The problem with where the Net Neutrality issue has gone is it is not focused on the substance, which there is a lot of consensus around. It is focused on the Legal Authority to drop to adopt rules. Our concern is they are going to undo a regulatory status now for over a decade. On cspan two. The Senate Judiciary committee recently held a confirmation hearing her attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch. She serves as the u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District of new york. She would replace current attorney general eric holder who has been with the Obama Administration since 2009. She would also be the first africanamerican woman to head the Justice Department. At this hearing she answered questions about immigration criminal sentencing, and cyber security, among many other topics. This portion is 4. 5 hours. Good morning. Before we start id like to state a few things. These are some ground rules, pretty much the same as what former chairman and my friend senator leahy and others have done stated in the past. I want everyone to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block the view of those behind them, or speak out of turn, its not fair or considerate to others. So officers would then remove those individuals. I know that theres a lot to protest regarding this administrations policies, but this isnt the time or place to do it. Before i turn to our Opening Statements, i wanted to go over a couple of housekeeping items and explain how were going to proceed. Senator leahy and i will give our Opening Statements. Then i will call on senators schumer and gillibrand to introduce the nominee. Following miss lynchs opening remarks well begin with the first round of questions, in which each senator will have ten minutes. After the first round, were going to do eight minute rounds of questions. I want everyone to know that im prepared to stay here as long as members have questions that theyd like to ask. I think this is a most fair way to proceed, both to the responsibilities of the senate and senators, and most importantly, to the nominee who has to sit here through all of this, and answer our questions and i think we all know that this is a very important position in the cabinet, and we should do what we can to move it along within our rules. We have a lot of ground that we want to cover in live questioning. One final note on scheduling. I would like to take a short break of maybe 45 minutes sometime around 12 30 or 1 00. And i know that we have a series of stack votes this afternoon and in regard to, i think, 18 amendments we have to vote on, the plan right now is to keep this hearing going even though it may be a very chaotic way to do things and maybe not as respectful to the position of attorney general as ought to be, but i dont know how else to get through the process to get every question asked that wants to be asked. So i would ask that all of my colleagues remain very flexible and keep it going. And that means some accommodation by members on my side of the aisle to chair when i cant be here, over there voting. With that im going to turn to my Opening Statement and immediately go to senator leahy. Miss lynch ive had a chance to talk to you privately on two occasions. I welcome you to the Senate Judiciary committee. Its a very big day for you, and especially for family and friends that are proud of you. I congratulate you on your nomination. Youve already been confirmed by the senate, as u. S. Attorney. But the process involved to serve as the 83rd attorney general is a bit more rigorous. For one thing u. S. Attorneys dont even have hearings, let alone one like this. So my hope is that we discuss some of the most important matters facing our nation, and in the process of doing that, then well get to know you a bit better. The fact of the matter is, this nomination comes at a pivotal time for the department of justice, and for our country, and as i discuss some of those things, those are probably things you have had nothing to do with. But you have an opportunity to make some changes. The next attorney general will face some very difficult challenges, from combatting cyber crime to protecting our children from exploitation, to helping fight the war on terror. But im not just concerned about the tough decisions that come with the office, there are challenges facing the department of justice that go to the heart of our system of government. How about restoring faith in the bedrock principles like respect for the rule of law in the fair and evenhanded application of those laws. How about restoring respect for the he coequal branches of government. How about taking care that the law is faithfully executed and not rewritten. How about the department of justice honoring once again its longstanding duty to vigorously defend our nations laws, even when political appointees disagree with the policy. Then there is the office of Legal Counsel. Im interested in returning that office to its rightful place as the impartial crown jewel of the Justice Department. Its opinion should be firmly rooted in the constitutions text. Neutral interpretation of statutes. And sound judicial precedent. They shouldnt be transparently selfserving attempts to justify whatever the president or an attorney general wants to do for political reasons. And let me say it right here. The office of Legal Counsel should be sharing with the American Public the opinions its providing to the president especially when they supposedly sanction the Unprecedented Authority that the president claims to possess. And im going to work to see that it does. The publics business ought to be public, transparency, i believe, and in fact does bring accountability. These ideals and principles are foundational to the republic. But ideals and principles arent simply academic. And they dont exist in a vacuum. Over the last few years, Public Confidence in the departments ability to do its job without regard to politics has been shaken with good reason. Its not just republicans who see the problem or who recognize it as a realworld affects on our own fellow americans. The departments own Inspector General listed as one of its top management challenges quote, restoring confidence in the integrity, fairness and accountability of the department, end of quote. The i. G. Cited several examples including the departments falsely denying basic facts in the fast and furious controversy, the Inspector General concluded this quote resulted in an erosion of trust in the Department End of quote. In that fiasco, our government knowingly allowed firearms to fall into the hands of International Gun traffickers and it led to the death of patrol agent patrol agent brian terry. And then after Congress Called on the leadership of the department to account for this foolish operation, what did they do . Did they apologize to the family and rush to uncover the truth . Quite the opposite. They denied spun and hid the facts from congress and the American People. They bullied and intimidated whistleblowers, members of the press, and anyone who had audacity to investigate and to uncover the truth. The department has also failed to hold another Government Agency accountable through Internal Revenue service. We watched with dismay as that powerful agency was weaponized and turned against individual citizens. And why . What exactly did these fellow citizens do to make their government target them . They had the courage to get engaged and speak out in defense of faith freedom and our constitution, and for what . They then were targeted by the irs. What was the Justice Departments reaction to the targeting of citizens based on political beliefs . Well they appointed a Campaign Donor to lead an investigation that hasnt gone anywhere. And call it then a day. That simply isnt good enough. Meanwhile the departments top litigator, the nations solicitor general is arguing in case after case for breathtaking expansion of federal power. Id like to have you consider this. Had the department prevailed in just some of the arguments that it pressed before the Supreme Court in the last several years there would be essentially no limit on what the federal government could order states to do as a condition for receiving federal money. Another case the Environmental Protection agency could fine a homeowner 75,000 a day for not complying with an order and then turn around and deny that homeowner any right to challenge the order or those fines in court when the order is issued. The federal government could review decisions by religious organizations regarding who can serve as a minister. The federal government could ban books that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of political candidates. And the Fourth Amendment wouldnt have anything to say about police attaching a gps device to a citizens car without a warrant and constantly tracking their every movement for years or for months and years. These positions arent mainstream, in my judgment. At the end of the day, the Common Thread that binds all these challenges together in my judgment is the department of justice that is very deeply politicized. But thats what happens when an attorney general of the United States views himself and these are his own words, as the president s wingman. I dont expect miss lynch and i will agree on every issue but i for one need to be persuaded that she will be an independent attorney general and i have no reason to believe at this point she wont be. The attorney generals job is to represent the American People. Not just the president not just the executive branch. So today we will hear from miss lynch. As far as i know miss lynch has nothing to do with the department of justice problems that i just outlined. But as new attorney general she can fix them. Tomorrow well hear from a second panel of witnesses, many of whom will speak directly to the many challenges facing the Justice Department. As i listen to both panels ill be considering whether miss lynch has what it takes to fix the Obama Justice department. We need to get back then to First Principles and that starts with the depoliticizing the department of justice. Because the American People deserve that. So i hope, miss lynch can fix these flaws. Senator leahy. Thank you. I wont speak as long because i just want to focus on Loretta Lynch, and not on all the problems that some may see in this country. It is a pleasure to welcome her to this committee. Shes smart, shes tough, shes hardworking, independent. Shes a prosecutors prosecutor. And her qualifications with beyond reproach. Been unanimously confirmed by the senate twice before to serve as a top federal prosecutor based in brooklyn, new york. I hope we have another swift confirmation for miss lynch. As u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District of new york shes brought terrorists and cyber criminals to justice. Shes obtained convictions against corrupt Public Officials from both Political Parties. Shes fought tirelessly against Violent Crime and financial fraud. Shes remained determined to protect the rights of victims. Miss lynch has worked hard to improve the relationships between Law Enforcement and the communities they serve. And thats one of the reasons why her nomination enjoys strong support from both. She has prosecuted those who have committed crimes against Police Officers as well as Police Officers who committed crime. Her record shows that as attorney general miss lynch will effectively, fairly and independently enforce the law. I hope we all remember that she is the nomination for attorney general, and thats why im focusing on her. Shes born in north carolina, the daughter of a baptism preacher and a School Librarian and were honored to have members of her family here with us today and i know youll be introducing them later. She grew up hearing her family speak about living in the jim crow south but she never lost faith that the way to obtain justice is through our legal system. In her nomination is historic when shes confirmed as the 83rd attorney general of the United States shell be the first africanamerican woman to lead the department of justice. Really i cant think of anyone more deserving of that honor. Shes going to lead a Justice Department that faces complex challenges. Nearly onethird of its budget goes to the bureau of prisons, and that drains federal resources from nearly all other Public Safety priorities. A third of the budget goes to prisons. And a significant factor leading to the budget imbalance is the unnecessary creation of more and more mandatory minimum sentences. Passing new mand tear minimum laws has become a convenient way for lawmakers to claim their tough on crime. Even when theres no evidence that these sentences keep us safer. Thats one of the reasons why we have the largest prison population in the world. Thats why i oppose mandatory minimums. I hope we can find a way to face this mass incarceration problem and the Justice Department needs strong leadership to keep up with the Rapid Development of technology. We must stay ahead of the curve to prevent and fight the threat of cybersecurity and data privacy. Think what it would have been like the last few days in the northeast if a cyber terrorist could have closed down all our electrical grids. The growing threat of cyber crime is very real. But also the specter of unchecked government intrusion in our private lives, particularly dragnet surveillance programs directed at american citizens tells us the community faced a political deadline this june. Three sections of the Intelligence Surveillance act are set to expire. I believe we have to protect our National Security, but we also have to protect our civil liberties, which make us unique as a country. So we have to reform our nations surveillance laws so we can realize both goals. And the next attorney general is going to play a central role in protecting all americans. All americans. The president s selection for attorney general, no matter who the president is, deserves swiftly, fairly and on the nominees own record. I believe americans realize the role this important cannot be used just as one more sound bite washington political football. Im confident that we stay focused on miss lynchs impeccable qualifications and fierce independence, shes going to be confirmed quickly by the senate. She deserves a fair, thoughtful and respectful confirmation process. And the American People deserve an attorney general like miss lynch. So i thank you for your years of Public Service. I look forward to your testimony. For those of you who are new to our hearing its tradition that senators from home state introduce nominees from their state. So im now going to call on senator schumer and then senator gillibrand senators from new york, to do that. And since were under such a tight schedule, if i could ask you to keep it to five minutes it would be very nice. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Ranking Member leahy and the members of the committee. Its my great privilege to introduce Loretta Lynch, a proud new yorker, and the nominee to be the next attorney general of the United States. Born in north carolina, her father was a fourth generation baptist minister. A man who grew up in the segregated south. And her mother picked cotton when she was a girl so her daughter would never have to. Well their daughter grew up to be one of the keenest legal minds that our country has to offer. Someone who has excelled at every stage of her education, and her career, while cultivating a reputation as someone who was levelheaded, fair judicious and imminently likable. If theres an American Dream story, miss lynch is it and adding to the American Dream story, miss lynchs late brother lorenzo was a navy s. E. A. L. Still, despite her intellectual and career achievements miss lynch has always been a nose to the grindstone type rarely seeking a claim, only a job well done. She has earned a reputation for keeping her head down, and avoiding the spotlight, just like me. At just over five foot and with her consistention stated approach to the public spotlight, some might underestimate miss lynch. But as hundreds of criminals have learned the hard way, looks can be deceiving, and miss lynch packs a powerful punch. When you look at the breadth and depth of the cases shes handled, its clear Loretta Lynch is Law Enforcements renaissance woman. One i would mention, the abner louima case, where she convicted Police Officers who horribly abused the haitian immigrant. As we have seen, these types of cases can create great tension between the police and the community. But despite the highrunning emotions that accompanied this notorious case miss lynch was praised by lawyers on both sides, as well as Community Leaders and Police Officials for her judicious, balanced and careful approach. Mr. Chairman members of this committee in this age of global terrorism, the a. G. s role in National Security has never been more important. It makes apparent that the confirmation of a new attorney general cannot and should not be delayed any longer. Today weve already heard and will hear a lot more, about issues completely unrelated to miss lynchs experience and her qualifications. If anything, that just goes to show how qualified she is. No one can assail Loretta Lynch and no one has. Who she is, what she has done and how good an attorney general she would be. So instead, some are trying to drag extraneous issues executive orders on immigration, the irs, into the fray to challenge her nomination because they cant find anything in her record to point to. Let me be clear attempts to politicize this nomination to turn this exceptional nominee into a political point scoring exercise are a disservice to the qualified candidate we have before us today. I originally recommended Loretta Lynch for the position of u. S. Attorney in 1999 because i thought she was excellent. Sure enough, she was. When president bush took office, she went to the private sector to earn some money. But when i had the opportunity to recommend a candidate to president obama i was certain i wanted miss lynch to serve again. So i called her on a friday afternoon. She was happy with her life in the law firm. But i was confident that with the weekend to think it over shed be drawn to answer the call to Public Service. And sure enough, her commitment to Public Service was so strong that she called me back on monday to say yes. She passed unanimously out of the senate twice already. Wouldnt it be nice if we could pass her unanimously out of the senate a third time . Based on her record, we should. Mr. President , if we cant confirm Loretta Lynch, then i dont believe we can confirm anyone. And i would like to remind my colleagues that the president S Immigration policies are not seeking confirmation today. Loretta lynch is. When we move to vote, hopefully sooner rather than later you wont be voting for or against the president s policies youll be voting on this eminently qualified Law Enforcement professional, firstrate legal mind and someone who is committed in her bones to the equal application of justice for all people. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator gillibrand. Thank you, mr. Chairman and Ranking Member leahy. I am honored to be here today with senator schumer to introduce United States attorney for the Eastern District of new york Loretta Lynch. As president obamas nominee to serve as the next attorney general for the United States. To serve as United States attorney general requires deep experience in the field of law. It also requires a brilliant intellect, and it requires a steady moral compass. I have met with miss lynch two months ago and i can tell you, she meets all of those criteria. She is strong, tough, independent, and fearless. And as one of our countrys most accomplished and distinguished women serving in Law Enforcement, i urge my colleagues to support her nomination. She is an outstanding candidate for this job. Miss lynch began her service as the u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District of new york in 1990, where she rose quickly to serve as chief of the long island office, and then deputy chief of general crimes and chief of intake and arraignments. For 15 years she has been a prosecutor in the u. S. Attorneys office for the Eastern District of new york and since 2010 she has served as mirbly as United States attorney for the Eastern District of new york. In that position she has demonstrated a superior sense of judgment and remarkable legal expertise. Miss lynch has dealt with an impressive array of cases on subjects ranging from civil rights to organized crime to terrorism. These are each issues that our new attorney general will have to engage with constantly from day one of her tenure. Miss lynchs experience as a federal prosecutor in new york will undoubtedly serve her exceptionally well in washington. She is extraordinarily well qualified and i believe she deserves a quick confirmation process. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator gillibrand. Its now, just as soon as the table is cleared, its going to give miss lynch an opportunity to come and before before you seat yourself would you take an oath, please . Would you raise your hand, and ill give the oath. Do you affirm that the testimony youre about to give before the committee will be the truth the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god . I do. Thank you. The Committee Welcomes you, and i know that its an honor for all of us to have you before us. But its also an honor for you to be selected by the president , and its quite an honor for your family. So i would ask if before you make your statement if you would like to introduce anybody to the committee, and speak about them any way you want to. And then if theres people that arent introduced by you that you would like to have their name in the record and youd submit their names, id be glad to include that in the record. So would you proceed as you choose . Turn your microphone yeah, i think the microphone is not automatic. Thank you, senator. Let me introduce for the record, im delighted to welcome numerous family and friends here with me today. Id like to introduce first and foremost my father. The source of my inspiration in so many ways. Hes to my immediate left the reverend lorenzo lynch. Thank you. Immediately to his left is my husband, Stephen Hargrove who has supported me in all of my endeavors, no matter how poor they make us. Immediately to his left is my younger brother the reverend leonzo lynch who is the fifth generation of ministers in a direct line in my family. And my sisterinlaw nicole lynch. Im also here with several other family members and friends whom i would love to introduce but i am informed that you have a schedule for the afternoon. So i will keep to that. But let me say to all of them how tremendously gratified i am for their support, not just today, but over the years. Chairman grassley, senator leahy, distinguished members of this committee, im honored to appear before you in this Historic Chamber among so many dedicated Public Servants. I want to thank you for your time this morning and i also want to thank president obama for the trust he has placed in me by nominating me to serve as attorney general of the United States. Its a particular privilege to be joined here today by the members of my family that ive introduced, as well as the other numerous family and friends who have come to support me and whose travel and service i am so appreciative. Mr. Chairman, one of the privileges, and in fact one of my favorite things in my position as United States attorney for the Eastern District of new york is welcoming new attorneys in to my office and administering to them the oath of office. It is a transformative moment in the life of a young prosecutor. And one that i actually remember well. And as they stand before me prepared to pledge their honor, and their integrity i remind them that they are making their oath not to me not to the office, not even to the attorney general, but to our constitution. The fundamental foundation for all that we do. It is to that document and the ideals embodied therein that i have devoted my professional life. And senators, if confirmed as attorney general, i pledge to you today, and to the American People, that the constitution the bedrock of our system of justice, will be my lodestar as i exercise the power and the responsibility of that position. I owe so much to those who have worked to make the promise of that document real for all americans. Beginning with my own family. All of them and so many others have supported me on the path that has brought me to this moment. Not only through their unwavering love and support which is so beautifully on display today, but through their examples and the values that have shaped my upbringing. My mother loreen who was unable to travel here today is a retired english teacher and librarian for whom education was the key to a better life. She still recalls people in her Rural North Carolina community pressing a dime or a quarter, into her hand to help support her college education. As a young woman, she refused to use segregated rest rooms, because they did not represent the america in which she believed. She instilled in me an abiding love of literature and learning, and taught me the value of hard work and sacrifice. My father lorenzo, who is here with me today is a fourth generation baptist preacher who in the early 1960s opened his Greensboro Church to those planning sitins and marches. Standing with them while carrying me on his shoulders. He has always matched his principles with his actions, encouraging me to think for myself, but reminding me that we all gain the most when we act in service to others. It was the values my parents instilled in me that led me to the Eastern District of new york. And from my parents, i gained the tenacity and the resolve to take on violent criminals, to confront political corruption, and to disrupt organized crime. They also gave me the insight and the compassion to sit with the victims of crime and share their loss. Their values have sustained me, as i have twice had the privilege, indeed the honor of serving as United States attorney leading an Exceptional Office staffed by outstanding Public Servants, and their values guide and motivate me even today. Senator, should i be confirmed as attorney general my highest priorities will continue to be to ensure the safety of all of our citizens, to protect the most vulnerable among us from crime and abuse, and to strengthen the vital relationships between americas brave Law Enforcement officers and the communities they are entrusted to serve. In a world of complex and evolving threats, protecting the American People from terrorism must remain the primary mission of todays department of justice. If confirmed, i will work with colleagues across the executive branch to use every available tool to continue disrupting the catastrophic attacks planned against our homeland, and to bring terrorists to justice. I will draw upon my extensive experience in the Eastern District of new york, which has tried more terrorism cases since 9 11 than any other office. We have investigated and prosecuted terrorist individuals and groups that threaten our nation and its people, including those who have plotted to attack new york citys subway system john f. Kennedy airport, the Federal Reserve bank of new york, and u. S. Troops stationed abroad. As well as those who have provided Material Support to foreign terrorist organizations. And i pledge to discharge my duties, always mindful of the need to protect not just american citizens, but american values. If confirmed, i intend to expand and enhance our capabilities in order to effectively prevent everevolving attacks in cyberspace, to expose the wrongdoers, and bring those perpetrators to justice, as well. In my current position, im proud to lead an office that has significant experience prosecuting complex International Cyber crime including high tech intrusions at key financial and Public Sector institutions. If i am confirmed, i will continue to use the combined skills and experience of our Law Enforcement partners, the departments criminal and National Security divisions and the United StatesAttorney Community to defeat and to hold accountable those who would imperil the safety and security of our citizens through cyber crime. I will also do everything i can to ensure that we are safe if guarding the most vulnerable among us. During my tenure as u. S. Attorney, the Eastern District of new york has led the prosecution against financial fraudsters who have callously targeted hardworking americans including the deaf, the elderly, and stolen not just their trust but their heardearned savings. We have taken action against abusers in over 100 Child Exploitation and child pornography cases. And we have prosecuted brutal International Human trafficking rings that have sold, sold victims as young as 14 and 15 into sexual slavery. If confirmed as attorney general, i will continue to build upon the departments record of vigorously prosecuting those who prey on those most in need of our protection. And i will continue to provide strong and effective assistance to survivors who we must both support and empower. Senators, throughout my career as a prosecutor, it has been my signal honor to work hand in hand with dedicated Law Enforcement officers and agents who risk their lives every day in the protection of the communities we all serve. I have served with them. I have learned from them. I am a better prosecutor because of them. Few things have pained me more than the recent reports of tension and division between Law Enforcement and the communities we serve. If confirmed as attorney general one of my key priorities would be to work to strengthen the vital relationships between our courageous Law Enforcement personnel, and all of the communities we serve. In my career i have seen this relationship flourish. I have seen Law Enforcement forge unbreakable bonds with Community Residents. And i have seen violence ravaged communities come together to honor officers who have risked all to protect them. And as attorney general i will draw all voices into this important discussion. In that same spirit i look forward to fostering a new and improved relationship with this committee, the United States senate, and the entire United States congress. A relationship based on Mutual Respect and constitutional balance. Ultimately i know we all share the same goal and commitment to protect and to serve the American People. Now i recognize that we face many challenges in the years ahead. But i have seen in my own life and in my own family how dedicated men and women can answer the call to achieve great things for themselves for their country, and for generations to come. My father that young minister who carried me on his shoulders has answered that call. As has my mother that courageous young teacher who refused to let jim crow define her. Standing with them are my uncles and cousins who served in vietnam, one of whom is here to support me today. And my older brother, a navy s. E. A. L. All of whom answered that call with their service to our country. Senators, as i come before you today in this Historic Chamber i still stand on my fathers shoulders. As well as on the shoulders of all of those who have gone before me, and have dreamed of making the promise of america a reality for all, and worked to achieve that goal. I believe in the promise of america, because i have lived the promise of america. And if confirmed eded to be attorney general of the United States i pledge to all of you and the American People that i will fulfill my responsibilities with integrity, and independence. I will never forget that i serve the American People. From all walks of life. Who continue to make our nation great, as well as the legacy of all of those whose sacrifices have made us free. And i will always strive to uphold the trust that has been placed in me to protect and defend our constitution. To safeguard our people, and to stand as the leader and Public Servant that they deserve. Thank you all, once again, for your time and your consideration. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to your questions, and to all that we may accomplish in the days ahead. Together, in the spirit of cooperation, shared responsibility, and justice. Thank you for your time today. And thank you, miss lynch, for that statement. Before my ten minutes starts for the first round id like to talk to my colleagues just a minute, because of the 18 votes that are coming up this afternoon and because of chaotic situation, and the most important thing is getting this hearing over in one sitting, in one day even if it goes into the evening i hope my colleagues will be cognizant of what we normally do between senator leahy and i, were fairly liberal on letting people go over, and whether we have five, seven or ten minute rounds in any hearing, my practice is generally if you got one second left you can ask a question, and but this time i would prefer that you kind of stick to the ten minutes, and im not very good at gaveling people down, so take take care of my committed will you please . Again before the first ten minutes starts id like to make something clear just for myself. I cant speak for my colleagues. And it takes off on two things. One, what you said about you wanted to improve relationships with the committee, and with congress. I we welcome that very much, and that will be very, very helpful. Particularly in regard to our responsibilities of oversight. Secondly taking off on something senator schumer said, and just speaking for myself if i use this subject or that subject or another as a basis of maybe questioning what the president or an attorney general has done, i want it clear that thats not the issue for me now. The issue is whether or not the constitution or the laws have been violated, or whether the Justice Department has acted in an appropriate way. Now i would start with my questions. On november the 20th last year president obama announced that he would defer deportation of millions of individuals in the country undocumented. Not only is this action contrary to our laws its a dangerous abuse of executive authority. If youre confirmed as the next attorney general before you take office, you will take a oath. You will raise your right hand and swear quote support and defend the constitution of the United States, and to bear true and false true faith and allegiance to the same, end of quote. Your duty as attorney general is not to defend the president and his policies. Your duty is your oath to defend the constitution. So my first question, with that oath in mind i ask you, do you believe that the president has the Legal Authority to unilaterally deportations in a blanket manner for millions of individuals in the country illegally and grant them permits and other benefits regardless of what the u. S. Constitution or immigration laws say . Thank you for the question, senator. And you raise a very important issue of how we manage the issue of undocumented immigrants here in our country while still welcoming those who bring such great value to our shores, to our business community, and to our culture. Certainly i was not involved in the decisions that led to the executive actions that you reference. And i am not aware of at this point, how the department of Homeland Security has set forth regulations to actually implement that. So i cant comment on the particulars of what will happen. I have had occasion to look at the office of Legal Counsel opinion through which the department of Homeland Security sought legal guidance there as well as some of the letters from constitutional scholars whove looked at the similar issue. And certainly it seems to be a reasonable discussion of legal precedent, the relevant statute, congressional actions, along with the Enforcement Discretion of the agency. And i dont see any reason to doubt the reasonableness of those views. I do think, however that the ultimate responsibility of the department of justice is to always when presented with issues by the white house or any agency to review those issues carefully, to apply the relevant law, and make a determination as to whether or not theres a Legal Framework that supports the requested action. And i found it interesting, as i was reading the Legal Counsel opinion that some of the proposals that were set forth and asked about the office of Legal Counsel opine did not, in fact, have a Legal Framework. And i dont believe that those were actually implemented. So i do think it is very important that as the department of justice through any of its agencies, the office of Legal Counsel, or in a direct conversation with the president , or any other member of cabinet always ensure that they are operating from a position of whether or not theres a Legal Framework that supports the requested action. And the advice provided must be thorough, it must be objective, and it must be completely independent. Let me take off on one word you used discretion. And i presume that may have applied to prosecutorial discretion that was part of the president s rationale. If this is lawfully exercised on an individual basis, depending on the facts of a specific case, it is in fact, case by case. So this is not so much a philosophical question as a practical thing. What it doesnt allow anybody to do is tell whole categories of people that the law wont apply to them going forward. No one seriously disputes these broad principles. Even the office of Legal Counsel opinion on the president s executive action accepts them. So let me ask you this. What are the outer limits of the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion . And why dont the president s actions exceed those boundaries when were talking about millions of people . How does this action realistically allow for a case by case exercise of discretion . Senator, as i reviewed the opinion, and looked at the issues presented therein from the perspective of my career as a prosecutor and as a United States attorney and applying those principles of the exercise of discretion i viewed it as a way in which the department of Homeland Security was seeking legal guidance on the most effective way to prioritize the removal of large numbers of individual individuals given that their resources would not permit removal of everyone who fell within the respected respective category. And that certainly was the framework from which i viewed that. In looking at it from that perspective, the department of Homeland Securitys request and suggestion that they, in fact, prioritize the removal of the most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants among us those who have criminal records, those who are involved in National Security and terrorism, those who are involved in Gang ActivityViolent Crime, along with, i believe, people who have recently entered and could pose a threat to our system, seem to be a reasonable way to Marshall Limited resources to deal with the problem. As a prosecutor, however, ive had experience obviously in doing similar things in finding the best way to attack a serious problem with limited resources. But as a prosecutor, i always want the ability to still take some sort of action against those who may not be in my initial category as the most serious threat. And i didnt see anything in the opinion that prevented action being taken from individuals who might otherwise qualify for the deferral. Again, im not aware of how the department will actually go forward and implement by regulation this matter. I havent had the occasion to study that. And i dont know, in fact, if those are out. Certainly, if im confirmed as attorney general, i look forward to learning more about that process, and making sure that were using all of our resources to protect the American People particularly against the dangerous offenders who rightfully stand at the top of the removal list. Well, i think youre telling me that you can do it for a few thousand, or a few tens of thousands of people that maybe have committed a crime or something, but it seems to me that common sense would dictate that its impossible to do prosecutorial discretion the way its traditionally the way its been done on an individual basis for the millions that are left over. Lets move on. Id like to move away from the president s refusal to enforce the law and talk about this administrations failure to apply the law in an even handed way. This goes to the irs. According to the Treasury DepartmentInspector General thats not me, the Inspector General, the irs used inappropriate criteria to deny tax exempt status to conservative organizations, ask unnecessary questions and lastly slowed approval of their application. Initially, president obama remarked that any irs actions to target conservatives would be outrageous. Then the president said there wasnt quote even a smidgen of corruption in what occurred at the irs. Yes a few months later they testified before the house Judiciary Committee that there was a, quote, very active ongoing criminal investigation into the matter. So this brings me to these questions. Id like to know how to reconcile these two statements. What the president said was accurate, then why in the world would the fbi be conducting an ongoing criminal investigation . A rhetorical question. Would the investigation be just for show . Im going to take the director at his word. So if is there is an ongoing criminal investigation at the fbi, how could it be appropriate for the president to reach the conclusion about the to the actions of any of the agencies of our government. There are certainly no bias or favoritism or anything other than the even handed application of the relevant laws and regulations. Thats always been my goal as a prosecutor and would be my continued goal should i be confirmed. With the respect to the irs investigation, im generally aware there is an investigation going on, but its not a matter thats either being conducted by my office or that i have been briefed on atss United States attorney. So im not able to comment on the status now. Based on what you just said then i can shorten this up by asking you this question. You spent a career in Law Enforcement. When would it ever be appropriate for any president for the results of and comment on it publicly while the investigation is still ongoing . Senator, with respect to this investigation or any other, im not aware of the context or the basis for the president s remarks so im not able to determine whether they were done after any evaluation of the investigation or whether they were a matter of opinion. Im not able to comment on that specific remark. Certainly as part of the department of justice exercise of its powers, whether at the u. S. Attorney level or here in washington, investigations are handled independently and without provision of materials before their conclusions to others in the executive branch or other agencies. Senator leahy, thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman. I have been fortunate that my native state of vermont has allowed me to serve here for four decades. I have listened to several different committees i have been on to a lot of statements by nominees. I cannot think of one who is so moving as your statement. And i intend to make sure i send copies to all members of my family and other friends. My years of Law Enforcement in vermont gave me a lot of respect for the difficult and dangerous work we ask Police Officers to do every day. I know the toll it can take not only on the officer, but often times on their families. I try to support the work of Law Enforcement to keep our community safe. They have to have the resources they need, whether its bullet proof vests or funding for innovative criminal justice efforts. Ive also been moved by the tragic events in ferguson and new york. They have focused on what we know as a reality sometimes of strained relations between Law Enforcement and the communities they serve. I appreciate your reference to that in your statement. But you worked very hard as a u. S. Attorney. Could you elaborate on that a little more . Thank you, senator. I think you have raised one of the moel important issues which is the need to resolve the tensions that appear to be discussed and appear to be rising between Law Enforcement and the community. Ies that we serve. As a prosecutor and United States attorney, these tensions are best dealt with by having discussions between all parties so that everyone feels that their voice has been heard. With respect to our brave Law Enforcement officers we ask so much of them. We ask them to keep us safe. We ask them to protect us literally from ourselves and we ask them to do it often without the resources that they need to be safe and secure themselves. Yet they still stand up every day and risk their lives for us. Many of our Community Residents because of a host of factors feel disconnected from government in general today and when they interact with Law Enforcement transfer that feeling to them as well. Even if someone is there to help. What i have found. Most effect i have is listening to concerns. Being open helping them see that, in fact, we are all nin this together and that the concerns of Law Enforcement a safe society, a free society are the exact same concerns of every resident of every community there. Would you agree that thats something that has to be r considered by not only federal Law Enforcement but by state and local Law Enforcement and that they the federal government can help in that respect . Absolutely, senator. One of the most important roles that the department of justice plays is not necessarily its most visible role but its the support we provide to state and local Law Enforcement partners through our Grant Program and through our training program. We try our best to criedprovide them with the resources that they need to carry out their job safely effect andsafe ly and effectively. No Prosecutors Office has the resources to prosecute every crime before it. You have to decide which ones are priority. Let me talk about one. In state court there was a case where a child rapist received two years. You obviously disagreed with that. You brought federal charges. I think bill oriley on fox called you a hero and says you should be respected by all americans for standing up to gross injustice and i agree on that. How do you let me back up. More and more of 9 Justice Departments budget is going into our federal prison system so you have limited resources. How do you make these kind of judgments . How do you determine which cases are the important ones and also the very difficult thing realizing if you go after certain cases it means you dont have the resources to go after others. Certainly, senator. One of the privileges of being the u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District of new york has been the ability to work with so many of my United States attorney colleagues across the country. All of us engage in this process every day, and we start with a full and frank evaluation with our Law Enforcement partners of the crime issues facing our particular districts. We try and determine what are the greatest threats to the people that we have sworn to serve. And that is what i do in the Eastern District of new york every day. We then look at our resources and set priorities and goals to achieve the Safest Community we can. We do have tao always maintain the flexibility to look at specific cases such as the goodman case and determine if a federal interest exists and if a victim has not been protected and has not been heard and use federal resources there as well. Let me go into one that takes resources, but we have had some people say terrorists lock them up in guantanamo even though we know what that is costing American People. You successfully prosecuted a number of terrorism cases in the Eastern District of new york. The case against individuals that you said plotting against john f. Kennedy airport and so on. Just this month you charged two al qaeda members for attacking american troops in afghanistan and iraq. I have been impressed not only in your district but other parts of the country who have brought these terrorists to trial in our federal courts. We show the re of the world we can do it. Theres been convictions. Osama bin ladens soninlaw being one. And then they have been locked up. Now do you find the criminal justice system, i think i know your answer, as an important counterterrorism tool. Senator, its certainly an important counterterrorism tool in the arsenal of tools that we have to deal with this ever growing and ever evolving threat. Let me say my view is if terrorists threaten american citizens here or abroad, they will face american justice. We work with our counterparts throughout the executive branch to determine based on every case the most appropriate venue for bringing terrorists to justice as our primary goal is to prevent further destruction. Within my own career as u. S. Attorney, when the decision has been made that the case should be handled by a u. S. Attorneys office, we proceed in that fashion. We also work closely however with the office of military commissions and consult with them and share information to make those decisions for the best way to manage every case. As these cases come to you, i want to ask you a question. The efforts to confront acts of torture carried out in our countrys name. Do you agree that water boarding is torture . Water boarding is torture, senator. And thus illegal . And thus illegal. I knee youre going to be asked a lot about immigration. It makes me think we should be focusing on your qualifications for this job. It might speak also to the qualifications of congress. We work for months in this committee, night and day, hundreds of hours hearings markups, debate and we pass by a strong bipartisan majority an immigration bill that referenced so many of these things that we now hear discuss canned. The leadership decided not to bring it up. I think that was a mistake. So now we deal with the question of executive action. You didnt ri writewrite the executive action. I was not aware of it until it was rendered. Would you say if you have millions of people in this country who may not be in a legal status that perhaps strain our resources to think about how we would de. Port 10 to 12 million people. I believe that statement is fair, sir. Thank you mr. Chairman. Senator hatch is the next one. I wanted to inform all the members that since everybody was here at the fall of the gavel it will be done on a seniority basis as opposed to first come first serve basis. Senator hatch is next. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Ms. Lynch, welcome to the judiciary. We appreciate your service. Im impressed with your qualifications and i hope i can support your nomination. Its important to hear what you understand your role and duty will be. Do you agree that when the constitutionality of a law is challenged the attorney general has a duty to defend that law if raised to be made . Senator, i believe that one of the first and foremost duties of the department of justice is to defend the law as its pass ed by this body. Id like you to answer these questions. Im trying to get through a number of them. I think you can answer most of them yes or no if you can. If youre confirmed will you commit to defend the laws in the constitution of the United States regardsless of your personal and philosophical views . Absolutely sir. Im glad you said that. Attorney general holder answered that same question in the same way. The Justice Department had made reasonable arguments that the defense of marriage act is constitutional, but the attorney general chose to stop making those arguments because of his personal views. By breaking his promise, he cast out about others who make the same commitment as you did today. I dont doubt your sincerity. We have met together and i have a high opinion of you. But is there anymore assurance you can give us on Something Like that . Senator, its my view that when it comes to the position of the attorney general and the role of the department of justice in defend inging the statutes as passed by this congress, the issue is not my personal view r or any issue of bias or policy even but it is the duty and responsibility of the department of justice to defend those statutes. Certainly, as we have seen, there may be rare instances where, and again i was not involved in that analysis, but there may be circumstances where careful legal analysis raises constitutional issues but i anticipate those would be few and far between. I also think should we reach that point if theres a matter, its a matter i would prefer to have discussion about. Okay, i appreciate that answer. Im concerned that the administration has exceeded its Lawful Authority in an effort to avoid working with us up here in congress. I understand why they might not want to work with congress from time to time, but unfortunately the constitution requires us to Work Together. And that the Department Justice has facilitated this pattern of behavior. The department has done so in a number of ways in exceeding and contravening Lawful Authority in the programs it helps administer such as with the latest executive actions o on immigration, in purporting the legal justification for other agencies to ignore the law, as occurred with the transfer of terrorists without notifying congress, which is an obligation, and in taking extreme litigation positions, which by my account, the Supreme Court has rebuked 20 times. Given these disturbing pattern, how can you ensure us you will say no to the white house or other executive Branch Agencies when they wish to act beyond the law as its written . Senator, i think one of the most important functions of the department of justice is o to provide a Legal Framework, if it exists, when questions are raised. But consistent with that, every good lawyer knows you must also provide the information that indicates that the Legal Framework may not exist for certain actions that someone may want to take. Every lawyer has to be independent. The attorney general even more so, and i pledge to you that i take that independence very seriously. You did that in my office and i appreciate that because i think youll be a great attorney general if youll do that. Last august you gave a speech in switzerland in which you praised attorney general holders initiative to limit mandatory sentences to only some of the criminals who Congress Said should receive them. But prosecutors did not have authority to decide that entire category of defendants will not receive a sentence that the congress has mandated. Isnt that another example of using prosecutorial discretion to change the law without congress . Senator, with respect to the material that youre referring to when i u gave that speech, i was referring it to the smart on Crime Initiative which seeks to manage another entractable problem of the large number of narcotics defendants and the limited resources we have to handle those and prosecute them. And i want o to help you with that. And prosecute them effectively. In fact, in my own experience both as an assistant United States attorney and United States attorney, we have had to deal with similar issues in the Eastern District of new york. We have had tremendous issues with narcotics importations over the years. And we have had to work out ways of resolving those cases many of them go to trial but we also have had to prioritize the cases that we will seek mandatory minimums for and those will we seek guidelines sentences for. With respect to the smart on Crime Initiative that has been implemented in the field every prosecutor from the United States attorney on down to line assistants are encouraged couraged to still consider cases that might fall into a category where initially you would not seek a minimum, but consider whether they would be appropriate. Those cases have occurred and will continue to occur. I understand. Its currently written the Electronic Communications privacy act requires only a subpoena for Law Enforcement to access email that has been opened, even though a search warrant would be required for for a print out of the same communications sitting on a desk. To make matters more complicated, the privacy standard for accessing data stored abroad. Without an actual Legal Framework in place, this puts the privacy of american citizens at risk for intrusion by foreign governments. In the coming days, i intend to reintroduce the leads act which will promote international cooperation. Will you commit to working with me on this important subject . Because its important we solve those problems. The subject of electronic privacy is central to so many of our freedoms. We have to be vigilant to make sure we are not only providing Law Enforcement the tools it needs, but protecting our citizens privacy. I certainly commit to you to working with you on this important legislation and all the issues that will flow from it. Thank you so much. Trade secrets are among the most valuable assets for American Companies and currently are protected under federal criminal law by the economic espionage act and by an array of state civil laws. Unlike other forms of intellectual property, theres no remedy r for trade secret owners. I will reintroduce the defend trade secrets act in the coming days to provide an official remedy for trade secret owners. Do you agree they should have the same access to a federal remedy as owners of other forms of intellectual property . Senator, i think that the issue of trade secrets, again, particularly as American Technology becomes ever more complex and becomes ever more a target from those both in the u. S. And without who would seek to steal it, is an increasingly important issue and i look forward to working with you to consider that statute. Im not familiar with the provision that you raised, but it touches on an important issue to make sure our companies and their technology are protected. Thank you so much. I am introducing legislation to help victims of child pornography receive the restitution that congress has r already said they deserve. The Supreme Court said last year that the current restriction statute enacted 20 years ago does not work for child pornography victims and this legislation will change that. I am joined by more than 30 senators on both sides of the aisle, including 14 on this committee. Do i have your commitment that under your leadership the Justice Department will aggressively prosecute child pornography and use tools like this legislation to help victims get the restitution they need to put their lives back together . Throughout my career, i have expressed a commitment to prosecuting those who seek to harm our children, be it through child pornography or the actual abuse of children which often go hand in hand. You certainly raise important issues about how can we make these victims whole and i look forward to working with you and the members of this committee in reviewing that legislation as well. Thank you so much. Now i recently read a powerful book read it in one day. License to lie uncovering corruption in the department of justice. The author writes about many things including the debacle that occurred in the prosecution of senator ted stevens which i thought was out of this world bad. I was one of the people who testified as to his character and he was a person of great character. He lost the senate race because of this type of prosecution. I know that case. Ted stevens was a dear friend of mine and i testified on his behalf. Only after convicted did we learn that the prosecutors intentionally hid exculpatory evidence that could have helped his case. These were not mistakes. They were corrupt acts that violated every prosecutors duty under the decision to turn over exculpatory evidence so the trial will be fair. Now i recommend that you read this book because if even half of it is true, and i believe it is true you have a lot of work to do to clean up the department. Will you consider doing that for me . Thank you, sir, i will. Before i call on senator feinstein, im going to ask just as the finance committee convenes, i would ask the most senior republican to watch the time and call on the next person in seniority order. Senator feinstein . Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Mrs. Lynch, i sat through six Opening Statements by potential attorneys general and i just want to tell you yours was the best. Thank you. I see the combination of steel and velvet. I see your effectiveness before a jury. I see your love for the constitution, and i see the determination, which is in your heart and i think your being. Its very, very impressive, so i want to thank you for really 30 years of service and i hope it will be a lot longer. Mr. Chairman, id like to place in the record Los Angeles Police departments chiefs charlie becketts written testimony on the subject of the president s executive action on immigration. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you very much. Ms. Lynch, im going to ask you three questions. The first is on expiring provisions of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, which will come to this committee before june of this year and also before the Intelligence Committee on which i serve. A question about office of Legal Counsel opinions and a question on the state secrets act. Let me begin with fisa. The three provisions that will expire on june 1 are first the roving wiretap authority. This provision enables the government to maintain surveillance on a target when he or she switches phone numbers or email addresses without seeking a new court order. The second is the lone wolf authority, which enables the government to conduct surveillance of a nonUnited States person engaged in International Terrorism without demonstrating that they are affiliated with a particular International Terrorist group, such as isis or al qaeda. And the third is the Business Records authority, which carries with it section 215 of the National Security administration. This enables the government to obtain a court order direct inging the production of, quote, any tangible thing, end quote, thats relevant to an authorized National Security investigation. Can you describe for us the importance of these three provisions and what would be the Operational Impact if the three were allowed to sunset in june . Thank you, senator. You certainly raise important issues about the need to have a full panel of investigative tools and techniques to deal with the evolving threat that terrorism presents against us. With respect to the provisions that you refer to i think i have always found it most interesting that the roving wiretap provision is actually a provision that was incorporated into. The fisa statute after being utilized for several years in narcotics prosecutions. It was one with which i was familiar as a young prosecutor as many of my colleagues across the country were as well. And the ability to describe to a court the nature of the offense, the nature of the activity and the use of attempts to shield ones self from electronic surveillance, which is part of what must be set forth. All of this must go to a court, obviously in the narcotics area it was an article 3 court. The fisa area goes to the fisa court but theres review for this and its been an important part of the techniques we have used in the war on terror. As have the other two provisions that you mentioned. I do think, however, with respect to fisa theres always the ability, always the need to make sure that we are current not just with technology but with the most effective way to protect privacy as we go forward in this important act. I know thats something that you have spent a great deal of time on as well as many of your colleague colleagues on this committee as well as on the Intelligence Committee. I look forward to continuing those discussions with you should i be confirmed. With respect to the lone wolf provision, again, i think we have to obviously examine it carefully. Recent events, however, have underscored the importance of this as an issue in the war on terror. So i would hope we could move forward with any proposed changes to fisa with a full and complete understanding of the risks that we are still facing and if any changes need to be made, after full and fair consideration with this committee, with the Intelligence Committee and the discussions that we need to have, makeing sure we can provide Law Enforcement with the tools that they need. Similarly with section 215 i believe that the court order provision in there is an effective check and certainly a necessary check as we gather data from all types of sources. As i have always said, im open to discussions about how they can be best modified if we need to modify them consistent with the goals of protecting the American People. And i commit to you and all of this committee that i will always listen to all those concerns be it about the fisa statute or any of the techniques we are using in the war on terror. Thank you very much. As a member of judiciary and intelligence, we have sought access to opinions called olc opinions. These opinions often represent the best and most comprehensive expression of the legal basis for intelligence activities. Congress is actually charged with overseeing. So without these opinions you dont really know the legal basis upon which an administration has made has based certain activities and its been very frustrating to us. In particular, executive Branch Officials have previously advised the committee of the existence of a seminole olc opinion written by ted olsen decades ago governing the conduct of collection activities under executive order 12333. My question is can we have your commitment that you will make a copy of this olc opinion available to members of both the intelligence and the Judiciary Committee . Probably your first tough question. I think with respect to the olc opinions, you are correct, they represent a discussion and an analysis of legal issues on a wide variety of subjects. When a variety of agencies come to the department for that independent advice that we must provide them. Certainly im not aworry of the discussions had about this previous opinion in terms of providing it. Certainly i will commit to you to work with this committee as well as the Intelligence Committee, to find a way to provide the information that you need consistent with the departments own Law Enforcement and investigative priorities. Thank you very much. This particular opinion is important and it would be useful if we can review it so thank you. On state secrets on september 23rd 2009, the attorney general issued a memorandum establishing new procedures and standards to govern dojs defense of an assertion of the state secrets privilege in litigation. Among other things the memorandum stated that the l doj would provide the periodic reports to congress on the exercise of these state secrets privilege. Since 2009 only one such report from april 2011 has been provided. That report discussed the two cases in which the privilege had been invoked under the new policy, but those are no longer the only two cases. So id like to ask you if you could provide the appropriate oversight committees with the second periodic report on the exercise of state secret privileges that discusses those cases which the privilege has been invoked on april of 2011. Senator, you raise the important issue of the need to work with the oversight committees, be they this committee or intelligence, not just so committees can carry out their work ubut so the American People can be aware of how the department carries out its work. Im not familiar with the reports that you referred at this point. I certainly look forward to reviewing this issue and i certainly commit to you i will do my best to ensure the department lives up to its obligations it has set forth. Good, and i will come back. This is an important question to us, so i will come back and hope hopefully can get this get an answer, yes or no, within the next couple weeks. So thank you very much. Senator, i look forward to learning more about the issue and sharing that with you should i be confirmed and any issues of concern that this committee or others have. Thank you it, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator. Thank you mr. Chairman. Its great to have you here. I appreciate the opportunity to have a good discussion, i think in our office and having had i think i just passed my time in the senate longer than i spent in the department of justice. It was a great honor to serve that and i have high ideals for this department. And we understand that the attorney general is premier Law Enforcement officer senior Law Enforcement officer in america. He or she sets the tone for law in america, the commitment to law and most politicizing law and do the right thing on a daily basis. On occasion you were called upon to issue opinions. Olc works for you, the office of Legal Counsel and youll have to tell the president yes or no on something that he may want to do. Are you able and willing to tell the president of the United States no if he asks permission or a legal opinion that supports an action you believe is wrong . Senator, i believe you have touched upon one of the most important responsibilities of the attorney general. Let me say also i appreciated very much the opportunity to meet with you and discuss these important issues. The attorney generals position as a cabinet member is perhaps unique from all of the cabinet members, yes, a member of the president s cabinet, but the attorney general has a unique responsibility to provide independent and objective advice to the president or any agency when it is sought. Sometimes perhaps even when it is not caught. With respect to the office of Legal Counsel just so you understand that your role is such that on o occasion you have to say no to the person who actually appointed you to the job and who you support . Senator i do understand that that is, in fact, the role and the responsibility of the attorney general. In fact, a necessary obligation on their part. Well, you know people have agendas and attorneys general sometimes do and they have to guard against that and be objective, as you basically said to me now in committee. On april 24th of 2013, attorney general holder said this, and im raising this fundamentally because i think theres a lot of confusion about how we should think about immigration in america, what our duties and what o our responsibilities are. He said creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in our country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbor who is are undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and hooum rights. So let me ask you, do you believe a person who enters the country unlawfully perhaps use false documents or otherwise entered here has a civil right to citizenship . Well senator im not familiar with the context of those comments. I certainly think you do touch upon the difficult issue of how do we handle the undocumented immigrants who come to our country. I believe for the life that we offer. I believe because of the values that wes a pous . I dont want to interrupt you, but do you agree with that statement that a man of civil rights and citizenship and Work Authority a right to work in america for someone who enters the country unlawfully thats a civil right . I havent studied the issue enough to come to a legal conclusion on that. I certainly think that people who come to this country in a variety of ways can rehabilitate themselves and apply but that would have to be decided on a case by case basis. I just like to hear you answer that. Is it a civil right for a person who enters the country unlawfully, would like to work and be a citizen to demand that koun trar to the laws of the United States . Is that a right that they are entitled to demand . Sir, i think citizenship is a privilege. Its a privilege that has to be earned. Within the civil rights that are recognized by our jurisprudence, i dont see one that you are describing. I certainly agree. Im a little surprised it took you that long, but the attorney general statement was breathtaking to me. A member of the u. S. Commission on civil rights responded to that some time ago and heres what he said. Quote, to equate amnesty for breaking immigration laws with civil rights betrays an incoherent and historical understanding of the Civil Rights Movement. Lawabiding black citizens of the United States were not seeking exemption from law. They were seeking application of such laws in the same manner that was applied to whites, closed quote. Would you agree with that analysis . Certainly i think with respect to the Civil Rights Movement and the role of africanamericans in it, it on the 50th anniversary of the selma approach marches approaching, people were denied civil rights. That was a historic event. It changes america and i think its important that that be remembered, but i will just tell you its quite different to demand your lawful rights as an american and to ask for and insist that civil rights apply to those who enter the country unlawfully to have these benefits. Well the president s action would give people who came here unlawfully the right to work the right to participate in Social Security and medicare. When congress has not done that, allows them to stay a a period lawfully. In the workplace of America Today, when we have a high number of unemployed, declining wages for many years, we have the lowest percentage of americans working, who has more right to a job in this country . A lawful immigrant or a person who entered the country unlawfully . I believe the right and the only kbags to work is one thats shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. If someone is here regardless of status, i would prefer they be participating in the workplace than not participate inging in the workplace. Now so you think anybody thats here lawfully or unlawfully is entitled to work in america . Im not sure if i understand the basis for your question whether theres a legal basis for them to work. Were talking about rights, who has the most rights. Does a lawful american immigrant r or citizen have the right to have the laws of the United States enforced so they they might be able to work or does a person who came here unlawfully have a right to demand a job . Certainly, the benefits of citizen citizenship confer greater rights on those of us who are citizens than those who are not. Well, do you think a person here unlawfully is entitled to work in the United States when the law says that employees cant hire them legally in america . I think that certainly the provision that you refer to regarding to the role of the employer in ensuring the legal status of those who are here is an important one and that we have to look at in conjunction with this issue in terms of preventing undocumented workers, who you have indicated before, are seeking employment. We want everyone to seek employment, but we have in place at this point in time a Legal Framework that requests or requires employers to both provide information about citizenship as well as not hire individuals without citizenship. Do you think that someone i understand that you support the executive order. Is that correct . I dont believe my role at this point is to support or not support it. My review was to see whether or not it did outline a Legal Framework for some of the action actions that were requested. As noted it indicated there was not a Legal Framework for other actions that were requested. Let me wrap up by asking this. If a person comes here and is given a lawful right under the president s executive amnesty to have Social Security and a Work Authorization card, what if somebody prefers to hire an american citizen first . Would you take action against them . Do you understand this to mean that those who are given executive amnesty are entitled as much as anybody else in america to compete for a job in america . I dont believe it would give anyone any greater access to the workforce. Certainly an employer would be looking at the issues of citizenship in making those determinations. Would you take action against an employer who says no, i prefer to hire someone who came to the country lawfully . Would the department of justice take action against that . With respect to temporary deferral, i did not read it as providing a legal amnesty, but a temporary deferral. With respect to to those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if that is the purpose of your question, i havent studied that legal issue. I certainly think you raise an important point and would look forward to discussing it with you and relying upon your thoughts and experience as we consider that point. Thank you, senator. Now senator schumer. Well, thank you, and i think that even in the short while here, its clear to my colleagues why you have been such a tremendous u. S. Attorney in my home state of new york and home bureau of brooklyn and why youd make such a great attorney general. Youre just knocking them out of the park. Speaking of sports analogies theres another point id like my colleagues to know, another testament to your perseverance to your loyalty in the face of incredible adversity. With all due respect to mr. Tillis, youre not a tar heel or blue devil, youre a knicks fan. Its a lot tougher being a knicks fan than going through these questions here today. Id like to go over a couple points some of my colleagues made. First on prosecutorial discretion. Theres a myth out there that policies are amount. To an illegal force of law. We know that you have enforced the law aggressively and will continue to do so as has the administration. Some of my friends across the aisle seem to be suggesting that the president s announcement of the enforcement policies for the department of Homeland Security is amount to an announcement we wont enforce our immigration laws, but thats absurd. We have 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Congress, this body, only allocates enough money for dhs to deport 400,000 of them. 11 million illegal immigrants, enough money to deport 400,000. Obviously, you have to make some choices here. And im sure when my dear friend jeff sessions, and he is a dear friend, was u. S. Attorney in alabama he used prosecutorial discretion. I know he did a good job going after violent drug dealers and criminals. We want our prosecutors to go after the highest level crimes if they dont have the resources to do all of them. Doesnt it make sense to have a general rule to prosecute in an office with limited resources to go after bank robbers before you go after shoplifters . Now, obviously there can be an occasional obsession. The president s executive order allows for that exception, but this idea that going after having an office go after the higher level, more dangerous crimes first is part of how Law Enforcement has gone on for hundreds of years and it should. I u dont even get this idea that this is an illegal act by the president. We arm our Law Enforcement officials with an array of laws but limited resources. They have to make hard choices. And a straight forward allocation of resources is not political activism. Its what prosecutors are doing in every jurisdiction of this land right now. Immigration is like any other issue. We have limited resources, it makes imminent sense to go. After the hardened criminals before going after lowlevel offenders. So let me ask you a couple questions here. Dont u. S. Attorney offices all over the country consistently have to make these general type of prosecutorial decisions on a daytoday basis . And how do you . Yes, senator. With respect to the exercise of discretion and the setting of priorities, one of the privileges that i have had as being the u. S. Attorney in the Eastern District of new york and working with my colleagues across the country has been getting to know them and learning about how different every district is. How a crime problem in brooklyn may not even appear on o the west coast. And how a crime problem in the midwest that has seen an increase in crime due to the happy accident of increased oil reserves may present issues that i would never face in an urban environment. My colleagues and i Work Together and we share our thoughts on the best ways to deploy our limited resources to deal with the crime problems in our districts. My colleagues that have a large number of large number of native americans have a different base of problems than i do, but they are just as committed and just as focused on keeping those citizens safe as well. So all of us look at the crime problems in our districts. To do that we work closely with our Law Enforcement partners in looking at how they have determined the nature of the threat, be it terrorism, be it narcotics, be it those who target children. We also work closely with our state and local counterparts. Not just the Law Enforcement counterparts, but our counterparts in the District Attorneys offices. Many times i will have a matter in my office that is subject to both federal and state jurisdiction and it may be more appropriate for the District Attorney to prosecute that type of crime because of the nature of the sentence that can be achieved, because of the impact on a particular victim or community, or because of a legal issue involving proof. All of these things go into the consideration of how we manage individual cases, but also how we set priorities and then deploy our limited resources to best protect the people of our district. Exactly. Every prosecutor, whether its the Justice Department, the u. S. Attorneys office sets priorities and has to and thats just what the president did, in my opinion, in the executive order. Next one, were hearing a lot about executive action being unconstitutional. And so id like to just talk about that. Thats another myth thats out there. No federal court has struck down executive action. The most recent federal court to hand down a decision supported it. I heard it suggested that executive action unconstitutional. So happens, in fact, dating back to chief justice reine kwis, the Supreme Court has repeatedly bolstered executive discretion and refused to review Agency Decisions in the law. With respect to this action, there have been two federal cays filed. One filed here in washington thats been dismissed. The second suit was filed in texas and is still pending. Now were hearing that so no courts have struck down executive action. Now were hearing that Speaker Boehner and House Republicans will be suing the president on this executive action. I dont think thats a responsible use of taxpayer dollars, but at least we agree on one thing. If republicans disagree with president obama over the legality of this policy, they can sue him and let the courts decide. The confirmation of americas highest Law Enforcement officer is not the time or place to vent frustration. So let me just ask you a couple questions. I want to underscore them because some people are concerned that the, quote, rogue o bam administration is lawless. Absolutely, senator, thats my first point of reference. And specifically if a court happens to strike down executive action, will you respect that Court Decision . I will respect that Court Decision. And lets imagine congress, i dont think this will happen, i would try to prevent it as best i could, lets say congress were to pass a bill prohibiting president obamaS Immigration actions, a bill i find hard to imagine the president would sign. Lets imagine for the sake of argument happened. If that such a bill passed, will you commit to following the new law . I will commit to following all the laws duly executed by this body. Thank you. Just one other issue, since i have a little more time. Work permits, which my good friend brought up. Some have suggested its illegal for the administration to issue work permits for deferred action. Its misleading. Guess who did it in 1982 . Ronald reagan. They published ins regulations authorizing work permits for recipients of deferred action. 1982, the reagan administration. Thats not to say workplace enforcement isnt necessary, it is, and in fact, you have a strong record of enforcing immigration rules. Tell us about the 711 stores case you brought on long island. Thank you, senator. The case against the 7eleven store and various franchises was an important one to my office because it was one in which we saw a corporate entity deliberating flouting the labor laws. Individuals mostly of a particular ethnic group who owned franchises were reaching out to own Community Members and hiring them to work in the stores. This would have been an opportunity for individuals to earn money for their families and to essentially become part of the American Dream. Instead however, the workers were victimized. They were forced to work double shifts, triple shifts, yet only paid for working parttime hours. They were only given their money in either a 7eleven debit card or cash as deemed appropriate by the manager. Even worse than this was the evidence that we uncovered that the stores were aware that they were violating the labor laws and simply flouting them. They also required the workers to all live together in companysanctioned housing. We essentially were creating a modern day plantation system on long island and also throughout the Virginia Area with coconspirators of these franchise owners. We spent a long time working on the investigation in conjunction with our Law Enforcement partners. The matter is still being reviewed with respect to other states and wherever we find workers being victimized and being discriminated against certainly my office has never hesitated to take action. Thank you, my time has expired. Thank you. I would offer for the record a consent that the article from the atlantic saying head line of reagan and bush offer no precedent of obamas amnesty order and i think thats crystal clear. Justice cornyn is next. Good morning, ms. Lynch. Congratulations again to you on your nomination and thank you for comeing to my office last friday to visit about this hearing and i should say congratulations to you for an outstanding career as a United States attorney. The challenge i think that people have when they come to washington, d. C. And assume jobs that have political implications is that they sort of forget their base. Ic moring in the law and become politicians massacre raiding as Law Enforcement officers and i wont claim its only a challenge for democrats. Its been a challenge for republicans as well. But i am concerned let me for senator schumers benefit youre not eric holder, are you . No, im not. No one is suggesting that you are, but attorney general holders record is heavy on our minds now. I agree with the chairman about his concerns when the attorney general refers to himself as the president s wingman suggesting that he does not exercise independent legal judgment, as the chief Law Enforcement officer for the country. You wouldnt consider yourself to be a political arm of the white house as attorney general, would you . No, senator, that would be an inappropriate vup of the position of attorney general. Im sorry, youd be willing to tell your friends no if in your judgment the law required that . I think i have to be willing to tell not just my friends but colleagues no if the law requires it. That would include the president of the United States. I think that the obligation of the attorney general is to when presented with matters by the president is to provide a full, thorough, independent legal analysis and give the president the best independent judgment that there is. That may be a judgment that says that there is a Legal Framework for certain actions and it may be a judgment that says there is not a Legal Framework for certain actions. While we have stipulated youre not eric holder, mr. Holders record is certainly on our minds because i cant think of an attorney general who is so misevaluated the independent role of the Law Enforcement officer and taken on that aspect of the president s wingman and operated as a politician using the awesome power conferred by our laws on the attorney general. The attorney general has been openly contemptuous of the coequal branch of government. Hes stone walled legitimate investigations by the congress including the investigation into the fast and furious episode that senator grassley referred to earlier making bogus claims of executive privilege in order to Keep Congress and the American People from find inging out the facts. We know that the attorney general has repeatedly made legal arguments that have been rejected as unconstitutional by the United StatesSupreme Court, and hes harassed states like mine, and i suspect youll hear from another colleague about his state, on matters like voter i. D. When the United StatesSupreme Court has upheld the validity of voter i. D. As a means to protect the integrity of the ballot for people who were qualified to vote. And at the same time, the attorney general has fail eded o to implement laws that congress has passed in order to provide to protect the voting to rid cruel and threats, legal and otherwise for performing actions they were told by the highest lel authorities that were legal and necessary to save american lives andreopened a criminal investigation into the same members of the Intelligence Community after a previous investigation had not revealed any basis for criminal charges. So how do we know you are not going to per forth your duties of office as attorney general the way eric holder has performed his duties. How are you going to be different . Senator, i will be myself Loretta Lynch. And on two occasions, as well as a practicing lawyer, to see the independence ive brought to every single matter. While im not familiar with the particulars you raise, they are clearly of concern to you and this committee and i do pledge to this committee i want to listen to your concerns and i do want to be open to listening to your concerns. While we go forward, i may not agree with everything you do. And you pay not agree with everything we do. But will be open with you and i have found that to be effective, from learning with people with whom i disagree on various points with whom, like you, we share a common goal, mrs. Lynch, ive been married 35 years and i can guarantee you that 100 agreement is an impossible agreement is an impossible agreement. So we dont expect that obviously. But i want to ask you about your commitment to working with congress and respecting our congressional over site authority. A recent letter sent to mr. Layhe by senator holder dated december 14th and it was in response to this committee on march 6th, 2014 so about roughly a year and a half later, can we expect a more timely response from you and the department of justice to the legitimate inquiries of this committee. I believe the over site of this committee is important not just for the functioning of this committee but to the American People in terms of helping them understand the way in which the department operates and the way in which we work to keep them safe. I commit to you that i will work with this committee to ensure that we provide as timely a response as possible. Im not sure of the particulars of the matters that you raise so im not able to comment on that, but certainly i would hope to be able to provide you with the information that you need in as timely a manner as possible in response to the enforcement. And i think it would make you a more effective attorney general and as us as members of congress in exercising our responsibilities as well. And i want to ask you about prosecutorial expression. My only regret from this mornings hearing, that senator schumer, wasnt available by crossexamination but well talk later, but he was dismissive about this concern of massive what i would consider in essence refusal to enforce existing law that is involved in these executive actions. There is a difference to your mind, isnt there, to a case by case exercise of prosecutorial execution and the rules on the books. There is a difference. And i do not view it as refusing to enforce laws but attempting to set priorities and executing direction within the priorities. And let me ask you about that. Isnt it incumbent upon the attorney general to ask about the job you must perform before you can come back and say were not going to pursue those crimes and offenses because we dont have enough money. Isnt it your responsibility as the next attorney general to come to us and ask us for those resources. I cant imagine if eric holder or the president of the United States or others have come forward and said we dont have the resources for the immigration laws because we are going to have to decline to enforce them because we dont have the resources, dont you ask for those resources before you dont enforce those. With respect to the department of justice, i have been involved in reviewing the justice as part of the work on the Advisory Committee and looking at the budget to make sure we did maintain the appropriate resources to carry out our core mission of protecting the American People within the constraints placed upon us at that time. It is my understanding that with regard to requests from the department of justice do contain goals across the board to explain to congress why specific resources are needed. So you need more money. I would probably join all of my agencies in saying that, but i would need to wait to answer that. And next would be senator lindsey graham. Thank you for being here. I am deferential to people called loretta. When your father lifted you up on his shoulders at that greenboro church, you were a young girl and a witness to something that changed America Forever and literally changed your life. There was no way you could know that. One of the central issues raised during the Civil Rights Movement was the right to vote, a right which chief Justice Roberts said sitting in that same place and in quoting a Court Decision is preserveive of all rights. We are now in a unique position, some 50 years later, about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights act. The Supreme Court in Shelby County versus holder struck down major provisions, the Voting Rights act and congress which historically had renewed the Voting Rights acts is now split along party lines as to whether or not there will be a renewal in some sections. We are finding states that are changing the requirements for voting. I chaired the constitution subcommittee of judiciary and i took the subcommittee to public hearings in ohio and in florida where there were new restrictions placed on voting by state legislatures. I called the Election Officials of both Political Parties in those states and asked them if there was any evidence of voter fraud or voter abuse that led to the legislative changes and to a person they said virtually none. What has happened is the department of justice has stepped in, in some cases they consider to be extreme and unfair, and worked to stop the implementation of the state laws that restricted the right to vote. As you embark on the possibility of making that decision as attorney general, how do you view the state of Voting Rights in America Today and what do you view as your responsibility, should you be our next attorney general. Thank you, senator. Certainly, i believe the right to vote is the cornerstone of a democracy and every citizen has the right and some would argue the obligation to exercise. With respect to how Voting Rights are being handled in the country now, i think we are in a time of great debate over those issues. Those are important issues and im certainly open to hearing all sides of it. And there is a responsibility and obligation to regulate the voter rules and to make sure the vote is carried out freely and openly and fairly. And i believe that is the goal of many of our elected officials if not most of our elected officials that deal with this every day. The concerns that are raised are that acts that are taken when the goal toward protecting and preserving the integrity of the vote act in a different way and act to suppress the vote or prevent people from exercising the franchise. I would hope that at the first outset through the political discourse and discussion that we could have conversation about that and come to a resolution of practices and procedures that would ensure the right to vote