tv House Session CSPAN January 28, 2015 9:00am-3:01pm EST
t part, it will be difficult to have this conversations. host: congressman ron kind, appreciate your time. come back again. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room washington, d.c., january 28,
2015. i hereby appoint the honorable randy hultgren to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. as you make available to your people the grace and knowledge to meet the needs of the day, we pray that your spirit will be upon the members of this people's house, giving them the richness of your wisdom. bless the members of the minority party as they gather these next days. may they, with those who accompany them, travel safely and meet in peace. bless, also, the majority party as they return to their constituencies. give them hearts and ears to listen well to all those whom
they represent. may the power of your truth and our faith in your providence give them all the confidence they must have to do the good work required for service to our nation. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek. mr. benishek: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the quality of our children's education is too important to rely on one-size-fits-all approach. i have introduced the local control of education act to return control of education to the states by prohibiting the federal government from using grants or waivers to coerce states to adopt the common core state standards. i'm glad to work with senator vitter of louisiana with companion legislation. south carolina elected school board members such as one superintendent working together with teachers and parents, such as kathy of the school association, is best suited to deal with education. molly is continuing the effort for education excellent as supportive of her predecessor, nick. in conclusion, god bless our
troops and may the president, by his actions, never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mrs. bustos: i rise to congratulate madison keys on her outstanding performances at the australian open. she is the daughter of rick and at the turn of this tournament madison will be the highest ranking teenage tennis player. the 19-year-old defeated petra can i vote have a in the third round of the tournament and yesterday she played in the quarterfinals against the woman who inspired her to play tennis, venus williams. and madison won. madison remembers watching wimbledon when she was just 4 years old and being inspired to play tennis when she saw venus' fancy tennis dress. and last night's match in a way
represents the passing of a torch between the generations of the u.s. women's tennis as madison advances to the next round. tomorrow she plays serena williams. i'm confident that madison has a long tennis career in front of her and i look forward to seeing where she goes and hope just as venus williams inspires her she inspires another generation of girls to get into sports and follow their dreams. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. benishek: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of national school choice week. i've traveled all across northern michigan and have been blessed to visit all kinds of schools in my district. i've met with hardworking kids, parents and teachers who are trying to achieve a better future. our education system should not be a one-size-fits-all model. school choice programs provide
a way for parents to help their children succeed. choice promotes competition in our educational system which will improve the educational outcome for all students. while many students are able to prosper by attending their local public school, many others are still bogged down by outdated rules that prevent parents from choosing the best educational fit for their children. in order to succeed, parents need options and flexibility, not more regulations. michigan has enacted the popular schools of choice program which allows parents to send their children to any school in the participating district. these are the types of programs that empower parents and students instead of teacher unions and bureaucrats. school choice will help to ensure that every child has a chance to flourish and that's why i'm a proud supporter of national school choice week. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute.
mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today to call this house to action. in the opening weeks of the 114th congress, this chamber has voted to deport dreamers and the parents of american citizens and the house majority continues to put our national security at risk by threatening to shut down the department of homeland security just because they object to the administration's efforts to keep immigrant families together and to deport violent criminals. no matter how you feel about the administration's efforts, we should all recognize that this is a time to set aside these partisan games and take substantive action to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. it is not just the moral thing to do for so many of our friends and neighbors. it is the right thing to do for our economy, fo our country. so i urge house leadership to
bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor for a vote. it's the right thing to do. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to highlight the importance of the legislation that we passed this week on human trafficking. sadly, my district is no stranger to this despicable crime. in both lake and cook counties we seem to have too many cases of human trafficking. in the chicagoland area, up to 2,500 women and girls are victims of sexual exploitation. mr. dold: almost 300,000 is at risk. the average age of girls that first become victims is between
12 and 14 years of age. this legislation will protect our youth by establishing programs to help runaways and homeless children who are at the highest risk for becoming victims. the bills will also help address the issue by giving tools to health care professionals and law enforcement to identify and help victims of human trafficking and to create programs that deter and prevent human trafficking in the first place. human trafficking for sexual exploitation is an epidemic that needs to be stopped. this is a first step and we must remain focused to end human trafficking altogether. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd just ask that republican leadership begin to bring legislation to the floor that would actually make a difference for america, certainly addressing the economy and job creation and
increasing wages, which is so important to my constituents and i believe to all americans. it just seems like all the republican leadership is doing here is rehashing the same old legislation that is going nowhere, either because it won't pass the senate or the president won't sign it. today, after the one minutes we're going to have the third pipeline bill that essentially tries to straitjacket federal agencies and, you know again, not going anywhere. probably pretty likely the president would veto any of them if they come to his desk. and now i understand on tuesday the republican leadership is going to bring up another affordable care act repeal. this will be like the 56th or 57th effort to repeal the affordable care act, which is actually working well. more americans have signed up than ever during this second enrollment period. we had another a.c.a. effort to weaken the a.c.a. just a couple weeks ago. it's time to do the things that people want. talk about the economy.
bring legislation that matters to the american people. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to call on my colleagues to join me in stopping the sequester's impact on our military. i want you to hear what general martin dempsy the chairman of the joint chiefs, had to say. he directly advises the president and congress and these are his words. the combination of the budget control act and the sequestration mechanism will make it impossible for us to meet our global responsibilities. this, again, from the chairman of the joint chiefs. the readiness hole is still the readiness hole. the global security environment is more dangerous and sequestration is still on the books as the law. it's absolutely crazy for this country. since the president has promised sequestration would not happen, then he stated he would veto changes to it. some members of this house seem to have accepted that the sequestration must go into
effect. national security is an essential part of our job and with growing threats, both domestic and abroad, we must come together to end the sequester cuts. we, the members of congress, the president uphold the constitution to defend the nation both foreign and domestic. these challenges hit close to home for me. mr. scott: as a georgia republican on the armed services committee, i'm going to continue to fight on behalf of men and women at robinson moody air force base and the war fighters for this country who protect us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. mr. ashford: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak about federal spending. in my home state of nebraska, we are mandated by the state constitution to balance the budget. this is something that we are
southerly in need of here in washington. the congressional budget office just released a report that indicated deficits are projected to balloon over the next several years, topping $1 trillion by 2025. the national debt will grow to over $21 trillion by the same year. mr. speaker, we all know that these are unsustainable trends. that is why i am very proud to co-sponsor the savings accountability, value and efficiency, or save act. this bill introduced by my good friend and colleague, congressman patrick murphy, would save the federal government nearly $480 billion over the next 10 years. i applaud my colleague for his efforts and working to put our country on a more sustainable fiscal path and i hope we can come together in a bipartisan manner towards that end. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the
gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. mchenry: this week americans from 50 states, all 50 states will gather to over 11000 events nationwide to celebrate national school choice week. these are not partisan gatherings focused on a particular piece of legislation, nor are the attendees advocating for one type of school over another. rather, these gatherings will highlight the importance of providing parents with diverse choices when it comes to the education of their children. far too often, america's children are given educational opportunities dictated to what best serves someone else's economic interest or is focused on their own economic status or where they live. this is inappropriate. we need a better way. i've supported legislation to expand charter schools. that's a bipartisan thing that we can all agree upon. that empowers parties and at the state level republican legislators and governors have
passed open enrollment laws and funding portability for education. national school choice week is a great reminder that we must continue to pursue these vital reforms, ensuring all parents have freedom when deciding how to educate their children. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back the balance of his time. . for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution 48, i call up h.r. 351 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 351. a bill to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes. the the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 48, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all
members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 351. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i rise today in support of h.r. 351 the l.n.g. permitting certainty and transparency act sponsored by congressman bill johnson of ohio. all of us recognize that the economy in the u.s. has been sputtering. we've had great advancements in technology, however and innovation in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have led america to become the number one natural gas producing nation in the world. our natural gas output has rapidly increased since 2005, and is expected to continue rising in the decades ahead in
response to growing demand. plentiful natural gas is helping many domestic energy producers and manufacturers and is spurring new investment and job growth here in america. the energy and commerce committee has held multiple hearings and forums to discuss the domestic growth in natural gas production and its potential impact on trade geopolitics, and energy production and consumption in america. we now have the opportunity to bring more of this critical energy resource to other parts of the world while stimulating our energy security, economic growth, and foreign policy. i might add that over the last year many of us have been really surprised by the number of representatives from other countries in europe and around the world who are pleading with america to export their natural gas so that those countries are
not as dependent upon countries like russia and others. i might also add that in 2012 the department of energy commission report by -- assessed the economic impacts of l.n.g. exports. they recently updated this study to include the most current projections from the energy information administration. like the 2012 study they found that u.s. l.n.g. exports will bring widespread economic benefit touching many parts of our economy and that those benefits would consistently increase as exports increase. the study also found that the construction of new l.n.g. export projects is estimated to put up to 45,000 unemployed americans back to work. i might also add that this
legislation does not in any way change anything that ferc has responsible for in approving siting of these natural gas pipelines and facilities for export. so we are not affecting in any way any environmental aspects of it. i might also say that the reason this bill is being introduced is because we think that the department of energy has been dragging its feet a little bit. they have responsibility over the commodity of the natural gas and they have to go through a process. this legislation also applies only to nonfree trade agreements that the u.s. deals with. since 2010 the department of energy has issued a final decision on five of the 37 applications to export l.n.g. to countries where the u.s. does
not have a free trade agreement. authority to regulate the export of natural gas arises under section 3 of the natural gas act. this provision creates a rebuttable presumption that a proposed export of natural gas is in the public interest. there are 18 countries where we have these free trade agreements. but d.o.e.'s process to review applications to export l.n.g. to nonfree trade agreement countries is much more complex and unpredictable. and this legislation would help clarify that, create some certainty. it amends section 3 of the natural gas act to give d.o.e. 30 days to issue a final decision on l.n.g. export application after a complete nepa environmental review on the facility.
additionally h.r. 351 provides for expedited judicial reviews by the united states court of appeals for the circuit in which the export facility will be located, and this is important as well, it requires public disclosure of export destinations so we know where it's going as a condition of approval of authorization to export l.n.g. this is very important piece of legislation. i want to commend mr. johnson of ohio for introducing this legislation and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this legislation which is simply unnecessary. the department of energy currently conducts the public interest review of all applications to export liquefies natural gas to a country without a free trade agreement with the united states.
to date d.o.e. has approved four such applications to export l.n.g. and has issued conditional approvals to four additional applications. d.o.e. has approved all applications that have completed their required nepa review. so there is no backlog or delay at the d.o.e. to speak of. with these permits alone we have the ability to become one of the largest exporters of natural gas in the world. so legislation to impose an arbitrary 30-day deadline on d.o.e. as suggested by the underlying bill is simply unnecessary. with regard to exporting natural gas, we should keep in mind that low domestic natural gas prices can provide an important competitive advantage to u.s. manufacturing. in simple economics tells us additional demand due to unrestricted exports can raise domestic natural gas prices. we should think twice about giving away this advantage for sthorm export profits when we are trying -- short-term export profits when we are trying hard to rebuild our long-term
manufacturing base. we should also remember the bill will not shut in l.n.g. export to europe for some time, if at all. although one l.n.g. export terminal is expected to go in operation later this year, all others remain in construction or the planning process. d.o.e.'s conditional approval for those facilities allows them to continue moving forward, but this legislation won't help speed up their construction or affect how quickly they can actually operate. so passing this bill today will not magically send l.n.g. from the proposed terminals tomorrow. when the united states actually begins to export significant quantities of l.n.g., it will most likely go to asia not europe. the export terminals most likely to get constructed already signed long-term contracts to supply l.n.g. to various customers, and those destinations are primarily in asia. mr. speaker, i oppose this bill because i don't believe the fathom l.n.g. export backlog is one of the issues facing
ordinary americans. i don't believe expediting this type of infrastructure is what our country needs most. i believe we should encourage the use of renewable energy resource like wind and solar power. we should be investing in increased energy efficiency and smart grid. we should be trying to find ways to make our energy infrastructure more resilient and capable of withstanding extreme weather events like hurricane sandy. these are the types of clean energy solutions that america should be investing in. the type that will enhance our energy security, re dues carbon emissions -- reduce carbon emissions, and lower energy costs to customers. unfortunately, this bill doesn't achieve any of these goals. the 30-day deadline in the bill could have counterproductive results. if d.o.e. is forced to make a decision before they have determined if the project's in the public interest. it may have no choice but to deny the application. that outcome certainly doesn't benefit anyone, especially the applicants. this is the third time this month that the republican
majority has brought secondhand energy legislation to the floor. legislation that passed the house last congress. like the two bills before it, h.r. 351 would also serve no real purpose. i just hope we begin to look at new energy legislation that will move america forward in developing a clean energy infrastructure. in the meantime, i would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to mr. johnson of ohio, the author of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 351, the l.n.g. permit certainty and transparency act. this important legislation will bring certainty to the department of energy's review process for l.n.g. export applications, create american jobs, continue spurring america's manufacturing comeback and provide a stable source of energy to our allies in europe and around the world.
thanks to the energy renaissance occurring throughout eastern and southeastern ohio and across the united states america is able to produce large caunts of natural gas like never before. enough to meet our natural domestic demands and export excess l.n.g. to the global marketplace. through the abundance of natural gas, we have an opportunity to significantly affect geopolitics and create american jobs. but only if we enact smart policies like h.r. 351. the window of opportunity for l.n.g. exports will not remain open indefinitely, so it's important that congress act immediately. if congress fails toorkts companies will continue to face regulatory uncertainty, which creates hesitancey in securing financing for constructing l.n.g. terminals. plus nations with near-term energy needs will look elsewhere. potential geopolitical benefits such as reducing the oppressive influence of other exporters like russia and iran, while simultaneously strengthening ties with our allies, could be ultimately jeopardized.
now some of my colleagues are concerned that increased l.n.g. exports will not help our allies in europe, but that's not true. regardless of where u.s. natural gas is sent, increasing the supply and competition in the international market will provide global consumers with greater choice, and most importantly, increase leverage when negotiating l.n.g. pricing contracts. by no longer importing such large amounts of l.n.g. the u.s. has already indirectly helped our european allies. with the passage of this legislation, even more l.n.g. will be free to go to places that needs it most. if we delay economic benefits may also fail to materialize. specifically the opportunity to create some 45,000 jobs by 2018. an increase hardworking taxpayer salaries by $1 billion over six years. this is a win for manufacturing especially those who make drilling equipment pipeline components not to mention the refining petrochemicals and chemical sectors. for this reason congress must
pass h.r. 351. to date d.o.e. has issued a final decision on only five of the pending 38 applications received since 2010. this is unacceptable. i urge my colleagues to help bring certainty to d.o.e.'s approval process, create jobs, help maximize energy production and help our allies abroad by voting for this important legislation w that mr. speaker i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield now three minutes to the ranking member of the energy and power subcommittee, mr. rush of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. rush: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, mr. pallone for his leadership and for his positive contributions to this entire institution. mr. speaker, i'm here to oppose h.r. 351 because once again it is a proposed solution to a
problem that we can't find. a problem that we search high and low for. this problem, mr. speaker simply doesn't exist. here we are here we go once again coming up with solutions to a problem thatp don't even exist. when will my colleagues on the other side do something productively in this congress and come up with real solutions to problems that do exist for the american people? mr. speaker, currently the department of energy has already , as we speak today, already approved not one not two not three, not even four, but five
applications, five it for existing l.n.g., and there are four more conditional approvals pending. t all together, mr. speaker, the improved application authorized the export of over 10 million cubic feet per day. . of l.n.g. and the pending applications continue so seek additional 27.5 billion cubic feet of l.n.g. exposed each and every day. 27.5. where is the problem? show me the problem.
show me the way. point out the problem. mr. speaker, this 30-day deadline that arbitrarily mandates the d.o.e. application process would short-circuit the public interest review. short-circuit, cutting short. public don't have any input. no review by the public. and this arbitrary mandatory 30-day deadline would also unnecessarily require the d.o.e. fast track -- can i have an additional two minutes or minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rush: would unnecessarily fast track the d.o.e. to hastily make a decision on
export applications. regardless of how complex this application may be. and the result of this ambiguous 30-day deadline may affect d.o.e.'s ability to soberly and thoroughly assess the impact that cumulative exports may have on natural gas prices. what will be the effect at the station, at the pump on the american people? and we all of a sudden, without any study without any conversation, without any consideration just force the d.o.e. to arbitrarily meet this 30-day deadline, what's going to be the effect on the
consumer in terms of these gas prices at the pump? are they going to skyrocket as a result of this hasty, irresponsible action? tell me do you have answers to that? it may even result in the unintended consequences of actually denying applications if the agency does not have the time to complete its due diligence. this is insane. this is the utmost of insanity. mr. speaker, i must oppose this bill because at the end of the day when you push away all of the rhetoric and all of the hyperbole around this bill, it will not speed up l.n.g. exports to europe will not speed up exports to our other
allies. mr. speaker. mr. pallone: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. rush: mr. speaker, to paraphrase elvis presley let this body return this bill to sender. return it to sender, address unknown. no such problem, no such home. mr. speaker, let's send this bill back to committee where it will go through regular order and we can have a thorough discussion before voting on such a consequential bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, who has been a real leader on helping america become energy independent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gibbs: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of this bill
because it's simply a commonsense bill. as you know the u.s. is now the largest producer of natural gas in the world and has proven gas preserves to supply our -- reserves to supply our nation for decades to come. this despite the blocks from the executive branch. the last was to uphold applications. this important bill streamlines the review for l.n.g. exports by requiring a timeline for making a decision and making agencies to work together on the review. this is commonsense change, mr. speaker. innovations in the harvesting and production of natural gas have cut energy bills for families across the country. those are the same invasions that has also made it afford -- innovations that has also made it affordable to ship l.n.g. around the world. through technologies such as horizontal drilling has made an energy renaissance. who is feeling the effects?
that could all end unless we let the free market work. let's end the administration's de facto ban on new exports and bring market stability to the global gas market. let's get the government out of the way and let's give our american innovators a chance to work. mr. speaker, my district, the state of ohio and the entire nation will reap the benefits of more jobs, increased pay and lower energy costs if we pass this bill. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 351 and end the self-imposed restrictions on l.n.g. gas. i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is now recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, can i ask the time that remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 21 minutes. the gentleman from kentucky has 20. mr. pallone: thank you. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green, who is the ranking member of the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
let me explain the problem we have and no need for this bill today. the bill is the exact same language that passed this house last congress and it came through our committee, the energy and commerce committee. now, what this bill does is give the department of energy some deadlines to make a decision on our national interest. that's what it does. they held those permits sometimes up to two years to make that determination. if you have a free trade agreement with the united states, we can export natural gas to you. but they need to decide in the national interest and i want the d.o.e. to do it, but i want them to make a decision in very quick time. we know who our friends are, we know who our adversaries are. we don't want to send it to our adversaries. we want to send it to our friends. that's the d.o.e.'s job. yesterday, gas was $2.88 per
million cuba feet. it was $1. what we've been doing is flaring natural gas. it's bad for the environment. it's bad for the people who produce it because they don't have 'cause more and what we need to do -- have a customer and what we need to do -- in texas we're very proud of blue bell ice cream. their slogan is we eat all we can and sell the rest. i have a chemical industry, i have a utility industry that uses natural gas. they are using it, but we still have a lot of production, so why would we not use all we can in our country and sell the rest and make somebody else pay for those jobs that we have in our community? and that's the problem. we know the price of oil's going down, but oil and natural gas sometimes come out of the same well. so that's why we need to make sure that we have the right on a reasonable time frame to export natural gas to countries that we want to be friendly
with. and i would love to have a natural gas export right now to ukraine. the infrastructure over there is not there. it could get there with some reversing pipelines. but h.r. 351 represents a bipartisan effort that legislates warrant approval. the bill is good for the economy, the climate and the u.s. security interest. the united states has natural resources to become the largest exporter of l.n.g. in the world. our natural gas reserves can meet all our domestic natural gas needs and still have in excess capacity of 3 trillion cubic feet. before we discuss h.r. 351 it's important to clarify that l.n.g. permitting process and just so there's no confusion. the applicant must split two separate applications. the first, the department of energy, and the second to the federal energy regulatory commission, ferc. the department of energy there are two complete separate processes. first, the project must submit
an application to export. if the project will send l.n.g. to a country which the u.s. has a free trade agreement, the application is automatically approved. can i ask for a couple more minutes? mr. pallone: i yield to the gentleman two additional minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two additional minutes. mr. green: i thank my ranking member. appreciate it. the projects sends l.n.g. to the country without free trade agreement then the d.o.e. must issue a permit based on the public interest. these are very important determinations. however, l.n.g. won't leave the united states without d. omplete approval only. in either case the applicant must receive a ferc permit. ferc reviews the environmental impacts of the l.n.g. facility. ferc conducts and reviews all environmental impacts, satisfy the requirements of nepa. no company will export a single foot of l.n.g. without ferc approval. the ferc's process takes 12 to 18 months and costs ll approximately $100 million. we worked extremely hard to
protect the environment. it's the d.o.e. nonf.t.a. process that's the problem. the d.o.e. has currently 39 f.t.a. applicants awaiting decision. they held these p.s almost four years. -- they held these permits almost four years. companies are investing $100 million and these are u.s. companies. h.r. 351 will resolve this issue only as it receives -- after it receives all environmental permits. the 351 replaces a 30-daytimeline for the d.o.e. to issue a de-- 30-day timeline for the d.o.e. to issue a decision. once again, we protected the environmental review process and the process and d.o.e., we cannot allow d.o.e. to sit on these permits any longer. they must do their job and do it in a timely fashion.
opponents of 351 say if all permits are approved it will export more than 35 trillion cubic feet. they say it will double or triple domestic gas price. they say exports of that size will endanger our domestic industry, have ruinous effects on our country. i represent petro chemical facilities, power generators and workers. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to place the remainder of my statement in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. green: and urge passage of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, who's been a real leader on helping america become energy independent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, u.s. natural gas exports will create american jobs and will bolster our strategic partnerships. i serve as president of the nato parliamentary assembly and many foreign officials have expressed their need for energy
diversification. russia the largest supplier of natural gas to europe has repeatedly used natural gas pricing to draw governments closer to its orbit and punish western leading governments with higher prices. u.s. natural gas exports will foster a more dynamic and competitive world energy market, helping to curve the use of energy as a political weapon. and regardless of where natural gas from the united states is shipped, increasing supply in the global market will help international customers with greater choice and leverage to negotiate prices. in fact the obama administration has made this exact same argument. the state department's energy envoy recently stated and i quote now where the gas goes doesn't matter. the fact that we have approved exports of natural gas has already had an impact on europe, and where the molecule actually ends up going also doesn't matter. now, i understand there have been questions about whether or not european countries, such as ukraine, are prepared to receive u.s. natural gas. many of our u.s. -- many of our european allies are implementing infrastructure projects to diversify their natural gas resources.
comprks, poland and lithuania are importing l.n.g. terminals to reduce their dependence on russian gas. they announced an agreement to construct a pipeline to allow ukraine to get l.n.g. to terminals, potentially from the united states. england and spain already have contracts in place to receive u.s. natural gas. these are just a few examples of how these infrastructure projects will help europe diversify its natural gas resources. mr. speaker, last year president obama in a joint statement with european leaders welcomed u.s. natural gas exports to help our european allies and our strategic partners. while i'm encouraged by the president's statements, these words must be followed by action. the president must work with congress to enact h.r. 351 and i urge all of my colleagues to support it. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. pallone: thank you. mr. speaker, i've heard my
colleagues suggest that there's a delay in d.o.e.'s approval of l.n.g. export applications. for instance, on monday night at the rules committee mr. johnson indicated that d.o.e. has approved only five out of 38 applications since 2010. even if the gentleman from ohio is correct in his assertion, the fact is that the five applications approved by the obama administration since 2010 are five more than that approved by the reagan administration or either bush administration. in fact, it's five more than were approved by the clinton carter, ford or nixon administrations. in 2011, d.o.e. approved the first l.n.g. export application for the sabine pass facility. that facility is set to become operational at the end of this year. that was d.o.e.'s first approval to export l.n.g. since the 1960's, and the dramatic growth of natural gas production and supply in the united states was considered impossible a decade ago. so d.o.e. commissioned a study to help it decide how to address additional
applications. after establishing a transparent and systematic system for reviewing and authorizing l.n.g. export applications d.o.e. began to rapidly issue decisions. the record demonstrates that d.o.e. has moved aggressively to export l.n.g., granting three additional finalizations and four conditional approvals since august of threen. so to date, d.o.e. has approved the export of enough l.n.g. to make the united states the world leader in l.n.g. exports. . all pending app this does not change the ferc approval process. i also remind my colleagues that d.o.e. automatically deems l.n.g. exports to free trade agreement countries to be in the public interest. before d.o.e. can issue a decision on the pending applications, both ferc approval and construction will need to be completed. that could take months or more
likely years. but this bill will not affect that timeline which will be the critical factor in how much more gas can be exported. so that's why i want to emphasize this bill is unnecessary and will not materially change the l.n.g. export situation any time soon. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. they say you can't have too much of a good thing. but with our impressive natural gas production, that is exactly what we have today. we now have so much natural gas that we cannot only meet our own energy needs and still have extra to sell. our natural gas boon can be used for a source of good here at home, source for jobs, and across the globe for stable energy. there is no question that the
whole shale revolution helped break the fever of the great recession. thanks to innovation and technological advantagement, energy production remained a welcomed bright spot in our national economy. but we aren't out of the woods yet. we all know that. millions of folks, certainly in michigan and across the country still find themselves unemployed, under employed, or facing stagnant paychecks. this bill, this legislation will help accelerate the return to full employment. at the request of the department of energy, it an economic consulting firm evaluated the impact of u.s. l.n.g. exports. the study showed a net positive impact to the united states economy and estimated that l.n.g., ports would actually reduce -- exports would actually reduce the average of unemployed workers by 45,000 people by 2018. we'll also see tens of thousands of additional jobs created in the supply chain.
i'm talking about good paying jobs that help families achieve a better life. the bill also will advance our foreign policy goals. u.s. l.n.g. exports can provide our allies with a secure and affordable supply of energy and reduce the influence of hostile exporting nations like russia, who continues to threaten the ukraine and really all of europe's natural gas supply. passing this bill will send a welcomed signal to our allies in eastern europe, that yes, an alternative source of energy is on its way. the domestic and geopolitical benefits make increasing u.s. l.n.g. exports a win-win for the department of energy continues to hold up the process. since 2010 d.o.e. has only issued a final decision on five applications to export l.n.g. to countries where we don't share a free trade agreement. this bill would help jump-start approvals so we can start creating jobs and sending our
surplus gas to those countries that need it the most. it would give d.o.e. 30 days to issue a decision following the completion of the environmental review -- could i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. whitfield: i yield an additional 30 seconds. joip the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. upton: the u.s. is now a global energy superpower. with that power we have a chance to do some real good. saying yes to energy is good for workers here at home and good for global allies. i thank representative bill johnson for his leadership on this issue and i would hope that everybody could support this bipartisan piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. pallone: under the current approval process for l.n.g. exports, the department of energy has a tool to protect american consumers and that tool
is the public interest determination. d.o.e. has the ability to weigh the benefits and costs of additional l.n.g. exports, including the impact of increased domestic natural gas prices on consumers who use gas to heat and cool their homes and turn on the lights. ridged deadlines as suggested in this legislation could prevent d.o.e. from conducting a meaningful public interest review. that means that d.o.e. might not be able to ensure that high levels of l.n.g. exports do not harm american consumers by raising the cost of electricity or home heating or cooling. and i think consumers, mr. speaker, have reason to be concerned. experts at the nonpartisan u.s. energy information administration examined this issue and here's what they found i quote. in the scenarios with additional gas exports, consumers will consume less and pay more on both their natural gas and electricity bill. furthermore, eia calculated that high levels of l.n.g. exports could result did -- mean
increased residential commercial, and industrial energy costs of $17 billion to $14 billion a year between 2020 and 2040. make no mistake american consumers will foot that bill. recent experience with gasoline and propane exports also offer cautionary tar heels. -- tales. the midwest and northeast experienced shortages last winter. significant increases in propane exports were a key factor in the skyrocketing price that is hurt consumers. yesterday, the center for american progress released an analysis on the potential impact of expanded l.n.g. exports on consumers. they found that in 2020, residential consumers would pay 4.3% more for natural gas per year. and those in the midwest and states like arkansas, louisiana, and texas would be hardest hit by price increases. by 2040 consumers in the mid-atlantic states would pay 10% more for natural gas per year. these figures are not
insignificant. we need to make sure that l.n.g. exports do not hurt consumers. right now d.o.e. has the ability to do that. before we disregard any meaningful public interest review and allow the unrestricted export of l.n.g., let's be sure that our constituents won't be left footing the bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: tilt i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. babin, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. babin: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 351, the l.n.g. permitting certainty and transparency act. america's energy producers and tens of thousands of americans that they employ stand ready to meet the demand for a reliable and secure source of natural gas
for america and the world. they have completed their reviews, passed their tests, and ready to get to work. but there is one big problem, the obama administration is standing in the way, simply. the president and his anti-american energy agenda has placed the de facto ban on l.n.g. exports by logjamming their requests and using bureaucratic red tape to block america's progress. this bill breaks the bureaucratic gridlock and expedites approval of l.n.g. exports. i have seen firsthand the jobs and opportunities that an l.n.g. facility has created for the people of east texas in my district. let's help the american worker by approving h.r. 351. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: again mr. speaker can i ask the time that remains
on both sides? many the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 11 minutes. the gentleman from kentucky has 13. mr. pallone: thank you. i yield now three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, who is our ranking member of our environment subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from new jersey. mr. speaker, it is unfortunate that we are beginning the 114th congress the way we ended the previous one with legislation that is more about message than about solving real problems. the message of h.r. 351 is that we are interested in elevating the interests of the oil and gas industry above any others. consumers will not benefit from this policy. manufacturers will not benefit from this policy. and eliminating the public interest determination sends that message clearly. in spite of the assertions by its supporters h.r. 351 won't do much for our allies either.
especially those in europe or ukraine. the bill fixes no problem. there is no backlog of applications at the department of energy. japan our ally and the world's largest purchaser of l.n.g. has three importers that signed contracts in 2013 with three approved l.n.g. export facilities. those being freeport cameron, and cove point. because natural gas is such an important and strategic resource, we should if anything, be questioning the administration about the wisdom of issuing so many approvals. why? they are relying on assumptions models, and estimates of recoverable domestic gas reserves that are very uncertain and that have been decreasing as new information becomes available. exporters sign these contracts to guarantee deliveries for some 10 to 20 years. i'm not willing to risk price spikes for consumers, families, and small businesses, or to risk
that benefit -- those benefits of lower gas prices for our manufacturing sector for a slightly improved trade balance. i am willing to repeal the requirement for consideration of the public interest before more export facilities are approved. not for resource that is so strategic and widely used. h.r. 351 does not fix any real problems. but it could, indeed, help create some. so therefore, mr. speaker, i urge defeat of this bill. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the president likes to talk about infrastructure. in his state of the union address, he said that there is a bipartisan support for
infrastructure legislation. and the republicans and democrats need to, mr. speaker, i quote, set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. well, we listened. and we have done that. after passing the bill to approve keystone this house passed another bill last week to reform the national gas permitting process. now the house is on its third energy infrastructure bill. with representative bill johnson's l.n.g. permitting certainty and transparency act. i know the president doesn't pay much attention to what goes on here in capitol hill, but three infrastructure bills in three weeks is hard to miss. here's some other numbers, mr. speaker that i think the president really should remember. though the department of department of energy has received 37 permits in the past five years, it has only approved
five perfect minutes in that time. that's one a year. if the president cared about infrastructure as much as he says i think he'd get his administration to process the rest of them now. passing this bill would also lead to the creation of an estimated 45,000 jobs. more permit approvals mean more opportunity. more opportunity requires more infrastructure. more infrastructure means more jobs. delay has become a hallmark of this presidency. but americans are done delaying job creation by ignoring americans' energy abundance. american energy supports american jobs. it supports a strong economy. it also gives our friends like ukraine our allies, an alternative source of energy. diluting the power of the countries like russia and iran
who use their oil to coerce or even oppress. mr. speaker, the president should know that here in the house we set our sights very high. but but mr. speaker, the question is will the president set his sights higher than his veto pen? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i'd yield five minutes to the gentleman from illinois mr. rush. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rush: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i wanted to return to the floor because mr. speaker, the thought occurs to me, as it should to all of the american people, let us consider the
impact of this bill, the impact of l.n.g. exports the impact that it will have on the u.s. manufacturing. mr. speaker, let us protect, by all means, at the end of the day, let us protect american jobs. mr. speaker let us protect american manufacturing. mr. speaker, cheap domestic natural gas prices are providing a big boost at a competitive advantage to u.s. manufacturing. we can all agree on that on both sides of the aisle. mr. speaker, the disagreement
occurs when the other side when the republicans are asking us this congress to make a hasty decision that could undermine that advantage that we are now experiencing in the increase in manufacturing. this bill runs the risk of reducing our advantage that we have now in the manufacturing sector our competitive advantage. it requires d.o.e. to rush its process and make final decisions on pending applications to export a huge quantity of l.n.g. if all the pending applications are granted, doe will agree to
five billion cubic feet of l.n.g. per day. that's more than the total u.s. natural gascon sumpings. it's more -- gas consumption. it's more -- more than the largest l.n.g. exporter, qatar, currently makes each and every day. there's no question, mr. speaker, in my mind or any other thinking person's mind, there's no question in the minds of the american people that exports of that magnitude will increase the domestic price of natural gas. it's just -- it just makes common sense and it's what the e.i.a. found when it studied the economic impact of increased l.n.g. imports.
where is your study? how do you answer the conclusions of the e.i.a. when it found, again, that the economic impact of increased imports will increase the domestic price of natural gas? what amount american manufacturing, what amount, american jobs? let's protect american manufacturing. let's protect american jobs. and because this bill truncates d.o.e.'s public interest review, the department may not even be able to fully analyze impacts on this very high level of l.n.g. exports on american consumers, on american jobs on american manufacturing. my friends on the other side -- and they are indeed my friends
-- always want to talk about american manufacturing how we have to support american manufacturing, how we have to raise the level of american manufacturing, how we have to inthe american manufacturing sector, how we have to -- how we have to increase the american manufacturing sector, how we have to increase american manufacturing jobs. this bill could undermine all those -- all those -- the sense of goodwill, all those pronouncements from the other side. what about american manufacturing and what about american manufacturing jobs? don't abandon american manufacturing. don't abandon american manufacturing jobs. don't abandon the american people. let's slow this process down. all we're doing mr. speaker, is jeopardizing american manufacturing and american manufacturing jobs. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: is the gentleman ready to close? mr. whitfield: i have no additional speakers. i'm ready to close. mr. pallone: then i'll yield as much time as i may consume to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: as ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, i'm committed to developing sound energy policy, and that policy surely considers consideration of the role that energy can play in the mix. our energy picture is changing every year. the latest development is low oil prices. but we have other developments including rapidly increased production of oil and natural gas and the welcoming of wind and solar production. we're becoming efficient but our infrastructure is becoming outdated. we need to look at the ways we
use and produce energy, but we need to look at the ways we move, transmit and store energy. we need to maintain reliability and lower energy bills. and we need to look at all our energy issues lieu the lens of climate change -- issues through the lens of climate change. there are legitimate questions of whether we want to send our natural gas to other countries. that might help our frayed balance but it will have -- trade balance but it will have negative impacts on our energy sector. i don't claim to have all the answers. but i know we looked at some of these issues last congress but i don't believe that a clear consensus emerged and in any event this is a new congress with scores of new members who have not looked at this issue before. so i think we need to take these issues back to the energy and commerce committee and let the committee and its 12 new members do its job. let us look at the facts again as they are today, not last year or last congress. i think if we were to do that we'd seen even if this legislation was necessary, it
isn't anymore. d.o.e. has modernized its process and any backlog that once existed isn't an issue at this point. the d.o.e. and the administration have opened the way for l.n.g. exports, but i think it continues to be necessary for us to assess whether approving an application for additional export is in the public interest because becoming the world's largest exporter of natural gas is not something we should do lightly or without the latest facts. this january, we have spent much of our time bringing bills from last congress to the floor and rushing them through to the senate, which is still considering the keystone legislation we passed the first week of this year. i think we might well have served ourselves and the american people better by sitting down together in the energy and commerce committee and working carefully on an energy policy aimed at the future rather than at an energy policy aimed at the past. i'm going to vote no on this legislation and i encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well and i yield back the balance of
my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: the former speaker, the distinguished gentleman from illinois talked a lot about impact on manufacturing base in america this legislation might have. i would like to point out that national association of manufacturers in a letter dated yesterday, which is the largest manufacturing association in the united states, representing manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 states, urges members to support h.r. 351. they go on to say, it's important to ensure that market forces, rather than bureaucratic inertia govern international trade, and that's really what this legislation is all about. it's about market forces.
representatives from countries around the world are coming to us asking for this product. we're fortunate in america that we have an abundance of natural gas. in fact, the energy information agency reported today that it's so abundant that natural gas prices have dropped to their lowest levels since september of 2012, and there was earlier expression about concern about increased natural gas prices. yeah, we understand that prices go up and prices go down, but right now they are at their lowest levels since september of 2012, and when natural gas prices go down too low, you see less production and that increases prices as well. but we didn't just wake up one day and decide to introduce this legislation.
concerned groups involved in this business came to congress and said we need some help, and when we started having hearings on this a year and two years ago, the department of energy started to speed up the process a little bit. but we're not dictating what their decision should be on allowing the export to nonfree trade agreement countries. we're saying you need to make the decision sooner and we want some transparency and that's all this legislation is about. now, we understand that anytime you talk about in today's world exporting a fossil fuel one of the undercurrents is climate change. and i would remind everyone that co-2 emissions in america are the lowest they have been in 20 years. this country does not have to take a backseat to any country in the world, and so we want
the market to play its role. this is a good, commonsense piece of legislation that will create jobs in america, will encourage the expansion of more natural gas production at a time when the world needs it and we need it. and so i would urge every member of this house to vote in favor of h.r. 351, and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. garamendi: i'm opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk: mr. garamendi of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 351 to the
committee on energy and commerce with instructses to report the same back to the -- instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. mr. whitfield: i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserves. the clerk will continue. the clerk: at the end of the bill insert the following new section. section 4, protecting our national security and creating american jobs. in reviewing an application for authorizing to export natural gas under section 3 of the natural gas act 15 united states code 717-b, the department of energy, one, shall deny such application of the natural gas would be exported to any nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism or otherwise threatens america's national security or to any nation or corporation that steals america's military technology or intellectual property through cyberattacks and two, shall require as a condition for approval of any such authorization the applicant to ensure that united
states flagged and built ships and shipping containers are used to export the l.n.g. as such vessels become available for charter. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. chairman. this final amendment to the bill will not kill the bill. frankly, it will substantially improve it. it won't send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will come to the floor for a vote later this morning. we heard a lot of discussion here about jobs in the rules committee and i thank the chair, mr. whitfield, for his interest in this particular proposal and for the rules committee listening to the debate very carefully about how we can significantly advance america's national interest. natural gas is a strategic asset. it has allowed us to substantially reduce our energy cost in the united states
replace -- repower many of our power plants, bring down the cost and frankly lead to an increased manufacturing sector. shipbuilding is also shipbuilding is also a strategic national asset. our navy depends upon it. over 107,000 americans worked in the shipbuilding industry in our ports and shipyards. it is a strategic asset, as are the mariners. american mariners are also a strategic asset. what we are trying to do with this amendment is to bring together these three strategic assets of america and advance the american economy and our national security at the same time. this amendment would simply require that if we are going to export liquefies natural gas, a strategic asset, then we should do it in a way that advances our national security and our
economy by requiring that those ships be manned and womanned by american mariners, the captains the engineers, the sailors, that they be american. this is a safety issue. natural gas is a very volatile issue and under current law when it's imported has to have american mariners onboard. similarly, by requiring that the ships be american built, we will be able to ploy -- employ several hundred thousand new men and women in our shipyards. if it's about jobs, we all claim this bill is about jobs, then let's teak it another step. let's teak it another step so that we really rebuild the american -- let's take it another step so that we really rebuild the american ship industry. we revitalize our shipyards so our u.s. navy will be able to
have a robust competition for their ships. there are 117 shipyards in the united states that build ships. none of them yet build these tankers. they could. if we pass this amendment. let's build it in america. let's make it in america. this is a strategic -- strategy that is employed by india, who has a route to buy gas from the united states. that requires that three of the ships used to transport that be built in india. i say let's build the other seven in the united states. they want american natural gas, build the ships in america. we know that this is a big industry. shanere needs 100 ships when they begin to ship natural gas l.n.g. frrks their new terminal in tfpblgts 100 ships. are those american ships? not without this amendment. those ships will be chinese ships in chinese shipyards built
by chinese. how about america? how about building it in america? that's what this amendment's about. we can all agree that we want american jobs. is there one among the 435 of us that want the jobs to be in china or korea or japan? i don't think so. let's do it in america. this is an american made amendment. this is an amendment for american workers, american shipyards. this is not going to kill the bill. this is going to make this bill into a real make it in america a real american jobs bill. with hundreds of thousands of jobs spread throughout this nation. mr. chairman work with us. make this into a real robust american jobs bill. adopt this amendment. put aside the normal game we play with n.t.r.'s which is a
kabuki dance here. let's do it for the american workers, american shipyards all across this nation. that's what this is about. this is an unexpected opportunity that has come about because of our great natural gas industry here. take advantage of it. think about the national security. think about our shipyards, the us -- u.s. navy, the mariners, make it in america. adopt this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i withdraw my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. whitfield: i want to thank the gentleman from california for offering this motion to recommit. it has two basic parts to it. the first part relates to denying applications of natural gas that would be exporting to a nation that has state sponsored
terrorism. we feel quite confident under the existing law and under h.r. 351 that the department of energy is not going to approve the export of natural gas it's not going to be in the public interest, any terrorist state. the second question which is a very important question, as i said in the rules committee and say on the floor, i'm delighted that mr. garamendi has raised this issue about u.s. flag ships being involved in the export. as you know, the -- his amendment goes to the jones act. and the jones act, as we all know requires u.s. flagships between ports here in the united states, but it does not expand to export and the use in other countries. and that raises a much broader issue than this very narrow focused bill. and i do think that that
discussion needs to be taken -- needs to take place at some point in time. but at this time i'm going to respectfully request members to reject the motion to recommit. i and others would look forward to talking to mr. garamendi in more detail about a broader debate on what impact expanding the jones act would have on our international trade. with that -- mr. garamendi: if i might mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has yielded back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20
the chair will reduce to five minutes the nim time for any passage -- electronic vote on passage of the bill. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 175. the nays are 277. the motion is not adopted. question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey -- mr. pallone: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of voting by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 277. the nays are 133. the bill is passed. the -- without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on friday, january 30 2015. and further when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on monday, february 2 2015, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will come to order. mrs. black: more than a year after its launch the health care law remains as flawed as obamacare. we found that they were sharing users' personal data with third-party vendors. when the administration was caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they quickly scaled back but many unanswered questions remain. that's why i wrote a letter along with congressman pat meehan demanding answers regarding healthcare.gov's
status security -- data security and privacy policies. while we wait for their reply, we re-introduce the data exchange breach act, legislation requiring that the government notify consumers if their personal information is breached on the health care exchanges. it divides all -- it defies all logic that this basic requirement isn't already law and it's time we change that. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute.
the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. >> in the state of the union address, the president outleaned some areas where common ground can be found with congress. one area is trade. i agree we should move forward with trade agreements as we expand exports to help our manufacturers, ranchers and farmers. with the transpacific partnership agreement we'll allow american companies to sell our goods and services in the emerging markets of asia and make jobs here at home. mr. paulsen: an agreement with europe will level the playing field. 90% of the world's consumers live outside the united states. these trade agreements will give us the opportunity to build on the success we already enjoin. 750,000 jobs are directly
connected to international trade. it's time for the president and the congress to move forward on a robust trade agenda to help create a health wrer economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the life of jim nystrom of titusville, pennsylvania, who passed away last weekend. after serving in the military raising a family and building a successful practice as a c.p.a. he, still answered the call of his community each and every time it was raised he served as president of the school board, mayor of the city of titusville and on almost every board and organization that needed volunteer help to fulfill their mission. when local businesses found themselves in trouble, yim was always there, lending his advice
and expertise and saved countless jobs in the process, never with the expectation of credit or recognition. join me in celebrating jim's life and sending the sympathy of the house to his family and friends who survive him. you will always be remembered, jim, for your drive and lifelong commitment to help. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize san diegoian brian hennessy of the san diego fire department, here sharing his
expertise in fighting wildfires he testified before the house economic development subcommittee on ways to speed up disaster recovery and save taxpayer dollars by lessening the harm of disasters. in san diego we learned many lessons from the numerous firestorms of the last decade, including the importance of preparedness and emergency planning and the need for coordination among many levels of government. as extreme weather becomes more prevalent, sharing experiences on what works and doesn't work will only become more important. thank you to the chief for sharing your experience and thank you to the brave men and women of the san diego fire department. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maine seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection, the gentleman from maine is recognized for one minute.
>> mr. speaker, those of us who have been blessed with children in the back of our minds always fear for their health and safety. maine is one of the safest states in america. even so our families have not been immune to the horror of child kidnapping rape, and sex trafficking. two years ago, maine state legislator amy voke had the courage to lead a painful public discussion about the risk of human trafficing in maine. her persistence resulted in the awareness of this horrific violence waged against our children living in maine and those being brought to our state. yesterday, i was proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my republican and democrat colleagues in the house to unanimously pass the first of a dozen bills to fight the scourge
of human trafficking in america. as parents and as public officials we owe it to our families to help our states and local communities with stronger law enforcement and tougher criminal penalties for those who prey upon our children. i ask our colleagues in the senate to now do the same and to help rid this land of the unthinkable horrors of human trafficking. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. yesterday the u.s. fish and wildlifer is vess brought up a possible concern on salmon
habitat on a possible project -- water storage project in california. mr. lamalfa: this would be the shasta dam. there's a proposal to raze the dam but what gets me is there more concern about a fictional problem with a salmon habitat and not much more attention focused on the effects of the people around the lake and the need they'd have for infrastructure resorts marinas, the things that they do there. it's really disconcerting that u.s. fish and wildlife is creating a fictional problem on an environmental side and not looking at human impacts of what a possible raze of the dam could be. i implore them to take a look at what the needs are of people around that lake. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60
minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, mr. carson. mr. carson: thank you mr. speaker, mr. gohmert. already a grave and growing and exiss ten rble threat to israel a nuclear-armed iran would be a closal horrific game changer. it would launch a nuclear arms race in what is already the world's most dangerous neighborhood. we all know that this must not be allowed to happen. the islamic republic of iran's nuclear ambitions are made more dire when considering that they are the world's most dangerous state supporter of islamic extremist terrorism. with a destabilizing presence in
lebanon, in syria, and in iraq. mr. clawson: and iran's financial and military support for the rebels in yemen has already led to the collapse of the government. thus iran today exerts major influence not just in rebel territories, but in four middle east capitals beirut, baghdad, damascus and sanah. the crisis in yemen threatens to launch yet another civil war in the region and this severely handcuffs u.s. counterintelligence, counterterrorism operations against a.q.a.p. islamists in iran and elsewhere repeatedly threaten to slaughter all standing in their way, with
their ultimate targets being israel and the united states, us. their great satan. they must never be allowed nuclear weapons capability. does anyone really doubt whether they would use these capabilities someday? there must be some reason why iran is developing icvm's. last week, iran's channel 2 broadcast satellite imagery showing recently constructed missile-related sites. those sites included a launch pad capable of firing an icbm and on that launch pad was a never seen before missile measuring 27 meeters in length. while we negotiate, iran's story gets worse. we've been extending deadlines and softening sanctions on iran
while they failed to meet their end of the bargain. it's bizarre to me that we are debating with the iranians the numbers of their centrifuges but leaving off the table their support for terrorism, their icbm's, and their continued human rights violations. s the right thing to do in my view to sit across the table. and remain siblet about the cost we and our allies have paid and are paying because of their financial and military support of our enemies. does this make sense? shouldn't we insist on adding to the agenda iran's destabilizing actions in the region and also their icbm program that puts us all at risk? merely delaying the potential horror for a decade or so is not a good option, in my view. a bad deal where we declare victory by kicking this can down
the road is far worse than no deal at all. iran now threatens to end nuclear talks if congress increases sanctions against their regime. i say we must never yield to threats from iran or any other nation. we must stand strong continue sanctions, and even strengthen them until iran gets the message. i believe that strengthening sanctions will get us a better deal. leverage produces a better deal. and we must remain unwavering in our support for israel. we must listen carefully to the concerns of prime minister netanyahu on this subject. and i hope we unite with our arab partners and do all that is possible to prevent iran from going nuclear. we must lead the civilized world in this crucial mission. i think this is our destiny.
we urge president obama to join with congress in this resolve. thank you to representative gohmert. i yield back. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. there is a great deal going on and i think the first thing that needs to be addressed is the 70th anniversary of something that should never have happened in civilized society. this is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz death camp. as a school boy growing up in
east texas later attending texas a&m and especially in my time, my four years in the united states army as we discussed and looked at world war ii things that occurred then, i was a history major. i was in the army for four years. majored in history. it was just always amazing how could people who said they were civilized kill six million of any race gender national -- how could that happen? but it did happen. and on learning that eisenhower required people from the
surrounding villages to be brought in to help clean up concentration camps, death camps , as i understood the reason was it was so no one could ever deny that the death camps occurred. i thought that seems ridiculous. how could anybody deny the holocaust? there aren't all that many survivors, but there are enough. and the evidence is there. and it clearly happened. but just as hitler showed that if any lie is told often enough people begin to believe it. and especially if it's even printed. but here is something that was in print today, actually yesterday, from man named martin green field, fox news.com, these
are martin greenfield's words. mr. greenfield said, 70 years ago i was in a nazi concentration camp. since then i have seen tyrants and dictators enter and exit the global stage. yet as the world prepares to mark the 70th anniversary of the auschwitz liberation it is perhaps well and right we reflect on how the holocaust shocked the moral imagination on a scale the world could scarcely fathom. why ponder such things? because for too many the holocaust remains a history. a major poll taken last year of 53000 people found that just 54% had never heard of the holocaust. knowledge of auschwitz is likely even more limited, particularly among young people. past surveys have shown that
nearly half of britains -- britons have never heard of auschwitz. some school children even thought auschwitz was a type of beer. here at home in america, debate erupted last year when a teenager posted a smiling self-y at auschwitz. whatever your opinion on the appropriateness of our actions, i was pleased to be reminded that some young americans still visit the nazi concentration camp to learn history up close. i too, visited auschwitz as a teenager. in 1944, my family and i stood in line before dr. joseph message lay -- mengele. the nazi physician known as the angel of death. as my mother, grandparents, two sisters, and baby brother were all sent to the left to be
burned in hitler's offense my father and i were sent to the right. the first night inside auschwitz my father said we must separate because together we would suffer double. he quoted his father, on your own, you will survive. his father told him. quote, you are young and strong and i know you will survive. if you survive by yourself you must honor us by living. by not feeling sorry for us. this is what you must do. unquote that was the last time i
ever saw my father. i'm grateful for my father's words of grace and guidance. they echo in my heart even still. it's a cruel thing feeling guilty for surviving but my father erased any future guilt and replaced it with purpose. it was a gift only a father of wisdom could give. it gave me a reason to go forward a reason to be. it does still. part of heeding my father's words involved replacing the horrors of my holocaust past with a life spent creating beauty in the form of hand
tailored suits for u.s. presidents, hollywood films, and the world's most influential men. in fact, my first sewing lesson took place in the auschwitz concentration camp laundry when i accidentally ripped a collar of a nazi soldier's shirt. a guard beat me before a kind older inmate taught me how to sew a simple stitch to repair the torn shirt. it was hardly the ideal tailoring apprenticeship, but it was my first lesson in a skill that became my livelihood. but at 86 another part of honoring my father's wishes requires being a voice for the voiceless. indeed, his parents educators and citizens we must all do our part to help ensure that never
forget remains much more than a threadbare catch phrase that gathers dust and loses meaning with each passing year. for example, many people are surprised to learn that auschwitz was actually a complex comprised of three main camps and dozens of satellites. the united states holocaust memorial museum statistic estimate that between 1940 and 1945, at least 1.1 million jews and 200,000 of hitler's undesirables were sent to the auschwitz complex. of those, 1.1 million were murdered. as i have noted elsewhere, that number would have been far greater were it not for the courage of the american soldiers, sailors airmen and marines who traveled around the world to defeat a moral darkness
that consumed at least six million jewish souls. that's a lesson worthy of remembrance. the 70th anniversary of the liberation marks that moment when freedom conquered barbarism through sureness of virtute and strength of will. sadless as recent events reveal, that remains a lesson humanity must learn and relearn from generation to generation. the word holocaust means, sacrifice by fire. may the memory of the millions who were engulfed in the flames like my family, never be forgotten. that's martin greenfield 70 years after being liberated from auschwitz death camp.
there's another article from c.b.c. news including this regarding mordecai 82, born with family name, markovitz. he would be making his second visit to auschwitz for the commemoration ceremonies. nearly 12 roanian saw auschwitz for the first time as a prisoner after soldiers forced all the jews in his hungarian town into a ghetto and two weeks later shipped them in cattle cars to the camp. dr. joseph mengele, the nazi angel of death sent ronan's brother and two sisters to the gas chambers on arrival. he made a lifesaving decision when he held on to his father's hand and joined the line of men. he spent about two weeks at
auschwitz where he witnessed soldiers using an infant for target practice and slept on piles of corpses to avoid selection for the gas chamber. he and his father were moved to a nearby labor camp where the brutality continued. one day his father told ronan he could no longer get up to work for the cement brigade. ronan last saw his father as soldiers took him away. it was the only day he remembers crying. and the day he decided to survive. ronan was liberated from a third camp and remembers walking to a nearby town norking on a resident's door -- knocking on a resident's door and asking if he could take a shower.
ronan, who prefers to be called a victor rather than survivor, first returned to auschwitz in 1999 when he guided then prime minister jean critchen around the grounds. it's important to ronan to show the world he's alive and share the history of the holocaust. maybe the world will realize what we went through. and it will be the end and we are going to have peace and quiet in the world, he explains. unfortunately, it's not the end of horrors. tragically christians now are being killed persecuted tortured in greater numbers
than ever in the history of the world. anti-semitism hatred against jews is growing like i couldn't have imagined in college, studying history, i couldn't have imagined that the kind of anti-jewish hatred, the kind of anti-semitism would be growing as it has, and the united states of america would be doing precious little about it. . instead of standing up for the jewish people and calling out anti-semitism where it exists and where it grows and proliferates as it does in the united nations, for example as it has in europe, as it has in
england. as it has right here in america. it's unconscionable that at a time in world history when the united states is said to be the true superpower of the world, even as that power has been seen diminishing by people around the world, as polling indicates around the world, still to be seen as the great superpower, as anti-jewish hatred grows, and we do precious little about it, and even at times stoke those flames even in our universities who are so proud of accepting massive amounts of money from people, part of organizations
that hate jews and fund such courses or seminars on things like islamaphobia. not a liberated mental process of recognizing anti-semitism, recognizing jewish hatred no, stoking those flames against the jewish people. it's unbelievable that it's happening here in america as well and it's even more unbelievable that it's happening among what some would refer to as the intelligent see ya -- intelligentsia those who are supposed to be more enlightened an the rest of the nation, who see things as they truly are and
yet in america, some of those supposed enlightened intelligentsia are going to be are growing to be some of the most anti-semitic people in the country. how did all this happen? money for one thing. political power, for another. but it has to stop. money initially power, in nazi germany stoked the flames of anti-jewish hatred. but there is anti-christian hatred growing as well. radical islam has proliferated around the world, violent
radical islam has grown. they aren't junior varsities, these are little cut throats who have -- literal cut throats who have to be stopped. it's not enough for the united states administration to beg radical islamists, jew and christian-hating leaders, sit down at the table or offer to let their murderers go free if they will just sit down and visit with us. reminiscent of what jimmy carter wanted to do after an act of war was committed against our embassy. and the 36 years that have followed what appeared to radical islamists as a weak paper tiger toothless america, did nothing but beg to sit down and talk and try to encourage
iran to let our prisoners go. it was not until ronald reagan took office they were released. they never wanted to fight the united states superpower. and that's been changed over the years. since 1979, when they committed an act of war attacked our embassy, around the world people have been shown, oh, you can do that against the united states and get away with it. and the good thing is they may end up leaving your country and then they may offer to give you money they may offer to release murderers from prison so they can come back and help kill more americans you know, they're not very smart over there in the united states. that's been going on since 1979.
and it's tragic when we encourage radical islamists -- radical islamist hol cast causts, which is what they'd -- holocausts, which is what they'd like to do what they said they'll do, by letting these terrorists go. how could this administration for months now think yemen was a great example of moderate islam working out? known since the -- since a constituent months ago was in jeopardy and we were able to get special ops people to help get them out. according to them, the embassy was attacked many months ago, back at the time embassy personnel officially said, no it was a nearby attack but wasn't us.
when the iranian backed huttis the radical islamists in yemen were taking over the capital and taking over the country and instead of standing up firmly against them and protecting our american interests, we were releasing murderers, radical islamic murderers, we were talking about how wonderful things were in yemen. that is exactly how the kind of anti-jewish, anti-christian sentiment could grow to the point of having a holcaust. and it is literally breath taking for an administration not to understand that while it's
trying to placate radical islamic leaders in iran and telling them, we just want to talk, as long as you'll keep talking to us, we'll keep israel from protecting themselves to their own detriment. just keep talking to us and you keep those centrifuges spinning that's fine with us. now we know, we've been informed that the administration has taken complete dismantlement of the centrifuges and their equipment to help them create nuclear weapons off the table. there's not even something -- it's not even something they're demanding anymore. in other words what word is out is that this administration is apparently ok with iran getting nukes but just would prefer that it wait until after this president leaves office. it doesn't matter when a president leaves office.
if an administration gives bloodthirsty se lots the ability to create a holocaust, history does not forgive them simply because they had already left office when the holocaust actually started. nigeria doesn't need taos send troops to stop the radical islamists there, but they need help. boko haram continues to kill rape, torture -- there it's about going after christians. and the small scale holocaust that boko haram is creating doesn't get so much as a whimper
these days from this administration. they may say a few words, but they're hollow and they do not affect boko haram as they continue to be emboldened just like when the i.r.s. was caught red handed being weaponized and used as a democratic political tool which appears to have violated criminal law yes, we've had hearings, but we haven't held them accountable, and therefore it seems to have encouraged even more impropriety by people within the i.r.s. when people get caught in impropriety and don't pay a cost, then you see what we're seeing in nigeria. you see what we're seeing in afghanistan and pakistan in
syria in iran, iraq, libya. oh i know, the president's administration bragged about the ashe spring and about taking autogaddafi, who had become an ally after he gave -- taking out gaddafi who had become an ally after he gave up nuclear weapons completely opened his defenses to the united states. this administration and the prior administration had agreements with gaddafi. but this administration never lets agreements get in the way of helping radical islamists. because this administration did help radical islam turn libya into a smoking country where
people die, where our own people were not protected because of the fantasy of those who thought that somehow the name the united states would be adequate to keep chris stevens and the other americans safe in benghazi. we didn't need to give them added security like they asked for. we didn't even need to respond when chris stevens called and said they were under attack. never said it was about a video because it was not. but that smoke screen worked, the president got re-elected, he didn't have to account for that. before the election. still hadn't had to account. for where he was and why help was not forthcoming. i mean, even after 20 hours, administration that had planes we know for sure within 3 1/2
hours, after 20 hours they get a private plane there. that's it. david with most of his right leg blown off new york painkillers new york morphine, they don't have a c-130 they land to take him up in on a gurney. they get a private plane from somebody who wasn't even american and they have to knock david up against the door turning the gurney every which way trying to get him in, without painkillers, causing more pain, more suffering. because this administration apparently, they were thinking if they sent more help than just private plane like that if a military plane were sent, it might look like libya were not the wonderful country that this
administration helped create by bombing gaddafi out of existence. and yes it was not -- it's true it was not a u.s. bomb that took gaddafi out. but it put -- our bombs put him on the run, our bombs stopped his caravan. our president wouldn't respond for three days after gaddafi offered to leave in exile and avoid any bloodshed before it all started. this administration didn't respond. obviously they were ok with having bloodshed and gaddafi being wiped out and so they got what they were hoping for, obviously. but what do we have now? we have a country in libya that is in absolute turmoil. which, by the way, because libya
is in turmoil due to this administration they're helping turn egypt into as much turmoil as they can. thank god for their president, having met with him on more than one okeags, i was impressed by the man, and before he was president, he asked that we send back -- bring back a message to this administration, would you ask them, since they -- this administration this president, froze the helicopters that were being sent, the apa thee -- apaches, the question was, does this administration, does this president, do they not understand we use the apache helicopters to keep the suez
canal open. although there were some that bought morrissey's lies that he was de-- morrissey's lies that he was -- morsi's lies that he was deweaponizing the sinai supposedly to avoid the threat from the sinai, after morsi was removed for his unconstitutional actions, not in a coup but an uprise a peaceful revolution by reportedly over 30 million of their 90 million people they found that the sinai had been dramatically weaponized. . and had been contributing weapons, equipment to gaza to help threaten and cause iirory -- terror to israel which brings back once again whether it's the
sinai gaza, northern israel that was given to lebanon, it seems that going back to the very inception of israel, back when israel was first brought, according to the bible, into the promised land. we know the land of can nan -- canaan. the canaanites no longer exist. other people claim it that are not canaanites. but actually the israelis have claim to it after the canaanites. others that occupied the land back over 3,000 years ago three don't exist. so this land that, according to the bible, was given to the children of israel, it seems to be true that there's never been
a time when israel gave away land trying to buy peace, that that land they gave away was not used as a staging area from which to attack it. gaza what a noble thing to do but the israelis. they took an area that was prosperous self-sustaining, greenhouses growing vegetables that would feed the people that lived there, an amazing place was the gaza strip. and then some noble israeli leaders thought, you know what it's not being required, we are getting absolutely nothing in return, but we are going to do the unilateral act that will be so noble, will be so full of grace that the world even those
who don't like us, will go wow. those israelis really -- they are ok. they're nice folks. they didn't get anything in return, and yet they still gave away the gaza strip. what a wonderful group of people. i mean that just doesn't happen. united states never gave back its land to england or spain or france or other countries. that initially had claims here. other countries don't do that. but israel did. they gave away the gaza strip. previous to that they had given away northern israel, now called southern lebanon southern lebanon people will recall, has
been the site of attacks on israelis, war. so how was this grace this ben neville sense -- baneff sense of israel of giving the gaza strip to the palestinians rewarded? it's been rewarded by them giving back to israel thousands upon thousands upon thousands of rockets some kill, all terrorize, all cost money to israel. but the most important problem they created is the threat to life, the threat to their existence, and we still have people in this country that say, well, if you just keep giving
away land, eventually they'll be satisfied. when the very materials that are being promoted by the people this administration supports, among the islamists, they make very clear the reason we name holidays, streets, areas, parks after suicide bombers that kill innocent children women men is because we ultimately are going to destroy israel and wipe it off the map. we hate jews that much. and this administration thinks somehow they will bring radical islam around to really being this group of peace. now a document that was an
exhibit in the united states versus the holy land foundation, in which there were many individuals and groups named as co-conspirators, they were not indicted but they were named as co-conspirators, and that includes a council on american islamic relations care, which has nice office building just up the street here, and islamic society of north america, the leader of which is imam majeed, who goes to the white house, goes to the state department, advises the president let them know when somebody is criticizing islam and so the administration steps in and goes after them. but this exhibit from the holy land foundation trial in which -- for the first -- it was the
biggest funding of terrorism case ever in u.s. history and people that were involved originally had indicated the goal was to convict these first five, name all these co-conspirators, and if we get convictions of those first five, like we think we should, then we proceed and go after the remainder. so they were convicted in late 2008. president obama took office a month or two later, and this administration would under no circumstances go after these people that had been funding were alleged in the documents of funding radical islamic terrorism. even after the u.s. district court in dallas and the u.s. circuit court of appeals in new orleans confirmed that there was
plenty of evidence to support that someone like them, that they were legitimate co-conspirators named in the indictment and their names would not be removed. i have asked for years now of the justice department to make available the documents that were provided to the convicted terrorists. those funding terrorism are terrorists. and this administration now for years has drug their feet and refused to provide all of the documents that were provided to the terrorists. on occasion, the attorney general basically said, there are issues here of privilege and my point was, and is, you gave them to the terrorists,
surely you can give them to members of congress. but the answer is, no, they can't. they are going to keep obfuscating. they don't want us to see all of the documents they gave to the terrorists that they had in their possession. i have a feeling if we saw all of the documents, it would be very very clear that the purging this administration has done of our training materials of the f.b.i., of the intelligence agencies, state department, justice department that these training materials that have been purged of anything that might bother a radical islamist who wants to kill us, then it has to be removed. they removed them. but in the document from a 1991 meeting, it spells out in --
this is what's called an explanatory memorandum. it spells out their goals. it was written in 1991 by a member of the board of directors of the muslim brotherhood in north america and senior hamas leader. it had been approved by the brotherhood -- muslim brotherhood's council, an organizational conference, and was meant for internal review by the muslim brother leadership in egypt. it wasn't intended for public consumption. these are the words from this -- the introduction that's part of this document from the center for security policy. but, mr. speaker, i want to
quote from the document itself prepared by the muslim brotherhood in 1991, setting their goals for america. number one, the memorandum is derived from, these are their words, interpreted, number one, the general strategy goal of the -- strategic goal of the group in america which was approved by the council and organizational conference for the year 1987 is, quote enablement of islam in north america, meaning establishing an effective and stable islamic movement led by the muslim brotherhood which adopts muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observe vant muslim base. aims at unifying and directing muslim efforts presents islam as a civilization alternative and supports the global islamic state that name sounds
familiar, the islamic state wherever it is. number two the priority that is approved by the council for the work of the group in its current and former session which is settlement. skipping down, under item 2, in their words an introduction to the explanatory memorandum, says the question we are faced -- facing with -- facing is quote, how do you see -- how do you like to see the islam movement in north america in 10 years? unquote. or taking along the following sentence when planning and working, quote islamic work in north america in the year 2000, a strategic vision, unquote. goes on, also we must summon take along elements of the general strategic goal of the
group of north america which for those large number of people in college that may not realize, north america is where we live. the document says, it will intentionally repeat them in numbers. they are, number one establishing an effective and stable islamic movement led by the muslim brotherhood. number two, adopting muslims' causes domestically and globally. three expanding the observant muslim base. unifying muslim efforts. five, presenting islam as a civilization alternative, six supporting the establishment of the global islamic state wherever it is, the document says, it must be stressed that it has become clear and emphatically known that all is in agreement that we must settle or enable islam and its movement in this part of the world.
part three, the concept of settlement, the term was mentioned in the group's dictionary and documents with various meanings in spite of the fact that everyone meant one thing with it. we believe that the understanding of the essence is the same and we will attempt here to give the word and its meanings a practical explanation with a practical movement tone and not afill civically lynn quissic regulation while stressing this explanation of ours is not complete until our explanation of the process of settlement itself is understood which is mentioned in the following paragraph, we briefly say the following. . we briefly say the following. settlement, islam and its movement become part of the homeland it is in. establishment that islam on whose basis civilization
structure and testimony are built. further, -- further down, goes on islam being table in the -- stable in the land, that islam is resident or not a passing thing or rooted, entrenched in the spot where it moves. number four, the process of settlement, in order for islam and its movement to become a part of the homeland in which it lives, talking about north america stable in its land, rooted in the spirits and minds of its people, enabled in the life of its society and has firmly established organizations on which islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the movement must plan and struggle to achief the keys and tools of the process in carrying out this grand mission as a in quotes civilization
jihaddist responsibility, which lies on the shoulders of muslims and on top of them, the muslim brotherhood in this country talking about here in the united states, north america. and among these keys and tools are the following, goes on to talk about the settlement concept and the fundamental shift toward settlement of this country. number four is understanding the role of muslim brother in north america says the process of settlement is a, quote, civilization jihaddist process, unquote, with all the word means. anyway, it goes on and it's -- another place here it says, there's a conviction with which this memorandum disagrees that our focus in attempting to settle islam in this country will lead to negligence in our
duty toward the global islamic movement in supporting its project to establish the state. we believe that the reply is in two segments, one, the success of the movement in america, talking about the united states of america, the success of the movement in america in establishing an observe ant islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the best support and aid to the global movement project, and the second, is the global movement has not succeeded yet in distributing roles to its branches stating what is needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global islamic state. the day this happens, the children of the american equani branch will have far-reaching
impact and positions that make the ancestors proud system of it's a great document goal for taking over the united states. which brings another story to the surface. it's from bob price and that is from brite bart.com is -- from breitbart.com. islamic tribunal in texas attorney claims it's voluntary, it talks about the new islamic tribunal in texas that's been confirmed now by breitbart, texas, it's operating as a nonprofit in dallas. when you understand the goals, if there's a major defeat or major success then muslim brotherhood requires a mosque be
built there and a presence there. so naturally, they would want one in ground zero in new york and further they would want a mosque and a strong presence in dallas, which was, they believe, the place of their big defeat when the holy land foundation was -- principals were convicted and sent to prison. so i did want to point out as we finish up here today that the president was giving an excellent speech in india about the importance of stopping the global war on women. he didn't call it that. he only calls it that for republicans, but there is a war on women and it's not by republicans. it's radical islam and even some moderate islamists. so he's giving this talk about
the importance of recognizing the importance and the equality of women some of us might say, you know, they're more equal than we are but as he was doing that, this picture was on saudi television, we have our united states president here depicted and this is the first lady of the united states of america being blurred out by this country's allies because she wasn't covered. michelle obama should never need to be covered if she doesn't want to be. and yet at the very time our president is talking about equality of women, he fails to
notice that people that he considers allies are treating his own wife like this. mr. speaker, it is critical that we stand up against radical islam or any islam that wants a settlement civilization jihad in america. anything that -- and anybody who disagrees with the united states constitution and wants to destroy it tear it down, is an enemy to the united states and needs to be recognized as such and not welcomed with open arms at the state department and the white house. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: at this time i move we do now hereby adjourn.
do you have any role at all there? >> well, that role in terms of deportation, the role is initially handled by the department of homeland security. there is -- there are the immigration courts through which individuals can seek either asylum or redress from deportation orders that are handled by the department of justice, but that would be simply actually further along in the process. >> but that's part of the process? >> yes it is. >> if you could maybe give us an estimate what it would take to deport 11 million from your lane, call the department of justice and see what they say, i think it would be instructive to see to see what the bill
actually would be. now, do you think the national n.s.a. terrorist surveillance program is constitutional as it is today? >> i'm sorry. >> do you think the n.s.a. program, terrorist surveillance program that we have in effect today is constitutional? >> senator, i believe it's not only -- it's constitutional and effective, i know there are court challenges to it and certainly we will abide by those court regulations, but it's been a very effective tool. >> but you're ok with it from being constitutional from your viewpoint? >> certainly constitutional and effective. >> thank you. >> there are a lot of states legalizing marijuana for personal consumption. is it a crime at the federal level to possess marijuana? >> marijuana is still a criminal substance under federal law. and it is still a crime, not only to possess but to distribute under federal law. >> under the doctrine of
preemption, would the doctrine preempt states that are trying to legalize the substance? >> senator, i think you raise very important questions about the relation of the federal criminal system with the states and their ability to regulate criminal law that they also have as there is concurrent jurisdiction and in terms of matters in which citizens of various states have voted. with respect to the marijuana enforcement laws it is still the policy of the administration and certainly would be my policy if confirmed as attorney general to continue enforcing the marijuana laws, particularly with respect to the money laundering aspect of it. where we see the evidence that marijuana is as i've noticed in cases in my own district brings with it not only organized crime activity but great levels of violence. >> do you know a michelle, the d.a. administrator? >> she's the administrator of the drug enforcement administration. >> have you ever had a discussion with her about her views of legalizing marijuana? >> michelle and i have not had
that discussion, although we've spoke on a number of other issues. >> can you have that discussion and report back with me as to what the results were? >> certainly, senator. i look forward to speaking to not just ms. leonard but with you on this issue. >> august 29, 2013, deputy attorney general james m. cole advised all u.s. attorneys enforcing marijuana rules those that are in compliance with state laws would not be a priority of the d.o.j. did you get that memo? >> all u.s. attorneys received that memo. as did i. >> do you think that is a good policy? >> i believe that the deputy attorney general's policy seeks to try and work with state systems that have chosen to take admittedly a different approach from the federal government with respect to marijuana. and determine the most effective way to still pursue marijuana cases, consistent with the states and the choices that they have made. the deputy attorney general's policy, as i understood it and has been implemented, still
requires federal prosecutors to seek prosecution of marijuana cases, particularly where we have situations where children are at risk, where marijuana is crossing state lines particularly where you have marijuana being trafficked from a state that has chosen a legal framework into a state that has not chosen a legal framework and the attendant harms therein as well as those driving under the influence of this. a great concern, certainly, within the department and those of us that are looking at these issues is the availability of the he hadible products and the risk of those -- edible products and the risk of those falling into the hands of children and causing great harm there. >> if the state is intending to try to legalize personal consumption at a small level of marijuana, what would your advice be to that state? >> well, certainly i'm not sure if a state were to reach out to the department for its views, and i don't know if that's happened or what advice has been given but certainly i
believe the department would have an obligation to inform them of the current status of nauks laws and the department's position that the federal nauks -- narcotics laws would still be enforced by the department of justice. >> in 2006, you signed an ameekas brief supporting planned parenthood's support of partial birth abortion ban, is that correct? >> yes. although the brief that we signed was focused on the issue of the facial issues of the law and how it might impact the perception of law enforcement's discretion and independence. >> the only reason i mention that is if there is a republican president in the future and attorney general nominee takes an opposite view on an issue like abortion, i hope our friends on the other side will acknowledge it's ok to be an advocate for a cause,
as a lawyer. that doesn't disqualify you from serving. same-sex marriage, the courts are wrestling with this issue. >> sorry. >> same-sex marriage. this may go to the supreme court very soon. if the supreme court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, it violates the constitution to try to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that's clearly the law of the land unless there's a constitutional amendment to change it, what legal rationale will be in play that would prohibit polygamy? what's the legal difference between a state -- a ban on same-sex marriage being nonconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being constitutional? could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the constitution and the other not? >> well, senator, i have not been involved in the argument
or analysis of the cases that have gone before the supreme court. so -- and i'm not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. so i certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point in time, but i look forward to continuing the discussions with you. >> the senator from rhode island asks his questions. this would be my plan and you tell me if this will give you enough time. the rhode island senator, senator lee, and then senator klobuchar. that will take us to about 12:45. then i was thinking of coming back about 1:30. >> thank you senator. >> is that going to give you enough time? >> yes. thank you, senator. >> the senator from rhode island. >> thank you chairman. ms. lynch, welcome to the committee and congratulations on your nomination. i look forward to working with you on a considerable number of issues as we go forward. since there has been a significant amount of
commentary about the president's immigration measures, the ranking member has asked me to put into the record letters from law enforcement leaders in ohio, utah iowa, indiana and wisconsin supporting the president's policies and saying -- concluding, while the executive reforms improve a broken immigration system, they can achieve only a fraction of what can be accomplished by broad congressional action. we continue to recognize that what our broken system truly needs is a permanent legislative solution and urge congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation. there is a similar letter from the member organizations of the national task force and sexual and domestic violence and a similar statement, for the record of stan marek of texas, the president and c.e.o. of the marek family of companies.
if i ask unanimous consent that those be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> there's also been considerable commentary about attorney general holder in a hearing at which he does not have the opportunity to defend himself and it's my view that a significant amount of that commentary would not withstand his ability to defend himself if he were here. so let me say in response to that, there are legal arguments and policies that fall outside a particular political ideology. that does not make them outside the mainstream. and it does not politicize a department to make those arguments or pursue those policies. i'd argue, actually, it's the
effort to constrain the department within that ideology that would be politicizing. i'd further note as a former united states attorney that department that attorney general holder inherited was in a very grave state of disarray, and that's not just a matter of opinion. the office of legal counsel wrote opinions that were so bad, so ill-informed, so ill-cited to the case law it pertained when they were finally exposed to peer review they were ultimately rit dude and withdrawn by the previous -- ridiculed and withdrawn by the previous administration. we saw the witness of manipulating united states attorneys, and you are one, ms. lynch, that caused public rebellion among sitting u.s. attorneys at the time and drew in past u.s. attorneys appointed by both republican and democratic presidents. we were exposed to hiring
practices within the department that were on their face overtly political and had political litmus tests for hiring, first in the department's history. never gone that way before. and ultimately a series of issues as well as those led to the resignation of the attorney general of the united states. so it's easy to critique attorney general holder and blame him for politicizing the department but i think history's calm and dispassionate judgment will reflect the attorney general actually brought the department back from a place where it had been sadly politicized and i can say firsthand that a lot of my u.s. attorney colleagues, both from republican and democratic administrations, were very, very concerned about what was happening to the department back then. so i shouldn't waste the time of this hearing on that but with all the things that have been said about attorney general holder, without having him an opportunity to defend
and rebut, i wanted to say that. i think some of the areas we need to work together, ms. lynch, when you're confirmed which i hope you will be. senator graham raised the issue of cybersecurity. and he has been an extraordinarily helpful and forward-leaning member of the senate on protecting our country from the dangers of cyberattacks whether it's ordinary criminal activity or the theft of intellectual property wholesale on behalf of chinese industries or the really dangerous threat of laying in the cyber sabotage threats that can be detonated later on in the event of a conflict. i'm concerned about the structure within the department for handling cybersecurity at an investigative level. it spread across primarily at
the f.b.i., secondly secret service and to a degree homeland security. within the department it falls among both the criminal division and the national security division. and i hope that with the assistance of the office of management and budget, you and i and the officer of management and budget and other interested senators can continue a conversation about what the deployment of resources and structure should look like against the cybersecurity threat in the future. will you agree to participate in such a process? >> certainly, senator. i think you've outlined and important issue, and if confirmed as attorney general i look forward to working with you and all of the relevant partners on this committee and throughout congress in making sure that the department is best situated to handle this growing threat. >> there is considerable bipartisan legislation in the senate on the subject, and i hope it's one where we can get something serious accomplished in the months ahead. another area where there is
considerable bipartisan legislation is on sentencing reform. senator durbin mentioned his and senator lee's legislation that is at the front end of the sentencing end. senator cornyn and i have a almost parallel bill that relates to the end of the sentence. and how to encourage incarcerated people to get the type of job training, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, anger management mental health care family reconciliation, job training, whatever it is they need, so when they're put back into society they have a less chance of going back to a life of crime of resid vating as they say -- recidivism, as they say. i think we have very good legs and i hope that you and the department will be continue to be supportive of our efforts. >> certainly senator, i think you raised the next challenge
as we look at how to manage our prison population and crime. those who are released return to the communities which they game came and become productive citizens as opposed to returning to the prior behavior, criminal behavior that not only landed them in prison but creates new victims. and that is -- that will certainly be an important part of my focus within the eastern district of new york we have very strong participants in re entry programs that are sponsored at our colleagues at the brooklyn district attorney's office in one of the most difficult neighborhoods in my district, in brownsville. we work extensively with those re-entry efforts and those re-entry efforts work exactly as you said, in focusing on job training, in focusing on building skills so those coming out of prisons can become productive members of society as opposed to those that will continue to harm others in society. so you certainly have raised very important issues and i
look forward to continuing the discussion with you and people on this committee and throughout this body on those issues. >> thank you. another piece of legislation we'll be working on, thanks to the courtesy and care of our chairman senator grassley, is a re-authorization of the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act, which has been 12 years since the last re-authorization. and i appreciate very much that chairman has been willing to work on this and has made it one of the priorities for this committee. obviously the way in which juveniles are treated in our correction system, as they're detained, has been an important issue for the justice department and i would ask again, for your cooperation and active support of our process going forward to re-authorize the jjdpa. >> certainly senator. i think the way in which we handle juveniles within the criminal justice system is something that is of great concern to me in terms of both my practice in the eastern district of new york and also
talking to my colleagues the other u.s. attorneys across the country who face these issues. i believe it's certainly is incumbent upon all of us to look at the latest research on how juveniles develop and how they manage themselves in certain environments and always be open to reviewing those. i look forward to working with you and others in discussing that statute. >> in my last seconds, you and i have both have the experience of being united states attorneys and i both we have the experience of finding people who were targets of our criminal enforcement efforts who, if we look back in their past, might have avoided our attention had they managed their drug or alcohol addiction -- >> certainly. >> or gotten the mental health treatment they needed. and it's sort of a -- i guess it's almost -- it's a societal sorrow when somebody doesn't get the treatment they need and ends up in the criminal justice system and it's a great burden for the taxpayer. we have other legislation, the
comprehensive addiction recovery act, that i hope you will also work with us on to try to make sure that where we can intervene with appropriate addiction treatment and mental health treatment we can move people to more appropriate setting rather than burden the criminal justice system which is often an inappropriate response to their conduct and to their condition. >> certainly, senator. in my own district, our court has been very forward thinking and very effective in setting up diversion programs and pretrial opportunity program that has provided great support for people and enabled them to provide treatment and learn to become productive members of society and therefore escape being trapped into a spiral of criminal behavior and the results thereof. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you very much. and now senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, ms. lynch, for joining us today. thanks for your service to our country. i also appreciated our visit
recently when you came to my office and i'm grateful to you for your support for sentencing reform. the bipartisan legislation that i'm working on with senator durbin that he referenced a few minutes ago is important. and i appreciate your views on that as well. i want to speak with you briefly going back to prosecutorial discretion. as a former prosecutor, i'd assume you'd agree with me there are limits to prosecutorial discretion in a sense it's intended to be an exception to the rule and not swallow the rule itself, would you agree with me that far? >> certainly, sir, i believe in every instance every prosecutor has to make the best determination of the problems presented in their own area. in my case in my district and set priorities and within those priorities exercise discretion. >> right. and so prosecutors inevitably have limited resources and so it's understandable why they would choose when they've got to prioritize to perhaps put
more resources into punishing for example, bank robberies than they do into punishing pickpocketers and perhaps they'd put more resources into going after pickpocketers than going after people who exceed the speed limit. but at some point there are limits to this and that doesn't mean it would be ok that it would be a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion to issue permits for people to speed, right? >> certainly sir. i think if the prosecutor were to come to the view that they had to prioritize one crime over another you would always still want to retain the ability. even if it was an area that was not an immediate priority. if for example, it became one because a particular neighborhood was being victimized or, again, to use your issue of speeding, there were deaths resulting from that, you would want to have the still, if you could, take resources and focus on that
issue. it might not be the first priority but you would want to have the ability to go back and deal with that issue. >> and for that reason, prosecutorial authorities, law enforcement authorities typically don't go out and say, we're only going to punish you for a civil violation involving a traffic offense if you speed and then it results in an accident with injuries. they leave open the very real possibility and indeed the likelihood that someone can and will be brought to justice in one way or another for any civil violation they commit while speeding. >> well, certainly i can't speak to all law enforcement agencies. i know depending upon the agency, sometimes the priorities are known. sometimes they're expressed. every office has guidelines. certainly the law enforcement agencies are aware of certainly guidelines in terms of, for example, a dollar amount involving certain types of crimes. >> if someone went out and said i'm going to issue a permit to someone saying they may speed, they may go up to 100 miles an hour without receiving a
ticket that would -- unless that person were also in charge of making the law in that jurisdiction, that would be a usurppation? >> i am not able to respond to the hypothetical. it's something that a law enforcement would not be engaged in. without knowing more of the facts, i'm not able to respond to your hypothetical. >> ok. let's shift gears for a minute. do you agree that citizens and groups of citizens should not be targeted by government, should not be the recipients of adverse action by the government based on their exercise of their first amendment rights? >> certainly, i think that first amendment is one of the cornerstones of a free society. and i believe that our juris prudence has set out
protections for individuals as well as groups in the exercise of their first amendment rights to make sure they are protected and not targeted. i also would say that certainly , as a career prosecutor and u.s. attorney, there is really no place for bias or personal view in terms of how we approach the types of crimes that we pursue. >> and presumably you would say with the same with respect to someone's right under the fourth amendment or the fifth or sixth or seventh or eighth? under any of those protections, someone shouldn't be punished by government for exercising their rights under those provisions of the constitution? >> certainly, i believe there are safeguards in place to prevent that. i they we always certainly have to balance that with some -- with the possibility of an extreme situation in which we may have to move quickly, for example, to protect someone or there's an imminent threat therein. but i believe there are protections set up for that very purpose. >> second amendment rights as well, presumably, right, then? >> i believe certainly the
supreme court has set forth clarity on this issue and so therefore that regardless of the amendment that certainly that is a protected right. >> are you aware there is a program called operation choke point within the department of justice and that through this program the department of justice and some other federal law enforcement agencies have on some occasions put financial pressure on legal businesses, including hardworking americans who happen to be involved in the business of selling firearms and ammunition by essentially telling banks not to do business with them? >> i'm generally familiar with the name operation choke point, and my understanding of it with respect to the department of justice's current work -- again, i haven't been involved in either the implementation or the creation of it -- but my general understanding of it is, it looks to target financial institutions that are involved in perpetrating frauds upon
consumers and where there might be a financial institution that is facilitating, for example consumer bank accounts being looted or consumers essentially losing their bank accounts, that that's the target of that. again, i'm not familiar enough with the specifics of it to know about the underlying businesses that the transaction might have originated from. but that's my understanding of the program. >> ok. i assume it's safe to assume should you be confirmed you'll work with me to make sure that legitimate law-abiding citizens aren't targeted for their exercise of their second amendment rights. >> on that and any other issue of importance to you, senator, i look forward to hearing your concerns and working with you on them. >> thank you. thank you. want to talk about civil forfeiture for a minute. do you think it's fundamentally just and fair for the government to be able to seize property from a citizen without having to prove that the citizen was guilty of any crime
and based solely on a showing that there was probable cause to believe that property was in some way used in connection with a crime? >> senator, i believe that civil forfeiture, civil and criminal forfeiture are very important tools of the department of justice as well as our state and local counterparts through state laws in essentially managing or taking care of the first order of business which is to take the profit out of criminal activity. with respect to civil forfeiture, certainly as implemented by the department, it is done pursuant to supervision by a court. it is done pursuant to court order, and i believe that protections are there. what i will also -- sorry. >> what if you ask the average person on the street whether they thought the government could or should be able to do that? should the government be able to take your property absent showing you did anything wrong? thereafter requiring you as a condition for getting your property back, whether it's a bank account that's been seized
or frozen, whether it's a vehicle that's been seized, that you would have to go back and prove your innocence so you're guilty, in essence, until proven innocence at least guilty that your property is done, do you think your average citizen would be ok with that? >> i understand there's been a lot of discussion and concern over asset forfeiture as a program as expressed by a number of people. >> and particularly at the state level, such that some states have adopted in response to a pretty widespread citizen outcry laws significantly restricting the use of civil forfeiture proceedings for that very reason. which leads to why i raise this with you. it's my understanding that department of justice has in many instances been used as a conduit through which law
enforcement officials at the state and local level can circumvent state laws restricting the use of civil forfeiture within the state court system. in other words, where understand under the state courts -- state law established system, that kind of forfeiture is prohibited. people can go through the department of justice, the department of justice will take out a fee, maybe 20% of the value of the asset seize and those can be returned. it's a process known as adoption. don't you think most americans would find that concerning if the federal government is facilitating efforts to circumvent state laws that are designed to prohibit the very thing that they're doing? >> i think that a number of people would have questions about how the department of justice manages its asset forfeiture program, and my understanding is that those questions have been raised about vay your assets of it. my understanding is that the department is taking review of
the asset forfeiture program. and certainly as u.s. attorney, i'm aware of the fact that adoption program that you have just described, which did praise significant concerns from a number of parties, has actually been discontinued by the department. that's the guidance we have recently received with exceptions of items of danger, explosives the like. but it's part of an ongoing review of the asset forfeiture program. and certainly if i were confirmed, i look forward to continuing that review. i would also say senator, i look forward to continuing these discussions with you as you express concerns and interest on behalf of constituents or others as an important part of the department being as transparent as possible in explaining how it operates. asset forfeiture is a wonderful tool. we return money to victims. we take the property out of crime. as with everything we do, we want to make sure we're being responsive as possible to the people we are serving. >> thank you. i look forward to those additional discussions and i see my time has expired.
thank you very much. >> thank you. senator klobuchar. >> well, thank you very much. thank you so much to you. i understand i'm the only thing that stands between you and your lunch and this entire room and their lunch. so we will have a good 10 minutes here. your dad seemed to enjoy that. i think everyone knows you have an impressive resume and the one thing that has not been brought up -- it was something i read this weekend in the profile about you as i was thinking about this old saying we have in our household that obstacles on life's path are not just obstacles, they are the path. and no one represents that better than you, loretta lynch. when i read about the story of you scoring so well on a test in elementary school that they didn't believe that you'd taken that test and then you took it again and scored even higher. the obstacles are the path. or the time that you became the valedictorian of your class and the school officials said it would be too controversial if you were the only valedictorian
and so they added some other students to be valedictorian. i was thinking of all the senators in this building, we may have a few ville dick torians and i don't think that ever happened to them. so i thank you for your courage and your perseverance and your parent's cuverage and perseverance that brought you to us today. i was going to start with a question i know you touched on with senator. i -- we worked with some of the u.s. attorney's office. some of the attorneys you worked with, todd jones who is now head of our bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. and then also tom h ffelfinger, who was the u.s. attorney -- feffelfinger, who was the u.s. attorney under bush. and the work between the local prosecutors and the u.s. attorney's office, and i want to see if you could talk a
little bit more of how you would view that as attorney attorney, how your u.s. attorneys would work with local prosecutors. sometimes we would view the u.s. attorney's office to get the luxury to spend a lot of time on cases where we would be literally handling tens of thousands of cases coming to our doors. >> thank you senator. youing know that we need to get to know other u.s. attorneys, local prosecutors with whom we work so well. i'm so privileged in brooklyn to have a strong relationship with the district attorneys in my district and all -- in all five counties. into manhattan and into the bronx and beyond. we talk often about issues affecting our community. we talk often about issues affecting our entire district. i was privileged to be able to share, starting my prescription drug initiative with the
brooklyn district attorney's office and worked with district attorneys in nassau and suffolk county in dealing with prescription drug abuse which has spiked and led to violence and death. >> the stats lately are that four out of five of heroin users started with prescription drugs and then they turned to heroin. i think people are shocked by that. you see that connection with the heroin as well. >> we do because of the opioid. and we are seeing a resurgence in heroin not only in my district but unfortunately across the country. this problem like so many others are ones that must be dealt with in a cooperative and collaborative manner and i'm incredibly proud to say all of my united states attorneys colleagues take seriously the opportunity and the privilege to work with our state and local counterparts in crafting prescription drug initiatives heroin initiatives, along with our violent crime initiatives. we work closely with our state and local counterparts to
determine where is the best place for a case to be brought? we look at things like the type of sentence that can be achieved or the type of evidence that is admirable in the different proceedings and he we -- admissible in the different proceedings and we cannot have those discussions without building on a working relationship and it's been the hallmark of this community. should i be confirmed, i intend to draw upon the strength of my u.s. attorney colleagues as well as all of my state and local counterparts throughout the country. people who are at the ground zero of these problems often come up with the best solutions. they pull in the health care community. they pull in parents. they pull in community leaders and they come up with a solution that works that can often be replicated in other places. i've seen that happen with my u.s. attorney colleagues, particularly in the area of heroin abuse. and some of the initiatives that they are working on as well. so if confirmed as attorney general i intend to rely very
heavily on my prosecutorial colleagues. >> well, thank you very much for that answer. at some point i think we talked about this before, but senator cornyn and i did the drug takeback bill and we finally gotten the rules out from d.e.a. from that and we look forward to working with you on that. something else i would -- i think i'll talk to you later about your work in rwanda, the fact you've done some very important international work as well, but you've also done prosecution of international terrorists here at home. and what lessons have you taken from those cases? i tell you why this is important from home state perspective. as you know we have our u.s. attorneys office in minnesota indicted and successfully prosecuted a number of al shabaab members who had gone over to somalia. we also had the first person killed in syria fighting with isis was actually a minnesotan. and our u.s. attorney recently issued some indictments against others that have been recruited to fight over in syria. there's a pilot program that
justice department has involving three cities, l.a., boston and minneapolis-st. paul. there is going to be an extremism conference coming up. can you, one, talk about your experiences about these -- with these kind of cases and, two, how you think this pilot program should be fund? it's coming out of general funds. if you could support some kind of specific funding for the program. thank you. >> certainly talking on combating violent extremism, one of the most difficult things to see are young men and increasingly young women, many of them american citizens, who are turning to this radical brand of terror. and being recruited to go overseas and become trained and are being sent back to perpetrate threats against the homeland. and the sources of this and the reasons for this are debated and i think we need further discussion about that. but we must take steps to combat this. we must take steps to
understand the level of disaffection that these individuals are feeling with their current society. and also help them and their families understand the risks that they are facing. some of the most difficult conversations i have had have been when i had visited the mosques in my district and had frankly wonderful interaction with the participants there and wonderful interaction with the residents there. but we talked about violent extremism and i've talked to parents who have said to me, you know, i just don't understand why the government is targeting my youth. and we've had very frank discussions about how it's difficult for any parent to know what their children are seeing on the internet and how they are responding to what is being put forth on the internet and the harm that it does, not just to our society but also to those families. they lose their children. they absolutely lose them when they are sucked up by this radical extremism and only to
come back to be dealt with, as they will, by american justice. certainly with respect to the number of -- to the types of cases that my office has seen, we have seen individuals who have started off as relatively peaceful individuals from what we could tell but were dragged into radical extremism, did travel overseas, were recruited to then return to the u.s. and perpetrate attacks there. we've seen that on more than one occasion. >> and the funding, you're awrire of the pilot program we have going on in the twin cities stpwhr >> yes, a very important program given the problems that have imnated from that community and how the devastation that it has essentially wrought within those families and those communities. certainly i look forward to working with you on finding the most effective way to fund those programs because they have a lot to teach all of us working on this issue.
>> thank you. the last thing i want to talk about is sex trafficking and i know you've done an impressive job of prioritizing the investigation and the prosecution of trafficking cases. this is something senator cornyn and i, again, have a bill on sex trafficking which -- called the safe harbor bill, which is supported by a lot of the groups which creates incentives for states to enact laws which treat the victims of sex trafficking the children as true victims and not as perpetrators themselves. we think we can build better cases that way so people can testify those that are running the sex rings. can you talk about the -- your work in this area and how you view these safe harbor laws? >> certainly, i think these safe harbor laws are an essential next step in helping the victims of this horrible scourge. my office has been privileged to lead the way in prosecuting numerous individuals who have essentially tricked women
through lies deceit, also coercion and duress, even rape before they are brought to this country and forced to work here as sexual slaves. it's a tremendously degrading process to these women and one in which they find it difficult to escape because of either a language barrier or the fact that sadly, often, their children are being held in their home country to force them to behave and to force them to continue this activity. and certainly some of the work i am most proud of has been the efforts my office has undertaken with a number of the organizations that help victims of human trafficking and also with other governments to reunite these children with their mothers after the cases are over. >> thank you. and i also look forward to working with you. we have a number of domestic victims that i think 80% of the victims are actually from the u.s. as well. >> absolutely. >> especially when you get to the oil patch of north dakota and those kind of places where the u.s. attorney's office has played a role. so thank you very much. thank you for your grace under
pressure today. and i hope the chairman will let you get some lunch. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> is it ok for you? >> thank you, mr. chairman, for inquiring. >> we will now adjourn until 1:35. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> well, we've been showing you some comments and tweets from c-span viewers on the opening round of day one of the senate judiciary conference hearing for loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. the session running about three hours. they started at 10:00 eastern and you may have heard the chairman, chuck grassley, saying they're taking a lurching break until 1:35 eastern. want to let you know that our live coverage will continue here on c-span and on c-span radio. also want to let you know that the next couple minutes we'll get you a chance to see some of the opening comments from loretta lynch. our coverage this morning was c-span3 and perhaps c-span viewers didn't get a chance to see that. we'll let you see that as well.
all of this will reair later tonight. we're not sure when the committee will gavel out. all of it will reair here on c-span. as you can see on your screen, those of you on c-span radio, we opened up our phone lines for you as well. for democrats it's 202-748-8920. republicans 202-748-8921. and for independents and all others 202-748-8922. just to let you know we'll get to your calls in just a little bit so do call in. we want to show you some comments from loretta lynch. and as you saw, we're taking comments on twitter. the hashtag is c-spanchat. and also facebook.com/cspan. what should the priorities be for the next attorney general? we had comments here on facebook.
and we'll look for more as well as the lunch break continue. some tweets coming out of the hearing a bit ago. this is a tweet if you're following the hearing today. this is from chuck grassley and he tweeted out, judiciary committee hearing with attorney general nominee lynch moving right along. we must finish even if we go into the evening. it looks like chuck schumer is coming to the microphones. we'll take it to you live here on c-span. >> ok. i think loretta lynch just did an amazingly fine job. the reason that she has been such a great u.s. attorney, the reason that she has such an impeccable record and why she should make a great attorney general was very apparent during her three hours of her testimony, her answering of questions. i really don't think anyone laid a glove on her.
she basically was so good, she just knocked it out of the park. she handled all of the questions with respect and she handled them forth rightly and i think at least as far as this morning goes, it bodes very, very well for ms. lynch's confirmation. >> do you have any sense republicans would delay her nomination? >> i would hope republicans would not delay her nomination. this is one of the premiere terrorism fighting positions in the united states, in the world, and to have -- to delay her coming in would be a disservice. after this morning, i don't see any reason why they would delay. >> what do you have to say about duke university stipulating fraud -- >> i'm not familiar with the case. >> there's sort of an element of stalking horse here that
republicans were trying to put eric holder -- >> well, it's loretta lynch -- it's loretta lynch who is being nominated for attorney general. and these attempts to say that, well this is a hearing about eric holder, barack obama or a whole myriad of issues which she's had nothing to do with i don't think is going to fly. particularly given her strength and given how good she was i think that the republicans who answered questions sort of saw that she's so good and i think they understood they weren't going to really lay a glove on her. ok. >> senator schumer -- >> judiciary committee member chuck schumer who introduced the nominee, loretta lynch,
along with the other senator gillibrand opening up the hearing today and he mentioned the timetable, was asked about the timetable, hoping that republicans advance the nomination quickly. "the new york times" said it could be weeks she could be confirmed by the whole senate because the senate schedule could be, according to "the new york times" perhaps as late as march, they say. so we're keeping an eye on other comments that may come out of today's hearing. and looking for your comments as well and get to those shortly. in fact, a couple of comments on facebook. your priorities for the next attorney general. here's one from jeff who writes about our vote is sacred to us and sanctity of that vote must be protected. we'll get to your calls in just a bit. we wanted to show you the opening comments this morning, the opening statement and the welcoming of her guests from the nominee, loretta lynch. >> would you take an oath,
please? would you raise your hand and i'll give you the oath. do you affirm that the testimony you're 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 it's an honor for all of us to have you before us, but it's also an honor for you to be selected by the president and it's 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 there's people that aren't introduced by you that you would like to have their name in the record and you'd submit their names, i'd be glad to include that in the record. so would you proceed as you choose?
yeah, i think the microphone -- it's not automatic. >> thank you, senator. let me introduce for the record, i'm delighted to welcome numerous family and friends here with me today. i'd like to introduce first and foremost my father, the source of my inspiration in so many ways. he's to my immediate left, the reverend lorenzo lynch. next to him is my husband who has supported me in my endeavors no matter how poor they make us. . immediately to his left is my younger brother, the reverend leon lynch who is the fifth generation of ministers in a direct line in my family. and my sister-in-law nicole lynch. i'm also here with several other family members and friends whom i would love to introduce but i am informed you have a schedule for the afternoon. will i keep to that. 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 i'm honored to be here -- to appear before you in this historic chamber. 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. it's a particular privilege to be joined here today by the members of my family that i have introduced as well as the other numerous family and friends who have come to support me and who -- whose travel and service i'm 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 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. as i stand -- as they stand before me prepared to pledge their honor and 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 devoted my professional life. senators, if confirmed as attorney general i pledge to you today and the american people that the constitution, the bedrock of our system of justice, will be my lodestar as i exercise the power and 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 brother, 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 molesting -- pressing a dime or quarter into her hands to help support her college education. as a young woman, she refused to use segregated rest rooms for 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 1960's opened his greensboro church to those planning sit-ins 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. from my parents i gained the tenacity and resolve to take on violent criminals, to confront political corruption, and 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. leaving an exceptional office staffed by outstanding public servants and their values guide and motivate me even today. senators, 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 america's 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 today's 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 city's 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. 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 to effectively prevent ever evolving attacks in cyberspace, to expose wrongdoers and bring those perpetrators to justice as well. in my current position, i'm proud to lead an office that has significant experience prosecuting complex international cybercrime, 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 department as criminal and national security divisions and the united states attorney community to defeat and hold
accountable those who would imperil the safety and security of our citizens through cybercrime. i will also do everything i can to ensure that we are safeguarding 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 callously targeted hardworking americans including the death, the elled -- deaf, elderly, and stolen not just their trust but hard-earned 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 department's 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 prosecute gror -- prosecutor, it has been my single 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 tensions 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 ravished 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 contry, and for generations to come. my father, that young minister
who carried me on his shoulders has answered that call. as has my mother, the 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 with -- to support me today. and my older brother, a navy seal, 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 father's shoulders, as well as on the shoulders of all of those who have gone before me and dreamed of making the promise of america a reality for all and work to achieve that goal. i believe in the promise of america because i have lived the promise of america. and if confirmed 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 who -- whose sacrifices have made us free. 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. >> thank you ms. lynch, for that statement. >> president obama's attorney general nominee loretta lynch, and the opening statement on the first day of what is expected to be two days of confirmation hearings. though she's not likely to be at
tomorrow's session. and the committee right now is in a lunch break for the next 25 minutes or so, according to the chairman, chuck grassley. they should gavel back in at about 1:35 eastern and our live coverage will continue here on c-span. and on c-span radio. just to let you know, too, if you missed any of this morning, you'll find it online at c-span.org either the entire thing or bits and pieces of it. you can go there and watch for yourself. again a reminder on the phone numbers, get your calls 202-748-8920 for democrats 202-748-8921 for republicans. independents and others, 202-748-8922. please make sure you mute your television or radio when you call in. let's go first to shirley in memphis. thanks for waiting. go ahead with your comments. caller: thank you. i am just so proud of her. i'm so proud and i pray that they go on and appoint her because i don't feel like they
can bully her. i don't feel like -- i just want to make one more comment to all the ones, when they stand up and say government is too big, they need to think about that and everybody that say government too big should realize, that's who -- if had he want to make it better bough out and let everybody like loretta lynch who want to help this place that we live in, not just black place or white place, but a place where we can come together and make things a better nation. that's all i want to say. thank you. host: take your calls, looking at video from earlier. next to lacy in kimble, west virginia. republican line. caller: miss lynch has put up a good talk. i would like to see if she's going to stand by her conviction and start prosecuting some of the people that we have in our
leadership to this day. we've got a lot of stuff that you can be looked at as treason and just the law enforcement itself law enforcement is great. we need to support them when we can. we've had the f.b.i. we've had targets here in this country that are terrorist, but we can't get our leadership to it call it what it is. so if we can start dealing with the terrorists in our own country. other than that, i want to thank you for allowing me to speak. host: thanks for your comment. we welcome your comments on facebook. facebook.com/c spafment. on twitter the #is c-spanchat. loretta lynn if she's confirmed will be the first african-american woman to serve as attorney general. "the washington post" writes she
would be the first u.s. attorney appointed as attorney general since 1817 going back almost 200 years. next up is covington, georgia,ished pent line -- independent line. joe, welcome. covington, georgia. go ahead. joe, are you there? you're on the air. caller: i'm here. do you hear me? host: go ahead with your comment. caller: yeah. i'm curious if anybody is going to ask this woman if -- what she feels about too big to jail with these major banks that have paid billions of dollars in fines for laundering drug money and for manipulating the money markets. a lot of people doing time in jail for laundering drug money. that's a major crime. yet these banks have paid billions of dollars in fines, yet nobody's gone to jail.
i think that's a project that will tell us whether she's for real or if she's just another one of the usual prospects. host: we are seeing video from earlier today of loretta lynch, the nominee, speaking to the senate judiciary committee. again they are in the lunch break. we expect them back in about 25 -- 20 minutes or so. 1:35 eastern. on twitter the #is c-spanchat. here's a comment from laura who says that can the white house stay out of the attorney general office long enough for loretta lynch to do the job independently? also from anna who says she has the fortitude and strength to lead. she's a ford midible u.s. attorney with a solid understanding of the law. my hero. deborah says, loretta lynch, lot of pretty words but evades direct answers. she has no passion following the law, constitution. to california, it's don on our g.o.p. line. hello.
caller: yes, i'm hoping that they confirm her fast, here's why. we suffered for six years under an attorney general, eric holder, who is an incompetent racist who prosecutes cases through ideology and political partisanship first, rule of law second. and i think loretta lynch is just a better person. and there's only less than two years left in obama's presidency anyway. i don't see where she can do that much damage even if obama uses her like he uses eric holder. i want eric holder out of there. that's my main thing. host: all right, don. the chairman of the committee, chuck grassley, will be our guest tomorrow morning on "washington journal." you get a chance to speak to him directly. 7:45 eastern. that's live here on c-span and c-span radio. just a reminder, a second day of testimony tomorrow. witnesses in support of and opposition to the nominee loretta lynch. we'll have all of that beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow.
here on c-span and on c-span radio. earlier today up on capitol hill, just before the hearing, we had a c-span producer outside the hearing room talking to people who were waiting in line to get in to be part of the audience. here's a look. >> i am here to provide support for loretta lynch. she has been a professional mentor of mine. she was a charter member of my sorority at harvard college. i have gotten to know her both personally and professionally. and would love to continue to see her grow professionally and leave the department of just -- lead the department of justice at a historic moment being she will be the first african-american female attorney general of the united states. she will continue, i think to lead the path and lead the way in immigration reform and the policing reform and issues the department of justice handles. certainly my organization delta
theta sorority incorporated, we'll stand behind her and need to support her in her professional career. i have been to several hearings. i'm currently a senior council with the leadership conference. in my professional capacity i do attend and provide support policy, and legal support for a number of hearings. including labor employment, surface transportation. as i mentioned before is a critical piece of the work that loretta lynch will be handling at the helm. >> thank you so much. host: hearing expected to resume in about 15 minutes at 1:35 eastern. the nominee getting a lot of support from fellow members of her sorority, delta sigma theta. she was a charter member at harvard. a tweet from congresswoman joyce beatty of ohio. more from today's loretta lynch a.g. nomination hearing. congresswoman beatty and a number of other women dressed in red. the color of the sorority. miami next, miami florida. howard on our others line.
go ahead. caller: hi, there. first i want to just say i was terribly impressed by ms. lynch. she seems to be incredibly accomplished smart. i thought she handled senator lee's attempt to box her into position, that would be inconsistent with president obama's exercise and some of his executive orders which she very definitely avoided. i think one of the most important things that she should turn her attention to is restoring the voting rights of people of this country. with all of the voter i.d. laws and laws suppressing the ability of organizations like the league of women voters to register new people, and the attempts not attempts but by the ongoing efforts to restrict people's physical ability to vote by eliminating presinkets -- precincts and shortening voting
hours, all those things in effect i think should be unconstitutional as a denial of due process or equal protection of the law. some basis. it should just not be legal to potentially -- intentionally deprive people by whatever means to vote. i hope she would turn her attention to that and hope there would be some basis for establishing uniform rules. the problem is that this congress -- the republicans are never going to go along with anything as demonstrated by their history. the senate has filibustered 500-plus times and the house doesn't even take anything up for consideration. host: comment on twitter agrees with howard there in miami about senator lee. this one says that senator mike lee should have just left it at i am just here so i don't get fined. your comments welcomed a c-spanchat. greenwood, arkansas. edint on our democrats line. -- edith on our democrats line. caller: hello. host: you're on the air.
caller: yes. thank you. my comment is that i am so impressed with loretta lynch. they should just go ahead and confirm her. i also want to say that i hope she do enforce the election laws whereas the g.o.p. is enforcing people to have i.d., i was deposed for 12 years and i can honestly tell you you can have an i.d. or you cannot have an i.d., no one, i mean no one can commit fraud unless the precinct workers allow them to. people need to start that conversation. it's just stuff to go around imposing voter i.d. laws on people which doesn't make any
difference whether they have it or don't have it. because the one they should be keeping the eye on is the precinct workers. not the voters. that is old obsolete news. host: on the issue of voting rights among a myriad of issues that came up in the morning session, marijuana national security cybersecurity. more to come as the committee gavels back in at 1:35 eastern, according to the chairman. a look at the front page of politico. they have a picture of the nominee this morning at the hearing. john bresnahan writing in preparing about, this the whomee quietly spent two to three days per week in washington since obama nominated her in november. attending issue briefings and murder boards with justice department and white house officials to prepare for her hearings. let's go to jan who is in california. republican line. caller: thank you very much. there is a lot of emphasis on
loretta lynn who would be the first black woman as attorney general. i think that's wonderful. that does not bother me. but she states, quote, gtmo is illegal. which worries me very much because it is exactly the president's stance on gtmo. and i worry that she will just become another puppet of president obama. thank you. host: thanks for your call. more of your calls coming up. wanted to show you some of the comments, the back and forth with senator jeff sessions of alabama who asked about illegal immigrants undocumented immigrants coming to the united states. here's a look at that. >> do you believe that a person who enters the country unlawfully that is perhaps used false documents or otherwise entered here, has a civil right to citizenship? >> senator, i'm not familiar with the context of those comments, i certainly think that 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 -- >> i don't want to interrupt you. the question is, do you agree with that statement? that it's a matter of civil rights and citizenship and work authority, a right to work in america, for someone who enters the country unlawfully? that's a civil right? >> senator, i haven't studied the issue enough to come to 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 something that will be decided on a case by case basis. >> i'd just like to hear you answer that. is a civil right for a person who enters the country unlawfully, who would like to work and like to be a citizen, to demand that contrary to the laws of the united states? when congress doesn't pass it is that a right that they are
entitled to demand? >> i don't think -- i think the citizenship is a privilege, certainly it's a right for those of us born here. i think it's a privilege that has to be earned. and within the panoply of civil rights recognized by our jurisprudence now, i don't see one such that you are describing. >> i certainly agree. i'm a little surprised it took you that long. but the attorney general statement was breathtaking to me. peter, a member of the us us commission on civil rights, responded to that some time ago and here's what he said. quote, to equate amnesty for breaking the nation's immigration laws with civil rights portrays an incoherent and ahistorical understanding of the civil rights movement. law-abidinging -- law-abiding black citizens of the united states were not seeksing exemption from law, they were seeking application of such laws and the same manner that was applied to whites.
close quote. would you agree with his analysis? >> certainly i think with respect to the civil rights movement and the role of african-americans in it, it certainly was a movement designed to assure oak wall -- equal access to law. >> on the 50th anniversary of the selma march, people were denied sit tell matically fundamental rights as citizens of the -- systematically fundamental rights as citizens of the united states of america. that was a historic at event. it changed america, and i think it's important that be remembered. i will just tell you, it's quite different as i think he pointed out 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. host: that's jeff sessions, republican of alabama. we expect the committee to gavel back in in under 10 minutes. a live look here. 1:35 eastern, the expected time.
a couple of comments on facebook we have been asking all day your priorities for the attorney general, the next attorney general. emanuel says, going after the banksters. thomas says in the u.s.a. we need to work on human rights, giving blacks a fair shake, paying farmer workers properly. ron says, cut from the same political cloth as holder. referring to the nominee loretta lynch. floyd says prosecute those who committed treason by lying us into iraq. your comments welcome. facebook.com/c-span. clayton, north carolina next up. jo ann on our democrats line. caller: hi. i was calling in because eric holder, the attorney general, he didn't help me at all because i had a situation where i contact his office and i'm glad of -- kind of glad that loretta lynch is coming in tonight new nominee. i had an officer in north carolina, sergeant barn, i was going to get my medicine from
crfs one night, i had to call police because there was an altercation between i and the woman. she started screaming race and all this other stuff. i called the police to help me. when i walked up to the police officer, sergeant barn halled off and hit me. that was my reason for contacting eric holder. he never done anything. then i had jim in greenville north carolina, i contacted the police department and nobody done anything. this happened february 14, 2014. and i'm still having trouble trying to prosecute this police officer for putting his hands on me. host: the local authorities in north carolina couldn't help you out, either? >> they would not help me out either. i tried to put a charge on this man. i contacted all the officials that i usually contact. i'm not having any kind of help. host: thank you for your call. the nominee, loretta lynch, prosecuted perhaps one of the most famous police brutality
cases, the 1999 case of the sodomizing of the haitian immigrant abner in new york city. in her first term and u.s. attorney there in the eastern district. here horace in manchester, hard money hard money. republican caller. caller: -- new hampshire. republican caller. caller: i think she's a breath of fresh air and it's time we have someone like her. someone who is going to follow our constitution. host: what makes her a breath of fresh air? caller: well she talks -- the way she talks, she talks in a way that you can believe what she's saying. host: all right. your calls coming up. we want to share more of your comments we got earlier this morning outside the hearing room from those waiting in line. you heard the nominee introduce some of her family. more of her family was waiting in that line. >> standing in line here for this hearing. tell us about it. >> this is a tremendous honor.
not only for our family, but also for a african-american race that she's been recommended and nominated for this important position. we think it's going to be really super. we are going to try to support her. >> you're a cousin? >> i'm a cousin to her. clinton lynch. we grew up in north carolina. she was very studious. and went on to harvard. so we are very, very proud of her. host: senate judiciary committee expected back in in a couple minutes. 1:35 eastern or so. live coverage here on c-span and c-span radio. all of this will reair tonight on c-span. and another round of testimony tomorrow beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. back to calls. california don's on the independent line. caller: hi. i haven't heard a lot of the
questioning and so on, i did hear some of your repriests and stuff. i wanted to make a more general point. we are very dependent upon verbal truthfulness and how we can trust these people. all this stuff is taking place. it's a bunch of verbiage. how do i know i can believe anything this administration says when they lied to us so many times and they also stick together with ideological purity. this lady is probably going to have the same problem. she's going to follow the black racist attitude of the attorney general right now. he doesn't prosecute black people. he enters in a bias fashion to interject himself in problems like in that ferguson. he interjects himself and he puts people on one side.
host: do you think there's a role for the attorney general no matter his or her race in terms of the issues of police violence in local -- caller: what is the role of race? how many black people are calling up are supporting her simply because she's black? i'd like to know that question answered. host: don, we go to portland, oregon. dorothy on our democrats line. caller: yes. thank you for accepting my call. you know, i think loretta is a real breath of fresh air and i know that sounds repetitious, but i think this thing of race i think she's one of those rare people that you can just drop the race thing. this woman is for the law. she's for what's right. she loves her country. and she has a sense of justice and fairness about her that's a whole -- that the whole country is begging for. now that she's here and she's before us, the republicans have
divided the country racially so horribly until most people are not able to see that. so my prayers are with her and the lynch family and for our country because she is one of those -- one of our best and we need her at this point in time. thank you. host: the former chairman, patrick leahy, there speaking with congressional staff. the hearing should get back under way shortly. members and members of the committee and staff and audience members drift back in as well. and we had a chance to speak to some of those audience members earlier today and find out more about why they attempted. >> it i went to school with her mother and father in north carolina. i'm also here because i'm a member of delta sigma theta which is the same sorority that she belongs to. when i saw in the newspaper and i heard that she was being confirmed today, i figured it
was important for me to get here and to be a part of this. host: in just a couple minutes the senate judiciary committee will gavel back in. we'll have live coverage. we'll stay here with live coverage here on c-span and c-span radio as well. and all of this will reair tonight, all of today's session will reair tonight on c-span. we expect at about 8:00 eastern but as chairman grassley has indicated, we must finish even if it means going into the evening. push it a little later than we thought. it will be here on c-span and on c-span radio as well. and coverage tomorrow, too, beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span and c-span radio. we continue to welcome your comments on social media, facebook.com/c spafment. and on twitter hash tag is c-spanchat. one more call from albany georgia. others line.
go ahead. caller: well, i believe that they should go ahead and confirm her. because this is president obama's cabinet. and this is the people that he wants. so they should go ahead and confirm her and then the american people can judge whether they want this type of presidency and this type of candidate or not. and they can accept it or reject it. because every president has the right to have the people he wants surrounding him. and that's what we have to judge. i don't think she's the best person i think she's clouded with racism. i'm sorry to say that. i'm sorry. i just believe that we need to be for all people not just a
a woo welcome back, ms. lynch. hope you're ready to continue. >> thank you senator. >> according to the seniority arrangements we are doing, senator cruz of texas is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, ms. lynch. >> good afternoon, senator. >> congratulations on your nomination. congratulations to your family who i know are justifiably proud of you for being nominated. >> thank you, sir. >> i'll note a number of my friends and colleagues who practice law in new york have reached out to me with words of praise for you. describing your tenure as u.s. attorney there and that of a no nonsense prosecutor and as a u.s. attorney who honored and respected the law. and so for that i congratulate you.
you began your remarks by describing how with new attorneys in your office you remind them that they take an oath not to the attorney general but to the constitution. that same thing is true for the attorney general of the united states. and i have long expressed my very deep concerns with the conduct of the current attorney general, eric holder. the toirge -- attorney general has a long and distinguished history, a bipartisan history, of being willing to stand up to the presidents who appointed them. attorneys general in both parties have demonstrated fidelity to law and the constitution even when it meant telling the president of their own party no. that is never easy to do. but part of what's made the department of justice special is that attorneys general, both
democrat and republican, have honored that commitment, as you noted to your young lawyers, to the constitution not to the president who has appointed me. my single greatest concern with the tenure of attorney general eric holder is that i do not believe he's upheld that tradition. i believe the department of justice has behaved more like a partisan operation for the president than an impartial law enforcement agency. so i want to ask you at the outset the simple question, if confirmed, how would your tenure as attorney general differ from that of eric holder's? >> senator i think you have raised an important issue of the role of the attorney general. as we discussed, it is an incredibly important cabinet member, but the attorney general is a cabinet member he unlike other cabinet members in that
the obligation of the attorney general is first and foremost to represent the american people. to protect and defend the constitution, and to faithfully execute the laws as passed by this body. interacting with the white house or any agency, if confirmed as attorney general, i would do so in the manner in which i conducted myself as united states attorney, with the full and fair evaluation of every matter brought before me, with a full and fair review of all of the relevant laws, with discussion with career prosecutors, as well as even the most junior people whom i have found often have the best insight into matters. and only then will i make the determination as to the step to be taken. going forward, every attorney general creates their own path. you asked how i will be different from eric holder. i will be loretta lynch. i will be the person i have always been as i have lead my office through two terms as united states attorney, focusing solely on the protection of the people of my district. and if confirmed as attorney general, on the protection of all of the american people.
one thing i do wish to say, senator, is that with respect to the issue that you raised, i greatly appreciate your sharing them with me both now and during the discussion we had in your office. i look forward to more discussions with you and your colleagues, and i want to pledge to you now that i will always listen to your concerns. i will consult with this body where appropriate because there is a great collective wisdom here and experience, both prosecute torial and legal, and i look forward to having a dialogue with you and crafting a positive relationship, not just with this committee but with congress. >> ms. lynch, i thank you for that. that commitment is welcomed. and would mark a sharp break from the practices of the current department of justice, one of the frustrations of a number of members of this committee is that the department has not been responsive to this committee's requests and indeed that -- were that to change, that would be highly welcomed. let me focus on one and if time
allows two specific areas where i believe the department has gone with partisan politics instead of upholding the law. let's start with immigration, which has been a topic of much discussion already. you mentioned in your opening statement that you had now taken the opportunity to review carefully the o.l.c. opinion on the president's executive amnesty. do you agree with the illegal analysis in the o.l.c. opinion? >> i have had occasion to review the o.l.c. opinion that dealt with the department of homeland security's request for legal framework in how to prioritize removal of certain undocumented immigrants, really all the undocumented immigrants under their jurisdiction. i did not see a grant of amnesty there or pathway to citizenship. certainly as i reviewed the opinion as well as the letters from scholars who wrote in support of it, it seemed to be a way to look for the legal framework based upon case law,
precedent, prior action of congress as well as the discretionary authority of the department of homeland security to prioritize this removal. certainly placing those most dangerous of the undocumented immigrants at the top of that list seemed to me to be a very reasonable exercise. i would want to hope -- i would hope that the protection of those communities where undocumented immigrants involved in vie hadn't crime, gang activity terrorism, would be at the top of the list. >> ms. lynch, you said now and before in your opening statement that you found the legal analysis reasonable. o.l.c. operates in the place of the attorney general of the united states. an o.l.c. opinion operates as the legal judgment of the attorney general as the chief legal officer for the united states. so my question is quite simply do you agree with the legal analysis in that memorandum? would it have been your legal
analysis had you been asked the same question? >> senator, certainly i'm not able to say at this point what my -- if my legal analysis would have taken the same pathway and same steps because i have not reviewed all of the cases and reviewed all of the memorandum that i'm sure went in to that. but what i can say again as the opinion seeks to talk about the exercise of executive discretion, it seemed to be looking at precedent, actions of congress as well as the immigration laws to see if there was a legal framework for the requested actions. what i noted was that for some of the actions the office of legal counsel found there was a legal framework for some of the actions that the department of homeland security wanted to set in place. but for some of the requested actions the office of legal counsel found there was not the appropriate legal framework for some of those actions and instead, my understanding, advised the department of homeland security that they should not proceed along certain ways. my understanding is that that
advice was taken. i do believe that the office of legal counsel has the important obligation to look at the law, look at the facts, look at the action that is being brought before it, and say where there is an appropriate legal framework, as well as there is not an appropriate legal framework. >> ms. lynch, i would note that i twice asked you if you agree with the analysis. you are a very talented lawyer. i suspect it's not an accident that twice you have not answered that question. you have described what o.l.c. did but not given a simple answer. do you agree with that analysis or not. >> senator, i told you i did find the analysis to be reasonable. i did find it to recognize the issues. and it did seem to provide a reasonable basis. >> in 2011, before the last election president obama said, quote, with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the
books that congress has passed. do you agree with what president obama said in 2011? >> senator i don't know what legal opinion he was relying on at the time. certainly the subsequent legal opinion talks about the temporary deferral of deportation in a way that does provide a legal framework for it, but i don't know if the president was speaking of this exact same issue or not. i simply couldn't provide a legal opinion about the president's comments at this time. >> now, the executive action, in my view, the o.l.c. opinion has no legal basis whatsoever. it hinges upon the notion of prosecutorial discretion, and you rightly described how any prosecutor will prioritize some cases over others for example focusing on more violent criminals. in your office as u.s. attorney you certainly exercised prosecutorial discretion. was it your practice for any category of crimes to suggest to
those who may have violated the criminal laws they can come into your office and seek a written authorization exonerating them of their past crimes and authorizing them to continue carrying out crimes for a large categorical group of offenders? >> senator, we would not have that type of direct dealing with offenders. they would come to our attention as part of an investigation or part of an issue where they would already be under suspicion of some sort of wrongdoing. we would not have that type of discussion with someone who might be represented or might have other rights, we would not have that type of discussion with someone. >> that's not anything you ever did. >> no. we do have priorities within my office. we do have guidelines within my office. those are shared with our law enforcement colleagues. we also share them with many of our state and local colleagues as we discuss where to best place certain types of cases. >> thank you very much. we'll continue. >> senator franken.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on being the chairman. >> i'm glad to be chairman. i can tell you that. >> i know you are. ms. lynch congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you senator. >> it was great meeting with you. your reputation for smart and tough precedes you and you didn't disappointment in our meeting. thank you for the wide ranging conversation -- how was lunch? >> excellent, thank you, sir. >> enjoyed lunch? >> yes, sir. >> good. i want to -- i discussed a couple things, number of things when you were in my office, and i want to bring them up again. ones are our prison system. >> i'm sorry? >> our prison system. i want to talk about our prison system. we have united states has 5% of the world's population, 25% of the prison population.
i think one of the biggest problems is that we used our criminal justice system as a substitute for a well functioning mental health system. we have a lot of people in prison, in jails in this country who shouldn't be -- probably shouldn't be there. and who -- it's not serving anybody any purpose. we have young people with -- and others with mental illness who are in soltrarery confinement and just makes their -- soltrarery confinement and just makes their meant -- solitary confinement and just makes their mental health worse. what i want to do to address that is something called the justice mental health collaboration act. it's a re-authorization of my -- my mentally ill treatment act
which has been very bipartisan in the past and should be -- it is bipartisan. it's been carried by a republican in the house. i just want to ask you for your support as we go forward in making sure that our criminal justice system isn't -- not just wasting money, but wasting lives. and that you will work together with me on that. >> senator, i look forward to working together with you on that as well as other important issues i think you have highlighted one of the most important developments in criminal justice research and literature has been the ongoing research that has been done into the root causes of so many -- so much of our criminal activity. in particular where the mentally ill are involved, we continue to learn more and more about how that illness impacts them as
they make their way through the criminal justice system. and i look forward to taking advantage of that new knowledge with you and working with you on that and other important issues. >> some of this involves -- i don't know if you heard of crisis intervention training. but crisis intervention training is teaching both police on the ground, and corrections officials in prisons to recognize when they are seeing someone with a mental health problem. to deal with it in the correct way. >> certainly. certainly. i think the research has shown and certainly anyone with experience with a family member or friend who has a mental illness, knows that sometimes conditions may manifest themselves in ways that appear to be disruptive but are a reflection of the illness. >> what i'll be doing with this is doing mental health courts so that if a prosecutor an
arresting officer, and the defense attorney and the judge say this person belongs in a mental health court and not -- so they can be treated and not go to prison where it's going to enclosing up the prison system and make -- clog up the prison system and neighboring this person's position worse. then we'll do that. and also veterans courts. we have so many veterans that are coming back with invisible wounds. sometimes those invisible wounds will be medicated. by drugs or alcohol. and instead of going to the prison, maybe it's time -- we can go to veterans court. >> certainly, senator. i know some of my u.s. attorney cloogs have been instrumental in working on the concept of veterans courts in particular as part of the department's strong commitment to protecting all of the rights of veterans. you are so correct. we ask so much of our men and women in uniform and they come
back to us often different from how they left with wounds that we can see and wounds that we often cannot see. i believe we have an obligation to provide them the best treatment to thank them for their service to our country. >> fabulous. i look forward to working with you on that should you be confirmed. which i hope you will. let me move on to something kind of specific. i was chair and now will be ranking member of the privacy technology and the law subcommittee. there's a lot of technology out there that's new that we are learning about some unforeseen consequences of it. there's a thing called stalking apps. we discussed this. and incredible when i first did location privacy subcommittee hearing, my first hearing, i got some testimony from minnesota coalition for battered women,
and they told a story of a woman who had an abusive partner and she went to a county building in -- it was in st. louis county in northern minnesota, and while she was there on her phone, she got a text from her abuser, why are you in the county building? are you going to the domestic violence place? it scared her so much they took her to the courthouse to get to file an order against him. while she's there she gets from him saying why are you at the courthouse? are you getting a restraining order against me? it's terrified her. it turns out this is very common. now, d.o.j. does have the authority under existing wiretap laws to prosecute apps that allow people to listen to the victims' phone calls, intercept text mention or otherwise intercept content from victims'
phones. d.o.j. has prosecuted i-a pp developer who created an app. and i ask you continue to do that. but looking ahead, would you work with me, i have a bill to stop these things. to stop the marketing the -- manufacture of stocking apps. and also -- stalking apps. and also ask that d.o.j. keep data on this. the last real data we have on this is like from 2006. i don't know how much you keep up with technology, but since then a lot more people have these smart phones. this is a real problem. >> senator, you have outlined a very important issue as it relates to the victims of domestic violence or anyone who fears that someone that they thought was close to them might turn on them instead. certainly i look forward to working with you and keeping you apprised not only of the department's efforts and continued prosecution of these matters, but look at the statute
with you and provide whatever assistance we can. >> thank you. look forward to that as well. one last thing about two minutes, i am very concerned about the telecommunications industry consolidating and i'm specifically worried about comcast and -- the largest cable provider and the largest internet provider and third largers internet provider. this is just too big. they would have unprecedented power in the telecommunications industry. i have -- there's been a lot of comment on this, including my comment on this to the antitrust division. will you commit to reviewing the
serious concerns about the proposed comcast-time warner deal that i and so many others have raised and just do all that you can to ensure that the antitrust division is empowered to stand up to telecommunications giants likecome cast? if that's necessary? >> certainly, senator, the antitrust division plays an extremely important role in keeping our markets competitive and open for everyone. i look forward to learning more about this case, to reviewing those issues and making sure that all the concerns about this are brought to our attention so they can be dealt with by the antitrust division as we move forward. >> ok, then, i'll probably vote for you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator from minnesota.
now senator. >> thank you ms. lynch. appreciated hearing your life story, appreciated the meeting we had in my office a few months ago as well. i brought something up there and i'll brick it up again with regard to the border situation in arizona. we have had obviously ongoing problems with the border, we share a large border with mexico, but there have been some considerable successes. one of the successes in the last several years has been in the so-called yuma sector where we've seen apprehensions go from about 140,000 in fiscal year 2005 to about 6,000 last year. so considerable success. that contrasts with tucson sector which has seen a drop, i think because of the economy, we've seen a drop anyway, but not nearly as significant. there were about 87,000 apprehensions in the tucson
sector. one of the things that i think just about everybody attributes the success in the yuma sector to is something called operation streamlined and it allows so-called consequences program to be implemented where first-time crossers are met with consequences and it has -- it's pointed to by, certainly law enforcement organizations in yuma and along that sector and just about everyone else recognize it's been successful. the problem is, just last year, it looks like d.o.j. has said that they're no longer going to implement parts of that. and that for the -- and that first time offenders unless there's some other circumstance, they will not be prosecuted. what are the specifics of this new policy as you understand it with operation streamline? >> certainly senator, i've had the opportunity to know somewhat about this matter from my discussions with my colleagues,
the u.s. attorneys, not just along the arizona border but also in texas and california and they work hard every day to keep our borders safe and essentially to protect the people in their districts but also to deal with this ever-growing problem. i believe that again i'm not familiar with the current status of operation streamline but as it relates to first-time prosecutions of individuals, individuals are still being prosecuted. and to the extent that a first-time crosser would not be prosecuted they still would be subject to just pure removal without there being a criminal case involved. i believe that the issues in managing the program have had a great deal to do with resources particularly with the budget constraints that offices have found themselves under in recent years. but i can assure you, senator that the commitment to protect the border is strong, not only among u.s. attorneys who work on the border but throughout the u.s. attorney community and the department and would be one of my priorities also as attorney
general. >> i mentioned this is what distinguished the yuma sector from the others is the success with this program. if you're saying now it's a budget issue, why haven't we seen concern about the budget or those budget aspects? why hasn't d.o.j. come to congress and said, we are having issues here? and so in order to continue with this program, we're going to need additional funding. to your knowledge, has that happened? >> i'm not aware of what's gone into the specifics of the department's budget. i'm generally aware of the budget as it relates to u.s. attorneys generally but not the department as a whole or as it relates to specific programs i'm not able to provide that information to you. it's certainly something i would be working closely on should i be confirmed as attorney general. >> i'll put it this way, barring budget issues is this a program you're committed to or do you have other issues with it? >> it's a program i think has
been effective. there have been concerns raised about resources, about the way the program has been managed from the judiciary and others, we're always trying to be responsive to all the parties involved in these but with respect to the issue itself, i am certainly committed to work on that issue with you and members of the committee, be it through operation streamline or in an equally effective program. >> the record, we've not, to my knowledge, received any concerns about budget issues with regard to operation streamline. it seems to have been another decision that was made and i will be following up with you. we want to make sure that, you know, step back, i believe we need to do a lot with regard to immigration policy. i'm a sponsor of the comprehensive bill that went through the congress last -- two years ago, through the house -- i'm sorry, through the senate, didn't get through the house. this isn't all we need to do but it is a significant part of what
we need to do and arizonans have paid the price a disproportionate price for a long time for the federal government's failure to have a secure border. and so when we have programs like this that work and we see, you know, success in one sector, and everybody can point to that it's very disturbing when d.o.j. pulls back on that and we fear that yuma sector, as the economy kicks up again, crossings are more frequent, that we're going to have the same problems that we had a few years ago and that just, we can't go on with that. secretary johnson is in arizona or just visited arizona, visited the border, he's done that a few times. met with ranchers, with some of their concerns particularly in the tucson sector. and there's still a lot that needs to be done. it's going to require a real partnership between a lot of people to make sure that it works.
switching gears, some of my colleagues mentioned trade secrets and economic espionage, but just to focus specifically on the theft of trade secrets and foreign governments last may, the department of justice announced indictments of five chinese military hackers for foreign theft of trade secrets, and espionage among other crimes. when announcing these charge attorney general holder said the dcht will not tolerate actions that undermine the integrity of the free market this case will serve as a wakeup call to the seriousness of ongoing cyberthreat he, said. would you agree with secretary -- i'm sorry, attorney general holder's statement as well as other statements by the executive branch that this is a growing and persistent threat? >> senator, i would agree with those statements and add that i have seen through cases in my
own district that this is a growing and increasing threat my office has also worked on matters involving foreign nations attempts to -- attempting to obtain technology. we've worked closely with our colleagues in other agencies to bring these cases to fruitionings and we're proud of the work we've done. it's an ever-growing concern and has been expressed by the f.b.i. not only under the current director but under director mueller. i look forward to working closely with our law enforcement partners to deal with the numerous ways we have to fight this problem. >> last congress i introduced the future of america innovation research act fair act, that provides companies with a legal remedy when their trade secrets are stolen from abroad. the concern is that you know, since the economic espionage act was enacted in 1996, i think there have only been 10 convictions under section 1831. that's a lot of time for just a
few convictions. since the f.b.i. can't investigate and d.o.j. can't prosecute every single theft of trade secrets, does it make sense that there might be a, you know federal civil action, cause of action that could help these companies through another remedy? does that make any sense? >> certainly, senator from my experience in advising companies, boards, and general counsel, i understand the importance of corporations being empowered to act on their own behalf and protect their intellectual property and trade secrets. i haven't had the opportunity to study the bill that you discussed but i certainly look forward to doing so and having further discussions with you. >> i appreciate that. victims' services, another area that has been of some concern. last year congress passed the victim of child abuse act re-authorization. i was pleased the sponsor of the bill agreed to include an
important provision that clarified congress' intent that the money from the crime victims' fund should only be used to assist victims of crime. will you commit to follow that new law and direct the victim advocates in the u.s. attorneys' offices that this money only be used for victims? in the past we've seen it used for witness travel and other administrative duties and not actually focus on the victims. >> certainly the management of the issue of how to provide not only restitution but support of victims is an important one to the department and to me as united states attorney. i think that we have to work to implement the law that you have discussed. my understanding is that it is being implemented certainly the guidance has gone out to ensure that the victim, victim advocates and offices are being appropriately focused. i know in my own office, victim advocates who work closely with the victims of crime families
who suffer through loss and provide support to them. i support empowering those professionals. i believe that you -- that the law you mention is one that is being implemented, i certainly will commit to ensuring that it is so. >> thank you and should you be con firled i look forward to working with you. >> thank you, sir. >> next person is senator blumen that will. when senator co-hence comes back, i skipped over him, we'll come back to him as the next democrat. >> thank you, senator. thank you, ms. lynch for being here today and having your family here today.
i think the two most common words used to describe you are smart and tough and i can see from your dad and i'm sure it's true of your mom that you come by those qualities honestly. in the best sense of the word. and you should be very proud of your daughter your testimony has been among the most accomplished and impressive that i've seen as a member of this committee and i'm sure you've done yourself a lot of good today, not that younesly needed it but thank you for your very forthright and erue diet answers. i want to din -- ander diet answers. -- and erudite answers. i want to begin by focusing on human trafficking. you have a great record on human trafficking. i count 10 major prosecutions that you've done while united states attorney, focusing
particularly on targeted sex trafficking while also pursuing labor trafficking. and in a case that you brought against the 7-eleven franchise, you stated publicly that the defendants were running a modern day plantation system and the system looked a lot like modern day slavery. you brought the case relying on statutes relating to immigration enforcement and identity theft and wire fraud, not on the statutes that specifically focused on criminalizing human trafficking. i wonder whether you could relate to us whether you think those statutes need to be strengthened, if you couldn't in a sense rely on them to bring those cases based on human traffic, whether we should perhaps strengthen them, and in particular the trafficking victims protection act of 2000 provided mandatory restitution
for trafficking victims, a provision that is unfortunately more unenforced than enforced. in fact, rarely enforced, i think, to provide for restitutions a recent study by the human trafficking pro bono legal center took a look at how the requirement works in practice and found that only about 36.6% of the cases did prosecutors bostonner to request restitution. so my question is really two-fold. number one, do the statutes need to be strengthened and number two, can you and would you do more to make sure that restitution is provided to victims of human trafficing? >> certainly senator. the issue of restitution for the victims of human trafficing is an important one particularly as we do increase the number of cases that we bring. certainly sometimes there are situations where a court may not impose restitution because the funds are not there or for other
legal reasons, but where we can, we always do seek a restitution order for the victims. we in particular have worked with other governments to provide them information where we have found, for example, that certain small cities in mexico have been a prime source of those who would traffic women into the united states into the eastern district of new york we worked with the mexican government to provide them information so that they could possibly affect seizures that we could not under our particular laws. so it's a very, very important issue to me as united states attorney and should i be confirmed as attorney general would be one i would look forward to working with you on to make sure all the laws involving victim protection are as strong as possible. with respect to the 7-eleven case we did not have the evidence that the workers had been moved across state lines to effectuate the crime so therefore we would not have been able to use the trafficking laws per se. but as with that case work every case, we look at the relevant
facts and laws and bring the strongest case we can. certainly where we had seen numerous, numerous incidences of children and women being trafficked from within the united states sometimes even simply crossing one state border as well as from overseas we have never hesitated to act and should i become attorney general it will be one of my priorities. >> i would welcome that priority very much as the co-chairman of the human trafficking caucus in the senate. it's a very bipartisan one, the co-chairman is senator portman of ohio. i look forward to working with you on it. let me ask you, and first of all, welcome your comments about the invisible wounds of war, thank you to your uncles and cousins for their service in vietnam and to your brother for his service i say that as a dad of a marine corps reserve veteran who served in
afghanistan and another son who is currently in the navy and i would hope that you will continue to focus on those issues relating to post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury as they may be a cause of certain kinds of conduct that may be unwelcome, may even be criminal, because what we found is a better understanding of those invisible wounds of war and the inner demons that many of our veterans bring back with them can lead to more thoughtful and humane treatment through our criminal justice system. i want to ask you, finally, in the time that i have, about one of the criticisms that has been made of the department of justice in its allegedly too lenient treatment of certain corporate defendants as being too big to jail, so to speak, in
remarks that you made after the department at the department of jus -- after the department of justice entered into a settlement with hsbc for money laundering you said the settlement had detered that company but you weren't sure it would deter other companies. so my question is whether more can be done to more aggressively prosecute white car crime, corporate crime, to dispel at least the widespread impression or perception that perhaps the department of justice has been too lenient, and in particular would you work with me on a bill that i've authored that would make certain corporate officers criminally liable if they are aware of significant potentially deadly risks to workers
workplace safety problems, and fail to act or make it public. so this bill is called hide no harm, a bill designed to protect workers on their job and it focuses on that part of the potential wrongdoing that may be committed by corporate officers but also again two-part question, would you consider pursuing more aggressively criminal laws that may be applied to corporate officers who are involved in malfeasance or violations of federal criminal laws generally? >> certainly, senator. when it comes to white collar crime or any kind of crime, as a career prosecutor and as u.s. attorney, i've been very aggressive in pursuing those types of cases. with respect to, should i become confirmed as attorney general, i would continue that and direct that the department of justice continue its focus on examining the facts of every case,
following the law wherever it took us, at the outset, no individual is too big to jail. no one is above the law. there are certain situations where we come to a different resolution or may decide a civil resolution is appropriate but that is only after a full and fair analysis of all the facts and the law and the relevant burdens under the criminal justice system or the civil system. that being said, senator, i believe if you look at the record of the eastern district of new york, we have prosecuted a number of corporate officers for insider trading with respect to the brooks case and corporate malfeasance in other cases as well as the violations of the scpa we have struck significant -- wrung significant concessions from corporations and made major changes in the way in which corporations and financial institutions are structures and -- structured and operate that as act as a deterrent. we have been clear with respect
to the industries within which we are looking that should a corporation not engage in preventive behavior or should they not take seriously the type of investigation we bring, the criminal charges will be brought. >> thank you and i know of your very aggressive and distinguished record in this area. it's one of the reasons why i strongly support wow and i look forward to voting for you and working with you on all these topics and also reform of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. as you know, i've advocated a public advocate to defend and advocate constitutional liberties in the course of this proceeding, foreign intelligence surveillance court. i'm not going to ask you to commit on that issue but i hope that you will work with me on it as well as these other issues and i very much appreciate your being here today and your public service and your family service. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator.
now i go to senator visiter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam u.s. attorney. thank you for the meeting in my office. as i told you at the time i was very disappointed and frustrated because you didn't respond directly to any of my big topics and you said you'd look into these matters and consider them and as i promised, i restated the big questions in writing and i was further disappointed when yesterday, i got a letter saying there would be no response to that. but maybe the third time is a charm for me asking them so we'll try here. as i told you in my office, like many, many citizens and members of the senate, i have a huge concern regarding what i think is the president's illegal unconstitutional executive amnesty. and i have a huge concern of the fact that you think it is within the law. and we were talking about that.
so i'm going to put up what is the central statutory argument that the president's lawyers point to in terms of his allegedly having authority for this executive amnesty. and it talks about granting parole only on a case-by-case basis. so i guess one of my key questions which we talked about in my office is, do you really think his granting this amnesty this new status, to about five million illegal aliens, is acting on a case-by-case basis as mandated by the statute? >> senator, i greatly appreciate the question as well as the opportunity that we had to discuss the matters in your office. with respect again to my review
of the opinions supporting the department of homeland security 's request for taking legal actions and prioritizing removal i did find it to be reasonable that we would prioritize removal of the most dangerous undocumented immigrants with our limited resources. particularly those who were involved in violent crime terrorism, recent crossers, those with criminal records. that seemed to me to be acting in the interest of public safety and appropriate. with respect to other individuals who may not be as high on that priority list, my understanding is that that is a status they'll have for a brief period of time. as you look at the issue of executive discretion or prosecutorial discretion, you always want to have the ability to still look at individuals and make a determination as to whether or not they should be in that lower priority. >> as we've talked about in my office though, his action goes well beyond setting
prosecutorial priorities doesn't it apart from that, he goes further in -- and then he takes another affirmative step in giving them a work permit. so those two steps are going beyond setting priorities for prosecution, are they not? >> certainly, senator, as relates to how the department of homeland security manages the removal process, for those in the low priority category, however they may be determined to be, again i'm not aware if those regulations have been set forth yet so i can't comment on how they'll be implemented -- >> does this plan go beyond setting priorities for prosecution or not? does it -- doesn't it in fact go beyond that by granting these folks a parole status and giving them a work permit? isn't that something additional to simply setting internal
priorities for prosecution of these cases? >> senator, i just one minor point at the outset i believe that the department of homeland security action referred to removal and not necessarily prosecutions. certainly with respect to prosecutions there's still a robust prosecution under the immigration laws and in my own district they are a tool i use quite frequently. with respect also to what would happen to those individuals who would be in a lower priority status for lack of a better word, again, i'm not sure how the department will go about implementing that. my understanding is that the issue was there a legal framework for establishing such a program? and the opinion indicated that there was. >> do you agree with that opinion? >> i believe individuals still have to apply at which point they would have -- there would have to be a review of their eligibility and the like. >> fundamentally, do you agree with the legal pb? >> i thought that the opinion was reasonable. i also thought it made
distinctions. >> going back to that legal opinion, put that back up. s that key element of it. do you think that action applied to about five million illegal aliens is operating on a case-by-case basis. >> i'm not familiar with how the department of homeland security will be actually implementing the orders that it will be reviewing and the applications it will be reviewing so i'm not able to vide you with specifics. >> but you've read the orders. do you think that lays out a system that is operated on a case-by-case basis? >> with respect to my review of the office of legal counsel opinion, it did provide a reasonable basis for the removal and prioritization of certain people as it came to removal. when it came to the issue of whether or not there could be a program for deferral, it seemed to refer to legal precedent, to the statute itself, and to actions by this body among
others. so it certainly seemed to provide a legal framework for it. i believe also what i thought was note worthy, with respect to the opinion, some of the requested actions by the department of homeland security the office of legal counsel found did not have the appropriate legal framework that would have made them something that could be carried out under the current legal system. so the advise was not to go forward. >> i take it as a yes that this is operating on a case-by-case basis and i just think that's really a clear, obviously stretch to say that this action that's going to affect five million people is following the law on a case-by-case basis. the law also says new york fact, this same specific citation, it says, this decision on a case-by-case basis has to be made by the attorney general. now is it your understanding under the president's plan that if you're the attorney general, you're going to be in the middle of that process making those
decisions? >> senator i'm not aware of the regulatory framework and rules that have come out around this statute as to how that authority can be dell gate or exercised so i'm not able to give you an exact answer right now as to how that would -- >> aye read the plan and the plan as i read it is for all of that to be done in the department of homeland security system of my question would be, what is the statutory basis to allow that when under the statute, not some order, not some legal opinion the statute the law, word by word it says the attorney general is in the middle of that decision on a case-by-case basis. >> again senator, as presented to me by you, today, and thank you for that information, again i'm not familiar with the ways in which that particular authority has been exercised by the attorney general. whether it's been dell gayed or how it is share -- delegated or how it is shared with the
department of homeland security, so i'm not able to provide you with specifics. >> again i'll have to follow up for a fourth time but that will be a central question. the plan is not for the attorney general to be in the middle of this at all. the statute says that the attorney general is. why aren't we following the statute. let me go to another case that goes to following the law which senator hatch brought up earlier, which is your comments regarding the department of justice's initiative, smart on crime initiative. now as i read it, based on what i know, this is just a way to clearly ignore mandatory minimums. there are crimes that have mandatory minimums we can have a good debate about whether
those should be lowered in some cases or not, but they are what they are. they're in the statute. so why aren't we following the statute with regard to crimes with mandatory minimums? >> senator with respect to the enforcement of the narcotics laws that contain those mandatory minimums, laws which i have had occasion to use on numerous occasions as an sent to u.s. attorney, as a career prosecutor and as u.s. attorney, those laws are being followed. not just by my office but throughout the u.s. attorney community. the issue with smart on crime, as well as by a number of offices who sought to prioritize how to handle those cases in an area -- in an era of limited resources is focus odden when is it best to use the mandatory minimums and when do we not necessarily have to use them but every office still retains and in fact exercises the discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence should someone who may
not fall into that category but upon review of the case clearly does. >> so when is it best to use the mandatory minimums? so the mandatory minimums aren't mandatory? >> when you get done with that answer i'll cull on senator coons. >> as we handle these in the eastern district of new york, we rely on mandatory minimum when dealing with drug kingpins, many of whom have been extradited from foreign countries or operating within our district. my fellow u.s. attorneys use the statutes in a similar way. we all look however at the nature of the crime problems in our district. and the nature of the narcotics problem in particular in our district. and a case that may require a mandatory minimum in my district may not occur in another part of
the country. another part of the country may have a a different type of narcotics problem and a different population of defendants than you would find in brooklyn subject to the mandatory minimum statutes but they are being used. >> i just observe that -- i mean that is taking all meaning out of the word mandatory to replacing your and your colleague's judgment for the judgment of folks who wrote the law and that's what this whole discussion today is about. thank you. [inaudible] >> for the witness we, there's nobody here, you want to take a break, take a break. but as soon as somebody gets here, i hope you can come back right away. senator coons. >> thank you, chairman grassley. ms. lynch congratulations on your historic nomination and your very fine conduct in the
hearing today. the attorney general of the united states, one of the most important offices for which this committee has oversight responsibility and consent responsibility. the current attorney general eric holder has served with distinction under trying circumstances. for better or worse the attorney general often serves as a lightning rod for those in this body with complaints about the administration and i think it takes special mettle to deal with that incoming fire while remaining composed and focused on a forward-looking agenda. i'm interested in hearing how you plan on carrying forward on issues related to rivity -- privacy, i.t. protection, and voting rights, racial profiling. as successful as attorney general holder has been, there remains important progress to make in just two years in this -- and just two years in this administration to make it. first if i could about state and local law enforcement. given my previous experience, i'm pleased that someone with
your experience in law enforcement is nominated for this position. i serve with co-chair roy blunt in the law enforcement caucus. cab youb just comment for me if confirmed, on the importance you would place on the partnership between federal, state and local law enforcement, including such programs as the bulletproof vest program, the violence reduction network which is particularly important to me and information sharing and then second senator flake asked about this previously but could you talk about the thm -- about the victims of child abuse act programs and comment on the experiences you had with child javo kacy centers and how they function as one of the partnership undertakings? >> certainly senator. with respect to the important partnership between the department of justice and state and local law enforcement counterparts, it will be one of my highest priorities to ensure there's not only collaboration and cooperation but active and ongoing discussion about the needs that we can help fulfill
but also, senator what we can learn from our state and local counterparts. it has been my experience, having had the benefit of frankly learning from some of the best law enforcement agents and police officers around, that no one knows the crime problem like the cop on the beat. no one really understands what's going on in the community like the officer who walks those streets every night and knows those residents and understands those issues. similarly, our federal law enforcement agency partners have outstanding background effort and ability to manage complex cases and when we combine those two, we have been table achieve tremendous results for victims of violent crime, of terrorism, of cybercrime, along with the cases you mentioned involving vulnerable victims of child abuse system of certainly i feel that there has to be a collaborative relationship but i want to essentially assure you that in my view it would be one where we would not just provide
assistance and training and grants. that is very, very important. but we would also listen and learn as well from our local law enforcement partners. >> thank you. that's both a good answer and great attitude. i look forward to working with you on this area going forward. the u.s. patriot act is often thought of of -- of as a spy program which in some ways it is. but it also is and can be a tool that d.o.j. and f.b.i. routinely use in the course of domestic law enforcement and its mission. does the d.o.j. use section 215 as a collection tool and could the department continue to make effectives you of section 215 if the enhanced privacy protections, the limitations on bulk collection set forth would be adopted? >> section 15 is not a bulk collection tool in and of itself, but the way in which the government, using court authority, can obtain information already gathered
that might be useful in ongoing national security investigations. but certainly i understand that as we work to protect our country from terrorists who seek to attack us here and abroad that we have to be mindful of our civil liberties and the privacy rights of anyone who may be impacted by our collection procedures. and certainly i look forward to as the renewal of section 215 comes up, i look forward to discussions with you and other members of this committee about the best way in which to keep that useful tool and also reassure this body and the american people that it is being used in the most effective way. >> i'm also concerned about i.p. intellectual property protections, as we talked about previously and trade secrets. my understanding is several other senators have also asked about the issue, so i'll try to be brief. i'm concerned about the huge transfer of wealth going on through trade secrets and the federal crime under the espionage act is estimated to be responsible for up to $500 billion annually in terms of
losses to the united states yet there's only one or two cases a month, federally, brought by prosecutors. is as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district, what's been your experience in investigating or prosecuting trade secret theft and would you be interested in working together to strengthen the resources and strengthen the legal authorities for protecting america and our inventions and innovations and ensuring we stem the loss of theft of trade secrets? >> in my experience, i don't believe we have any specific indictments around the trade secrets act. we do, however, have a numb of cases where we have intercepted foreign actors trying to obtain u.s. information and we have prosecuted them under other statutes. we deal with very, very similar issues. i will note these cases tend to be complex and long-term. they do require an investment in resources, the devotion of time on the part of prosecutors, but
also technological resources on the part of our law enforcement agencies. so i would look forward to, should i be confirmed working with you and this committee to ensure that we have the appropriate resources we need to handle these cases. >> as a member of the appropriations subcommittee responsible, i look forward to working with you on that. i think it's vital that we strengthen the protections for america's inventions and inventors. one last d -- i want to last ask about criminal justice reform, an issue i think is front and center in importance for our country an justice system. we have seen in a number of ways that our criminal justice system is broken in terms of how it deals with mass incarceration and its impact in particular on drug offenders and on the african-american population of our country. it's not just a civil rights problem but also a fiscal problem and social problem and if you look at the numbers of who is incarcerated and how long and under what charges, i think
there's a significant quality that needs -- inequality that needs to be addressed. i think we need legislation through this committee and in this body to help rationalize overly mandatory overly long drug sentences for nonviolent offenders. attorney general holder took an important step forward two years ago when he issued revised guidance directing prosecutors not to automatically file the mandatory minimum charges. i wonder if it's your intention to keep in place the 2013 memorandum or whether you'd look for other or additional ways, within law within the constitution, to promote equal and just application of our criminal laws to every person regardless of background, of sex, of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, and nationality? >> senator, you touch on the important issue of making sure that our criminal justice system protects the american people but does so in a way that's fair and effective and also protects the individual rights of everyone
who has to pass through it. it is the responsibility of a prosecutor not just to win conviction bus to bring justice to every case, no matter what the result. certainly with respect to smart on crime, i found it similar in many ways to the way misdistrict has had to manage an ever increasing problem of narcotics prosecution of low 46 level offenders and work with an ever growing docket of narcotics users also and i found it a reasonable approach to do so and look forward to continuing that initiative but i look forward to further discussions with you and your colleagues on these issues as to how to ensure that our criminal justice system is effective and yet also protects the people who have to go through it. that is a dual response -- duel responsibility of the -- a dual responsibility of the prosecutor. it's one i've taken seriously throughout my career and should i be confirmed i look forward to working with you as we explore that together. >> thank you, ms. lynch. senator leahy remarked that
nearly a third of the department's budget at this point is dedicated to the bureau of prisons. i think we have a pressing civil rights issue nationally for us in terms of our criminal justice system. but i've also long been a supporter of law enforcement and believe that you are uniquely position, qualified and prepared to help us balance these twin obligations of ensuring that our communities are safer and stronger and ensuring that our justice system delivers on justice. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> u.s. attorney, this is david perdue we met the other day, senator from georgia. >> yes, thank you for your time. >> i want to thank you for your perseverance and patience with us today. i hope it wasn't anything i said that cleared the room for you. i hope you're doing well. >> i hope it wasn't anything i said. >> thank you so much for again your perseverance. i just want to join my colleagues in welcoming you
before the judiciary committee and also thank you for your years of public service, as we talked the other day. am very impressed with your career and thank you for upholding the law in your career. i congratulate you on this nomination. you spoke about, this morning, your oath and the required commitment to the constitution. i applaud that. you've demonstrated that in your career. you were just talking about mandatory minimums if i'm correct. i just have a quick question. relative to a case that you had in your jurisdiction recently, i want to ask about a defendant who was convicted by your office in the late 1990's, his name was francois holloway, i believe i hope you remember him. there was a lot of press coverage on this case during your current tenure as u.s. attorney. in 1995, mr. holloway rejected a 10-year plea and was convicted after a trial on three counts of
armed carjacking and possessing a gun during a violent crime. those subjected him to consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and he received a total ofic 57 years. -- total of, i think, 57 years. in 2013, judge gleason, the district judge in brooklyn, who sentenced mr. holloway, began a campaign on mr. holloway's behalf and sent you a request to vacate two orders of mr. holloway no one argued holloway was innocent or wrongfully convicted or that his sentence was unlawful. no one claimed there was a problem with the trial. all mr. holloway's appeals were reject the case went to the supreme court which upheld the convictions. in fact, everyone agreed that the sentence he received was lawful under title 18 of the sentencing -- sentencing guidelines. judge gleason didn't agree with the sentence the law required him to impose and was asking you
to help him do it. in february 20 13, to your credit you refused to vacate the carjacking convictions. you suggested to judge gleason that mr. holloway could contact the office of the pardon attorney and submit a petition for commutation of the sentence. i think that was the appropriate resons, i -- response, i congratulate you on that i think every prosecutor would have responded that way. in may of 2013, judge gleason again urged you to vacate two of mr. holloway's armed carjacking convictions. he said your suggestion that he seek clemency wasn't realistic because the fact that he committed crimes of violence would disqualify him. the judge was a passionate advocate for this defendant. this time, however you backed down and consented to the judge's order to vacate the carjacking convictions. i want to note that he was a violent offender -- offender,
who along with an accomplice stole three cars at gunpoint. as the top law enforcement officer, i have a couple of questions relative to that case and your perspective. my first question, what caused you to change your earlier position in that case? >> senator, with respect to the holloway case, there was a matter that had been of long standing it was long standing case from the office. it did predate my tenure -- my second time but not first time as u.s. attorney. it was a case in which it was the defendant who had made a motion to allow the judge to revisit his sentence. so there was in fact a judicial proceeding before the court at that time and think court wanted us to take a second look at it. we did consider it numerous times. ultimately the matter was before the court and while the judge
indicated he would like to have the opportunity to review that, our view was that we had to look at the case consistent with many of the initiatives that were being put in place now by the department of justice. certainly with respect to clemency and with respect to how we look at offenders who have served a significant time and whether or not they would be eligible for that. of note to me as i reviewed the matter was that mr. holloway was the second person in that carjacking incident and was not the individual with the gun but was of course legally liable for that and while he received the sentence of 57 years, the main actor received a sentence shortly under two years. there was incredible disparity in the sentence there. the real issue for us, was there a legal proceeding in place, and there was, essentially, did we have the ability to let the judge review the sentence again by keeping it in the court system and we felt that we did.
but before we did that, it was important to me to consult with every victim in that case. and certainly we found all of the victims but one, after extensive research, all the victims also felt that the jubbling should have the opportunity to reconsider mr. holloway's sentence without a guarantee of what that sentence would be. based on that information, based upon mr. holloway's record in prison, based upon his role in the offense, we looked at how we would have handled the case under current times. again, given that there was a court proceeding, we were able to go to court and tell the judge we would not stand in the way of him reviewing the sentence again, which judge gleason kid. mr. holloway was resentenced, he then went into state custody to finish a matter so i do not know his current status. but we did ecertain rblely allow the judge to take another look at that and through the judicial process the judge imposed a different sentence.
that sentence was still significant and it was still, i would say, twice as long as what mr. holloway would have gotten had he accepted a plea deal. >> thank you. you know as the attorney general you have great discretion, just as you did as district attorney. the question i would have is illustrated by the case, i think, is where do you draw the line? how do you see the balance between the law and your personal position in a case? your personal opinion in a case? >> senator, i don't believe that my personal opinion is the governing factor in a case. be it mr. holloway's case or any case in which i would review either as u.s. attorney or should i be confirmed as attorney general. i will take a look at every case and i will commit to you that i will review every matter brought to me with a full and fair examination of the facts and application of the law but also with a view toward, in mr. holloway's case, whether or not there's a judicial proceeding there and the current status of
that. but we will take every effort and i will make every effort should i be confirmed to always act consistent with the law. >> thank you. just one last question in this vein. there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of violent offenders in our federal custody serving sentences based on consecutive mandatory minimums you spoke about, like those imposed on mr. holloway's case. if you're confirmed and during your tenure as attorney general it comes to your attention that there are cases like mr. holloway's would you consent to early release. >> it was not my -- it would not be my place to consent to early release, our posture was to consent to allow the judge to revisit the sentence and impose the sentence he felt appropriate. as u.s. attorney i would not be making the decisions to whether someone should be released. should i be confirmed as attorney general i would not be making those decisions either except as people go through the
clemency process or pardon office and those matters come under review by the department of justice. we would then apply our best judgment to the situation but the ultimate decision on release would not be made, i believe by me. >> since i'm the only one up here, i guess i'm the presiding officer and my time is almost up. i have one other question for you. i'd like to move on to national security if i might. i'll remind the chairman i didn't go over on my allotted time just in case. the d.o.j. announced that two yemeni nationals charged with conspiring to murder american citizens abroad and providing material support to al qaeda will be prosecuted in your district court in new york. i'd like your thoughts on bringing terrorists onto u.s. soil. is there any rule for military
tribunals or should civilian courts be used exclusively for these prosecutions? >> thank you for that question. the case that you mentioned is being handled by my office and at the outset i would note that throughout the process of reviewing that case and deciding how to best prosecute it and where to appropriately venue it, we consulted extensively with the office of military exhibitions as we do with all the cases involving national security defendants who may be brought to u.s. shores and may be brought to the eastern district of new york. certainly i would say at the outset that my position is, if terrorists threaten americans here or abroad, they will face american justice. we have done that successfully in the eastern district of new york and i look forward, should i be confirmed as attorney general, to continuing that strong practice, utilizing all the tools in our arsnell and that includes the military commission process. essentially, senator, should i be con firled as attorney general, i look forward to working with the military and
the other executive branch divisions in government to make the best determination about where each case should be brought. should that determination be in article 3 court, i anticipate that the receiving u.s. attorney's office would handle it with skill and dedication that my prosecutors do every day. similarly should it be a military commission, they will also handle it with the skill and dedication that they have also shown. i have been honored to host general martens in my office and have a positive working relationship with him. should i be confirmed as attorney general i look forward to continuing that relationship with him. and with all our partners in the war on terror. >> i would like to thank you for your patience, professionalism today. you've run out of senators almost. in the absence of our chair, there's only one other senator available for questioning.
i know they're on the floor now voting. i would suggest we take a 10-minute recess if you're amenable, and we'll find out from the chairman, if senator till liss, who is the last remaining person to ask questions and see where we go from there. enge we'll stand in recess for 10 minutes and thank you again for your graciousness and perseverance today. >> thank you, senator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]
>> this is the senate judiciary committee and their nomination hearing for loretta lynch, nominated by president obama, to be the next attorney general, day one of two days of hearings. they began this morning at 9:00 -- at 10:00 eastern. likewise they'll begin tomorrow at 10:00 eastern with live coverage here on c-span and c-span radio. you may have heard david perdue, the freshman senator from georgia, saying that they're going to take a 10-minute break. that's because there's a series of votes going on on the senate floor, amendment votes to the keystone x.l. oil pipeline bill. you can follow those votes on our companion network c-span2. while they're on this break, we'll open up our phone lines and hoar hare your thoughts on
the testimony so far and look at your comments on facebook and twitter on what you're looking for as the priorities of the next attorney general. here are the numbers 202- 748-8920 for democrats 202-748-8921 for republicans, and all others, 202-748468922 for everyone else. be sure you mute your television or radio when you call. here's a tweet from ryan. i fear anybody as an attorney general who can't answer a yes or no question, both session and ted cruz have asked these. another opinion, ted cruz can't keep up with loretta lynch, recognize your limitations. loretta lynch believes gitmo is illegal, can we trust her to be anything but a puppet for
obama's unconstitutional actions. a call from oregon city, oregon. sharon you're first through, go ahead. >> i did not get to see the entire proceeding. i'd like to know what the attorney general, if she's confirmed, would intending to do about the overreach of executive orders. and the unconstitutional acts of the president. eric holder has refused to prosecute. i want to know if she'll follow up on that. >> certainly a lot of questioning about those immigration executive orders and more to come as they've just about wrapped up their first round of questioning. the new senator from north carolina is next in line. walters is next in our line -- walter's next on our line. go ahead. >> yes. i just want to say that ms. lynch put out one of the best