during his confirmation hearing before the senate judiciary committee. the nominee for the associate attorney general, rachel brand, also testified as part of her confirmation process. >> good morning, everybody. i'm pleased to hold this nomination hearing for two very outstanding nominees, rod ros rosenstein and rachel brand. they've been nominated for two very important senior positions in the department of justice. deputy attorney general and associate attorney general. the deputy attorney general, who is the second in command at the department oversees the day-to-day operations. the associate attorney general oversees the civil litigation departments. it's critical we fill these two important positions so the department can operate at full capacity. we couldn't have two better nominees for this position. they share a lot in common. they both are dedicated civil servants. they've both been confirmed by the senate before. in miss brand's case, twice. they both served in confirmed positions during president obama's administration. they're both talented and fair-minded lawyers, dedicated to the full and evenhanded enforcement of our laws, and they will serve the department with distinction. mr. rosenstein has served the department for more than three deca decades. president bush appointed him to be u.s. attorney for maryland. he continued to serve in that position throughout president obama's entire two terms in office. i'm sure that senator cardin and van holland will speak to his accomplishments in these roles. i'd also like to submit for the record, a letter from our former colleague and friend, senator mikulski, supporting his nomination and without objection, that letter will be entered. now, with respect to mr. ros rosenstein's nomination, i have a few things to say about the attorney general's announcement last week and the supplemental testimony that he sent to this committee just yesterday. during his confirmation, attorney general sessions told this committee that he would do -- what he could do if specific matters arose where he believed his impartiality might be questioned. he said he would consult with the justice department's professionals and listen to their advice. and to those who question his independence from the president and attorney general sessions proved them wrong already, too, by recusing himself. last week, he kept his word unlike attorney general lynch, attorney general sessions recused himself. his recusal means that if there is any ongoing matter that deals with the trump campaign, it will be handle by the deputy attorney general. so, if mr. rosenstein is conf m confirmedened assurely expect him to be, the responsibility for any decisions would fall on him. already, i've heard some calls from the other side that a special council should be appointed to take over. any talk of a special counsel is premature at best. more importantly, any indication that mr. rosenstein lacks the impartiality or professionalism to handle these matters is out of line. he's a career civil servant who served with distinction in both bush and obama administrations. his independence is beyond reproach. in fact, in 2012, there was a series of high level leaks to the media of highly classified information. the leaks looked like they were designed to make the previous at administration look good. rather than appoint his special council, attorney general holder placed mr. rosenstein and another u.s. attorney in charge of the leak investigations. at the time, the chairman of this committee said attorney general holder made a good choice when he put mr. ros rosenstein in charge. he described mr. rosenstein as a tough honest prosecutor and the epitome of the professional prosecutor. another senior democrat on this committee said she opposed the special council becausel becauss a long time. the ranking member also had this to say about mr. rosenstein and other attorneys assigned to the matter. quote these are two scrupulous men, they're both independent and i have no reason to believe they cannot work with the fbi and assemble a very strong prosecution team where warranted, end quote. presumably my democratic colleagues haven't changed their mind about mr. rosenstein because the president is now a republican is stead of a democrat. please remember, a special council inquiries under the current department regulation are not the best way to insure transparency and accountability my colleagues have called for. there is no mandatory or public report at the end of the investigation if no charges are filed. the investigations can just disappear into a black hole without the public ever understanding what the facts were. the intelligence committees are investigating these matters and the other side has asked the inspector general to investigate as well. unlike special councils, congressional i.g. investigations can get the facts and present them to the public. so the notion that somehow a special counsel will bring facts to light just isn't true. i can't help but notice the selective nature of the latest calls for a special councsecuri counci council -- a special counsel. where were these when attorney general lynch was presented. her law firm had represented the clint clintons. her ability to continue in her job as attorney general depended on a clinton victory in the election, and she had a private meeting with president bill clinton on her bill clinton on her government airplane while the department was investigating secretary clinton. where were the calls from democratic leadership for a special council on that time? where were the calls for special council when congress referred a criminal contempt citation to the department of justice against attorney general holder for withholding documents on fast and furious scandal? misled congress about when he learned about fast and furious. where were the calls from the other side to have hearings on that? the u.s. attorney was simply ordered to ignore the criminal contempt citation and my friends on the other side of the aisle were fine with that and unfortunately so. it would be easier to credit calls for special councils if they were made with some consistency and the intellectual honesty. there are times when special councils are appropriate, but it's far too soon to tell at this time and even if there were evidence of a crime related to any of these matters, once confirmed, mr. rosenstein can decide how to handle that matter. i know of no reason to question his impartiality. i'll have more to say about miss brand when i introduce her, but for now let me say she also is a dedicated public servant with exceptional cree dentals. her nomination is supported by former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general. i'll enter a letter from them in the record. without objection, it will be entered. before i turn to senator feinstein for her opening statement, let me say how we'll conduct the hearing today. after senator feinstein's opening statement, we'll have the introduction of nominees. senator ernst and i will introduce miss brand but i am going to introduce after my three colleagues have spoken, it will save a little bit of time for them. senator cardin and van hollen will introduce mr. rosenstein then the nominees will give their opening statements. we'll have seven-minute rounds of questions. i know there are a number of issues senators would like to cover with these nominees, so i'll stay here until everyone has had the chance to ask all the questions they want. we will do more than one round of questions and if we do, that will be five additional minutes and i'm prepared to work through the noon hour unless the nominees need time off. senator feinstein. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. as you have said, today we begin our consideration of the nominees to fill two really important positions within the department of justice. the deputy attorney general essentially leads the day-to-day operations of the justice department and also directly oversees the solicitor general's office, the office of legal counsel and the law enforcement components like the fbi, the dea and the aft. significantly, the deputy attorney general steps in when the attorney general cannot or should not be involved in a particular matter. the associate attorney general is effectively the number three position and oversees critically important components of the justice department including the civil rights division, the environment and natural resources division, the civil division and the office on violence against women. from national security to voting rights and from consumer protection to immigration litigation, both of these positions carry tremendous responsibility within the justice department. so i want to take a moment to welcome the two nominees here today. rod rosenstein and rachel brand and congratulate them for having been nominated to such major posts in the justice department. i had the pleasure of meeting with them yesterday and both certainly appear well qualified. if confirmed, they will be part of a senior leadership team that will help shape policies and priorities that will affect all of us in america and they will help determine the direction of the justice department over the next four years. unfortunately, at this early stage in the new administration, there have already been some concerninge ingacting attorney general, sally yates was abruptly fired by the president for taking a principled stand on the executive order banning individuals from certain majority muslim countries. and her stance was then vindicated by the ninth circuit. second, instead of taking strong stands to protect the voting rights and civil rights of all, the department has taken steps to further erode those rights. specifically, we already see the civil rights division switching positions in important cases like the texas voter identification law. or withdrawing its guidance relating to transgender students. this reversal of course away from policy that uphold and protect civil rights for all americans is unfortunate, but it well may reveal the intended path of the future. over the past several weeks, there have been numerous press stories about the white house attempting to direct communications for ongoing investigations and even direct u.s. attorneys on how to argue cases. i continue to strongly believe that the case can be made for an independent investigation that is insulated from any potential political influence. so i very much support the appointment of a special prosecutor to lead the investigation into russian influence in the election. i believe we need an independent criminal investigation into russian influence. it's vitally important that the american people have trust in this investigation and that there is not even the appearance of a conflict of interest or political influence. so that's why i continue to support the appointment of a special prosecutor to lead the investigation. to be clear, i do not say this because i question the integrity or the ability of mr. ros rosenstein. i do not. but this is about more than just one individual. this is about the integrity of the process and the public's faith in our institutions of justice. justice department regulations clearly provide for the appointment of a special counsel when there is a conflict of interest for the department or other extraordinary circumstances and where the appointment of a special counsel would be in the public interest. by his own words, attorney general sessions was a surrogate for the trump campaign. he has admitted he met with the russian ambassador on two occasions and on friday, the attorney general announced he believes he should recuse himself and he has. in addition, the investigation into russia's interference could very well involve officials in the trump administration. all these factors demonstrate that there is at the minimum an appearance of a conflict of interest which is what's needed under the regulations. in addition, if you look back to december 2003 when attorney general ashcroft refused -- recused himself from the valerie plame case, that very same day then-deputy attorney general comey appointed a special prosecutor. he said he did so out of an abundance of caution and to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. i believe the same abundance of caution is warranted here. as has been done in the past, a special prosecutor should lead this investigation. i believe it should be aprosecu free of any partisan or political background, someone who has a reputation for integrity and impartial decision-making, and who is independently selected not by the attorney general. from the outset, we need a respected prosecutor who is independently selected free of any partisan or political background. i'm also concerned about the justice department's role in dismantling important rules and regulations that among other things help protect consumers, keep people safe and protect our environment. through executive orders and congressional repeals, president trump and his allies are taking unprecedented steps to help big business but harm average americans. i've had an opportunity to meet with both mr. rosenstein and mr. brand as i said. they both have impressive credentials and i enjoyed meeting with them, but as we all know, the test of leadership and suitability for a job is not how nice you are or how well you get along, it is whether the justice department or our courts, whether in those departments we need independent, fair-minded public servants who will adhere to the rule of law and look out for everyone in this country. not just the powerful or well-connected. we need steel spines, not weak knees when it comes to political independence in the department of justice and there is a real dang danger, i believe, that the justice department could become politicized so i hope to hear today from these nominees what they will do to guard against just that. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. now senator ernst then senator cardin then senator van holholl >> thank you, chairman grassley. it is my privilege to be here today to introduce a native iowan, rachel brand, who has been nominated to be associate attorney general of the united states. after graduating from pella christian high school in pella, iowa, and the university of minnesota morris, miss brand went on to receive her law degree from harvard law school. after law school, miss brand embarked on an impressive legal career in both private practice and public practice. in fact, she has at one time or another served in all three branches of government. she was previously confirmed by the senate as assistant attorney general for legal policy at the department of justice and before that, she clerked for justice kennedy on the supreme court of the united states. and perhaps the most prestigious of all, she worked as an intern for senator grassley. in addition to her public service, miss brand has had a distinguished career in private practice. has taught as an adjunct law professor and serves as a board member for doorways for women and families, an organization dedicated to creating pathways out of homelessness, domestic violence, and sexual assault. miss brand has shown time and time again a commitment to public service and if she is confirmed, it is my understanding that she will be the first woman to serve the country as associate attorney general of the united states. i am honored to be here today to support her for his positithis and i look forward to what i hope will be a speedy approval of her nomination. thank you, chairman grassley. >> thank you, senator ernst. >> thank you, senator grassley, senator feinstein. it's a pleasure to be back before the judiciary committee. i thank you for this opportunity. i want to thank both of our nominees for being willing to serve their country and thank their families because this is a family sacrifice to serve in government. i'm pleased to be here with senator van hollen to introduce and support rod rosenstein to be the deputy attorney general. this was a welcomed nomination by president trump. rod rosenstein has demonstrated throughout his long career the highest standards of professionalism. he has dedicated his entire professional career to public service. he's an experienced prosecutor and administrator. very impressive credentials. graduating from the university of pennsylvania werton school. from harvard law school where he was editor of the "harvard law journal." clerked for judge ginsburg in the district court court of appeals. he's been the u.s. attorney since 2005. he has served in many leadership positions among the u.s. attorneys and as chairman grassley pointed out, he's been given very sensitive assignments by the department of justice because of his known professionalism. i am very impressed by his responsibilities as u.s. attorney for the state of maryland. he has led major criminal investigations and prosecutions in regards to contraband smuggling with gang members, inmates and correction officers. he has personally supervised the coordination of our anti-terrorism efforts, recognizing that each stakeholder can add to the strength of maryland's effort to fight terrorism. he's done that without regard to turf issues, providing a coordinated strategy in our state of maryland. he's handled corruption cases, sensitive corruption cases, from police officers to elected officials, and he has protected maryland citizens through his commitment on consumer issues and on environmental issues. what impresses me the most is the fact that he has done this in a totally nonpartisan professional manner. when i was elected in 2006 to the united states senate, rod ros rosenstein had already been appointed there by president bush. so i first met mr. rosenstein when he was a u.s. attorney for our state and when i was elected, i was approached by many elected officials as to what was going to happen with the u.s. attorney. i was impressed by the first phone calls i received from the law enforcement individuals in baltimore city responsible for the protection of our city, all urging me to encourage president obama to retain rod rosenstein has u.s. attorney. that was not the only call that i received. he's received strong support from the justice leadership in the state of maryland. state and local officials strongly support his appointment to the deputy attorney generals, strongly supported his work as u.s. attorney. so when senator mikulski and i had to make a decision, we recommended to president obama that he retain rod rosenstein as u.s. attorney for maryland and we're pleased that president obama did, in fact, retain mr. rosenstein as our u.s. attorney. he has the support of state and local officials. brian frost, the attorney general of maryland, supports this nomination. doug gansler, the former attorney general of maryland, supports the nomination. the controller of our state. greg bernstein, former state's attorney of baltimore city, all support mr. rosenstein because of his record and his professionalism. he's supported by our local police, kevin davis, chief of police for baltimore city, supports this nomination. and as you may know, maryland, baltimore is under a consent decree as a result of a pattern in practice investigation in baltimore. maryland state bar association supports his nomination. former assistant u.s. attorneys support his nomination. mr. chairman, i think mr. rosenstein is the right person at the right time for deputy attorney general. i share the concern of many members of this committee as to what russia did in attacking our democratic institutions. i support a complete investigation to understand exactly what happened. i believe the facts need to be done by an independent commission. and that would be the best way for us to get all the facts necessary in regards to what russia was doing. the attorney general's office must follow the facts including the standards for the use of a special prosecutor. based on mr. rosenstein's prior record, i am confident of his judgment on these issues. >> thank you, senator cardin. senator van hollen? >> thank you, chairman grassley, member feinstein, to join senator cardin in supporting rod rosenfine rosenstein's nomination to become deputy attorney general. he's had an illustrious and long career. he's earned a reputation as a fair and focused administrator of justice. as a result, he has served in both republican and democratic administrations and earned the distinction of being the longest serving u.s. attorney in the country today. rod has not only aggressively prosecuted dangerous gangs and criminals in maryland but also electedpublic's trust. he has shown impartiality in these investigations and his successful prosecutions have led to ethics reforms that increase transparency and public confidence in maryland. in addition to being a top-notch lawyer, he's known for the professional manner in which he runs his current office. in his letter of support, maryland's attorney general brian frost notes that rod, "inherited an office in turmoil," when he became maryland's u.s. attorney, with a "steady hand created a department has now universally respected." those skills will be put to test in the coming months. it's no secret that mr. rosenstein is before the committee at a tumultuous time for the department of justice and his job will be to serve justice at not political leaders. as rod and i discussed yesterday, the ultimate question is the same one senator sessions posed to salary yates during her hearing as the nominee to be deputy attorney general. when he said, " you have to watch out, people will be asking you things you need to say no about." went on to ask "do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper?" like sally yates, rob rosenstein said he'd be willing to put his job on the line to uphold the public trust and integrity of the department of justice. i share the views expressed by senator feinstein and senator cardin as to the investigation and any ties between the trump administration and russian interference in our elections. i believe they will require the appointment of a special prosecutor and e ask joined senator cardin and others in calling for a nonpartisan independent commission. i also made it clear in my conversations with mr. rosenstein if the fbi director has, in fact, requested that the justice department denied president trump's unsubstantiated claims about obama administration's wiretapping of trump tower, then the justice department has a duty to let the public know the truth. mr. chairman, i think we could all agree that it's vitally important that the american public has faith that our laws will apply equally to all americans regardless of rank or position. rod rosenstein has applied that principle faithfully during his time as u.s. attorney in maryland. it's essential that the same principle apply at the department of justice. members of the committee, i do not know what the future holds on these issues of great importance to our democracy. i do know that rod rosenstein has a record and reputation of serving justice and i support his nomination. i also want to join senator cardin in expressing our gratitude to his wife, lisa, his daughters, julie and allison, for joining us today. and for their family's commitment to public service. thank you. >> thanks to both my colleagues and unless any of my colleagues have questions, you're free to go. thank you very much. oh, i got it. i will take my time now to introduce rachel brand and you've already been told she's a native iowan. she may not have lived in iowa for a few years now, but i know she loved going to the iowa state fair and i know she still goes home fairly regularly to visit her 94-year-old grandmother and both sets of her grandparents were dairy farmers. miss brand is familiar to this committee. she appeared before us many times, both as a nominee and as expert witness. she has already served the country well and i'm glad to see that she has been nominated once again. this time as associate attorney general. i'll note that this is the third time that she's been nominated for a senate-confirmed position, both president bush and obama also nominated her for roles in their respective departments. or administrations. before miss brand graduated from harvard law school, she was an intern in my d.c. office, as you've been told by my colleague. she clerked for the justice of the supreme court of massachusetts as well as for justice kennedy on the u.s. supreme court. she served as counsel to both president bush and assistant attorney general, office of legal policy. in that role, she prepared nominees to be sitting at the very place she is at this time. she also specialized in counterterrorism and national security issues. in 2011, she became chief counsel for regulatory litigation of the u.s. chamber of commerce. most recently, she was a member of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board of course, that board oversees counterterrorism activities to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are balanced with national security interests. in addition to her vast career accomplishments, miss brand is on the board of an organization called doorways. doorways help women and children who find themselves in abusive situations. they have a 24-hour hotline and provide shelter and support services for these people. i'm pleased to support someone who is so well-qualified with her previous positions at the white house, office of legal counsel, privacy and civil liberties oversight board. she has experiences that touches almost every part of the federal government. as the assistant attorney general for the office of legal policy, she was a member of the senior management team of the department of justice working with components and law enforcement agencies across the department. similarly, at the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, she worked with diverse agencies to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are taken into account while carrying out the important mission of protecting the nation from terrorism. and during miss brand's tenure in the private sector, she gained extensive litigation management experience that will serve her will as she oversees civil litigating campaigns. so, congratulations on your many accomplishments, miss brand. i'm proud to be able to support your nomination and i think you'll do a very fantastic job. will you both now come to the table a table? and before you sit, i would like to swear you. do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? okay. now it's up to you, mr. rosenstein, to give your statement but before you do that, you may want to introduce your family and anybody else you want to introduce that's here to urge you on. >> thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, and members of the committee. i want to thank you for scheduling this hearing and thank you for taking the time to meet with me in your offices over the past two weeks. i'm very grateful to senators cardin and van hollen for their generous sblo ductionintroducti. i would like to into douroduce wife of 22 years, lislisa, who shares my afebs for the department of justice. she devotes much of her time to our daughters, julia and allison. this hearing, i'm sad to say, required ali to break her perfect school attendance record mind older daughter, julie, writes for the school newspaper. journalistic ethics preclude her from covering this event today. these young women with excellent students, superb athletes and fundamentally good people. i'm also proud, senators, that my parents, robert and jerry rosenstein, are here today. my mom worked as a bookkeeper and served on the school board. my dad ran a small business in philadelphia with his partner, miriam smalls who's also here. my parents encourage their children to take full advantage of the promise of america even when that hire requir required far from our hometown in pennsylvania. my sister also spent her entire career in public service. traveled from georgia where she's a center director at the center for disease control, also a uniformed officer, captain of the public health service. i'm disappointed she wasn't permitted to wear her uniform here today but we're very proud of her. my mother-in-law, alice, flew from california with lisa's aunt, rita. they are immigrants to america, senators, and they are quite proud as well to be here today. many other relatives, friends and colleagues are in this room who are watching the broadcast. senators, i am so fortunate to be part of our one of our nation's crown jewels. the united states department of justice stands for the principle that every american deserves equal protection under the rule of law. i want to thank the attorney general and the president for placing their trust in me to help manage the department and to enforce that principle. the justice department has been my professional home for almost three decades. i've served under five presidents and under nine attorneys general. i want to assure you, senators, based on my personal experience that our department is filled with exemplary professionals, devoted public servants who conduct independent investigations 365 days a year. i was fortunate to join them in 1990 and during the clinton administration i had the privilege of working directly for the deputy attorney general at that time, phillip hyman. i sevened in several other positions around the justice department and then in 2005 when i became u.s. attorney, i expected to serve for four years under president bush. and i am so grateful to president obama for demonstrating his confidence in me and allowing me to serve for eight years in his administration with the support of our home state senior senators cardin, mikulski, and sarbanes. political affiliation is irrelevant to my work. our goals of preventing crime and protecting national security require us to work cooperatively with all partners, to be vigilant and to be proactive. we also need to be role models because contacts with the police create indelible memories for citizens. as deputy attorney general, i will draw on my personal experience with thousands of honorable law enforcement officers all around this country. as i seek to implement change and to build public trust. justice is our name and justice is our mission. attorney general robert jackson famously said the citizens' safety lies in a prosecutor who deal with human kindness, seeks the truth, serves the law and approaches the task with humility. for me, the grand hall ways of main justice echo with the voices of mentors and friends. they taught me to ask the right questions. first, what can we do? second, what should we do? and third, how will we explain it? senators, before taking on a position of this solemn responsibility, it's important to know who you are and what you stand for. my oath is an obligation. it requires me to support and defend the constitution of the united states. to bear full faith and allegiance to the constitution and well and faithfully discharge the duties of my office. as you know, i've taken that oath a few times. i've administered that oath many times. i know it by heart. i understand what it means. and i intend to honor it. if you confirm my nomination, i will work to defend the integrity and independence of our justice department, to protect public safety, to preserve civil rights, to pursue justice, to advance the rule of law and to promote public confidence. the members of this committee are indispensable partners in achieving those goals and i know miss brand shares that view. senators, i am so proud to be here with one of the finest lawyers of my generation who would become the first female associate attorney general in the 40-year history of that office. i want to thank you for allowing me to speak and thank you for considering my nomination. >> thank you, mr. rosenstein. now, miss brand and you can give your statement as well as introduce anybody that's here to support you and urge you on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, ranking member feinstein and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today as you consider my nomination. i also would like to thank the president and the attorney general for the opportunity to be considered for this position. i'm grateful to you, mr. chairman, and to senator ernst for your kind introductions today. al although i have not lived in iowa for some time, as you mentioned, i will always consider myself an iowan. i'd like to introduce my family. with me is my husband, jonathan, who i met at harvard law school and he was one of the smartest lawyers i've ever known. he also served in the department of justice. he was born and raised in manhattan and so he was a bit of a novelty. the first time i brought him m home to pella, iowa. we had sport with him taking him around to meet the cows on my uncle's dairy farm. he took it in stride and now he enjoys going back to pella. sitting with him are our sons, garrett age 7 and willam age 9. they're not locking t inglookino be here, at least garrett is not. this is the second confirmation hearing willam has attended. my first hearing, willam was 4 and sat as long as he could for a 4-year-old, and senator leahy asked if he wanted to go back in the answer room and gave him something to play with. we didn't think it was wise to bring garrett who was then 8, he drank juice and ate -- this is the first time he's worn a blazer. i'm not sure how happy he is about that either mind parents, ruth and ivan brand planned to be here today but unfortunately their flights were canceled last night and couldn't make it. they may be watching the live stream on the website. my mother-in-law, helena, is here. helena emigrated from the netherlands many years ago and my kids call her oma, dutch word for grandma. i've been blessed with opportunities in both public service and the private sector to work in a wide range of areas of law and policy. working with top-notch lawyers in private practice i learned a great deal about law and lawyering. but my heart has always been in public service where i spent the majority of my career. public service dates back to my college year when i studied political science a the university of minnesota morris and college and law school, i took every chance i could get to gain government experience including, of course, my internship with chairman grassley. my first experience with the justice department was way back during my summer when i worked as an honors intern as the fbi national security division. chairman grassley and senator ernst described my professional biography. i won't take up the kcommittee' time repeating it. it was a tremendous privilege to serve in the justice department as assistant a.g. for legal policy, working to craft policy solutions to the challenges they were facing. i am honored to be nominated to be associate attorney general. i'm also humbled by the opportunity to take on such a serious responsibility. i have deep admiration and respect for the institution of the department of justice, for its critical work, for its tradition of independence and for the dedicated public servants, lawyers, law enforcement officers and many others who work across the administrations. if confirmed i will strive to undertake my role with integrity, independence and fidelity to constitutional principles and the rule of law. i look forward to entering back into public service. serving the department of justice, its client, the united states, and the public interest if i am confirmed. i also look forward to working with mr. rosenstein if we are confirmed. thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear today. i look forward to taking your questions. >> i'll start questioning. for the benefit of both republicans and democrats on the committee, we will take you in the order that you were here when the gavel falls and then for people that came in later on, it will be according to how they arrived. i would also ask that including this chairman, not to take more than the seven minutes. so if you still have one second left when you can answer -- start the last question you're going to ask, go ahead and ask the question at that point. i hope at that point our nominees will give a shorter answer. and i hope after your time has run out that you won't -- that you won't carry on dialogue that's kind of debate going on between the nominees and you u fo folks as well because we got a lot of work to do today. i'm going to start with mr. rosenstein but before i ask the thee or four questions on this first point, the attorney general has announced that he will recuse from any existing or future investigations of any matter relating in any way to the campaigns for president of the united states. that would include any investigation into campaigns for president and any communications with representatives of the russian government. the attorney general made clear that his announcement did not confirm the existence of any such investigation in accordance with department practice. in the event such an investigation were to take place, however, it would fall then to the position you've been nominated for as deputy attorney general in light of the recusal. so four questions that you can take as long to answer our short answers. i'll do one at a time. have you ever met with representatives of the russian government? >> not that i know of, senator -- >> push the button. >> sorry, senator. oef the course of my career from time to time, i've spoken to groups of visiting lawyers and judges from foreign countries. it's certainly possibly there may have been russian officials there, but i don't recall any such meetings, no. >> okay. when were you first in contact with the attorney general about your nomination? have you ever spoken to the attorney general about the question of russian contacts with presidential campaigns? >> my first contact with attorney general sessions, i believe, was approximately november 28th when i received a phone call from him. i don't blefelieve i ever had a direct contact with senator sessions prior to that date and, no, i've had no conversations with attorney general sessions about that matter. >> about the russian contacts? >> correct. >> okay. is there any basis on what you would not be able to handle such -- these investigations given that the attorney general sessions has announced his intention to recuse? >> senator, i'm not aware of any. i should tell you, of course, since i'm not involved in the matter, i don't know what, if any, investigation is currently ongoing within the department, so if i were confirmed, i would need to familiarize myself with the facts. i would need to con sults wisul experts in the department. we have a dplcomplex set of rul and statutes that govern recusals, so i'm not aware of any requirement for me to recuse at this time, but as a lawyer, senator, i would have to know what it is i'm recusing from and as a department of justice fi official i'd have to rely on the advice from the career staff. we have folks who are trained to do just that. >> i hope this next question is not an impossible one. how would you handle such an investigation? have you ever discussed with the attorney general the appoint met of a special prosecutor to handle such an investigation? >> well, how i would handle an investigation, senator, is the way i would handle any investigation. as far as i'm concerned, every investigation conducted by the department of justice is an independent investigation. we prosecute tens of thousands of people every year and every one of those defendants deserves an independent prosecutor. so i would be certain that we had independent investigators to conduct those investigations along with law enforcement agents who are trained to conduct their investigations in an appropriate way and comply with the statutes, the regular lace regulation, constitutions and policy of our law enforcement agencies. in this or other cases, i know this is the issue de joir on capitol hill. i estimate we would have a lot of matters coming before the department over time and i would approach them all the same way. i would evaluate the facts and the law, consider the applicable regulations, consult with career professionals in the department then exercise my best judgment if i were acting attorney general or provide my best advice to the attorney general if he were not recused about what i believe is the right course of action. >> i'd like to go to miss brand now and ask you about your work at the chamber of commerce. when you worked there, your client, of course, was at chamber. in that capacity, you signed a number of brief opposing the positions of government agencies. of course, at the department of justice, your job will be to defend these agencies and their missions. can you discuss how you'll approach that from a different angle? >> sure, senator grassley, i would be happy to. as you say, as a lawyer, i have spent some of my career in private practice representing clients. i've, of course, spent more of my career in public service of one type or another, but just as when i was at a law firm, when i was at the chamber of commerce, i had a client, the chamber of commerce. as a litigator there, my job was to file lawsuits and file amicus briefs on behalf of that client. if i'm confirmed to this position, of course, i'll have a very different role. i'll have a different client. my client will be the united states and my role will be to serve the public interests of the interests of justice. representing that client as best i can. that's a role i'm very comfortable with. as i said, i've spent more of my career in public service than in private practice and i would be honored to take that role back on if i'm confirmed. >> mr. rosenstein, you served as an associate independent counsel and, of course, you already referred to the decades of experience you've had in the department. so you're familiar with the role of independent counsels or special procesecutors in federa investigations. appointment of a special counsel requires both that there's evidence of a crime or wrongdoing and the department is unable to handle the matter fairly. is that right, as you see it? >> generally that's correct. i believe what you're referring to is the department's regulation is the -- it would require under the current regulation a determination by the attorney general or the acting attorney general, number criminal investigation of a person is warranted, number two, for department to conduct that investigation and number three, that the pit justifies the theyt t appointment of a private counsel. >> how would you decide whether a special prosecutor would be appreciate in a particular department investigation? >> whatever it is, senator, there are various formulations of this as was mentioned in the introduction. i wasn't technically a special counsel under that regulation, but the bottom line is, senator, it's my job to make sure that all investigations are conducted independently and whether it's a law or a statute, or some other mechanism, i would ensure that every investigation is conducted independently. >> my time's up. i shave two more points on that question bullt i'll do that in second round. senator feinstein? >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. mr. rosenstein, earlier this year the entire united states intelligence community made public its assessment that vladimir putin ordered a russian influence campaign designed to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. the goal was to undermine public faith in the united states democratic process and to harm the campaign of secretary clinton in favor of president trump. a i am very concerned. i've been six years the chairman of the intelligence committee and on it for 16 years. so i've followed this closely, i've had the gang of eight briefings and feel very certain that the reports of the intelligence community are, in fact, correct. have you read either the final classified or unclassified versions of the intelligence community's assessment regarding the russian government's interference with the 2016 presidential campaign? >> senator, i'm certainly familiar with the issue from media accounts. i obviously have not read any classified report concerning it because it's not within my official responsibility as u.s. attorney for maryland. and i don't believe i've read the unclassified report. i believe i've read summaries in the media. >> well, i'm going to ask that you do that before your nomination comes up if it does on the floor. if you will. will you read those reports? >> i think, senator, if i were to become deputy attorney general, it would be essential for me to read those reports. probably the classified as well if there is such a report. i don't think i'm authorized to do that -- >> well, why don't we find out? you're number two now. will be number two. >> yes. i think it's very important, senator, i think that's a really valuable point. i appreciate you raising it because the media reports actually have created some confusion about that. i am the u.s. attorney for the district of maryland. i have no role in managing the department. >> right. i understand that. >> yes. >> it is my fault. i misspoke. so, thank you. let me go on to the question of special counsel. and i mentioned in my opening remarks that when valerie plame's covert identity was revealed by someone in the bush white house, attorney general ashcroft recused himself and then-deputy attorney general comey promptly assigned patrick fitzgerald to be a special prosecutor with plenty of authority to investigate and prosecute that case. now given the recusal by the attorney general and the intense political interest in this matter, and the strong potential that the investigation will, in fact, involve individuals associated with the white house it would seem this situation also rises to the level of extraordinary circumstances that warrant a special counsel under the regulations. given all of this and the heightened level of distrust on all sides, do you support the appointment of an independent special counsel to look into these matters? >> senator, my understanding of this, and again, it's based solely on media accounts at this point, my understanding is that at least one of your colleagues called for a special counsel for something related to this matter while attorney general lynch was in office in early january and she rejected the quest. based on the media accounts, i believe she said exactly what i said, she had confidence in the career professionals of the department but had an additional piece of information. she presumably knows the fact and i didn't and she rejected that request. currently, senator, we have anningan ing an acting attorney general for this matter, dana boente, i pointed by president obama. if there were a need for special counsel, he currently has full authority to appoint one. i don't know at this point if attorney general lynch or acting attorney general boente are right or wrong. i wouldn't be in position to overrule them without having access to the facts that are the basis. their decisions. >> so i'm trying to figure out what your bottom line is. i is that fair? >> i'm not in position to answer the question because i don't know the information that they know. the folks who are in the position to make that decision. when i am in that position, i don't presume that attorney general lynch and acting attorney general boente are correct. if i determined they're mistaken, i would overrule them. >> thank you. i understand. miss brand, if i may, while at the national chamber litigation center, you led regulatory litigation directed against regulations to protect workers' rights and the environment. the president has now issued two executive orders aimed squarely at eliminating regulations. the first requires the two federal regulations be identified for elimination for every new regulation. the second requires regulatory task forces in each agency to make recommendations on repealing, replacing and modifying existing regulations. as you may know, not all of the rules required by dodd/frank have been finalized or fully implemented despite the fact that it's been nearly seven years since it became law. by one measurement, over 100 rules still remain to be finalized. nearly a third of all the rules required by dodd/frank. it is concerning to me that these rules may not be proposed or finalized at all under the regulatory position of this administration simply because there aren't hundreds of others found to offset. what is the legal justification for aurbitrarily failing to isse a regulation called for under law simply because there aren't two regulations on the books to eliminate? >> thank you, senator feinstein. i am aware of those executive orders generally. i haven't studied them as i'm not yet in department. with respect to the executive order ordering a review of regulations on the books, my recollection is that president obama issued something quite similar during his term in office and i haven't studied what the results of that study were. in terms of the other executive order, again, i haven't studied it but i think that any regulatory action taken by any agency of the government has to comply with the requirements of the administrative procedure act which require reason decision-making. that statute remains in place but as to the interplay between the apa and the executive order, those decisions would fall in the first instance to the regulatory agencies, themselves, but i would have to study it further. >> thank you very much. thanks, mr. chairman. >> okay. senator hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me first say that i -- i agree with you that there's no legitimate basis for asking the attorney general to appear before this committee. it is unseemly, at best, to demand a hearing before the attorney general's had a chance to address this matter further as he has now done. skipping that basic step of fairness makes it look like this is more about publicity and partisan posturing than anything else. at least it looks that way. responding to written questions after his hearing, the attorney general stated if a matter arose where he believed his impartiality might reasonably be questioned he would, quote, consult with department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed, unquote. now that is exactly what he did. i wish i could say the same thing about his predecessor. she would not recuse herself from the investigation into secretary clinton's misuse of classified information. my democratic friends have nothing to say about that. like i said, this kind of double standard makes it at least look like partisan politics. i hope we can start depoliticizing the justice department. now let me turn to the nominees before us today. i want to congratulate both of you. you're excellent lawyers. i have great respect for each of you. both mr. rosenstein and miss brand are familiar to us and i think each is well qualified in being asked to lead the justice department. mr. rosenstein, let me just ask you this question. i am the senate sponsor of the rapid dna act. if it allowed the use of rapid dna technology to help -- to help analyze crimes, exonerate the innocent and prevent dna extensive -- or backlogs, do you support the effort to allow dna samples collected and analyzed with the use of rapid dna technology to be included in the national dna codus database? >> similar, i'm not familiar with details of the legislation but as you describe it, certainly sounds like it would be a valuable tool for law enforcement. i think it's critically important that we arm law enforcement officers with modern technology so they're best able to do their job of keeping us safe and i know of many cases where dna has been used effe effectively both to catch dangerous criminals, rapists in particular. we hear cases like that all the time. and also to exonerate innocent persons. some of whom have been wrongly convicted. so i think dna can be an extraordinarily valuable tool. and i believe we should arm our law enforcement officers with that sort of technology. >> i'm concerned about a lack of transparency in federally funded pretrial release programs. individuals are often released without paying any bail on a promise to return to court and to meet the conditions of a pretrial program. if they fail to return or complete such a program, they become fugitives and the taxpayers have to pay the price for billions in unpaid bills. last congress i spntroduced the citizens' right to know act, receive federal funding to report to the attorney general on these pretrial release program programs. what is your judgment of the pretrial release program? >> senator, i regret i'm not familiar with those challenges. i know that in cases that i've supervised, we make every effort, at least if somebody poses a significant danger to the community, to make sure they're cdetained prior to tria. if somebody is eligible for pretrial release, a candidate to be out in the community, we'd support that as well. it's important in either case that we have them available for court when the court date comes. >> thank you. miss brand, you're here as part of the constitutionally prescribed appointment process. in that process, the president nominates but cannot appoint without the advice and consent of the senate. we had a dispute a few years ago when the previous president attempted to appoint some officials without senator consent. he tried to define for the senate when we were in session and when we were in recess so he could bypass the requirement. in your capacity with the u.s. chamber of litigation center, you filed a brief. am i right the supreme court unanimously held that those appointments were unconstitutional? >> yes, senator. >> how important is it that the president abide by the limits of the constitution -- by the limits the constitution sets? >> well, senator hatch, i think that it's important for every officer of the united states, whether in the executive branch, the congress or the judiciary, or in a regulatory agency, to stay within the bounds of the authority granted to them by the constitution or laws of the united states. i think that divided governmental power, whether it's divided along federalism lines or whether it's divided horizontally with the separation of powers is a critical protection of individual liberty and freedom. >> thank you. in 2008, you advocated against overfederalizing criminal justice. a growing number of experts and policymakers are also cautioning against overcriminalizing behavior. i've long been a proponent of a default menz rea or criminal intent commitment in the federal criminal code. what are your thoughts about a default criminal intent requirement? >> well, senator, i understand that legislation along those lines has been introduced. i'm not sure if it's pending now. and i would have to study the details of the legislation. i certainly do think that it's important to have an appropriate or at least a clear mensrea for every criminal provision in the code. >> well thank you. that's all i have today. i appreciate both of you. appreciate you willing to serve. appreciate the service both of you, each of you has given to the federal government and to our fellow citizens in this country. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> senator leahy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss brand, i do recall asking my staff to tell your child there was a place that'd more interesting than listening even to your testimony, especially to the senators, as a father and grandfather, i understand that. mr. chairman, i know you said that you don't feel a need to invite the attorney general back for the committee. i would note that supplemental testimony last night did not even attempt to answer the misleading response to my question and considering what the russians appear to be doing to us, i do feel you should bring him back. let me -- let me mention this. i watched you both being sworn in and over my years here, i've watched hundreds, hundreds of people being sworn in. it's very important. mr. rosenstein, you said you memorized it. i'm sure you have. many of the people have testified so far this year as nominees, they've fallen short of this and their misleading testimony only came to light after the press reported on it. will you -- i'll ask both of you, you can answer this yes or no, will you commit to me that in the event you need -- find a need to clarify any of your answers before this committee, you do so immediately and not wait until the press calls you on it? mr. rosenstein? >> thank you, senator. i don't know in you've ever had the opportunity to be on my side of the table, we certainly make every effort to answer your questions fully. >> the answer -- if you were to go back over it afterward and witnesses have, and they found something, we left this out, they've let us know. will you commit to do that before you have to be forced to do it because of something in the press? >> yes, i would. >> mrs. brand? >> yes. >> now, senator feinstein, mr. rosenstein asked you about the appointment of special counsel. i recall i was not in the sen e senate, i was a young prosecutor when elliot richardson was asked the same question before this committee as the nominee for attorney general in 1973. watergate was unfolding. he promised the committee he would appoint an independent prosecutor in confirmed, saying, i quote him, "it was necessary to create the maximum possible degree of public confidence in the integrity of the process." and of course, he named archibald cox. he actually did that before the committee finished here. now russian hacking of one of our national committees, in this case the democratic national committee, the efforts to influence our elections and continuing efforts not only in this country but other country, to but other countries to influence elections just as serious as watergate. computer or computer network without authorization and obtaining another's documented e-mails. is that illegal under federal law? thank you. and of course according to the intelligence community read the public one and the classified one and see about russia's interference in our election. it was intended to undermine public faith. do you agree it is a matter of extraordinary importance? >> i'm sorry. i don't know what, if any investigation is ongoing. if it is america against russia or any other country i think everyone in this room knows which side i'm on. >> i do too but would you also agree that american people through such an investigation they have to have confidence? >> i believe it is critical to have confidence in our integrity, yes. >> suppose you're conducting an investigation and you find it is communications between those under investigation and your own boss. is this challenges -- >> yes, it would. i think one of the worst things i have seen in my years in the senate, i have thought about this and spend a lot of time going over it another country may try to interfere. the national security adviser and the attorney general has recused himself. the white house seems to be in an investigation. have you discussed with anyone for the administration or anyone connected with the president whether you would appoint a special council if you were confirmed? >> i have had no communication at all or communication with the attorney general about this issue. >> okay. are you willing to apoint a special council to examine russian interference and other criminal activity? >> i am willing when i determine it is appropriate based upon the policies and procedures of the justice department. >> i would ask you go back and read what he said. >> i have, sir. >>. >> senator, i have absolutely no information about that other than what i have read in the newspaper. if i were the deputy attorney general -- >> no. the question is does the president have that unilateral authority to wiretap someone's phones? >> i don't know the details and i'm reluctant as a lawyer to comment on that. in a criminal investigation the answer would certainly be no. >> i could would assume if the president is not telling the truth about this those who know the truth would say what the truth is. thank you mr. chairman. congratulations. i'm a little confused by some of my colleague's statements because they called for an investigation. actually there's an investigation ongoing by the senate intelligence committee and house intelligence committee. i was out and observed four large binders full of classified investigation made available to the committee to conduct that bipartisan investigation, one that chairman and vice chairman warner have authorized. i think thoos the appropriate place for the investigation to take place rather than some sort of select committee or some sort of immediate what circus. i also am puzzled that mr. rosenstein, you have appropriately been praised for your reputation as a professional prosecutor, but then my colleagues here ask you whether you'll abdicate the responsibilities i think you answered questions appropriately. you will apply proper standards once you have confirmed i hear some of my colleagues talk about the importance of getting the justice department on track and claiming they are going to block your nomination because of the concern about some other collateral matters. i just want to ask you, mr. rosenstein, you pointed this out earlier. i think it bears repeating that you were appointed by the obama administration to oversee information is that correct? >> yes, sir, that is correct. >> we don't discuss matters beyond what's in the public record. >> that would be fine. >> the outcome is that james cartright and investigation into alleged unlawful disclosure. >> i would suggest to my friends if you have professionalism and integrity to conduct that sort of sensitive investigation that i believe you're eminently qualified for this position to which the president has nominated you. you will conduct yourself with similar professionalism and integrity. as i said earlier, congratulations on your appointment. of course you have been before the committee several times in different capacities. i wanted to ask you in particular about your roel on the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. as you know, congress will have the responsibility of looking at the foreign surveillance intelligence act for section 702. we have a number of other sensitive law enforcement tools that which will be considered this year and certainly when you're you will be playing a role in that could you describe what sort of oversight and protections are par sh of these law enenforcement tools? it is important for me to see there are oversight from all three branches of government and the concern is protected by that sort of oversite. >> thank you, senator. i thought a lot about this. i have written about this, which ov oversight depends what you're talking about. these are complex matters. but as a general matter there is oversight by all three branches of government in a typical application there is extensive work done inside the executive branch and there's judicial oversight. there is the intelligence committee for certain programs. there is oversight by the intelligence agencies. there is involvement by the board i formally sat on. so depending on the circumstances there could be quite a few levels of oversight far particular government action. >> i appreciate complexity but i think it is important for the public to understand that there are a number of legal protections and responsibilities that do protect privacy rights while preserves law enforcement and intelligence gathering tools chls it strikes me it would be a travesty and dangerous if for some reason congress failed in the responsibility to reauthorize such an important law enforcement and intelligence gathering tool because of misguided concerns or unsupported concerns because of lack of adequate oversight. so it will be a very important part of the discussion. i think the house and judiciary committee will have a hearing on that this week. we look forward to your contribution as we try to strike that right balance. thank you both for your service and certainly look forward to supporting your nominations. >> thank you. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thank you for coming by my office. i appreciate it. for the record my friend there texas raises question about delay in filling these positions. deputy attorney general was held up by the republicans in this committee 400 days before he was confirmed i trust you will be treated more professionally by this committee. let me ask more specific questions about the russian involvement. i respect the fact that you haven't read this report. it is 15 pages long and on the internaet and not classified. i want to put into why we are asking you these questions today. what we have learned from two months ago is historic. it is of cyber attack. i quote from our intelligence agencies it is in scope of effort compared to previous operations. they say we say he ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the u.s. presidential election. russian goals were to undermind faith, harm her elect blt and potential presidency. we further address putin and develop a clear preference for president-elect trump. this was published by our intelligence agencies. it is the reason many of us believe it is not like an ordinary investigation. this is historic. it is always critical when it comes to filling these appointments. this is a historic moment in our history. will you commit if you're confirmed you will not impede or shut down any fbi or justice department investigation to influence the 2016 u.s. presidential election? >> senator, on the issue of interference i can assure you you and i are on the same side. i will certainly support any properly predicated investigation related to interference by the russians or anybody else. >> i might say attorney general sessions would not make the same commitment. second question, will you commit to properly inform if the department of justice closes, determine nates or declies to russian interference? >> i'm sorry? >> if the department of justice declines to further pursue an investigation into russian interferen interference. >> i have been a prosecutor for 27 years. there are often other concerns that arise and in this particular one i think i would need to consult with the intelligence community before i make any commitment about what would be the outcome of the investigation. >> if the outcome is terminating or declining to further pursue, would you report it to the american people? >> i don't want to make any about what i would do without knowing the details of the investigation. i can assure you if it's ate prop yacht to release it to the american public i would. >> do you pledge to continue to pursue any ongoing investigation into russian interference or any other tempts our political system or position in the world? >> if there's an ongoing investigation in the justice department by russia or anybody else and it's properly predicated and has a basis for federal investigation, absolutely, i support it. >> this is another one he refused to answer. i would like to ask you about the scope of the session's recusal. i'm not sure where we stand today of any matter relating in any way to campaigns of the president of the united states. this i might say is partial recusal when it comes to the investigations into russian influence on president trump and his circle of advisers. this does not extend to post election russian context with the trump transition team and trump administration like the russian ambassador. yet the letter which is committee was sent says the march 3rd, 2017 letter, which many of us sent to attorney general sessions, also asked why i had not recused myself from rush shoon context. the attorney general says i understand the scope of the recusal it applies under code. as lawyers we are governed. there are a lot of policies that apply. it is important for us to consult with career professionals. i think it is important to understand what we tell our people is when you recuse there's no presumption you have done anything wrong. it is because your issue justifies your recusal. if i were confirmed i would make sure if the attorney general were recused i would not discuss the mootatter with him. >> thank you but that's not my question. i want to give you the time to do it properly. i want to give you the official recusal and letter which he sent to this committee and ask you for clarity as to the scope of this recusal. i think he left a wide gap as context between the russians and transition team and any members of the administration. i want to know how you rate it and give you the time to do it properly and professionally. >> i appreciate it but i don't now how i would have access to that. if i believe it is not sufficient i will certainly consult with him. if i were to read it today i wouldn't know what was the nature of the investigation. >> i'm not questioning the process. i'm asking in his own words, not for the entire process that lead up to his conclusion. i'm asking you how you read his own words. mr. chairman, thanks to both of you for being here. one of our reasons republic is strong is because we have strong public service to offer service even during difficult jobs. in 2008 you wrote a memorandum later published by the heritage foundation. you approached the topic. one of the things you wrote on there was that trimming back the federal code and prosecuted by the state has long been a goal. this is worthwhile both for the constitutional merits and effect on anlt. you managed to put in a plug for restoring federalism and separation of powers won me over. i happen to believe our separation of towers has caused problems, problems that are neither liberal or conservative. they are law and order kind of concerns. they are truckture ral concerns. ultimately they get to this point of accountability. would you agree with me if you said that could be applied to basically every instance, not just in the criminal law but given the position that you'll be involved in will be dealing with civil issues. federalism and pep ration of power are important. every time we drift from them that we are limiting accountability of government. >> y, i do. i think the -- i would consider myself governed by them and i think the constitution brilli t brilliantly di voided government, so yes, i agree with you skblchlt given that you'll will i also wanded to ask you, when is it appropriate for someone not to if demand tral law there. >> i think the department's obligation is to defend an act of congress. >> and that has is roots in the separation of powers, does it not? >> yes. >> given that if the twektive isn't doing its job nobody is as adorable as they used to be. one hot button topic involves prosecutorial discretion. do you think the government should prosecute on a case by case basis or something i should ie ply on a more general matter? >> that's a difficult question. i think the question is a little bit of both. we have general guidelines. the department of justice is currently governed by the prosecution guideline. they are in the u.s. attorney's manual and they establish sort of the general criteria in all cases that prosecutors ought to look to in determines whether or not to bring a particular case. one of the factors is federal law enforcement priorities. this is given a case that falls within a priority. i think the complete answer to your question is of policy judgments, where to focus on resources and in every case it needs to be a determination on whether it justified the prosecution. >> thank you. you were cautious about how you charge crimes involving minimut mandatory sentences. can you talk to me about your officer's practices with regard to how it might reflect things? >> yes. there are many cases we deal with that involve extraordinarily dangerous people who deserve to be sent to prison for lengthy periods of time. in those cases we apply the mandatory penalties that are a vailable to us. in many cases using mandatory minimum penalty results in cooperation from that defendant. if we are able to do that that's one of the ways we are able to help our local colleagues in baltimore and other cities. we are able to break this no snitching code that is such a problem. we are able to break that by catching the defendant that committed a serious crime and offering the opportunity to truthfully provide information about other crimes that he knows. so i think it's important we have those penalties available to us. as you say, we also need to take into consideration whether in a particular case it would be excessi excessive. there are some cases we have discretion and that's when we use those only when we are justified. >> i would like to talk to you about civil asset forfeitture. equable sharing is a program that the department suspended in december of 2015, a lot of budget cuts. a program was resuscitated a few months later in 2016. would you consider making changes or ending equitable sharing? it is used to circumvent state and local laws restricting civil asset forfeitture? >> i would certainly consider changing the policies. i would be reluctant to completely terminating the policy. it is available to us. i think we need to use the tools that are available to us. >> i see my time exspipireexpir you. it is restricting to a elect few officials. what will be the policy in this administration there needs to be a single point of contact. >> and at the white house? >> pardon me? >> could anybody at the white house call you about cases? >> anybody could call but they won't get an answer. >> isn't the rule they shouldn't even call? >> and you're prepared to enforce this as deputy attorney general? >> i enforced this. usually it is a congressional staffer doesn't know the rules. i think it's important we circulate that. poem don't know the rules. we need to know the rules. >> and the white house needs to know the rules. >> yes, sir. >> why is it important he hooz not revealed information about individuals who have not been charged with a defense? >> i think it speaks for itself. >> i would like to hear you say it. >> my guidance for this and many other issues is robert jackson gave a speech that still stands as the best articulation of the federal prosecutor. he explained it is the most significant power and subject to abuse that we need to refrain from disparaging peep. if we charge somebody with a crime and it's appropriate to introduce evidence against them in court we do it. if we don't have a crime we have a right not to digs parj them. >> and you don't d-- >> it might be appropriate in the course of detention hearing and trial, for example. >> yeah. >> in 2010 a mem more suggesting the office of legal council to their clients that is equivalent to candor that they are thoeld in court proceedings. >> i'm not familiar with that issue. it is an ethical rule governing lawyers. >> we'll follow up for a more fullsome response. >> did the department's civil case against the tobacco industry have appropriate use? >> i do not know the answer. i apologize. i certainly recall reading about it. a lot of areas i'm an expert in and some i'm not. i'm not familiar with details on that. >> is the holding in that case correct that corporations do not have a right no fraudulent speech? >> i believe that is right as a matter of law. >> matter of law, yes. many of you may know more than i do about that. i do not know the answer to that. >> in the event would the content of communications between russian officials and trump surrogates be relevant to such an investigation? >> it may be. i don't know the details of the investigation. i'm not in a position to comment. >> if that's what we are investigating it would be relevant. >> would contacts between the trump campaign regarding surrogate communications also be relevant to such an investigation? >> when we conduct criminal investigations we conduct thorough investigations if they determine it was relevant we would get that information. do you agree if all of these shop windows were broken it is appropriate to ensure the public law enforcement will respond? >> circumstantial evidence, unless there was an earthquake -- >> and when there is public awareness it is not only appropriate but encouple want to assure it will go about its duties and take what steps are necessary to enforce the law? >> yes. >> and people do that all of the time. >> yes we do. is it not the equivalent on -- doesn't the american public understand there has been a significant piece of damage done by a foreign government as a result of that report? >> i believe you and i are on the same side. >> the question whether the department of justice is conducting an investigation is appropriate for the department of justice to answer, correct? >> absolutely. >> thank you, chairman. i appreciate it. i want to thank senator kennedy. did you read about plt trump's tweets regarding the aseshs he was involved? >> i did read them. >> what was your reaction? >> i don't think it is appropriate. if the president gives me an instruction that's my job. if the president is exercising his first amendment rights that's not my issue. >> he called on congress to investigate. -- >> the bottom line here is if there was a warrant issued regarding trump campaign activities and russian contacts would you in your new job, know about that warrant request and whether or not it was issued? >> i would hope at least prospectively i would. >> are you telling me you wouldn't know if the department of justice applied for a warrant? >> i hope that i would. >> i hope you would too. now, that's title three warrant, i think that's the right title. and then the fisa court. are you familiar with the fisa court? >> yes. i am. >> would you be able to tell us whether or not a request was maetd to monitor trump campaign activity? >> would i be able to? i would assume i would be able to. whether it would be appropriate is another question. >> why would it not be appropriate? >> i just don't know. as my capacitor i have dealt with them but i'm not an expert on the statue. i need to consult before i made any decision. >> so there's three ways this could have been done. you could have gotten a warrant through the normal criminal process. that would have been lawful if a judge granted it, right? >> hypothetically we do that all of the time. >> okay. number two you get up a fisa court which is a little bit different. it is still the court overseeing someone's request. the third would be if president obama decided to wiretap trump tower. do you know of any basis he would have the ability to do that without a fisa warrant? >> no. i do not. >> he could not -- >> no president can unilaterally say go wiretap that american citizen, right? >> you're not just going to be a lawyer. >> i'm a lawyer and i don't think -- >> and in writing later on tell me what the president of the united states could unilaterally wiretap an american citizen. it is without some court approval. >> so my answer to that is i would hope and i gree with you that would not happen. >> yes. >>. >> are you familiar with the executive order regarding the doca kids? >> only by reading about it in the newspaper. >> dough you flow if it is constitutional or not? >> i do not. >> it might well be litigated. >> okay. if there is an investigation it was maybe two stages and the decision whether or not to proceed forward. >> we are talking about some tweets. >> so you were born an independent person. >> it is of the investigators for the department of justice. >> i hope i have made that very clear that i don't view it to make thur every case was investigated independently. >> could appoint a special. >>. >> it is the u.s. attorney. that's correct. >> if you take over and you get confi confirmed. >> it is the acting attorney general. >> generally speaking when the subject of the investigation has a political bent to it do you believe that you could do that job even though you have been appointed by this president? >> absolutely, senator. you have to reck cog nieds you have a lot of policies. the u.s. prosecuted the republican vice president of the united states. >> so you believe all of your time before taking this job has prepared you for that moment if that moment ever comes in. >> are you familiar with the efforts by this committee and others? >> do you a general opinion on the federal level. it is to ensure yourselves they -- it is tools you provided them that you should take away. it is appropriate for that to be an ongoing process. >> thank you. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i'll start with you. you a good choice of colleges. thank you for that. i wanted to start with something pretty important to me because my dad was a journalist for many many years. that's freedom of the press. i raised this attorney at the attorney general. he said this he was still reviewing the regulations. in 2015 the attorney general revive vised the department's rules. the previous two to not put roer reporters in jail for doing their jobs. what are your views that were upheld during loretta lynch's tenure? >> it is a very important issue. the freedom of the press to the constitution. it is heightened the standards that are already relatively strict. it is a high level approval. >> would you uphold those standards. >> it would be under the per view. i hate to throw him under the bus. i can't commit to you. >> i apologize. i thought she was going handle that question. >> that's what i thought. >> what's your answer? >> i -- i get it. the question is about -- >> yes or no. >> yes or no answer on the standards that general holder had put forward to product the freedom of the press for when prosecutors can subpoena journalists for their records? >> yes. i am familiar. they have been modified over time. i think it's important for the department to be willing to revisit internal policies. some times we find out we didn't have it exactly right the last time. as a general proposition i think the rules -- and if you wanted a yes or no answer i apologize. >> so are you going review the rules? >> i don't have any plans to review the vrules. >> i'm not aware of any plan to revisit them. >> i will follow up on questions about what happened over the weekend where news reports stating that director comey called on the justice department to reject the president's resent assertion that president obama ordered the wiretapping of the phones in trump tower during last fall's campaign. in a situation where the president of the united states makes a fact chul statement about the status of an investigation and that statement is later the courtroomed not to be correct this is on an investigation, what is the responsibility of the justice department to set the record straight. >> i think i cannot answer that in a hypothetical way. it wasn't my understanding that it because comment on a justice department investigation. maybe it was. i was some what distracted with other issues. i'm familiar with the tweets. i can commit to you what i can do in any situation like that. i would talk and certainly consider his views, make a determination on what to do under those circumstances. >> but it would be your call to make that decision and not the director of the fbi's call? >> since i don't know what decision was made -- i have read in the newspaper reports to be leaks of what may or may not have occurred but i would anticipate obviously the fbi reports the attorney general and comey was the attorney general. it would be my responsibility, yes. >> are you aware of any time fbi agents wiretapped a u.s. citizen without a proper warrant since you have been a u.s. attorney in. >> not on my watch, no. >> and are you aware of an instance in which fbi agents or the department personnel sought that probably cause existed. >> no. >> in your statements at some point today i think if russia and it is a 17 page report that they are all referring. it is a public report that 17 agencies put out. it is short and i ask you to review it. basically you are putting yourselves in the shoes of the attorney general when it comes to this, whatever investigation may come out of this. that's why all of the media was there. i bet you have never had that many reporters here. i don't think we have had this much interest in a hearing like this. you will essentially be putting yourself in his shoes. i'm asking you read that report so i can ask you the same question and that's whether or not you believe there is any reason to doubt that evidence. he said there was no reason to doubt it. >> i suppose i should clarify. as a lawyer some times i'm too careful with my words. i have no reason to doubt intelligence. as a lawyer and prosecutor the issue for me is what can i prove in court. i certainly have no reason to doubt the intelligence community's conclusions. >> and i appreciated your opening statement where you said you look at things as a prosecutor says and that is what should i do and the last thing is how do we explain things? i think way too much is whether it is the refugee order. instead of asking what is the right thing to do and what can i legally do. that's what i want to get to, if in fact you in this matter or any other matter end up appointing a special council which could happen. in this matter you would be the one to make the decision. 28 cfr section 600.4 says that the scope will likely be determined by the acting attorney general for the purposes of the investigation. how would you define the scope of any investigation. it also says you could overrule a special council's decision. when would you be willing to overrule a special council's authority? when would you be willing to overrule? >> we would ask for an opportunity to respond and our time expired. >> okay. so a complete answer would take a lot of time. i don't want to pro long the hearing. >> they don't care. >> yeah, we are fine. >> there was an independent that expi expired. under current law every is accountable to attorney general. >> and in this case to you if it was on the part the attorney general -- >> right and this was true in the watergate era. the authority i would give is whatever authority is appropriate and make sure he or she had full range that is required and justified just like we do in all other cases. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> good afternoon. >> mr. rosenstein. can we agree that there's a difference between interfering with an election and actually changing the outcome of an election? >> that's not an issue within my jurisdiction. if somebody interferes it would be potentially a crime. so my answer is yes, there was certainly a difference. >> well, let's suppose that you're running for office and the super pack runs ads criticizing you. the super pack would be interfering legally in your election, but those ads may not impact the outcome of your election. do you see the distinction i'm trying to make? >> i do. if somebody interferes lawfully. >> you can lawfully and unlawfulfully interfere. >> if that's your definition, yes, sir. >> do you believe russia interfered with our elections? >> my understanding is that's my only basis of knowledge. i have no reason to doubt that. >> can we agree russia interfered in spas -- >> i do not know the answer to that. >> have you heard of a group called service a which is the active measures branch of the kgb? >> i do not recall ever hearing that group. >> well, that's who did it. >> are you aware that service a attempted to head off the election of richard nixon? >> respects one of your colleagues i think i may have heard of service a in newspaper stories but it would be my only basis to for knowledge! are you aware that in november of 1984 service a tried to stop ronald reagan from being reelected? >> i have no personal knowledge of that, no, sir. >> okay. >> are you aware that service a planted stories in the united states that former president kennedy was actually killed in a secret cia plot? >> i'm certainly aware that some of the issues but i don't recall those specific details. >> okay. all right. >> well, can we agree that russia's interference, if any, in the election in november was not the first time it's tried to do that? >> i simply don't have any personal knowledge. i would be offended by it. >> let's get down to it. you're going to be in charge of this investigation. i want you to look me in the eye and tell me which will take it to its conclusion and you'll report to the american people. >> i would do every investigation within my authority right and i believe that the 115,000 employees in the department of justice will support me in that and we'll take it to the appropriate conclusion. i don't know what that entails. when you're talking about national security there are a lot that are information in that. i don't have experience with that. i would have to rely heavily on career officials. i highly value our responsibility to inform the american people to the extent that we can. it is sort of my default position. i think it reassures the t publish -- public. >> would you be willing to do what i just asked within the per ram t per am ters of national security? >> national security and the law, yes, sir. >> okay. i happen to believe a u.s. attorney is the most powerful position in american government. i guess maybe being president is more powerful. >> i hope so. >> it is an enormous amount of power. the job is to protect the american people. at the same time a u.s. attorney could ruin somebody's life. are you comfortable with the checks and balances on the decisions our u.s. attorneys make? >> yes, sir. i am. i refer today jackson's speech. i agree with you, we do have significant power. our assistant u.s. attorneys have power. it is critical they execute that power responsibly. >> i would like for you to talk to me about your -- you have had some experience in this area but your personal fill os fi on national security and privacy. >> thank you senator kennedy. that is really important question that i have spent quite a bit of time thinking about over the last several years. i think it's hard to talk about it in the abstract, of course. any time the government is going to undertake surveillance program in the national security program it is critical for them to do within the bounds of law but not within the bounds of law but what's appropriate. >> it is to account for interest. it is to be considerable and potential. >> do you believe we have the proper checks and balances right now? >> i guess that depends on the circumstances. >> i want to thank you both for your willingness to serve. >> thank you mr. chairman! thank you mr. chairman. congratulations to you both on your nominations. i will ask miss brand a question and mr. rosenstein, you're free to space out on this one. >> can you comment on president trump's claims about president obama tapping his phones? can a sitting president order a wiretap or some other form of electronic surveillance? >> i can't comment on the comments -- >> just answer -- could you just answer my question? can the president just order a wiretap? >> well, under fisa, senator, court order is required. i don't know any of the facts that underlie this question so i'm reluctant to speculate beyond that. >> okay. well, he has to gate fisa order i believe and i suppose if he were a cat burglar and went through the air-conditioning ducts he could have done it himself. mr. rosenstein, exactly eight weeks ago this committee held a confirmation hearing for attorney general. my former colleague jeff sessions. now we have very different views about a lot of things. but the person of confirmation hearing is not to resolve kirchss of opinion on policy. the purpose is to allow the american people to decide for themselves through our exchanges here whether the nominee is qualified to serve. in order for the hearing to truly serve that purpose nominees must answer questions honestly. that's why they swear an oath. eight weeks ago my question was not answered honestly. i asked senator sessions the following question, if there is any thaeevidence in the course this campaign what will you do? i didn't ask who communicated with russian government. i asked how the man positioned to become the top law enforcement individual, a man who had served as chairman of the trump campaign's national security adviser -- advisory committee would conduct himself if circumstances required, that the department of justice investigate members of that same xhan. here's what then senator sessions said, and i quote. "senator franken, i'm not aware of any of those activities. i've been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i did not have communications with the russians." let me repeat that. "i did not have communications with the russians." as we all know now, that wasn't true. attorney general sessions met at least twice with the russian ambassador in 2016. once in july, an event during the republican national convention. and once in september in a private meeting in his senate office. but attorney general sessions did not acknowledge the fact his office misrepresented the truth until the "washington post" published an article exposing his meetings with the russian ambassador. in the seven weeks -- seven weeks between his appearance before this committee and the publication of that article attorney general sessions had ample opportunity to come clean and correct the record, but that's not what he did. so after an embarrassing story in the "post" describing undisclosed meeting with the very same russian official whose communications forced the president's national security adviser to resign, attorney general sessions hastily called a press conference and announced that he would recuse himself from overseeing any justice department investigation into russian interference with the election. so mr. rosenstein, now that the attorney general has recused himself it's your turn to answer my question, the very same question. again, here is the question i asked then senator sessions and that i would like you to answer now. if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the ruths government in t russian government in the course of this xhan what will you do? >> if there is predication to believe such communication was in violation of federal law, senator, i would ensure an appropriate investigation. >> now, mr. rosenstein, do you understand that you have an ongoing obligation to update your testimony and correct any inaccuracies or mistakes that you discover after you leave the hearing today? >> you're making me very self-conscious, senator, but yes, i believe i do. i'm trying to be as careful as i can. >> good. i must have just taken it for granted that witnesses understood their obligation to correct inaccuracies in their testimo testimony. but evidently that obligation was not known to attorney general sessions. yesterday four days after the press conference at which he announced his recusal and 55 days after his hearing attorney general sessions finally wrote to the committee to update his testimony. in that updated testimony the attorney general references a letter written by the democratic members of this committee on march 3rd. attorney general sessions said, and i quote, "the letter asks why i did not supplement the record to note any contact with the russian ambassador before its disclosure. having considered my answer responsive and no one having suggested otherwise, there was no need for a supplemented answer." so it would seem that in the attorney general's view unless this committee has reason to believe that a witness provided false testimony or unless this committee suggests a witness's answer is grossly misleading or unresponsive that that witness is relieved of his or her sworn duty to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. but i don't think that's how it works. and in light of attorney general sessions' failure to recognize his obligation to this body i thought it was important for me to make sure that you clearly understand this obligation. and you do understand this obligation, right? >> i believe i do, senator. >> okay. i think senator sessions should come back. i think he owes it to this committee to come back and to explain himself because he also says in his letter -- may i just -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> i will not -- this will be very short. he says having -- let's see. "i did not mention communications i had with the russian ambassador over the years because the question did not ask about them." i asked him what he would do as attorney general if it was true that members of the campaign had met with the russians. so he says, "i did not mention communications i had with the russian ambassador over the years because the question did not ask about them." he answered a question i didn't ask. and for him to put this in his letter as a response is insult i ing. and he should come back asand explain himself, mr. chairman. i think he owes that to us. because this appears to me like he was -- and i have been -- i've bent over backward not to say that he lied. he needs to come back. i've bent over backward. i've given him the benefit of the doubt. but he has to come back. >> mr. chairman, may i -- sorry. may i just make one clarification? and i apologize. senator franken's comments i think make it important for me to make this point. i want to make sure i didn't misspeak earlier. i was asked about whether or not i would announce that an investigation was ending regarding russia. i want to make sure you're all clear on this, that i do not know if there is an investigation. i don't know anything but what i've read in the newspapers at this point. >> well, i actually find it very disturb you that you did not read the declassified report on russia's activities during the election. i find that very, very disturbing. >> i read the newspaper story. i'm very sorry to hear that, senator. >> i would like to comment on what senator franken just said. and i don't expect senator franken to act like i would toward our witnesses. but as i remember, senator franken asking his question of senator sessions, he referred to something that there had just been something come on cnn that obviously -- and franken said that senator sessions wouldn't know what he was and he was going to take that into consideration, that it would have been all right for you to ask your question, and you probably should have given him a chance to get the information you had and reflect on it and give an answer in writing. now, the way i tend to -- and both of you know that i said this to you when you were in the privacy of my office. if i was going to ask you a gotcha question, i was going to tell you about it ahead of time. and i consider what senator franken asked sessions at that late moment that that story had just come out as a gotcha question -- >> it was not a gotcha question, sir. >> it was. from the standpoint he didn't know you what you were asking about. >> but i said that as i was asking the question. i said you haven't heard this and i don't expect that you have heard it. >> senator, tell us -- >> look at the tape, mr. chairman. please. >> thank you very much. congratulations to both of you for being here and to your famili families. a couple of questions. very quickly. it's one i asked of the attorney general nominee not too long ago in the obama administration. mr. rosenstein, this question is for you. the government accountability office issued a report in december of 2014. i think it was titled "doj could strengthen procedures for disciplining its attorneys." are you aware of that report? >> sorry, what year was that, senator? >> it was 2014, december. >> i'm not sure i'm aware of that particular report. i'm aware of the general issue. i probably was aware of that report at the time. >> i would ask you in your capacity as the deputy attorney general to look at that report because there's no evidence that i've been able to find since it was issued that there's been any actions taken to address the accountability problems, prosecutorial misconduct, and issues that were very clearly articulated in the report. i think there's a lot of information there that can increase accountability and professionalism within the doj. and i would like for you to maybe review that report and get back with my office if you think there are any things in your capacity that you would consider moving forward on or having merit. because in my opinion i don't think there's been any specific actions taken. >> so senator, what i'd like to request with your permission is that i will commit to you that if i'm confirmed as deputy attorney general i will not only read that report but i'll talk with the inspector general because i think it's important for us to consult with the i.g. they're right down the hall in the justice department. and make sure if they have advice about things we should do to better enhance the integrity of our prosecutors that we institute those practices. >> thank you. miss moran, i have a question for you. i think it would be somewhere in your private sector capacity, you advocated for businesses or you worked in an organization that has businesses as their members. one of the members of the organization you were part of has advocated for immigration reform. one of the areas that we've discussed on this committee, i sit on the immigration subcommittee on judiciary, are the reputed abuses of visa worker programs. and i'm trying to figure out how we can get to the facts. i'm one for -- who actually supports immigration reform measures because i think it's going to be important for this congress after 40 years of failures between administrations and congresses to solve a problem that's out there. one of them i think is maybe a misconception about the visa programs and their potential abuses. do you have any insights into how we can actually get through the u.s. attorneys or through others to identify where legitimate abuses exist so we can make examples out of the businesses that are preventing us from making -- potentially make examples if there are abuses out there for preventing us from having an intelligent discussion about reforming the visa work programs? >> well, senator, i -- i think you're talking about my work at the chamber of commerce. i was a litigator. i was not in the policy -- >> i was speaking more of your organization. >> so i wasn't involved in that work for the chamber. but i do know from my former government service that the visa programs, there are a number of agencies involved in them. the department of state, the department of homeland security, in some cases the department of labor for certain work releases. they're not administered by the department of justice. although visa fraud -- >> what i'm trying to get to is we've got to have somebody own the problem. so i appreciate the answer. i want to be respectful of time. the thing is we've got to have somebody own presenting specific evidence of real abuses of the program because i think they're more phantoms than reality. there are probably some. and those cases we need to make examples of out of businesses. we need to up enforcement actions for businesses who are not adhering to the letter of the law. but we need to find somebody to own it. so if it's not the doj i need to go to some other agency and find someone who can identify these sorts of -- or these things that are actually creating additional challenges. mr. rosenstein, did you have anything to add to that? >> my only thoughts, senator, is there may be issues that are within the pursue of the state department and homeland security as well as justice, but i would certainly if i were deputy provide any information we could to help you with that issue. >> i think that would be very helpful. the next question i have also relates to immigration. and it's immigration courts and the resources. we have a tremendous backlog that we need to address. to what extent have you studied this and what could you offer me as some hope that we can get to a point to where we have more timely hearing and closing of cases through the immigration courts? >> senator, i haven't studied it. i'll let miss brand answer as well. i haven't studied it but i'm familiar with the issue. and what i can commit to you is if i'm attorney general it will be one of my priorities to make sure we move things as quickly as possible. i unthere is a backlog with regard to those cases. i'll figure out whether there are procedural changes we can make, whether we need more resources in order to move those cases more quickly because i think it's critical for the department both in the civil and criminal context to make sure we resolve those sort of matters as expeditiously as we can. >> thank you. miss brand, do you have anything to add? >> no, i think mr. rosenstein said it well. there are -- i know that during my former time in the justice department there was a significant management challenge involved in finding the resources to address the incredibly high volume of immigration appeals. i don't know where that stands now but i'd be happy to look at that if i'm confirmed. >> and mr. rosenstein, my last question will be to you. and it has to do with state and local cooperation with the department. in terms of public safety, justice and public safety. one of the areas here that we may have some disagreement would be in the areas of working with state and local law enforcement entities through task forces. i don't know if you're familiar with the issue that we've had over time with equitable sharing. i think there have been some abuses of it in terms of some seizures. but for the most part i think it's a very important program to continue to ensure state and local participation. what are your views on that? >> yes, senator. i have in my capacity as u.s. attorney, one of my priorities has been to work with state and local law enforcement in all contexts in determining where we should devote our federal resources. one of the significant crime challenges. how can we work together to address them? so it's not just a matter of the federal government bigfooting their way in and pushing local folks out of the way but working together. i think the equitable sharing program is a really critical part of that effort. so we need to make sure that if we're using that authority we're using it appropriately and we're using it consistently with federal law enforcement interests. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to start by congratulating both of you and your nominations. and i'm thanking you for your long careers in public service and your families for their patience, persistence, and support, not just during your careers but during this hearing. i'd like to start by simply adding that i agree with senator franken that i think the attorney general should return to this committee and clarify his answers under previous questioning. i think it's important that we resolve the currently unresolved issues that i think were not clarified in his written response to this committee. mr. rosenstein, is it ever appropriate for the president or senior white house officials to contact the department of justice or the fbi with instructions or directions on how to conduct an ongoing criminal investigation? >> if there are any contacts about ongoing criminal investigations, senator, they should be directly with the deputy attorney general. i imagine there may be contexts, particularly where there are national security equities or foreign affairs issues, where it might be appropriate in a particular case. the presumption is no. and only the deputy should be in position in coordination with the attorney general to make a determination in any individual case. whether there's an appropriate basis for the exception to that general rule. >> the presumption is no, there should be limited or narrow contacts and in no way should those contacts be designed to thwart, stonewall or shut down an investigation that is well founded in proceeding, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> we spoke previously about your commitment to preserving the independence and public confidence in our law enforcement system. and i think your admirable record of public service and your personal testimony at the outset reinforces that. given the unanimous opinion of our intelligence committee that russia did in fact interfere in our election and troubling evidence of actual contacts and even possible collusion between the trump campaign and russia, would you agree that it's vital to the assurance of confidence in our democracy and law enforcement system that any investigation into these matters be fair, free, thorough, and politically independent? >> yes, i do. >> and you've stated previously that you'd be willing to resign if you felt that was not the case, that that would be one of the things you would do if you felt you were inappropriately being pressured to shut down an investigation or the investigation was being stonewalled, that you would oppose those efforts. is that correct? >> i don't recall whether i said it here, but it's certainly true. >> so in the steps before resigning you would oppose those efforts as politically italian feerg. will you commit that you will share with the american people if you were compelled to resign under those sorts of circumstances that that was the reason you resigned? >> i think i cannot answer that hypothetically. it would depend upon the facts and circumstances. in an appropriate case i would but i think i would need to. i'm a prosecutor, and generally speaking we don't talk publicly about our cases and i don't know what context it might arise in. so i can assure you that if it's lawful and appropriate for me to do it i certainly would. >> thank you. do you believe 3 to 5 million individuals voted illegally in the 2016 election as our president has alleged? >> senator, i have no independent basis of knowledge about that. and i'm not in a position to comment on it. >> and how do you plan on using the resources of the department of justice to investigate alleged instances of voter fraud either in the 2016 presidential election or other elections? >> i anticipate, senator, we'll continue to do it's way we have been doing it. during the 12 years that i served in both the bush and obama administrations when that sort of information came to the attention of our offices. we have attorneys in each u.s. attorney's office who are trained in handling election fraud matters. they consult with experts in the justice department's public integrity section, are responsible for election crimes. in appropriate cases they would launch an investigation that may result in federal charges. >> do you agree with the department's recent decision to withdraw from a voter i.d. case in texas where just last year the fifth circuit concluded that the texas law in question actually had a discriminatory impact on minority voters and the southern district of texas is currently considering the evidence on whether texas enacted the law with racially discriminatory intent? >> i've read newspaper stories about it, senator. i had no role in the department's original position or its revised position. so i do not know what the legal basis was or what if any determination was made by attorneys in the department. if i were in that position, i would make sure to consult with lawyers who understand those issues and reach an independent decision about the appropriate course of action. >> i was encouraged in your statement that corruption and civil rights cases are among our most sensitive and important. and it's my hope that you'll continue what has been your laudable record of public service in ensuring that public integrity cases and civil rights cases are appropriately and timely brought. miss brand, if i could, the office of the associate attorney general oversees, among other components, the office on violence against women. and you once criticized the violence against women act, which established and funds that office, and something which my predecessor, the former vice president, was quite proud of having a hand in enacting as a, quote, broad expansion of federal criminal law. if confirmed as associate attorney general will you support the office on violence against women? continuing its current activities to reduce gender-based violence and protect victims. >> senator coons, i'm glad you brought that up because that's an issue -- i'm sorry. i think the microphone's on. maybe i need to pull it closer. is that better? that's an issue that's very important to me actually. chairman grassley and senator ernst noted in their introductions that i serve on the board of directors of a non-profit that among other things operates a domestic violence safehouse and helps victims of domestic violence and instability. so i absolutely support the work of the office of violence against women, and i would be honored to work with them. >> thank you, miss brand. forgive me. mr. rosenstein, if i might, we spoke yesterday at some length about your record of combating violent crime. considering public integrity cases and protecting america's integrity and innovations through intellectual property enforcement. i'm especially interested in your view of the cops office, cops programs and cops grants as a tool for combating violent crime. and in my closing 30 seconds would be interested in your view on how we might work together to strengthen state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal law enforcement both in i.p., protection. we talked about customs and border. and in combating violent crime. >> yes, thank you, senator. i look forward if i'm confirmed to working with you on both of those issues. with regard to i.p., as you know, i've been involved in the department's -- the attorney gener general's advisory committee with regard to ipt elect'll property issues. i'm familiar with those issues. and we brought some significant cases in my district. and i'm committed to continuing that work. with regard to the cops office and combating violent crime and working with police agencies i don't know all the details of it. my interaction with the cops office was limited to one incident, or one episode in which they came to baltimore and initiated a cops investigation. i certainly think it can be a useful tool in an appropriate case. so i anticipate that we would use that authority as we would all others to try to work with and help improve state and local law enforcement. >> thank you both. thank you, mr. chairman. >> that's all right, senator. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for the testimony. i apologize if i'm covering something that has been covered before. i haven't been able to be here the whole time. mr. rosenstein, let me talk about an aspect of immigration that's important in the state of arizona. we've had something along the southwest border called operation streamline that has been -- the purpose of the program is really to cut down on illegal border crossings by adopting a no tolerance posture there for those who are entering the first time and re-entering illegally. it's helped increase border security, particularly along the yuma sector, been very effective there. nevertheless, in recent years the u.s. attorney's office for the district of arizona adopted a policy that ended prosecutions for first-time crossers and i've asked many times attorney general holder and attorney general lidge, and i was never able to get a straight answer as to why this program had ended. i want to make sure it's enforced. we've had success. and i don't know why with a successful program along the border that we would adopt another posture. i hear from sheriffs along the border all the time how effective that was and that when the federal government doesn't do this then the burden falls to them. so can you talk about operation streamline your understanding of it and if doj plans to go forward under your and others' leadership? >> senator, as you know, maryland doesn't have an international border and i'm not familiar with the streamlined project. as a general proposition, though, i agree with you that law enforcement could be another tool among other tools available to combat immigration crimes and other crimes. if i become the attorney general i certainly would consider that an important issue to review and consult the attorney general in your district and other districts as to what their policies are. as a general matter we do have limited resources. and we do need to make decisions about which cases to bring. but i don't think we should rule out any cases categorically if there's a potential to have an impact by prosecuting those cases. >> what has happened is yuma effectively had operation streamline border crossings went down significantly there. tucson sector never adopted it. and it pushed illegal crossings toward the tucson sector. and so when we have uneven application of the law it has impacts on those border communities. so i would hope that you'd move forward with regard to operation streamline. when i asked attorney general sessions about it. and i hope the department will do so. let's switch the subject for a minute of doj grants. fiscal year 2009 through 2013 department awarded approximately $17 billion in grants. i'm concerned about the possibility and some of the findings of waste and fraud within these grant programs. it was recently reported that doj had squandered as much as $100 million in taxpayer dollars over the last five years. recent o.i.g. audit questioned nearly all of more than 23 million in grants awards to just, for example, the big brothers and big sisters of arizona. or i'm sorry, of america. as the department's inspector general michael horowitz said before the house judiciary committee, there's virtually no visibility on how grant funds are actually being used by the recipien recipients. he continued, unless there is an oig audit or investigation or the granting agency dedicates resources to analyze accounting information from the recipient, the government and the taxpayers are virtually in the dark regarding how grant funds are actually used. this is a serious problem. what does the department plan to do to make sure there's more transparency and we know how those grant funds are being utilized? >> senator, in my capacity as u.s. attorney i frequently work with inspector generals for the justice department and for other agencies and there are a variety of tools we have available to us to ensure that those grant funds if they're not used appropriately that we take appropriate remedial action. one of them is civil enforcement. in fact, we have the ability to file falls claims act cases if we determine that a grant recipient has not complied with the rules regarding a particular grant. we also have criminal enforcement ability if fraud has been committed with regard to a grant. i would certainly consult with the inspector general about his findings and determine whether or not there's more i can do. the inspector general of course has the authority not just to make findings but also has an investigative and criminal enforcement component. so they in fact is can serve effectively as the police for grant fraud within their agency. i'll certainly ensure that's done in appropriate cases. >> ms. brand, as associate attorney general you'll oversee the department's office of information policy. in that role you'll be charged with making sure that the department maintains transparency and timely response to requests for information including sensitive records under foia. how do you intend to do this? >> well, senator, that is an important function for the department of justice. as for any other agency, the office of information and private has a career official as the head of that agency who's been there for some time, and i expect i would largely defer to her. but i would want to make sure that that is happening, that's operating efficiently and transparently and as quickly as possible. >> mr. rosenstein, you have developed quite a reputation for bringing law enforcement together at all levels to work toward a common purpose or goal. this is desperately needed with regard to unifying local law enforcement and federal officers with regard to law enforcement on immigration laws and coordinate immigration enforcement efforts. can you speak to that for a minute? >> i certainly agree with you, senator, it's critical we coordinate federal, state, and local law enforcement. there are some areas in which we're 100% in agreement, particularly with regard to violent crime and gangs. and there are some issues where there are more complex political issues such as immigration. but i believe it's critical for us to the extent we're able to to find common ground so that we can work together to make sure we use our mutual resources most effectively to combat crime problems that plague our zones citizens. >> we have situations in arizona for example where i.c.e. has released individuals into the community who have had felony charges without informing locke p law enforcement this was being done. can you committee that that won't continue in the future? >> i wouldn't want it to occur in any cases under our purview. if it's an i.c.e. administrative case it may not necessarily be under the department of justice's authority. but i'd certainly consult with the department of homeland security and make sure if that's happening inappropriately make sure to fix it. >> there needs to be cooperation between doj and department of homeland security. >> absolutely. >> when individuals have been charged. >> yes, sir. >> [ inaudible ]. -- concluded that after these two witnesses here and then a second round for three on this side that we can work our way through this and get done. >> certainly. >> if that's okay with you. do you need a five-minute break? >> no, sir. >> i'm fine. >> and the second round will be five minutes. we're going to go to you two first. but then three for a second round. and then i'll have just one question, but i'll ask after everybody else has asked their question. so senator blumenthal. >> i'm presuming we'll have a second round as well if we like it. >> if you want it, yes. >> thank you. thanks, mr. chairman. thank you both for your public service, and thank you for being forthright in your answers to our questions today. mr. rosenstein, i want to talk about the justice department that both of us love and the mentors that we share and those echoes that both of us have heard in those halls, both of us as united states attorneys and federal prosecutors. and the values that are shared. and i want to say right at the outset that i regard your sxerns your career as a prosecutor as exemplary and your intellect and integrity certainly qualifying you for this position. and yet as i have told you, i will oppose your nomination if you are unwilling to commit to appoint a special prosecutor. and i say so with some sadness and regret because of my respect for you. but this issue of principle is so profoundly important. and only you, only you have the power to appoint a special prosecutor. we are in an extraordinary time careening toward a constitutional crisis with the intelligence agencies in complete agreement that the russians launched a massive attack on our democracy, a campaign of meddling in our elections through cyberattack and misinformation and propaganda. and there is evidence also of ties between trump officials, contacts, connections, even potential collusion. and the russians during the time when that attack occurred. and there is the danger of a cover-up as indicated by the apparently false statements made to this committee by the now attorney general about his contacts with the russians and by others in the trump administration including his national security adviser michael flynn. so i believe that a special prosecutor is absolutely necessary to assure the independence as well as the integrity of this investigation. and that's why i've pressed you privately and i've said publicly from mid february and before that there needs to be a special prosecutor. even though i support the investigation of the intelligence committee, which must do its work, as well as the appointment of a select committee and even a special commission that can produce findings of fact, a report, and recommendation. but you and i know that only the department of justice can pursue criminal wrongdoing. only a prosecution can pursue law breaking that violates our criminal laws. none of those other bodies can do it. so let me begin by asking you if you presented a witness to a grand jury, who presented false statements and you knew they were false, wouldn't you immediately correct the record? >> if i presented a witness before a grand jury that made false statements and -- i think that's a trick question, senator. >> it's a pretty clear question. it's a yes or no. yes, you would. >> in a grand jury it's actually not my job to tell the grand jury what the truth is. in a trial situation i would have an obligation, yes, sir. >> and if you presented a witness to a jury in a trial who testified falsely, you would immediately correct the record, correct? >> if i knew that the testimony was false, i'd have a responsibility to take corrective action, whether that's correcting the record or counseling the witness. it would depend on the circumstances. >> so i believe strongly that this committee has an obligation to bring back the attorney general to correct the record and explain why he stated as he did incorrectly that he had no meetings with the russians. let me ask you a question about the ongoing investigation. we know from the newspapers, which is apparently your source of information, that the fbi's investigating. won't the fbi need to ask jeff sessions and won't whoever the prosecutor is have to ask the attorney general why he made those statements? won't they have to ask the national -- former national security adviser and other trump officials why they made false statements? won't that be a part of the investigation? >> senator, i suspect that if i am confirmed for this -- first i should clarify because both senator feinstein and senator franken asked me about this 15-page public report. i rely on the media for a lot of information, senator, not information that matters to my work but general information but i want to commit to you that i will read that 15-page report that's available on the internet. no need to follow up. i commit that i will read that -- >> well, let me suggest to you that unquestionably, and i don't expect you to disagree with me, that an investigation of the russian meddling in our election and the ties between trump administration officials and the russians would involve questioning the attorney general of the united states. your boss. and possibly others in the administration. and possibly even the president. your boss. how can you investigate your boss? >> if there's evidence, senator, that the attorney general and president have information relevant to criminal investigation in this case as in previous cases that i've handled i'll make sure they're questioned. i've done that before. i've been involved before in questioning a president of the united states. >> but you've never investigated the attorney general of the united states, have you? >> no, i don't believe i've ever -- >> you've never investigated the president of the united states, have you? >> well, i was involved in an investigation that in part entailed the -- >> as a target or subject of criminal wrongdoing? >> senator, i don't want to comment on any more details of my experience with the independent counsel. i just want to assure you that i'll question and make sure anybody with relevant information is questioned, i don't care who it is. >> if you decline to name a spectacular prosecutor, will you commit to come before this committee and explain why? >> senator, i really appreciate your candor with me yesterday about that issue. i had meetings scheduled with you for yesterday afternoon. and somebody brought to my attention on sunday afternoon that you had -- your office at least had issued a tweet suggesting that you would try to obstruct my nomination if i didn't agree to do this. and i was a little reluctant to meet with you yesterday as a result of that but it was a superb meeting. and i appreciated your candor and your civility. and we may disagree on this narrow issue but i think you and i have a lot in common, including our affection for david margolis. and if i do become deputy attorney general i hope you will come visit the margolis memorial conference room in the deputy's office and we can talk about issues of mutual concern. i thought a lot about this issue, though, senator. you view it as an issue of principle that i need to commit to appoint a special counsel in a matter that i don't even know if it's being investigated. and i view it as an issue of principle that as a nominee for deputy attorney general i should not be promising to take action on a particular case. and i respect if you feel you need to oppose my nomination on that basis i respect your right to do it. i do not take it personally. but i would encourage to you consider my perspective on this. and i shared with you that i view robert jackson as a model for me and his view. robert jackson actually addressed this in that speech i referred to where he said that it was important for u.s. attorneys to avoid participating in the operation of the machinery of politics. and i view this as part of a -- it's a political issue and a completely legitimate issue for you and i respect your right to consider it but my view is that i have a responsibility when i take that oath if i become deputy attorney general i cannot take it conditioned upon having committed how i'm going to handle a particular case. i believe if i were to do that in this case some future deputy attorney general nominee would be here and he'd be asked to make a similar commitment and they'd say, well, rosenstein did it, why won't you? so i believe it's a matter of principle for me, senator, to take the position as robert jackson said that the purpose of this process is to determine whether or not the deputy attorney general nominee has the appropriate character for the job and not how he or she is going to rule in particular cases. the white house hasn't asked me that question. and i simply can't answer it to you. i apologize. i regret that. but i do hope you and i will be able to work together if i get the job. we have a tremendous amount in common. i have a great respect for your affection for the department. and i believe we'll have a constructive relationship. so thank you. >> well, thank you. >> the senator from hawaii. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with the most recent unsubstantiated early morning tweet from president trump accusing president obama of ordering a wiretap, thank you, mr. rosenstein, for your clear no on the question of whether president obama on his own could order a wiretap. maybe putin can do that, but the president of the united states cannot do that. and i know that ms. brand would not answer the same question characterizing the question as a hypothetical. it is not a hypothetical question. it is a question of law. mr. rosenstein, do you agree that the office of the attorney general is not the president's personal law firm? >> absolutely, senator. >> so that the a.g. serves as america's chief law enforcement officer and head of the department of justice representing the people of the united states. will you commit to providing your best independent justice in your prosecutorial discretion and duties at the department of justice? >> yes, i will. >> so if the president indicates wouldn't want a special counsel in the investigation into russia's interference in our elections and if you determined such counsel is warranted, will you be willing to deny the president his request? >> i believe i would, senator. it would depend on the context. certainly if the president had a conflict in a particular matter i would not take any advice from the president. >> so you would make your own determination because you're a lawyer for the people of the united states. >> let me clarify, senator. if you're talking your hypothetical, and again, it's difficult for me to answer hypotheticals as a lawyer -- >> i accept your answer. thank you. >> if the president has committed a crime and i believe the president's cull payable wouldn't follow the president's advice. that happened in the nixon era. there was a question about whether presidents can wiretap without legal process. i believe it's happened before. i don't have any reason to believe it's happened recently and i certainly hope it hasn't. >> miss brand, in our personal meeting you mentioned the need to preserve the integrity of elections. and to many that is doublespeak for voter suppression. the states have justified voter suppression laws by claiming rampant voter fraud. in fact president trump continues to claim that 3 to 5 million votes were cast illegally during the general election. do you agree with his assessment that 3 to 5 million votes were illegally cast? >> well, senator, horan, i think when we met yesterday you asked me about the importance of the voting rights act as well as voter fraud, and i think what i said is that it's important -- that both are important. >> could you respond to my question, which is do you believe that 3 to 5 million votes were cast illegally in the recent general election? >> if i might just finish that point. i think it's critically important for the department to do both, their work in enforcing the voting rights act and if cases arise as mr. rosenstein described, if there are allegations, credible allegations of voter fraud, the criminal division would pursue those. >> well, i know that mr. rosenstein did not respond to that question saying he did not have the information. but in fact, a comprehensive 2014 study published in the "washington post" found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud, in other words, voter fraud, from 2000 to 2014 out of more than 1 billion votes cast. so even this small number is likely inflated as the study's author count all credible claims regardless of whether or not they were found to be valid. so other studies done at the arizona state university in 2012 and 2016 found similar negligible rates of impersonation fraud. so even given these facts, a dozen states have passed voter suppression laws. and i'd like to ask you, ms. brand, will you commit to prioritizing doj resources to where the problems lie? the problems do not lie in voter fraud. the problems appear to lie in these voter suppression laws that states have been very busy passing after the shelby case. i'd like to know whether you would prioritize doj resources going after the voter suppression laws or certainly looking at these laws. to see whether in fact they suppress votes. >> well, senator hirano, i understand your concern with this, and i share concern for any -- anything that would violate the voting rights act and suppress votes. i view enforcement of that statute to be a core law enforcement function of the civil rights division. i would approach that issue like i would approach any issue, which is that if an issue is raised, a particular case, i would look at the facts and i would look at the law. i would of course be consulting with the lawyers in the civil rights division. they would be doing the work in the first instance of course. i don't intend to be micromanaging that work. but in my supervisory capacity i would talk with them, look at the facts, look at the law, exercise my best judgment. >> so mr. rosenstein, i would hope that you would have that kind of approach. but ms. brand, i think you said that protecting people's right to vote and access to voting is a core function. and would you agree with that, mr. rosenstein? >> absolutely. yes, senator. >> thank you. >> under the obama administration ex-piloted removal was used only when an immigrant was arrested within 100 miles of the border and had been in the country less than two weeks. under new executive order issued by president trump expedited removal will now include all those who have been in the country for up to two years, where a lot of things could happen. they could marry citizens. they could have citizens' children. no matter where they are caught in the u.s. so mr. rosenstein, how can the doj ensure that expedited removal doesn't threaten the due process rights of those who are not brought before an immigration judge? >> senator, i've had no direct involvement in immigration in my 27 years in the department. as u.s. attorney we have occasionally civil case that's arise out of immigration disputes. i believe that issue that you've referred to is really a matter primarily in the jurisdiction of homeland security rather than justice. so i regret that i'm just not in position to comment on it. >> but wouldn't the doj be prosecuting these kinds of cases or not? are you saying that because they don't come before a judge that that's not within your purview? >> well, no. i meant to say i think what you have in mind is an administrative removal or a civil removal rather than a criminal prosecution. if it were a criminal prosecution, that's just the type of case i've prosecuted as u.s. attorney. i haven't been involved in civil removals. and the decision about which -- i believe the decision about which immigrants to remove is in the first instance to homeland security but if i become deputy i'm sure i'll study up on that issue and consult with the experts in the department and i'll be happy to consult -- >> certainly because the doj has the responsibility to protect everyone's civil rights and due process rights i would think. thank you. >> thank you, chairman. first let me say that i agree with mr. rosenstein that he should have the chance to familiarize himself with the matter before he makes the call about a special counsel. but i would like to add to the record of these proceedings then senator sessions' op-ed in which he stated, and i quote, "the appropriate response when the subject matter is public and arises in a highly charged political atmosphere is for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel of great public stature and indisputable independence to assure the public the matter will be handled without partisanship." there is a matter on which senator sessions and i agree. i'd also like to add that if senator sessions, mr. chairman, had answered truthly and accurately the question that has been the subject of so much debate there would have been follow-up questions. follow-up questions such as, well, what was the content of those communications you had with the russian ambassador? what were the circumstances that led to those meetings? what communications did you have with the trump campaign about those meetings if any? and i think those are legitimate questions, and i don't think the committee should be deprived of the ability to follow up on those questions simply because we were deprived of an accurate and truthful answer. so i join my colleagues in hoping that the attorney general will reappear before us. mr. rosenstein, as a matter of law is it correct that the administrative procedures act has precedence over an executive order that might direct agencies to the contrary? >> senator, i regret that may be the case. i'm not familiar with nap i'm not a regulatory lawyer. i don't know the answer to that. >> it's an act of congress, isn't it? don't the laws of congress supervene executive orders? >> i'm sorry. your question -- >> don't the laws of congress supervene executive orders? >> yes. >> okay. there we go. ms. brand, a right-wing commentator has compared department staff to filth and urged that they be cleaned out like manure from the aegean stables. the attorney general has questioned whether secular attorneys at doj can fully understand the truth. so how will you defend the department from partisan, religion-based or ideological hiring practices? we have a great department that has steered away from that stuff by and large through its history. how will you protect that? your microphone. >> sorry. microphone. i have a great deal of respect for the lawyers in the department of justice. i think discrimination on the basis of religion in hiring is illegal anywhere. with respect to the impact of partisanship on hiring, we have the civil service protection laws, which are -- which govern the department of justice, and i think it's very important that everybody who is in the hiring capacity understands what the rules are. so i think training is a big part of that. i believe every employee of doj is supposed to be trained in a whole variety of laws that govern their conduct including the civil service protection laws. >> will this be a priority for you to ensure the department does not fall back into the predicament that it fell into under attorney general gonzalez? >> yes, senator. >> okay. science denial and specifically climate denial has been propagated by the fossil fuel industry for years through an array of front groups. the chamber of commerce, which you worked for, has been a relentless enemy of climate action and has trafficked regularly in climate denial. you have been their lawyer in environmental cases. can we trust you on climate science as related issues come up in the department? >> well, senator, my role if i'm confirmed to be associate a.g. will be to enable the officials in the department of justice to engage in their law enforcement functions, which include enforcing the clean air act, the clean water act, the endangered species act and so on. the scientific and policy judgments tend to be made by the epa or the department of interior, noaa. there are any number of agencies around the government who deal with those questions. doj doesn't make those decisions in the first instant. but the policy, whatever it is, the law whatever it is, should be enforced by the department of justice and i'm absolutely ready to take that on. >> you said when you were working for the chamber you had a private client that had private interests and that you as their attorney were obligated to advocate for their private interests but that in public service what would be important would be to serve the public interest. is there a public interest in addressing climate change? >> senator, i think that there is a public interest in the department of justice enforcing the laws that congress has enacted including -- >> that wasn't the question i asked. is there a public interest in addressing climate change? >> senator, i think -- i think you're asking me for a personal judgment on a policy question and i'm not sure that's relevant to the way i would do my job as a law enforcement official in a law enforcement agency. my job would be tone force the law whatever it is. >> but there are a lot of policy calls that get made and there is a difference between somebody who doesn't think there's a public interest in doing something and somebody who does. so it's a simple question highly relevant to your duties. is there a public interest in addressing climate change? >> senator, all i can tell you is that i think there is significant public interest in the department of justice enforcing the laws passed by congress and in defending rules promulgated by the agencies entrusted by congress with making those policy judgments. that would be my job. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much. mr. rosenstein, state and local leaders from maryland have commented on your good working relationship with the law enforcement, our u.s. attorney in minnesota andy lugar has a lot of respect for you. we talked about that when we met. and i've seen firsthand the important role of having police on the beat to keep our communities safe. i lead the bill to reauthorize the cops program along with republican senator lisa murkowski of alaska. i raise this issue in attorney general sessions' confirmation hearing with chuck canterbury, the president of the fraternal order of police. and he agreed it's a very important program. i'd like to hear your views on the cops program and the support that it provides to state and local law enforcement. would you support this program as deputy attorney general? and ms. brand, i'd also like to hear your views since you'll be involved in grants. thank you. >> thank you, senator. certainly to the extent that there's funding for the cops program i'm going to make sure it's spent appropriately to achieve the objectives of the program. and i have seen benefits from the cops program. obviously there are budgetary issues. every budgetary decision is a trade-off in terms of where resources are going to go. but as a general proposition i do think that money has in some instances been spent effectively to help drive reform in police departments that are eager to do it and that want to work collaboratively with the department and bring in experts who can help them update their policies and procedures. >> thank you. miss brand? >> senator, thank you. i know how interested you are in this program. i don't have a lot of experience with the c.o.p.s. program. i couldn't add much to what mr. rosenstein has said but certainly in my capacity as associate a.g. it will be a priority of mine to get up to speed on those issues and ensure they're putting that money to the best use. >> okay. mr. rosenstein, protecting national security of the u.s. of course is a top priority of the justice department. we have worked very hard on going after extremism and recruitment in our state. we've had a number of cases as you know brought by the u.s. attorney's office. and could you talk about how you would approach that issue not of prosecuting the cases -- i know you'll be devoted to that. but of this issue of trying to prevent people from being recruited into extremism and the justice department, your predecessors in the job as well as the homeland security office has been involved in this. >> yes, thank you, senator. i appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about that yesterday. and i think as we discussed on probably 99% of these issues we're all on the same side. and with regard to this one, senator, we're not in the prosecution business because we like to fill up prisons. we're in the prosecution business because it's a necessary tool in order to deter crime. and so when you talk about violent extremism and any other conduct that is damaging to public safety, we need to do everything we can to prevent people from committing those violations. and one of the things we can do is to intervene and prevent people from being rad kaltized to the point where they may commit those crimes. that i think is what you have in mind, and i think that's important. part of it's a justice department function perhaps. i think there are a lot of other agencies that have a role in ensuring we're raising good american citizens who are not going to engage in that kind of conduct. but to the extent the justice department is involved i believe we do have something to add. >> okay. thank you. either of you can answer this. but i'm the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee. senator lee and i have worked and headed up this committee now for many years. and we believe it's very important when we have these hearings and senators have an opportunity to ask questions about mergers. as you know, there's been a major wave of mergers in the last few years and a lot of work for the department. the department has an important role to play in challenging anti-competitive practices, reviewing mergers to make sure they won't harm consumers and competition in stopping price fixing cartels. will you commit to making the robust enforcement of the antitrust laws a priority? >> yes, senator. >> that's a good answer. all right. thank you. trafficking, that's my last question. i'll put a question on opioids on the record. senator cornyn and i led the bill that passed this last year on domestic priorities for trafficking. also the senate has been working on bills regarding foreign trafficking as well. and the justice department released its national strategy to combat human trafficking as required by that law at the end of last year. will you commit to prioritizing the implementation of the national strategy if you're confirmed and if you want to add anything about these cases i'd appreciate it. >> i'll certainly commit to that, senator. with regard to opioids, you and i talked briefly about that yesterday. that's been a real priority for us in maryland because we've seen an explosion of overdose deaths that are attributed to opioid drugs throughout the entire society. and i think it's critically important for us to address that. law enforcement's one part of it but it's a very good example of where it's not just a law enforcement problem. and in the state of maryland we have a coordinated effort led by the governor of maryland to make that a top priority. i agree with you, yes. >> thank you. >> senator cruz, first round is seven minutes instead of the five we've been having for second rounds. so go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to welcome both of the witnesses and congratulate you on your nominations. and i want to thank each of you for your long records of service. mr. rosenstein, you have served in the department of justice for a couple of decades now. you've served under republican administrations. you've served under democratic administrations. and you've developed a distinguished career marked by integrity and fairness. ms. brand, you and i have been friends a couple of decades now. and heidi and i have been friends with you and your husband a long time going back to college and law school. you likewise have a long and distinguished career in public service and have earned a reputation for integrity and fidelity to the law. and that reputation and fidelity will never be more important than in this new job to which you have been appointed. in this hearing a number of my democratic colleagues have focused a great deal on the aspersions that have been cast on attorney general jeff sessions, another good man, another man of integrity. and it has been interesting to see a number of democratic senators demanding of mr. rosenstein that you commit to appointing a special prosecutor at the very outset before even being confirmed to the position of deputy attorney general. i find it somewhat interesting and ironic that these same democrats who are doubting your ability to be fair had a very, very different view of your record just a few years ago. indeed, senator leahy described mr. rosenstein as a "tough honest prosecutor" and as "the epitome of professional prosecutors." senator feinstein likewise described mr. rosenstein as a "scrupulous man who was independent." and she further said she "had no reason to believe why you cannot work with the fbi and assemble a very strong prosecution team where warranted." mr. rosenstein, given the reputation you've earned as a fair and scrupulous prosecutor, how do you believe the department of justice should approach any criminal investigation and what should guide the principles for going forward? >> senator, first of all, i'm embarrassed to say that those accolades are probably not entirely justified but i appreciate them. this is very easy for me because i've been in the department for 27 years. the folks i've worked with in the department have trained me well. every investigation we conduct needs to be independent. and it doesn't matter who is the defendant, whether it's a prominent public official or just an average american citizen. it always needs to be conducted independently. and we assemble the resources we need in every investigation and do it appropriately. it includes federal agencies, whichever is the relevant agency that is devoting the agents, the armed officers who conduct our investigations and make our arrests and execute our search warrants and serve our subpoenas. and the prosecutors, the assistant u.s. attorneys or the trial attorneys in the department of justice who conduct these investigations. in every case, senator it needs to be done independently, and that's something that i believe is generally the case. i'm proud of the department's record. any organization of significant size is going to have occasional issues. and i'm sure we do. but overall, senator, i'm extraordinarily proud to be associated with this institution. and i have great confidence in the men and women of the department of justice, that they're just as honest and independent today as they were on january 19th and they'll continue to exercise their authority with independence and with appreciation of the importance of their positions and of the critical role in promoting public safety and enforcing the law. >> and i agree with you that there are a great many career officials at the department of justice who are principled, who have a fidelity to law and who are eager to have a job mandate that is simply fairly enforce the law across the board. you and i have discussed and i have observed publicly that it is deeply concerning to me and to a great many people that over the last eight years the leadership of the department of justice i think has been very politicized. it perhaps is not surprising the democratic senators assume that same politicization will continue. but for eight years we've seen political attorneys general. we've seen eric holder allowing illegal gun transactions with mexican drug traffickers as part of fast and furious, which resulted in an illegal gun knowingly sold to traffickers being used to murder border patrol agent brian terry. we saw the attorney general of the united states eric holder held in contempt of congress when he refused to cooperate with congress's investigation into fast and furious. we saw the irs illegally targeting american citizens for exercising their first amendment rights because they were perceived to be political opponents of the president. and we saw the department of justice assign the investigation of that case to a partisan 2k789 r democrat who was a major democratic donor, given over $6,000 to president obama and the democrats. when all this was occurring none of the democratic senators had any concern at all. today they want a special prosecutor. but when a partisan democrat was leading the irs investigation they saw no need whatsoever for a special prosecutor. we saw the department of justice with operation choke point punish without due process law-abiding citizens that didn't align with the president's political leanings. we saw the department of justice continue to allow millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to flow to sanctuary cities that were openly defying federal immigration law and releasing violent criminal illegal aliens who were committing horrible crimes. we saw the administration refuse to enforce the laws on the books. and we saw the department of justice sign off on a decision to pay a nearly $2 billion ransom to the nation of iran that flew in the middle of the night on unmarked pallets, landing in an airport. that pattern of politicized administration of justice has been dismaying to veterans of the department of justice because for decades doj has had a tradition of being non-political, non-partisan, fairly and faithfully applying the law, and that has been true under republican and democrat presidents until the last eight years. the question i would ask of each of you is will you commit to this committee not to be a political department of justice in the same mold but on the republican side, that is most assuredly not your job, but rather will you commit to faithfully and fairly uphold the law without regard to politics? >> senator, i will certainly commit to faithfully and fairly uphold the law without regard to politics. >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator franken for five minutes and then if the senator from hawaii wants five minutes, and then i'll finish. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i just want to say something about the chairman. i have incredible respect and regard for the chairman and dare i say affection. the chairman has co-sponsored my legislation more than any other republican. and i -- >> be quiet about that. >> okay. [ laughter ] hopefully this doesn't go to iowa. ixnay on the osponsor-kay. i just want to -- i don't think it's fair to characterize -- and i understand that you were standing up for your friend senator sessions and attorney general sessions -- >> i was trying to tell you how i -- >> well, this is -- >> -- try to treat nominees. >> i know. but i'm saying that i don't think my question was a gotcha question. let me read the question. and then i would ask people go to the tape. i couldn't have been nicer. i went, "okay." this -- "okay" was the previous answer. "cnn has just published a story, and i'm telling you this -- i'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. i'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true. but cnn just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that, quote, russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about mr. trump. these documents also allegedly say, quote, there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government." now, again, i'm telling you this as it's coming out. just so you know. but if it's true it's obviously extremely serious. and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this xien, what will you do? and i think that was a fair question. it was certainly not a gotcha question. and he didn't answer my question. what he said to that question was, "senator franken, allegations get made about candidates all the time and they've been made about president-elect trump. lots of times most of them virtually" -- wait a minute. i'm sorry. i'm reading from further down. this is what he said. "senator franken, i'm not aware of any of these activities. i've been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i did not have communications with russians. and i'm able -- unable to and i'm able -- unable to comment on it." captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac

Related Keywords

Georgia , United States , Texas , Iran , Alaska , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Washington , Minnesota , California , Russia , Mexico , Arizona , Netherlands , Massachusetts , Iowa , Maryland , Italy , Baltimore , Hawaii , Italian , Americans , America , Holland , Mexican , Russian , Russians , American , Phillip Hyman , Henry Cuellar , Chuck Canterbury , Greg Bernstein , Ronald Reagan , Vladimir Putin , Michael Flynn , Loretta Lynch , Dodd Frank , Valerie Plame , Sally Yates , Clinton Clintons , States Eric , Brian Terry , Doug Gansler , Miriam Smalls , Kevin Davis , Pella Christian , Steve Pearce , Archibald Cox , Richard Nixon , Rosen Rosenstein , Michael Horowitz , Robert Jackson , Lisa Murkowski , Cardin Mikulski , David Margolis , Jerry Rosenstein , Elliot Richardson ,