now i've been on this committee for a long time and i've seen these dirty tactics used before. they're not going to work this time. senator sessions, it sounds a little strange to say this, but welcome to the senate. the senate judiciary committee. i'm 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 introduce senate concurrent resolution 77 expressing the sense of the congress that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the united states. it pleased, it sees me it passed the senate unanimously, in fact it is the only resolution on this subject ever passed by either the senate or the house. now send their sessions, with your permission, 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 enhanced? >> mr. chairman, those laws are clear, and they are being prosecuted today and should be continued to be, effectively and vigorously prosecuted in the cases that are appropriate. >> is making this a priority for the justice department, would you consider reestablishing a specific unit dedicated to prosecuting this category of crime? >> that unit has been disbanded, i'm 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, senator chris coons and representative 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 extraterritorial communications. the need for a legislative solution, which we enforced in july, when the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit held in microsoft versus 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 technology worldwide, while enabling law enforcement to fulfill its imports and public safety mission? >> that would be a high responsibility, senator. i know you've worked hard on that for a number of years, as have all these members of this committee, the senator coons and others. so working that out, understanding the new technology, but the great principle of the right to privacy on 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 pretty please to work with you on that, and i do not have firm and fast opinions on the subject. >> thank you so much. i'd 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 "change the world in a very, very exciting way" ." legislating, legislation authorizing law enforcement to use this technology, which you cosponsored, passed the senate last year. i was disappointed, however, that it got tied up with criminal justice reform efforts in the house. i have two questions. first, 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 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 producing justice, because it is the kind of thing that you can't 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 prosecutions of criminal activity is the bottleneck of the scientific analysis, the forensic sciences, where we fail sometimes to get dna back, fail to get back fingerprint analysis, fail to get back drug analysis, chemical analysis, and all of this slows down and stops cases that should long since have been brought forward and disposed of. >> okay. i've read that some democratic senators accuse you of opposing the violence against women act. that, 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 have never been received any hearing, the other did not. in my right that you supported reauthorizing the violence against women act? >> absolutely. i supported it in 2000 when it passed. i supported it in 2005 when both of those bills i supported the mccain 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 the violence against women act when i have voted for it in the past. there were some specific add-on provisions in the bill that caused my concern, and i think other people's concern. >> mr. chairman, i asked consent to question the record, and up and op-ed published in "usa today" on the subject by the president of concerned women for america, the little nation's largest public policy women's organization. >> without objection that will be included. >> i have a question about the justice department civil right division. the division enforces the religious land use and institutionalized persons act, which protects the right of prison inmates to worship and protects churches and religious institutions and from burdensome zoning and other restrictions. so i introduces legislation in 2000, it passed without objection of both the senate and the house. i would know for the record the 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 was created in 2007, and one of my former judiciary committee councils, was its first head. perhaps you could comment on the significance of issues such as religious freedom and human trafficking, and why it's important to include them within the civil rights agenda of the department. >> mr. chairman, religious freedom is a great heritage of america. we respect people's religion. we encourage them to express themselves and to develop their relationships with the higher power as they choose. we respect that as 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 single provision or policy, so i believe you're correct, we should recognize religious freedom, it will be a very high priority of mine. >> no 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 & girls club's of america. they attest to senator sessions work on behalf of the vulnerable children and young people. i also asked 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 is both u.s. senator and u.s. attorney, "senator sessions has demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law and to the even-handed 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. let's deal with the facts. let's deal with what was actually quoted on. let's deal with the violence against women act that you voted against. you strongly opposed the violence against women reauthorization act of 2013. he spoke against it, you voted against it. that law expanded protection for some of the most vulnerable groups of domestic violence and sexual assault survivors. students, immigrants, lgbt q victims, and those on tribal lands. now the justice department by all accounts has done an excellent job in plummeting and enforcing it over the last three years. i believe, and we were both prosecutors. i went to a lot of the 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 of sexual assault? why did you vote no? >> mr. chairman, i did indeed support the bill in 2000 -- >> i'm talking about the bill that is the law today. the lot today passed in 2013 by and overwhelming margin in the senate and by an overwhelming margin in the republican-controlled house, signed into law by president obama, am 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. >> i'm just asking about you. >> i'm trying to answer. 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 tribalrts jurisdiction to try persons who were not tribal members. that is contrary, i believe, the only time that is ever happen. 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 balance against women act, but at the same time did not have other things attached to it that i thought were concerning. >> on the tribal courts, those have now been prosecuted very carefully. dependents received due process rights, they have to. none of the non-indian dependence we have prosecuted have appealed to federal courts. many feel it has made victims of 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, i am interested to see how it plays out in the real world. and i will do my best to make my judgment about how to enforce that as attorney general. currently the law itself has many powerful provisions that i'm glad was passed and that is in law and provides protection to women as victims of violence. >> on the tribal lands it's been used and prosecuted for three years. do you feel it's been handled correctly? >> mr. chairman, i have no understanding of that. of the results of it so far. i'm interested, the first time i have heard it commented on. let me say this to you directly. in meeting with senators prior to this hearing i have 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 current law and historically they were being prosecuted in the federal government by the united states attorneys, and that has not been happening sufficiently. i am now convinced. so i do think the fbi, particularly may maybe the burf indian affairs investigators, should be beefed up, and u.s. attorneys need to do probably a better job of prosecuting cases that need to be prosecuted in federal court. >> those were facts that came out pretty clearly in the hearings before you voted against that provision. that is why the senator and i and others included in the bill. there have not been any appeals or objections to it. but would you be able to, if somebody does, would you be able to defended in court? >> i would defend the statute if it is reasonably defensible, yes. as passed by congress, it would be the duty of the attorney general, whether they voted for it or support it, to defend it. did i call you mr. chairman, mr. chairman? i think i did. you've been my chairman many years. >> that's okay, i spent 20 years back and forth. i was delighted to turn it over to the senator feinstein and senator grassley. >> you will be handling all of the money i understand in your new position. >> in 2009 i offered the shepherd and james byrd hate crimes protection act as an amendment to the defense bill. the asked it extended hate crimes reduction to lgbt individuals, women, and individuals with disabilities. it passed the senate overwhelmingly. you opposed it. you stated at a hearing that you are not sure women or people of different sexual orientations face that kind of discriminatio discrimination. and then you said, i just don't see it. do you still believe that women and lgbt individuals do not face the kind of discrimination that the hate crimes legislation was passed to prevent? >> mr. chairman, senator , havg discussed that issue at some length, that does not sound like something i said or intended to say. >> you did say it. >> i understand, but i have seen things taken out of context and not given 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. i noted that mr. byrd was given the death penalty in texas for his offense, and mr. shepherd, there were two life sentences imposed as a result of the situation in his state. so 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 that indicates a shortage of prosecutions and a lack of willingness to prosecute for adding this law. >> as far as the study, last year the fbi said that lgbt individuals were likely to be targeted for hate crimes than any other minority group in the country. we could study this forever, but that is a strong fact. and in 2010, you stated expanding hate crime protections to lgbt individuals was unwarranted, possibly unconstitutional. you said the bill has been sent to cheapen the civil rights movement, especially considering what the fbi has found, do you still feel that way? >> mr. chairman, the law has been passed, the congress has spoken, you will be sure i will enforce it. >> thank you. i don't want to go as much overtime as senator hatch did, but i will ask you one question. the president-elect has repeatedly asserted his intention to institute a ban on muslim immigrants to you the the united states. you proposed a resolution in this committee that the united states must not bar individuals from entering into the united states based on their religion. all democrats, most of applicants, including the chairman, voted 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? when we do background checks for terrorism, but based on their religion, do you agree with the president-elect that the united states can or should deny entry to all members of a particular religion? >> senator, 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 a history of terrorism. and he's 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 , my view and concern s in the resolution it was suggesting that you could not seriously consider a person's religious views, and often, sometimes at least not in a majority, but many people do have religious views that are in an amicable to the public safety of the united states. i did not want to have a resolution that suggested that that could not be a factor in the 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 contribute in so many different ways, and america, as i said in my remarks at the occasion that we discussed in committee, are great believers in religious freedom and the rights of people to exercise their religious beliefs. >> without objection, your inserts 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, as a lawyer who has devoted years of effort litigating and vindicating the civil rights of our fellow gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens, i recognize that people of good faith can disagree on legal issues. such honest disagreement should not disqualify them from holding public office. in particular, i have no reservations about senator sessions ability to handle these issues fairly in accordance with the law and to protect the civil rights of these and all of our citizens." i would like to include that in the record without objection, senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are about to get an answer to the age-old question, can you be confirmed attorney general of the united states over the objection of 1400 law professor professors? [laughter] >> i don't know what the betting line in vegas is, but i like your chances. speaking of football. [laughter] i want to congratulate the university of alabama for one heck of a street. one of the most dominant football teams in the history of college football. and i want to acknowledge the clemson tigers, where i live 5 miles from the stadium, that that was the finest college football game i think i've ever seen. the coach and 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 fella, who i often disagree with. i have traveled the world with, i have got to know him and his family, and i will enthusiastically support you for the next attorney general of the united states. now, let's talk about issues. some people believe that the only way you can get justice in the world is for the federal government to administer it. have you heard such thoughts? >> well, i have. i think i know what you're talking about. >> 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 to that question my >> yes. >> if estate is not prosecuting crimes against people based on their gender, their race, whatever reason, then it's proper for the federal government to come in and provide justice, do you agree with that question my >> i do. when the state is doing its job. >> the federal government should allow the states to do their job question my >> that is correct. federal statute that federalize is all crime in america. >> people are listening, that is just the way we think, you may not agree, but we think that way. and i think we've really got a good reason to think that way. i think that is the way they set up the whole situation. muslims. as you know, me and the president-elect have had our differences. about religious tests. would you support a law that says you can't come to america because you're muslim? >> no. >> would you support a law that says that if you are a muslim, you say you are muslim, and when we ask you what does that mean to you, while that means i've got to kill everybody that's different from me, it's okay to say they can't come? >> i.t. that would be a prudent decision. >> i hope we can keep people out of the country want to kill everybody because of their religion. i hope you're smart enough to know that is not what most people in the muslim faith believe. >> but it can be the religion of that person. >> that's right, that is the point we're trying to make here. about the wire act, what is your view of the obama administration's interpretation of the wire act to allow online video poker? >> 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 justice's 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, and i haven't gone that far to give you an opinion today. >> immigration. you've said that the executive order of president obama you believe is unconstitutional, do you still have that position? >> i did for a number of reason reasons. >> i agree with you. now we've got 800,000 people who have come out of the shadows that a been signed up. would you advise the next president, president trump, to repeal that executive order? >> there will be a decision that needs to be studied and he would need to agree to, but it's an executive order, really a memorandum of the department of homeland security, it would certainly be constitutional, i believe, to end that order. and the department of justice i would think would have no objection to the decision to bend that order, because it is very questionable in my opinion. >> once we repeal it, and i agree that i believe it is an overreach, what do we do with 800,000 kids who have come out of the shadows? >> senator graham, fundamentally we need to fix this immigration system. colleagues, it has not been working right. we have 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 we've been placed in a bad situation. i really would urge us all to work together. i would tried to be supportive. to end the legality and put us in position to wrestle without a handle these difficult compassionate decisions. >> and the best way to do it is for congress and the administration to work together and pass a law, not an executive order. >> exactly. >> okay, when it comes to the law of war, do you believe that people who join al-qaeda are or are affiliated groups are subject to being captured or killed under law of order? >> i do, senator. i don't see how we could see it otherwise, and it's the responsibility of the military to protect the united states from people who attack us. >> do you believe the threats of 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 guantanamo bay as a confinement facility for foreign terrorists? >> senator graham, i think it is designed for that purpose, it fits that purpose marvelously well, it is a safe place to keep prisoners, we have invested a lot of money and that, and i believe it should be utilized in that fashion. i have opposed the closing of i it. [protester interrupting] [protester's interrupting] >> i think they are on the fence about gitmo, but i'm not sure. [laughter] let me tell you, i support this administration's 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 our bank accounts, they are trying to destroy our way of life and i hope you will go after them without apology, apply the law, and the law is the law of war, not domestic criminal law. and you will have a friend and senator graham if you intend to do that. cyber attacks. do you think the russians were behind hacking into our elections? >> i have done no research into that, i know just what the media says about that. >> do you think you get briefed anytime soon? >> well i will need to. >> i think you do, too. you like the fbi? >> do i like them? >> yeah. >> some of my best friends are fbi. >> do you generally trust them? >> yes. >> are you aware of the fact that the fbi concluded that it was a russian intelligence services that hacked into the dnc and podesta emails? >> i do understand that, or at least that is what has been reported and i have been briefed by them on the subject. >> from your point of view there is no reason for us to be suspicious of them? >> of their decision? i'm sure it was honorably reached. >> how do you feel about a foreign entity trying to interfere in our election? i'm not saying they change the outcome, but it's pretty clear to me they did. how do you feel about it and what should we do? >> senator graham, i think it's a significant event. we have penetration, apparently, throughout our government by foreign entities. we know the chinese have revealed 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 intelligencewise gained information to take policy positions at that impact anothr nations democracy or their approach to any issue, then that raises real serious matters. it goes in many ways to the state department, our defense department, and how we as a nation have to react to that. >> which to my stomach which would include developing protocols that when people breach our systems that are prices paid even if we can't prove the exact person i did. >> i would agree. i've got 20 seconds left. we've had a lot of contests on the floor and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. i'm from south carolina, so i know what it's like sometimes to be accused of being a conservative from the south. that means something other than you are a conservative from south, and in your case people have fairly prominently tried to label you as a racist or a 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, it does not feel good. [protesters interrupting] [protesters interrupting] [protesters interrupting] >> if nothing else, i'm clearing the room for you. and i would suggest that the freedom of speech also has some courtesy to listen. so what is your answer? >> senator graham, i appreciate the question. you have a southern name, you come from south alabama, that sounds worse to some people. south alabama. when i came up as a united states attorney i had no real support group, i didn't prepare myself well in 1986, and there was an organized effort to caricature me as something that wasn't. it was very painful. i didn't know how to respond and didn't 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 wasn't accurate then and it's 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 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 that is how i will approach it. >> senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the senator sessions, let me first say i'm glad that you brought your family with you today, it's a beautiful family with your wife and your son and daughters and those four beautiful little granddaughters. you kept them as quiet as he could for as long as you could, so thank you so much for being here today. i'm sure it was great moral support and part of your effort here today. when you came by my office last week i talk to you about a man named alton mills, and with the permission of the chair i would like to, he is my guest today, i would like to ask mr. mills if you would please stand up. alton, thank you for being here today. i would like to tell you a story so you can understand my question a little better. when alton mills was 22 years old, 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 under the three strikes and you're out law. at the age of 22, part of 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, 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 a bill known as 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 100-1. we agreed in the senate jim, i might add, to bring that down to 18-1. inmates, overwhelmingly african-american, 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 and in permitting the almost 5,000 still serving under this unfair 100 to one standard to petition individually for leniency, you refused. and you said of president obama's 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 high level drug traffickers and firearms felons, so-called low-level nonviolent offenders simply do not exist in the federal system." 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 that is rather unfair. based on our relationship and how we worked together. in 2001, i introduced legislation very similar to the bill that you and i successfully made law. it would have reduced to 22 on our bill went to 18 to one. 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, or longer, before our bill even 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 african-american community, where most of the punishments were falling. 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-bargain cases and may not have been totally driven by the mandatory minimums. i thought the court had basically now agreed that it is retroactive. i don't 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 remembered. >> we did. in the issue of fairness, i will acknowledge you stepped out on this issue. and you and i both recognized the brutal injustice of 100 to one, and we agreed on 18 to one, that is how laws are made. and now we have 5,000 prisoners sitting in federal prison, still there under this brutal, unjust, 100 to one, and all i've asked, and all senator grassley is 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. that is something you have opposed. so in fairness, tell me why you still oppose that? >> first, i would tell you with absolute certainty that if it is a decision of this body, not the attorney general's decision, but when and where a mandatory minimum is imposed and whether it can be retroactively altered. so 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 that is why we really never worked it out. so i understand what you're saying. but i did believe that your upsetting finality in the justice system. that you are suggesting that these kind of factors were not considered when the plea-bargaining went down. so it's 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 you would be kind enough to stand up and be recognized. thank you for being here. i will tell you his and credible story in short form. came to the united states as a child, and high school he and three other dreamers started a robotics club and won a college level robotics competition, they made a movie out of his story. 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 have voted against every immigration bill that included a path to citizenship for the undocumented. you described the dream 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 opposed 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, "in terms of who is going to most likely be a spy, somebody from cullman, alabama, or somebody from kenya?" when i asked what you would do to address the most 800,000 dreamers like oscar vasquez, who would be subject to deportation if president obama's executive order is repealed, you said "i believe in following the law. there is too much focus on people 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 that authority of that office to resolve the challenges of our broken immigration system in a fair and humane manner. tell me i'm wrong. >> well, you are wrong, senator durbin. i'm going to follow the laws passed by congress. as a man of policy, 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 undermine 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 it's 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 they are not accepted they don't get them. and i believe that is right and just and the american people are right to ask for it. we have not delivered that. >> senator graham asked this question, and i listen to your answer, when he asked you what would happen to those 800,000 currently protected by president obama's executive order known as -- who cannot be reported for two years and can work for two years, and you said let congress pass a copy has of immigration reform bill. you opposed the only bipartisan effort that we've had on the senate floor in modern memory. and what is going to happen to those 800,000 if you 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 his responsibility and whose responsibility this is. i have a responsibility as a member of this body to express my view and vote as i believed was correct on dealing with issues of immigration. that is not the attorney general's role. the attorney general's role is to enforce the law. and as you know, senator durbin, we are not able financially or any other way to seek out and remove everybody that is in the country illegally. president trump has indicated that criminal aliens, like president obama indicated, certainly 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, let's fix this system. and then we can work together after this lawlessness has been ended, and then we could 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 that would be left in the 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. and i understand your concerns. >> senator sessions, congratulations 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 as somebody who treated that responsibility to uphold and enforce the law and the constitution without fear of favor. i think some people listening today have been somewhat surprised by your record incomplete context. in complete context. those of us who have 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 here on the judiciary committee, no about you than just your record and/or character. we know your heart. we know what kind of person you are. you are a good and decent and honorable man. you've got an outstanding record that you should be proud of, and i know you are. and you should be. for example, when somebody says that you unfairly prosecuted some african-americans for voter fraud in alabama, it strikes me as incomplete, is the most charitable thing i can say, when they leave out the fact that the very complete and in that case were also african-americans did in other words, the people you prosecuted were african-americans, but the peoples whose voting rights you are trying to vindicate were african-americans, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> does that strike you as a fair characterization of your approach toward enforcing the law, that people would leave that important factor out? >> it's been out there for a long time. if you ask people who casually follow the news they probably saw it otherwise. these were good people who had tried, they asked me to get involved in this case in 2002, a majority african-american grand jury with an african-american foreman asked the federal government to investigate the 1982 election. i declined and i hope that that investigation would have stopped the problem. but two years later, the same thing was happening again. we had african-american 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 votes and casting them for somebody they did not intend their vote to be cast for. it was a voting rights case. i just feel like we tried to conduct ourselves in the what right way, i never got in the argument of race or other matters. i just tried to defend myself as best i could. i would note, and just in the last few days, the son of albert turner has written a letter that said i was just doing my duck job, and he understood the reason and the justification for the prosecution, and that i would be a good attorney general. so that was gratifying to me, and that is the real truth of the matter. >> senator sessions, i know the nature of these confirmation hearings is that people pick out issues that they are concerned about, or where there may be some good-faith disagreement on policy, and that is what they focus on. but let me just ask you, maybe it is not a great analogy, but let me try anyway. you have been married almost 50 years, right? >> well, it hasn't gotten to 50 yet, 47. >> well that is a good run. >> let it continue. i've been blessed. >> are there occasions when you and your wife disagree? >> no, senator. [laughter] wait a minute, i'm under oath. on occasion we do, yes. >> 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've had with her over time? >> that's a good point, thank you for making it. no, i don't. >> well, and to your original point, your wife is always what right. >> that is correct. >> you are under oath. so this is the nature of these confirmation hearings. people are identifying specific issues where there are policy differences, but my point is, that does not characterize your entire record of 20 years in the united states senate, or how you conducted yourself as a prosecutor representing the united states government in our article three courts. let me get to a specific issue, a couple, in the time i have remaining. i was really, really pleased to hear you say in your opening statement that many in law enforcement feel that our political leaders have, on occasion, abandon them. you said police ought to be held accountable. but do you believe that it is ever, under any circumstances, appropriate for somebody to assault of police officers, for example? >> there is virtually no 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 who was just killed yesterday trying to deal with a 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 unnaturally-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 burger murder of police officers, it was up 10% last year. i will say that i could feel, i could feel in my bones, that i was going to play out in the real world when we had what i thought, oftentimes, was legitimate criticism of perhaps wrongdoing of an officer, but spilling over to a condemnation of our entire police force. and morale has been affected, and it has impacted the crime rates in baltimore in the crime rates in chicago. i don't think there is any doubt about it. i regret that's happening. i think it can be restored. but we need to understand the requirement that police work with the community and be respectful of their community, but we as a nation need to respect our law officers, too. >> alive, for one, appreciate your comments, because we ought to hold our police and law enforcement's up to the high regard that they deserve based upon their service to the communities. and your comments remind me to some extent of chief david brown's comments, the dallas police chiefs, following the tragic killing of five dallas police officers recently, where he said the 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. so i, for one, appreciate that very much. you mentioned baltimore in chicago. and we've seen an incredible number of people frequently in minority communities who have been killed as results of crimes related to felons who perhaps are in possessions of guns that they have no legal right to be in possession of. earlier you talked about prosecuting gun crimes. and i'm glad to hear you say that. project exile, which originated i think in richmond, virginia, which targeted felons and other people who cannot legally owned or possessed firearms, was enormously effective. and when i looked at the record of the last five and ten years at the justice department, prosecution of those kinds of crimes is 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 that is affecting so many people in our local communities like chicago or baltimore, and particularly minority communities? >> i can, senator. i am 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've always believed that. when i was united states attorney in '80s and into the early-'90s, we produced a newsletter that went out to all local law enforcement and 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, they will stop carrying those guns during their drug dealing and other activities that are criminal. fewer people get killed. fewer people get killed. >> already a wide-ranging hearing for alabama senator, jeff sessions, the nominee to head the justice department as attorney general. if you're just tuning in, what are the highlights as he said that if any issue comes before him involving the clinton foundation or an investigation of clinton emails, hillary clinton emails, presuming he is confirmed, he said he would recuse himself. >> a lot of big news coming from the session, and there seems to be a lot of tension between what he believes is for the state to decide versus what he believes the federal government should decide, and what laws congress comes up with and how they are enforced by the attorney general. which makes who the next president is very important, and what makes as well our guests on "outnumbered" equally important. >> jon: that's right, we will continue to monitor that hearing, and if news comes out of it we will certainly have it for you. but we have a very special guest, the man in the middle on "outnumbered" today, sean spicer, mandy will be seeing a lot of as a spokesman for the trump administration. thank for joining us, "outnumbered" starts right now. >> we begin with a fox news alert, president-elect's donald trump nominee for attorney general in the center seat for the confirmation hearing in capitol hill. tough room, harsh critics questioning him, and protesters also in the room. we will continue to watch together attorney general nominee jeff sessions before the senate judiciary committee. the senator from alabama actually sits on a panel, and this is day one of what is expected to be a contentious two-day hearing. you are watching out numbered. i'm harris faulkner, here today is meghan mccain, host of "kennedy" on fox business, kennedy herself, democratic strategy, julie roginsky, and