we will see if the transpacific partnership bill and that deal nexxus lighting congress this year and election year. that does it for today's journal."n thank you for watching. we will be back tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy the rest of your sunday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning itute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> next, "newsmakers" and then loretta lynch testifies atonol. and wrote to the white house coverage live at 1:00 p.m. eastern for campaign event for

donald trump in iowa. host: newsmakers is pleased to welcome to hampshire's jeanne shaheen. me introduce the two reporters asking the questions. us, managing to editor for real clear politics. chris, first question. polls are showing a turn of event in the primary. i am wondering with potential bernieking news with sanders could upset hillary clinton and donald trump, a reality tv star potentially winning the primary, what message to the primaries be

sending to the nation by picking those two outsiders to be the potential nominees? all theheen: i figure reporters in the country will really like the matchup. first of all, i think it is not yet clear what the poll really means. the polls go up and down. as a veteran of many campaigns in new hampshire, i know that they do not always indicate what will happen on election day. you always want to be us in the polls. but this is a case where i remember in 2004 howard dean was ahead of john kerry about a month out. i think there is still a lot of movement we may see in the race. on the democratic side, and possibly on the republican side. a switch in second and third on the republican side and there seems to be movement there. i think voters are beginning to pay attention. they are sending the message

that they want things to change in washington. they want to see us address the congress address the challenges this country faces and they want to do it in a bipartisan way. chris: your first foray into politics was the jimmy who campaign. how do you think of the new hampshire primary has changed in its role in the particle -- political process? the newheen: i think hampshire role is still very important in the presidential selection process because it is still a place where candidates go and actually get asked questions. donald trump maybe one exception but most of the candidates still go there and engage with voters and talk about what they want to do, what their vision is for the country, and that is very important to the presidential selection process. in new hampshire, voters are engaged.

we have a lot of voters that go to every campaign event for everyone running on both sides of the aisle. when i was home recently, i spoke with a woman and her daughter. they were getting selfies with every single candidate. i think there have been stories with them. people really go and listen to everybody. people who are independents can vote either in a democratic or the republican primary. it is important to still have in opportunity for people the country, for candidates to be able to go someplace where voters can actually access. it has obviously changed as the whole campaign process has changed. money has changed politics dramatically and campaigning dramatically. social media has been a huge change. even as recently as my election -- 2014, we did a

lot of social media. that has been a dramatic difference. what has not changed is the candidates still engage with voters. that is what selecting a president is all about. it is the ultimate job interview. new hampshire voters take that seriously. i should have said at the outset that you made an early endorsement for hillary clinton. follow-up on what you were saying about the new hampshire voter and how independent can pick up. what we are hearing from voters on the ground is we are trying to decide between two candidates. they are donald trump and bernie sanders. it seems like an odd, nation to me and i wonder if we could talk about the dichotomy. sen. shaheen: it is part of people expressing their frustration about changes in the country that go way beyond this

campaign, that our changing economy. president obama spoke to that a little bit in his state of the union. he talked about how the country is changing, the changing demographics in the country. i think voters are expressing that frustration and looking at , iple who have rhetoric that think in many cases is outrageous, but it speaks to that frustration. there is a real difference between that kind of rhetoric and what someone can and will actually do as president. i hope voters will look at in this campaign, whether on the republican or the democratic side. i am an early supporter of hillary clinton because i have known her for a long time. i have known she can get things done. i have seen her in the white house as first lady.

i have seen her as senator and secretary of state. i think we need somebody who will not just talk a good game, but who will walk the walk. i want to talk more about who is the new hampshire voter. new hampshire is a purple state in the general election. just in state races, in your him in you ran and lost six years later you ran against him and one -- won. similar with your colleagues in against someone and that he won, then lost, then won. there has been a lot of switching back and forth between the parties. it is an interesting dynamic in that state. -- tell me what they are looking for. sen. shaheen: there are a couple

of distinctions that are important to make. very different in a presidential year. we have historically had 70% end up turn out. in 2008, we had more than 80%. in an off year, that dropped only in half. an impact on what happened in the elections. also, demographics of the state have changed. a lot of people have moved in from massachusetts, from the middle atlantic state. we have had people come in. new hampshire has a high-tech economy, which i think is surprising to a lot of people. we brought in a lot of people with advanced degrees and that has helped change the dynamic in the state as well. were born and raised in new hampshire i think no longer make up the majority of voters in this state. that has an influence as well.

it is a state that has changed and continues to change for two .r three we have the largest in migration in any state in new england now. that has leveled off. we seeing that begin to change a little bit. but it really changed the politics of the state as well. i want to return to the hard work and behind the scenes operation in new hampshire. hillary clinton chose a number of your staff to help on her ground game and the organization in the state. bernie sanders seems to have the moment to -- momentum. that in the new hampshire primaries getting a win? sen. shaheen: i think the organization is very important and most with a that accounts for a couple of points maybe. the impact has gone down some as campaigns have changed.

there are people who worked with me and i think they are terrific and they are very good organizers who know how to get their voters out on election day and that will be important. obviously, this election is a little different because voters are frustrated. we do not know yet if it will be a wave election as we have seen in the past here that is having an impact as well. what is your assessment of bernie sanders's ground game, coming from a neighboring state of vermont. ? do you think they have a substantial ground game in place? sen. shaheen: it is my understanding he does. i'm not familiar with that. he has the hometown advantage because he has a lot of people in vermont who can come over and work for him. a follow-up on what chris was asking, is there a point in

the primary where we start to see a critical mass or a favorite emerge? i'm thinking of this because the polls have been erratic on the republican side where we have seen donald trump stay in the lead but the fight for the number two spot has been going between ted cruz, marco rubio, john kasich. is there a point before the primary where we start to see people rally around one person? sen. shaheen: i have not asked about the new hampshire primary. there is no conventional wisdom about the new hampshire primary or campaigns in general. each one is different. thought was interesting about the recent poll on the democratic side was fully 49% of people said they had not firmly made up their mind about who they would soon or it. that is a big number. 2008,w if we look at everybody predict obama by more than 10 points and hillary won

on election day. we just don't know where voters will go. that is why i think hillary is working so hard, continuing to come back to new hampshire. she will come back tomorrow, listening to all the voters, responding to their questions and doing the same kind of hard work she has been doing throughout the campaign. we have been seeing that throughout. emily: it has always been an x factor. sen. shaheen: i'm not clear what they will do. they will have influence on either side depending on where they go. intorically, independents new hampshire have been more republican than democratic. i know that because i know what has happened in my races.

i do know that is where they have awesome -- often been in the past. where they are this year is anybody's guest. said, the fluctuation is not only on the democratic side, but on the republican side as well. emily: how successful have republicans had in the past to encourage them to vote for candidates they might not support in the general election were to change the outcome? that has been talked about but i am not aware it has ever been successful. back to the new hampshire voter, who takes the responsibility seriously. they want their vote to count. they do not want to go in and try to mess it up now. most still believe that candidates want to win fair and square. they do not want to win by tricking people or trying to play games with the voting process. host: we are at the halfway

point. thes: if i could turn to other big race you are working on, the governor's race against -- mbent republican senator i wanted to talk about how confident are you that democrats 2016,ke the senate back and secondly, if trump was the how much of a weight would that be around kelly in the general election? sen. shaheen: i remember being inthe democratic convention 1980 when ronald reagan got the nomination. people were excited because they thought ronald reagan would be the easiest candidate to beat. am weary of drawing conclusions about what will happen with the final voting based on supposition about what might happen.

i think this will be a hard-fought senate race. i am modestly supporting maggie, and she has in a good friend for a long time. reflecte she will hampshire values that i support and that i think are very important to new hampshire families. i also think we need somebody who can work across the aisle in a bipartisan way and that is what i have tried to do and i think we need to continue to do that. i do believe this will be a hard-fought way -- race and we do not know how the ticket will affect that. chris: it does not sound like you are specially confident that democrats will take the senate. sen. shaheen: i believe we will, but i think to decide this is how we are going to do it today, it does not reflect what may actually be happening out there. the map of at

contested senate races, the republicans have a lot more seats to defend than the democrats. but they also have more money. that is one of the real challenges. countryocrats and the faces. the fact that we can have some billionaires spend unlimited amounts of money in senate races and congressional races in a presidential campaign. it is not good for america. a few years ago, you were --y the state representative women. to follow up what you're saying about how difficult it is to run during a presidential race, and how you mentioned independents. talk about what senate candidates would have to do differently? right, well, i think the turnout tends to go

out much more on the democratic side than on the republican side. if we look historically, turn out on the democratic side is going to be much better in a presidential year than it is in an off year. it is one benefit a democrat has going into a fall election. that makes a presidential year, a typical presidential year, better for democrats than it does for republicans. i do think it donald trump is the nominee, it will galvanize -- basecratic race in a in a way that nothing else could. pastshe has said in the was that she thought it was good to have him in the race. but she has got to decide that. i wonder if i could turn attention to another issue a lot of candidates have been talking about on the trail in new hampshire and elsewhere. that is the epidemic of opioid addiction, drug go be like.

an acuteinitely problem throughout new england and new hampshire. i was wondering if you could great how you think the fda has as far as regulating prescription opiates over the last several years starting in the last decade but then including the approval of a very potent kind of prescription opiate, as well as authorizing use of opiates for children. is that of concern to you and how would you grade the fda in that regard? sen. shaheen: it is a great concern to me. we need a national focus on how we will respond on the heroine in oak point epidemic there and i believe it is a national health emergency, a critical issue in new hampshire and throughout the country. had aw york times dramatic graphic in the paper that showed where

there is an epidemic of heroin and opioid use. it was telling. in new hampshire, we are losing more than one person a day from drug overdose, three times as many as traffic accidents. from 2013, were from heroin and opioid. 13 of them were related to the additive that has really made to ine such a killer 2015, having over 240 deaths that were related, out of the 380 some. this is a huge crisis and we are not responding it at anywhere near the level we need to in this country. that means law enforcement, we need to give them the resources ,hey need to put away pushers it means treatment, making sure there are beds in new hampshire. ,e do not have nearly enough

short-term detox beds to help people, we do not have recovery centers we need because it is not just about short-term, helping people. detox. it is also about long-term. how do we keep people from going back to drugs was they have come out of of those units? it is about making sure we're not prescribing in the way we have historic week, painkillers. increasedly the prescribing of opioid that has .ed to the current problem now it is easier to get than prescription drugs. chris: what would you tell the new nominee regarding increased prescriptions? what would you ask them to do? sen. shaheen: to look at what kind of prescribing practices we're providing for doctors. i had a chance to question the head of the cdc last year at our

appropriations hearing and he knowledged this is something we have got to do a better job of. medical school, doctors are not required to take a course. they have been very late to recognize the negative impact of this. we need to also look at what is happening with pharmacists and do a better job with prescription drug monitoring programs and provide more resources for states because it is one of the basis where we onw we should cut down next what is happening. there is no magic silver bullet. we need to look at education and prevention. we have to put resources in all the areas that make a difference. it has been a good thing in the presidential primary to have candidates in new hampshire responding to what they would do

to address this problem. has put out an very good plan, i think, that would put a focus on this issue. hope we will see more to address on all levels. the patriots are in the playoffs. sen. shaheen: we are excited. emily: and favored to go to the super bowl. a lot of patriots fans in new hampshire. if you are a presidential candidate, should you even bother campaigning during a presidential campaign? have aaheen: unless you watch party can you do not want to make phone calls or knock on doors during the patriots game. if they are in the game, it will be all quite up there? sen. shaheen: we will see a lot of super bowl watch parties.

i remember in 2004, when john kerry was running for the new hampshire i married, we had a brewery, at redhook where we had a huge crowd to watch the game. i expect to see a lot of that. emily: if the patriots win and tom brady comes in endorse someone, could that a candidate over the top question mark -- top? sen. shaheen: i do not know it would do that and i would that he would not do that. with endorsement of hillary clinton, how concerned are you about the continuing investigation into her e-mail and the continuing and ghazi investigation capitol hill? on benghazi, i am on the foreign relations committee and i sat through multiple hearings on benghazi. i think she answered those

questions and persuaded americans that this has in a witchhunt that has been all about politics. on her e-mails, she has it knowledged she wished she had made a better choice, but as bernie sanders said, i think the public is sick of hearing about the e-mails. i think they want to hear about, what are all the candidates going to do to address very real challenges we face. we make sure that families have good opportunities for themselves and their kids, that we have good jobs so people can make sure they have a life where they can support their cap -- their families and put their kids through college without incurring all kinds of debt. how do we make sure women get equal pay for all the work we do, that people can count on retirement benefits. that is what people want to hear

about. host: until we hear definitively from the f he i on the investigation, is that a concern no, i thinkaheen: the fbi will come back and say she did nothing wrong. i am concerned about making sure hillary and the campaign tossed about what i believe people want to care about and that is what will she do as president to address what families want to see happen in this country. person -- thee disparity we have seen grow too big in the last decade. your daughter, stephanie, has been quoted as saying she is looking into a run for governor. there are already two the oil running for the open seat on the democratic side. what is your thought about that? have you talked to her about it? sen. shaheen: i am proud of my daughter and i think she would be a great candidate and that is her decision. as her mom, i will continue to be a proud mom and support her

in whatever she decides. if you are a parent, you understand. host: all parents watching probably understand. thank you so much for being our guest. nice to be here. after our conversation with jeanne shaheen, with chris rowland of the boston globe and emily goodin. looking specifically at new hampshire, is it possible to gain how the next 10 days are going to play out? it is a two-lane track at this point where donald trump and ted cruz are duking it out for potentially the first and second spots. votearchconservative angry , people are fed up with the inside the beltway kind of attitude. that is one race.

the second race is going on between the undercard between marco, chris christie, john kasich him ohio, and jeb bush. currente former and governors. rubio, they are see more of the establishment wayne. with that race, it is fascinating to see who emerges as the alternative to the more conservative side of the primary. about how get a a lot it goes moving forward. i was set up a lot of that and how people perceive going into new hampshire. southnew hampshire, after carolina, the march 1 primary .attles continue to go on emily: there is a republican debate with the primary.

that could really change minds. democrats on purpose did a light debate schedule. hillary clinton is a good debater and i'm wondering if she make come to regret the debate dental she agreed to. and at times when a lot of people are not watching television, saturday and sunday nights. the debates are getting great ratings. people want to watch. host: the monitoring of all the polls. looking at the undercurrents, what are you seeing in your consolidation of the polls about how the second tier people are moving? a lot of movement. ted cruz in second place and then marco rubio then chris

christie going back and forth. there really is a lot of indecision right now month people about who is their second. we are calling this establishment. donald trump is still seen as the out side of. it is more a race for second place. whoever we see get second race on primary night, they will be the new come back kid. we saw a big endorsement for donald trump of the former alaska governor, sarah palin. the next question was whether or not in the voter's mind, endorsements really matter, particularly with the attitude about conventional politics and washington being held in low esteem. are people telling you that endorsements are? it depends. you can look at critical and crucial endorsements when ted kennedy endorsed barack obama in

2008. that was a critical endorsement. another was elizabeth warren. if elizabeth warren stepped in and endorsed hillary clinton, that would be in norm us and would have a huge impact in new hampshire. she brings a lot of the sanders type voters. elizabeth warren being a populist candidate, attractive to the same voters that bernie sanders is attracting. i think she could really take away from bernie and health hillary if she were to give the stamp of approval for hillary. i do not say she is to and elizabeth warren will hold out until later in the cycle and perhaps bernie is weaker. not think elizabeth warren wants to get in and alienate those are her people as well. there are generally rare cases where it really makes a difference. in overall does not make a huge impact, frankly. in new hampshire, do

evangelicals matter as much to the electorate? emily: it is more independent voters. they are unpredictable. we do not know what they will do. the polls are limited place. the: but we are ready for first actual voters to vote. but thank you very much for helping us understand the final, crucial days until they do that. thank you for your time. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> road to the white house coverage continues today with donald trump at a campaign rally in iowa. you will have it live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> as i have been watching the campaign this year, it is far more interesting to look at the republicans than the democratic side. it may have something to do with why there is more interest in these candidates in the books.

non-dictioncarlos, book critic for the washington the 2016usses candidates. >> everyone of them has interesting stories in their lives and politicians are so single-minded in the pursuit of , it couldideology have particularly interesting ones. when they put out these memoirs, they are sanitized. they are vetted. they are therefore minimum imumroversy -- there for min controversy. on wednesday, loretta lynch told a senate appropriations sub midi that the president's executive actions on gun control are constitutional. also testifying at that hearing was the alabama attorney general, a former virginia

attorney general, and father who lost his son in the sandy hook tragedy. this is 2.5 hours. >> this hearing will come to order. madam attorney general, we thank you for joining us today to discuss the president's recent executive action. as chairman of this subcommittee, i believe it is my duty to the american people to properly oversee the department of justice and ensure any funding is used as congress intended and within the bounds of the constitution. it is clear to me the american people are fearful president obama is eager to strip them of their second amendment rights. the second amendment is not a suggestion.

it is an individual right for tested in the bill of rights, recognized by the supreme court. with that in mind, i am very concerned with the recent executive actions by the president for two main reasons. first, president obama, i believe, is far to will and -- too willing to use executive action p believes one, was does not act the way he wants us to, he must act alone. our constitution will not allow for this kind of unilateral action and the american people will not stand for it. whether through executive amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants or increased gun control measures, the prescient -- the president has acted alone. however, what the president fails to remember is we have a system of checks and balances.

a system created to ensure power was not concentrated in a single branch of the federal government. the president has ignored the system and accelerated the use of executive -- to an alarming, new level. none of the executive actions president obama has proposed would have prevented the recent tragic events in our nation, whether a terrorist attack or a single gun crime. i believe those responsible should be held accountable and that we must work to prevent it from happening again. as we have seen time and again, the president has used tragic events to push his political agenda. i believe he is more interested in grandstanding than engaging -- than actually doing the work necessary to protect this country.

in the wake of terrorist attacks and gino, the president did not address our law enforcement's's failures which allowed the terrorists to live among us. he also did not look at making changes to our immigration system after he clearly failed us by allowing an individual who should have been known to be a violent extremist to enter our country. instead, the president's's immediate response was to propose an additional gun-control measure your criminals and terrorists, let's be clear, are not buying their guns from gun shows, gun stores, or collectors. criminals, by definition, do not follow the law very we live in a dangerous world. the american people are looking for us to do everything in our power to keep them safe. the next time a terrorist attack occurs in this nation, innocent and laws i bills and must have the ability, i believe, to

protect themselves and their loved ones from harm if they so choose. it is our responsibility to preserve their right and not limit them. i believe most of us know this president has made no secret of his desire to restrict the second amendment right of law-abiding citizens. the american people deserve and ask that more from the president. they also expect more from their members of congress and i intend to live up to their expectations and the department is on notice. this subcommittee will have no part in undermining the cost is in the right that it detects. >> thank you very much and i congratulate you in holding a hearing today, taking up the topic of the issue of guns and their excessive availability in our society. this hearing tackle the very pressing issue of guns and gun violence area when an average of 300 americans are shot every day, many of them will die, almost one third here and we need to change our nation's culture of violence and we need to stop guns getting into the wrong hands, of criminals, mental honest, without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms. i support the president's is measure on guns here it he is

within his cost to small authorities to act in many of these activities, like adding more and agents, have been strongly supported by this committee. last year's omnibus under your chairmanship really showed our commitment to enforcing existing laws and staff in order to do it. i look forward to hearing loretta lynch's testimony today on the president's's recent announcement on guns and the impact it will have on the american people and will it make us safe? no mincing, no talking points. will it help the american people. are we within our constitutional boundaries? we respect the constitution and

also its impact on the justice department's authority to deal with this. we will also listen to the testimony of outside witnesses on the second panel. these people are well experienced, and also a father who will talk about the grid and things that happened at sandy white. no one is immune from gun violence, whether a congresswoman trying to meet with york vigilance, gabby gifford. whether you are children going to elementary school in wonderful, suburban community called sandy hook. whether you are simply going to movies or going to a community college. we're sitting in a charleston church of the iconic civil rights struggle to study the lord's word and welcome in a stranger to end such a terrible tragedy. our president has been at that funeral as he has been at so many.

he says we have to do something. we look forward to it the president's's proposals will be in the new year. the budgetary recommendations he put behind, we look forward to the president's recommendation. i am particularly interested in strengthening the instance of criminal background checks, there are back laws and technological glitches, people who want to go by the law are frustrated. we have to enhance the fbi's capacity to run background checks while at to do a lot of other background checks. are the new ways to do this and train local law enforcement? i just left a hearing where we are holding a hearing on mental illness. for so many people who are victims of gun violence, the volatile combination of mental illness and act as two guns are dangerous and i look forward not to me talking and listening to myself, but listening to the attorney general and this wonderful panel you have invited to participate today. let's solve the problem and not get involved in constitutional

arguments. let's help our american people be safe and secure, in their homes, neighborhoods, school, and house of worship. >> welcome to the committee again. your written testimony we made part of the hearing record. proceed as you wish. loretta lynch: thank you. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the steps the department of justice is taking to reduce gun violence and ensure smart and effective enforcement of our nation's gun laws. as the subcommittee well knows, our nation faces an epidemic of

gun violence that has taken a devastating toll on communities throughout the country. every year, tens of thousands of americans are injured or killed in armed robberies, domestic disputes, tragically, suicide, accidents, shootouts, and heinous acts of mass violence. law enforcement officers shot down by defending their communities to children killed in tragic accident spirit our friends and family members, our neighbors and fellow citizens, are being taken from us day after day. as the list of tragedies involving firearms has grown, the american people believe we must do more to stem the tide of gun violence. the executive actions the president announced two weeks ago, including the measures i recommend it to him, are essential components of the effort. they are important steps within the executive's power to clarify existing legal provisions, to focus enforcement effort, and stir innovation. i have confidence the common sense steps are lawful, consistent with the constitution

as interpreted by the supreme court and the laws passed by congress. the gun control act lists people not allowed to have firearms. congress has require that background checks be conducted as part of sales made by federally licensed firearm dealers to make sure that guns they out of the wrong. the actions announced by the president, which focus on background checks and keeping guns out of the wrong hands, are fully consistent with laws passed by congressman. the new executive actions will bring progress on a number of fronts. by clarifying what it means to be engaged in the business of dealing firearms, we raised awareness of and enhance compliance with laws that are already on the books. by issuing new regulations, we

ensure that licensed dealers will report them if they are lost and stolen in transit. those trying to acquire some of the most dangerous weapons through trust or corporations undergo background checks. by enhancing our national system's background check, we will be better prepared to keep guns out of the wrong hands in the first place. by increasing access to mental health care treatment with a proposed 500 million dollar investment to the department of health and human services, also referred to as hhs, we will not only be helping those in need but also curbing gun debt. the majority of which, tragically result from suicide. by supporting research on gun safety technology, we will be

laying the groundwork for a safer future, and drawing on our strength at the most technologically advanced nation on earth. the steps i have outlined in the actions president obama has ascribed are all well reasoned measures well within existing legal authorities, and build on work already underway. they clarify laws that are already on the books. clear notice will help ensure those laws are followed. they direct important resources to our law enforcement agents. these men and women deserve to have the support they need to do their difficult jobs effectively. they lay the groundwork for government to more legally provide information to background check information. in addition to helping people get the treatment they need, we must make sure we keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited by law from having them.

and they invest in research and promising technology that will make weapons safer. problem-solving through innovation has been one of our country's biggest strengths. i am confident these actions will help make our people safer, our communities more secure, and our law enforcement more effective. i also have no illusions that these measures i themselves would and gun violence in america. at a time when there is so much work to be done and so much capacity for progress, there are many areas where only congress could act. we will welcome the opportunity to work with you to further these goals. it is why i'm so grateful to have the opportunity to speak with you today about how we could work together to reduce gun violence in this country. i look forward to continuing the conversation in the days ahead as we discuss how to keep a promise to protect and defend every american's right to say she can -- safety, security, and life and liberty.

i look forward to answering your questions. >> as i said earlier, the constitution is not a suggestion. you would agree with that? loretta lynch: i agree it is the law of the land and the law we are one to uphold. >> the rights of the people of this nation are not recommendations. >> i agree with you on that as well as your previous opposition. >> the second amendment is part of the constitution and the bill of rights. loretta lynch: it is an important part of the first set of amendments. >> you agree that the rights granted by the second amendment are equally as important as those granted by the first and fourth and fifth amendments,

seventh amendment, and so forth? you say it is all an integral part of the constitution? loretta lynch: i believe the bill of rights and the subsequent amendment are an integral part of the constitution, as well as case lost that seek to interpret them. >> you said you worked closely with the president to craft these executive actions. to go as far as the president could legally go without overstepping. while we may disagree about whether or not the president has overstepped, and i am sure we would, i am concerned that the president is slowly shifting away at our second amendment rights. can you guarantee us that there is legal authority from the president to take the actions that he has taken and can you provide specific laws or court cases that support that position? loretta lynch: with respect to the recommendations are made to the president, as indicated in my earlier remarks, i believe they are consistent both with the constitution and existing case law that interprets the constitution. specifically the heller case

handed down by the supreme court that defined the second amendment and clarified the individual's right to bear arms, as well as the agency's right to promulgate guidance as well. with respect to actions taken, i am confident they are consistent with the law of the land come under the president's authority, because they seek to enforce existing laws and strengthen the provisions congress has directed that we undertake to keep american people safe, such as the background system. they seek to enhance protections for those with mental illness, providing greater treatment for them. another goal i know the subcommittee supports. >> each time there is a mass

shooting, the issue of expanded background checks reenters the public debate. i think we must look at the facts. the facts are that most of those actions are carried out to individuals who would not have been prevented from obtaining a firearm. the sandy hook crimes were committed by a man who shot his mother and stole her guns. now, with a background check cap prevented that horrible tragedy? the virginia tech shooter actually passed a background check to get his guns, much like those who committed similar crimes at fort hood, aurora, chattanooga, and the list would go on and on. the terrorist responsible for the attacks in san bernardino obtained their guns through a spur -- a straw purchase. a background check would not have helped them either. and yet we keep coming back to this issue. could you walk through these examples and tell us, how having more federal licensees would

have altered the outcome? loretta lynch: as i indicated, i do not believe we are able to look back and find a specific measure and prevent specific crimes. but that does not mean we must not seek to prevent future tragedies. with respect to strengthening the background system, sadly, the system is overwhelmed at this point in time. as we saw with the tragic shooting in charleston, that individual information was submitted. because of glitches through experience and well-meaning examiners, the information needed was not discovered in time to prevent that. the license firearm dealers who submit the information deserve the best and most efficient systems we could provide them. individuals who submit their information and wait for that response also deserve the most efficient system that we could provide them. certainly, the measures we are discussing today, for example increasing the number of examiners for the system, a matter directly related to appropriations, seek to serve

that important end. as i look through the laws, which gives us a way to protect people and vindicate the rights of those who have been victims of crimes, and yet have not been found a way to erase the human conviction that leads to crime, we are committed to doing everything we can moving forward to making sure our gun laws are effectively enforced and the american people are kept as safe as possible. >> as we look back on some of the tragedies, and they are real tragedies, which of these individuals bought their gun from a gun show. which of these criminals purchased their gun illegally online? i do not believe they did. loretta lynch: i am not able to

give that information now but what i can indicate is with respect to the clarifications on who is required to seek a license, as a federally licensed firearms dealer, this is in response to inquiries the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives received on a regular basis as they operate within gun shows to provide information and guidance. they also receive telephonic inquiries as well from individual seeking to comply with the law who want to know what are the standards and what are the things that determine whether or not they need to in fact apply for a license. click the area of new standards, a recent new york times article states the president possibly on gun control would require officials from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, to begin contact with gun sellers to let them know to clarify who would be considered a regulated dealer.

the article goes on to suggest the changes are particularly meant for online gun merchants. avoid conducting ground checks spite of having online gun sales through certain websites. the law requires that anyone selling guns for profit, which i believe would be high-volume gun sales, to have a federal firearms license, you are quoting in the article, in the new york times, right now, your words, is really an internet loophole. is this really a loophole in the law or a failure of enforcement? loretta lynch: i typically do not comment on news articles and would prefer to provide you my own response to a particular issue. internet sales are increasing. not only do we see an increase in sales at the typical commercial level at which the average consumer may it -- appropriately by a number of commodities, including firearms, but we also see firearms sales growing on the darknet, the part

of the internet that is not accessible to the average consumer of where it was it transactions are merrily held. transactions were an average law-abiding citizen are seeking to acquire a firearm lawfully, these are internet sales were criminals are seeking to buy firearms through which they can harm american citizens. it is not a loophole, but it area of enforcement that the atf has been focused on. with respect to the individuals who operate at gun shows, flea markets, and the like, there will be an educational component to the guidance. the information will be provided to them, they will be allowed to ask questions or we believe this will lessen confusion among those individuals seeking to comply with the law. where individuals operate on the

darknet, primarily on a list of transactions, it also puts them on notice so if enforcement actions need to be taken, there could be no discussion that they were simply not aware of this particular provision. >> i believe what we should really be talking about across america is how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and violent offenders. it is an uphill battle if the president continues to focus on e-voting second amendment rights. while we will debate the mandatory minimum sentences, the president's actions with these individuals convicted of illegally possessing a firearm, it is disturbing. i do not know these individuals and why the president feels they need shorter sentences. i do know that this sends a message to criminals that if you commit a crime with a gun, this administration will not be hard

on you and perhaps go easy on you. that is the wrong message. aren't the president's actions sending a mixed message to americans? one day he issues new executive actions to change gun regulations. then pardons criminals and gun related convictions the next day? how can the president, whom you represent in this administration, say he is committed to using every tool at the administration's disposal to reduce gun violence when his own administrator is not following through with criminals with gun related convictions? does that trouble you? loretta lynch: i do not know those specific cases the lie can -- what i can tell you is with respect, individuals who apply for those are carefully reviewed and vetted and only after the

consideration of a number of factors, and to take her, recent discussion about nonviolent drug -- in particular, recent discussion about nonviolent drug offenders and whether or not those individuals have i can do -- convictions, i would need to know the specific case to which you are referring but with respect to the clemency project, for example, it is a focus on looking at individuals who today would not have necessarily received the lengthy narcotics offenses they received and who also otherwise qualified as nonviolent and with a particular type of record. i am certainly happy to provide information to the extent it is helpful on specific cases, if you could alert me to them. with respect to the issues we are discussing today, however, again providing clarification of existing case law, gathering the existing case law, so individuals seeking to comply with the law have an easy to read, comprehensive reference to what the existing law says, and qualifies as engaging in the business of dealing with

firearms, so that they know whether they have to apply for a license or not or so their questions can be informed if in fact are helping the american people in clarifying the issue, of who needs to report a firearm when it is lost or stolen in transit allows atf to begin investigations of stolen firearms much more quickly than we are able to now. now, we recover on average, 1300 guns per year from crime scenes that turn out to be either lost or stolen. we do not know that information until they become -- until they are recovered in the course of a criminal investigation. learning the information earlier would help us start the investigation earlier and hopefully find the shipments before they fall into the hands of criminals, which is the goal of all of us here. >> i will not go through the

record here because i have been handed by staff here a number of people who were convicted of possession of firearms, of committing a criminal act or and have been let out of prison early and back with the people. which is dangerous. thank you for your indulgence, senator. >> it's good to see you again and we welcome you back to this community and way from maryland and baltimore thank the justice department for all their help during our recent challenges in baltimore related to the uprisings we had after the death of freddie gray which is not -- which is now going through the digital -- through the judicial system. and we're examining the need for justice reform within our police department.