including a congressman sued by his former mistral -- mistress. middle names he has should signify that he was in the southern elite. he had been a confederate colonel and respected cavalry man in the confederate cavalry. , hehe time of the lawsuit is in his fifth term in congress, he was by contrast nobody -- she was by contrast nobody. she was a poor girl from kentucky with literary aspirations and very hungry for an education. she was this hungry young woman who ran into reckon rage at a time when she was really desperate. -- breckenridge at a time when she was really desperate. >> sunday night at 80 stern on -- eight eastern on c-span's q&a. >> in the second day of the judiciary's hearing for william barr, they question the nominee's colleagues in public service. you can watch william barr's

testimony on the first day at c-span.org. south carolina senator lindsey graham cherished the committee. this is three hours, 20 minutes. morning. >> good morning. thank you for sharing your testimony with the committee. we have your written testimony and will certainly look at all of it. senator feinstein, thank you yesterday. i thought it was a good hearing.

nominating and attorney general is no small matter, and i concludede committee itself -- mr. barr is a qualified individual. pe words ofhear support. i will turn it over to you. thefirst witness will be former united states attorney, former u.s. district judge, former everything. [laughter] president, chief executive officer of the national association of advancement of colored people from baltimore, welcome. the former united states deputy attorney general, welcome. sorry,orable mark --

president, chief executive officer of the national urban league. former speech writer for aesident george h.w. bush and senior fellow at the university of virginia. professor of law at georgia state university college. star, smart guy. that is enough. the reverend from charleston, south carolina, mother emanuel. bless you for coming. national president for the fraternal order of the police. i will now turn it over to senator feinstein.

>> i would like to take a moment to thank our panelists today. yesterday -- i think both sides of the aisle asked mr. barr about his legal memo. that was allowing the special counsel to complete his work unimpeded and making the report at the end of the investigation public. his answers were good. he clearly understands the need for independence and importance of protecting the department, as well as mr. mueller from political interference. i was concerned by his equivocation regarding the report at the end of the special counsel's investigation. mr barr was clear he would notify congress if he disagrees with mr. mueller, which i am grateful for, but his answers on

providing a report to congress at the end of the special counsel's investigation were confusing. sd when i first asked him about the report, he said he would make it available. the day progressed, he referenced writing his own report and treating the mueller investigation as confidential. i think it is essential that congress and the american people know what is in the mueller report. i first met bob mueller when he was u.s. attorney and i was mayor in san francisco. i know his reputation, i know his integrity. this is a big report. , andublic needs to see it with the exception of very real national security concerns, i don't believe there should be much redaction.

i am hopeful that report will be made public. my vote depends on that, mr. because and attorney general must understand the importance of this to the nation as a whole, to us as a congress, as well as to every american. i also plan to follow-up on questions senator blumenthal asked about roe, and whether he would defend roe if it were challenged. this has always been a critically important issue for me, and i believe the majority of american women. i very much regret i didn't get to ask follow-up questions. mr. barr's nomination comes at a time when we are very divided on many issues ranging from immigration and civil rights enforcement to the very

independence of the justice department, and the witnesses today are going to speak to those key issues. for example, the professor from georgia university served in the justice department's office of legal counsel. he can speak today about issues he is focused on, primarily residential authority and separation of powers. an ordained pastor who lost her mother and cousins to gun violence in the horrific hate crime that took place at emmanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina, and can speak to the importance of enforcing common sense gun laws. we will hear from two prominent leaders of the civil rights community who can speak to the impact of the justice department's policies under president trump. where are you, mark? whose sister has been a colleague of ours. great to see you.

the president and chief executive officer of the national urban league now. and president of the naacp. on behalf of the side, i welcome everyone here. thank you mr. chairman. >> if it's okay, lead us off. sorry, got to swear you in first. could you please stand, all of you? raise your right hand. theou solemnly affirm testimony you are about to give this committee is the truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. chairman,rning mr. ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. it is a tremendous honor, as well as great pleasure to be here to testify on behalf of bill barr to serve as attorney general.

i don't know of any nominee who has had his back ground and his credentials for this job. obviously the job is a lot more than credentials. done literally you could possibly do, including serving as attorney general, to prepare. obviously the department of justice is a different place from the time he served, but he well-equipped to deal with any problem he faces. the legal counsel, the office that attracts the best legal minds in the department. he headed that office. he was deputy attorney general, and attorney general. it is impossible to improve on that. not only what he did, but the way he did it. when he was acting attorney general, he supervised the liberation of hostages at a

federal prison in a way that prevented any casualties. then follow that up by not taking any public credit for it. that is the kind of person he is. as far as pressure from the white house, he was asked at one point whether he could come up with a theory to justify the line item veto. he found there was no precedent in our law that might be called common law going back to the 15th century. he said there was a scottish king that did something that looked like a line item veto, but that scottish king as it turned out was suffering from syphilis and was quite out of his mind. not tosident decides assert the power. that is the kind of judgment he has. revelation to me, too.

it illustrates what he is like. he is not intimidated by questions or by the source of them. a couple months ago, when general sessions was leaving, i wrote an article pointing out the good things he had done. i called up bill barr to ask whether he would join in that article. he didn't hesitate for a nanosecond. he said it was the correct thing to do, and he was glad he had done it. that tells you in substance what it is this person is not. -- is about. he is a honorable, decent, smart man, and i think you make a superb attorney general. -- he will make a superb attorney general. >> good evening. is that better? great.

thank you for allowing me to testify on the nomination of william barr to attorney general of the united states. since 2017, i had the honor of serving as the presidency of the naacp. founded in 1909, naacp is our nation's oldest and most likely record sized civil rights organization. -- widely recognized civil rights organization. we oppose mr. barr's nomination. the senate considers this nomination in extraordinary times. under the trump administration, we have experienced the worst erosion in civil rights in modern history. we have seen reversals and rollbacks of long-standing policies and positions that have enjoyed bipartisan support from their creation. we have seen an undermining of both substantive protections and the tools necessary for civil rights enforcement, such as the disparate impact method for

proving discrimination and use abuse byt decrees for police agencies. the next attorney general has the opportunity to reverse course and fulfill this historic role of safeguarding our civil and constitutional rights. the senate must seize this second chance for justice and insist upon and attorney general capable of independence and willing to enforce civil rights laws with vigor and resolve. after a thorough review of the record, william barr is not a candidate. mr. barr's record demonstrates a lack of commitment to protecting the civil rights of all americans. the community represented by the naacp will have a difficult time placing our trust in the justice department, and by extension the justice system overall. even with the improvements just signed into law with the first

step act. the justice department's enforcement of our voting rights laws is of paramount importance. the current department has jettisoned protections for the right to vote. voters fromed the rolls. because shelby county versus holder eliminated safeguards under the voting rights act, litigation under section two of the act is all more important. the justice department has filed no section two claims since this administration has been in place. as the nation experiences rampant voter suppression throughout the 2018 midterm elections, the justice department stood silently as communities of color were denied access to the polls. at a time when the justice department has abandoned voting right protection, the need for federal enforcement has never been greater. the u.s. commission on civil

rights reported voter suppression is at an all-time high, and unanimously called on the department to pursue more .oting rights enforcement mr. barr's record on criminal justice is abysmal. as attorney general, he championed mass incarceration and deprived countless persons of color of their liberty and radically limited their future potential. his tenure was marked by an extraordinary breadth of policies that harm people of color. he was a general in the war on the crime and drugs that was rooted in racism. he literally wrote a book for the case for more incarceration, which stand in contradiction of the first stamp act. william barr does not recognize racially discriminatory impact of our criminal justice system policy. in 1992, he said i think our system is fair, it does not

treat people differently. yesterday he told senator booker "the system treats blacks and whites fairly." this statement is singly disqualifying. we need an attorney general that understands the history and persistence of racism in our criminal justice system. government sponsor inhumanity is inconsistent as it relates to this administration's enforcement of immigration rights. the naacp filed a lawsuit as it relates to daca. we need an attorney general that respects the rights of individuals. barr's recent actions makes his impartiality on the ongoing investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election suspect. naacp is very clear. matters of international question is not under our

purview, but anytime a foreign nation uses the worst common denomination in this nation's history of racism to suppress african-american votes in an effort to subvert democracy, it is a question of national security. we need someone to stand up and be fair. thank you members of the committee. morning chairman graham, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. it is my great honor to appear in support of bill barr's nomination to serve our country as attorney general of the united states. i have known bill since 1992. i can attest to the fact that dill has a deep respect for an fidelity to the department of justice. bill will go where the law leads him. as attorney general, he did not

hesitate to seek to appoint various special or independent counsel in high-profile matters. he served with great distinction as attorney general and is highly respected and admired on a bipartisan basis by the career prosecutors and investigators he oversaw in the department. bill knows how to develop much-needed partnerships with state and local law enforcement. he was successful at this and created strong and effective joint task forces across the country to combat white-collar and violent crime. bill believes every citizen, no matter where he or she lives, deserves the full protection of the law. bill also understands federal law apartment cannot do the job alone. in 1992, bill visited my hometown of atlanta georgia and spoke with members of the southern christian leadership conference. he said when cleaning up crime

infested neighborhoods, "it cannot be a washington bureaucratic project. it must be a project where the solutions are found in the community itself." he acknowledged to the reverend that in the past decade, the federal government's anticrime efforts relied too heavily on prison construction and not enough on crime prevention. as a former general counsel of a large public company myself, i also appreciate and admire bill's approach to the private sector. bill was collaborative with his colleagues. he welcomed input, dialogue, an discussionsd. he created opportunities for everyone he oversaw to develop and grow in their careers, including many female lawyers and lawyers of color. he supported diversity in the legal profession. in 2002, the company bill served

as general counsel received the northeast region employer of choice award from the minority corporate counsel association for successfully creating a more inclusive work environment. finally, members of the committee, i think the most important point i can share with you is bill martin is a person -- bill barr is a person of high integrity. he led the department of justice with an unbending respect for the rule of law. he emphasized the importance of complying with all laws, rules, and regulations, and he stood up for his corporate client, a world-class compliance program. bill barr's integrity is rocksolid. he will not simply go along to get along. last january, he resigned from his position as the director of an important public company board. bill let his conscience and integrity guide his decision.

as a citizen, i thank bill for his willingness to return to public service. he is needed, and i look forward to his service to our great country as attorney general. >> thank you. chairman graham, senator feinstein and members of this youittee, i want to thank for the opportunity to testify on the nomination of william barr to be attorney general of the united states. i had the pleasure of serving as president and ceo of the national urban league. before doing so, i served eight years as the mayor of new orleans, president of the united states conference of mayors, a louisiana state senator, a college professor and practicing lawyer involved in one of the most important voting rights cases to come before the supreme court in the 1990's. the national urban league was founded in 1910, an historic

urban advocacy organization with a network of 90 community-based affiliates. we have affiliates in every town represented by the members of this committee. we have worked hard and fought for civil rights, justice, and equal opportunity, along with fairness for our entire existence. my illustrious predecessor was one of the big six civil rights leaders who worked on the 1964 civil rights act, 1965 voting rights act, and fair housing act. one of our prime mission is to ensure each of these laws is aggressively, faithfully, and consistently executed and enforced by every president, every congress, and every attorney general. that is why i am here today. on behalf of the urban league movement across the country, i

urge this community -- this committee, based on a careful examination of this nominee's record, to soundly reject the nomination of william barr as attorney general of the united states. let me tell you why. for the past two years the department of justice has been led by an attorney general intent on restricting civil rights at every turn. this nation needs and attorney general that will dramatically change course and enforce civil rights laws with vigor and independence. based on his alarming record, we are convinced william barr will not do so. indeed, in a recent op-ed, mr. barr called jeff sessions the architect -- called jeff sessions an outstanding attorney general and offered praise for his anti-civil rights policies. it is clear, based on the record, that mr. barr intends to

follow mr. sessions down the same regressive anti-civil rights roadmap. the confirmation of william barr, who espouses former attorney general sessions' policies, would enormously exacerbate our nation's current civil rights crisis. when we submitted evidence to the commission -- comments to the commission on civil rights ssues, they were as follows -- overturning a memo from eric holder aimed at avoiding mandatory sentencing, disproportionately subjecting minorities to incarceration. abandoning the smart on crime initiative, ending the community oriented services collaborative reform project, a justice department program that helped build trust between police officers and the communities they serve.

announcing the justice department school safety plan that neutralizes schools -- military rises schools, offering consent decrees as related to police conduct. nothing but a subterfuge to undermine a crucial tool in the justice department's efforts to ensure accountable policing. mr. barr has a troubling record that tells us there will be no redress of sessions' blunders. last year, after arduous work, we passed the first step in the juvenile justice reform act of 2018, and i want to thank the committee for its support. mr. barr's record on criminal justice places these achievements at serious risk, and gives us no confidence these hard-fought performs will be carefully executed. -- reforms will be carefully executed? why? barr pursued harsh policies that

escalated mass incarceration. his 1992 book "the case for more incarceration" argued the country was incarcerated too few individuals. barr led an effort to abolish parole and increase prison sentences. yesterday mr. barr testified to this committee of his intent to implement the first step act. if that is the case, this committee should ask him for a commitment to rescind the guidance mr. sessions issued may 10, 2017, instructing all u.s. attorneys to seek the maximum penalty in federal criminal prosecutions. the attorney general has a duty to vigorously enforce our nation's most critical laws, to protect the rights and liberties of all americans, to serve as an essential independent check on

the excesses of an administration. we feel the evidence is clear that mr. barr is ill suited to serve as chief enforcer of our civil rights laws, and therefore we urge this committee as part of its deliberations, its duty and its responsibility, to reject mr. barr nomination as our next attorney general. i want to thank you for your time. graham and senator feinstein and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. i am here to get my enthusiastic support for the nomination of william barr as our next attorney general. i was a white house speechwriter for president george h.w. bush from 1989 to 1992. in january of 1992, i moved to the justice department from the white house for the final year of the bush '41 administration

to serve as director of policy and communications, serving as one of two spokesman for the then-new attorney general bill barr. my first started working for general -- when i first started working for general barr, i was 28 years old. i found bill barr has a brilliant legal mine. he knows mandarin, chinese, and he plays the bagpipes. he has a great sense of humor and an easy laugh. he is a dedicated public servant and one of the best bosses i have ever had. he is always a gentleman. bill and i flew thousands of miles that year in a four seater plane to towns and cities all over america, where he met with local law enforcement leaders, small-town mayors, city council members, victims right advocates

, criminal justice reform leaders, residents of public housing, prison wardens, religious leaders, really, all kinds of people from every walk of life. we weren't often traveling in support of bill -- were often traveling in support of bill's initiative to remove violent criminals from underserved neighborhoods, then allow grassroots organizations to flourish, bringing hope of a better life through education, opportunity, and stronger civil rights. as we met with communities all over america, i saw bill was a good listener. he was masterful at throwing out people concerned -- people's concerns, figuring out what worked in a neighborhood and putting the right policies in place. he made for politics never entered into it. bill barr treated everyone with the same respect, whether they

were and up and coming chief of police, a receptionist at the department of justice, or 80-year-old resident of public housing. i believe this is why bill barr continues to be held in high esteem by the civil servants at the department of justice and w hy he was such a successful attorney general. in addition to "policy, bill -- being good policy, -- everywhere we went that year, we were accompanied by rank and file fbi patients. he was admired by everyone i met. more than once i can remember being in dangerous situations where the agents were concerned about his physical security. he was more concerned about my security. the fact that the attorney general of the united states was concerned more about the safety of the 28-year-old staffer than his own tells you volumes about

him. despite his stunning intellect, bill barr is not an ivory tower kind of guy. he went out of his way to build friendships across the united states, checking in on someone that was sick, just staying in touch. he and his wife came to my wedding. we stayed friends for the 27 years we have worked together. like president bush 41 did, bill barr has a wide and devoted collection of friends, each with things of him as a good friend. i remember when he was attorney general at the age of 42 and his daughters were three young girls. despite his hours and travel and time spent away from family, his daughters admired his devotion so much not later each went to law school -- that later each went to law school. as a mother, that tells me volumes about the example he has given to young people,

especially women. it is no surprise to me he is one of the few people in american history to be asked to be attorney general of the united states twice. it is an honor for me to recommend william barr for nomination. >> my thanks to the committee for the honor and privilege to appear and testify on the nomination of william barr to the attorney general. in his testimony yesterday, william barr minimized his 2018 memorandum on obstruction of justice. he characterized it as a narrow analysis of a particular interpretation of a specific statute. sense, but toin a answer that very narrow question, he elaborated a comprehensive and fully theorized vision of the president's constitutional power. he declared, without limit or

qualification, and i quote, " constitutionally, it is wrong to conceive of the president as the highest officer in the executive branch. he alone is the executive branch. as such, he is the sole repository of all executive powers conferred by the constitution, thus the full measure of law enforcement authority is placed in the president's hands, and no limit is placed on the kinds of cases subject to his control." that manifesto of an imperial executive has alarming implications for the mueller investigation and for the whole of the executive branch. first, i wish to highlight two implications for the meal investigation. william barr gave reassurances yesterday regarding what he would or would not do. these assurances are beside the point, because on barr's theory,

the arrests with the president -- power rests with the president, therefore the president does not have to ask barr to do anything. in his view, the attorney general and special counsel are merely the president's hand, again a quote. the president only needs ask the attorney general, "can i terminate the special counsel's investigation?" barr's answer to that question will be yes. this is not speculation or inference drawn from the barr memo. the barr memo takes this on very directly. again, quoting the memo, "say an incumbent u.s. attorney launches an investigation of an incoming president. the new president knows it is bogus, is conducted by political opponents, and is damaging his ability to establish his new

administration and address urgent matters on behalf of the nation. it would be neither corrupt nor a crime for the new president to terminate the matter." well, president trump has told us exactly how he regards the mueller investigation. great deal ofs a discussion around the release of mueller's report. first, it is clear that barr does not mean -- that barr takes the doj regulations to mean he should release not the mueller report, but rather his own report. doj regulations and practice to prevent any discussion of -- to forbid any discussion of decisions to indict. in combination with the doj view that a sitting president may not

be indicted, this suggests barr will take the position that any discussion of the meal report relating to the president -- mue ller report relating to the president would be improper and prohibited by doj policy and regulations. i wish to close by noting one memo'sence of the barr theory of executive power that extends outside the mueller probe. the memo asserts the president discretion tole remove principled officers carrying out his executive functions." this would mean, for example, that the president may order the chairman of the federal reserve not to raise interest rates, and to fire the chairman of the federal reserve if the chairman refuses to follow that order. the independence of the federal reserve, the sec, the fec, the

of, the fcc, the dozens administrative -- of independent administrative agencies, are unconstitutional under barr's theory of executive power. this in spite of the fact that fo over 80 years, the supreme court has consistently upheld the constitutional validity of the independence of those entities. mr. barr's theory of presidential power is fundamentally inconsistent with our constitution, and deeply dangerous for our nation. you.ank allow me to thank chairman graham, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee for allowing me to speak today. i have known general barr for several years. i represented him with other

former attorneys general during the litigation leading up to the clinton impeachment. i can think of no better person to serve in this position and lead the justice department at this critical time. i come to this as someone who holds different views of the constitution from general barr. i am unabashedly a madisonian scholar. i was admitted in testimony -- always admitted in testimony i favor the judicial over the executive branch. my default is in article one. general barr's default is article two. he takes a robust view of executive authority. i have always admired him. i always found him to be one of the most knowledgeable and circumspect leaders in the united states when it comes to constitutional history. i have already submitted testimony addressing the 1989

and 2018 memos. i respectfully disagree with my friend, although i found many of the things he said very compelling. we disagree on the implications of general barr's views. ultimately this committee has a difficult task, regardless of the resume of a nominee. you have to determine the person's core identity. that question has come down to a curious and little-known fact about the seal of the attorney general that sits underneath the attorney general whenever he speaks. it has a familiar image of a rising eagle with an olive branch and 13 arrows and talons, but under it is a latin legend which we continue to fight about how it was put on the seal. it was derived from how the attorney general was introduced to the queen. the british attorney general was

introduced as one who prosecutes for our lady, the queen. that phrase was adopted by someone -- there is huge debate as to who, when, or why -- but they made one change, it would not do to use that language. they changed it to our lady justice. it would not do for the attorney general to litigate on behalf of any leader. the attorney general appears on behalf of the constitution, not the president. i know that bill barr understands that distinction. he said so yesterday. he maintained that position to result career. he has a record of specific leadership, not just at the department of justice, but this position. he is the second person to fill that position twice. there are few nominees in history who has the resume that

bill barr has. i won't go into depth about the discussion of the memo, other than to say this -- i do go into it in my written testimony -- as deputy attorney general rod rosenstein said, it is not uncommon for former justice officials to share their views on things they believe concern the department. indeed, general barr wrote to other justice officials about the prosecution of senator menendez. he had no interest in the case. his interest was the theory of execution being used against senator menendez, that he was concerned swept too broadly under the criminal code. the 2018 memo is vintage bill barr. it is detailed, it is dispassionate. it is the work of a law nerd, and that is what he is.

i should note, because i am a law nerd, and i teach other law nerds. why would anyone right this memo -- write this memo spontaneously? that is because you don't know law nerds. i think the best thing we can do for the family is to re-incarcerate bill on the main floor where he can talk about this all day long. the dispute about the obstruction provision is a real one. i am taken aback by the criticism. from a civil liberties standpoint, i have been ca critic. as a defense attorney, i have been a critic for a long time. the issue he raises is a real one. some raise it from the civil liberties standpoint.

what he really is arguing is not that the president can't be prosecuted, he says the opposite. he says the president can be charged with federal crimes in office. he believes the president can be charged with obstruction. he says the dinah kirgo opposed thing to what -- diametrically opposed thing to what people are saying about him. as confucius said, the start of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. he wants to call this by its proper name. if a president commits a crime, he wants at to be defined. he was only talking about the residual clause of 1512. those were fair questions about statutory interpretation. i disagree with some of his conclusions, but i wholeheartedly agree with him

that this is a serious problem and it has to be defined. if you read his testimony, i believe you will find he is more measured than my friends have suggested. own formern's appointees like james clapper said yesterday he went as far as he could go as attorney general in giving assurances. they need this man, and they need him now. i brought my children today, because i think they should be here. i suspect they are here because they heard senator feinstein was giving up junk food to kids, but i also hope they understand the historic moment for what it is. i thank you for being part of this. graham,morning chairman ranking member feinstein, and members of the senate judiciary

committee. it is my honor to appear before you today to testify on the nomination of william barr to be attorney general of the united states. is reverend sharon risher, and i live in north carolina. my life, like so many other people's throughout this nation, has been forever changed by gun violence. preventable that is with effective enforcement and common sense safety laws. 2015,nesday, june 17,

grief and tragedy and pain and loss. as i worked with patience and families to comfort -- patients and families to comfort them. that night, i was the one in need of comforting when i received a telephone call that no american deserves to get. my beloved mother and two of my cousins had been shot and killed in the church, along with six other parishioners at the emmanuel african methodist episcopal church in charleston, south carolina. in the charleston community which i was raised, when the doors of the church was open, my family was in the pews. that wednesday was no different. a young white man entered the

church at the beginning of the bible study. in the spirit of our faith, he was welcomed in by the congregation and sat near the pastor. after studying the gospel of mark, they held hands and bowed their heads and closed their eyes and held hands in prayer. that was the final moment for many in that church. that day that young man pulled out his gun and started firing. tables,, some hid under but they were gunned down. is supposedorship to be a refuge from the storm of everyday life, but that young

man robbed my family and the eight other families of their loved ones. five people survived. five people have to live every day with that tragedy in their hearts. after the massacre in charleston, i struggled to answer why my loved ones and so many others had been killed. i was disturbed to learn that the shooting was premeditated and driven by hate. the shooter targeted parishioners at emmanuel simply because of the color of their skins. along with so many americans, i was baffled how such a hateful

man was able to get his hands on a gun. we later discovered that he in oure -- a loophole gun laws allowed the shooter to obtain the weapon used to remember my mother and cousins and six others in that church. that loophole allows hatred to be armed to kill. the person that killed my family members should have not been gun.to buy that the national criminal instant background check system was designed to keep guns out of the wrong hands, including criminals, domestic abusers, and unlawful users of controlled substances. the charleston shooter had previously been arrested for

drug possession, something that should have blocked him for obtaining a gun under our existing laws. yet he was able to legally purchase one because of a loophole in the federal law. fbi does nothe finish a background check within three days, the sale can proceed regardless of whether the check had been completed. and that is exactly how the man who killed my family exploited a loophole and got his gun. he is not the only one. alone, reported in 2017 gun dealers sold at least 4864 g uns to prohibited people before

the background checks had been completed. sales werey 5000 primarily made to felons, domestic abusers, or like the man who killed my family, unlawful users of controlled substances. systemg background check is the foundation for common sense safety laws that keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. stop hate from being armed, but we need background , ands on all gun sales law enforcement needs enough time to complete the background check. each day, i wake up motivated to ensure that hate will not win.

as a member of the every town survivor network, i share my story to put a human face on our nation's gun violence crisis. survivorsity of advocates for change to help e nsure that no other family faces the type of tragedy we had experienced. confirmed as our nation's next attorney general, ourbarr will serve as nation's top law enforcement officer in a position of great power and influence. ahope he will make it priority to prevent gun violence and work with congress to update

our laws and close loopholes that enable guns to get in the wrong hands, just like that hate,man, filled with murdered my family. nine lives were cut short in charleston. today, i say the names of my mother and my cousins and the to honor themle in this sacred place. , myother, mrs. ethel lance , my friend myra thompson, reverend clementa pinckney, reverend singleton, depaynethia hurd,

middleton-docotor. i pray whenever you hear their names, you pray to bring about change. thank you for listening, and i will answer any questions that you have. good morning mr. chairman, ranking member feinstein, and distinguished members of this judiciary. i am elected spokesperson of the 45,000 rank and file police officers, the largest law enforcement organization in the united states. i am pleased to offer the strong and unequivocal support of the fop for the nomination of william p. barr to be the next attorney general of the united states. in my pretense -- previous appearances, i have been proud to offer fop support for a

number of nominees with the expectation they would serve our country honorably and effectively. in this case, however, there is no need to speculate whether or not mr. barr would make a good attorney general, because he has already been a good attorney general in the administration of george h.w. bush. he had the knowledge and ability to lead this department then, and he certainly does now. his service began as a clerk for a judge for the district of columbia. he served a short tenure in the reagan white house. he then joined the bush administration as assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel in 1989. president bush took note of his leadership, integrity, commitment to law enforcement, and provided him to deputy -- promoted him to deputy a.g. in 1991, he was named acting

attorney general and faced a public safety crisis. at the talladega federal prison, more than 100 cuban inmates staged a riot and took seven corrections officers and three naturalization employees hostage. general barr ordered the fbi to plan a hostage rescue effort. the cuban inmates demanded they be allowed to stay in this country and released one of the hostages. over the course of the nine-day siege, it was clear then that negotiations were failing. general barr ordered the fbi to breach the prison and free the hostages. they did so without any loss of life. following the successful resolution of this incident, president bush nominated him to beat u.s. attorney general. -- to be u.s. attorney general.

through his service and his actions, he demonstrated he was the right man for the job. the fop believes he is the right man for the job again today. two years ago, after his inauguration, president trump issued three executive orders on law enforcement and public safety. the first directed to the federal government to develop strategies to enhance the protection and safety of officers on the beat. the others created a task force on public safety and for the development of a national strategy to combat transnational organizations trafficking human beings, weapons, and illicit drugs. during his tenure as attorney general, mr. barr oversaw a similar transformation at the justice department by refocusing its resources by making crimes of violence a top priority for

law enforcement. i submit to this committee at mr. barr is perfect person to complete the work begun by general sessions with respect to focusing federal resources to fight violent crime. he has done it as attorney general. president trump has clearly made law enforcement a top priority. his nomination of william barr to be the next attorney general demonstrates these priorities have not changed. we know mr. barr's record and abilities. views, and we his are confident mr. barr will be a stellar top cop. we believe the president made an outstanding choice, and for mr. barr to return to public service as attorney general will serve this country well. fop offers support for the many -- for the nominee. you for the opportunity to

testify. i would be glad to answer any questions. >> i appreciate your testimony. i will get started quickly. reverend, thank you for sharing your loss and your story and your hurt. some comfort, mr. barr says if he is attorney general, he will pursue red flag legislation that will allow law enforcement, if they have appropriate information, to deny someone a gun who is showing dangerous behavior. i think there is a gap in our la w. most of these cases, people are screaming before they act. the guy in florida did everything except take an ad out saying he was going to kill everybody. ylann roof, he applied for a gun in south carolina.

the system said he had just been arrested. he had not been convicted. wrong'sagent called the solicitor's office, and they did not find out he had admitted to possessing and using a substance that would have kept him from owning a gun. that was more of a mistake then it was a loophole. thank you very much for what you had to say. the special counsel regulation says that the conclusion of the special counsel's work, he or she shall provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel. will takethink barr this report seriously if you

give it to him. >> absolutely. >> it says the attorney general will notify the judiciary committee in both bodies. do you think he will do that? >> absolutely. >> it also says to the extent applicable to law, a disruption of instances, if any, in which the attorney general concluded a proposed action by the special counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established departmental practice that it should not be pursued. under this regulation, if mr. mueller offers a course of action and mr. barr doesn't think we should do that, he has to tell us about that event. do you believe he will do that? >> absolutely. >> it says the attorney general may determine public release of these reports would be in the public interest to apply to

applicable legal restrictions. do you think he will be a transparent as possible? >> yes and he said this. if i could add one thing, the committee pressed him on what he meant by that and ranking member this in herised comments but as james clapper and others noted yesterday, only so much, as far that a nominee can go. ask that he satisfy ethical standards when asking to to commit in advance release of information he hasn't seen yet because part of his likeis to protect things rule 6c information, grand jury information, derivative information, privileged information. he is duty bound to review that nominee canthing a say is that she will err on the try to transparency and get as much as of the report to congress as possible. sen. graham: based on what you know about mr. barr, should we take him at his word?

absolutely. i have never known bill barr to andnything but honest straightforward. the last time he was in front of this committee, the chairman of yourcommittee, predecessor, braids -- praised barr. he said it was a throwback to what committee hearings used to nomineewhere the actually answered questions so err on thehe would side of transparency, you can take it to the bank. sen. graham: mr. johnson, thank you for coming today. i listened to your concerns mr. barr. for hobart and lynch. do you think i made a good decision voting for them to be attorney general? do. sen. graham: why? >> i think their presentation committee was honest, direct. but more importantly, they committed to protect our democracy. for african americans, protecting the democracy is also

rigorously enforce efforts to ensure that all citizens can cast their ballot. they committed to that and they demonstrated that while they were in office. sen. graham: and you believe mr. barr will not be committed to that? i have serious reservations and concerns. those concerns first start with this administration, their lack of enforcing section two of the voting rights act. how much of it is about this administration versus mr. brendan barr. >> it's difficult to separate the two. sen. graham: i want to suggest something to you. there were a lot of concerns i about the obama administration. i thought he chose wisely with and ms. lynch buzz they had differences in policy because i'm a republican but i thought they would be good stewards of the law and they be fair arbiters of being attorney general. i never crossed my mind that

would vote against them because i have policy disagreements. be the newoing to standard, none of us are going to vote for anybody on the other side. so thank you for your input. >> if i may, mr. chair. going beyond policy initiativet, this has a long history of discriminatory practices particularly in the criminal justice system and any time we have a nominee coming before this committee who truly don't the disparities in the criminal justice system as yesterday, that goes beyond policy disagreement. that goes towards whether or not understand the equal protection of the law should be afforded to all citizens. sen. graham: i remember senator booker asked him and he said yes, the crack cocaine sentences were disproportionate to the african american individual and that's why we changed the disparity between cocaine. in 1992wledged that but

he thought the biggest victim of lowant violent crime were income mostly minority don't buy whati you're saying about him not understanding the differences and how one group is affected the drug arena so i think what he was trying to do is talk about crime but here's what's perplexing to me. fightacp has been in the for social and racial justice for a very long time and i don't know how we got here. a scorecard every year and in 2017 every democrat got 100%. 22%. %.assley got 11 puerto lee got 11. ernst got 11. got 17. craiko got 6. disparity here. i hope you think that because i disagree with your scorecard

rating that i'm not a racist and i certainly don't know how to close this gap. i'd like to. the naacp is a nonpartisan organization. our scorecard is not based on political party. our scorecard is based on our agenda. sen. graham: how do you explain the differences? you allow me. our agenda is set by the delegates from across the country. that very clear discrimination should not be a part of. sen. graham: how many of them are republican? >> excuse me? sen. graham: how many of them are republican? >> we don't determine how many members are republicans. ourave republicans among membership, on our national board. sen. graham: i don't want to -- allow me to explain the report card. we establish our agenda not based on political parties understand that political parties are nothing more than vehicles for agendas americansy african were members of the republican parties before the 1965 voting act, many african americans may decide their

the party's on platform and if party platforms align with the needs and of our communities, then they will vote for a theirrm that supports needs, whether access to quality ensuring allion, african americans can cast a fair ballot, fair housing builts, true tests to determine impact. concerns we're concerned about, not partisan issues and individuals that run on party labels, they decide the platform which party they run under. decisionslicy informed by members across the country. some are democrats, some are arertarians and some republicans. sen. graham: you may not think that you're making -- that your neutral. party all i can tell you is somebody problems, to solve it's pretty odd to me that every democrat gets 100% and i do the

best as a republican getting 22. the problems are all on our side. i don't think so. that you'reagenda pursuing in the eyes of conservatives is not as good for country as you think it is and it's not nothing to do about morelican and democrat but to do about liberal and conservative. ask yourself, why does everybody sorve this committee, the best i can do is get 22. >> i think the members of the republican party should ask yourselves, are you willing to be expansive enough and inclusive to ensure the rights individuals despite their racial background, their interests are met. or based on conservative liberal tendencies but based on individuals needs. sen. graham: fair enough. getyourselves why i can't better than 22% from

conservatives? we can go down each one of the policy agendas and make a determination. i want to sharpen this discussion because i think it's an important discussion. and give you what concerns me entire comes to this discussion. this is about whether the going tos faithfully enforce the civil rights laws. let me give you a couple of facts. you oneham: can i ask question. name one republican you would support. >> i'm not here to talk about republicans and democrats. i supported him when he was a democrat. sen. graham: i just can't think better person to pick than mr. barr if you're a republican. i don't know who's going to do than him in terms of experience, judgment and temperament so if this guy i'm at a loss to who we can -- >> let me make my point because committee to be extremely clear on this. examples. to cite two

attorney general sessions -- we have to talk about his record us ise the question for whether mr. barr is going to continue the policies of attorney general sessions when civiles to enforcing rights laws. in two instances attorney general sessions, in his first days and months in office, had the justice department change of anin the middle important civil rights case. sen. graham: elections matter. enforcement of the law does not. lawrcement of civil rights is neutral when it comes to elections. what attorney general sessions had the justice department do the is switch in the texas voter had law after the judge made a finding, preliminary finding, that the texas voter i.d. law was discriminatory. you know what would be an example of.

if drew brees or tom brady, after leading his team to a lead, went in at halftime and came out with a jersey of the on.r team in the middle of the case. secondly, in the ohio voter purge case, the same thing occurs. did the justice department, without any discussion with the congress, without any discussion with the civil rights community, sides miraculously and immediately? that should not have anything to who wins an election. sen. graham: i will say this. i could have given you 100 examples of where eric older and loretta lynch had a different a statute or a policy than i did but if you don't to matter,tions that's a mistake. the policy differences we have are real. trump to win and everything obama did stay the same is unrealistic.

all i'm asking is that let's look at qualifications because a win one day and they will nominate somebody with a completely different policy view than i have. it will be a simple decision if i can find the difference, i'll vote no. the question i'm trying to ask the question is do you expect be chosen bye to the other side who has differences with you. is yes, then mr. barr is as good as it will get. of us know, senator, lots thought you would be nominated as attorney general. havegraham: would you supported? >> we would have had a discussion and i wouldn't close so i'll saythat that. sen. graham: i'm not nearly as qualified as mr. barr. hold a think i could candle to him but the fact you said that about me, i appreciate and let's seef it if we can find a way to get me 22%.

reverend risher, i want to the say something to you personally. will never forget your words, your emotion, the truth you spoke and your feelings and i know that there's so many of us that now know so many victims of guns in this country will continue to fight on to change this environment. that and i'm so happy you're one of the best witnesses i have ever heard and your words will not be lost. is in aour family better place. thank you so much. mr. kinkopf, if i may. mr. barr has stated that the memo that i spent all day very complicated, has stated that that memo was

focused on obstruction of justice. argumentsr. barr's outline broad presidential powers. how his view of executive authority could impact mueller investigation. >> ok. in any number of ways. think most fundamentally is his claim, without limit or qualification, that the president is the executive that therefore all executive power is vested in the personally, that the president can personally notcise that power and leaving this to speculation or specificallye memo says that the president can litigation, any prosecution or investigation, orluding prosecution investigation of the president personally and the president's

members. and further, it says that the general, the special counsel, anyone serving under is merely the president's hands. feinstein: it was certainly a case for the unitary all-powerful the central figure. there's no question, i think, about that. mind, the question is, you know, how -- does he really mean this? and it's hard, if you don't know here and he's in front of you for the first time and you meet him, it's very hard judgments.se very smart.ly he was attorney general before. he isn'tn say qualified. the question comes, we're at a place where there are a lot of other subjects that are

important. he has stated that his memo was narrowly focused. mr. turley, we've got a defense counsel, i guess. see this, that same question i asked professor kinkopf. >> it's a fair question. dealand i agree on a great because we both have really difficulty with the expansion of executive authority. both critics of aspects of the unitary executive theory. disagree on the barr memo. i think it was narrow. memo that hee believes the president can be charged with obstruction in office. believes a president can be charged with other crimes in office and where i disagree with true that heit is says in his memos that the thetitution doesn't limit power of the presidency, in and that'sds

demonstrably true. there are no those limitations in the constitution. but he has said reportedly that he believes a president can be charged for acts in office. he also believes that if the president misuses his authority, it can be an abuse of power and a violation of his duty to u.s. laws.execute senator feinstein: it doesn't mean that mr. mueller could recommend indictment of the mr. barr could disagree. >> on that, i'm not sure where neil is. senator feinstein: i think it's along the line of your thinking. the agree with some of senators on this committee. i have always said a sitting insident could be indicted office. would general barr change that position? my guess is he probably would not. askd the special counsel for a change? my guess is probably not. it's not really -- if you look

of thesestory of both individuals, they're not likely to disagree or move for a change. senator feinstein: let me ask both of you or anyone that wants to answer this -- this memo and whole concept of the unitary all powerful, i think has never been better expressed contemporary way than i've read it in this memo and i was thinking last night, obviously mr. barr is qualified. he is bright. he is capable. me to's hard for understand why, with our bill oftion, our rights, why we want somebody powerful in every actions.ke these the question was not well stated but i think you got the gist of

it. senator, i think we don't. that williamree barr is amply well qualified by experience, by virtue of intellect, by virtue of integrity. that he willbt stand up for his vision of the constitution. i find so what troubling because his vision of expansivetution is so and alarming with respect to the president's power. it.'s why i've quoted it's not my characterization. the presidently, alone is the executive branch. repeatedly through the memo of the president's and whilee powers it's true that the constitution authorizeecifically congress to limit the prosecutorial discretion by its text, it also prosecutorial

discretion to the president. all investigation and prosecution is done pursuant to enacted by congress and within that authority to enact those laws is the authority to establish the parameters on that power. you do that and you do that and legitimately. the supreme court has said that repeatedly. and what is so alarming about the barr memo is that it reads the constitution in a way that -- frees the president from those constraints. do disagree.ere we i thought the question was presented quite well because it isolates where we depart. first of all, even though i don't like the unitary executive there are many, many judges and lawyers who believe fervently in it. also there's not one single definition of that theory. there's a gradation of where you that.n bill barr disagrees with the position of the trump legal team. he expressly said that they're aong, that it doesn't curtail

president's authority to prosecute him in office so he's on this.e extreme but the other thing i wanted to note is that i think where neil neil itsagree is that taking barr's statement as to the constitutional footprint, the constitution, which does not have limitations from how they, would apply where he said very clearly the president cannot do whatever he wants. there are consequences. he could even be prosecuted. feinstein: thank you. thank you mr. chairman. sen. graham: senator holly. mr. chairman. general, thank you for your long service both as attorney distinguished service and on the federal bench. as a former attorney general course, you know the office firsthand. you have done this job. a time ofe it in great national security peril for this country. your openingd in

statement the qualifications tot bibb brings, would bring this job and the advantages he done the jobving already. can you speak more to that? i imagine if you were coming generalbe attorney again, there are things you would do differently, knowing the job as you do now. you just elaborate for us why you think his prior a major plus? won't have the steep learning curve i had coming out of article three. he doesn't have to do d.o.j.101 how each office runs and how they interact. he doesn't have to contemplate powers and zero the the authority of each of the offices under him. he's seen it and done it.

want to overstate the degree to which his experience prepares him. we're living in a different time and the issues are different. he's going to have to face that able to devote 100% of his energy to doing that learning the basics. that's what i meant. if i can go back, if i may, to the conversation you were just about the president's powers. i do happen to believe in the executive unlike the other two folks and this is not question of religious belief and not some quirky attitude. constitution says, beginning of article 2, the executive authority shall be vested in the president of the united states. it doesn't say all except a little bit of it. doesn't say most of it. it says the executive power. that means all of it. obviously, obviously the president can be removed, not

for crimes but also for anng his conferred powers in improper way and the president runs the political risk of heing that happen every time does something that comes close to the line or goes over the is thed that, i think, constraint and it's so far been a reliable constrand. says he could remove mueller. perhaps he could. hasn't doneat, he it yet. and there's good reason why he yet because the earth would open up and swallow him. we all know that. that's really what's at stake here. risk.cal >> staying with that point, someone interesting, who's held this office and advised presidents and enforced the law as you have. you're familiar with mr. barr's views on executive authority, article 2 power. do you think those are out of the mainstream? not.do

thinkr hawley: do you they're inconsistent with the constitution? they're faithful to the institution. explain to us why you think it's important the fact that article vests all executive power in one person, in the president of the united states, why that's an and importantept for the functioning of our constitutional system? >> it's important because it politicalere will be responsibility lodged someplace. that when people in the executive act in a particular way that they and the the top can be held responsible for what they do. people spoke about independent agencies. they are in a sense independent in the sense they don't relate to other agencies but they're fourth or fifth or sixth branch of government. they are within the executive and it's important that that be true because there's got to be somebody responsible for how that functions. people who wrote the constitution were, if they were

anything, what they were afraid of was their experience and the articles of where they had been a very weak executive and the country to defend itself. they needed a strong executive and that was the constitution they wrote. if we want to the amend it, i guess we can but that's what's there. senator hawley: in your view, the fact that the vesting clause gives the executive power to a president of the united states, a single president of the united states, does that mean that this the presidentat of the united states, has illimitable power or is able to she mayver he or please? >> no, because the one duty that it imposes on the president, and is also imposed by the constitution, is to see to it fatheye laws are enforced. that is just as much a constitutional duty as any other that, he'soesn't do subject to removal. that is his obligation. his really principal obligation. senator hawley: thank you very

much. mr. canterbury, i want to ask you, you lead the fraternal police. it's incredibly important to me that the top law enforcement officer in this country, the have thegeneral, confidence of the men and women of our nation's police forces. can you just elaborate for us what the most important issues were for your members that led to support former hopefullyeneral barr, future attorney general barr, for this nomination? >> one is his past experiences, that he did in the prior administration. we have been around a long time we knew him then. we saw the way he administered the department of justice, the way he worked with state and local law enforcement. regardless of who leads the department, if there's no outreach, the state and local then it really, doesn't transcend to the state and local level. under former attorney general barr, he did just that.

as general sessions did and as eric holder did. we've testified for a number of the years.er eric holder had a tremendous reputation as a prosecutor in the law enforcement community so i sat at this very table and him.fied for it's all based on the experiences that they had as either u.s. attorney, general judges, or even private practice. hawley: why do you think it's so fortunate police officers that they have a capable, effective, experienced general? >> just the administration of i've heard the complaints about the civil rights division but we know from that a collaborative effort rather than consent real consequences in the cities. for instance, in cincinnati, when the administration entered a collaborative agreement and all parties were at the table, a plan to helph bring that city back together.

inthe last election cincinnati, the f.o.p. endorsed a member of the naacp to be a city councilmember. not have happened if they had not got to know each other sitting around a table working together for the betterment of that community. collaborative approach for consent degrees they're real circumstances other than just won'tu will do this or we leave. then they do it and obviously nothing changes but when it's collaborative and everybody's at the table, we saw real change. hawley: thank you very much, thank you, mr. chairman. risher, thank you for your testimony. your touching words about that telephone call. i'll remember that because so many people receive that call about people that they love who are victims of gun violence. i'm honored to represent the

of chicago. sadly, we have a lot of gun violence and a lot of victims. families just like yours who will never, ever forget as long happened.ve what i often think about what i'm going to say to them. i stop saying, let me tell you about a new law that i've got in mind. that becausesaying we don't pass laws on gun safety in this united states congress. don't. and it's unfortunate. we don't even pass the most and obvious things about background checks. we just can't do it, politically can't do it. a lot of reasons for it. i won't get into here. but i'll just suggest to you it, as fate would have sitting to your left is mr. canterbury, representing 345,000, did you say, members of the police, who put their lives on the line every single day and those guns aimed at themare many times and if there's ever a moment when the victims of gun

like you, reverend risher, and mr. canterbury and police, ever come together on agreement on a piece of legislation, call me immediately. it will be a breakthrough moment. we can talk about gun safety with credible voices on both sides. and mr. canterbury, while on the subject, thank you for the first step act. the fraternalt of order of police and criminal justice reform and prison reform meaningful andd made a difference. it was also noteworthy that we of the support prosecutors, the criminal prosecutors across this country the americanrt of civil liberties union. go figure. this bunchmes has ever gotten together? not very often but i think we passed something historic as a result of that and i wanted to publicly thank you for the role your organization played in it. mr. johnson, we're looking back on the history of mr. barr,

done. he's said and and i give a speech that people have heard a few times now but they were startled the first time i gave it. title of my speech is let me vote iu about the worst ever cast as a member of congress. it was over 25 years ago and i bet you know what it was. was 100-1, crack cocaine to powder cocaine. thisre determined to stop new narcotic in its tracks. it was super cheap. it was deadly. pregnant women who got hooked on crack cocaine would give birth life-longwith problems and we came down as hard as we could, not just with but mandatory minimum sentences on top of it. three strikes and you are out for life. and we hit them hard. and we watched our prison population explode. primarily with african americans. i look back on it as a big i ever, one of the worst made as a public official and i've tried to rectify it. we passed the fair sentencing act eight years ago, now first

act. now we look at mr. barr and some of the things he said were consistent with my vote and the democrats back in the day when we were getting tough on narcotics and he was as tough as they get. books aboutng building more prisons. he's continued in that vein up until the last few years. so i just want to tell you, i for redemption, both political.d do you think mr. barr is entitled to a chance to redeem when it comes to this issue? >> thank you, senator durbin. individual is entitled to redeem themselves when they make a mistake. our position on mass incarceration is just that. we've had a lot of individuals who have made mistakes, who should have been exonerated or

not prosecuted to the extent they were. i grew up in detroit, michigan. i lived through the crack epidemic in the 1980's. i've seen the damage it did but individuals who were thrown away for many, many years. and for an individual who's situated to acknowledge the what took place and as you just said, i made a thing., that's a good i have not heard that from the nominee. concern. the other concern i have goes back to the exchange earlier conflateftentimes civil rights issues, issues of democracy, with partisan considerations. and should individuals have access to the vote? it's not a partisan issue. it is an issue of democracy. a.g. should vigorously protect the right of individuals when over theally last two years we've seen more

on voter suppression than we've seen in the last 25 years. issues of equal protection under a partisan issue. it's an issue to ensure that all citizens of this nation are afforded equal treatment so our objection to mr. barr's not a partisan issue. it's not an issue of disagreement. it's an issue of concern as it masses to the incarceration and vigorous prosecution that took place in the 1990's and whether or not we're considering a nominee who thinking in the 1990's frame or are we looking at a nominee who's really looking at the first chance act and the progress that's been made. i want to take it to the issue you took it to joinnvite mayor murray to in on this, too. this question of election integrity has become a code word. when you hear election integrity from the other political party, sure that making people who are not qualified and don'tgally eligible vote,

vote. and i don't think anybody disagrees with that premise but something else going to in the name of voter integrity and that is obstacles to voting totally unnecessary and really discourage people from using this right which is to a democracy. when i held hearings on this inmittee, in ohio, and florida and asked them about i.d. cards and early voting and said what is the incidence of voting abuse in your state that to you to make it harder vote? there were none. a political just policy to fight demographics, to try to keep people away from the polls who may change the outcomes of elections. i didn't hear yesterday from any commitment to voter integrity in the terms that you and i would probably discuss it and that concerns me. i'm not sure i can expect to hear it under this administration. >> i think there's something

about what you're the committeeoint to exit polls that took place election wherein people were asked do you believe that voter suppression or voter greater issue. voter suppression won the poll of the american people overwhelmingly. these are exit polls where the numbers were sort of 58 and fraud was down maybe in the 30's or 40's. that's number one. number two. shelby case has done significant damage because it was post-shelby that the of voterns suppression, of cutting back on early voting, on voter i.d. laws, on restricting groups like league of women voters from registrationter drives, really, really exploded. some 40 states had proposals to restrict access to the ballot box.

think about this, i think wart it that we are waging to promote democracy. iraq, inraham, in afghanistan but right here on countme front, how can we on no efforts based evidence to restrict access to the ballot box. decision, i predict, way be seen in history the dread was seen, the way molesi bad, ill advised decision. we need, because what we're left with is the power of the justice section 2, andr under sections not one single case was brought even though you've had this explosion voter suppression efforts so what we need is an attorney general who says i'm committed to the utilization of my section 2 of the voting rights powers to

enforce the voting rights act and i would certainly encourage nominee be asked his position on this because this is so crucial to the protection of whatracy, which is really this nation is all about -- democracy and voting is at the system.on of our make a quick comment, then senator kennedy. andglad you mentioned iraq other places. there was an attack today on a restaurant, i think it's the restaurant i visited with othersds and arabs and in manbij, syria, to hold on to some representative government and unfortunately i believe some were killedisers there by isis. so this is not the subject matter of the hearing but i want to make a quick statement. statementsby the

made by president trump, is that in motionset enthusiasm by the enemy we're fighting. you make people we're trying to help wondering about us and as bolder, the people we're trying to help will get more uncertain. in iraq.s and i'm now seeing it in syria. wants our troops to come home but i think all of us want to make sure that when do come home, we're safe and i don't know how we're ever be safe if people over there can't at least sit down and talk with each other. andthe kurds and arabs christians were in that restaurant because we gave them the space to be in that restaurant. think what you want to about those people over there, they've had enough of killing. love to have the opportunity we have to fix their problems without the force of

violence. so i would hope the president and hard ofong where he's headed in syria. i know people are frustrated. never going to be safe here unless we're willing to willpeople over there who stand up against this radical ideology and here's the good news. very few fathers and mothers over there want to turn their isis, theirer to sons over to isis. they just need our help. to those who lost their lives you weresyria, defending america in my view. to work in syria trying together, you're providing the best and i hope for your country, i hope the president will look long and hard about syria.'re doing in senator kennedy. senator kennedy: thank you, mr. chairman. pastor, i'm very, very sorry for tellloss and i wanted to

you that personally. before i ask my sole question which i'll direct to each of you, to address briefly if you could, i want to do a couple of things. i want to give a shout out to my mayor. many of you know him as president and chief executive urban league and i, of course, know him in that capacity, as well. as our mayor in new orleans and the had the of of cities and a state senator. in louisiana. him also want to recognize his side kick, senator cravens, former state senator cravens. louisiana, too. listened to the discussion had about the scorecard that

chairman graham brought up. i'm going to make one very observation that it may areas,opriate in other including but not limited to the challenges we face with the that is that as long as all of us on both sides sides and of every political persuasion are drunk virtue, it'sand going to be hard to make progress. probably ought to listen more, talk a little less. my question and if you don't care to answer it, that's ok. have any don't thoughts. but i would like to know this. as you know, we have a sixth amendment right to counsel in america. rights.t of our bill of

but in some instances, in too a hollowances, it's promise and i'd like to know thoughts about our public america andtem in whether you think it comports with the requirements of the amendment, right to counsel. we'll start down here and go ok. there if that's i would ask y'all to be brief because i want everybody to have chance. >> from our experience, the public defender system is in dire need of assistance. it leads to plea bargains that should have happened and we would definitely support more money for right to counsel. we don't take a backseat to bebody on your right to represented and the system is woefully underfunded. >> pastor? >> i believe our public defender

office needs resources. most of the people that receive public defender are marginalized, people without resources, and their opportunity to have the best counsel they something they get. and i would want that office to able to serve everyone regardless of whether they have not. or i'm particularly thankful for you to raise this issue. as a criminal defense attorney, can tell you the public defender system is an utter wreck. funded.der judges are sanctioning public defenders because they have too many cases and can't get to court so public defenders are in this position where they can't handle all the cases and are contempt but they don't want to do a case inappropriately without zealous they have thisso absolute impossible situation and it's even worse in the state

system. i gave a speech in pittsburgh and sat down with public there.rs the public defenders in pittsburgh i had dinner with are moonlighting as bartenders and waiters to try to continue to be public defenders and feed their family. that's how bad the system is. agree that public defenders are heroic public servants, underpaid, and that the system of public defense and toviding of counsel needs expand far beyond even the limited area it applies to now. courts, intopal infractions that shouldn't but do end up leading to people jail time. >> senator, i'm the daughter of defense lawyer, i'm married to a criminal defense lawyer who's the son of a lawyer so i'mse all in favor of great lawyering wholable for all americans find themselves in front of a courtroom. the thing that i would suggest

is i'm aware in washington of many law firms who are withering pro bono criminal defense -- public defender services to try to get young people in court and them great experience while representationd to people who need it. maybe that's one of the answers theyy understanding is need all the help they can get and maybe young people can help. >> i had the great privilege and pleasure last year to speak in atlanta to the federal public service at its convening and gathering and i the committee perhaps this as an example of a bipartisanship oriented initiative which is this domittee to hold hearings, an examination of both the federal public defender system bith may be in a little better shape but underfunded and understaffed, as well as local public defender systems and of whatet a real sense

everyone has said, how stretched, how overworked, and how, in effect, damaging this is andhe operation of justice to the constitutional guarantee of the sixth amendment. say, in theng i'd late 1980's, senator kennedy, i was part of a smart group of actually challenged the very same issue in louisiana. we challenged it by asking the state supreme court to conduct an investigation which they did. found that the system was underfunded but then they took the position that as a supreme could not, quote, instruct the executive branch to the publicfund defender system. bottom line here, i would offer you raised it,ad as an important element of this discussion around criminal justice reform and that is to reform the public defender systems both at the

and also localte levels across this nation. you, senatorthank kennedy, for raising this issue. as someone who served on the atlanta one time of the federal defender program, i think that the public defender program definitely at the federal level needs strengthening. level, itt the state is a total collapse and i think justice department of can do and you could pursue this with attorney general nominee through the office of justice programs, encourage o.j.p. to develop programs to assist state public defender offices, appropriate funds for that purpose in terms of grants because the department of justice is not the department of federal prosecution. the department of justice. thank you.

>> agree with the panelists that public defender system is in dire need. mississippi is one of the poorest states. to louisiana. and what we found was a system corrupt, it was one of the primary factors for prison overcrowding. number of individuals pretrialitting in jail detainees because they have noffective counsel or counsel so i agree with my colleague that this could be a we can work one because the need is definitely there. >> judge? >> senator, my experience is thanbly more limited virtually the experience of all becausether panelists my experience is confined to one district in the united states. experience with federal defenders in the southern district of new york was that they were people of

unparalleled skill. there was competition to get those jobs and they were highly valued. similarly, under the criminal justice act, we appoint private represent defendants. there's competition to get on list so you really get lawyers by and large in my court who represent indigent defendants were by and large privatelyful than obtained lawyers. that said, i think the system is in need of support, certainly at the state level and callond larry thompson's for having o.j.p. target grants so areas with they can be demonstration projects to show the way. senator kennedy: thanks to all of you, you honor us with your time and testimony today. >> thank you, chairman and thank panel anduch to the

i'd like to join the committee expressions my appreciation for your testimony today, risher. i had the opportunity to visit church and it was one of the most moving experiences of my life. i'm so glad you are keeping that tragedy alive in our hearts because it should not be overlooked and i appreciate it. >> thank you, sir, for your words. and the emanuel nine will be something that i will continue about their lives to let other people know that they did die in vain and i thank you for your comments. >> don't ever stop. mr. mccasey, i have some questions for you and i want to let you know off the bat that about 10 years and so you will have full -- i

you every chance to more full in written answers, questions for the if there's anything you don't recall now. the reason i wanted to ask you your questions is that i view anyway, as a responsibility of the attorney general to go where the evidence and the rule of law lead and to allow particularly in investigative matters, to let yourvidence and the law be guides. now, given the circumstances that surrender -- surround the the willingness of an attorney general to be leadsndent where evidence to the white house is of, i think, particular moment. me back to the removalation into the

of nine u.s. attorneys in 2006. that report was concluded in 2008 on your watch as attorney general. as you'll recall, it was a joint effort. those don't happen all that often in the department but this between theeffort department of justice office of theector general and department of justice office of responsibility and investigation led both into and intose files counsel files. as to the white house files, the house refused to cooperate to provide access to your investigators to close out

investigation. providec. refused to unredacted documents to members own department. in report that was issued 2008 indicated that the investigation had been and i quoted here, hampered and hindered and left with, quote, gaps, as a result of the failure o.l.c. tote house and provide the necessary thermation to investigators. report?was the o.i.g. yes,oig/opr.house: you were the attorney general at the time and could have instructed them to provide the

documents. and while you can't instruct the white house in what to do, when leads to thetion white house gates and the white house gates come down, to me general'sttorney responsibility at that point to walk down to the white house and say one of two things are going to happen. to get cooperation in our investigation or we're going to have a resignation the department of justice needs to follow the law and the facts wherever, theuding into the files of department. as you know, there is no ascutive privilege issue between the department of justice and the white house. separation of powers issue and it keeps things from doesn't limit documents within the executive branch. get now yourke to recollection in a more fulsome a written fashion, if you'd like to elaborate, why it you felt that when the department of justice had an

matter investigative that led to the gates of the white house it was ok for the white house to say no we're not and for the department of justice to stand down because i think that would be a lousy precedent for now. this goes to the qualifications of mr. barr to serve as attorney general, does it? senator whitehouse: to the a concernt there is about whether he will be willing to do that. we could get a replay of this if we're citing the mukasey precedent, i want to know more about it. he's citing the mukasey precedent and number of that,ecollection which is dim over 10 years, but older people have a better the distant past than the recent past so i do remember it to some extent. my recollection is that the did not lead to the gates of the white house. it involved the circumstances under which nine u.s. attorneys were terminated and those people the opportunity to come back. they were also offered apologies

that's the way the matter ended. that's my recollection. whitehouse: i would ask you to look at the question for the record that i'll propound to that's different than what the oig and opr felt at the time because they felt they were hindered and left with gaps in their investigation and it was white house files that were at issue so my time has expired but i hope we can settle its question because i think creates a difficult precedent in a world in which the department of justice may now have to ask tough questions that take it into white house files. that onely down investigation and how it was handled creates a precedent in any sense for another but i'll answer your question. sen. graham: senator grassley? grassley: first of all, for the reverend, i don't understand how people can have do whathate that they they do. that's what comes to my mind all the time when i hear stories

you and i remember it from the day it happened. thank you for bringing it to attention. >> thank you, sir, for listening. senator grassley: mr. canterbury, you've talked some about the first step act. i want to go back to it. the fraternal order of police helping instrumental in hit at this time across many -- and as chairman of the committee time, i thank you for doing. that we appreciate your strong leadership. requires that act the justice department, attorney general, implement a risk and system, allownt receiveent inmates to earned time credit for recidivismng in reduction programming and recalculate good time credit for inmates. here's for you. statementsarr's past opposing criminal justice reform, especially sentencing

reform, do you believe that he to dutifully implement the system that the fraternal order of police worked to get passed? to be fair to mr. barr, yesterday he testified that he'd the law and not undermine it. ure comfortable with that commitment? past experience in following the law speaks volumes to his ability to implement the program. confidence in him. senator grassley: echoing what said about the vast support this legislation extreme right to extreme left and everything in between, law enforcement, branch, victim rights groups, civil rights groups, faith groups -- in your opinion, mr. barr be able to work with these

sen. grassley: i am not questioning mr. barr's truthfulness when i ask them this question. opposed our he efforts of criminal justice reform. . he had concerns about the constitutionality of false claims acts. he testified he was implement that act. we all know the attorney general of the united states has a duty to enforce the laws in a fair and even matter. and without personal bias. will he be able to do that in your opinion? do you believe that he will be able to faithfully implement and enforce laws that he may not personally agree with? his record shows that if he

adheres the one thing, it does the requirements of the law. thes initially opposed to first step act. i later became a supporter of it. mr. thompson, along the same lives, your opinion on the ability of mr. laws?o enforce the >> i was a very strong supporter of the first step act. if you look at what attorney general barr did in the bush administration with community collaboration, his admitted -- about the failure of putting more people in prison to help read our crime

infested neighborhoods, he understands the need to do something more than just lock people up. i think he will faithfully implements the first step act in spirit and literally. also to you, mr. thompson, since you have worked with him so much and knowing you -- him as you do, do you think he will be an independent leader of the justice department that we ought to expect? let me finish this, because i want generally casey to speak to this. we recently had an attorney general who referred himself to the wing man for the president. what is your opinion of mr. barr's ability to be independent?

do you havedo you have any doube will be able to stand up to the president? >> i have no doubt at all. he has done it in the president. he is not anybody's wing man. if he ever behaves that way, he would come back to the department to find a mound of resignations on his desk. so i don't think he would do anything like that. >> i agree. the many understands policies, traditions of the justice department that have stood for separation between the department and they white house on matters of criminal investigations and decisions to invite. -- indict. i don't think the men and women he has led in the past years in the department of justice, he will understand their respect for these traditions. the nuances of why we have these policies and traditions.

i believe he will faithfully follow and support them. i think you would that mr. barr's fitness to be attorney general of the united states, can you tell us some observations that lead you to believe he is the person you have worked with and in turn to be a good attorney general? the year that he was attorney general, 1992, you may recall started with president bush throwing up on the japanese prime minister. [laughter] it was the beginning of a rough year. there was the television prison riots. prison riots. the crack epidemic.

hurricane andrew, you may not remember this, but it hit south florida particularly hard and knocked out a bunch of federal law enforcement services down there. there was great fear that it would become a lawless place with drug dealers and the coast guard would not be able to control things. there was also the rodney king verdict and the l.a. riots. it was a very dangerous year and a lot of ways. i remember going to a press conference we were going to have , with the late, great jack kemp who was secretary of hud at the time. two motorcades pulled into this public housing project. we were going to talk about how to make public housing projects more safe. right before we got there, there was some kind of gang violence and law enforcement had come in and arrested a whole bunch of people. and there was gunfire.

ande got out of the car they came to secretary kemp and general bar and said it was still a little dangerous. they said they had bullet-proof vest for them. barr pointed to me and said what about her? he let me take his. the agent said that was not going to happen. he turns around to me and said this is unacceptable. you get in the car. the armored limo. and keep your head down. i thought at the time, that tells the volumes about him. the point of the story is it was a dangerous place and there were people who live there all their lives and we were arriving and limos and were able to leave and they could not.

and that made a big impression on anybody involved. what people's lives were like in this crazy year. how dangerous things were. how bad the violent crime rate was. all he wanted to do was held some of these people who were in these horrible situations. that tells the volumes about him and his motivations and the kinds of things he tries to do as current -- attorney general. l.ller: he listens to people very carefully and has an open mind. he is respectful of different opinions. he has a problem-solving personality in the sense that everything is collaborative. he will be a terrific leader of the department of justice. i have no doubt about that.

senator klobuchar and then we will take a break. thank you all for your patience. sen. klobuchar: voting rights have been such a problem across the country. in my state, we have same-day registration. a bill that i sponsored to bring out nationally. i have looked at the numbers that showed states that have that. whether they are more red or more blue they are always in the top group for highest voter turnout. it makes a huge difference to allow people to vote either with or some with a neighbor

form of identification. i am very concerned about the supreme court's ruling in the shell the case. -- shelby case. i asked him about allegations of voter suppression. i am wondering how you think the department of justice responded, how they should've responded when they heard from the state officials? from the naacp perspective, we are extremely concerned with the lack of responsiveness from the department of justice. -- ever since they shall be the holder case was decided, v. holder case was

there have been concerns. there was lack of security on how they would use the justice department to ensure that all americans could cast a ballot free of intimidation. that is a huge? for us. ag individual who serves as should have as primary consideration the rights of all citizens. it is not a partisan issue. it is something that should be above partisanship. i am a resident of mississippi and we have seen and dealt with these politics for a very long time. look at the history of voting in mississippi, some of the language and tactics that were used in 1865 are being used today. we need a justice department

that can rise above partisanship and appreciate that in order for democracy to work, all citizens should be able to vote. sen. klobuchar: i could not have said it better. thank you. we work together when you were a total general -- attorney general. you worked with me to get a replacement. you put someone good and place in the interim and the office continues to be a very strong office. thank you for that. could you briefly talk about when you are attorney general, did you ever say no to the white house. >> yes. sen. klobuchar: can you remember some of the instances? >> i remember one in particular. i don't think i can discuss it here. it involved a position that the government would take in

litigation. the white house was of a particular view and the department was of a particular view. and we prevailed. sen. klobuchar: so you think that is important? i had a discussion with mr. barr yesterday. yes you are the president's lawyer and you are giving him advice but you are also the people's lawyer. and there are times when that will conflict. do you want to expand on that? comes to a purely legal position, and the white house has taken a policy position that affects that, yes, it gets very delicate. the solicitor was of a particular view. basically, you do what the proper view is. sen. klobuchar: thank you. there have been

bipartisan discussions appear about the first step act. can you talk about some of the steps that we will have to take, that the attorney general will have to take to implement it. you can put all the laws on the books but if you don't -- >> certainly. let me say thank you to you. that was a long and difficult effort to arrive where we arrived. we supported it early and continue to push for its improvement. but it is the first step back. -- act. the first step for the attorney general's to get this oversight committee in place with the right people on it. the most important thing that will be in the attorney general's bailiwick is organizing the u.s. attorneys who are going to be responsive to those who are going to go back to the court where they are sentenced and requests resentencing.

resentencing, for example, with the crack cocaine disparity, is not automatic. it will require public defenders and private lawyers. my hope is that the u.s. attorney general's office will not get in the way. will not slow down the process. will move with speed and dispatch to facilitate and work lawyers toal defense identify those two might be eligible to get the act into implementation. i think the aspect of it that involves the department of justice and the bureau of a great and this was concern under the act, whether the bureau of prisons had the tohusiasm and resources ability of the people to earn more good time, which requires them to participate and development release plans. and take steps toward preparing

them for release. i think you offer -- authorized $350 million to do that. that has to be implemented and executed. and we don't need any foot dragging in order to do that. if the committee continues to have oversight over the work on resentencing, and they work on the execution of the pre-release, and the third element of it will certainly be, and this was a great concern of ours, i think the nominee should -- rescind resend guidance in which he directed u.s. attorneys to seek maximum prosecution. if the nominee is going to be true to implementing the first step act, then a good faith d that would be to rescin guidance and restore the

discretion of the u.s. attorneys when it comes to charging. there is a lot of work to be done and i would urge the committee to maintain its oversight role in ensuring these things are executed. sen. klobuchar: i am out of time but i wanted to thank you, reverend, for coming forward. i will ask you some questions on our bill on stocking -- stalkin g. thank you for your support and work on that. >> we will take it 10 minutes recess to give you a comfort break. senator blackburn would be kind over. to take thank you all for coming. 10 minutes recess.

[indiscernible] >> the committee will return to order. senator cornyn, you are recognized. sen. cornyn: thank you all for coming and sharing your views. thennot help but comment on

stark differences that we are hearing from the various witnesses about this particular nominee. he is either the most qualified person you could ever find or he. is the least qualified person there does not seem to be much room in between. let me ask some specific questions. first i want to talk of criminal justice reform. of all the topics we have dealt with here recently, this is one of the areas that brings us together. i will reflect, mr. johnson, i remember being in dallas maybe 10 or 12 years ago. i was visiting with a number of african-american pastors. i asked them what is the biggest problem in your congregation? they said it is formerly incarcerated men who have a felony on the record. they cannot find a job.

they cannot find a place to live. that has always haunted me. greatht of some of the work that has been done at the state level on prison reform, and i would have to say i am proud of the efforts made in texas and elsewhere, to try to provide people for opportunities when they are incarcerated. those who are willing to accept responsibility for their own rehabilitation. we have had some remarkable successes and people who have taken advantage of the opportunity to turn their lives around. our view as a government and as a people has few -- changed significantly. mr. barr talked about 1992 and violent crime back then. there was a different attitude. i think we have learned from our experience. into something you testified to in a previous congresswoman were talking about

criminal justice reform. , theaid that the test ultimate test for the success of criminal justice reform, is the crime rate. i think i am quoting you correctly. can you explain that? there are a lot of people who want to focus on other things such as incarceration rates. but the crime rate, it strikes me, public safety is the most important. forhat is the ultimate test this statute that has just been passed and for future statutes. what does it do to the crime rate? the criminal justice system is in their to protect the public. if it is doing that any crime rate is dropping, then bravo to the experience. to a certain extent it will be an experiment. we will see how people do when they get out. we will see how much money is saved and what it can be directed toward by way of prevention. and hopefully our situation will

improve. fortunately, in the criminal justice field, we have actually used the states as a laboratory. before wehis out implemented it at the national level. i think we have benefited from those states paid -- state-based experiences. we have reduced not only the crime rate but the recidivism rate. we have closed plans to build new prisons to incarcerate more people. , onerikes me as something of those unusual scenarios where basically we were able to come together, people automatically different ideology and orientation, and come together and do something very positive for the country. we will keep an eye on the crime rate. to me it is the litmus test of the success of what we try to do. turley, i wanted to compliment you on your article that you wrote in the health --

hill. the title was "witch hunt or mole hunt." i have been extraordinarily troubled by the politicalization of the department of justice, including the fdr. -- fbi. you talk about cognitive bias. depending on the lens you are looking through, you can see a narrative, building narrative that tells your story. would you take a minute to explain the thesis of your article and the views you express theire? what i thought was most interesting about the new york times article was not the point of the article, that the president may have been investigated as being part of a

foreign power. to me, what came out of the article was the insight of how the fbi was looking into this. the trumpight into administration viewing what the fbi was doing. this gets into the idea of cognitive bias. you can look at a problem with a bias where you see things that reaffirm your suspicions. in this case, the fbi moved investigationan that the white house was aware of. the white house's own bias that this was a deep state conspiracy. and the white house pushed back. and when they pushed back, they cognitivethe dissonance of the fbi, that they were trying to hide something. you see this action and reaction happening where each side is confirmed by the actions of the other side.

this raises a distinct possibility that we may not have russian collusion or a deep state conspiracy. that we may have two sides that are fulfilling each other's narratives. and we have gone so far down this road that it is impossible , what ifop and say neither of these things that exists? and economics is called pathway dependence. you can invest so much into a single path that you can no longer break from it. what the column is suggesting is that perhaps we can actually use the stories and take a step back. instead of assuming the worst motivations by both sides, look at this as whether both sides were trying to do what was right or reacting what they thought was correct. but they might have both been wrong. sen. cornyn: can i take one more minute?

was asking mr. barr about rod rosenstein's memo that restoring public confidence in the fbi." most encouraging thing about mr. barr's appointment is a he is kind of the person that could do that. he did this 27 years ago and he is willing to do it again if for no other reason than to desire restore -- to confidence in the department of justice. when you go back to james comey investigating hillary clinton's email server and took the unprecedented step of having a press conference on july 7, 2016, in which he essentially exonerated ms. clinton while detailing all the derogatory information in the investigation and then later on had to come the other laptop was

identified and say he had found more emails, the idea that the fbi and department of justice would become so entangled in an election and potentially influence the election is really unprecedented in our country and very dangerous in my perspective. and then of course when mr. comey was fired by the president , folks on the left. he was st. james. had been the devil previously when he was investigating ms. clinton. i think there is some of that cognitive bias going on here. we may be need to identify it in step back from it and learn from it. senator hirono.

sen. cornyn: youth have written a lot about the unitary executive. sen. hirono: i found it's really interesting what you mentions today. there were questions from so many of us seeking reassurances from mr. barr that he would not interfere with the miller investigation -- mueller inve stigation. you said those reassurances are irrelevant because under the theory if he was asked if the president could fire mr. mueller, mr. barr would say yes. i found that to be a really interesting statement on your part. , let's say that if the president does fire mueller, one would say under a

normal circumstance that firing could be part and parcel of an obstruction of justice. but if the underlying investigation goes away because the investigators fired, where are we? that is very interesting as we seek the reassurance that would enable us to feel that the investigation would be able to proceed. you talked a little bit about what the impact of the unitary i do understand that theory and there is a range , there is a continuum there. i just want to ask, under the unitary executive theory, can a president commit obstruction of justice with impunity? >> i will answer based on the memo that mr. barr wrote last summer. there is a range.

the answer would be different where you are on the range. allows that there could be circumstances under which there could be where theces president could be considered to have obstructed justice. mr. barr said that he sees no reason to deviate from the department's policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. within that construct, that a president can commit obstruction of justice, it is really difficult to see on his. how that would end up happening. he says when the because he says when the president exercises a legitimate cannotve power that that provide the basis for an obstruction of justice charge and therefore if he exercises his authority to fire someone -- james comey is the discussion in -- then that cannot be

the basis of an obstruction of justice charge. if president trump, then, used mueller,rity to fire that, by extension, wouldn't be could serve as the basis of an obstruction of theory setrge on the memo and ie meme and i -- think he should be at least follow-up questions whether or not he would apply the logic of the memo to that and he should be asked if that were to transpire, would he resign, because i think yesterday he indicated that would be an abuse of power and that's something an attorney resign if the attorney general sees. hirono: i think you have given us a further line of questions to submit to mr. barr. the voting rights act, this is for mr. johnson and mr. murial. know that after the shelby

county decision, there were many, many states that passed all kinds of legislation that would be considered by a lot of voter suppression. and yesterday, mr. barr testified that he would enforce the voting rights action, section 2 of the voting rights act. to the two of you, since there been a single section 2 proceeding brought by the justice department, what specifically could mr. barr -- what would you want mr. barr do vigorously enforce the voting rights act as he testified yesterday? number one that he should review the decision by switchtice department to these two cases. one has been resolved. should ask the

voting section of the civil to present ton theall instances where justice department has been initiate section 2 claims. three, i believe that he investigate, evaluate and review those states that have passed voter suppression laws to fact, theyhether, in are discriminatory and, in fact, discriminatory to initiate a section 2 claim. is for the attorney general and many competent rights in the civil division at justice to do their job without political interference, to make recommendation to him on what steps should be taken. of stuff has been put into

the deep freeze in the sessions because he was just not interested at all in enforcing the voting rights act because he disagreed with the longg rights act and had a career of disagreeing with the voting rights act. the attorney general does not pick or chooseto which laws they want to enforce. thatmust enforce all laws are vigorously because it's your job as the legislative branch to pass those laws so i think there thea number of things that mostney general can do and importantly to publicly state not follow the policy of attorney general comes to the it entire realm of civil rights. important for him to be on the record as forceful as possible but also to commit to the necessary steps to

ensure that section 2 is enforced and also to look at those instances where the justice department has either switched sides or refused to take a position. i mentioned earlier in casestimony, the chism which was a judicial reapportionment case in which i was a plaintiff. case was brought in 1985, decided by the supreme court in 1991. the justicehere department sided with us during so reagan administration and the consistency of the justice siding, taking an affirmative stand in voting of thoseses in support who have been aggrieved is until thethat sessions administration was a bipartisan matter. this nominee should he is going tor

restore that emphasis and thegrity the enforcement of voting rights act. like to ask i'd mr. johnson to respond. >> i agree with my colleague but should intervene in current litigation. there are several ongoing voting cases taking place across the country. fixndly, he should work to 5, theue around section house special committee on doing rights act will be hearings across the country, hem my understanding and if becomes attorney general, he fix ofwork to support a section 5 and thirdly, review formerly covered jurisdictions to see if they've made changes in policies, practices or those changes if were, in fact, vote suppression document the can record to show that without a

department andce law, jurisdictions will revert back to past practices of discriminatory actions. you.hirono: thank >> recognize myself for questions at this time and to comeey, island like to you first. december at the privacy rightst and security in a world with changing technology and rising artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology. and the challenges that will pose for the justice department, i think we all realize they're we'll have there and to be confronted. and no clear answers have as to who this point you.the virtual you and your presence online.

now on, and more daily basis, we're hearing from wanting toho are make certain that there are protections in a digital space.nd in that virtual and it's there for everybody and that everybody plays for the rules. will have to address these issues because it is going to require greater enforcement from the attorney general. and i'd like to hear from you on you see thet department of justice under leadership playing as we deal with companies like some ofand facebook and these edge providers in the technology space. senator.you, of those emerging areas, facial technology is

probably the fastest moving and be addressedhas to the soonest. i've already spoken with people department and i -- to see if there is any way community andcy the government and private industry could find common here. think for privacy advocates, we can no longer say that all isial recognition technology an evil and we're not going to work with it. part of the reason is that the theth amendment controls government. it doesn't control private businesses and this market has youressed to the point that are not going to get that the cat to walk backwards. an emerging market. the chinese have put a huge amount of investment in it. land at shanghai, you'll see what facial technology will like across -- around the world. so the question is how do we marry the privacy values

that we have with the legitimate interests of the government. and the answer, there's a couple of things that we can do. one is that most of this technology will require a data be used effectively including facial recognition data. we can act proactively to try to privacy protections for the access of that information, how long that information can be what reasons it can be used. we need to really get ahead of and frankly, bill barr is a perfect person to do this only does he have really the law enforcement chops in terms of understanding how but he spent used a lot of time in private business at the highest level so i can't imagine anyone bort this frankly, to tackle it. sen. blackburn: mr. thompson,

anotherome to you on technology question because last fall d.o.j. met with some of our states attorneys general to talk about the frustrations with google and amazon and some of these edge providers and their failure to protect consumer data and also their anti-competitive thingsr and one of the that came out of this was how prioritizes search results, theirs, to give them a advantage over yelp know that these challenges are only going to be resolved if multifaceted strategy a partner with our states attorneys general and if there is enforcement by the consumer division and protection branch.

wouldh that in mind, how you advise mr. barr or how do at see him moving forward d.o.j. to deal with big tech and issues that they're really consumers every day. see, with respect to your question, senator, is that this is something, number one, do not know a lot about this. but i think the attorney general nominee, if he is selected, and review with career department of justice and other professionals in the department on the issue, toiew the issues, listen them carefully. this is what he has done on but moreues of import importantly to your question is that i think he has great experience in the past of working with joint task forces,

joint efforts with state and especiallyrities, the state a.g.'s and he knows how to do this. done it successfully in the past and i think he would be state lawrk with our enforcement colleagues and get are raiseders that in your question, very important matters. sen. blackburn: in the minute i have left, before i yield, mr. bloom that will will be next. just want to thank each of you for being here. risher, i want to testimony andyour in the -- i came to the senate house and we have passed some of the red flags that senator graham had mentioned that he is working on here in the senate. we look forward to some of those

steps being taken and i know that's important to you. mr. canterbury, we always thank you for the work you do for the workblue line and the good you all are doing there. my time has expired. are actuallys, you next. you're recognized. in. harris: thank you, appreciate that. mr. murial, we've heard there's a lot of discussion about this book that wase entitled "the case for more incarceration" for which mr. barr wrote the forward, there's concern about his to efforts to lower mandatory minimums so my question to you is based on your experience as the mayor of new orleans. during the time you were mayor, 60% reduction in violent crime and as general mukasey has talked about and others, one measure of the effectiveness of criminal intice policies is reduction crime so can you talk a bit

that as mayoris you did and perhaps best practices around the country led to reduction in crime? >> thank you very much for your question and it was a powerful moment for our community when we changed the landscape of public safety and i might add, we embarked on a plan that was nature.nsive in there was a law enforcement upon component to it but there was a human services and youth andlopment component to it i set aside the debate between the two and said that we needed our lawth so enforcement component was a comprehensive reform of what was very broken new orleans police department and comprehensive reform included weeding out corruption, brutal with a very police force. it involved discipline and firing and remaking of how we recruited, how we trained, how

we paid, how we deployed, how we technology. it was broad based. successful.y we did not have the problems whatsoever because we also put we were down and said going to have responsible and so it isional policing important in the context of the and when iartment took office, there was a justice department investigation of the orleans police department and instead of fighting the investigation, instead of trying delay the investigation, i worked with the justice presented my own far reaching, far ranging plan went farther,time we were prepared to go farther basis than any department at that time had gone under a consent decree. that's number one. but number two, and this is part of the purview because justice in addition to its law enforcement responsibility runs

mentoring programs, programs funded by the office of justice programs, in the old days weed and seed. employed and made full utilization of all of those initiatives, too, to invest in development, to expand recreation, to expand after-school programs, to expand youth summer jobs. not just law enforcement. it was not just human services. two.s a combination of the so i think it's important to has lawnd that justice enforcement responsibilities but also justice has responsibilities with respect to investing in the community, investing in youth. i would point this out and i is important. at the time and this was during administration. the clinton administration worked cooperatively with us us pursue violent crime through gun prosecutions and drug prosecutions. but also invested to weed and of justicefice

programs and also at that time the community oriented policing which provided us with additional resources for police technology so the lesson to be learned, i would say this. the consent decrease that are out there and this is people, aood by consent decree is by its very voluntary agreement between a city and its police department and the justice department. of those consent intoes that are entered have been entered into in lieu of litigation that the department had the right to do so the idea that pursuing consent decrees is in effect a collaboration and i think general sessions was against consent decrees but in exchange,ng offered no other strategy in exchange. decrees against consent because i think they negatively affect police morale but didn't another approach. we need this nominee to indicate that he's going to be committed to constitutional policing,

committed to public safety but understand that public safety, we've learned, is not just crack down law enforcement. much morehing comprehensive. it's something much more proactive. prosecutee got to violent offenders no doubt but thate also got to ensure their re-entry programs so that when people come out of jail, to repeat andt that is part of i think a sensible, smart on crime initiative. hope that helps. to. harris: as a follow-up your point, some of the best and most innovative initiatives in a couple of decades on criminal justice policy have been the result of the u.s. department of justice funding innovation in a way that enforcement,l law local prosecutors and local community groups to create the kind of collaboration that about.talking >> there used to be a local law enforcement block grant program money whichd

allowed you -- because state government -- city governments strapped always for resources -- that created a way for you to invest in some collaboration,e some differential sorts of justice can think play a proactive, smart on crime role in helping make our communities safer. sen. harris: thank you. mr. johnson, you've testified about your concern about the nominee, statements that have been made in the past about the fact that there's no statistical evidence of racism in the criminal justice system. he did mention during his andimony yesterday acknowledged the disparities between crack and powder cocaine but did not acknowledge or mention any of the other disparities we've seen systemcriminal justice such as arrest rates, that of crimesa variety but in particular drug crimes. the disparities based on race in what amount ofts

bail in the criminal justice system and, of course, incarceration rates which there are huge distinctions based on applications of the of sentences. so if he is confirmed, what do be theieve will ramifications of his failure to that?ledge and what would you recommend he do if he is confirmed to and to be informed about these disparities? an individual to serve as attorney general of this nation long legacyze the of race disparity. a.g., i would hope that he would really look into the and it wouldarch be obvious that in the criminal justice system there's a huge disparity. of that can be accounted for based on income but much of accounted for based on the juries, can bef

accounted for selective prosecution, it can be accounted a myriad oflates to things. and as the attorney general, i would factor in that race is a problem. post-racialrom a society and we must attack problems with a racial lens little inere is very our criminal justice system that's race neutral. harris: just one more question, madam chair. a perioded that within of time if he isn't -- if he's confirmed, that he would meet with civil rights groups to understand the ramifications of any policies. within theo do that first 120 days if confirmed. i think that we will all expect do that and i look forward to hearing about the results of those meetings and thank you. thank you. cruz?lackburn: senator sen. cruz: thank you, madam chairman.

thank you to each of the distinguished witnesses for being part of this hearing. i appreciate your testimony and wisdom and judgment. judge, let me start with you. you have served as federal judge as u.s. attorney general as has mr. barr and you have built careerand distinguished of public service. can you share for this committee importancegment the of rule of law and the importance of having an attorney faithful tois enforcing the law and constitution regardless of party, regardless of partisan interest? the onlyeally guarantee that we have because is defined by and theonstituted by a law, constitution. it's not based on land. it's not based on blood. law.based on a it all started with a law. builtat's what we've society on, the notion that you

can have a society in which -- operates fairly, in which neutrallyinciples, applied, allow people to reach their maximum potential. that's ever abandoned, if from orr deviated perceived to be deviated from, then we're lost, then we have us becausedefine we're defined by a law. sen. cruz: you've testified today that you know mr. barr is a, quote, superbly qualified nominee, that he has good and just importantly he has the will to exercise that judgment despite pressure from any source. can you share with us -- with yourommittee what in professional or permanent experience gives you confidence will once again well and ably carry out the responsibility of the attorney general of the united states? as i mentioned, he's had a

past history of doing that when he served as attorney general, notwithstanding that there was a desired result from the white house and he kind of deflected laughed it off. he is somebody who has testified here that in view of the fact that most of his career is the he doesn'tirror, really have to concern himself possible negative consequences of resisting pressure from an administration that's an additional guarantee. himselfink the person and who he's been over the years tosistently really speaks that and it's not just a question of his having nothing to lose. hehink that's the way constituted. as professor turley said, he's a he is devoteding in a way that very few people to what defines us this country and that's what he that's his occupation

and preoccupation and that is i think an excellent guarantee for to approach going the job. sen. cruz: this committee in findcular i think you will no criticism for being a law nerd. to attract more than a few of them. mr. thompson, you likewise have long, distinguished honorable career, marred only by briefly boss at the department of justice and i apologize for all of my errant mistakes since time. let me ask you the same question mukasey which is personalrofession and career interactions with mr. barr, what gives you confidence that he will once ably carry out the role of attorney general? >> thank you, senator. i'm very proud to have you as one of my colleagues and former alums from the deputy attorney general's office. you've certainly acquitted well.lf

bill barr has a long history in the department of justice. as i said in my opening statement, he has a great love for the department. think that may be one of the tosons he wants to return public service. he has great fidelity to the department but in addition to of sterile sort constitutional questions we have discussing this morning -- important but still sterile in understands the traditions of the department of justice. the traditions of the department of justice. he knows the impact that his decisions will have on the men who are in the department who are in the and thereive agencies are reasons for these policies. theseare good reasons for traditions, not the least important of which is public perception, that justice in this investigative decisions in this country, are carried out fairly without fear or favor of

is in societyus and most form, -- importantly, without political considerations. he understands this. i think this makes him superbly again theto be attorney general of the united states. sen. cruz: thank you. ms. carey, you have worked with decades.some two one of the things you testified busy was mr. barr's schedule, long travel hours and yet in the midst of it all, to find time to be husband and a dad to his three the father of daughters myself, i know how difficult that can be with public life. the committeewith some of what you saw firsthand about how he managed to carry out his responsibilities and still be there for his daughters? yeah, he was a tremendous father, as we saw yesterday, grandfather. as i said in my testimony, the

fact that all three of his daughters went into the law is huge. my husband is hoping that our daughters do not go into the law it's becomingnks increasingly difficult profession. question about his demeanor and the way he conducts is anf, which i think example to his daughters, we in houston and we were events and as he was hearing from all these victims of crime and people talking about how high the violent crime rate had gotten, can he please do something to help, he spontaneously turned to me and said what do you say we stop by the harris county jail and it was not on agenda at all, for security reasons, you would never tip off that the attorney general was to a prison. and the f.b.i. basically kind of raining -- rang the door bell of the prison and said we're here and did an unannounced visit to prison and the attorney

general, the prisoners did not know who he was. we didn't announce it. he went around asking these guys what their lives were like, what they do to get in here, what's for lunch today, where do you exercise. and as much of a law nerd as he is, this was a very compassionate side of him. he was not show boating. there was no press involved. and to me it showed the way he auld sort of shoehorn in quick visit so he could get back and see his family but yet learn what people's lives were like, see the impact, not just of the violent crime on the but also on proposed reforms on the people who were prisons. and i would be willing to bet there are not a lot of attorneys company present probably expected, who have been block like that on an unannounced thing so he could return to his family but learn the impact of

policies in a real way. >> i will say, his grandson have become an internet sensation. thank you to each of you. >> senator blumenthal? senator blumenthal: thank you madam chairwoman, thank you for all of your written testimony. i will review the. we have -- testimony, which i will review. we have only seven minutes. i will be quick with a number of you. reverend, thank you for being here today toned your story so powerfully and eloquently session telling your story so powerfully and eloquently, and making sure -- telling your story so powerfully and eloquently. gun, and person with a

i assume that you would support the legislation that has been introduced to improve the background check system, as you probably -- i'm sure you know. that shooter was able to take advantage of a loophole in the current laws. senator graham and i have proposed bipartisan measure to take guns away from people who are deemed to be dangerous by a court after due process, and thereby keep guns out of the hands of criminals and under debt other dangerous people -- and other dangerous people. i hope you can lend your voice and fake to supporting that letting -- face to supporting that legislation. >> i will support that legislation. >> thank you. professor, u.n. i are in agreement that -- you and i are in agreement that the president can be indicted, while in office, even if the trial has to

be postponed. to asked -- i asked mr. barr agree with me yesterday, and he wouldn't. you implied in your testimony that he did agree to it. do you have any information? >> i never spoke to him about it. i was sent if you look at the history of both mueller and barr i would not expect that they would try to change this long-standing policy. from a constitutional standpoint, i've never really agree with it. the constitution does not say the president is immune from indictment. indictment goes to the president as a person income impeachment does to the president as an person,older -- impeachment goes to the president as an office holder. unlikelyxceptionally that when you got to indictment,

that a president actually face a trial, let alone incarceration, during a term. when we talk about william barr being a great advocate of the union executive theory, i don't share the view, even though i am not a big fan of the theory, that is so horrific. he believes in clear lines. i share that view of what's a legislative function and executive function. when we talk about the avoidance doctrine of courts and try to interpret statutes to avoid conflicts, it's important to remember that same avoidance conflict protects congress, right? courts also avoid conflicts interpreting statutes that might impede your own authority. i'm not sure where he comes out on this specific issue. >> let me ask you and i'm going to ask a couple of other members. i am deeply disturbed, an

understatement, by some of the president's comments about the fbi, about judges, about our andcial system generally, shouldn't the attorney general of the united states be someone who stands up for -- you know, it's easy to say on for the rule of law -- i am for the rule of law, but when the rubber hits the road he should be defending all those institutions. do you agree? >> i do. is the think bill barr type that is going to take a public stance often against the president, but he is someone who i think would be quite firm. i don't know what the president thought he was getting with bill barr, but i know what is getting -- i know what he's getting. he's going to get somebody who identifies think credibly

closely -- who identifies incredibly closely with that department. senator blumenthal: let me ask you, and i know that you may wish to be referred to as general. >> i don't. i've always been uncomfortable with that, even when i was in the position. i thought it was weird. senator blumenthal: as attorney general i was referred to as a general and i was never comfortable with it. >> in the u.k. they call the attorney general attorney, which seems a lot more accurate. senator blumenthal: the u.k. has a very different system. i thought by the way, what your history of -- was really very pertinent in terms of showing the differences between the attorney general as an advocate of justice, as opposed to an advocate for the queen, or the

president. aren't you deeply troubled by the president tax -- a tax on the judiciary -- attacks on the judiciary? >> i disagree with it. i think it is extremely unwanted for him to do it -- unwarranted for him to do it. in that sense, i'm troubled. there should be a political price to pay for that and i think we are in the process of seeing it paid to some extent. there has always been a certain level of tension between and among the branches. how it's expressed, and how civilly is expressed is a different thing. i think we're probably in agreement there, but there is always a certain level of pulling and pulling -- holding built into the constitutional system. senator blumenthal: are you also troubled by the presidents attacks on the fbi and the department of justice? function on a day

to day justice without a routing section in the white house -- rooting section in the white house. i think some of his criticisms of the fbi may very well turn out to be warranted. i have articulated that. i think the former attorney general had no choice but to recuse himself. he did come and that was not something that was not a criticism that ever held any water. senator blumenthal: i want to thank you all for being here. i have a lot more questions. maybe i will contact some of you privately. my time has expired and i know that the acting chairwoman and i will have to vote, but thank you for begin today. -- being here today. >> without objection and on behalf of senator grassley, i would like to enter this letter from taxpayers against fraud into the record, so ordered. thank you all for being here

today, and for your insight into how mr. barr would lead the -- inment of justice, and what is a very challenging time. all right. justice, i am getting to end this hearing. you are recognized. you just made it in under the wire. >> yes, ma'am. thank you to the panel. i appreciate your patience. that have been, as you know, boats and other issues happening in other settings -- votes and other issues happening in other settings. i just wanted to reconfirm my sense of loss at what you shared with us on the fact that i had the opportunity to visit and to worship, and then to travel with

felicia shandler's best felicia sanders and polly shepard -- felicia sanders and polly shepard. i look forward to your upcoming writing and talking about reconciliation work together. i wanted to start by asking both of you and mr. cannon very, with whom i have had the honor of -- , withvery -- canterbury whom i have had the honor of working with, about britt grant checks -- background checks. we have talked about how this does not fully deny access to weapons to those who should be fully deny access -- denied access. it would make a simple improvement to how we enforce current loss. if you go into a gun -- current laws. if you go into a gun store and say i am entitled to buy a gun,

they run a background check and they say you have spent five years in federal penitentiary for armed robbery, we are not getting you a gun today, and you storm out. in my home state, nothing happens. state, the police now know they can go have a conversation with you about your purpose for purchasing the weapon. this bill, if it were to become law, would require notification, a simple notification to a state or local law enforcement contact. lie and try cases are hardly prosecuted at the national level. i am grateful for what i understand is the fob support for the concept in the bill. if you would be to enforceadvocate lie and try walaws.

>> absolutely. we have been very critical of the lack of resources to the system and the fact that a lie and try normally goes without prosecution. we have supported that bill in the past. we are with you and senator toomey on that. with that will come the necessary appropriations and authorization to enforce. >> would it have made any difference in the devon roof -- lan roof case- dy if he was not able to buy a weapon? >> yes, i do. maybe the tragedy in charleston may not have happened. one of the things we are up against is the three-day waiting period that i know needs to be able -- is to be expanded in order to be able to have a

complete background check. i think things would have been different if those were in place at the time he bought the gun. i intended to work in this congress as i did in the last, to try and find ways that both parties can support that would strengthen law enforcement and a system of the night access to weapons -- denying access to weapons to those who shouldn't have them. we could have a very long conversation about this, but i am just going to have to focus question. tell me specifically, the unitary executive theory is just that it's theory, not currently the law of the land. am i right about that? >> that's right. in fact, the supreme court has rejected it repeatedly in every case. you suggested that if we were to have on attorney general with a very expansive view of executive power, it might have some negative implications, and it might have some negative implications that would have some current relevance.

can you explain that a little bit more? my superficial and ill-informed view of this is that the founders did not actually say all executive power. -- power is given to the president. that it was the executive power, and there were examples of ways in which executive power is shared with other branches historically. i'm interested in what are the practical implications if we have an attorney general who has a very broad and expansive view? my predecessor, senator biden, did express real concern about how brought his executive power theory was. >> that reading of the executive vesting clause was argued by president harry truman and specifically rejected by the supreme court, but that did not kill it. it keeps coming back. lawyers in the justice department earnestly believing in it applied to the torture memo, most infamously.

the torture memo is a good example, in the sense that it illustrates that much of what the justice department does never gets into court. the attorney general is such an important position, because very often the attorney general is the rule of law. it is only the attorney general's willingness to not only stand up for what the constitution says, but to recognize what the constitution actually says. i have no qualms about william barr on the first score. it's on the latter that i have real trouble. the attorney general is a crucially important figure from that standpoint, for issues we can't even begin to contemplate, and we never know about. if the issues that we do know about that we can be quite certain, and even issues that may be in court someday. that rule is crucially important. suppose the president decides he

wants to tell the federal reserve how to run monetary policy. that something that might end up in court, but the myers case, or the first case of the modern approach of the president's removal power is a case where myersw wilson fired frank in portland, oregon while he was president. his presidency ended in 1921. the myers case was decided by the supreme court in 1927. imagine six years of a cloud hanging over the independence of the federal reserve? even if ultimately the supreme court vindicates the proper view of the constitution, we have potential enormous chaos in the markets. that's just one example of one independent agency and the important role it plays in a less. listu previously cited a of independent agencies and this is a line of questioning i have pursued with our most recently confirmed supreme court justice. i am very concerned about how this view, which begins with the scalia dissent, and has not

expanded significantly, what is real consequences might be best real-- what its consequences might be. about 67,000 americans every year are dying of overdoses. once said i don't consider it an unjust and sentence to put a drug courier imprisoned for five years -- in prison for five years. willu believe mr. barr advance policies for those with substance addiction to get the help they need? >> i don't think we heard anything from him or in his record that would suggest that. i think it's going to require strong congressional oversight. "crisiswe treat the mirrors -- the opioid crisis mirrors the way we treat the credit crisis -- crack crisis.

they certainly do not work particularly for the user class. what we did in the crack cocaine crackdown is that it was users who were incarcerated for 18 months, two years, three years. sometimes they repeated and went back to jail a second time. the opioid crisis is an opportunity now that we are losing 60,000 people a year, more than we are losing to gun violence, to break from those policies and treat though pure crisis for what it is, -- treat the opioid crisis for what it is, a health crisis. it's not to exonerate the pusher, or sanction it. it is to come up with a more intelligent approach. i don't know if the nominee is there. i think this congress and committee is going to have to force them to get their. >> thank you.

thank you to the whole panel into the chair for your forbearance. >> we thank you all for helping to give us a clear picture of what you perceive to be the judgment and understanding in -- and the commitment of mr. barr. this concludes the hearing to consider william barr as attorney general. i will remind the senators that the record will be open until 5:00 p.m. on january 22 to submit questions. we request your timely response. this hearing is adjourned. [indiscernible] >> the house gavels in at 9:00

a.m. to work on ending the government shutdown. live coverage on c-span. c-span2 has house speaker posey's weekly briefing at 10:45 a.m., and former -- house speaker pelosi's weekly briefing at 10:45 am the coverage of the senate on day 27 of the shutdown begins at 4:00 p.m. on c-span3, the american bankruptcy institute hosts a forum on the health care industry and affordable care act. at 1:00 p.m., congressman callista phonic announces the formation -- elyse stephan inc. stefanik announces the formation of --

>> we will explore the roots of independence and white serve as the starting part of america's great westward trails. >> downtown was the place to be if you are out setting for the trails. really just outfitting general storage. if you needed flour, bacon, anything to get you out west, you could get it here. you could just imagine a big, but the community downtown. >> on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history to the, a tour of -- history tv, a tour of president truman's -- site. watch the tour of missouri on book tv and sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3, working with our cable affiliates as we explore the american story. in the british house of commons after a boat rejecting -- a boat rejecting a brexit -- vote

rejecting a brexit treaty, the opposition call for a vote of no-confidence in prime minister theresa may. here is the debate before the vote, beginning with labor leader jeremy corbyn. mr. corbyn: order. we now come to the motion of no-confidence confidence in her majesty's government. the motion in the name of the leader of the opposition. the leader of the opposition to move -- mr. jeremy corbyn. mr. corbyn: thank you, mr. speaker. i moved the motion that this house has no confidence in her majesty's government. last night the government was defeated by 230 votes, the largest if he in the history of our democracy, the first democracy to be defeated by more than 200 votes. the government itself could barely muster more than 200 votes. last week they lost a vote on the finance bill.