Nominee who is actually before us here today. Now ive been on this committee for a long time, and ive seen these dirty tactics used before. And theyre not going to work this time. Senator sessions, it sounds a little strange to say this, but welcome to the senate. Thank you. The Senate Judiciary committee. Im sure there will be some need to address false claims and fabricated charges during this hearing. Believe it or not, however, i actually have some questions about issues and policies that you will be addressing when you become attorney general. The first is one i have raised with every incoming attorney general nominee for nearly 25 years, and it concerns enforcement of federal laws prohibiting obscenity. In the 108th congress you introduced resolution 77 expressing the sense of the congress that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the United States. It pleased the senate it passed the senate unanimously. It is the only resolution on this subject ever passed by either the senate or the house. Now senator sessions, with your permission, i want to share with you that resolution adopted last year by the Utah Legislature outlining why pornography should be viewed as a Public Health problem, as well as some of the latest research into the harms of obscenity. Is it still your view that federal laws prohibiting adult obscenity should be vigorously enhanc enhanced . Mr. Chairman, those laws are clear, and they are being prosecuted today. And should be continued to be effectively and vigorously prosecuted. And the cases that are appropriate. And making this a priority for the Justice Department, would you consider reestablishing a specific unit dedicated to prosecuting this category of crime . So that unit has been disbanded . Im not sure i knew that, but it was a part of the department of justice for a long time, and i would consider that. Okay. For several years now, seniority chris coons and tom marino and i have raised the importance of safeguarding data privacy on an international scale. From unauthorized government access. That is why we continue to push forward the International Communications privacy act which establishes a Legal Standard for accessing extra territorial communications. The need for a legislative solution was reinforced in july when the u. S. Court of appeals for the 2nd circuit held in microsoft v. United states that current law does not authorize u. S. Law enforcement officials to access Electronic Communications stored outside the United States. If confirmed, will you and your staff work with us to strike the needed balance to strengthen privacy and promote trust in the United States technologies worldwide while enabling Law Enforcement to fulfill its important Public Safety mission . That would be a high responsibility, senator. I know you worked hard on that for a number of years as have other members of this committee. So working that out, understanding the new technology, but the great principles of the right to privacy, the ability of individuals to protect data that they believe is private and should be protected. All of those are great issues in this new technological world we are in. And i would be pleased to work with you on that, and i do not have firm and fast opinions on the subject. Thank you so much. Id like to turn now to rapid Dna Technology that will allow Law Enforcement officials to speedily process dna samples in 90 minutes or less. Fbi director comey told this committee that rapid dna would help Law Enforcement, quote, change the world in a very, very exciting way, unquote. Legislation authorizing Law Enforcement to use this technology, which you cosponsored, passed the senate last year. I was disappointed, however, it got tied up with the criminal Justice Reform efforts in the house. I have two questions. First, you do you agree with fbi director comey and with Law Enforcement leaders across the country that rapid dna legislation is important and will help Law Enforcement to do their jobs better and faster . And secondly, do you agree with me that we should work to pass this legislation sooner rather than later and should avoid tying it to efforts on other legislative issues whose path forward is unclear . Mr. Chairman, rapid dna analysis could is a hugely important issue for the whole american criminal justice system. It presents tremendous opportunities to solve crimes in an effective way, and can be produced justice because it is the kind of thing you cant fake or mislead. So i am very strongly in favor of that. In my personal view, after many years in the Law Enforcement community, is that one of the biggest bottlenecks of all of our laws involving prosecution of criminal activity is that bottleneck of the scientific analysis. The Forensic Sciences where we fail sometimes to get dna back, fail to get back finger print analysis, fail to get back drug anal sirks chemical analysis and all of this slows down and stops cases that should long since have been brought forward and disposed of. Okay. Id rather some Democratic Senators accuse you of opposing the violence against womens act. That caught my attention because, like i did, you actually voted to reauthorize it. As i recall in 2013, there were not one but two bills to reauthorize the violence against women act. One had controversial provisions that had never been received in a hearing. The, did not. And am i right that you supported reauthorizing the violence against womens act . Absolutely. I supported it in 2000 when it passed. I supported it in 2005 when the bill both of those bills i supported became law. And then in this cycle, senator grassley had a bill that i thought was preferable and i supported his bill that actually had tougher penalties than the other bill. And it is kind of frustrating to be accused of opposing vawa, the violence against womens act, when ive voted for it in the past. There were some specific addon revision in the bill that caused my concern, and i think other peoples concern. Mr. Chairman, i ask consent to place in the record an oped published in usa today on this subject by penny nance, president of concerned women for america. The nations largest Public Policy womens organization, if you can. Without objection, it will be included. I have a question about the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division. It enforces the religious land use and institutionalized persons act which protects the rights of inmates to worship and protects worship institutions from burden and restrictions. So i introduced this in 2000. It passed in the senate and the house. I would note for the record that next monday, january 16th, is religious freedom day. I hope that you will make the religious freedom of all americans a priority under your leadership. The Civil Rights Division also has a unit dedicated to combating Human Trafficking. It is created in 2007 and one of my former Judiciary Committee counsels, grace chung becker was its first head. Perhaps you can comment on the significance of issues such as religious freedom and Human Trafficking and why its important to include them within the civil rights agenda of the department. Mr. Chairman, religious freedom is a great heritage of america. We respect peoples religion. We encourage them to express themselves and to develop their relationships with the higher power as they choose. We respect that. Its mandated in the constitution. But there are situations in which i believe we can reach accommodations that would allow the religious beliefs of persons to be honored in some fashion as opposed to just dictating everything under a single provision or policy. So i believe youre correct. We should recognize religious freedom. It will be a very high priority of mine. Mr. Chairman, let me close by asking consent to place in the record letters from the National Center for missing and exploited children and the boys and girls clubs of america. They attest to senator sessions work on behalf of the Vulnerable Children and young people. And i also ask consent to place in the record a letter supporting this nomination from nearly two dozen men and women who have served as assistant attorneys general in ten different offices and divisions. They say that as both u. S. Senator and u. S. Attorney, quote, senator sessions has demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law and to the evenhanded administration of justice. I could not agree more. Without objection, those will be included. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and welcome, senator sessions and mrs. Sessions. Let me just follow up. You were just asked about violence against women act and your support. Lets deal with the facts. Lets deal with what was actually voted on. Lets deal with the violence against womens act that you voted against. You strongly oppose the violence against women reauthorization act of 2013. Spoke against it. You voted against it. That expanded protections for some of the most vulnerable groups of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault survivors. Students, imgrants, lgbtq and those on tribal lands. Now the Justice Department, by all accounts, has done an excellent job implementing and enforcing it over the last three years. I believe we were both prosecutors. I went to a lot of Domestic Violence scenes, crime scenes as a young prosecutor. I believe that all victims of domestic and Sexual Violence deserve protection. Why did you vote against expanding protections for lgbt victims, students, immigrants and tribal victims of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. Why did you vote no . Mr. Chairman, i did indeed support the bill in 2000 and in im talking about the bill that is the law today. I understand. The law passed in 2013 by an overwhelming margin in the senate and by an overwhelming margin in the republicancontrolled house, signed into law by president obama. Im asking about that. Why did you oppose it . Mr. Chairman, a number of people opposed some of the provisions in that bill. Not the entire bill. Im just asking about you. Im trying to answer. Go ahead. So when we voted in the committee, eight of the nine republicans voted against the bill. One of the more concerning provisions was a provision that gave tribal courts jurisdiction to try persons who were not tribal members. Thats contrary, i believe, the only time thats ever happened. That was the big concern that i raised, i believe, primarily on the legislation. So i voted with the chairman and the legislation he had that i thought did the job for protecting women to reauthorize the violence against womens act but at the same time, did not have other things attached to it that i thought were concerning. Well, on the tribal courts, those have now been prosecuted very carefully. Defendants received dow process rights. They have to. None of the nonindian dependents have been prosecuted have apeeld to federal courts. Many feel its made victims on tribal land safer. Do you agree with that . Do you agree with the way the Justice Department has handled such cases . Mr. Chairman, i do believe that the law has been passed by congress. Im interested to see how it plays out in the real world and ill do my best to make my judgment about how to enforce that as attorney general. The law itself has many powerful provisions that im glad was passed and that is in law and provides protections to women as victims against victims of violence. On the tribal lands, its been used and prosecuted for three years. Do you feel its been handled correctly . Mr. Chairman, i have no understanding of that. But in other results of it so far, im interested first time ive heard it commentod. Let me say this to you directly. In meeting with senators prior to this hearing, ive had quite a number, perhaps more than any other issue that i learned a lot about. And that is that nonindians that have been going on to tribal lands and committing crimes, including rape have not been effectively prosecuted. Under law they were to be prosecuted in the federal government by the United States attorneys. N that has not been happening sufficiently. I am now convinced. So i do think the fbi, particularly maybe the bureau of indiana, fairs investigators should be beefed up and the u. S. Attorneys need to do probably a better job of prosecuting cases that need to be prosecuted in federal court. Those are facts that came out pretty clearly in the hearings before you voted against that provision. Let me nobody has appealed this. Nobody has objected to it. But if youd be able to, would you be able to defend it in court . I would defend the statute, if its reasonably defensible, yes. Its passed by congress. It would be the attorney general. Whether they supported to defend it. Do i call you, mr. Chairman . I think i did. Thats okay. Youve been my chairman many years. I spent 20 years back and forth on this. Im delighted to turn it over to senator feinstein and senator grassley, but youll be hand ling all the money of the United States, i understand, in your new position. In 2009, i offered the Matthew Shepard and james byrd hate crimes prevention act as an amendment to the defense bill. It extended hate crimes protections to lgbt individuals, women and individuals with disabilities. It passed the senate overwhelm league. You opposed it. You stated you arent sure women or people of different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. And then you said, i just dont see it. Do you still believe women and lgbt individuals do not face the kind of discrimination that the hate crimes legislation was passed to prevent . Mr. Chairman senator leahy, having discussed that issue at some length, that does not sound like something i said or incontinutended to say. You did say it. Ive seen things taken out of context and not give an accurate picture. My view is, and was, a concern that it appeared that these cases were being prosecuted effectively in state courts where they would normally be expected to be prosecuted. I asked attorney general holder to list cases that he had that indicated they were not being properly prosecuted. He was given the Death Penalty in his defense and mr. Sheppard, two life imposed as a result of the situation in his state. The question simply was, do we have a problem that requires an expansion of federal law into an area that the federal government has not been historically involved. Senator hatch had a proposal that we do a study to see the extent of the problem and that we should have evidence of that recognized that indicates a shortage of prosecutors and a lack of willingness to prosecute for adding this law. As far as the study, last year the fbi said the lgbt individuals were more likely to be targeted for hate crimes than any other Minority Group in the country. We can study this forever. Thats a pretty strong fact. Well, i will tell you, senator in 2010, you stated expanding hate crime protections to lgbt individuals was unwarranted, possibly unconstitutional. You said the bill has been said to cheapen the civil rights movement, specially considering what the fbi has found. Do you still feel that way . Mr. Chairman, a law has been passed. The congress has spoken. You can be sure i will enforce it. Thank you. When you were well, let me i dont want to go as much over time as senator hatch did, but ill ask you one question. The president elect has repeatedly asserted his intention to institute a ban on muslim immigrants to the United States. December 2015, you voted against a resolution offering this committee to express a sense to the senate that the United States must not bar individuals from entering into the United States baseod their religion. All democrats, most republicans, including the chairman were in support of my resolution. Do you agree with the president elect that the United States can or should deny entry to members of a particular religion, based on their religion. We do backgrond checks for terrorism but based on their religion . Do you agree with the president elect the United States can or should deny entry to all members of a particular religion . Senator leahy, i believe the president elect has subsequent to that statement made clear that he believes the focus should be on individuals coming from countries that have history of terrorism and hes also indicated that his policy and what he suggests is strong vetting of people from those countries before they are admitted to the United States. Then why did you vote against the resolution . I almost called you mr. Chairman again. Senator leahy, the my view and concern was in the resolution, it was suggesting that you could not seriously consider a persons religious views even and often sometimes, at least not in a majority, but many people do have religious views that are inaminable to the Public Safety of the United States. I did not want to have a resolution that suggested that could not be a factor in the vetsi in vetting process before someone is admitted. But i have no belief and do not support the idea that muslims as a religious group should be denied admission to the United States. We have great muslim citizens who have contributed in so many different ways. And america, as i said in my remarks at the occasion that we discussed it in committee, are great believers in religious freedom and the right of people to exercise their religious beliefs. Before i turn to [ inaudible ]. Yes, without objection, your incerts will be included. I have a letter from solicitor general ted olson in support of senator sessions quoting in part, with respect to civil rights, he says, quote, as a lawyer who has devoted years of effort to litigating the rights of our fellow gay, lesbian and transjnderred citizens, i recognize people can disagree on legal issues. Such disagreement should not disqualify them from Holding Public office. I have no reservations about senator sessions ability to handle these issues fairly and in accordance with law and to protect the civil rights of these and all of our citizens. Id like to include that in in record without objection . Senator graham. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Were about to get an answer to the ageold question, can you be confirmed attorney general of the United States over the objection of 1400 law professors . I dont know what the betting line in vegas is, but i like your chances. Speaking of football i want to congratulate the university of alabama for one heck of a streak. One of the most dominant football teams in the history of College Football. And i want to acknowledge the Clemson Tigers where i live five miles from the stadium that that was the finest College Football game i think ive ever seen. The tigers represent everything good about college athletics. And while we were on different teams early this morning, i want to let the good people of alabama know that in terms of their senator jeff sessions, he is a fine man, an outstanding fellow who i often disagree with. Ive traveled the world with him. Ive gotten to know him and his family, and i will enthusiastically support you for the next attorney general of the United States. Now lets talk about issues. Some people have you heard such thoughts . Well, i have. I think i know what youre talking about. Yeah, i think i do, too. I think the whole point is for the federal government to take over an area of law, there should be a good reason. Do you agree with that . Yes. If a state is not prosecuting crimes against people based on their sex, their race, whatever reason, then this proper for the federal government to come in and provide justice. Do you agree with that . I do. When the state is doing its job, the federal government should let the states do their job. That is correct. Thats the federal principle and that is not a general federal crime federal statute that federalizes all crime in america. Thats just the way we think. I think weve really got a good reason to think that way. Thats the way they set up the whole system. Muslims. As you know, me and president elect have had our differences. About religious tests, would you support a law that says you cant come to america because you are a muslim . No. Would you support a law that says that if you are a muslim, you say youre a muslim and when we ask you, what does that mean to you, well, that means ive got to kill everybody thats different from me, its okay to say they cant come . I think that would be a prudent decision. I hope we can keep people out of the country that want to kill everybody because of their religion. I hope were smart enough to know thats not what most people in the muslim faith believe. It can be the religion of that person. Thats right. Thats the ponts were trying to make here. About the wur aire act. Whats your view of the Obama Administrations interpretation of the wire law to allow online video poker or poker gambling . Senator graham, i was shocked at the memorandum, i guess the enforcement memorandum that the department of justice issued with regard to the wire act and criticized it. Apparently there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the department of justices position, but i did oppose it when it happened. It seemed to me to be would you revisit it . I would revisit it and i would make a decision about it based on careful study rather than and i havent gone that far to give you an opinion today. Immigration. You have said that the executive order of president obama you believe is unconstitutional. Do you still have that position . I do. For a number of reasons. Im not i agree with you. Now weve got 800,000 people have come out of the shadows and been signed up. Will you advise the next president , president trump, to repeal that executive order . That will be the decision that needs to be studied and that he would need to agree to. But its an executive order, really a memorandum of the department of homeland security. It would certainly be constitutional, i believe, to end that order. And i would the department of justice, i think, would have no objection to a decision to abandon that order because it is very questionable, in my opinion, constitutionally. Once we repeal it, and i agree that i believe its an overreach, what do we do with the 800,000 kids who have come out of the shadows . Senator graham, fundamentally, we need to fix this immigration system. Colleagues, its not been working right. Weve entered more and more millions of people illegally into the country. Each one of them produces some sort of humanitarian concern, but it is particularly true for children. So weve been placed in a bad situation. I really would urge us all to Work Together. I would try to be support iive understand the legality and wrestle with how to deal with these compassionate decisions. And the best way to do it for congress and the administration to Work Together and pass a law not an executive order. Exactly. When it comes to the law of order, do you believe that people who join al qaeda or affiliated groups are subject to being captured or killed under the rule of war . I do, senator. I dont see how we can see it otherwise. And its a responsibility of the military to protect the United States from people who attack us. Do you believe the threats to the homeland are growing or lessening . I believe they are growing, and we are seeing that now in europe and we are also seeing it right here in america. Do you support the continuation of gitmo as a confinement facility for Foreign Terrorists . Senator graham, i think its designed for that purpose. It fits that purpose marvelously well. Its a safe place to keep prisoners. Weve invested a lot of money in that. And i believe it could be it should be utilized in that fashion. And have opposed the closing of it, but as attorney general [ hecklers ] i just wanted to see if they were still listening. [ hecklers chanting ] i think they are on the fence about gitmo, but im not sure. Let me tell you, i support this administrations effort to make sure we prosecute terrorism as a military action, not a Law Enforcement action. They are not trying to steal our cars or rob your bank account. They are trying to destroy our way of life, and i hope youll go after them without apology. Apply the law, and the law is the law of war, not domestic criminal law. Youll have a friend in senator graham if you intend to do that. Cyberattacks. Do you think the russians were behind hacking into our election . I have done no research into that. I know just what the media says about it. Do you think you could get briefed any time soon . Well, ill need to. I think you do, too. Do you like the fbi . Do i like them . Yeah. Some of my best friends are in the fbi. Do you generally trust them . Yes. Are you aware of the fact that the fbi has concluded it was the Russian Intelligence Services who hacked into the dnc and podestas emails. I do understand that. From your point at least thats whats been reported. Ive not been briefed by them. From your point of view, theres no reason for us to be suspicious of them . Of their decision . Im sure it was honorably reached. How do you feel about a foreign entity trying to interfere in our election . Im not saying they changed the outcome but its pretty clear to me they did. How do you feel about it, and what should we do . Senator graham, i think its an insignificant event. We have penetration throughout our government by foreign entities. The chinese will reveal millions of Background Information on millions of people in the United States and these, i suppose, ultimately are part of International Big power politics. But when a nation uses their improperly gained or intelligence wise gained information to take policy positions that impact another nations democracy or their approach to any issue, then that raises real serious matters. Its really, i suppose, goes in many ways to the state department, the Defense Department and how we as a nation have to react to that which would include developing some protocols where when people breach our systems, even if we cant prove the exact person who did it. I agree. Ive got 20 seconds left. Ive known you for, i guess, 15 years now. Weve had a lot of contests on the floor and sometimes we agree, sometimes we dont. Im from south carolina, so i know what its like sometimes to be accused of being a conservative from the south. That means something other than youre a conservative from the south, in your case. People have fairly promptly tried to label you as a racist or bigot or whatever you want to say. How does that make you feel . And this is your chance to Say Something to those people. Well, that does not feel good. [ hecklers chanting ] if nothing else, im clearing the room for you. And i would suggest the freedom of speech also has some courtesy to listen. Senator graham, what is your answer. You have a southern name, you come from south alabama, that sounds worse to some people. South alabama. And when i came up as a United States attorney, i had no real support group. I didnt prepare myself well in 1986. And there was an organized effort to caricature me as something that wasnt true. It was very painful. I didnt know how to respond and didnt respond very well. I hope my tenure in this body has shown you that the caricature that was created of me was not accurate. It wasnt accurate then and its not accurate now. And i just want you to know that as a southerner who actually saw discrimination and have no doubt it existed in a systematic and powerful and negative way to the people great millions of people in the south, particularly, of our country. I know that was wrong. I know we need to do better. We can never go back. I am totally committed to maintaining the freedom and equality that this country has to provide to every citizen. And i will assure you that thats how i will approach it. Senator durbin . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, let me first say its im glad that you brought your family with you today. Its a beautiful family with your wife and your son and daughters and those four beautiful little granddaughters. You kept them as quiet as you could for as long as you could so thank you for being here. Im sure it was great moral support and part of your effort here today. When you came by my office last week, i talked to you about a man named alton mills. With permission of the chair, hes my guest today. Id ask him if hed stand up. Alton, thank you for being here today. Id like to tell you a story so you can understand my question a little better. When alton mills was 22, unemployed, he made a bad decision. He started selling crack cocaine on the streets of chicago. He was arrested twice for possession of small amounts of crack cocaine. The third time that he was arrested, the kingpins who had employed him turned on him and as a consequence, he ended up being prosecuted urn the three strikes and youre out law. At the age of 22 pardon me, at the age of 24, he was sentenced to life without parole. He had never been in prison before. And as i mentioned, there were no allegations made against him other than possession and sale, no violence, no guns, nothing of that nature. Alton mills ended up, despite the sentencing judges admonition that he believed this was fundamentally unfair and his hands were tied, alton mills ended up spending 22 years in federal prison until december 2015 when president obama commuted his sentence. He was finally able to go home to his family. Senator sessions, seven years ago, you and i cosponsored the fair sentencing act which senator collins referenced earlier. And that reduced the brutal sentencing disparity for crack cocaine crimes over powdered cocaine. It was originally 100 to 1. We agreed and the senate i might add to bring that down to 18 to 1. Inmates, overwhelmingly africanamerican, were spared thousands of prison years because of our joint effort to end this injustice. Yet, when i asked you to join me in appealing to the sentence commission, Sentencing Commission to follow our law and when i asked you to join senator grassley and me in permitting the almost 5,000 still serving under this unfair 100 to 1 standard to petition individually for leniency, you refused. And you said of president obamas pardoning of people like alton mills, and i quote, president obama continues to abuse executive power in an unprecedented, reckless manner to systematically release high level drug traffickers and firearms felons. Socalled lowlevel nonviolent offenders simply do not exist in the federal system, you said. Senator sessions, alton mills and many more just like him do exist. So if you refuse to even acknowledge the fundamental injustice of many of our sentencing laws, why should you be entrusted with the most important criminal Prosecution Office in america . Senator durbin, i think thats rather unfair based on our relationship and how we Work Together. In 2001, i introduced legislation very similar to the bill that you and i successfully made law. It would have reduced it to 20 to 1. Our bill went to 18 to 1. A little better. But fundamentally that. I was criticized by the Bush Department of justice. My legislation was opposed by them. It was seven years later or so before our bill ever passed. So i stepped out against my own Republican Administration and said openly on the floor of the senate that i believe these crack cocaine laws were too harsh and particularly it was disadvantageous to the Africanamerican Community where most of the punishments were falling. And it was not fair, and we ought to fix it. So i just want to say, i took a strong stand on that, and i did not agree. You and i did not agree on the retroactivity because a lot of these were plea bargained cases, and may not have been totally driven by the mandatory minimums. But so i thought the court had basically now agreed that it is retroactive. I dont know what group is not being covered by it, but a large group was covered by a court decision. We sort of left it open, as i remember. You and i discussed let me see. On the issue of fairness, i will acknowledge you stepped out on this issue. And you and i both recognize the brutal injustice of 100 to 1 and we agreed on 18 to 1. Thats how laws are made. And now we have 5,000 prisoners sitting in federal prison, still there under this brutal unjust 100 to 1. And all ive asked, and all senator grassley has asked, allow them as individuals to petition to the judge to the prosecutor to the department of justice so that their sentences can be considered. Thats something youve opposed. So in fairness, tell me why you still oppose that. First, i would tell you with absolute certainty that if there is a decision of this body, not the attorney generals decision about when and where a mandatory minimum is imposed and whether it can be retroactively altered. I will follow any law that you pass, number one. Number two, i understood the sincere belief you had on that issue. And it was a difficult call. And thats why we really never worked it out. So i understand what youre saying. But i did believe that you are upsetting finality in the justice system, that you are suggesting that these kind of factor s were not considered whn the plea bargaining went down. Its an honorable debate to have, and i respect your position on it. Senator, you have been outspoken on another issue, and i would like to address it, if i could. I have invited here today sergeant Oscar Vasquez, if he would be kind enough to stand up and be recognized. Thank you for being here. Ill tell you his incredible story in short form. Brought to the United States as a child. In high school, he and three other d. R. E. A. M. Eers started a robotics club. He graduated from Arizona State university with an engineering degree. The Obama Administration granted him a waiver and allowed him to become a citizen and enlist in the United States army where he served in combat in afghanistan. Senator sessions, since joining the senate in 1997, you voted against every immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for the undocumented. You described the d. R. E. A. M. Act which i introduced 15 years ago to spare children who are undocumented through no fault of their own as a reckless proposal for mass amnesty. You posed the bipartisan comprehensive Immigration Reform bill which passed the senate four years ago. You have objected to immigrants volunteering to serve in our armed forces saying, quote, in terms of who is going most likely to be a spy, somebody from coleman, alabama, or someone from kenya . When i asked what you would do to address the almost 800,000 d. R. E. A. M. Ers like Oscar Vasquez who would be subject to deportation if the executive order was repealed you said, quote, i believe in following the law. Theres too much focus onem who are here illegally and not enough on the law. Senator sessions, there is not a spot of evidence in your public career to suggest that as attorney general you would use the authority of that office to resolve the challenges of our broken immigration system in a fair and humane manner. Tell me im wrong. Well, you are wrong, senator durbin. I am going to follow the laws passed by congress. As a matter of policy, we disagreed on some of those issues. I do believe that if you continually go through a cycle of amnesty that you undermined the respect for the law and encourage more illegal immigration into america. I believe the American People spoke clearly in this election. I believe they agreed with my basic view, and i think its a good view, a decent view, a solid legal view for the United States of america that we create a lawful system of immigration that allows people to apply to this country. And if they are accepted, they get in. If theyre not accepted, they dont get in. And i believe thats right and just and the American People are right to ask for it. We have not delivered that for them. Senator graham asked this question. And i listened to your answer. When he asked you what would happen to those 800,000 currently protected by president obamas executive order who cannot be deported for two years. Its renewable, and can work for two years, and you said, let Congress Pass a comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. You opposed the only bipartisan effort that weve had on the senate floor in modern memory. And whats going to happen to those 800,000 if you were to revoke that order and they are subject to deportation tomorrow . What is going to happen to them . What is the humane, legal answer to that . Well, the first thing i would say is that my response to senator graham dealt with whose responsibility this is. I had a responsibility as a member of this body to express my view and vote as i believe was correct on dealing with issues of immigration. Thats not the attorney generals role. The attorney generals role is to enforce the law. And as you know, senator durbin, were not able financially or any other way to seek out and remove everybody thats in the country illegally. President trump has indicated criminal aliens, like president obama indicated, are the top group of people. So i would think that the best thing for us to do, and i would urge colleagues that we understand this, lets fix this system. And then we can Work Together to after this lawlessness has been ended, and then we can ask the American People and enter into a dialogue about how to compassionately treat people who have been here a long time. That does not answer the question about 800,000 who would be left in a lurch whose lives would be ruined while you are waiting on congress for a bill that you opposed. Well, i thought it did answer it pretty closely what you asked. And i understand your concerns. Senator cornyn . Senator sessions, coratulations to you and your family on this once in a lifetime honor to serve as the head of the department of justice. Sitting here listening to the questions and some of the comments that have been made, both by the protesters and others, it strikes me that many people have been surprised to learn more about your record. Your outstanding record as a prosecutor, somebody who treated that responsibility to uphold n enforce the law and the constitution without fear or favor. Some people listening here today have been somewhat surprised by your record in complete context. Those of us who served with you in the senate, some as many as 20 years like senator shelby and senator collins testified to your character. But i like to think that those of us who served with you most closely in the senate, particularly the Judiciary Committee, know more about you than just your record and your character. We know your heart. We know what kind of person you are. You are a good and decent and honorable man. You have got an outstanding record that you should be proud of. And i know you are. And you should be. For example, when somebody when somebody says you unfairly prosecuted africanamericans for voter fraud in alabama, it strikes me as incomplete when they leave out the fact that the very complainants were also africanamericans. In other words, the people you prosecuted were africanamericans, but the people whose Voting Rights you were trying to vindicate were africanamericans. Isnt that correct . That is correct. Does that strike you as a fair characterization of enforcing the law that people would leave that factor out . Its not and its been out there for a long time. If you ask people that casually follow the news, they probably saw it otherwise. These were good people who had tried they asked me to get involved in 2002. The majority africanamerican grand jury, africanamerican foreman asked the federal government to investigate the 1982 election. I declined. I hoped that investigation would have stopped the problem, but two years later the same thing was lahappening again. We had africanamerican incumbent officials pleading with us to take some action. We approached the department of justice in washington. The Public Integrity voting section. They approved an investigation, and it developed into a legitimate case involving charges of voter fraud taking absentee ballots from voters, opening them up, and changing their vote and casting them for somebody they did not intend the vote to be cast for. It was a Voting Rights case, and i just feel like we tried to conduct ourselves in the right way. I never got in the argument of race or ear matters. I us just tried to defend myself as best i could. I wouldnt know colleagues just in the last few days the son of Albert Turner has written a letter and said he the people pick out issues that theyre concerned about. Make i not a great analogy, but let me try. You have been married to your wife, married almost 50 years, right . It hasnt gotten to 50 yet. 47. 48. Thats a good run. Let me just ask you let it continue. Ive been blessed. Are there occasions when you and your wife disagree . No, senator. Wait a minute. Im under oath. On occasion we do, yes. What do you think it would be fair to characterize the nature of your relationship with your wife based upon those handful of disagreements that you have had with her over time . Thats a good point. Thank you for making it. No, i dont. To your original point, your wife is always right. Right. Youre under oath. People are identifying specific issues where there are policy differences, but my point is that does not characterize your entire record of 20 years or how you have represented yourself as a prosecutor in our article 3 courts. Let me get to a specific issue a couple in the time i have remaybing. I was pleased to hear you say in your Opening Statement that many in Law Enforcement feel that our political leaders have on occasion abandoned them. You said police ought to be held accountab accountable, but do you believe that it is ever under any circumstances appropriate for anyone to assault a Police Officer, for example . I say no on defense for that kind of action, and i do believe that we are failing to appreciate Police Officers who place their lives at risk as this sergeant was just killed yesterday trying to deal with the violent criminal and vindicate the law, and she was killed. That is the kind of thing that too often happens. We need to be sure that when we criticize law officers, it is narrowly focused on the right basis for criticism and to smear whole departments places those officers at greater risk, and we are seeing an increase in murder of Police Officers. It was up 10 last year. Spilling over to a condemnation for our entire police force, and morale has been affected, and its impacted the crime rates in baltimore and crime rates in chicago. Yok theres any doubt about it. I regret thats happening. I think it can be restored. We need to understand the. We as a nation need to respect our law officers too. We ought to hold our police and Law Enforcement officers up in the high regard to which they deserve based on their service to the communities, and your comments remind me to some extent of chief david browns comments, the Dallas Police chief following the tragic killing of five dallas Police Officers recently where he said that police ought to be held accountable, but under no circumstances could any assault against a Police Officer be justified based on what somebody else did somewhere at some time. You for one appreciate that very much. You mentioned baltimore and chicago. Weve seen an incredible number of people frequently in minority communities who have been killed as a result of crimes related to felons who perhaps are in possession of guns that they have no legal right to be in possession of. Earlier you talked about prosecuting gun crimes. Im glad to hear you say that. Project exile, which originated i think in richmond, virginia, which targeted felons and other people who cannot legally own or possess firearms was enormously affected. When i look at the record of the last five and ten years at the Justice Department, prosecution of those kinds of crimes down 15. 5 in the last five years. Down 34. 8 in the last ten years. Can you assure us that you will make prosecuting those people who cannot legally possess or use firearms a priority again in the department of justice and help break the back of this crime wave thats affecting so many people in our local communities like chicago or baltimore and particularly minority communities . I can, senator cornyn. Im familiar with how that plays out in the real world. My best judgment, colleagues, is that properly enforced, the federal gun laws can reduce crime and violence in our cities and communities. It was highlighted in richmond in project exile, but i have to tell you, i have always believed that. When i was the United States attorney in the 1980s and early 1990s we produced a newsletter that went out to all local Law Enforcement called project trigger lock. It went to federal Law Enforcement too. It highlighted the progress that was being made by prosecuting criminals who used guns to carry out their crimes. Criminals are most likely the kind of person that will shoot somebody when they go about their business, and if those people are not carrying guns because they believe they might go to federal court, be sent to a federal jail for five years perhaps, theyll stop carrying those guns during that drug dealing and their other activities that are criminal. Fewer people get killed. Fewer people get killed. I truly believe that we need to step that up. If one of these individuals carrying a gun shoots somebody, not only is there a victim, they ended up with hammering and sentenced in jail for indeterminatable periods. The culture, the communities are safer with fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Thank you. Before we go to senator whitehouse, people have asked members have asked me about our break, and if its okay with senator sessions, it would work out about 1 00 if we have three on this side and three on this side for the one hour because its noon right now. Is that okay with you, senator sessions . Mr. Chairman, im at your disposal. So this will give my colleagues an opportunity that want to go to the respective Political Party caucuses to go, and we would take a recess of about 30 to 40 minutes. Okay. Thank you, senator. Then now senator whitehouse. Senator sessions, hello. Thank you, senator whitehouse. When we met i told you that i was going to ask you a particular question, so im going to lead off with that particular question. Following the gonzalez scandals at the department of justice, the department adopted procedures governing kmoounts communications between the white house and the department of justice consistent with constraints that were outlined years ago in correspondence between senator hatch and the reno Justice Department. Limiting contact between a small