr. senator, we will set that aside. i am sorry. senator blumenthal. proceed. >> like senator schumer, i had planned on filing a number of amendments relating to human trafficking and the worker visa program print a want to commend him and support him on the avonte law and amendment he was going to offer. i am not going to proceed with those additional amendments i intended to do out of a desire to avoid anything that could jeopardize passage of the underlying bill. i understand you work on these important issues, the worker visa programs and the trafficking online, and i look over to doing so. i would like to offer alb 1570.

>> the amendment is before us. proceed. >> i want to thank senator kirk for cosponsoring this legislation with me and also senators lee and tell us -- tillis for the leadership on this very important cause. i have been honored to serve as ranking member of the veteran affairs committee. i have seen over that time and well before as all of us have the desire of our veterans to serve our nation. the qualities that they bring to bear to public service are extraordinary, and in many ways unique breed their persistence -- are unique. their persistence makes them while susan them well-suited to be in law enforcement. this succeeds in training are

wounded veterans and law enforcement tasks,'s is the thickly computer forensics tasks and skills, that they then used to track down, apprehend, and help prosecute the individuals who are creditors who exploit children, and engage in that kind of pernicious activity. this program has been in the cyber crimes center and its subcomponents, including the hero core, and the amendment would give it permanent status in the statute. it has never been officially authorized. it would also give the service members who have these injuries and wounds the kind of purpose and peace that will help them.

law enforcement actually, some of our most experienced officials have commented on how tenacious and effective these individuals are because of their attention to detail, their self-discipline, and their perseverance in these tasks, which we know in investigating criminal activity is important. there are blind alleys and false leads, and their tenacity is important. i offer this amendment with thanks to senator kirk. >> i commend senator blumenthal for his amendment and would urge my colleagues to support it. [indiscernible] senator leahy is listed as a cosponsor. >> i was going to say what you said. i appreciate senator kirk and senator blumenthal for their leadership and urge our colleagues to support the amendment. >> thank you.

>> by consensus, we adopt the blumenthal amendment. it is adopted. and, any other on 178? we will set that aside momentarily. do any amendments offered to 166? proceed. >> thank you. i appreciate you bringing this bill. we work hard on this bill for a long time. i very much appreciate it. i am glad that this is progressing. i have a technical amendment for the hotline section. i ask that be included. >> without objection. the men will be included. i support her amendment. senator leahy.

>> i am a cosponsor of this. i will certainly vote for it. i hope that others will follow suit. this may encourage them to. it has worked well. >> i would like to move to a rollcall vote on the first bill we amended. without objection. senator hatch would be amended be added as a cosponsor. >> senator has been added. >> i will go back to 178. >> did you want to speak question mark >> no. >> we're going to -- we would have a rollcall vote on 178. call the roll please. >> mr. hatch.

>> aye. >> mr. graham. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. cruz. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. simmons. mr. leahy. mrs. feinstein. >> aye. >> ms. klobuchar. a > aye. >> mr. chairman. >> aye. >> i won't repeat the score. the bill is reported to the floor. now i would like to go to 166 as amended. the clerk would call the role.

. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. lee. >> aye by proxy. aye by proxy. >> mr. leahy. ay>> aye. >> mr. white house. >> aye. >> mr. franken. a>> aye. >> the votes are 28 ayes, no nays. >> we turn to the nomination of loretta lynch to be attorney general of the united states. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. hatch.

>> mr. graham. >> no by proxy. >> mr. lee. >> know by proxy. >> mr. cruz. >> know by proxy. -- no by proxy. >> mr. leahy. >> aye. >> mrs. feinstein. >> aye. >> mr. dervish. a>> aye. >> mr. blumenthal. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> aye. >> by that rollcall vote miss lunch will be reported to the floor. we will now consider the rest of

the nominees. i should name these. don't go until you get names. then we vote. michelle lee. jim parish. to the courts of claims, financial. patricia mccarthy. armando on neil. >> a personal privilege. >> would everyone give senator feinstein the courtesy of listening. all of those in favor of the nominees just named, signified by saying aye. >> aye. >> ayes appear to have it. we have over a quorum present. the nominees have reported to

the floor. senator feinstein read >> thank you. i would like to recognize my chief counsel, neil quencher, who is leaving the senate to return to the private sector. he has served me in the people of california well for nearly half of my 22 years in the senate. serving as my chief counsel from 1995-1999, and again since 2009. in between he served as an elected official, serving the maryland state legislature from 2003-2007. i have relied on him for able and candid advice and i know many of you have gotten to know him very well. he has provided consistent guidance and oversight, and i've just want to thank him for his decade of service to the senate. thank you. >> mr. chairman. like senator feinstein has the most tax outstanding staffs on the hill.

>> i would like to join senator feinstein in banking and congratulating her chief counsel. and thanking him more importantly for his 10 years of service here on the hill. we all know whether it is neil or a lot of other staff we would not be booked to do our job without the dedicated service that he exemplifies. >> thank you. [applause] >> the meeting is adjourned. >> thursday, house members worked on amendments to the k-12 education bill. those continue friday.

off the house floor negotiations continue to keep the department of homeland security funded past midnight. the house is expected to vote on the stopgap measure to keep the employees on the job past the deadline. five coverage of the house members return. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43rd republicans, and 12 new republicans in the senate, there is one hundred eight women in congress the first african-american republican in the house, and first woman that are in the cement -- in the senate. the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information including voting results and statistics. on c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio, c-span.org.

>> coming up, james clapper, director of national intelligence on worldwide threats. then sarah palin speaking at the conservative political action conference. the fcc open meeting on net neutrality. coming up, on the next washington journal, two hours of calls and comments about the events of the week in washington dc. join the conversation every morning at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. friday is the second day of the conservative political action conference with newt gingrich. former governor rick perry, rick santorum, and marco rubio and rand paul. five coverage starting at 7:30 eastern on c-span 3.

this sunday, baltimore police commissioner anthony batts on the challenges of policing the city. >> it was clear i had an issue with public trust and people believing things that were said. regardless of the fact that i stand in front like i did for you today and say useful forces down that means complains are still down. the officer involved shootings are dramatically down. we are moving in positive ways. people say they don't believe it. >> >> on thursday, james clapper, director of national intelligence testified before the senate armed services committee to provide his global threat assessment. topics included cyber threats. isis and the negotiations over iran's nuclear program.

[applause]

>> good morning. good morning everybody. we have some nominations that when we get sufficient number of frightened members who could not break this note to come in, we also have a -- we are glad to see this in a gym here, who is used to this weather year round. anyway. if we get a corm we will talk about the nominations. i would like to tell the members

here that senator reid and i have agreed on a letter to the budget committee concerning our views as to what the budget committee should do on defense and hopefully it will circulate to get as many signatures as possible. senator reid and i have reached agreement on that letter. i would like you to look at it. the committee needs to receive testimony on the nature and scope of the global threats faced by the united states and our allies. i want to welcome james clapper and general vincent stewart. thank you being with us today. the committee recently conducted several hearings with some of our most respected national security leaders. explore the need for strategic inking to address the threats that we face. in the course of those hearings these military and foreign-policy leaders agree that the current and national environment is more complex and dangerous than any time in recent memory.

on the terrorism front iso-continues to dominate much of syria and iraq whilst spreading its ideology to become the dominant islamic extremist group in the world. the risk of attacks by fire foreign fires and long will threats only increase as the danger to the west and yemen afghanistan, pakistan, al qaeda and affiliated groups continue to take advantage of uncovered spaces against western interests. we are engaged in a generational fight for civilization against brutal enemies and defeating these enemies require significant intelligence resources, and focus given the type use -- diffuse nature of the threat. as we continue the threat against islamic extremist we must not lose focus on others we

may face. precious provocations are only more worrisome and let of vladimir putin's intense focus on building up and modernizing russia's military forces and doctrine in the geopolitical ambitions that these new russian capabilities are designed to further. in asia, stability and security of a file and economically significant region is threatened by north korea's continued aggression built up of nuclear arsenal and development of long-range ballistic missiles. a fourth grader challenges china's dramatic growth and modernization of its own military capabilities, which appear designed to restrict the united states military ability to operate in the western pacific. the chart is very interesting in that it shows the expansion by china in areas of the south china sea.

i hope eyewitnesses might comment on the fact that apparently, they are filling in enough of that area to perhaps employing weaponry such as anti-air and other capabilities. anyway, i ran continues to exert malign influence in the middle east using lebanon, syria, iraq yemen, and bahrain. underthe iranian influence have become one of the key factors in limitations in u.s. policy planning in iraq and syria. boy he must remain focused on the potential for threats of the future and maintain technological superiority against potential adversaries. today this is of most concern in the cyber and space domains where we see increasingly capable and aggressive

activities i nationstate adversaries in areas where we have few established norms. i appreciate thoughts on each of these issues as policymakers. we look to the intelligence community to provide timely and accurate information about the nature of the threats we face, intentions of our adversaries, and the effect of certain actions we can take. the nature of the increasing threats in the defense budgets and intelligence of the intentions of global actors becomes more paramount. i want to thank director clapper and general for testifying today. i look for to your assessment of the nature and scope of these who are -- of the threat we face and which of these issues concern you the most. senator reid. >> thank you. let me join you in welcoming our witnesses. as they know very well, we face an alarming number of complex

and very national security challenges for many corners of the globe. our witnesses views insistence of these challenges critical to the work of the committee. i traveled -- who are courageously serving the united states. despite the setbacks that extremist fighters have suffered, isis remains capable militarily. the coercion of local populations. airstrikes have enabled security forces and the iraqi government's newly established malicious to gain ground sit -- to gain ground against isis. we're ready to launch counteroffensive against most all.