and 237-a-2 of the i.n.a. we have observed a decimation of law enforcement in this country involving immigration as a direct result of the president's determination to create a legal system that he believes is right but the people through their elected congress has refused to make law. this is a direct threat to who we are. professor turley is so insightful about this. this is not some right-wing extremist. in testimony before the house committee, he said "i believe the president has exceeded his brief. the president is required to faithfully execute the laws.

he goes on to say -- quote -- "this goes to the very heart of what is the mad -- isonian system if the president can unilaterally change the laws in substantial ways or refuse to enforce them, it takes off-line that very thing that stabilizes our system. i believe our members will loathe the day they allow that to happen. when i teach constitutional law i ask my students what is the limiting principle of your argument. when that question is presented to this white house too often the answer is in the first person, that the president is the limiting principal or at least the limiting person. we can't rely on that type of assurance in our system." madison knew no people can be given total power without limits he goes on to say professor

turley does -- quote -- "the problem of what the president is doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. he is becoming the very danger the constitution was designed to avoid. that is the concentration of power in any single branch. this newtonian orbit that the three branches exist is a delicate one but is designed to prevent justice type of concentration." when asked explicitly does he believe the president violated the constitution, he said, as i quoted before, that this, "there can be no greater danger for individual liberty and i really think the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they've dedicated

themselves to was creating this orbital balance and we've lost it." he goes on to say to congress, as a challenge to us, colleagues he says this, "i believe congress is facing a critical crossroads in terms of continued relevance in this process. what this body cannot become is a debating society where it can issue rules and laws that are either complied with or not complied with by the president. i think that's where we are. a president cannot ignore an expressed statement on policy grounds in terms of the institutional issue. look around you. is this truly the body that existed when it was formed?" he's sitting there in the house of representatives and he's talking to these members of congress and he said look around you. is this truly the body that existed when it was formed?

does it have the same gravitational pull and authority that was given to it by the framers? you're the keepers of that authority. you took an oath to uphold it. and the framers assumed that you would have the institutional wherewithal and frankly ambition to defend the turf that is the legislative branch. so i think we need to, without apology, defend law in the congress's interests. congress should not confirm someone to lead the united states department of justice who will advance this unconstitutional policy. congress has a limited number of powers to defend the rule of law, and itself as an institution, and to stop executive branch from overreaching. it is unthinkable that we would ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our constitutional order.

and it is of an escalating pattern of overreach by the president that we are seeing. every day that we allow the president to erode the powers of congress, we are allowing the president to erode the sacred constitutional rights of the citizens that we serve. we have a duty to this institution and to the american people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather, who will continue to violate them. so i'll oppose this nomination and urge my colleagues to do so. i think it should be a bipartisan vote in rejecting this nomination, and in doing so, congress will send the clear message that we expect the president to abide by the law passed by congress, not to violate them. mr. president, i tha the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, you know for almost two months

i've been returning to the senate floor to urge the majority leader to schedule the confirmation vote for our next attorney general. yesterday afternoon we were finally able to get an agreement that was long overdue. but even now this morning we're not voting to confirm loretta lynch to be the next attorney general of the united states, we're going to vote on whether to invoke cloture in regard to the top law enforcement position. for those not familiar with the rules of the senate, cloture is a rule that allows the senate to end a filibuster. the fact that senate republicans are requiring a cloture vote on her nomination acknowledges what we've known all along. republicans have been engaged in an unprecedented filibuster of this nomination.

when we do vote to confirm loretta lynch this afternoon she will be the first african-american woman to serve as attorney general. she is an historic nominee. but also senate republicans are making history and i would say for the wrong reasons. we've had 82 attorneys general in our nation's history. until now not a one of those 82 have had to overcome a cloture vote. not a one has had to overcome a cloture vote out of 82. but this one, loretta lynch i said the first african-american woman, to serve as attorney general, became the first and only to have to overcome a cloture vote.

you know i would have opposed any filibuster on any president, i've been here with president ford president carter president reagan, president bush, president clinton, another president bush president obama republicans and democrats have never seen this. in fact, the last fall the now majority leader promised that ms. lynch will receive fair consideration by the senate and her nomination should be considered in the new congress through regular order. well she hasn't been treated fairly. there hasn't been regular order. her nomination has been pending on the senate floor awaiting a combination -- culmination for

56 days. now, i went back over the last seven attorneys general add up all the number of days they wait ed for confirmation on the floor, she's waited longer than all seven of them put together twice over. so twice as long as the seven proceeding -- preceding republican and democratic attorneys general. as u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york ms. lynch brought terrorists and cyber criminals to justice. she obtained convictions against corrupt public officials from both political parties. she fought tirelessly against violent crime and financial fraud. ms. lynch has protected the rights of victims. she has a proven record of prosecuting human traffickers and protecting children. i'm glad the -- yesterday the

senate was finally able to overcome an impasse in trafficking legislation that, unfortunately, those on the other side of the aisle caused by injecting partisan politics into the debate. that republican leaders tied a vote on ms. lynch's confirmation to human trafficking legislation never made sense at all especially as she has a strong record of prosecuting human traffickers. in a recent article" the guardian" rightly pointed out the republican use of her nomination as a negotiating chip was "painfully wrong-headed, tantamount to holding the sheriff pack until crime goes away" -- close quote. i couldn't agree more. after this extended delay i can only hope that senate republicans will show her more

respect as attorney general of the united states than she has received as a nominee. she deserves our respect. she deserves our gratitude for being willing to continue to serve our nation. she's earned this respect. her story is one of perseverance of grace and grit and i believe this process will only make her stronger. she was born and raised in north carolina. she is the daughter of a fourth generation baptist preacher and a school librarian. her proud mother and father instilled in her the american values of fairness and equality even though as a child those around them were not living up to these values. i've gone through a whole lot of hearings i must say that meeting reverend lynch at these hearings meeting him at the time of the markup, i was so

impressed, so impressed with the strength that man showed and his sense of faith and goodness. this is a pastor that -- and preacher that we can all look up to. in fact, ms. lynch recalls ride ing on reverend lynch's shoulders to their church where students organized peaceful protests against racial segregation. the freedom songs and church music that went hand in hand with those protests undoubtedly made up the sound track of her childhood. as attorney general i'm sure she'll draw upon those childhood experiences and the struggles of her parents her grandparents, her grade grandparents when addressing the current protests over too many young lives lost in our streets. as i said, the judiciary committee was honored to have

her father, the reverend lorenzo lynch with us on both days of her hearing in january at the committee markup when her nomination was favorably reported, bipartisan support. he's here to watch these proceedings today. it's clear this undoubtedly proud daughter instilled in his daughter the grace and resilience she has shown over the past six months. and as a senator like all of us i've gotten to meet wonderful people from all walks of life. up to and including presidents. but i have said many times before and said at home meeting reverend lynch was really a very special moment in this senator's life.

and throughout loretta lynch's life, those who encowboyered her intelligence and her tenacity have not always been prepared to accept her and her impressive accomplishments but in every point the content of her character has shown through through, led her to even greater heights. in elementary school administrators did not believe that loretta lynch could score as high as she did on a standardized test. they demanded that she retaining the -- retake the test. how could this young african-american girl score so high? she took the test again and her second score was even higher. in high school, she rose to the very top of her class. but instead of naming her valedictorian she had to share the title of valedictorian with two other students, one of whom was white because school

administrators feared an african-american valedictorian was too controversial. but this didn't hold her back, either. she kept going forward. she went on to graduate with honors from harvard college and then she went on and earned her law degree from harvard law school. that has been the story of leverage's life. while some are not ready to embrace her distinction she marches forward with grace to prove she is even stronger and more qualified than her detractors can imagine. she has dedicated the majority of her remarkable career to public service we're fortunate as a nation she wants to continue to serve. ms. lynch's record of excellence makes me confident she'll be able to lead through the -- the justice department through the complex challenges that it faces today. when president obama announced his intention to nominate her

last november, i had the privilege of attending that white house ceremony. at that event ms. lynch noted with admiration that the department of justice is the only cabinet department named for an ideal. just think of that. the department of justice is named for an ideal. the ideal of justice. and having served as a state prosecutor not with the complexity of what she has served with, i always thought that was an ideal to uphold, she has. and i believe that when she is sworn in as our next attorney general, she'll work tirelessly to make that ideal a reality for all americans. as i said, i am sorry that the first time 82 attorneys general

we have to have a cloture vote. i have great respect for my friends in the republican leadership but i must say they send an awful signal to america saying for the first time in 82 attorneys general to require a cloture vote for this woman, this highlypresiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president today i rise to talk about what has come to define the obama administration which is a consistent pattern of lawlessness that disrespects the constitution that disrespects the congress, and that disrespects the people of the united states. in any administration under any president, the person charged with being the chief law enforcement officer is the attorney general. i've been blessed to work in the

u.s. department of justice and there is a long tradition a bipartisan tradition of attorneys general remaining faithful to the law and to the constitution and setting aside partisan considerations of politics. unfortunately, that tradition has not been honored during the obama presidency. attorney general eric holder has been the most partisan attorney general the united states has ever seen. the attorney general has systemically refused to do anything to seriously investigate or prosecute the i.r.s. targeting citizens for expressing their first-amendment rights. indeed he has assigned the investigation to a major democratic donor and partisan democrat who has given over $6,000 to president obama and the democrats. eric holder has abused the office. and has turned it in many

respects into a partisan arm of the democratic party. he is the only attorney general in the history of the united states to be held in contempt of congress. and so there are many, including me who would very much like to see eric holder replaced. there are many, including me, who would very much like to see an attorney general who will return to the bipartisan traditions of the department of justice, of fidelity to law and that includes, most importantly the willingness to stand up to the president who appointed you even if he or she is from the same political party as are you. during the confirmation hearings i very much wanted to support loretta lynch's nomination. bringing in a new attorney general should be turning a positive page in this country but unfortunately the answers that ms. lynch gave at the confirmation hearing in my opinion render her unsuitable

for confirmation as attorney general of the united states. that was a shame. ms. lynch's record as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york had earned her a reputation as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor, so it was my hope we would see similar approach and similar answers from ms. lynch at the confirmation hearing. instead, she chose to embrace the lawlessness of the holder justice president. when she was asked whether she would defend president obama's illegal executive amnesty which president obama himself has acknowledged no fewer than 22 times that he had no constitutional authority to undertake, and which a federal court has now enjoined as unlawful, she responded affirmatively, saying she thought the administration's contrived legal justification was -- quote -- reasonable. the nominee went on to say she

sees nothing wrong with the president's decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorizations although explicitly barred by federal law, to nearly five million people who are here in this country illegally. when asked further -- quote -- who has more right to a job a united states citizen or a person who came to this country illegally, she responded -- quote -- i believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. well mr. president a very large majority of the american citizens would beg to differ. rule of law matters. when she was asked about the limits of prosecutorial discretion the dubious theory that president obama has put forth to justify his illegal executive amnesty she could give no limits to that theory. when asked if a subsequent president could use

prosecutorial discretion to order the treasury secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25% she refused to answer. when asked if a subsequent president could use that same theory to exempt the state of texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor law and environmental law she refused to answer. when asked if she agreed with the holder justice department that the government could place a g.p.s. censor on the car of every single american without probable cause she refused to answer. that extreme view was rejected by the united states supreme court unanimously. when asked if she agreed with the holder justice department that the first amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a church's or

synagogue's choice of their own pastor or their own rabbi she again refused to answer. likewise, that extreme view was rejected unanimously by the united states supreme court. indeed justice elena kagan appointed by president obama said that the holder justice department's first amendment says nothing about religious liberty of a church or synagogue, justice kagan said i find your position amazing. well i'm sorry to say that ms. lynch was unwilling to answer whether she holds that same amazing position that the first amendment does not protect the religious liberty of people of faith in this country. when asked at her hearing if she believed the federal government could employ a drone to kill a united states citizen on u.s. soil if that individual posed no imminent threat, she refused to answer. when asked if she would be

willing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the i.r.s.'s targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views something which president obama said he was -- quote -- angry about and the american people had a right to be angry about and when asked if she would appoint a prosecutor who was at the minimum not a major obama donor she refused to answer. this nominee has given every indication that she will continue the holder justice department's lawlessness. that was her testimony to the senate judiciary committee. i wanted to support this nomination. i wanted to see a new attorney general who would be faithful to law, but her answers made that impossible. and i would note there is a difference. eric holder began disregarding the constitution and laws after

he was confirmed as attorney general. ms. lynch has told the senate that's what she's going to do. and that means each and every one of us bears responsibility. in my view, no senator can vote for this confirmation consistent with his or her oath, given the answers that are given. and i would note a particular onus falls on the new republican majority. for several months, i've called on the republican majority to block the confirmation of president obama's executive and judicial nominees other than vital national security positions unless and until the president rescinds his lawless amnesty. i'm sorry to say the majority leadership has been unwilling to do so. the republican majority, if it so chose could defeat this nomination but the republican majority has chosen to go forward and allow loretta lynch to be confirmed. i would note there are more than a few voters back home that are asking what exactly is the difference between a democratic and republican majority when the exact same individual gets

confirmed as attorney general promising the exact same lawlessness, what's the difference? that's a question each of us will have to answer to our constituents when we come home. in my view, the obligation of every senator to defend the constitution is front and center why we are here. we have a nominee who has told the united states senate she is unwilling to impose any limits whatsoever on the authority of the president of the united states in the next 20 months. we are sadly going to see more and more lawlessness more recklessness, more abuse of power, more executive lawlessness. now more than ever, we need an attorney general with the integrity and faithfulness of law to stand up to the president attorneys general in both parties, republican and democrat have done so, when credible allegations of

wrongdoing by richard nixon were raised, his attorney general elliott richardson, appointed a special prosecutor, archibald cox, to investigate regardless of partisan politics. likewise, when credible allegations of wrongdoing by bill clinton arose his attorney general janet reno, a democrat, appointed robert fiske the independent counsel to investigate those allegations. eric holder has been unwilling to demonstrate that same faithfulness to law and unfortunately ms. lynch has told the senate she too is unwilling to do so. for that reason, i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on cloture and to insist on an attorney general who will uphold her oath to the constitution and to the people of the united states of america. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president i come to the floor of the senate today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of confirming

loretta lynch as attorney general. i disagree with my colleague from texas. i serve on the judiciary committee, as does he. i listened to her questions. i asked her questions. i listened to her answers. in my view, she has passed her senatorial interview. she has picked up support from several republicans. she answered questions for eight hours during her confirmation hearing and submitted detailed responses to 900 written questions. and what i would like to most focus on today is the claims that i just heard from the senator from texas that she is somehow lawless. okay. let's look through the facts here. she has earned the support of members of both parties. do the republicans that support her for this position think she is lawless? i don't think so. she has earned the support of top law enforcement groups and 25 former u.s. attorneys from

both republican and democratic administrations. now, let's start with the obvious here. she is supremely qualified for attorney general. she has a world-class legal mind an unwavering commitment to justice an unimpeachable character and an extraordinary record of achievement. during her time as u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york she tackled some of our nation's hardest cases from public corruption to civil rights violations to massive crime rates. she currently leads the u.s. attorney's office that has been charged with prosecuting more terrorism cases since 9/11 than any other office in the country including trying the al qaeda operative who plotted to attack new york city's subway system. would you hand this over to a lawless person? no. you would hand this over, this important job of going after terrorists to someone who respects the law who enforces the law not as my colleague

from texas has said, someone who is lawless. and let me tell you, this is a concern in my state. just this week, our u.s. attorney andy lugar indicted six people six people in the twin cities area that were plotting to go back to assist isis, to assist a terrorism group. so i care a lot about having an attorney general in place that actually knows how to handle these terrorism cases, that is going to lead the justice department and understand the importance of going after these cases. loretta lynch is exactly the type of tough and tested leader we need at the justice department to lead the effort. she has been endorsed by leaders ranging from the new york police commissioner. i don't know if my colleague from texas considers him lawless, to the president of the federal law enforcement officers association, the president of the international association of chiefs of police, alberto gonzalez at this time could vote on ms. lynch. rudy giuliani says it's time to

confirm her. these are not people that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle normally say are lawless. now, this is the story of loretta lynch and why i think she has been able to wait out this long, long process. loretta lynch has a lot of patience. when she was a little girl, she took a test and she did incredibly well on that test. she did so well that they didn't believe she took that test. then they asked her to take that test over again and she scored even higher. when she was the valedictorian of her class and the principal came up to her and said this is a little awkward you're african, we might want another white student to share the honor, that's what happened to her, she said all right. that is a woman who has been through something and can wait this out. well she waits no longer after today. now, the other thing i heard from our friend on the other side of the aisle from senator cruz was that somehow she is lawless because she supported something that every president since dwight eisenhower has supported that has asked their attorney general to do, that the attorney general has looked at the legal issues surrounding the issuance of an executive order

regarding immigration. every attorney general since eisenhower's administration has advised their president on these issues. george bush, the first george bush the second george bush, ronald reagan. every single one of these presidents, there was some kind of executive order issued involving immigrants. i know because we have liberians in minnesota that have been there for decades because of unrest in their country under an executive order something sometimes congress gets involved in sometimes the president reissues but that is one example of a group of people that have been able to stay in our country legally work in our hospitals, work in our industries raise their families in this country because of executive orders. so to say that it is sometimes lawless, how lawless for her to support the simple idea that a president can issue an executive order and of course we can debate the merit of that. we can talk about the fact that of course we would rather have

comprehensive immigration reform that's why i voted for it. of course that would be better so the president could just tear up his executive action. he said he would be glad to do that. but the point of this is that every attorney general in a republican administration since dwight eisenhower has supported their president when they issued an executive order so this idea that by somehow saying that that is legal makes this nominee lawless is just plain wrong. we look forward to another robust debate on immigration policy. comprehensive immigration reform should be debated and passed by congress but ms. lynch should be judged on her record and her record alone and when you look at her record, we should be proud to having her as our next attorney general of the united states of america. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president

i'd like to make a few remarks on loretta lynch. while she should have been confirmed as attorney general months ago, i want to make the following points. her qualifications are really sterling. her education and experience as a united states attorney under two presidents as well as her accomplishments are unavailable -- unassailable. i have never seen a nominee in my 22 years handle a confirmation hearing with such poise and answer questions with such command. you're her hearing, -- during her hearing i said loretta lynch was a combination of steel and velvet and that for me sums her up perfectly. i met with her prior to her hearing and was deeply impressed. i've reviewed her stellar record and find her to be a firm yet fair prosecutor. as a matter of fact, probably the prosecutor in the toughest

southern district of new york that exists in america. having led this very large and important united states attorney's office under two presidents she is a proven leader and she also knows how to bring people together to get the job done. and i think that's important. let me just talk about national security. the eastern district of new york where ms. lynch served as u.s. attorney has led the nation in terrorism convictions among all u.s. attorney offices since 2001. she has overseen these cases. the six individuals connected to newsa biofuel agladsy who was part of an al qaeda plot and planned to set off bombs on the new york subway system, neswano of nafis who attempted to use a weapon of mass destruction for

russell defratis who threatened to attack j.f.k. airport. and two individuals who allegedly were members of al qaeda and attacked united states military forces overseas. in february, her office announced that three individuals had been charged with attempting and conspiring to provide material support to isil. two were planning to fly to syria to join isil, the third was arrested while boarding a flight to turkey at j.f.k. her office has also charged 11 individuals alleging that they illegally worked to secure more than $50 million in high-tech equipment for russian military and intelligence agencies. as her confirmation hearing lynch emphasized the importance of the government having -- quote -- "the full panoply of investigative tools and

techniques to deal with the ever-evolving threat of terrorism" -- end quote. in sum, i am confident she's going to be a very strong voice leading the justice department on issues of national security. and i can only say i think as those of us on the intelligence committee see and mr. president, you are one of them -- this becomes more important every day. her experience is just as deep on domestic issues. as united states attorney for a major urban district she clearly understands the importance of protecting us from gangs and organized crime. issues that are front and center in my home state of california. her work in this area shows she understands local and international criminal organizations. so there are four specific cases that i will leave in my remarks for the record that i believe

document this very specifically. she's also made combating human trafficking a priority. over the last decade, her office's anti-trafficking program has indicted more than 55 defendants in sex trafficking cases and rescued more than 110 victims of sex trafficking including more than 20 minors. simply put loretta lynch has been on the front lines in investigating and prosecuting a range of perpetrators, and i believe she will continue that work as attorney general. i would be remiss if i didn't express my extreme disappointment in the delay over ms. lynch's confirmation. we have before us a nominee with impeccable credentials to serve

as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. and during her confirmation, senator leahy and -- i think you were there mr. president -- asked a panel of witnesses who were pro and supposedly con to raise their hands in they opposed her. not a single witness raised their hand. to me, that spoke volumes. even republicans who will vote against her because they disagree with the president praise her credentials and personal qualifications. and -- but despite all that, the senate subjected her to i think an inexcusable delay. and it's particularly sensitive because this would be the first african-american woman as attorney general in the history of the united states. and if you look at race relations today and the impartial and important role that the department of justice

plays, it seems to me that her appointment may well be the most important possible appointment at this particular point in time. her nomination has been pending for 56 days on the floor and that's more than twice as long as the seven most recent attorneys general combined. so hopefully it's done now. i recognize that the other side will say they couldn't move the nomination because of the trafficking bill or for some other reason, but the fact remains that historically we customary mayoral move back and forth between executive and legislative business and we could have done that here as well. we have confirmed district judges we have confirmed individuals who serve in various other executive capacities,

including subcabinet positions. so we could have easily considered a nominee for one of the most important posts in the government. let me conclude with this -- i regret that a vote on her nomination cannot be unanimous and i hope it will be close to that but i don't think that will be possible. she is that good. she deserves a unanimous vote. she is as fine as i've seen in my time in the senate. senator durbin remarked in committee that her confirmation will be a truly momentous occasion for the senate and for our nation. he said that this should be a solemn important and historic moment for america. i really believe he was right. i really believe that this is an uncommon nominee at an uncommon time who can display a

tremendous will, drive motivation, and sense of justice as our united states attorney general. i am very honored to cast my vote in favor of her nomination. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: briefly this should be a happy day for america. this should be a day that is circled in the calendar as another day as the president of the senate knows that this is about the american dream. this woman is the embodiment of the american dream in action. we should be celebrating her confirmation to the most important law enforcement position in the united states of america. so why am i not happy?

i am sad. i am depressed. because what we are going to witness in a few minutes is base politics at its ugliest. doesn't get any uglier than this. because what we are seeing today, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying today it doesn't matter if you're qualified. it doesn't matter if you are one of the most qualified nominees for attorney general in the history of our country. that makes no difference. we have a new test. you must disagree with the president who nominates you. let me say that again. because we love common sense in missouri and this defies common sense. you must vote against a nominee for the cabinet of the duly

elected president of the united states because she agrees with the duly elected president of the united states. think of the consequences of that vote. think what that means to the future of advise and consent in this senate. if we all adopt this base politics play to the cheap seats, i can't get elected president unless i'm against loretta lynch if we all adopt that in the future, how is any president elected in this country going to assemble a cabinet? because it will be incumbent on all of us to be against cabinet members who have the nerve to agree with the president who has selected them for their team. it is beyond depressing. it's disgusting. she is so qualified she has worked so hard all her life,

she is a prosecutor's prosecutor she has prosecuted more terrorists than almost anybody on the face of the planet. and the notion that this has occurred because she agrees with the man who selected her, i think everyone needs to understand what that means for the future if all of us embrace that kind of base politics in these decisions. it is not a happy day. it is a very sad day. i am proud of who loretta lynch is. i am proud that she'll be attorney general of this country. i am sad it will be such a close vote. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president loretta lynch is an historic nominee. what i worry about is this body is making history for the wrong reasons. the senate republicans who filibustered her she becomes the first out of 82 attorneys

general in our nation's history to face a filibuster has had to wait longer than any other. she is an historic nominee. on one hand she's an historic nominee for the right reasons the first african-american woman, highly, highly qualified, everybody agrees with that. but what a shame that we had the second part of history to have her be the first out of 82 filibustered to be held to this very disturbing double standard. this woman has had to face double standards all her life, why one more. i'm going to proudly vote for her and m ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today the senate takes up the nomination of the 83rd attorney general. we all know that the former

democrat leadership could have processed this nomination during last year's lame duck, but in the limited time that we had they chose to concentrate on confirming a number of judges and getting a losing vote on n.s.a. reform. ms. lynch at that time wasn't high on the priority of the democrat majority, but now i'm pleased that the senate was finally able to come to an agreement on the sex trafficking legislation so that we can turn to the lynch nomination. i voted against ms. lynch in committee and will oppose her nomination again when it's time to vote this afternoon and i'll spend a few minutes now explaining my reason to my colleagues. this nomination comes at a pivotal time of justice with the

department of justice and our country. the next attorney general will face some very difficult challenges from combating cyber crime to protecting our children from exploitation and to help fight the war on terror. but beyond that, the new attorney general has a mess to clean up. the justice department has been plagued the last few years by decisionmaking driven by politics pure politics. some of these i mentioned before but i'd like to give you just a few examples. the department's own inspector general listed as one of the top management challenges for the department of justice -- quote -- restoring confidence in the integrity, fairness and accountability of the

department end of quote. quite a major management challenge that the department faces. this inspector general cited several examples, including the department's falsely denying basic facts in the fast and furious controversy. the inspector general concluded this -- quote -- "resulted in an erosion of trust in this department." end of quote. in that fiasco, our government knowingly allowed firearms to fall into the hands of international gun traffickers and sorry to say it led to the death of border patrol agent brian terry. and then how did the department respond to all this obviously wrong action on their part?

they denied, they spun and they hid the facts from congress. and if you hide the facts from the american congress, you're hiding the facts from the american people. they bullied and intimidated whistle-blowers. the same to the members of the press. and you might say to anyone who had the audacity to come forward in this investigation and help us uncover truth. but fast and furious isn't the department's only major failing under the holder agency. it's also the failure to hold another government agency accountable, the internal revenue service. we watched with dismay as that powerful agency was weaponized and turned against individual citizens who spoke out in

defense of faith freedom and our constitution. what was the department's reaction to the targeting of citizens based on their political beliefs? they appointed a campaign donor to lead an investigation that hasn't gone anywhere and then after that the department called it a day. meanwhile, the department's top litigator, the nation's solicitor general is arguing case after case for breathtaking expansion of federal power. i've said this before but it bears repeating. had the department prevailed in just some of the arguments addressed before the supreme court in the last several years and i'm going to give you five examples. there would be essentially no limit on what the federal

government could order states to do as a condition for receiving federal money. the environmental protection agency could fine homeowners $75,000 a day for not complying with an order and then turn around and deny that homeowner any right to challenge the order or those fines in court when the order is issued. three, the federal government could review decisions by religious organizations regarding who can serve as a minister of a particular religion. and four, the federal government would be able to ban books that expressly advocate for the election or the defeat of political candidates. and then lastly, the way this solicitor general argued that i said would bring the most massive expansion of federal

power in the history of the country, he would let the fourth amendment, would have to -- the fourth amendment wouldn't have anything to do or to say about a police attaching a g.p.s. device to a citizen's car without a warrant and constantly tracking their every moment for months or years. now, i've given you five reasons of expansion of the federal government and these positions aren't in any way mainstream positions. at the end of the day the common thread that binds all of these challenges together is the department of justice has become deeply politicized and that's what happens when the attorney general of the united states views himself and these are his

own words as topts wingman. -- as the president's wingman. because of all the decisions we've witnessed over the last few years i've said from the very beginning of this process that what we need more than anything else out of our new attorney general is independence ever since she was nominated, it was my sincere hope that miss lynch would demonstrate that that sort of independence -- demonstrate that sort of independence. it was my hope that she would make clear that while she serves at the pleasure of the president she is accountable to the american people. because the job of attorney general is defined by a duty to defend the constitution and uphold the rule of law. the job is not to simply defend the president and his policies.

now, i voted for attorney general holder despite some reservations and misgivings. but i've come to regret that vote because of the political way he's led the department. i realize that the quickest way to end his tenure as attorney general is to confirm miss lynch but as i've said the question for me from the start has been whether miss lynch will make a clean break from the holder policies and take the department in a new direction. some of my democratic colleagues have said that no one has raised any objection to mrs. lynch's -- miss lynch's nomination. well this, of course, is inaccurate. no one disputes that she has an impressive legal background. it was her testimony before the committee that caused concerns for many senators including me.

after thoroughly reviewing that testimony, i concluded that she won't lead the department in a different direction. and that's very unfortunate because after six years of attorney general holder's leadership, the department desperately needs a change of direction. i'd just like to remind my democrat colleagues that it wasn't too long ago that a majority of democrats voted against judge mukasey for attorney general. not based on his records but instead based upon his testimony before the committee. in fact, then-senator obama had this to say about judge mukasey -- quote -- "while his legal credentials are strong, his views on two critical and related matters are in my view, disqualifying." i asked miss lynch with her

views on fast and furious, on the i.r.s. scandal and other ways the department has been politicized. she didn't demonstrate that she's -- that she'd do things differently. instead, she gave nonanswers. she was eloquent and polished but nonresponsive. the bottom line is that miss lynch doesn't seem willing to commit to a new independent way of running the department. now, that surprised me very much based on everything we were told i expect miss lynch to demonstrate a bit more independence from the president. now, i'm confident that if she had done so, she would have garnered more support. as i said when the committee voted on her nomination to illustrate this point, we need to look no further than the

confirmation of secretary carter to the department of defense earlier this year. when he testified before the senate armed services committee secretary carter 3 -- carter demonstrated the type of independent streak that many of us were hoping that we'd see in miss lynch. most of the media reporting on the two nominations seemed to agree. headlines regarding the carter nomination from the "new york times" and "the washington post" commend his shift from the president's policies with headlines like -- quote -- "defense nominee carter casts himself as an independent voice." end of quote, "washington post." and in "the new york times" -- quote -- "in ashton carter, nominee for defense secretary a change in direction."

but on the lynch nomination, those same newspapers highlighted that she defend defended the president's policy on immigration and surveillance with headlines like -- quote -- "lynch defends obama's immigration action," "new york times." and then the "huffington post" -- quote -- "lore ret la lynch defends -- loretta lynch defends obama's actions." secretary cart carter was confirmed with 93 votes. only seven senators voted against secretary carter's nomination. that lopsided vote was a reflection of his testimony before the senate which demonstrated a willingness to be an independent voice within the administration. unfortunately miss lynch didn't demonstrate the same type of independence. i sincerely hope miss lynch proves me wrong and is willing

to stand up to the president and say "no" when the duty of office demands it. but based upon my review of her record i cannot support the nomination. i suggest from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you madam president. i rise today to discuss the nomination of loretta lynch a proud new yorker and soon to be attorney general of the united states of america. born in north carolina, her father was a fourth-generation baptist minister a man who grew up in the segregated south and her mother picked cotton when she was a girl so her daughter would never have to. well their daughter grew up to be one of the keenest legal minds our country has to offer someone who has excelled at every stage of her education and her career. while cultivating a reputation well deserved, as someone who is

level-headed fair, judicious and eminently likable. madam president, if there's an american dream story loretta lynch is it. and still despite her intellectual and career achievements miss lynch has always been a nose-to-the-grindstone type, rarely seeking acclaim only a job well done. throughout her career, she's had a yearning to serve the public which began when she took a 75% pay cut to join the eastern district as a prosecutor. there she found her calling handling some of the toughest litigation cases in the country on cyber crime public corruption financial fraud police abuse and gang activity, organized crime and especially terrorism. when you look at the breadth and the depth of the cases she's handled, it's clear that loretta lynch is the law enforcement's renaissance woman.

and because of her judicious balanced and careful approach to prosecuting on complex emotional community police relation matters miss lynch has always emerged with praise from both community leaders and police. america needs this kind of leadership in our top law enforcement position. in this age of global terrorism the a.g.'s role in national security has never been more important and i know her well because i was the person who recommended her to the president to be u.s. attorney twice. i know how good she is in some of the most difficult cases cases where the community was on one side and the police were on the other. she emerged with fair decisions that made both sides praise her. in this difficult world we're in where we have so much tension she's just going to be great. and that's why i was so proud

when the president nominated her for attorney general. she's just great. but one sad note, there's one cloud on this sunny day and that is the long time it took to confirm her. we've heard about a whole lot of issues completely unrelated to her experience or her qualifications. no one has assailed loretta lynch, who she is, what she has done how good an attorney general she would be. one story about her as i mentioned, i originally recommended loretta lynch for the position of u.s. attorney in 1999 because i thought she was excellent. sure enough, she was. and when president bush took office miss lynch went to the private sector to earn some money. but when i had the opportunity to recommend a candidate for u.s. attorney again when president obama became president in 2009, i was certain i wanted

miss lynch to serve again. she had only served for about a year and a half. she had done such a good job. i said, we need her back. but she had had a good life. she was making lots of money. had gotten married in the interim. so knowing what a great person she was i decided i'd call her late on a friday afternoon confident that with the weekend to think it over she'd be drawn to answer the call to public service. sure enough, when i called her friday afternoon she said to me, i was dreading this call, because she was happy in her life. but, sure enough, on monday morning she called me back, she said, i cannot turn this down because my desire to serve is so strong. so she's a great person in every way. on top of decades of experience at the highest levels of law enforcement and a sterling track record, loretta lynch brings a passion and deep commitment to

public service befitting of the high office she's about to attain. she will make an outstanding attorney general. i believe every member of this body will be proud of her and i look forward to voting for senate democratic leaders have a conference thursday about more judicial nominees. this came as they were about to vote to confirm the next attorney general following weeks of delay. speakers include patrick leahy along with his colleagues, chuck schumer and debbie stamina. this is 15 minutes.

>> take your daughter to work day theory -- day. [indiscernible] >> very cute in the picture. obviously, we had an historic day. we are going to be confirming loretta lens, the first african-american woman to be attorney general. that is history. there is another part of history being made today. she is the first attorney general out of 82 attorney generals to be filibustered and have to wait this long.

that is wrong. the senate is not working as it should. i think she is not the only qualified nominee to be delayed by republicans. more than three months into this year, the majority leader allowed only two district judges to be confirmed. i mention this because in the last two years of the bush administration we took over the majority. we took 50 of president bush's judges by this time. they've only done tweo for president obama. we have 12 judicial nominees

waiting for a hearing. when democrats when the majority, we confirmed 16 judges in the last two years of the bush administration. the first 17 months of that administration, we were in charge. we confirmed 100 of his judges. they seem to think this is a one-way street. this is partisanship at the worst. delay those people who should be non-partisan position judges. anyway. we will keep pushing on it. all i would like is to have them do what we did and allow judges to go through. we did this with the republican president. they seem to think that is fine when it is a republican

president. they are opposed when it is a democratic president and that is wrong. senator schumer: thank you for the great job that you do. by the end, i want to thank my colleague and friend debbie stabenow. we celebrate because she is finally completed the journey. we lament because the road was far too long. on the one hand after today loretto lynch will take her place as the helm of the justice department. she will work entirely tirelessly to respect voting rights.

i recommended her to the president twice. and then for attorney general ones. she is great. you will see. in brooklyn, when she has the most difficult of cases, she emerged from those cases with both sides. the police and the community praising her. she is terrific. we believe she will do a great job. unfortunately, her day in the sun comes after months and months and months of unnecessary obstruction, and delay. today is a historic day for letter wrench, and -- loretta lynch, but it is a day we should have been celebrating months ago. the hard right spent every day

delaying for every reason they could think of except qualifications. she waited longer than the first 54 attorney general's in our nations history combined. this is every president from george washington to woodrow wilson. she aced committee hearings. she had to wait longer to be considered on the floor that any attorney general since the nixon administration. today's confirmation is a start that comes far later. we are here now, that our republican colleagues have learned their lesson. that only makes them look bad. we are urging a republican colleagues to pick up the pace of conforming confirming nominees

and not let what happened to loretto a lynch become standard operating procedure. this congress has confirmed only to judges. as patrick said, under his leadership when george bush was president we confirmed 15. it is not that they are doing pay back. that is not true. at this point, as i mentioned 15. republicans are badly lacking in confirming the president's nominees. we are here to say it is time to pick up the pace. republican leadership would have you believe the senate is working again. idol think the american people would agree wasting the first month on a keystone bill that was destined to be vetoed

flirting with shutting down hds and fighting over the trafficking bill, constitutes a working senate. it is time for republican majority to get moving on the president's nominees. the delay was simply disgraceful. no other qualified nominee should be forced to face the same. senator stabenow: thank you very much. it is my pleasure to stand with you. i join with them in saying while we are very pleased loretta lynch will be confirmed as attorney general, it is an embarrassment to the republican majority and the united states senate it has taken so long. loretto lynch is just as

qualified now that she was 166 days ago. why did they keep her waiting almost six months? what will happen to the other nominations that are waiting for a vote? what will happen to sally bates waiting to be confirmed as our next deputy attorney general? second highest ranking official at the department of justice reporting to the attorney general. she is eminently qualified to serve. we hope that she will be confirmed immediately. she was the first female to serve as the u.s. attorney in atlanta. she has two decades of experience as a prosecutor. she was nominated by president obama of january of this year and just got out of committee a couple of hours ago.

i remember as a norm ember of the senate -- as a newer member of the senate when john ashcroft came to the senate for his confirmation vote, it is hard to find more controversial nominee than at that time since i have been here. republicans came to the floor over and over again saying elections have consequences. the president deserves his nominee to have a vote. in fact, we gave him that vote. not 166 days. it took 42 days to be confirmed and as one who voted no we allowed it to go through without a filibuster. when you look at the past and the respect for administrations

what is disturbing to me is the same respect is not given to this president. as my colleagues have said, the senate democrat confirmed 15 judges by this point. compared to two so far in this congress. the republican-led senate has confirmed 90% fewer judges. 90%. what senator leahy led us to do in the 100 and 10th. it is a now. people need to have the opportunity to be confirmed. >> could you explain why you didn't confirm loretta lynch in the fall? >> we did not have a chance. that was a myth. all of the paper paperwork, we had a week or two left. we tried to.

we would not have gotten her through. it was very clear from the number of senators who would stop and filibuster the things we were doing. they also the same time said we will take her up right away when we come back. do we stop the senate? all the papers did not come here until into november or later. closer to december. the meeting had just started. they gave assurances they would move quickly. the same way we did. they didn't keep their word. she is going to be filibustered over abortion? this is unprecedented. had we known, maybe we would

have stayed in session till midnight of january 2. we assumed everybody is going to keep their word. unfortunately they didn't. senator schumer: we don't want to rush it through but we will not delay when we come back under the new majority. a whole bunch. senator leahy: numerous senators did. i assumed they would treat us the way we treated president bush. obviously they did not. the good side of this, we got a large number of lifetime judges in that we never would have gotten otherwise had we moved during that time. senator schumer: that

won't stand in the way of doing other judges. we would have done it. they asked us not to. they implied or less than implied we will get anything else done if you move her. senator leahy: any other questions? >> can i ask you to weigh in on the drone strike. what that raises about the u.s.? senator leahy: i have not had the briefing. what i have heard the press, my heart goes out to these people. i don't blame anyone other than al qaeda for having help them. i can't begin to think of how devastating the news was to them. >> thank you very much.

>> she was considered modern for her time. outspoken about her views on slavery and women's rights. as one of the most lithic writers of any first ladies, she provides a look at her personal life. abigail adams on "first lady's: influence and image." from martha washington to michelle obama, sundays at 8:00 p.m. est. as a comp lament to the series, c-span's new book is now available.

providing lively stories of these fascinating women. it is available as a hardcover or e-book. >> c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in this year's student cam documentary competition. it encourages middle and high school students to think vertically about issues that affect the nation. students were asked to create the documentary based on the theme, "the three branches and you." to tell a story that to measure top policy, law or action affects them there community. anna pinkerton and elizabeth boudin are one of our first prize winners. they focused on funding for medical research. >> cystic fibrosis, more

commonly known as cfg. it affects people in the u.s. and worldwide. it affects the respiratory and digestive system. the lungs of an individual with cystic fibrosis deteriorate at a rate of 2% per year. it has no cure. >> it robs them of their lives. every time you get an infection, it destroys some of the lungs and then you get another 1 -- sometimes it robs their lives at the early stage. the medium life expectancy is 40 years of age. >> nickel pinkerton speaks of the difficulties of having a

child with cystic fibrosis. >> it is difficult watching your child go through pain and sickness wishing you could take some of that away from him. some of the uncertainty of life away. >> patients suffering from this chronic disease have to put in hours of treatment time every day. >> he has the putting a lot of time to stay healthy even though he feels good everyday he has to do a lot of preventative dedication. he takes nebulized medications to keep his lungs fluid and supple so he does not get infections. he has to take digestive enzymes with his food in order to digest fat and protein correctly. he does a lot of percussive therapy which keeps his lungs clear. >> in the last 15 years groundbreaking research has

occurred. new drugs are becoming available every year. in the past doctors have only been able to treat the symptoms and not the cause. recently a new drug has come out that treats the root of the disease. >> more recently we have been able to treat the basic defect. a treats the genetic defect in cf. lung function is improving their weight is improving. it has been a dramatic change from the time we used to treat the symptoms. >> the new treatments are a tremendous symbol of hope. these exciting advancements were made possible by the generous funding from the government and nih 20 years ago. >> in the early 2000's, the nih legit doubled -- budget doubled.

congress and everyone came together recognizing the orton's of medical research -- importance of medical research. it went from $11 billion to $20 billion in a few years. >> the federal government had made devastating cuts to the nih within the last five years. >> it started to level up and go down. as of fiscal year 29 -- fiscal year 2013, it was down from 29 billion. >> medical researchers can no longer support themselves or their work. >> it is much harder to get grants from the nis -- nih than it was in the past. traditionally, when we would submit for research grants, we

might think we could get done with them the first or second time. now it often takes two or three times of continuing to ask. it is affected more people to the point that they focus on different areas of research or stop doing research altogether because it is hard to get enough grants. >> many people believe that federal dollars need to go into issues other than nih. >> the crucial life-saving lurch at nih is in jeopardy. the arbitrary across-the-board cuts has hit nih very hard. they cut $1.55 billion from the budget this year alone. think of the work not being done because of that. >> this particular part that the

government invests in and medical research has been devastating. >> the more they continue to cut the budget, the more scientists will stop researching. they may not have felt the impact yet that in a couple years they will. >> what i worry about is in two to three years to go to the next level of science. my concern is we have taken a lot of good knowledge from the nih. what about in a year and a half when i need new knowledge. will there be a gap? will there be the scientist that we need to do cystic fibrosis research? anytime the nih does not fund new grants or cannot fund all of the competing grants, we run the risk of losing scientists and knowledge. >> it is shortsighted to cut too

much. we need the best minds to head to research. >> the cf community has made tremendous progress but we are still far from a cure. for the people with cf and their families, science has the gone far enough. >> it is the central part of making progress in making the nih a world leader in medicine. >> ♪ dare to dream ♪ ♪ all of our brothers and sisters breathing free ♪ ♪ unafraid, our hopes unswayed ♪ >> to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about the competition, go to c-span.org.

tell us what you think about the issue the students addressed. >> coming up a house science committee hearing on hydraulic fracturing. later, reaction from the president and senate debate on the vote for loretta lynch. >> on the next "washington journal" we look ahead to the white house correspondents dinner. we join joyce woodhouse. then, dr. john knows where the president and -- dr. john noseworthy on the future of u.s. health care. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter.

>> coming up friday, susan rice will speak to entities at the annual export-import bank conference attendees. life conference starting at 1:15 p.m. est. >> this saturday is the 2015 white house correspondents association annual dinner. watch the black tie gala on c-span. president obama will address the 2600 attendees. this year's entertainment is from "saturday night live." saturday starting at 6 p.m. et on c-span. >> the house science base and technology committee examine the benefits and concerns about high

jollity fracturing -- hydraulic fracturing. fracking is the process of injecting rocks and chemicals into ground deposit to release natural gas. this is under two hours.

rep. smith: accommodation of hydraulic fracturing called fracking -- this technological breakthrough has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for the resurging manufacturing sector and has allowed the nation to become more energy independent. as with any type of technological process, any risk must be evaluated carefully. unfortunately, opponents make claims based on the possibility and not the probability of associated risk. environmental protections agencies have used this to wrongly assert a connection between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination.

in texas, the epa issued an unprecedented order that halted natural gas development only to have them and investigate and find the epa was wrong. they released a report that found hydraulic fracturing caused water contamination. it was later discovered that the report had several glaring weaknesses. they failed to take into account naturally occurring natural gas. the poor sampling and lacked data transparency. in pennsylvania, the epa reinitiated an investigation into groundwater contamination after it first agreed there was none. several months later, the epa agreed that it was not the cause of determination arion it appears that decision to reinitiate -- determination. it

appears that decision to reinitiate was based on political pressure. they are now working on a larger study to assess a causal connection between fracking and groundwater contamination. they refused to accept that good science knows no bounds. their political agenda drives their science agenda. perhaps most troubling is that the epa study of fracking does not include a risk assessment. this means the study will be focused on possible problems rather than what is likely or probable. the mere possibility that something may occur will do little to regulate the overall process. the science overwhelmingly shows that hydraulic fracturing can be done in an environmentally safe manner.

they've repeatedly said that potential risk can be avoided through modern technology based on sound science. president obama said quote "we should strengthen our position as the top natural gas reducer." and that fracking has led to "greater energy dependence -- independence and many to encourage that." the leader of the epa said "there is nothing dangerous and fracking that sound engineering practices cannot come." -- cannot accomplish." so why does the epa continue to say it causes groundwater contamination only to retract after subjected to scientific scrutiny? unlike the headlines, the retractions are footnotes. hydraulic fracturing is a proven

safe technology that has made america an energy leader. there are still those that believe, regardless of the science, process should be banned. activists have spread miss information in an attempt to convince americans that there is no way fracking can be done safely. using scare tactics to impede the development of oil and gas will cost our communities jobs, our states revenue, and will force us to increase our dependence on foreign oil. safe domestic natural gas attention has benefited the economy and hard-working families who enjoy reduced energy cost. that concludes my opening statement. miss johnson is recognized for her opening statement.

>> thank you very much mr. chairman, i am from texas and i served with your father i believe. he was there when i got there and i believe he is still there. i got there in 1973. i am pleased that the oil and gas industry has done so well. however, i am also a nurse by training and i'm sensitive to the need to protect public health and the environment even as we developed new fossil fuel resources. this hearing is advertised as being about the science of fracking. but the majority of the witnesses consist of state economic regulation and development officials who are representatives of the firm set up to run a look relations for

the fracking industry. that does not sound like a promising panel to honestly examine the scientific question. looking at the majority's hearing materials and testimony it is clear that this is a hearing designed to give a platform to the industry to malign those who question the safety in the industry. there is a focus on undermining local communities that are considering or perhaps have adopted limits or bands on fracking. more than 500 local communities, including some in my home state of texas, have raised concerns about the process of tracking and have lifted the past bans to restrict fracking activities. these are the constituents who are dealing with real issues.

we should not be little or diminish their concerns. or dismiss them as unsophisticated. i will suggest that the answer is not to be found in attacking their motives, but through more transparency and effective regulation by the state and federal government. people have concerns because they can see it is largely unchecked. in the state of colorado, with over 52,000 active fracking wells, the state has only 40 inspectors. west virginia has 56,000 wells and in 2011, just 20 inspectors. pollution a drinking water whether from fracking or construction of the wells offers waste from the site moving into aquifer's has

occurred at least 248 times between 2008 and 2014 in pennsylvania. we do not know how many incidents in total there have been because the state did not start collecting statistics until 2014. if we had more transparency and more accountability and oversight, local communities would be able to make well informed choices. building a hearing around the public relations campaign to dismiss concerns of local communities, not only does a disservice to members of this committee but it does nothing to increase the trust in the fracking industry and those communities. in closing, it is not some hypocritical smear campaign by the federal government, but

repeated attacks against epa and cap pains -- campaigns of doubt that have stoked this trust among the american people. this hearing is likely to have the unintended consequence of further stoking this trust among the american people. sunlight is said to be the best -- it is time that our local communities are provided with transparent information from industry to better understand the environmental and public health risk. mr. chairman, the problem is not that local communities are getting bad information, it is that local communities cannot get accurate information about the environmental and health impacts resulting from oil and natural gas development using

high-volume tracking techniques. -- fracking techniques. before i yield back, i want to attach two studies. the malone study and the nrdc issue waiver on fracking spills. >> without objection. let me introduce our witnesses today, the first witness, ms. christi craddick is chairman. since she began in 2012 she has pushed to maximize the effect this -- effectiveness of an industry helping to drive the economic success. prior to her tenure, she had a career as an attorney specializing in oil and gas, water, tax issues and environmental policy.

she earned both her back trip -- fessler degree and doctorate jurisprudence from the university of austin. our second is director donald siegel. he's the chair of earth sciences at syracuse university. he has worked at syracuse university since 1982 and teaches earth science, groundwater movement and the fate of contaminants in groundwater. prior to the university, he worked at the u.s. geological survey in the minnesota district. he has served as a member on numerous panels of the national academy of science. he received his bachelors degree from the university of rhode island, his masters degree from -- his masters in geology from the

university of minnesota. before working at energy, mr. lomax spent years working -- and energy and environmental reporter at bloomberg news and senior editor at argus media, inc. our final witness mr. holstein. prior to joining the environmental defense fund he was a senior advisor to the obama presidential campaign on energy and environmental policy matters and codirector of the transition team. among many other roles he has held the position of assistant secretary of the national,

oceanic and atmospheric administration and chief of staff at the u.s. department of energy. we appreciate all of you being here today and we look forward to your testimony. ms. craddick: good morning. my name is christi craddick and is chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony at today's hearing. this is an important issue with a direct impact on texas today as well as other states affecting thousands of jobs across the country. since hydraulic fracturing has become a widely used practice it has been surrounded by misinformation and propagated the groups more interested in prohibiting then understanding the complex science. setting hyperbole aside reveals a simple truth -- there are no confirmed instances of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing in texas.

with proper oversight, it is safe. the thriving energy sector in texas is due in part to the railroad commission which is responsible for ensuring the safety of oil and gas statewide through a rigorous process of monitoring and inspecting operations. for nine years, the commission has served as the primary regulator of the oil and gas industry and is recognized as a regulatory leader throughout the world. it is combined with almost a century of oil and gas regulatory experience which allows us to protect the public and our natural resources well. the mission statement, to serve texas by our stewardship of natural resources and the environment. our concern for personal safety and support of enhanced development and economic vitality for the benefit of all texans. systematic regulation with a high standard for environmental

safety allows the oil and gas business to flourish. every aspect is highly regulated. while it is in everyone's best interest, the energy industry is successful, that is only possible when within full compliance of our loss or the commission will hesitate to revoke their ability to do business in texas. included in their regulatory possibility is a technique known as hydraulic fracturing. for more than 60 years it is used safety -- safely and successfully retrieving more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. it involves a process of extracting oil and gas reserves from shale rock layers that were watch -- were once unreachable.

this scientific process combined with horizontal drilling allows for the injection of highly pressurized hydraulic fracturing fluids into shale areas. whatever evolving industry technology and increased technology comes a large increased workload. while regulatory standards have been in place for 100 years, the current energy growth resents a real opportunity. in an effort to bolster regulations, the commission has worked with stakeholders to ensure that the rules reflect industry best practices. as groundwater remains a key objective, major rules have focused on this principal charge. a keystone to the commission's regulatory success, is statewide rule 13.

it lays the groundwork for the safety of texas water. it assesses well integrity, well control and completion requirements codifying best industry actresses. in 2013, the most stringent rule went into effect on january 1 2014. the agency groundwater advisory unit will send enter applicant a letter indicating the base of usable quality water indicating the level with which the operator must place cement casings to prevent issues. it is highly regulated and technically robust. groundwater is permanently detected by several layers of steel casing and cement as well of feet of rock. as a result, well failure is extremely rail. while economic -- extremely rare.

while economic gains -- outside interests are taking the legitimate interests and influencing them in an attempt to hurt production. many of the problems environmental groups raise our factually incorrect or unsubstantiated. in texas bans in industry are a present-day concern. the railroad commission is required by delegated authority to continue issuing oil and gas permit. over the years companies have extracted oil and gas departments -- deposits from underground and their operations that often approached city boundaries. in those instances, success is found when authorities work together to implement guidelines. this elaboration will disappear

in communities where hydraulic fracturing is banned. as a result, the cities will lose jobs, tax revenue or business development. the industry is the greatest economic contributor in texas and a prime driver of the economy. in a world where misinformation and sensationalism too often drive the public discourse, let's embrace the truth and adopt reasonable approaches. thank you for having me this morning. rep. smith: thank you chairman craddick. dr. siegel. dr. siegel: mr. chairman. can you hear me? thank you. mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here. i present testimony on whether hydraulic fracturing can, other

than in a very rare local situation, degrade water quality found in shallow aquifers. i offer this testimony on my own behalf. criticism ranges from concerns over climate protection and concerns over lifestyle changes and economic inequities. one issue commonly raised is whether natural gas can contaminate drinking water aquifers. a concern highlighted by two scientific tapirs published by scientists at duke university and 2011 and 2012. researchers reported their results from sampling. 141 domestic water wells and northeastern pennsylvania and adjacent new york for methane and other substances. they showed a graph indicating that higher concentrations of natural gas appears in water wells closer to gas wells. they said the results suggest

important environmental risks worldwide. when i read these papers, i felt that 141 samples were too foo -- few to make such a sweeping conclusion. i noticed about a dozen water wells had been sampled near pennsylvania where two gas wells had reportedly failed. common sense tells me that more natural gas occurs in drinking water near known failed wells as much as the has to be more smoke near known burning buildings. in essence, the samples seemed statistically bias and did not know how they could say much about the entire population, let alone shale gas exploration worldwide in that small and style of sample. shortly after they were published, chesapeake energy

asked if i would be interested in assisting in doing a basic science study. this data set had over 34,000 individual samples of groundwater. it is the largest data sample i had ever seen. people in science talk about what is a representative sample? the number of samples in chesapeake's data captures the true population in parts of pennsylvania, so i agreed to help them. we published our first paper on march 12 of this year in a peer-reviewed journal. before we talk about the results of like to address some issues the press has brought up. after we published our paper certain media challenged one of my co-authors and i of improperly vaulting our payment

by chesapeake energy. during the peer-reviewed process neither a reviewers, the associate editor handling the paper, nor our chief editor found fault. they accepted our paper march 12 of this year. i have edited every journal -- many journals myself. i understand disclosure, but in response to media pressure, the journal asked us to expand our to closure -- disclosure and we did so. it was re-accepted by the journal. case closed. the media also challenge us on how chesapeake's consultants sampled the water for natural gas. they use a wildly recommended method used by epa and various state agencies and others for decades. there is no issue on that. what about the results?

we could not repeat duke's results. instead of using 141 samples, we used 11,309 samples in an area with 661 gas wells. we found high and low concentrations of natural gas occurred low -- close and far from natural gas with no discernible pattern. we could easily see this in a graph. but we as for robust statistical methods to confirm it. why couldn't we we produce duke's results? i think they just had insufficient samples. please understand that i know that gas wells could still fell -- fail. but the pennsylvania spearman shows this happens less than 1% of the time. our data supports this.

our study points suggest we not jump to conclusions about contaminated water by anything without having a sampling program designed to characterize the problem. thank you very much. rep. smith: thank you dr. siegel, mr. lomax. mr. lomax: good morning and thank you for inviting me to testify. my name is simon lomax and i'm here representing the education and outreach program of the independent petroleum association in america. the ip a represents thousands of oil and gas producers. today, energy in-depth is releasing a look inside the anti-fracking echo chamber. it deals with the new york decision by andrew cuomo to ban shale development in the entire state through a ban on

high-volume, hydraulic fracturing or fracking or short. i say unprecedented, it cousin according to "the wall street journal" new york is the first state with significant natural gas resources to ban fracking. governor cuomo's decision was completely at odds with early studies by environmental regulars that it has been used safely in the united states for decades. governor cuomo's decision overturned two earlier findings from state and environmental regulators. that hydraulic fracturing could move forward safely under stringent regulations. the reaction to the new york band has been telling. while some fringe environmental groups are celebrated, others say this goes too far. former new york city mayor, michael bloomberg, a major ally of

environmental groups called governor cuomo's decision misguided policy that quote "doesn't make any sense at all." obama's interior secretary who served on an environmental board before joining his cabinet responded by saying that fracking bands is the wrong way to go. she said supporters of such bans do not understand the science. california governor jerry brown flatly refused to ban hydraulic fracking went interview came up recently. in colorado, where i live, a special task force convened by the governor, recently rejected a new york style fracking band. against that backdrop, how did governor justify the

to support the ban, the administration produced a 184 page review of recently published research papers, but a detailed review discovered significant and undisclosed ties to eat some of the research used to ban fracking in new york and a political campaign to ban fracking in new york. for example, one paper was written by fracking opponents who actually used dockets line with plastic bags to take air samples near oil and gas wells. you might think that this kind of paper would get shot down in the peer review process, but that the reviewers were also fracking opponents. one of them was the cofounder of new yorkers against fracking. when asked by a reporter, she insisted that her peer review was "absolutely objective." then a few days after, she gave a few