LEW HEARN AND PHYLLIS KENNY - DEEP IN THE HEART OF TEXAS COWBOY SET AND COSTUMES. DANCING AROUND KITSCHY TEXAS SET. MAN STUMBLES AROUND TRIES TO GET HIS GUN OUT OF HOLSTER AND SHOOTS WILDLY AT TARGET

Part 2 of a two part series about Texas POW Camps in WWII

00:16:51:18 [Education and Pride subcommittee of Committee on Resolutions (Platform) presented to 1984 Republican National Convention]--Donna Hearn (Missouri housewife) SOT (0:00) /

Video footage from the KXAS-TV/NBC station in Fort Worth, Texas, to accompany a news story.

MIKE VON FREMD CS VO ON THE GRAND JURY IN TEXAS WHICH IS MEETING TO REEXAMINE EVIDENCE OF RACIAL PROFILING AMONG THE ARRESTS OF 28 PEOPLE IN HEARNE / 17 OF THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED AFTER THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION / ACLU FILED COMPLAINTS THAT THE ARRESTS WERE RACIALLY MOTIVATED

MEN DRESSED IN PRISON CLOTHES SINGING. WOMEN LOOKING ON LAUGHING. "THE HILLBILLY HOOSEGOW" MAN DIGGING OUT OF JAIL. JUGBAND. WOMEN DANCING. MAN FALLS IN TROUGH OF WATER. MAN CRAWLS OUT OF HOLE MEN WITH FAKE BLACKBEARD. WOMAN CLEANING DISHES. "THERE'S A HOLE IN THE OLD OAKEN BUCKET." ACCORDION. OLD WOMAN WITH PIPE WASHING WITH WASHBOARD. WOMAN DANCING. CLEAN-CUT QUARTET. 2 WOMEN & 2 MEN. BEAUTIFUL WOMEN CLIMBING OUT OF A WELL & DANCING. WOMAN PLAY XYLOPHONE. MAN PLAYS BASS. "THE OLD OAKEN BUCKET" BY THE FOUR POLKS. "DEEP IN THE HEART OF TEXAS" LEW HEARN & PHYLLIS KENNY. GUN. TARGET. MEXICAN GUY SLEEPING. FLORENCE GILL, RED HARPER & THE SELLS.

Video footage from the KXAS-TV/NBC station in Fort Worth, Texas, to accompany a news story.

<p>Third-party material is not owned or cleared by CNN. It is the sole responsibility of each affiliate to decide whether to use the material.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p>00-16 bottom 3rd, tied at 1 ... with a runner on second, dansby swanson (CUBS) lines one to right off martin perez (RANGERS) for the rbi single ... 2-1 cubs</p>\n<p>16-26 bottom 4th, 2-1 cubs ... patrick wisdom (CUBS) takes martin perez (RANGERS) deep to left for the solo home run ... 3-1 cubs</p>\n<p>26-45 bottom 5th, now 3-1 cubs ... nick madrigal (CUBS) sends a chopper back to the mound where martin perez (RANGERS) makes the behind-the-back snag and tosses to first for the out; CHECK THAT OUT AGAIN ... 3-1 cubs</p>\n<p>45-55 bottom 8th, now 6-2 cubs ... yan gomes (CUBS) drills one out to left off taylor hearn (RANGERS) ... 7-2 cubs</p>\n<p>55-1:15 bottom 8th, 7-2 cubs ... with the bases loaded, ian happ (CUBS) sends one back up the middle off dane dunning (RANGERS) for the 2-run single; dansby swanson (CUBS) comes around to score on a throwing error ... 10-2 cubs</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>FINAL: 10-3 cubs </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>

MIKE VON FREMD CS VO ON THE GRAND JURY IN TEXAS WHICH IS MEETING TO REEXAMINE EVIDENCE OF RACIAL PROFILING AMONG THE ARRESTS OF 28 PEOPLE IN HEARNE / 17 OF THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED AFTER THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION / ACLU FILED COMPLAINTS THAT THE ARRESTS WERE RACIALLY MOTIVATED

A COUNTY WORKER PAROLED AFTER NEARLY 10 YEARS IN PRISON FOR THE BEATING DEATH OF HIS INFANT DAUGHTER WAS CHARGED TUESDAY WITH TWO OF 19 SLAYINGS POLICE BELIEVE WERE COMMITTED BY A SERIAL KILLER OR KILLERS. WILLIAM LESTER SUFF, 41, WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION IN THE OTHER 17 KILLINGS, SAID LT. AL HEARN, SUPERVISOR OF A TASK FORCE ON THE CASE.``WE'RE CONFIDENT ON THE TWO AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO ON THE OTHER ONES. WHETHER HE'S A SERIAL KILLER THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL 19 OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW,'' HEARN SAID. SUFF WAS ORDERED HELD WITHOUT BAIL DURING A COURT APPEARANCE TUESDAY VIA A JAIL HOUSE VIDEO CAMERA. AS AN ARRAIGNMENT BEGAN ON A TEXAS PAROLE VIOLATION, THE PAPERWORK ON TWO MURDER CHARGES WAS HANDED TO MUNICIPAL JUDGE DENNIS MCCONOGHY. SUFF WAS CHARGED WITH THE DEATHS OF CATHERINE MCDONALD, 31, OF RIVERSIDE, WHOSE BODY WAS FOUND SEPT. 13, AND ELENOR OJEDA CASARES, 39, OF RIVERSIDE, WHOSE BODY WAS FOUND DEC. 23. MISS CASARES WAS THE 19TH VICTIM OF A SERIAL KILLER OR KILLERS STALKING FEMALE PROSTITUTES AND DRUG USERS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SINCE 1986, AUTHORITIES SAID. EVIDENCE COLLECTED AT SUFF'S HOME AND IN HIS VAN LINK HIM TO THE MCDONALD AND CASARES SLAYINGS, HEARD SAID. HE DIDN'T ELABORATE. SUFF DIDN'T ENTER A PLEA AND AGREED TO HAVE HIS ARRAIGNMENT POSTPONED TO FEB. 4. HIS ATTORNEY, PUBLIC DEFENDER FLOYD ZAGORSKY, WOULDN'T DISCUSS THE CASE OTHER THAN TO SAY, ``IT'S BEEN A VERY TRYING MATTER.'' SUFF WAS ARRESTED THURSDAY IN RIVERSIDE AFTER HIS VAN STOPPED NEXT TO A SUSPECTED PROSTITUTE AND MADE AN ILLEGAL U-TURN, HEARN SAID. THE OFFICER FOUND A PROBLEM WITH SUFF'S VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND NOTICED HIS DRIVER'S LICENSE HAD EXPIRED, HEARN SAID. SUFF WAS ARRESTED AND THE VAN WAS IMPOUNDED. THE SERIAL SLAYINGS TASK FORCE WAS NOTIFIED, BUT HEARN WOULDN'T SAY WHY. SUFF WAS DESCRIBED AS COOPERATIVE, BUT HEARN WOULDN'T COMMENT ON REPORTS THAT SUFF CONFESSED TO THE SLAYINGS. THE AREA WHERE SUFF WAS ARRESTED IS FREQUENTED BY PROSTITUTES. SEVERAL OF THE SERIAL VICTIMS WERE LAST SEEN ALIVE NEARBY. VICTIMS' FAMILIES HAVE SPECULATED THE KILLER MIGHT BE A POLICE OFFICER OR SOMEONE IMPERSONATING AN OFFICER BECAUSE SOME VICTIMS WERE DESCRIBED AS WOMEN WHO WOULDN'T GO WITH MEN THEY DIDN'T KNOW OR TRUST.HEARN WOULDN'T SAY IF ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ARTICLES, SUCH AS A BADGE OR POLICE UNIFORM, WERE AMONG THE ITEMS FOUND IN SUFF'S VAN OR HOME. SUFF HAD WORKED SINCE OCTOBER 1986 AS A STOCK CLERK FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY, SAID ASSISTANT COUNTY PURCHASING AGENT MARK SEILER. SUFF AND HIS WIFE, TERYL ROSE SUFF, WERE CONVICTED OF BEATING THEIR 2-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER TO DEATH IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, IN 1974. SUFF WAS PAROLED IN 1984 AFTER SERVING 10 YEARS OF A 70-YEAR PRISON TERM, SAID DAVID NUNNELLEE, A SPOKESMAN WITH THE CORRECTIONS DIVISION OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. TERYL SUFF'S CONVICTION WAS REVERSED BY THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. AFTER BEING PAROLED, SUFF MOVED TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY, LIVING IN RIALTO AND LAKE ELSINORE. IN NOVEMBER HE MOVED TO COLTON IN NEIGHBORING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES ISSUED A WARRANT FOR SUFF'S ARREST ON FRIDAY, CHARGING HIM WITH FAILING TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT, SPOKESWOMAN RAVEN KAZEN SAID. SUFF HAD BEEN ON ANNUAL REPORT STATUS, MEANING HE WAS REQUIRED TO MAIL IN A REPORT EACH YEAR SINCE 1987. HE HASN'T REPORTED SINCE 1988, SHE SAID. THE OFFICIAL LIST OF RIVERSIDE SLAYINGS STARTS WITH MICHELLE GUTIERREZ, 26, FOUND OCT. 29, 1986. THE BODIES WERE DISCARDED ON HILLSIDES, IN ALLEYS AND ALONG FREEWAYS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, A RAPIDLY GROWING AREA EAST OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. SOME OF THE EARLIEST VICTIMS WERE FOUND NAKED AND WERE STABBED OR STRANGLED. AUTHORITIES STOPPED DESCRIBING HOW THE VICTIMS WERE KILLED.

Video footage from the WBAP-TV television station in Fort Worth, Texas, covering a news story about a student boycott of Denton drug store across the street from Texas Woman's University

ROLL A: OC 925 SOF MAG FTG OF GOVERNORS CONFERENCE. VS EUGENE MCCARTHY (GENE) FOR PRESIDENT PICKETS DEMONSTRATION. INTV W/ GOVERNOR LESTER MADDOX OF GEORGIA WHO SAYS DEMOCRATS WILL LOSE THE PRESIDENCY UNLESS THEY INJECT SOME CONSERVATISM INTO THE CANDIDATES. VS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS INCLUDING RICHARD HUGHES OF NEW JERSEY, JOHN MCKEITHEN OF LOUISIANA, JOHN CONNALLY OF TEXAS. VS GOVERNORS SEATED AT A CONFERENCE TABLE. GOVERNOR WARREN HEARNES OF MISSOURI SAYS THAT THE GOVERNORS ARE DIVIDED ON CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

Video footage from the WBAP-TV station in Fort Worth, Texas, covering a news story about a competition of antique vehicles in Arlington, put on by the Horseless Carriage Club.

Part 1 of a two-part series about Texas POW Camps in WWII

NAME: US FLOODS 140504N TAPE: EF04/0510 IN_TIME: 10:22:27:21 DURATION: 00:00:51:02 SOURCES: ABC DATELINE: Texas - 13 May 2004 RESTRICTIONS: No Access Internet SHOTLIST: 1. Various aerials of flooding 2. Various grounds shots of flooding 3. More aerials of flooding STORYLINE Homes were flooded and roads were submerged in the US state of Texas on Thursday as intense thunderstorms dumped up to 12 inches (30 and a half centrimetres) of rain in a short amount of time on areas of Robertson County, northwest of College Station. Authorities in Robertson County, about 50 miles southeast of Waco, had reports of 60 to 100 flooded homes, plus several high-water rescues and cars washed off roads. A special water-rescue team was dispatched to Hearne to help people who were stranded during the flooding. The heavy rain also damaged a dam northeast of Hearne, causing eight feet (two and a half metres) of water to flood a nearby road. No serious injuries were reported. The storms developed in the San Antonio area early on Thursday and moved north and east. By the time they hit the Houston area, they had weakened but heavy rains still delayed and cancelled some flights at the city's airports.

TAPE: EF03/0059 IN_TIME: 01:44:00 DURATION: 3:41 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: DATELINE: Various - Recent/File SHOTLIST: APTN File Fort Worth, Texas Nov 22 1963 1. President John F Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy enter limousine. APTN London, Jan 15 2003 2. Film being threaded through Steenbeck viewing machine. 3. Old UPI newsfilm can. 4. Film moving through spools APTN File Dallas, Texas Nov 22 1963 5. Original copy of Muchmore film - JFK's car turning corner APTN London Jan 15 2003 6. SOUNDBITE (English) Christopher O'Hearn, APTN Library "We don't think we are going to reveal a gunman or anything like that. All these things have been looked at in enormous detail over the years. So we're not going to see another gunman on the grassy knoll but we are going to make this piece of footage easier to see, easier to look at and easier for people to tell a story with." 7. Film being laced into optical scanner 8. Optical scanner lens - light flickering 9. SOUNDBITE (English) Perry Gibbs, Film Colourist, Home "For this project really I'm looking for maximum colour separation in the first instance and a reasonable contrast. I think if one were to look at this film projected they'd probably find it's quite washed out, there's not much saturation and it probably appears quite wishy-washy. I have the ability here to add colour and add contrast and take the colour that already exists and just enhance it." 10. Wide - operating controls of telecine desk 11. Telecine desk, film on screen changing colour 12. Split screen, full frame, showing original on left and restored film on right 13. SOUNDBITE: Mike Smith, Technical Manager, Metro Broadcast "As with all processing technology you have to be careful how you use it. It's a very powerful tool so if you overuse it you're going to introduce artifacts that don't originally exist, and the idea is that you utilise Archangel as much as you can without introducing any new artifacts or faults that weren't originally there, but try and keep the authenticity or the original quality of the image. how it was originally shown and seen." 14. Filter view, full frame - shows dirt removed from film 15. Film being processed, shot on monitor, with cross hairs showing image stabilisation. 16. Monitor with film 17. Close shot, operating edit controls. 18. Computer screen 19. Monitor with film leader/countdown 20. Restored film, full frame with APTN logo - car turning corner 21. Restored film, full frame with APTN logo - slow motion, showing man with umbrella. APTN File Dallas, Texas Nov 22 1963 22. Lee Harvey Oswald under arrest APTN File Washington DC, Nov 25. 22. Funeral of President Kennedy STORYLINE Film of one of the most striking images of the 20th century, the assassination of US President John F Kennedy, has been digitally restored by APTN archivists. The Muchmore film is one of only three moving images of the event. Dirt and scratches have been removed while colour and clarity have been restored - in time for the 40th anniversary of JFK's death. Controversy over the death of President John F Kennedy remains strong, even 40 years after his death in Dallas on November 22 1963. Film, photographs, witnesses and even audio recordings arouse interest and passion in analysts and a legion of conspiracy theorists who reject the official view that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Three amateur cameramen caught the events in Dealey Plaza that day, among them Marie Muchmore, whose film was bought by the news agency UPI, and is now part of the APTN Library. The film shows Kennedy's limousine turning onto Dealey Plaza, and later picks up after he has been shot the first time, before capturing the final fatal shot to the President's head. In preparation for 40th anniversary, APTN archivists looked at existing film prints but saw badly washed-out images, affected by dirt and scratches. APTN decided to clean it, using a relatively new process of restoration called Archangel. The first step was literally to clean the film of any loose dirt and then put it through a Telecine process which uses high-quality optical scanners to transfer the frames from film to video. An experienced film colourist worked to grade the image - restoring natural colours to the film and correcting defects like exposure and clarity. Each frame is scanned with two thousand lines - three times the normal quality of television images. The final step was the Archangel restoration - a split screen shows the original compared to the restored image. The Archangel, made by broadcast equipment manufacturers Snell and Wilcox, works on a number of different problems including scratches, dirt, film shudder and unstable images. It works by using Phase Correlation Motion Correction, or Ph.C. Computer processors compare each frame with the series of images before and after. So a scratch that appears in just a few frames will be recognised because it is not in the previous or subsequent frames, and it will be replaced by the correct colour taken from the surrounding frames. Because of the sensitivity of historic footage experienced operators judge the correct filters and how to apply them. But the process is an advance on previous manual techniques which were lengthy and expensive. By recording the filter, the number of imperfections removed from one section of the film can be clearly seen - the dirt seen here is what has been taken out of the film. The overall result is a clearer, sharper view of the tragic events in Dallas 40 years ago. And there was at least one surprise, not thought to have been commented on before - a man seen holding an umbrella in the first few seconds of film, some time before the motorcade arrived. One conspiracy theory surrounds another man seen in photographs who holds an umbrella aloft at the instant Kennedy was first shot. Analysts questioned why he had the umbrella - it wasn't usual for men to carry umbrellas against the sun - and suggest it may have been a signal or even a weapon. Though the fact of another man with an umbrella is not proof of anything, it suggests that the person known as The Umbrella Man was not the only man in Dallas that day carrying an umbrella, after morning rain had given way to sunshine. The official investigation into the death reported that JFK was killed by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was in turn killed by Jack Ruby while in police custody. Later investigations by the US Congress claimed that a wider conspiracy had taken place though the conspirators were not identified. Four decades later the death of one the 20th century's iconic figures still arouses argument and controversy.

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Attorney General Nomination Senate Judiciary Committee Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Time: 09:30 AM Location: Russell Senate Office Building 325 Presiding: Chairman Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley R (IA) WITNESSES: The Honorable Richard Shelby United States Senator State of Alabama The Honorable Susan Collins United States Senator State of Maine PANEL I Senator Jeff Sessions 15;50;00 Senator sessions, I think you have done a terrific job. I've known you all your 20 years, I've watched you work diligently on the judiciary committee and on your other committees as well. You're an honest, decent man and you have tremendous abilities in law enforcement and you are proving it here today and showing it here today. It's hard for me to understand why anybody would be against you. I want to emphasize that you have wide support for your appointment among law enforcement including the national sheriff's association, national district attorneys association, the national association of police organization, national organization of assistant attorneys, the international union police associations and major city chiefs of police. I'm not sure I've seen anybody that had all that kind of massive support for this position. Now I draw attention to this for an important reason. This agreement about political or policy positions are one thing. But, accusations about your commitment to fairness or suggestions that you're not sensitive to race is another. With these law enforcement organizations enthusiastically support someone who is biased? Of course not. Especially without any evidence to support them whatsoever are not simply attacks on senator sessions they are also smears against organizations like these which have similar needs, the record and found senator sessions worthy of support so I'm grateful to you and for your willingness to take this on. Knowing that you might be smeared by certain organizations. It takes some guts to do this, but we all know you have guts. We all know that you believe in what you are doing. We all know that you have a tremendous integrity. We all know that you have tremendous intellectual ability as well. And even though you and I have disagreed on issues that are important to both of us, you have always acted with distinction and fairness and decency and I would expect you to do the same thing as attorney general of the United States. One thing I know, you would be giving it's everything you have and that's a lot. You have a lot to give. Let me just say this morning one of my democratic colleagues said that the standard for evaluating your nomination is whether you will "Enforce the law fairly, evenly, without personal bias" do you agree that the attorney general has a duty to do that? SESSIONS: As a core responsibility of attorney general absolutely 15;33;00 HATCH: I have no doubt you will live up to that. No doubt whatsoever. I think everybody should have to agree with that. The real question is how we can be confident that you will fulfill that responsibility an most of the comments this morning were about comments you made, positions you took or cast as senator on legislative issues and some of these questions suggested that you could not enforce a law that you had not voted for or you would not enforce a law or policy that you might have questioned or personally disagreed with. I personally categorically reject that and you have too, is that correct? SESSIONS: That is correct. HATCH: You're darn right it is. Some of my friends would also reject the suggestion that a liberal could not be impartial. I think liberals can be impartial. SESSIONS: I do too, senator hatch. And some people -- I don't think it would be hard for me to be impartial and to enforce laws that I didn't vote for. I just don't think that's going to be -- I think I can separate my personal votes of maybe years ago from what my responsibility is today and I hope that my colleagues can believe that. HATCH: Well the answer to the question whether you can as attorney general enforce the laws fairly, evenly and without personal bias it's a resounding yes, you can and anybody who disagrees with that hasn't been listening, observed you over the last twenty years or any time over the last 20 years, there's not a shred of evidence of your entire record to undermine that conclusion. The fact that you have already served in both the executive and legislative branches strengthen even further your commitment to the duty of fairness and impartiality. Seems to me it does. Am I right? SESSIONS: Well, thank you, yes. I do believe I've conducted myself according to principals that I think are valid and try to be consistent and honest in my evaluation of the many complex issues that we have here. Sometimes good people can certainly disagree on them. HATCH: Anybody should know that's true. Now the justice department has a duty to defend in court the laws enacted by congress. As a member of this committee for 20 years you had heard attorney general nominees profess their commitment to fulfill that duty regardless of politics, in my opinion the justice department under the outgoing administration renigged on its duty to do so in a number of respects in some cases they made decisions rather than legal grounds. How important is it to commit to legal statutes even as a legislature you would oppose those statutes? 15;36;00 SESSIONS: Senator hatch, you have been through many of these issues and I certainly do respect your judgment but I do believe that the lawyer for the congress, the lawyer for the United States that represents the united States government in court should be the lawyer that defends an act lawfully passed in congress wherever it's reasonable argument can be made and I commit to you I will do that. HATCH: I believe you and I know that's true. And I have a rough time seeing why anybody would find any real flaws or fault with your nomination. I just want to personally thank you for being willing to go through this, were your willingness to be able to do this and for your integrity that you have shown and exhibited and demonstrated over the last 20 years. I can personally testify about you and about what a fine really good person you are. And we've differed on some pretty important issues from time to time. I have respect for you because you stand up for what you believe however wrong you may have been. [ Laughter ] SESSIONS: I heard my wife laugh. HATCH: Well, I have a lot of respect for you and I hope that the rest of this proceeding goes really well and that we can get you confirmed as soon as possible because I know you will do a terrific job and I'm very proud of you for being willing to do this. SESSIONS: I'm honored to have your support. SEN FEINSTEIN BEGINS QUESTIONING 15;37;42 FEINSTEIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. To begin I would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements sent to the committee concerning senator sessions be made part of the record and I have testimony and letters. GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered. FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Senator sessions, when I was a small child it was during world War two and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called tanferan and had become a detention camp for Japanese citizens. Thousands of families were held in this compound. And we checked with crs who says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any sabotage in the United States during that time. 15;38;46 Senator Lee, Cruz and I have tried together to enact a bill together to ensure that no American citizen or lawful permanent residence debit detien -- detained in the united States could be held without charge or trial. Do you believe that the government can pursuant to a general authorization to use military force indefinitely detain Americans in the united States without charge or trial? SESSIONS: Senator Feinstein, that's an important question, classically, the answer is yes, classically if you captured a German soldier they could be held until the war ended. FEINSTEIN: I'm talking about an American. 15;39;30 SESSIONS: I hear you, so then the question is we're in a war like we have now that's gone on multiple years and I would think the principle of law certainly would appear to be valid but as reality dawns on us and wars might be even longer, you know, it's honest to discuss those issues, so I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do believe as senator graham as argued forcefully for many years that we are in a war and when members who unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to be connected to a enemy on a designated enemy of the united States, so I am probably explained more than I should, but that's basically the arguments and the issues we're facing. I respect your concerns and I'm sure they will continue to be debated the future. FEINSTEIN: Well, let me just say a few things about that. I've served on the intelligence committee for 15 years. I read all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what's happening in the United States and this is not -- these are Americans that we're talking about that can be picked up and detained and held without -- SESSIONS: You're talking about America citizens -- FEINSTEIN: - And that should not be the case. SESSIONS: I understand your point and citizens of the United States have certain important rights they cannot be aggregated. They cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review and the government surely has to prove that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action against the united States or they couldn't be detained. FEINSTEIN: Well, I appreciate that. Let me go into another subject. You were one of nine senators to vote against the detainee treatment act of 2005. It prohibited the imposition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. Personnel. You also voted against an amendment sponsored by senator McCain in the 2016 defense authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the army field manual which does not include waterboarding. Do you agree that the CIA's former enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding are prohibited by this provision of law as now cotifield? SESSIONS: It does appear to be clear that the last act McCain amendment would prohibit waterboarding. FEINSTEIN: and you would enforce that? SESSIONS: I would enforce the law, yes. 15;43;11 FEINSTEIN: Thank you. And my third question is -- and this was in the "Washington post," a report last night that you failed to disclose to this committee and to the office of government ethics subsurface rights to oil or other minerals on more than 600 acres in your home state some of which I gather are adjacent to a federal wildlife preserve. Apparently Alabama records -- and this is a quote, show that the senator leased undivided mineral interests to chief capital, a Texas firm, in 2015, do you in fact own these interests? SESSIONS: Senator Feinstein I believe that so, and the way it happened was that many years ago at least 50 or more years ago, my family, ancestors sold some land and reserved mineral rights. Later there was a dam built on the river and desire to take land that was going to be flooded and add additional land for duck preserve and they negotiated and the family sold land to the government and retained the mineral rights per the agreement. At least that's my understanding, so by nonseries of events, it fell to me. I never reviewed the deeds, I don't know how much land is out there that I own mineral rights on although oil companies are pretty good about contacting owners before they drill a well, so you are correct that we reported the income on my return -- FEINSTEIN: I saw that. SESSIONS: - As coming from the property that I own and the property where the oil well is. I did not note in that report specifically that it was oil income because the blank said royalties, but maybe -- so I would just say to you this, we absolutely -- this is something I've taken no affirmative action in, it's something I'm going to take affirmative action in. I have one of the simplest, clearest financial reports you can see. My assets and my wife's assets are most entirely vanguard funds and municipal bonds, I don't own any individual stocks, we're going to find out what we did or didn't do and correct it. FEINSTEIN: Good. Thank you. SEN. KENNEDY BEGINS QUESTIONING 15;46;10 KENNEDY: My name is John Kennedy. And that's really my name. Just so you know I used to have a law partner named Jose Canseco. Caused a lot of confusion when we would go to meetings together. SESSIONS: I guess. 15;46;30 KENNEDY: I have been impressed in preparing for the hearings with the deep support you enjoy from law enforcement. In fact one of my sheriff's from Louisiana, I don't know if Greg is still here, sheriff Greg shampomp came up with other sheriff's on your behalf. And I have noticed other organizations that have not always agreed on the issues. And that impressed me. I wanted to read an excerpt from the sergeants benevolent association from the NYPD, about as far as away from mobile you can get" as a union representing law enforcement officers over the years the sba, the sergeants benevolent association, as worked as both an ally and respectful opponent of senator sessions. This experience has shown us that senator sessions is a man of unquestionable integrity and devoted to the rule of law. It is for this reason and many others that we believe senator sessions is the absolute right choice to serve as America's chief law enforcement officer" and that impressed me. I would like to know what you as attorney general intend to do to partner with state and local law enforcement? SESSIONS: That is so important and the United States attorneys throughout the country as in Louisiana and Alabama are key players in this. All United States attorneys, colleagues are funded to have law enforcement coordinating officers. I had two in my small office. We had regular meetings. In the early 80s this is when it started. The first time. So instead of having a law enforcement plan, produced in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorneys were directed to get all the federal agencies and all the state and local agencies to sit down and identify what the re -- their main threats are and direct their resources to deal with the real threats and they would be different in different districts around the country. I sense that's been eroded somewhat so we need to get back to that. The department of justice has great resources for identifying tactics and strategies that work on crime. We ought to be able to always help the state and local police officers have the best data on what works and how to create safer and better communities, the federal government cannot dictate to these agencies. It would be a disaster. They wouldn't accept it number one in any influence you might have would be eliminated. We need to be partners of federal government through its power nationally and internationally, can help local investigative agencies solve a complex criminal case that they don't have the subpoena power or Louisiana U.S. Attorney or sheriff doesn't have power to have investigations conducted in Texas or Denver, so these are the things that are all important. 15;50;10 And I truly believe that from a matter of public police we need to see the big picture. And we're all in it together. We're all in it together. And 90% of the law officers in America are state and local. And they're the ones that are the eyes and ears of law enforcement so I really think senator Kennedy, you are correct that we need to do this. I think there's a feeling among law enforcement that that's not been happening sufficiently. And I sense that that's one of the -- and the fact that I think I understand that that I've had as much strong and enthusiastic support as i've had. KENNEDY: You know, when a radical islamic terrorist drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we're told that we should not judge all muslims by the act of a few, and I agree with that. Don't you think the same rule ought to apply when one or two law enforcement officers make the mistake -- don't you think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9% law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day and go to work and try to protect us? 15;51;30 SESSIONS: I really do. And I think those of us in high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole departments and whole groups of people because within those, most any department you can find in America, surely most of the people are just wonderful servants, public servants trying to do the right thing. So, when we say these thing, we can increase risk for them. We can make it harder for them to have relationships with the constituents where they are serving and actually result in an increase in crime in effect I haveness in law enforcement. These issues, we cannot miss these issues. We cannot make a big mistake like we may be making now. So, I commit to doing my best as a law officer to engender the kind of unity and comprehensive effort, state, local, federal, that would be the most effective engine to fight crime and make our communities safer. 15;52;49 KENNEDY: In Louisiana, senator, we believe that love is the answer, but we also believe that we have the right under the constitution to own a gun just in case. Could you share with me your thoughts on the second amendment? SESSIONS: Well, I do believe the second amendment is a personal right. It's a historic right of the American people and the constitution protects it. And explicitly states it. It's just as much a part of the constitution as any of the other great rights and liberties that we value. So, my record is pretty clear on that. However, if a person -- people can forfeit their right to have a gun and it can be a factor in receiving sentences and being prosecuted if you carry a gun, for example, during a commission of a crime. That can add penalty and convictions to you. I think that's a legitimate and responsible restraint on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. KENNEDY: I think they believe this in Alabama, too, but Louisiana, we also believe that nothing makes it easier to resist temptation than a good upbringing, a strong set of values, and witnesses. I'd like to know your thoughts on the freedom of information act. 15;54;20 SESSIONS: Well, the freedom of information act is law and I would see it's carried out and the policies of the country need to be followed. KENNEDY: I've got one final question. I read the inspector general's report about the department of justice. I think it came out in about the middle of 2016, last year. They talked about -- the inspector general talked about problems with the department's massive grant programs. And the inspector general said approximately $100 million over the last five years went for, quote, questionable expenditures or funds that, quote, could have been put to better use. Now, this is taxpayer money. It didn't just fall from heaven. We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets. What do you plan to do once you're confirmed -- and I believe you will be confirmed -- to help our friends at justice department prioritize their spending a little bit? 15;55;35 SESSIONS: Thank you, senator Kennedy. That report is -- raises real concerns. I believe that any responsible public official should recognize that when they obtain an ig, their own inspector general, and saying their department is not performing to high standards should listen to that report and take action and review what's happening and make sure it does not continue. The American people have no desire, and they absolutely should not have their money sent to Washington and then be wasted. We can do a lot more with the money that we have, having been ranking member of the budget committee, and I know that -- how difficult it is. But one way to get extra money, free money is to use the money you've got wisely for things that are valuable. KENNEDY: Senator, I don't know you well, but I've followed your career with respect and admiration for a lot of years and I just wanted to tell you that. You would be a great attorney general. SESSIONS: Thank you. Thank you very much. 15;56;50 BREAK SEN WHITEHOUSE BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;15;20 WHITEHOUSE (MISSING BEGINNING OF QUESTION): Career attorneys to follow the policy dictates of other administrations and not holding the career people responsible for that. I'm wondering how you would react to this. Do you have a problem with career attorneys if their private religious beliefs are secular ones? And do you -- will you support the career attorneys against the pressure from the from these right wing organizations seeking to wash them out like filth, to paraphrase the heritage foundation? SESSIONS: The department of justice is composed primarily of career professionals. As you know, senator Whitehouse, you served there ably as the United States attorney. And I give them the highest respect. Most of those attorneys reach high standards and they are willing to follow lawful orders and directions from their superiors even if they might have a different philosophy. I do think it's often they are put into non-career spots and can go back to career spots, but I don't know how exactly that works. But, so, you would normally expect -- and I'm sure the Obama administration made changes in the leadership of the department. They put career people in positions that they thought would be most advantageous for them to advance the causes they believed in. And that's sort of within the rules of the game. But the target people and to anyway demean them, if they were fine public servants and they were following the law and carrying out a legitimate policy of their supervisors would be wrong. And I think you should respect them. I would do that. 16;17;00 WHITEHOUSE: Does a secular attorney have anything to fear from an attorney general sessions and department of justice? SESSIONS: Well, no. And I use that word in the 90,000-foot level. A little concern I have is that we as a nation, I believe, are reaching a level in which truth is not sufficiently respected, that the very ideal, the idea of truth is not believed to be real, and that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. Let's just say kind of a criticism -- we are not a theocracy. Nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson's words on the memorial over here. I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man. And I think we should respect people's views and not demand any kind of religious test for holding office. WHITEHOUSE: And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? 16;18;10 SESSIONS: Well, I'm not sure. In what method? Is it less objectively committed to - WHITEHOUSE: An attorney would bring to bear -- SESSIONS: Let me just say, we're going to treat anybody with different views fairly and objectively. And the ideal of truth and trying to achieve the right solution to me is an important goal of the American Juris prudential system, actually the legislative system. What is the right thing, what is true and let's act on it and do the right thing. WHITEHOUSE: On the subject of what is truth, you may -- SESSIONS: The age-old question. 15;18;45 WHITEHOUSE: You may be in a position as attorney general to either enforce laws or bring actions that relate to the problem of carbon emissions and the changes that are taking place both physically and chemically in our atmosphere and oceans as a result of the flood of carbon emissions that we've had. It is the political position of the Republican party and the senate, as I have seen it, that this is not a problem, that we don't need to do anything about it, that the facts aren't real, and that we should all do nothing whatsoever. That's the senate. You as attorney general of the United States may be asked to make decisions for our nation that require a factual predicate that you determine as the basis for making your decision. In making a decision about the facts of climate change, to whom will you turn? Will you, for instance, trust the military, all of whose branches agree that climate change is a serious problem of real import for them? Will you trust our national laboratories, all of whom say the same? Will you trust our national science agencies -- by the way, nasa is driving a rover around on the surface of Mars right now. So, they're scientists, I think, are pretty good. I don't think there is a single scientific society, I don't think there is a single credited university, I don't think there is a single nation that denies this basic set of facts. And, so, if that situation is presented to you and you have to make a decision based on the facts, what can give us any assurance that you will make those facts based on real facts and real science? 16;20;50 SESSIONS: That's a good and fair question, and honesty and integrity in that process is required. And if the facts justify a position on one side or the other on a case, I would try to utilize those facts in an honest and appropriate way. I've not -- I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it always struck me as plausible, and it's the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it. So, that's what I would hope we could see occur. WHITEHOUSE: Indeed, I'll bet you dollars against those lovely krispy kreme doughnuts we have out back that if you went down to the university of Alabama and if you talked to the people who fish out of mobile, they had already seen the changes in the ocean. They'd be able to measure the ph changes and they'd know the acid is happening, and there is no actual dispute about that except in the politics of Washington, D.C. SESSIONS: I recognize the great interest in time and you've committed to the issue and I value your opinion. 16;21;55 WHITEHOUSE: I do come from an ocean state, and we do measure the rise in the sea level and we measure the warming of Naraganset bay and we measure the ph. It's serious for us, senator. Thank you. My time has expired. SESSIONS: Thank you. SEN. CRUZ BEGINS QUESTIONS GRASSLEY: Now it looks like it will be senator from Texas, and senator from Texas, I'm going to step out for a minute. And when your eight minutes are up, would you call on senator kobachar? 16;22;20 CRUZ: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I want to congratulate you on making it through a lengthy hearing and then performing admirably. And I think your performance today has reassured this committee and even more importantly has given comfort to the American people that you will be an attorney general who will faithfully apply the law without partiality, without partisan lens, but with fidelity to the constitution and the laws of the United States. I also want to do something I don't do very often, which is I want to commend the Democrats on this committee for, I think, showing admirable restraint. At the beginning of this hearing I had concerns that it would turn ugly with accusations that don't belong in this hearing. And I think my friends on the democratic side of the aisle have largely restrained from that, and I commend them for that. I would note that in the recesses of the internet and in some of the groups that are speaking on this nomination and, indeed, in the view of some of the protesters who have made their voices heard today, there have been racial charges raised and, indeed, some of the protesters have chanted kkk. And you and I have both talked about this a number of times. That is one of the easiest charges for someone to make when they don't have an argument on the merits when they don't have the facts behind them. And it is a particularly hurtful argument that can be directed at someone particularly when it's countered by the facts. And what I want to focus on principally in this round is spending a little bit of time highlighting an aspect of your record, which is your involvement in the prosecution of Henry Hayes, a member of the Ku klux Klan which I expect few watching this hearing have ever heard of. It is striking and highly revealing. So, I'd like to walk through some of the facts. I know you're very familiar with them but I suspect some of the folks at home watching this hearing may not be. In 1981 in mobile, Alabama, the Ku klux klam ordered the murder of a random African-American man, Michael done kanl. Kk members Henry Hayes and James tiger Knowles abducted afternoon cann American Michael Duncan. They beat him, they strangled him, they cut his throat and they hung him from a tree, absolutely shameful and disgraceful. You were U.S. Attorney at the time. Your office along with the FBI, along with the local district attorney investigated the murder. Department of justice attorneys Barry Kowalski and Burt Blan worked on the case. When asked about your work on this case, Mr. Glenn testified that, quote, during the entire course of the investigations, he, meaning sessions, has provided unqualified support and cooperation to us and independently as an individual who absolutely wanted to see that crime solved and prosecuted. Is that accurate, senator sessions? 16;26;00 SESSIONS: I think it is, yes. That's exactly what I intended to do. It actually occurred before I became United States attorney. Wrong group of people had been indicted in state court that complicated matters. Case was not making the kind of progress it needed to make. And, so, we had a discussion. And we invited civil rights division attorneys, Burt Glenn and Barry Kowalski, both of which were exceptionally fine, and along with assistant Thomas figures in my office, broke that case and I thought they deserve a great deal of credit. But I was with them. I was in the grand jury with them. I called the grand jury at their convenience whenever they wanted to come to the state, actually use an impanelled a special grand jury so they could be called when they desired it. It had already been called for another special purpose, but we add that had to their purpose so they had the flexibility. And it was I thought a brilliantly conducted investigation. I guess Barry Kowalski was the lead attorney in it. 16;27;00 CRUZ: Now, Bobby eddy who is the chief investigator for the mobile county district attorney's office, he testified, quote, without his, meaning sessions' cooperation, the state could not have proceeded against Henry Hayes on the capital murder charge. Chris galanos who is the mobile county district attorney in 1981 stated, quote, we needed some horsepower which the feds through Jeff sessions provided. Specifically, we needed the investigative power of the FBI and the power of the federal grand jury. I reached out to him, sessions, and he responded, quote, tell me what you need and you'll have it. And, indeed, your office prosecuted Hayes' accomplice in federal court where he pleaded guilty. And Mr. Eddy testified that tiger Knowles, the accomplice, pled guilty on a civil rights violation and received a life sentence, the highest sentence he could receive under federal law in federal prison. And he continued to say, Henry Hayes was tried in state court by Mr. Galanos' office and found guilty and sentenced to die in the electric chair. And this made Hayes the first white man executed in Alabama for murdering a black person since 1913. When you were the attorney general of Alabama, you later argued to uphold Hayes' death penalty and in 1997, five months after you joined this body as a senator, Hayes died in Alabama's electric chair. And I would note not only that, not only did you assist in the prosecution of the face of evil, the Ku klux Klan murderer who saw ultimate justice, but as it so happened, you also prosecuted Hayes' father, kkk grand titan, Benny jack Hayes who order his son to kill an African-American and you prosecuted him for attempting to defraud his home insurer in order to collect money to pay for his son's legal defense. Is that correct? SESSIONS: That is correct. CRUZ: And beyond that, your office cooperated with Morris des and the southern poverty law center to bring a suit against the kkk and he explained, quote, after the criminal case was over, the poverty law center took the evidence we developed and gave to them and they sued civilly and got a $7 million verdict on behalf of Ms. Donald. And the $7 million civil judgment against the kkk in Alabama bankrupted the Klan, leading to its demise in the state. Is that correct? 16;29;50 SESSIONS: That's essentially correct, yes. In fact, they sold the Klan headquarters to help satisfy the judgment. 16;30;05 CRUZ: Well, I would say, senator sessions, it's easy for people reading things on the internet to believe whatever is raised and passions get hot. And I know the protesters who stand up and chant kkk, they in all likelihood believe what they're saying because they're reading and being encouraged on the internet. But I have not seen any appointee to the cabinet, Democrat or Republican, who has a record like you do of prosecuting klans men, putting them on death row, bankrupting them and putting them out of business, and doing so as you had, I tell you, I admire your doing so. And I'll issue a challenge to our friends in the news media. I noticed every time a protester jumped up, all the photographers took pictures of the protesters. I suspect we're going to see them in all the papers. I would encourage the news media, cover this story. Tell the story on the 6 o'clock news about Jeff sessions helping prosecute a klans man who murdered an African-American man and helped bankrupt him, helping bankrupt the Klan in Alabama. I thank you for your record, I thank you for your service. SESSIONS: Thank you, senator Cruz. I would say it has been very disappointing and painful to have it suggested I think the Klan was okay when we did everything possible to destroy and defeat and prosecute Klan members who were involved in this crime. And it was a good joint effort. I was supportive of it every step of the way and some great lawyers worked very hard on it. CRUZ: Thank you, sir. SEN. KLOBUCHAR BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;32;20 KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, just this week, back page.com announced it was taking down the adult services section of its website. Senator Koran and I led the bill on the judiciary committee. You contributed to it which we appreciated. And we also had work by senator portman and senator mccast kell and others on this issue. We had 48 arrests around the towns in Minnesota alone where back page was part of the operation. So, this was a good result. They took the fifth today in front of homeland security while you were testifying. But I wanted to know what your plans would be, the justice department finally came out with the national strategy and sex trafficking which is part of our bill. And, so, will be in your hands if you are confirmed as attorney general to implement. Could you just give me your thoughts on this issue? SESSIONS: Well, I'm glad that the entire nation seems to be giving priority to this. A lot of great people have given real focus to the problem of sex trafficking and the degradation and destruction that results from it. So, I think it would be a firm and important part of the department of justice's priorities. And I would look forward to following up on the legislative successes and other things that are happening to see if we can't make a real impact against this abominable practice. 16;33;05 KLOBUCHAR: I will say attorney general lynch and prosecutors have worked on this and would be good to talk to them as well. Senator Lee and I have been in charge of the committee. We rotate who is in charge as ranking member. I care a lot about this. We're in the mid of a merger wave between 2010 and 2015, the number of mergers reported to the government increased over 50% from 716 to 1,801, and over the last 18 months we've seen substantial mergers in pharmaceutical, agriculture, cable, insurance, beer. Recently across the political spectrum, there's been a lot of concern about concentration because you need to have an even playing field if competition is going to flourish and that means that's better for consumers if you have strong competition. Will you commit to making vigorous antitrust enforcement a priority, kind of a sideline to that, there's some concern based on some of the statements from the president-elect that maybe certain companies or industries could be targeted depending on if they're in favor or not. These are not statements that you have made. Could you comment about Independence of the attorney general when it comes to considering these cases? 16;34;40 SESSIONS: The antitrust policies of the United States have to be consistent and as clear as possible. As you know, that's not always as easy as some people might think. I could say with confidence that you and senator Lee, as leaders I believe on the antitrust subcommittee, I know you are, have been more attune to the details and the special issues that are involved in that section of the department of justice. So, we would work resolutely on it. I have no hesitation to enforce antitrust law. I have no hesitation to say certain mergers should not occur and there will not be political influence in that process. 16;35;25 KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. I'm going to put a series of other questions on the record. One is on synthetic drugs. We're working hard, senator grassley and I have long worked on this issue with senator Feinstein and senator graham. And we have a new bill that we're working on to make it easier to go after synthetic drugs and maybe on the record we could get your comments on that. Drug courts, again, one of my top priorities, I think that they worked very well in jurisdictions that are devoted to seeing themselves not just as businesses that want to see repeat customers, but getting people off of the treadmill of crime and drugs. And then a very Minnesota focused issue, Minnesota was -- just got a designation called tied up for high intensity drug trafficking, a lot based on Hearn and opiate addictions we've seen. Somehow it was set up so the money came through Wisconsin. Do you know anything about the vikings-packers rivalry? It makes our sheriffs concerned. I thought I would maybe on the record, again, I'm not going to get into detail, discuss this with you on the record and ask you some questions about making sure we get our due for the funding for Minnesota. But the last thing I want to talk about was just the refugee issue. We have the biggest somali population in the country. Our U.S. Attorney and the justice department have done an excellent job in taking on some ISIS cases as well as Al shabab cases, dozens of cases that have been successfully prosecuted. And I know that work will continue. But what I am -- want that work to continue. We also have the vast majority of them are law abiding, an important part of our community. And as a you know, there has been a lot of anti-muslim rhetoric out there. I heard the story in Minneapolis of a family that went out to eat. They lived in our town forever. They had two little kids and they go out to eat. This guy walks by and looks at them, and says, you four go home. You go home to where you came from. And the little girl looks up at her mom and she says, mom, I don't want to go home. You said we could eat out tonight. And you think of the words of that innocent child, she only knows one home and that's my state. She only knows one home. And that's America. So, a big part of the job of the attorney general to me is not just enforcing those laws as we have in our state against terrorist activities, but it is also protecting the innocent among us. I wonder if you could close your questions for me by commenting about your view of how you would uphold all of our nation's laws, the basic value of religious freedom, but also the protection of people from larger crimes than the remark I just talked about, but actually bullying and those kind of things because I just think it has no place in our country. 16;38;36 SESSIONS: Thank you. That is an important principle that you that you've touched on, which is the principle that in America, you're free to exercise your religious beliefs as you deem fit as long as it doesn't violate established law that would be important. So, we have that provided for in the constitution. We can establish a religion and we can't prohibit free exercise. And I believe by and large overwhelmingly, Americans value that principle and support it. And we should always hold it high and we should not back away from it. And that includes Muslim friends and neighbors as well as any other religion. 16;39;20 And you are right, overwhelmingly, there is not violence and radicalism among our Muslim friends and neighbors and we should not ever think that and treat people in a discriminatory basis. When people apply to come to the country, it is appropriate, I believe, to vet them from countries that may have had a history of violence to be careful about who we admit because basically the admission process is a process to -- that should serve the national interest. That's sort of my view about it. I believe it's an acceptable and good view and would try to carry that out. But the decision about admitting and not admitting is really not the attorney general's view -- decision at all. It is the state department's and it is the policy, the president and the state department. And, so, we would just simply make sure if it's done, it's done in a proper fashion and not unlawfully. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also have some statistics on immigration and response to some of the first exchanges that senator sessions and I had about what Minnesota -- the business economic value of immigrants in our community. I'll just put that on the record later, so, thank you. Thank you. SEN. CORNYN BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;41;00 CORNYN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, thanks to senator grassley and senator Mcconnell, I now find myself as a member not only of this committee, but also the intelligence committee for which I'm grateful. One reason why I thought it was so important for another member of the senate judiciary committee to get on the intelligence committee is because while the intelligence committee conducts a lot of the oversight, it's the judiciary committee that confers the authorities on our intelligence officials and law enforcement officials to do what they do. My hope is that during this process where we're coming off a very contentious election, that our colleagues across the aisle will join us in making sure that the new president has his national security cabinet members at least confirmed on an expedited basis. Of course, I would include the office of attorney general as one of those. As you know, the attorney general and the department's national security division work with members of the intelligence community and help over see the collection of foreign intelligence information. I know earlier senator Leahy and perhaps senator Lee asked you a little bit about about the usa freedom act and the national security agency. But I want to highlight something you're well aware of, and that's the sunsetting of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. According to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board which congress appropriately appointed to oversee the activities of the intelligence community, section 702, which will expire at the end of this year, has been responsible for disrupting more than 100 known terrorist plots, including the New York subway bomb plot in 2009 and other plots outside the United States. As I said, if we don't act by the end of the year, that authority will expire. I think we are fortunate on the judiciary committee to also have in addition to our other colleagues senator Feinstein, who has until recently served as the ranking member on the senate intelligence committee, and now of course she's ranking here. And I hope she, along with chairman grassley, will make sure that all of the committee members are thoroughly briefed and comfortable with the re-authorization of section 702 and to make it one of our highest priorities this year. In addition to section 702, as you know, there are other legal and policy challenges that you're going to face as the next attorney general. Our national security investigators and law enforcement officers are facing incredible challenges, many of them technical challenges like growing encryption of communications, whether it's hardware or software. We saw that being relevant to what happened in San Bernardino where the FBI had to pay third parties a substantial amount of money to get at the communications contained in the telephones of the actors in the San Bernardino attacks or in Garland, and my home state of Texas where the last time the FBI director came before this committee said there were still a multitude of communications on the devices of the two shooters in Garland that they still had not been able to get access to. So, the FBI director said this is a part of the trade craft now of terrorists and he referred to it as going dark. And thankfully, chairman grassley held a hearing on that just this last year. We know there are other statutes, including the electronic communications privacy act, things like the electronic communications -- the so-called Ector fix which would allow the use of national security letters to get ip addresses, not content, without a warrant. But ip addresses or meta data which is important to these national security investigations. I think I know the answer to this, but as attorney general, I just would like your verbal commitment here to continue to do what you have always done, and that's put the safety and security of the American people first and you'll continue to work with us in a cooperative fashion to make sure that all the needs of all the stakeholders are being met, including the brave men and women who defend us each and every day in the intelligence and law enforcement community. Will you do that? 16;45;35 SESSIONS: I will, senator Cornyn. Thank you for your hard work and leadership on these important issues. 16;45;30 CORNYN: Let me ask you about the freedom of information act. I don't know whether senator grassley had a chance to ask you about this or not. As you may know, senator grassley and I -- excuse me, Leahy and I are kind of the odd couple on freedom of information act reforms. As a conservative, I've always felt that the best antidote to abuse or waste is sunlight where possible. And you don't have to pass another law or another regulation where people change their behavior because they know people are watching. And senator Leahy and I have worked closely together to see a number of reforms passed and signed into law, many of which I know you have supported and consulted with us on. It's not a blank slate. It's sometimes you have to be careful about disclosing information that ought not to be public information or as law enforcement sensitive or classified or the like. But I just would hope that you would continue to work with us and I'm confident you will. But I'd like to get your verbal commitment to continue to work with us to make sure that the public's right to know is protected. I'm not suggesting that the public has a right to know everything because, frankly, as I said, classified law enforcement sensitive information needs to be protected for important policy reasons. But will you continue to work with us to make sure that we protect the public's right to know to the extent feasible? 16;47;09 SESSIONS: I will, senator Cornyn. And I value your judgment and insight on this important issue. And I appreciate your work. SEN. FRANKEN BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;47;20 FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I move on in my questions, I'd like to respond very briefly to what senator Cruz said earlier. It is important, in my view, that the members of this committee get clarity with regard to the nominees' record. That's our job. And it's important. Now, let's be clear. Senator sessions said in his questionnaire that he, quote, personally handled four civil rights cases. Some of the lawyers who worked on those cases disputed that characterization and senator sessions himself, after his questionnaire was in, felt a need to file a supplement in which he clarified that he merely provided, quote, assistance and guidance to civil rights division attorneys on these four cases. Now, if that's a distinction without a difference, I'm not sure why senator sessions felt the need to clarify. But I want to move on. Senator sessions, in late November, president-elect trump tweeted, quote, in addition to winning the electoral college in a land slide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. Now, let's be clear, president-elect trump lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes. So, what he's saying here is that more than 2.8 fraudulent votes were cast. Do you agree with president trump that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in the presidential election? 16;49;15 SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I don't know what the president-elect meant or was thinking when he made that comment or what facts he may have had to justify his statement. I would just say that every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it. And I do believe we regularly have fraudulent activities occur during elections cycles. 16;49;35 FRANKEN: Well, department of justice is tasked with protecting voting rights and prosecuting fraud. So, if millions upon millions of fraudulent votes were cast, I would imagine that the next attorney general would be quite concerned about that. Did the president-elect tell you anything about what caused him to come to this conclusion? 16;49;57 SESSIONS: I have not talked to him about that in any depth or particularly since the election. 16;50;05 FRANKEN: Uh-huh. So, he didn't share any evidence of voter fraud with you? Because I would imagine as the man that he wants to make responsible for combatting fraud at the ballot box, that he would want to make sure that you had all the evidence necessary to take action and to protect the vote so he didn't do that evidently. Before I move on, I should note for the record that state election and law enforcement officials surveyed in mid December found virtually no credible reports of fraud among the nearly 138 million votes that were cast, and no states reported indications of any widespread fraud. What is truly troubling about this, I believe, are these bogus claims of voter fraud. They're routinely used to justify voter suppression. And thanks to the supreme court's disastrously -- decided Shelby county decision which gutted the voting rights act, it is easier than ever before for states to take -- make it harder for people to vote. Now, senator sessions, you have a complicated history with the voting rights act. Ten years ago when voting rights was a bipartisan issue, you voted to reauthorize the voting rights act. Everyone did, passed 98-0. But you have also called the voting rights act, quote, an intrusive piece of legislation. You have complained that the acts clearance requirement unfarley targeted certain states. You said there is, quote, little present-day evidence that state and local officials restrict access to the franchise. You said that the voting rights act has, quote, eliminated that discrimination. Well, senator, after the Shelby county decision which you celebrated, states began testing the limits of what they could do. And in many cases, citing the risk of so-called voter fraud as a justification for their actions. Now, that's what happened in North Carolina, for example, just a few months after Shelby county, a state enacted one of the strictest voter id laws and enacted restrictions without any evidence, the state described these changes necessary to prevent fraud. Well, the courts disagreed. North Carolina's restrictions were challenged and in July the fourth circuit found the primary purpose of the restrictions wasn't to fight fraud, but to make it harder for black people to vote. Here is what the court said. And I quote. The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision. They constitute inept remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, propose cures for problems that did not exist. Senator, do you still believe that there is little present day evidence of states restricting access to the franchise? And if you do, what do you think the fourth circuit got wrong when it found that north Carolina targeted black voters with almost surgical precision? Do you accept that north Carolina was targeting African-American voters, but not believe that it was engaging in discriminatory conduct? 16;54;00 SESSIONS: Well, you cannot create laws designed to inhibit the right of any class of citizens to vote. And, so, if the fourth circuit found that and there is a factual basis to support it, then any law that's passed would be subject to being either eliminated or altered. So, I support your concern that laws of this kind cannot be used for that purpose. I do believe not long ago the supreme court did uphold voter id laws, but there are ways to do it and ways probably you cannot do it. So, I am not familiar with the details of the North Carolina law. But you are correct, any finding that's sustainable that there is a racial animus in the passing of a law that would restrict voting, that law is -- could be unsustainable. FRANKEN: Now, North Carolina is one of the states that would have been covered by preclearance, was it not? 16;54;50 SESSIONS: North Carolina states would be. FRANKEN: It would have been. SESSIONS: I would just suggest that section 2 allows all the remedies, and that's what I suppose they filed the action under in this case. It just not a preclearance question, and that preclearance policy is intrusive. And as the supreme court has said -- and I didn't mean that in any pejorative way. I was asked, do you believe it's intrusive, is that correct? I said it is intrusive. But the voting -- it said this is 1986. But the voting rights act was absolutely essential to avert the problem -- FRANKEN: mr. chairman, okay because we had this debate after shelby, and gentleman leahy tried to introduce something of substitute so that we could have preclearance again which was fought by you. The whole point is that section 2 of the VRA is youre right, but how many years after north carolina did that. How many times how many elections were conducted in north carolina where african american's votes were suppressed? That's why you need preclearance and as soon as shelby came down you saw texas, you saw North carolina go oh good now we can suppress votes. That is the reason why you have preclearance that is the reason why you can't rely on the district court or the circuit courts to rule. 16;57;03 SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I voted a few years ago for the voting rights act extension for 25 years. It included preclearance in it. We all knew at that time that the supreme court would probably take up a case before long that would have wrestled with the question of whether there is a sufficient basis for the extraordinary remedy of requiring only a few states in the country to have every, even ministerial act like moving a voting precinct to seek the permission of the department of justice first. The supreme court found that that no longer could be justified. The supreme court decided that we should not have -- did not have to have preclearance. But section 2 of the voting rights act allows these kind of challenges that senator Franken is talking about. That's what was brought in north Carolina. That is what is being litigated today. The court did, in fact, find the voter id law was improper as I understand it. So, I believe we proceeded in a lawful fashion, and I did feel in one sense that it was a good feeling that the supreme court had concluded, had been substantial improvement in our area of the country, the south of the country in voting rights, sufficient that section 5 could no longer be justified. But I voted for it. FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. As justice Ginsburg said, an umbrella means you don't get wet when it's raining and you don't take the umbrella away. GRASSLEY: n the record, a letter that I just today received in support of senator sessions' nomination from the national shooting sports foundation. Senator? Without objection. SEN. SASSE BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;50;00 SASSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Sara root case. I know you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sara root was a woman who was killed a year ago this month in Omaha. She had just graduated from college and she was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believe this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in the past. He was an illegal immigrant. He ran into her car, killed her right after her graduation. He was detained by Omaha police. They ultimately notified the department of home land security, this guy is a flight risk. He was able to post a fairly insignificant bond and he disappeared. The department of home land security did nothing to detain the guy despite the fact that the Douglas county sheriff and the Omaha police department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it wasn't an enforcement priority. I don't want to hold you to specifics on this case here, but I want to get your pledge in this context. I want to hear you talk generally about the coordination between state and local law enforcement on illegal immigration activities and in particular in cases where serious crimes have been committed. But I wonder if you would pledge now that if I send you a letter the day after you are confirmed, would you give expeditious aa tension to responding to some of these details about how enforcement priorities are set inside the federal government? 17;00;30 SESSIONS: Thank you, senator sass. I certainly will, and it does represent important failures that we've seen too often in our system today. 17;00;40 SASSE: Do you have any top line thoughts on the way, local and state officials interact with federal officials on immigration cases? SESSIONS: Well, the immigration enforcement procedures, the courts have held, are exclusively the power of the federal government. But it's also clear a state official has the right to arrest somebody for the offense of crossing the border illegally. They have the right to arrest people who have entered the country illegally or repeatedly entered the country for any kind of offense, including the offense of reentering illegally, and the system should work in a way that the federal government then evaluates whether or not they want to put a hold on in order not to release that person until they can take them and see them be deported. And it's failing in a whole number of ways. You've got the sanctuary cities who refuse to tell home land security that they've got somebody that's committed a serious crime so they can be deported. They refuse to honor detainers. On the other side we've got home land security too often having standards or failing to follow-up on serious offenses of people who should be deported. So, in both aspects I think, senator sass, I think we can do much better. And if we, this country has every right to deport persons who are here unlawfully, who violate our criminal laws in some other aspect, and they should indeed be promptly deported. 17;02;20 SASSE: Thank you. We'll follow-up with a letter because this guy, Edwin Mejia who killed Sara root, it was obvious to everybody engaged locally, lots of law enforcement and the family whose daughter was killed that this guy was a flight risk and everyone was screaming to the feds, please don't let this guy disappear before he can stand trial. He's now in the top 10 most wanted list and nobody thinks he's ever going to be found. Everybody believes he left the country, and this kind of case isn't an isolated case. It's a kind of handoff between federal and local law enforcement that could happen repeatedly if you don't have a federal government that has any clear policy. So, we'd like to -- I would like to send you a letter right after your confirmation asking for clarity about how enforcement discretion and enforcement actions are prioritized. 17;03;00 SESSIONS: And, senator sass, I would note that fundamentally, that would be a home land security issue initially. And they need to set the standards of what they should and should not do. And I would think that general Kelly would be quite willing to also talk with you about it as will I. 17;03;25 I will likely be addressing the letter to both and you general Kelly. So, thank you. Completely different line of questioning. This morning you were asked some hard and appropriate questions about the responsibility of the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government. If there are cases where there might be a conflict between your oath of office to the constitution of limited government and a separation of executive and legislative authorities, and the people that you report to when you work inside an administration. You said in the course of that answer that there could ultimately be cases where someone might have to resign because they were being forced to do something that conflicted with their oath. I wonder if you could unpack that a little bit and talk about the justice department's responsibilities and attorneys general -- attorneys general past over the past few decades. Can you name instances where a resignation might be in order and what kinds of lines would you envision being crossed and ways that you as the attorney general might push back on an administration if asked to do things that you regarded as inconsistent with your oath to the constitution? 17;05;30 SESSIONS: It would be difficult to speculate on that. We saw that during the nix on administration. There could clearly be a circumstance in which there is such a relationship breach that an attorney general wouldn't be an effective member of the attorney general's administration. Maybe a chief executive could be correct and the attorney general could be wrong. 17;04;55 But if attorney's duty is to give the best judgment that the attorney general can give and, therefore, if it's rejected on a very fundamental area, then that causes great concern. Maybe in another area of less importance you could afford to disagree. But I just think that that result should be very rare, has not happened very often in the history of this country. Actually, I can only know of one. And, therefore, the reason is that usually the chief executive -- and I would expect with president trump, that when confronted or advised that certain policies are not acceptable, would accept that advice. I'm confident that he would. But you raise a hypothetical and I've at least given you my thoughts about it. 17;06;00 SASSE: Just to conclude, because I'm inside my last minute. But going back to the connection between this question and the olc line of questioning that senator Lee posed this morning, if a head of olc, the assistant attorney general from olc was coming to you and saying, I've been asked to try to justify a certain position, I've been asked to write a memo to support this position and I don't think we can get there, I don't think that the department of justice has considered wisdom and insight into the law that we can ultimately write the memo that will authorize certain actions, how do you as the attorney general envision that conversation going? Just tell us the parts between an olc, an attorney general's office, and the white house. 17;06;41 SESSIONS: Well, attorney general mukasey who I think is still here, yes, I'm honored to have here today. He issued a memorandum about how the communications could be effectively carried out. And it restricted communications from the political officials to the justice department in a way that guaranteed integrity. But there is nothing wrong, as I understand it, for -- through the proper chain of command that a request for an olc opinion on a certain subject, there is nothing wrong with the white house asking for that. Indeed, you want that. You don't want the white house acting. You want him to seek legal advice. And generally, historically things get sort of worked out. If the olc comes back and says, Mr. President, you can do this but you can't do it this way, maybe you can do it that way, maybe it won't give you everything you want, but that's safe, that's legal. That's within the realm of action that the president can take. This, we believe, is not. And usually having an attorney general who has the confidence of the president, who the president knows was giving him the best advice, also advising him what he cannot do, which is part of good advice, is the way it's historically resulted. And you need the best lawyers and you need to be very careful because these things set precedence. They also can result in lawsuits in all kind of controversy that should not happen as a result of a bad olc opinion. SASSE: Thank you. The stewardship of the integrity of that office is critically important. Thank you for your forthrightness. SEN COONS BEGINS QUESTIONING COONS: JUMP UNTIL 5:20 PM 17;20;53 CRAPO: ..The Alabama Republican party vice chairman, even though you're from the same party. So, it seems to me that your history shows that you can make those kinds of judgment calls and do what the job demands. I already know the answer to this question because I've seen it in your record and because I've known and worked with you for a number of years, but I ask anyway. Again, if you are confirmed, will you commit to enforce and defend the laws and the constitution of the united States regardless of your personal and philosophical views on the matter? 17;21;15 SESSIONS: I will, senator. I would note on the death penalty case, my appellate lawyers gave me a little briefing of the cases that were coming up. And they had they'd say, we'll be defending this death case, but we are probably going to lose. I said, why are we going to lose? They said it didn't have the aggregating -- aggravating factor you needed to carry out a death penalty. I said, we can't go before the supreme court and argue for a death penalty if it doesn't meet the standard for death penalty. To which the lawyer said, well, the local people are really fired up about it and we usually just do what they want. And let the court decide. I said, no, we shouldn't do that. That turned out to be an easy decision to make that day. But when I was running for the United States senate maybe a year later, I became one of the biggest ads and biggest attacks on me that I failed to defend the jury conviction for murder in this county. But you just have to do your -- you have to do the right thing. And some of these other cases reflect the same thing. Indeed, this insurance commissioner, the case was taken by the governor's team to the state da who prosecuted the case and convicted the man, but it was reversed on appeal by finding by the court of appeals that he didn't commit a crime, just like we had concluded originally. So, these are tough calls. Sometimes I've not always made them right, but I do believe you have to put the law first, senator Crapo, and I have tried to do that, tried to teach my people that. And none of us are perfect, but we should strive to get it right every time. 17;23;10 CRAPO: Well, thank you, Jeff. I knew that answer as I said, before I asked the question. But one of the other senators here today said it is important to get your record out and I think it is important to get your record correctly understood. And I think that there unfortunately is too much inaccurate reporting about your record. Another instance in that context, as you know, I am the Republican sponsor of the violence against women act that we passed recently here in the U.S. Senate and the congress. You have been criticized for not supporting that act, but I want to give you a chance again to correct the record and to fully state the record. If I understand it right, you voted for the original and supported the re-authorization of that act, at least twice, and that your objection to the act that did pass this last time, the re-authorization, was not at all based on the question of whether to have the statute in place. It was, instead, based on an issue with regard to jurisdiction on tribal lands and other related matters. Could you again restate position on the issue? 17;24;10 SESSIONS: Well, thank you, senator Crapo. You know, I came here as a lawyer, tried to conduct myself properly and consider what some might consider legal technicalities, but I think are pretty important. The bill, as I understood it, was controversial primarily because of this situation in which a non-tribal member could be tried in a tribal court which apparently, I think, it's fair to say is not constructed in a way that's consistent with the constitution, and that we have never done this before. And, so, eight of the nine Republicans on the judiciary committee concluded that this was not appropriate. So, by voting against that version of the violence against women's act, if it had failed, we would not then, I'm confident, not had a bill. We would have been able to pass a violence against women act that didn't have that provision in it. So, that's sort of where we were in the political process. And one of the bad things about modern American politics is if you take that position, you're not portrayed as being wrong on the tribal issue, you're portrayed as being against a bill that would protect women from violence. And I think that is unfair and thank you for giving me the chance to respond. 17;26;00 CRAPO: Well, thank you. And I appreciate that, and I can again confirm because, as I said, I am the Republican sponsor of that bill. And that description you have given is exactly one of just a couple issues which were being seriously litigated, if you will, here, and which we were trying to resolve. And those of you who took that position, again, were not in any way objecting to the act. You had multiple times before supported it, and you were trying to help resolve one specific issue on the bill. And, so, I just want to clarify that with you and again get the record straight about where you stand on the issue. I see my time is pretty much gone. Mr. Chairman, I won't go to my next question. GRASSLEY: Before I call on senator Blumenthal, out of consideration for you, I want to explain what I think we have left here. If you need a break, tell me. We've got two Democrats and two Republicans to do a second round, beside the chairman, but I'm going to wait until later to do my second round. We've got two Democrats, I've been told, at least want a third round. And, so, what I would like to do is, first of all, if you need a break, we'll take a break whenever you say so now. And in the meantime, I'd like to have my colleagues be -- take into consideration something I want to do. I want everybody to get over here that wants to ask questions and I'm not going to take up anybody's time until everybody else is done, and then I want to take about maybe 15 or 20 minutes of your time to do the equivalent of a couple rounds with questions I haven't asked yet. So, what's your desire? BLUMENTHAL: I'm ready to go. SEN. BLUMENTHAL BEGINS QUESTIONS 17;27;50 BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator sessions. I was pleased to hear you disavow and denounce operation rescue in response to my last question. I want to ask about a couple of other groups and individuals. In 2003, I had an event called restoration weekend. You gave a speech praising a man named David Horowitz as a man, quote, a man I admire. David Horowitz has said, among other things, that, quote, all the major Muslim organizations in America are connected to the Muslim brotherhood and, quote, 80% of the mosques are filled with hate against Americans and Jews. He made statements about African Americans, quote, too many blacks are in prison because too many blacks commit crimes. You praised him as a man I admire. That statement was omitted from your response to the committee. Did you omit it because you were embarrassed about praising David Horowitz? 17;29;00 SESSIONS: No, and I didn't know David Horowitz had made those comments. I read his brilliant book -- what's the name of it? I have a hard time remembering. But it was his transformation, having grown up in a, as he described it, communist family. He was editor of ramparts magazine, the radical magazine. And I believe radical son was the name of his book, it was a really powerful and moving story of how he moved from the unprincipled totalitarian radical left to a more traditional American person. I've read a number of other books, I think one of them, but he's a most brilliant individual and has remarkable story. I'm not aware of everything he's ever said or done. BLUMENTHAL: Well, these statements have been reported publicly repeatedly over many years. You first came to know him in 2003. In fact, you received an award from the David Horowitz freedom center in 2014. You were unaware of any of the apparently racist comments that he made -- 17;30;17 SESSIONS: I'm not aware of those comments and I don't believe David Horowitz is a racist or a person that wouldn't treat anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge. The award he gave me was the Annie something Johnson award and that was the lady that went over niagara falls in a barrel. That's the award I received. BLUMENTHAL: Let me ask you about another group which also you left out of your questionnaire, a group that the southern poverty law center cited earlier by senator Cruz, listed as a hate group, and you received from the federation for fair immigration reform an award known as the Franklin society award. The founder of that group has said, quote, I have come to the point of view that for European American society and culture to persist requires a European American majority and a clear one, at that. He said also, quote, too much diversity leads to divisiveness and conflict. The founder, John Tanton, also through his political action committee, contributed twice to your campaigns in 2008 and 2014, a thousand dollars in each donation. Will you denounce those statements and disavow that award and that support from that organization?

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Attorney General Nomination Senate Judiciary Committee Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Time: 09:30 AM Location: Russell Senate Office Building 325 Presiding: Chairman Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley R (IA) WITNESSES: The Honorable Richard Shelby United States Senator State of Alabama The Honorable Susan Collins United States Senator State of Maine PANEL I Senator Jeff Sessions 15;50;00 Senator sessions, I think you have done a terrific job. I've known you all your 20 years, I've watched you work diligently on the judiciary committee and on your other committees as well. You're an honest, decent man and you have tremendous abilities in law enforcement and you are proving it here today and showing it here today. It's hard for me to understand why anybody would be against you. I want to emphasize that you have wide support for your appointment among law enforcement including the national sheriff's association, national district attorneys association, the national association of police organization, national organization of assistant attorneys, the international union police associations and major city chiefs of police. I'm not sure I've seen anybody that had all that kind of massive support for this position. Now I draw attention to this for an important reason. This agreement about political or policy positions are one thing. But, accusations about your commitment to fairness or suggestions that you're not sensitive to race is another. With these law enforcement organizations enthusiastically support someone who is biased? Of course not. Especially without any evidence to support them whatsoever are not simply attacks on senator sessions they are also smears against organizations like these which have similar needs, the record and found senator sessions worthy of support so I'm grateful to you and for your willingness to take this on. Knowing that you might be smeared by certain organizations. It takes some guts to do this, but we all know you have guts. We all know that you believe in what you are doing. We all know that you have a tremendous integrity. We all know that you have tremendous intellectual ability as well. And even though you and I have disagreed on issues that are important to both of us, you have always acted with distinction and fairness and decency and I would expect you to do the same thing as attorney general of the United States. One thing I know, you would be giving it's everything you have and that's a lot. You have a lot to give. Let me just say this morning one of my democratic colleagues said that the standard for evaluating your nomination is whether you will "Enforce the law fairly, evenly, without personal bias" do you agree that the attorney general has a duty to do that? SESSIONS: As a core responsibility of attorney general absolutely 15;33;00 HATCH: I have no doubt you will live up to that. No doubt whatsoever. I think everybody should have to agree with that. The real question is how we can be confident that you will fulfill that responsibility an most of the comments this morning were about comments you made, positions you took or cast as senator on legislative issues and some of these questions suggested that you could not enforce a law that you had not voted for or you would not enforce a law or policy that you might have questioned or personally disagreed with. I personally categorically reject that and you have too, is that correct? SESSIONS: That is correct. HATCH: You're darn right it is. Some of my friends would also reject the suggestion that a liberal could not be impartial. I think liberals can be impartial. SESSIONS: I do too, senator hatch. And some people -- I don't think it would be hard for me to be impartial and to enforce laws that I didn't vote for. I just don't think that's going to be -- I think I can separate my personal votes of maybe years ago from what my responsibility is today and I hope that my colleagues can believe that. HATCH: Well the answer to the question whether you can as attorney general enforce the laws fairly, evenly and without personal bias it's a resounding yes, you can and anybody who disagrees with that hasn't been listening, observed you over the last twenty years or any time over the last 20 years, there's not a shred of evidence of your entire record to undermine that conclusion. The fact that you have already served in both the executive and legislative branches strengthen even further your commitment to the duty of fairness and impartiality. Seems to me it does. Am I right? SESSIONS: Well, thank you, yes. I do believe I've conducted myself according to principals that I think are valid and try to be consistent and honest in my evaluation of the many complex issues that we have here. Sometimes good people can certainly disagree on them. HATCH: Anybody should know that's true. Now the justice department has a duty to defend in court the laws enacted by congress. As a member of this committee for 20 years you had heard attorney general nominees profess their commitment to fulfill that duty regardless of politics, in my opinion the justice department under the outgoing administration renigged on its duty to do so in a number of respects in some cases they made decisions rather than legal grounds. How important is it to commit to legal statutes even as a legislature you would oppose those statutes? 15;36;00 SESSIONS: Senator hatch, you have been through many of these issues and I certainly do respect your judgment but I do believe that the lawyer for the congress, the lawyer for the United States that represents the united States government in court should be the lawyer that defends an act lawfully passed in congress wherever it's reasonable argument can be made and I commit to you I will do that. HATCH: I believe you and I know that's true. And I have a rough time seeing why anybody would find any real flaws or fault with your nomination. I just want to personally thank you for being willing to go through this, were your willingness to be able to do this and for your integrity that you have shown and exhibited and demonstrated over the last 20 years. I can personally testify about you and about what a fine really good person you are. And we've differed on some pretty important issues from time to time. I have respect for you because you stand up for what you believe however wrong you may have been. [ Laughter ] SESSIONS: I heard my wife laugh. HATCH: Well, I have a lot of respect for you and I hope that the rest of this proceeding goes really well and that we can get you confirmed as soon as possible because I know you will do a terrific job and I'm very proud of you for being willing to do this. SESSIONS: I'm honored to have your support. SEN FEINSTEIN BEGINS QUESTIONING 15;37;42 FEINSTEIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. To begin I would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements sent to the committee concerning senator sessions be made part of the record and I have testimony and letters. GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered. FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Senator sessions, when I was a small child it was during world War two and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called tanferan and had become a detention camp for Japanese citizens. Thousands of families were held in this compound. And we checked with crs who says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any sabotage in the United States during that time. 15;38;46 Senator Lee, Cruz and I have tried together to enact a bill together to ensure that no American citizen or lawful permanent residence debit detien -- detained in the united States could be held without charge or trial. Do you believe that the government can pursuant to a general authorization to use military force indefinitely detain Americans in the united States without charge or trial? SESSIONS: Senator Feinstein, that's an important question, classically, the answer is yes, classically if you captured a German soldier they could be held until the war ended. FEINSTEIN: I'm talking about an American. 15;39;30 SESSIONS: I hear you, so then the question is we're in a war like we have now that's gone on multiple years and I would think the principle of law certainly would appear to be valid but as reality dawns on us and wars might be even longer, you know, it's honest to discuss those issues, so I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do believe as senator graham as argued forcefully for many years that we are in a war and when members who unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to be connected to a enemy on a designated enemy of the united States, so I am probably explained more than I should, but that's basically the arguments and the issues we're facing. I respect your concerns and I'm sure they will continue to be debated the future. FEINSTEIN: Well, let me just say a few things about that. I've served on the intelligence committee for 15 years. I read all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what's happening in the United States and this is not -- these are Americans that we're talking about that can be picked up and detained and held without -- SESSIONS: You're talking about America citizens -- FEINSTEIN: - And that should not be the case. SESSIONS: I understand your point and citizens of the United States have certain important rights they cannot be aggregated. They cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review and the government surely has to prove that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action against the united States or they couldn't be detained. FEINSTEIN: Well, I appreciate that. Let me go into another subject. You were one of nine senators to vote against the detainee treatment act of 2005. It prohibited the imposition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. Personnel. You also voted against an amendment sponsored by senator McCain in the 2016 defense authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the army field manual which does not include waterboarding. Do you agree that the CIA's former enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding are prohibited by this provision of law as now cotifield? SESSIONS: It does appear to be clear that the last act McCain amendment would prohibit waterboarding. FEINSTEIN: and you would enforce that? SESSIONS: I would enforce the law, yes. 15;43;11 FEINSTEIN: Thank you. And my third question is -- and this was in the "Washington post," a report last night that you failed to disclose to this committee and to the office of government ethics subsurface rights to oil or other minerals on more than 600 acres in your home state some of which I gather are adjacent to a federal wildlife preserve. Apparently Alabama records -- and this is a quote, show that the senator leased undivided mineral interests to chief capital, a Texas firm, in 2015, do you in fact own these interests? SESSIONS: Senator Feinstein I believe that so, and the way it happened was that many years ago at least 50 or more years ago, my family, ancestors sold some land and reserved mineral rights. Later there was a dam built on the river and desire to take land that was going to be flooded and add additional land for duck preserve and they negotiated and the family sold land to the government and retained the mineral rights per the agreement. At least that's my understanding, so by nonseries of events, it fell to me. I never reviewed the deeds, I don't know how much land is out there that I own mineral rights on although oil companies are pretty good about contacting owners before they drill a well, so you are correct that we reported the income on my return -- FEINSTEIN: I saw that. SESSIONS: - As coming from the property that I own and the property where the oil well is. I did not note in that report specifically that it was oil income because the blank said royalties, but maybe -- so I would just say to you this, we absolutely -- this is something I've taken no affirmative action in, it's something I'm going to take affirmative action in. I have one of the simplest, clearest financial reports you can see. My assets and my wife's assets are most entirely vanguard funds and municipal bonds, I don't own any individual stocks, we're going to find out what we did or didn't do and correct it. FEINSTEIN: Good. Thank you. SEN. KENNEDY BEGINS QUESTIONING 15;46;10 KENNEDY: My name is John Kennedy. And that's really my name. Just so you know I used to have a law partner named Jose Canseco. Caused a lot of confusion when we would go to meetings together. SESSIONS: I guess. 15;46;30 KENNEDY: I have been impressed in preparing for the hearings with the deep support you enjoy from law enforcement. In fact one of my sheriff's from Louisiana, I don't know if Greg is still here, sheriff Greg shampomp came up with other sheriff's on your behalf. And I have noticed other organizations that have not always agreed on the issues. And that impressed me. I wanted to read an excerpt from the sergeants benevolent association from the NYPD, about as far as away from mobile you can get" as a union representing law enforcement officers over the years the sba, the sergeants benevolent association, as worked as both an ally and respectful opponent of senator sessions. This experience has shown us that senator sessions is a man of unquestionable integrity and devoted to the rule of law. It is for this reason and many others that we believe senator sessions is the absolute right choice to serve as America's chief law enforcement officer" and that impressed me. I would like to know what you as attorney general intend to do to partner with state and local law enforcement? SESSIONS: That is so important and the United States attorneys throughout the country as in Louisiana and Alabama are key players in this. All United States attorneys, colleagues are funded to have law enforcement coordinating officers. I had two in my small office. We had regular meetings. In the early 80s this is when it started. The first time. So instead of having a law enforcement plan, produced in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorneys were directed to get all the federal agencies and all the state and local agencies to sit down and identify what the re -- their main threats are and direct their resources to deal with the real threats and they would be different in different districts around the country. I sense that's been eroded somewhat so we need to get back to that. The department of justice has great resources for identifying tactics and strategies that work on crime. We ought to be able to always help the state and local police officers have the best data on what works and how to create safer and better communities, the federal government cannot dictate to these agencies. It would be a disaster. They wouldn't accept it number one in any influence you might have would be eliminated. We need to be partners of federal government through its power nationally and internationally, can help local investigative agencies solve a complex criminal case that they don't have the subpoena power or Louisiana U.S. Attorney or sheriff doesn't have power to have investigations conducted in Texas or Denver, so these are the things that are all important. 15;50;10 And I truly believe that from a matter of public police we need to see the big picture. And we're all in it together. We're all in it together. And 90% of the law officers in America are state and local. And they're the ones that are the eyes and ears of law enforcement so I really think senator Kennedy, you are correct that we need to do this. I think there's a feeling among law enforcement that that's not been happening sufficiently. And I sense that that's one of the -- and the fact that I think I understand that that I've had as much strong and enthusiastic support as i've had. KENNEDY: You know, when a radical islamic terrorist drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we're told that we should not judge all muslims by the act of a few, and I agree with that. Don't you think the same rule ought to apply when one or two law enforcement officers make the mistake -- don't you think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9% law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day and go to work and try to protect us? 15;51;30 SESSIONS: I really do. And I think those of us in high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole departments and whole groups of people because within those, most any department you can find in America, surely most of the people are just wonderful servants, public servants trying to do the right thing. So, when we say these thing, we can increase risk for them. We can make it harder for them to have relationships with the constituents where they are serving and actually result in an increase in crime in effect I haveness in law enforcement. These issues, we cannot miss these issues. We cannot make a big mistake like we may be making now. So, I commit to doing my best as a law officer to engender the kind of unity and comprehensive effort, state, local, federal, that would be the most effective engine to fight crime and make our communities safer. 15;52;49 KENNEDY: In Louisiana, senator, we believe that love is the answer, but we also believe that we have the right under the constitution to own a gun just in case. Could you share with me your thoughts on the second amendment? SESSIONS: Well, I do believe the second amendment is a personal right. It's a historic right of the American people and the constitution protects it. And explicitly states it. It's just as much a part of the constitution as any of the other great rights and liberties that we value. So, my record is pretty clear on that. However, if a person -- people can forfeit their right to have a gun and it can be a factor in receiving sentences and being prosecuted if you carry a gun, for example, during a commission of a crime. That can add penalty and convictions to you. I think that's a legitimate and responsible restraint on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. KENNEDY: I think they believe this in Alabama, too, but Louisiana, we also believe that nothing makes it easier to resist temptation than a good upbringing, a strong set of values, and witnesses. I'd like to know your thoughts on the freedom of information act. 15;54;20 SESSIONS: Well, the freedom of information act is law and I would see it's carried out and the policies of the country need to be followed. KENNEDY: I've got one final question. I read the inspector general's report about the department of justice. I think it came out in about the middle of 2016, last year. They talked about -- the inspector general talked about problems with the department's massive grant programs. And the inspector general said approximately $100 million over the last five years went for, quote, questionable expenditures or funds that, quote, could have been put to better use. Now, this is taxpayer money. It didn't just fall from heaven. We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets. What do you plan to do once you're confirmed -- and I believe you will be confirmed -- to help our friends at justice department prioritize their spending a little bit? 15;55;35 SESSIONS: Thank you, senator Kennedy. That report is -- raises real concerns. I believe that any responsible public official should recognize that when they obtain an ig, their own inspector general, and saying their department is not performing to high standards should listen to that report and take action and review what's happening and make sure it does not continue. The American people have no desire, and they absolutely should not have their money sent to Washington and then be wasted. We can do a lot more with the money that we have, having been ranking member of the budget committee, and I know that -- how difficult it is. But one way to get extra money, free money is to use the money you've got wisely for things that are valuable. KENNEDY: Senator, I don't know you well, but I've followed your career with respect and admiration for a lot of years and I just wanted to tell you that. You would be a great attorney general. SESSIONS: Thank you. Thank you very much. 15;56;50 BREAK SEN WHITEHOUSE BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;15;20 WHITEHOUSE (MISSING BEGINNING OF QUESTION): Career attorneys to follow the policy dictates of other administrations and not holding the career people responsible for that. I'm wondering how you would react to this. Do you have a problem with career attorneys if their private religious beliefs are secular ones? And do you -- will you support the career attorneys against the pressure from the from these right wing organizations seeking to wash them out like filth, to paraphrase the heritage foundation? SESSIONS: The department of justice is composed primarily of career professionals. As you know, senator Whitehouse, you served there ably as the United States attorney. And I give them the highest respect. Most of those attorneys reach high standards and they are willing to follow lawful orders and directions from their superiors even if they might have a different philosophy. I do think it's often they are put into non-career spots and can go back to career spots, but I don't know how exactly that works. But, so, you would normally expect -- and I'm sure the Obama administration made changes in the leadership of the department. They put career people in positions that they thought would be most advantageous for them to advance the causes they believed in. And that's sort of within the rules of the game. But the target people and to anyway demean them, if they were fine public servants and they were following the law and carrying out a legitimate policy of their supervisors would be wrong. And I think you should respect them. I would do that. 16;17;00 WHITEHOUSE: Does a secular attorney have anything to fear from an attorney general sessions and department of justice? SESSIONS: Well, no. And I use that word in the 90,000-foot level. A little concern I have is that we as a nation, I believe, are reaching a level in which truth is not sufficiently respected, that the very ideal, the idea of truth is not believed to be real, and that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. Let's just say kind of a criticism -- we are not a theocracy. Nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson's words on the memorial over here. I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man. And I think we should respect people's views and not demand any kind of religious test for holding office. WHITEHOUSE: And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? 16;18;10 SESSIONS: Well, I'm not sure. In what method? Is it less objectively committed to - WHITEHOUSE: An attorney would bring to bear -- SESSIONS: Let me just say, we're going to treat anybody with different views fairly and objectively. And the ideal of truth and trying to achieve the right solution to me is an important goal of the American Juris prudential system, actually the legislative system. What is the right thing, what is true and let's act on it and do the right thing. WHITEHOUSE: On the subject of what is truth, you may -- SESSIONS: The age-old question. 15;18;45 WHITEHOUSE: You may be in a position as attorney general to either enforce laws or bring actions that relate to the problem of carbon emissions and the changes that are taking place both physically and chemically in our atmosphere and oceans as a result of the flood of carbon emissions that we've had. It is the political position of the Republican party and the senate, as I have seen it, that this is not a problem, that we don't need to do anything about it, that the facts aren't real, and that we should all do nothing whatsoever. That's the senate. You as attorney general of the United States may be asked to make decisions for our nation that require a factual predicate that you determine as the basis for making your decision. In making a decision about the facts of climate change, to whom will you turn? Will you, for instance, trust the military, all of whose branches agree that climate change is a serious problem of real import for them? Will you trust our national laboratories, all of whom say the same? Will you trust our national science agencies -- by the way, nasa is driving a rover around on the surface of Mars right now. So, they're scientists, I think, are pretty good. I don't think there is a single scientific society, I don't think there is a single credited university, I don't think there is a single nation that denies this basic set of facts. And, so, if that situation is presented to you and you have to make a decision based on the facts, what can give us any assurance that you will make those facts based on real facts and real science? 16;20;50 SESSIONS: That's a good and fair question, and honesty and integrity in that process is required. And if the facts justify a position on one side or the other on a case, I would try to utilize those facts in an honest and appropriate way. I've not -- I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it always struck me as plausible, and it's the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it. So, that's what I would hope we could see occur. WHITEHOUSE: Indeed, I'll bet you dollars against those lovely krispy kreme doughnuts we have out back that if you went down to the university of Alabama and if you talked to the people who fish out of mobile, they had already seen the changes in the ocean. They'd be able to measure the ph changes and they'd know the acid is happening, and there is no actual dispute about that except in the politics of Washington, D.C. SESSIONS: I recognize the great interest in time and you've committed to the issue and I value your opinion. 16;21;55 WHITEHOUSE: I do come from an ocean state, and we do measure the rise in the sea level and we measure the warming of Naraganset bay and we measure the ph. It's serious for us, senator. Thank you. My time has expired. SESSIONS: Thank you. SEN. CRUZ BEGINS QUESTIONS GRASSLEY: Now it looks like it will be senator from Texas, and senator from Texas, I'm going to step out for a minute. And when your eight minutes are up, would you call on senator kobachar? 16;22;20 CRUZ: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I want to congratulate you on making it through a lengthy hearing and then performing admirably. And I think your performance today has reassured this committee and even more importantly has given comfort to the American people that you will be an attorney general who will faithfully apply the law without partiality, without partisan lens, but with fidelity to the constitution and the laws of the United States. I also want to do something I don't do very often, which is I want to commend the Democrats on this committee for, I think, showing admirable restraint. At the beginning of this hearing I had concerns that it would turn ugly with accusations that don't belong in this hearing. And I think my friends on the democratic side of the aisle have largely restrained from that, and I commend them for that. I would note that in the recesses of the internet and in some of the groups that are speaking on this nomination and, indeed, in the view of some of the protesters who have made their voices heard today, there have been racial charges raised and, indeed, some of the protesters have chanted kkk. And you and I have both talked about this a number of times. That is one of the easiest charges for someone to make when they don't have an argument on the merits when they don't have the facts behind them. And it is a particularly hurtful argument that can be directed at someone particularly when it's countered by the facts. And what I want to focus on principally in this round is spending a little bit of time highlighting an aspect of your record, which is your involvement in the prosecution of Henry Hayes, a member of the Ku klux Klan which I expect few watching this hearing have ever heard of. It is striking and highly revealing. So, I'd like to walk through some of the facts. I know you're very familiar with them but I suspect some of the folks at home watching this hearing may not be. In 1981 in mobile, Alabama, the Ku klux klam ordered the murder of a random African-American man, Michael done kanl. Kk members Henry Hayes and James tiger Knowles abducted afternoon cann American Michael Duncan. They beat him, they strangled him, they cut his throat and they hung him from a tree, absolutely shameful and disgraceful. You were U.S. Attorney at the time. Your office along with the FBI, along with the local district attorney investigated the murder. Department of justice attorneys Barry Kowalski and Burt Blan worked on the case. When asked about your work on this case, Mr. Glenn testified that, quote, during the entire course of the investigations, he, meaning sessions, has provided unqualified support and cooperation to us and independently as an individual who absolutely wanted to see that crime solved and prosecuted. Is that accurate, senator sessions? 16;26;00 SESSIONS: I think it is, yes. That's exactly what I intended to do. It actually occurred before I became United States attorney. Wrong group of people had been indicted in state court that complicated matters. Case was not making the kind of progress it needed to make. And, so, we had a discussion. And we invited civil rights division attorneys, Burt Glenn and Barry Kowalski, both of which were exceptionally fine, and along with assistant Thomas figures in my office, broke that case and I thought they deserve a great deal of credit. But I was with them. I was in the grand jury with them. I called the grand jury at their convenience whenever they wanted to come to the state, actually use an impanelled a special grand jury so they could be called when they desired it. It had already been called for another special purpose, but we add that had to their purpose so they had the flexibility. And it was I thought a brilliantly conducted investigation. I guess Barry Kowalski was the lead attorney in it. 16;27;00 CRUZ: Now, Bobby eddy who is the chief investigator for the mobile county district attorney's office, he testified, quote, without his, meaning sessions' cooperation, the state could not have proceeded against Henry Hayes on the capital murder charge. Chris galanos who is the mobile county district attorney in 1981 stated, quote, we needed some horsepower which the feds through Jeff sessions provided. Specifically, we needed the investigative power of the FBI and the power of the federal grand jury. I reached out to him, sessions, and he responded, quote, tell me what you need and you'll have it. And, indeed, your office prosecuted Hayes' accomplice in federal court where he pleaded guilty. And Mr. Eddy testified that tiger Knowles, the accomplice, pled guilty on a civil rights violation and received a life sentence, the highest sentence he could receive under federal law in federal prison. And he continued to say, Henry Hayes was tried in state court by Mr. Galanos' office and found guilty and sentenced to die in the electric chair. And this made Hayes the first white man executed in Alabama for murdering a black person since 1913. When you were the attorney general of Alabama, you later argued to uphold Hayes' death penalty and in 1997, five months after you joined this body as a senator, Hayes died in Alabama's electric chair. And I would note not only that, not only did you assist in the prosecution of the face of evil, the Ku klux Klan murderer who saw ultimate justice, but as it so happened, you also prosecuted Hayes' father, kkk grand titan, Benny jack Hayes who order his son to kill an African-American and you prosecuted him for attempting to defraud his home insurer in order to collect money to pay for his son's legal defense. Is that correct? SESSIONS: That is correct. CRUZ: And beyond that, your office cooperated with Morris des and the southern poverty law center to bring a suit against the kkk and he explained, quote, after the criminal case was over, the poverty law center took the evidence we developed and gave to them and they sued civilly and got a $7 million verdict on behalf of Ms. Donald. And the $7 million civil judgment against the kkk in Alabama bankrupted the Klan, leading to its demise in the state. Is that correct? 16;29;50 SESSIONS: That's essentially correct, yes. In fact, they sold the Klan headquarters to help satisfy the judgment. 16;30;05 CRUZ: Well, I would say, senator sessions, it's easy for people reading things on the internet to believe whatever is raised and passions get hot. And I know the protesters who stand up and chant kkk, they in all likelihood believe what they're saying because they're reading and being encouraged on the internet. But I have not seen any appointee to the cabinet, Democrat or Republican, who has a record like you do of prosecuting klans men, putting them on death row, bankrupting them and putting them out of business, and doing so as you had, I tell you, I admire your doing so. And I'll issue a challenge to our friends in the news media. I noticed every time a protester jumped up, all the photographers took pictures of the protesters. I suspect we're going to see them in all the papers. I would encourage the news media, cover this story. Tell the story on the 6 o'clock news about Jeff sessions helping prosecute a klans man who murdered an African-American man and helped bankrupt him, helping bankrupt the Klan in Alabama. I thank you for your record, I thank you for your service. SESSIONS: Thank you, senator Cruz. I would say it has been very disappointing and painful to have it suggested I think the Klan was okay when we did everything possible to destroy and defeat and prosecute Klan members who were involved in this crime. And it was a good joint effort. I was supportive of it every step of the way and some great lawyers worked very hard on it. CRUZ: Thank you, sir. SEN. KLOBUCHAR BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;32;20 KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, just this week, back page.com announced it was taking down the adult services section of its website. Senator Koran and I led the bill on the judiciary committee. You contributed to it which we appreciated. And we also had work by senator portman and senator mccast kell and others on this issue. We had 48 arrests around the towns in Minnesota alone where back page was part of the operation. So, this was a good result. They took the fifth today in front of homeland security while you were testifying. But I wanted to know what your plans would be, the justice department finally came out with the national strategy and sex trafficking which is part of our bill. And, so, will be in your hands if you are confirmed as attorney general to implement. Could you just give me your thoughts on this issue? SESSIONS: Well, I'm glad that the entire nation seems to be giving priority to this. A lot of great people have given real focus to the problem of sex trafficking and the degradation and destruction that results from it. So, I think it would be a firm and important part of the department of justice's priorities. And I would look forward to following up on the legislative successes and other things that are happening to see if we can't make a real impact against this abominable practice. 16;33;05 KLOBUCHAR: I will say attorney general lynch and prosecutors have worked on this and would be good to talk to them as well. Senator Lee and I have been in charge of the committee. We rotate who is in charge as ranking member. I care a lot about this. We're in the mid of a merger wave between 2010 and 2015, the number of mergers reported to the government increased over 50% from 716 to 1,801, and over the last 18 months we've seen substantial mergers in pharmaceutical, agriculture, cable, insurance, beer. Recently across the political spectrum, there's been a lot of concern about concentration because you need to have an even playing field if competition is going to flourish and that means that's better for consumers if you have strong competition. Will you commit to making vigorous antitrust enforcement a priority, kind of a sideline to that, there's some concern based on some of the statements from the president-elect that maybe certain companies or industries could be targeted depending on if they're in favor or not. These are not statements that you have made. Could you comment about Independence of the attorney general when it comes to considering these cases? 16;34;40 SESSIONS: The antitrust policies of the United States have to be consistent and as clear as possible. As you know, that's not always as easy as some people might think. I could say with confidence that you and senator Lee, as leaders I believe on the antitrust subcommittee, I know you are, have been more attune to the details and the special issues that are involved in that section of the department of justice. So, we would work resolutely on it. I have no hesitation to enforce antitrust law. I have no hesitation to say certain mergers should not occur and there will not be political influence in that process. 16;35;25 KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. I'm going to put a series of other questions on the record. One is on synthetic drugs. We're working hard, senator grassley and I have long worked on this issue with senator Feinstein and senator graham. And we have a new bill that we're working on to make it easier to go after synthetic drugs and maybe on the record we could get your comments on that. Drug courts, again, one of my top priorities, I think that they worked very well in jurisdictions that are devoted to seeing themselves not just as businesses that want to see repeat customers, but getting people off of the treadmill of crime and drugs. And then a very Minnesota focused issue, Minnesota was -- just got a designation called tied up for high intensity drug trafficking, a lot based on Hearn and opiate addictions we've seen. Somehow it was set up so the money came through Wisconsin. Do you know anything about the vikings-packers rivalry? It makes our sheriffs concerned. I thought I would maybe on the record, again, I'm not going to get into detail, discuss this with you on the record and ask you some questions about making sure we get our due for the funding for Minnesota. But the last thing I want to talk about was just the refugee issue. We have the biggest somali population in the country. Our U.S. Attorney and the justice department have done an excellent job in taking on some ISIS cases as well as Al shabab cases, dozens of cases that have been successfully prosecuted. And I know that work will continue. But what I am -- want that work to continue. We also have the vast majority of them are law abiding, an important part of our community. And as a you know, there has been a lot of anti-muslim rhetoric out there. I heard the story in Minneapolis of a family that went out to eat. They lived in our town forever. They had two little kids and they go out to eat. This guy walks by and looks at them, and says, you four go home. You go home to where you came from. And the little girl looks up at her mom and she says, mom, I don't want to go home. You said we could eat out tonight. And you think of the words of that innocent child, she only knows one home and that's my state. She only knows one home. And that's America. So, a big part of the job of the attorney general to me is not just enforcing those laws as we have in our state against terrorist activities, but it is also protecting the innocent among us. I wonder if you could close your questions for me by commenting about your view of how you would uphold all of our nation's laws, the basic value of religious freedom, but also the protection of people from larger crimes than the remark I just talked about, but actually bullying and those kind of things because I just think it has no place in our country. 16;38;36 SESSIONS: Thank you. That is an important principle that you that you've touched on, which is the principle that in America, you're free to exercise your religious beliefs as you deem fit as long as it doesn't violate established law that would be important. So, we have that provided for in the constitution. We can establish a religion and we can't prohibit free exercise. And I believe by and large overwhelmingly, Americans value that principle and support it. And we should always hold it high and we should not back away from it. And that includes Muslim friends and neighbors as well as any other religion. 16;39;20 And you are right, overwhelmingly, there is not violence and radicalism among our Muslim friends and neighbors and we should not ever think that and treat people in a discriminatory basis. When people apply to come to the country, it is appropriate, I believe, to vet them from countries that may have had a history of violence to be careful about who we admit because basically the admission process is a process to -- that should serve the national interest. That's sort of my view about it. I believe it's an acceptable and good view and would try to carry that out. But the decision about admitting and not admitting is really not the attorney general's view -- decision at all. It is the state department's and it is the policy, the president and the state department. And, so, we would just simply make sure if it's done, it's done in a proper fashion and not unlawfully. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also have some statistics on immigration and response to some of the first exchanges that senator sessions and I had about what Minnesota -- the business economic value of immigrants in our community. I'll just put that on the record later, so, thank you. Thank you. SEN. CORNYN BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;41;00 CORNYN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, thanks to senator grassley and senator Mcconnell, I now find myself as a member not only of this committee, but also the intelligence committee for which I'm grateful. One reason why I thought it was so important for another member of the senate judiciary committee to get on the intelligence committee is because while the intelligence committee conducts a lot of the oversight, it's the judiciary committee that confers the authorities on our intelligence officials and law enforcement officials to do what they do. My hope is that during this process where we're coming off a very contentious election, that our colleagues across the aisle will join us in making sure that the new president has his national security cabinet members at least confirmed on an expedited basis. Of course, I would include the office of attorney general as one of those. As you know, the attorney general and the department's national security division work with members of the intelligence community and help over see the collection of foreign intelligence information. I know earlier senator Leahy and perhaps senator Lee asked you a little bit about about the usa freedom act and the national security agency. But I want to highlight something you're well aware of, and that's the sunsetting of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. According to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board which congress appropriately appointed to oversee the activities of the intelligence community, section 702, which will expire at the end of this year, has been responsible for disrupting more than 100 known terrorist plots, including the New York subway bomb plot in 2009 and other plots outside the United States. As I said, if we don't act by the end of the year, that authority will expire. I think we are fortunate on the judiciary committee to also have in addition to our other colleagues senator Feinstein, who has until recently served as the ranking member on the senate intelligence committee, and now of course she's ranking here. And I hope she, along with chairman grassley, will make sure that all of the committee members are thoroughly briefed and comfortable with the re-authorization of section 702 and to make it one of our highest priorities this year. In addition to section 702, as you know, there are other legal and policy challenges that you're going to face as the next attorney general. Our national security investigators and law enforcement officers are facing incredible challenges, many of them technical challenges like growing encryption of communications, whether it's hardware or software. We saw that being relevant to what happened in San Bernardino where the FBI had to pay third parties a substantial amount of money to get at the communications contained in the telephones of the actors in the San Bernardino attacks or in Garland, and my home state of Texas where the last time the FBI director came before this committee said there were still a multitude of communications on the devices of the two shooters in Garland that they still had not been able to get access to. So, the FBI director said this is a part of the trade craft now of terrorists and he referred to it as going dark. And thankfully, chairman grassley held a hearing on that just this last year. We know there are other statutes, including the electronic communications privacy act, things like the electronic communications -- the so-called Ector fix which would allow the use of national security letters to get ip addresses, not content, without a warrant. But ip addresses or meta data which is important to these national security investigations. I think I know the answer to this, but as attorney general, I just would like your verbal commitment here to continue to do what you have always done, and that's put the safety and security of the American people first and you'll continue to work with us in a cooperative fashion to make sure that all the needs of all the stakeholders are being met, including the brave men and women who defend us each and every day in the intelligence and law enforcement community. Will you do that? 16;45;35 SESSIONS: I will, senator Cornyn. Thank you for your hard work and leadership on these important issues. 16;45;30 CORNYN: Let me ask you about the freedom of information act. I don't know whether senator grassley had a chance to ask you about this or not. As you may know, senator grassley and I -- excuse me, Leahy and I are kind of the odd couple on freedom of information act reforms. As a conservative, I've always felt that the best antidote to abuse or waste is sunlight where possible. And you don't have to pass another law or another regulation where people change their behavior because they know people are watching. And senator Leahy and I have worked closely together to see a number of reforms passed and signed into law, many of which I know you have supported and consulted with us on. It's not a blank slate. It's sometimes you have to be careful about disclosing information that ought not to be public information or as law enforcement sensitive or classified or the like. But I just would hope that you would continue to work with us and I'm confident you will. But I'd like to get your verbal commitment to continue to work with us to make sure that the public's right to know is protected. I'm not suggesting that the public has a right to know everything because, frankly, as I said, classified law enforcement sensitive information needs to be protected for important policy reasons. But will you continue to work with us to make sure that we protect the public's right to know to the extent feasible? 16;47;09 SESSIONS: I will, senator Cornyn. And I value your judgment and insight on this important issue. And I appreciate your work. SEN. FRANKEN BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;47;20 FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I move on in my questions, I'd like to respond very briefly to what senator Cruz said earlier. It is important, in my view, that the members of this committee get clarity with regard to the nominees' record. That's our job. And it's important. Now, let's be clear. Senator sessions said in his questionnaire that he, quote, personally handled four civil rights cases. Some of the lawyers who worked on those cases disputed that characterization and senator sessions himself, after his questionnaire was in, felt a need to file a supplement in which he clarified that he merely provided, quote, assistance and guidance to civil rights division attorneys on these four cases. Now, if that's a distinction without a difference, I'm not sure why senator sessions felt the need to clarify. But I want to move on. Senator sessions, in late November, president-elect trump tweeted, quote, in addition to winning the electoral college in a land slide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. Now, let's be clear, president-elect trump lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes. So, what he's saying here is that more than 2.8 fraudulent votes were cast. Do you agree with president trump that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in the presidential election? 16;49;15 SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I don't know what the president-elect meant or was thinking when he made that comment or what facts he may have had to justify his statement. I would just say that every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it. And I do believe we regularly have fraudulent activities occur during elections cycles. 16;49;35 FRANKEN: Well, department of justice is tasked with protecting voting rights and prosecuting fraud. So, if millions upon millions of fraudulent votes were cast, I would imagine that the next attorney general would be quite concerned about that. Did the president-elect tell you anything about what caused him to come to this conclusion? 16;49;57 SESSIONS: I have not talked to him about that in any depth or particularly since the election. 16;50;05 FRANKEN: Uh-huh. So, he didn't share any evidence of voter fraud with you? Because I would imagine as the man that he wants to make responsible for combatting fraud at the ballot box, that he would want to make sure that you had all the evidence necessary to take action and to protect the vote so he didn't do that evidently. Before I move on, I should note for the record that state election and law enforcement officials surveyed in mid December found virtually no credible reports of fraud among the nearly 138 million votes that were cast, and no states reported indications of any widespread fraud. What is truly troubling about this, I believe, are these bogus claims of voter fraud. They're routinely used to justify voter suppression. And thanks to the supreme court's disastrously -- decided Shelby county decision which gutted the voting rights act, it is easier than ever before for states to take -- make it harder for people to vote. Now, senator sessions, you have a complicated history with the voting rights act. Ten years ago when voting rights was a bipartisan issue, you voted to reauthorize the voting rights act. Everyone did, passed 98-0. But you have also called the voting rights act, quote, an intrusive piece of legislation. You have complained that the acts clearance requirement unfarley targeted certain states. You said there is, quote, little present-day evidence that state and local officials restrict access to the franchise. You said that the voting rights act has, quote, eliminated that discrimination. Well, senator, after the Shelby county decision which you celebrated, states began testing the limits of what they could do. And in many cases, citing the risk of so-called voter fraud as a justification for their actions. Now, that's what happened in North Carolina, for example, just a few months after Shelby county, a state enacted one of the strictest voter id laws and enacted restrictions without any evidence, the state described these changes necessary to prevent fraud. Well, the courts disagreed. North Carolina's restrictions were challenged and in July the fourth circuit found the primary purpose of the restrictions wasn't to fight fraud, but to make it harder for black people to vote. Here is what the court said. And I quote. The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision. They constitute inept remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, propose cures for problems that did not exist. Senator, do you still believe that there is little present day evidence of states restricting access to the franchise? And if you do, what do you think the fourth circuit got wrong when it found that north Carolina targeted black voters with almost surgical precision? Do you accept that north Carolina was targeting African-American voters, but not believe that it was engaging in discriminatory conduct? 16;54;00 SESSIONS: Well, you cannot create laws designed to inhibit the right of any class of citizens to vote. And, so, if the fourth circuit found that and there is a factual basis to support it, then any law that's passed would be subject to being either eliminated or altered. So, I support your concern that laws of this kind cannot be used for that purpose. I do believe not long ago the supreme court did uphold voter id laws, but there are ways to do it and ways probably you cannot do it. So, I am not familiar with the details of the North Carolina law. But you are correct, any finding that's sustainable that there is a racial animus in the passing of a law that would restrict voting, that law is -- could be unsustainable. FRANKEN: Now, North Carolina is one of the states that would have been covered by preclearance, was it not? 16;54;50 SESSIONS: North Carolina states would be. FRANKEN: It would have been. SESSIONS: I would just suggest that section 2 allows all the remedies, and that's what I suppose they filed the action under in this case. It just not a preclearance question, and that preclearance policy is intrusive. And as the supreme court has said -- and I didn't mean that in any pejorative way. I was asked, do you believe it's intrusive, is that correct? I said it is intrusive. But the voting -- it said this is 1986. But the voting rights act was absolutely essential to avert the problem -- FRANKEN: mr. chairman, okay because we had this debate after shelby, and gentleman leahy tried to introduce something of substitute so that we could have preclearance again which was fought by you. The whole point is that section 2 of the VRA is youre right, but how many years after north carolina did that. How many times how many elections were conducted in north carolina where african american's votes were suppressed? That's why you need preclearance and as soon as shelby came down you saw texas, you saw North carolina go oh good now we can suppress votes. That is the reason why you have preclearance that is the reason why you can't rely on the district court or the circuit courts to rule. 16;57;03 SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I voted a few years ago for the voting rights act extension for 25 years. It included preclearance in it. We all knew at that time that the supreme court would probably take up a case before long that would have wrestled with the question of whether there is a sufficient basis for the extraordinary remedy of requiring only a few states in the country to have every, even ministerial act like moving a voting precinct to seek the permission of the department of justice first. The supreme court found that that no longer could be justified. The supreme court decided that we should not have -- did not have to have preclearance. But section 2 of the voting rights act allows these kind of challenges that senator Franken is talking about. That's what was brought in north Carolina. That is what is being litigated today. The court did, in fact, find the voter id law was improper as I understand it. So, I believe we proceeded in a lawful fashion, and I did feel in one sense that it was a good feeling that the supreme court had concluded, had been substantial improvement in our area of the country, the south of the country in voting rights, sufficient that section 5 could no longer be justified. But I voted for it. FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. As justice Ginsburg said, an umbrella means you don't get wet when it's raining and you don't take the umbrella away. GRASSLEY: n the record, a letter that I just today received in support of senator sessions' nomination from the national shooting sports foundation. Senator? Without objection. SEN. SASSE BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;50;00 SASSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Sara root case. I know you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sara root was a woman who was killed a year ago this month in Omaha. She had just graduated from college and she was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believe this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in the past. He was an illegal immigrant. He ran into her car, killed her right after her graduation. He was detained by Omaha police. They ultimately notified the department of home land security, this guy is a flight risk. He was able to post a fairly insignificant bond and he disappeared. The department of home land security did nothing to detain the guy despite the fact that the Douglas county sheriff and the Omaha police department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it wasn't an enforcement priority. I don't want to hold you to specifics on this case here, but I want to get your pledge in this context. I want to hear you talk generally about the coordination between state and local law enforcement on illegal immigration activities and in particular in cases where serious crimes have been committed. But I wonder if you would pledge now that if I send you a letter the day after you are confirmed, would you give expeditious aa tension to responding to some of these details about how enforcement priorities are set inside the federal government? 17;00;30 SESSIONS: Thank you, senator sass. I certainly will, and it does represent important failures that we've seen too often in our system today. 17;00;40 SASSE: Do you have any top line thoughts on the way, local and state officials interact with federal officials on immigration cases? SESSIONS: Well, the immigration enforcement procedures, the courts have held, are exclusively the power of the federal government. But it's also clear a state official has the right to arrest somebody for the offense of crossing the border illegally. They have the right to arrest people who have entered the country illegally or repeatedly entered the country for any kind of offense, including the offense of reentering illegally, and the system should work in a way that the federal government then evaluates whether or not they want to put a hold on in order not to release that person until they can take them and see them be deported. And it's failing in a whole number of ways. You've got the sanctuary cities who refuse to tell home land security that they've got somebody that's committed a serious crime so they can be deported. They refuse to honor detainers. On the other side we've got home land security too often having standards or failing to follow-up on serious offenses of people who should be deported. So, in both aspects I think, senator sass, I think we can do much better. And if we, this country has every right to deport persons who are here unlawfully, who violate our criminal laws in some other aspect, and they should indeed be promptly deported. 17;02;20 SASSE: Thank you. We'll follow-up with a letter because this guy, Edwin Mejia who killed Sara root, it was obvious to everybody engaged locally, lots of law enforcement and the family whose daughter was killed that this guy was a flight risk and everyone was screaming to the feds, please don't let this guy disappear before he can stand trial. He's now in the top 10 most wanted list and nobody thinks he's ever going to be found. Everybody believes he left the country, and this kind of case isn't an isolated case. It's a kind of handoff between federal and local law enforcement that could happen repeatedly if you don't have a federal government that has any clear policy. So, we'd like to -- I would like to send you a letter right after your confirmation asking for clarity about how enforcement discretion and enforcement actions are prioritized. 17;03;00 SESSIONS: And, senator sass, I would note that fundamentally, that would be a home land security issue initially. And they need to set the standards of what they should and should not do. And I would think that general Kelly would be quite willing to also talk with you about it as will I. 17;03;25 I will likely be addressing the letter to both and you general Kelly. So, thank you. Completely different line of questioning. This morning you were asked some hard and appropriate questions about the responsibility of the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government. If there are cases where there might be a conflict between your oath of office to the constitution of limited government and a separation of executive and legislative authorities, and the people that you report to when you work inside an administration. You said in the course of that answer that there could ultimately be cases where someone might have to resign because they were being forced to do something that conflicted with their oath. I wonder if you could unpack that a little bit and talk about the justice department's responsibilities and attorneys general -- attorneys general past over the past few decades. Can you name instances where a resignation might be in order and what kinds of lines would you envision being crossed and ways that you as the attorney general might push back on an administration if asked to do things that you regarded as inconsistent with your oath to the constitution? 17;05;30 SESSIONS: It would be difficult to speculate on that. We saw that during the nix on administration. There could clearly be a circumstance in which there is such a relationship breach that an attorney general wouldn't be an effective member of the attorney general's administration. Maybe a chief executive could be correct and the attorney general could be wrong. 17;04;55 But if attorney's duty is to give the best judgment that the attorney general can give and, therefore, if it's rejected on a very fundamental area, then that causes great concern. Maybe in another area of less importance you could afford to disagree. But I just think that that result should be very rare, has not happened very often in the history of this country. Actually, I can only know of one. And, therefore, the reason is that usually the chief executive -- and I would expect with president trump, that when confronted or advised that certain policies are not acceptable, would accept that advice. I'm confident that he would. But you raise a hypothetical and I've at least given you my thoughts about it. 17;06;00 SASSE: Just to conclude, because I'm inside my last minute. But going back to the connection between this question and the olc line of questioning that senator Lee posed this morning, if a head of olc, the assistant attorney general from olc was coming to you and saying, I've been asked to try to justify a certain position, I've been asked to write a memo to support this position and I don't think we can get there, I don't think that the department of justice has considered wisdom and insight into the law that we can ultimately write the memo that will authorize certain actions, how do you as the attorney general envision that conversation going? Just tell us the parts between an olc, an attorney general's office, and the white house. 17;06;41 SESSIONS: Well, attorney general mukasey who I think is still here, yes, I'm honored to have here today. He issued a memorandum about how the communications could be effectively carried out. And it restricted communications from the political officials to the justice department in a way that guaranteed integrity. But there is nothing wrong, as I understand it, for -- through the proper chain of command that a request for an olc opinion on a certain subject, there is nothing wrong with the white house asking for that. Indeed, you want that. You don't want the white house acting. You want him to seek legal advice. And generally, historically things get sort of worked out. If the olc comes back and says, Mr. President, you can do this but you can't do it this way, maybe you can do it that way, maybe it won't give you everything you want, but that's safe, that's legal. That's within the realm of action that the president can take. This, we believe, is not. And usually having an attorney general who has the confidence of the president, who the president knows was giving him the best advice, also advising him what he cannot do, which is part of good advice, is the way it's historically resulted. And you need the best lawyers and you need to be very careful because these things set precedence. They also can result in lawsuits in all kind of controversy that should not happen as a result of a bad olc opinion. SASSE: Thank you. The stewardship of the integrity of that office is critically important. Thank you for your forthrightness. SEN COONS BEGINS QUESTIONING COONS: JUMP UNTIL 5:20 PM 17;20;53 CRAPO: ..The Alabama Republican party vice chairman, even though you're from the same party. So, it seems to me that your history shows that you can make those kinds of judgment calls and do what the job demands. I already know the answer to this question because I've seen it in your record and because I've known and worked with you for a number of years, but I ask anyway. Again, if you are confirmed, will you commit to enforce and defend the laws and the constitution of the united States regardless of your personal and philosophical views on the matter? 17;21;15 SESSIONS: I will, senator. I would note on the death penalty case, my appellate lawyers gave me a little briefing of the cases that were coming up. And they had they'd say, we'll be defending this death case, but we are probably going to lose. I said, why are we going to lose? They said it didn't have the aggregating -- aggravating factor you needed to carry out a death penalty. I said, we can't go before the supreme court and argue for a death penalty if it doesn't meet the standard for death penalty. To which the lawyer said, well, the local people are really fired up about it and we usually just do what they want. And let the court decide. I said, no, we shouldn't do that. That turned out to be an easy decision to make that day. But when I was running for the United States senate maybe a year later, I became one of the biggest ads and biggest attacks on me that I failed to defend the jury conviction for murder in this county. But you just have to do your -- you have to do the right thing. And some of these other cases reflect the same thing. Indeed, this insurance commissioner, the case was taken by the governor's team to the state da who prosecuted the case and convicted the man, but it was reversed on appeal by finding by the court of appeals that he didn't commit a crime, just like we had concluded originally. So, these are tough calls. Sometimes I've not always made them right, but I do believe you have to put the law first, senator Crapo, and I have tried to do that, tried to teach my people that. And none of us are perfect, but we should strive to get it right every time. 17;23;10 CRAPO: Well, thank you, Jeff. I knew that answer as I said, before I asked the question. But one of the other senators here today said it is important to get your record out and I think it is important to get your record correctly understood. And I think that there unfortunately is too much inaccurate reporting about your record. Another instance in that context, as you know, I am the Republican sponsor of the violence against women act that we passed recently here in the U.S. Senate and the congress. You have been criticized for not supporting that act, but I want to give you a chance again to correct the record and to fully state the record. If I understand it right, you voted for the original and supported the re-authorization of that act, at least twice, and that your objection to the act that did pass this last time, the re-authorization, was not at all based on the question of whether to have the statute in place. It was, instead, based on an issue with regard to jurisdiction on tribal lands and other related matters. Could you again restate position on the issue? 17;24;10 SESSIONS: Well, thank you, senator Crapo. You know, I came here as a lawyer, tried to conduct myself properly and consider what some might consider legal technicalities, but I think are pretty important. The bill, as I understood it, was controversial primarily because of this situation in which a non-tribal member could be tried in a tribal court which apparently, I think, it's fair to say is not constructed in a way that's consistent with the constitution, and that we have never done this before. And, so, eight of the nine Republicans on the judiciary committee concluded that this was not appropriate. So, by voting against that version of the violence against women's act, if it had failed, we would not then, I'm confident, not had a bill. We would have been able to pass a violence against women act that didn't have that provision in it. So, that's sort of where we were in the political process. And one of the bad things about modern American politics is if you take that position, you're not portrayed as being wrong on the tribal issue, you're portrayed as being against a bill that would protect women from violence. And I think that is unfair and thank you for giving me the chance to respond. 17;26;00 CRAPO: Well, thank you. And I appreciate that, and I can again confirm because, as I said, I am the Republican sponsor of that bill. And that description you have given is exactly one of just a couple issues which were being seriously litigated, if you will, here, and which we were trying to resolve. And those of you who took that position, again, were not in any way objecting to the act. You had multiple times before supported it, and you were trying to help resolve one specific issue on the bill. And, so, I just want to clarify that with you and again get the record straight about where you stand on the issue. I see my time is pretty much gone. Mr. Chairman, I won't go to my next question. GRASSLEY: Before I call on senator Blumenthal, out of consideration for you, I want to explain what I think we have left here. If you need a break, tell me. We've got two Democrats and two Republicans to do a second round, beside the chairman, but I'm going to wait until later to do my second round. We've got two Democrats, I've been told, at least want a third round. And, so, what I would like to do is, first of all, if you need a break, we'll take a break whenever you say so now. And in the meantime, I'd like to have my colleagues be -- take into consideration something I want to do. I want everybody to get over here that wants to ask questions and I'm not going to take up anybody's time until everybody else is done, and then I want to take about maybe 15 or 20 minutes of your time to do the equivalent of a couple rounds with questions I haven't asked yet. So, what's your desire? BLUMENTHAL: I'm ready to go. SEN. BLUMENTHAL BEGINS QUESTIONS 17;27;50 BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator sessions. I was pleased to hear you disavow and denounce operation rescue in response to my last question. I want to ask about a couple of other groups and individuals. In 2003, I had an event called restoration weekend. You gave a speech praising a man named David Horowitz as a man, quote, a man I admire. David Horowitz has said, among other things, that, quote, all the major Muslim organizations in America are connected to the Muslim brotherhood and, quote, 80% of the mosques are filled with hate against Americans and Jews. He made statements about African Americans, quote, too many blacks are in prison because too many blacks commit crimes. You praised him as a man I admire. That statement was omitted from your response to the committee. Did you omit it because you were embarrassed about praising David Horowitz? 17;29;00 SESSIONS: No, and I didn't know David Horowitz had made those comments. I read his brilliant book -- what's the name of it? I have a hard time remembering. But it was his transformation, having grown up in a, as he described it, communist family. He was editor of ramparts magazine, the radical magazine. And I believe radical son was the name of his book, it was a really powerful and moving story of how he moved from the unprincipled totalitarian radical left to a more traditional American person. I've read a number of other books, I think one of them, but he's a most brilliant individual and has remarkable story. I'm not aware of everything he's ever said or done. BLUMENTHAL: Well, these statements have been reported publicly repeatedly over many years. You first came to know him in 2003. In fact, you received an award from the David Horowitz freedom center in 2014. You were unaware of any of the apparently racist comments that he made -- 17;30;17 SESSIONS: I'm not aware of those comments and I don't believe David Horowitz is a racist or a person that wouldn't treat anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge. The award he gave me was the Annie something Johnson award and that was the lady that went over niagara falls in a barrel. That's the award I received. BLUMENTHAL: Let me ask you about another group which also you left out of your questionnaire, a group that the southern poverty law center cited earlier by senator Cruz, listed as a hate group, and you received from the federation for fair immigration reform an award known as the Franklin society award. The founder of that group has said, quote, I have come to the point of view that for European American society and culture to persist requires a European American majority and a clear one, at that. He said also, quote, too much diversity leads to divisiveness and conflict. The founder, John Tanton, also through his political action committee, contributed twice to your campaigns in 2008 and 2014, a thousand dollars in each donation. Will you denounce those statements and disavow that award and that support from that organization?

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Attorney General Nomination Senate Judiciary Committee Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Time: 09:30 AM Location: Russell Senate Office Building 325 Presiding: Chairman Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley R (IA) WITNESSES: The Honorable Richard Shelby United States Senator State of Alabama The Honorable Susan Collins United States Senator State of Maine PANEL I Senator Jeff Sessions SEN HATCH BEGINS QUESTIONING 15;50;00 Senator sessions, I think you have done a terrific job. I've known you all your 20 years, I've watched you work diligently on the judiciary committee and on your other committees as well. You're an honest, decent man and you have tremendous abilities in law enforcement and you are proving it here today and showing it here today. It's hard for me to understand why anybody would be against you. I want to emphasize that you have wide support for your appointment among law enforcement including the national sheriff's association, national district attorneys association, the national association of police organization, national organization of assistant attorneys, the international union police associations and major city chiefs of police. I'm not sure I've seen anybody that had all that kind of massive support for this position. Now I draw attention to this for an important reason. This agreement about political or policy positions are one thing. But, accusations about your commitment to fairness or suggestions that you're not sensitive to race is another. With these law enforcement organizations enthusiastically support someone who is biased? Of course not. Especially without any evidence to support them whatsoever are not simply attacks on senator sessions they are also smears against organizations like these which have similar needs, the record and found senator sessions worthy of support so I'm grateful to you and for your willingness to take this on. Knowing that you might be smeared by certain organizations. It takes some guts to do this, but we all know you have guts. We all know that you believe in what you are doing. We all know that you have a tremendous integrity. We all know that you have tremendous intellectual ability as well. And even though you and I have disagreed on issues that are important to both of us, you have always acted with distinction and fairness and decency and I would expect you to do the same thing as attorney general of the United States. One thing I know, you would be giving it's everything you have and that's a lot. You have a lot to give. Let me just say this morning one of my democratic colleagues said that the standard for evaluating your nomination is whether you will "Enforce the law fairly, evenly, without personal bias" do you agree that the attorney general has a duty to do that? SESSIONS: As a core responsibility of attorney general absolutely 15;33;00 HATCH: I have no doubt you will live up to that. No doubt whatsoever. I think everybody should have to agree with that. The real question is how we can be confident that you will fulfill that responsibility an most of the comments this morning were about comments you made, positions you took or cast as senator on legislative issues and some of these questions suggested that you could not enforce a law that you had not voted for or you would not enforce a law or policy that you might have questioned or personally disagreed with. I personally categorically reject that and you have too, is that correct? SESSIONS: That is correct. HATCH: You're darn right it is. Some of my friends would also reject the suggestion that a liberal could not be impartial. I think liberals can be impartial. SESSIONS: I do too, senator hatch. And some people -- I don't think it would be hard for me to be impartial and to enforce laws that I didn't vote for. I just don't think that's going to be -- I think I can separate my personal votes of maybe years ago from what my responsibility is today and I hope that my colleagues can believe that. HATCH: Well the answer to the question whether you can as attorney general enforce the laws fairly, evenly and without personal bias it's a resounding yes, you can and anybody who disagrees with that hasn't been listening, observed you over the last twenty years or any time over the last 20 years, there's not a shred of evidence of your entire record to undermine that conclusion. The fact that you have already served in both the executive and legislative branches strengthen even further your commitment to the duty of fairness and impartiality. Seems to me it does. Am I right? SESSIONS: Well, thank you, yes. I do believe I've conducted myself according to principals that I think are valid and try to be consistent and honest in my evaluation of the many complex issues that we have here. Sometimes good people can certainly disagree on them. HATCH: Anybody should know that's true. Now the justice department has a duty to defend in court the laws enacted by congress. As a member of this committee for 20 years you had heard attorney general nominees profess their commitment to fulfill that duty regardless of politics, in my opinion the justice department under the outgoing administration renigged on its duty to do so in a number of respects in some cases they made decisions rather than legal grounds. How important is it to commit to legal statutes even as a legislature you would oppose those statutes? 15;36;00 SESSIONS: Senator hatch, you have been through many of these issues and I certainly do respect your judgment but I do believe that the lawyer for the congress, the lawyer for the United States that represents the united States government in court should be the lawyer that defends an act lawfully passed in congress wherever it's reasonable argument can be made and I commit to you I will do that. HATCH: I believe you and I know that's true. And I have a rough time seeing why anybody would find any real flaws or fault with your nomination. I just want to personally thank you for being willing to go through this, were your willingness to be able to do this and for your integrity that you have shown and exhibited and demonstrated over the last 20 years. I can personally testify about you and about what a fine really good person you are. And we've differed on some pretty important issues from time to time. I have respect for you because you stand up for what you believe however wrong you may have been. [ Laughter ] SESSIONS: I heard my wife laugh. HATCH: Well, I have a lot of respect for you and I hope that the rest of this proceeding goes really well and that we can get you confirmed as soon as possible because I know you will do a terrific job and I'm very proud of you for being willing to do this. SESSIONS: I'm honored to have your support. SEN FEINSTEIN BEGINS QUESTIONING 15;37;42 FEINSTEIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. To begin I would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements sent to the committee concerning senator sessions be made part of the record and I have testimony and letters. GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered. FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Senator sessions, when I was a small child it was during world War two and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called tanferan and had become a detention camp for Japanese citizens. Thousands of families were held in this compound. And we checked with crs who says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any sabotage in the United States during that time. 15;38;46 Senator Lee, Cruz and I have tried together to enact a bill together to ensure that no American citizen or lawful permanent residence debit detien -- detained in the united States could be held without charge or trial. Do you believe that the government can pursuant to a general authorization to use military force indefinitely detain Americans in the united States without charge or trial? SESSIONS: Senator Feinstein, that's an important question, classically, the answer is yes, classically if you captured a German soldier they could be held until the war ended. FEINSTEIN: I'm talking about an American. 15;39;30 SESSIONS: I hear you, so then the question is we're in a war like we have now that's gone on multiple years and I would think the principle of law certainly would appear to be valid but as reality dawns on us and wars might be even longer, you know, it's honest to discuss those issues, so I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do believe as senator graham as argued forcefully for many years that we are in a war and when members who unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to be connected to a enemy on a designated enemy of the united States, so I am probably explained more than I should, but that's basically the arguments and the issues we're facing. I respect your concerns and I'm sure they will continue to be debated the future. FEINSTEIN: Well, let me just say a few things about that. I've served on the intelligence committee for 15 years. I read all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what's happening in the United States and this is not -- these are Americans that we're talking about that can be picked up and detained and held without -- SESSIONS: You're talking about America citizens -- FEINSTEIN: - And that should not be the case. SESSIONS: I understand your point and citizens of the United States have certain important rights they cannot be aggregated. They cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review and the government surely has to prove that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action against the united States or they couldn't be detained. FEINSTEIN: Well, I appreciate that. Let me go into another subject. You were one of nine senators to vote against the detainee treatment act of 2005. It prohibited the imposition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. Personnel. You also voted against an amendment sponsored by senator McCain in the 2016 defense authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the army field manual which does not include waterboarding. Do you agree that the CIA's former enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding are prohibited by this provision of law as now cotifield? SESSIONS: It does appear to be clear that the last act McCain amendment would prohibit waterboarding. FEINSTEIN: and you would enforce that? SESSIONS: I would enforce the law, yes. 15;43;11 FEINSTEIN: Thank you. And my third question is -- and this was in the "Washington post," a report last night that you failed to disclose to this committee and to the office of government ethics subsurface rights to oil or other minerals on more than 600 acres in your home state some of which I gather are adjacent to a federal wildlife preserve. Apparently Alabama records -- and this is a quote, show that the senator leased undivided mineral interests to chief capital, a Texas firm, in 2015, do you in fact own these interests? SESSIONS: Senator Feinstein I believe that so, and the way it happened was that many years ago at least 50 or more years ago, my family, ancestors sold some land and reserved mineral rights. Later there was a dam built on the river and desire to take land that was going to be flooded and add additional land for duck preserve and they negotiated and the family sold land to the government and retained the mineral rights per the agreement. At least that's my understanding, so by nonseries of events, it fell to me. I never reviewed the deeds, I don't know how much land is out there that I own mineral rights on although oil companies are pretty good about contacting owners before they drill a well, so you are correct that we reported the income on my return -- FEINSTEIN: I saw that. SESSIONS: - As coming from the property that I own and the property where the oil well is. I did not note in that report specifically that it was oil income because the blank said royalties, but maybe -- so I would just say to you this, we absolutely -- this is something I've taken no affirmative action in, it's something I'm going to take affirmative action in. I have one of the simplest, clearest financial reports you can see. My assets and my wife's assets are most entirely vanguard funds and municipal bonds, I don't own any individual stocks, we're going to find out what we did or didn't do and correct it. FEINSTEIN: Good. Thank you. SEN. KENNEDY BEGINS QUESTIONING 15;46;10 KENNEDY: My name is John Kennedy. And that's really my name. Just so you know I used to have a law partner named Jose Canseco. Caused a lot of confusion when we would go to meetings together. SESSIONS: I guess. 15;46;30 KENNEDY: I have been impressed in preparing for the hearings with the deep support you enjoy from law enforcement. In fact one of my sheriff's from Louisiana, I don't know if Greg is still here, sheriff Greg shampomp came up with other sheriff's on your behalf. And I have noticed other organizations that have not always agreed on the issues. And that impressed me. I wanted to read an excerpt from the sergeants benevolent association from the NYPD, about as far as away from mobile you can get" as a union representing law enforcement officers over the years the sba, the sergeants benevolent association, as worked as both an ally and respectful opponent of senator sessions. This experience has shown us that senator sessions is a man of unquestionable integrity and devoted to the rule of law. It is for this reason and many others that we believe senator sessions is the absolute right choice to serve as America's chief law enforcement officer" and that impressed me. I would like to know what you as attorney general intend to do to partner with state and local law enforcement? SESSIONS: That is so important and the United States attorneys throughout the country as in Louisiana and Alabama are key players in this. All United States attorneys, colleagues are funded to have law enforcement coordinating officers. I had two in my small office. We had regular meetings. In the early 80s this is when it started. The first time. So instead of having a law enforcement plan, produced in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorneys were directed to get all the federal agencies and all the state and local agencies to sit down and identify what the re -- their main threats are and direct their resources to deal with the real threats and they would be different in different districts around the country. I sense that's been eroded somewhat so we need to get back to that. The department of justice has great resources for identifying tactics and strategies that work on crime. We ought to be able to always help the state and local police officers have the best data on what works and how to create safer and better communities, the federal government cannot dictate to these agencies. It would be a disaster. They wouldn't accept it number one in any influence you might have would be eliminated. We need to be partners of federal government through its power nationally and internationally, can help local investigative agencies solve a complex criminal case that they don't have the subpoena power or Louisiana U.S. Attorney or sheriff doesn't have power to have investigations conducted in Texas or Denver, so these are the things that are all important. 15;50;10 And I truly believe that from a matter of public police we need to see the big picture. And we're all in it together. We're all in it together. And 90% of the law officers in America are state and local. And they're the ones that are the eyes and ears of law enforcement so I really think senator Kennedy, you are correct that we need to do this. I think there's a feeling among law enforcement that that's not been happening sufficiently. And I sense that that's one of the -- and the fact that I think I understand that that I've had as much strong and enthusiastic support as i've had. KENNEDY: You know, when a radical islamic terrorist drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we're told that we should not judge all muslims by the act of a few, and I agree with that. Don't you think the same rule ought to apply when one or two law enforcement officers make the mistake -- don't you think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9% law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day and go to work and try to protect us? 15;51;30 SESSIONS: I really do. And I think those of us in high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole departments and whole groups of people because within those, most any department you can find in America, surely most of the people are just wonderful servants, public servants trying to do the right thing. So, when we say these thing, we can increase risk for them. We can make it harder for them to have relationships with the constituents where they are serving and actually result in an increase in crime in effect I haveness in law enforcement. These issues, we cannot miss these issues. We cannot make a big mistake like we may be making now. So, I commit to doing my best as a law officer to engender the kind of unity and comprehensive effort, state, local, federal, that would be the most effective engine to fight crime and make our communities safer. 15;52;49 KENNEDY: In Louisiana, senator, we believe that love is the answer, but we also believe that we have the right under the constitution to own a gun just in case. Could you share with me your thoughts on the second amendment? SESSIONS: Well, I do believe the second amendment is a personal right. It's a historic right of the American people and the constitution protects it. And explicitly states it. It's just as much a part of the constitution as any of the other great rights and liberties that we value. So, my record is pretty clear on that. However, if a person -- people can forfeit their right to have a gun and it can be a factor in receiving sentences and being prosecuted if you carry a gun, for example, during a commission of a crime. That can add penalty and convictions to you. I think that's a legitimate and responsible restraint on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. KENNEDY: I think they believe this in Alabama, too, but Louisiana, we also believe that nothing makes it easier to resist temptation than a good upbringing, a strong set of values, and witnesses. I'd like to know your thoughts on the freedom of information act. 15;54;20 SESSIONS: Well, the freedom of information act is law and I would see it's carried out and the policies of the country need to be followed. KENNEDY: I've got one final question. I read the inspector general's report about the department of justice. I think it came out in about the middle of 2016, last year. They talked about -- the inspector general talked about problems with the department's massive grant programs. And the inspector general said approximately $100 million over the last five years went for, quote, questionable expenditures or funds that, quote, could have been put to better use. Now, this is taxpayer money. It didn't just fall from heaven. We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets. What do you plan to do once you're confirmed -- and I believe you will be confirmed -- to help our friends at justice department prioritize their spending a little bit? 15;55;35 SESSIONS: Thank you, senator Kennedy. That report is -- raises real concerns. I believe that any responsible public official should recognize that when they obtain an ig, their own inspector general, and saying their department is not performing to high standards should listen to that report and take action and review what's happening and make sure it does not continue. The American people have no desire, and they absolutely should not have their money sent to Washington and then be wasted. We can do a lot more with the money that we have, having been ranking member of the budget committee, and I know that -- how difficult it is. But one way to get extra money, free money is to use the money you've got wisely for things that are valuable. KENNEDY: Senator, I don't know you well, but I've followed your career with respect and admiration for a lot of years and I just wanted to tell you that. You would be a great attorney general. SESSIONS: Thank you. Thank you very much. 15;56;50 BREAK SEN WHITEHOUSE BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;15;20 WHITEHOUSE (MISSING BEGINNING OF QUESTION): Career attorneys to follow the policy dictates of other administrations and not holding the career people responsible for that. I'm wondering how you would react to this. Do you have a problem with career attorneys if their private religious beliefs are secular ones? And do you -- will you support the career attorneys against the pressure from the from these right wing organizations seeking to wash them out like filth, to paraphrase the heritage foundation? SESSIONS: The department of justice is composed primarily of career professionals. As you know, senator Whitehouse, you served there ably as the United States attorney. And I give them the highest respect. Most of those attorneys reach high standards and they are willing to follow lawful orders and directions from their superiors even if they might have a different philosophy. I do think it's often they are put into non-career spots and can go back to career spots, but I don't know how exactly that works. But, so, you would normally expect -- and I'm sure the Obama administration made changes in the leadership of the department. They put career people in positions that they thought would be most advantageous for them to advance the causes they believed in. And that's sort of within the rules of the game. But the target people and to anyway demean them, if they were fine public servants and they were following the law and carrying out a legitimate policy of their supervisors would be wrong. And I think you should respect them. I would do that. 16;17;00 WHITEHOUSE: Does a secular attorney have anything to fear from an attorney general sessions and department of justice? SESSIONS: Well, no. And I use that word in the 90,000-foot level. A little concern I have is that we as a nation, I believe, are reaching a level in which truth is not sufficiently respected, that the very ideal, the idea of truth is not believed to be real, and that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. Let's just say kind of a criticism -- we are not a theocracy. Nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson's words on the memorial over here. I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man. And I think we should respect people's views and not demand any kind of religious test for holding office. WHITEHOUSE: And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? 16;18;10 SESSIONS: Well, I'm not sure. In what method? Is it less objectively committed to - WHITEHOUSE: An attorney would bring to bear -- SESSIONS: Let me just say, we're going to treat anybody with different views fairly and objectively. And the ideal of truth and trying to achieve the right solution to me is an important goal of the American Juris prudential system, actually the legislative system. What is the right thing, what is true and let's act on it and do the right thing. WHITEHOUSE: On the subject of what is truth, you may -- SESSIONS: The age-old question. 15;18;45 WHITEHOUSE: You may be in a position as attorney general to either enforce laws or bring actions that relate to the problem of carbon emissions and the changes that are taking place both physically and chemically in our atmosphere and oceans as a result of the flood of carbon emissions that we've had. It is the political position of the Republican party and the senate, as I have seen it, that this is not a problem, that we don't need to do anything about it, that the facts aren't real, and that we should all do nothing whatsoever. That's the senate. You as attorney general of the United States may be asked to make decisions for our nation that require a factual predicate that you determine as the basis for making your decision. In making a decision about the facts of climate change, to whom will you turn? Will you, for instance, trust the military, all of whose branches agree that climate change is a serious problem of real import for them? Will you trust our national laboratories, all of whom say the same? Will you trust our national science agencies -- by the way, nasa is driving a rover around on the surface of Mars right now. So, they're scientists, I think, are pretty good. I don't think there is a single scientific society, I don't think there is a single credited university, I don't think there is a single nation that denies this basic set of facts. And, so, if that situation is presented to you and you have to make a decision based on the facts, what can give us any assurance that you will make those facts based on real facts and real science? 16;20;50 SESSIONS: That's a good and fair question, and honesty and integrity in that process is required. And if the facts justify a position on one side or the other on a case, I would try to utilize those facts in an honest and appropriate way. I've not -- I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it always struck me as plausible, and it's the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it. So, that's what I would hope we could see occur. WHITEHOUSE: Indeed, I'll bet you dollars against those lovely krispy kreme doughnuts we have out back that if you went down to the university of Alabama and if you talked to the people who fish out of mobile, they had already seen the changes in the ocean. They'd be able to measure the ph changes and they'd know the acid is happening, and there is no actual dispute about that except in the politics of Washington, D.C. SESSIONS: I recognize the great interest in time and you've committed to the issue and I value your opinion. 16;21;55 WHITEHOUSE: I do come from an ocean state, and we do measure the rise in the sea level and we measure the warming of Naraganset bay and we measure the ph. It's serious for us, senator. Thank you. My time has expired. SESSIONS: Thank you. SEN. CRUZ BEGINS QUESTIONS GRASSLEY: Now it looks like it will be senator from Texas, and senator from Texas, I'm going to step out for a minute. And when your eight minutes are up, would you call on senator kobachar? 16;22;20 CRUZ: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I want to congratulate you on making it through a lengthy hearing and then performing admirably. And I think your performance today has reassured this committee and even more importantly has given comfort to the American people that you will be an attorney general who will faithfully apply the law without partiality, without partisan lens, but with fidelity to the constitution and the laws of the United States. I also want to do something I don't do very often, which is I want to commend the Democrats on this committee for, I think, showing admirable restraint. At the beginning of this hearing I had concerns that it would turn ugly with accusations that don't belong in this hearing. And I think my friends on the democratic side of the aisle have largely restrained from that, and I commend them for that. I would note that in the recesses of the internet and in some of the groups that are speaking on this nomination and, indeed, in the view of some of the protesters who have made their voices heard today, there have been racial charges raised and, indeed, some of the protesters have chanted kkk. And you and I have both talked about this a number of times. That is one of the easiest charges for someone to make when they don't have an argument on the merits when they don't have the facts behind them. And it is a particularly hurtful argument that can be directed at someone particularly when it's countered by the facts. And what I want to focus on principally in this round is spending a little bit of time highlighting an aspect of your record, which is your involvement in the prosecution of Henry Hayes, a member of the Ku klux Klan which I expect few watching this hearing have ever heard of. It is striking and highly revealing. So, I'd like to walk through some of the facts. I know you're very familiar with them but I suspect some of the folks at home watching this hearing may not be. In 1981 in mobile, Alabama, the Ku klux klam ordered the murder of a random African-American man, Michael done kanl. Kk members Henry Hayes and James tiger Knowles abducted afternoon cann American Michael Duncan. They beat him, they strangled him, they cut his throat and they hung him from a tree, absolutely shameful and disgraceful. You were U.S. Attorney at the time. Your office along with the FBI, along with the local district attorney investigated the murder. Department of justice attorneys Barry Kowalski and Burt Blan worked on the case. When asked about your work on this case, Mr. Glenn testified that, quote, during the entire course of the investigations, he, meaning sessions, has provided unqualified support and cooperation to us and independently as an individual who absolutely wanted to see that crime solved and prosecuted. Is that accurate, senator sessions? 16;26;00 SESSIONS: I think it is, yes. That's exactly what I intended to do. It actually occurred before I became United States attorney. Wrong group of people had been indicted in state court that complicated matters. Case was not making the kind of progress it needed to make. And, so, we had a discussion. And we invited civil rights division attorneys, Burt Glenn and Barry Kowalski, both of which were exceptionally fine, and along with assistant Thomas figures in my office, broke that case and I thought they deserve a great deal of credit. But I was with them. I was in the grand jury with them. I called the grand jury at their convenience whenever they wanted to come to the state, actually use an impanelled a special grand jury so they could be called when they desired it. It had already been called for another special purpose, but we add that had to their purpose so they had the flexibility. And it was I thought a brilliantly conducted investigation. I guess Barry Kowalski was the lead attorney in it. 16;27;00 CRUZ: Now, Bobby eddy who is the chief investigator for the mobile county district attorney's office, he testified, quote, without his, meaning sessions' cooperation, the state could not have proceeded against Henry Hayes on the capital murder charge. Chris galanos who is the mobile county district attorney in 1981 stated, quote, we needed some horsepower which the feds through Jeff sessions provided. Specifically, we needed the investigative power of the FBI and the power of the federal grand jury. I reached out to him, sessions, and he responded, quote, tell me what you need and you'll have it. And, indeed, your office prosecuted Hayes' accomplice in federal court where he pleaded guilty. And Mr. Eddy testified that tiger Knowles, the accomplice, pled guilty on a civil rights violation and received a life sentence, the highest sentence he could receive under federal law in federal prison. And he continued to say, Henry Hayes was tried in state court by Mr. Galanos' office and found guilty and sentenced to die in the electric chair. And this made Hayes the first white man executed in Alabama for murdering a black person since 1913. When you were the attorney general of Alabama, you later argued to uphold Hayes' death penalty and in 1997, five months after you joined this body as a senator, Hayes died in Alabama's electric chair. And I would note not only that, not only did you assist in the prosecution of the face of evil, the Ku klux Klan murderer who saw ultimate justice, but as it so happened, you also prosecuted Hayes' father, kkk grand titan, Benny jack Hayes who order his son to kill an African-American and you prosecuted him for attempting to defraud his home insurer in order to collect money to pay for his son's legal defense. Is that correct? SESSIONS: That is correct. CRUZ: And beyond that, your office cooperated with Morris des and the southern poverty law center to bring a suit against the kkk and he explained, quote, after the criminal case was over, the poverty law center took the evidence we developed and gave to them and they sued civilly and got a $7 million verdict on behalf of Ms. Donald. And the $7 million civil judgment against the kkk in Alabama bankrupted the Klan, leading to its demise in the state. Is that correct? 16;29;50 SESSIONS: That's essentially correct, yes. In fact, they sold the Klan headquarters to help satisfy the judgment. 16;30;05 CRUZ: Well, I would say, senator sessions, it's easy for people reading things on the internet to believe whatever is raised and passions get hot. And I know the protesters who stand up and chant kkk, they in all likelihood believe what they're saying because they're reading and being encouraged on the internet. But I have not seen any appointee to the cabinet, Democrat or Republican, who has a record like you do of prosecuting klans men, putting them on death row, bankrupting them and putting them out of business, and doing so as you had, I tell you, I admire your doing so. And I'll issue a challenge to our friends in the news media. I noticed every time a protester jumped up, all the photographers took pictures of the protesters. I suspect we're going to see them in all the papers. I would encourage the news media, cover this story. Tell the story on the 6 o'clock news about Jeff sessions helping prosecute a klans man who murdered an African-American man and helped bankrupt him, helping bankrupt the Klan in Alabama. I thank you for your record, I thank you for your service. SESSIONS: Thank you, senator Cruz. I would say it has been very disappointing and painful to have it suggested I think the Klan was okay when we did everything possible to destroy and defeat and prosecute Klan members who were involved in this crime. And it was a good joint effort. I was supportive of it every step of the way and some great lawyers worked very hard on it. CRUZ: Thank you, sir. SEN. KLOBUCHAR BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;32;20 KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, just this week, back page.com announced it was taking down the adult services section of its website. Senator Koran and I led the bill on the judiciary committee. You contributed to it which we appreciated. And we also had work by senator portman and senator mccast kell and others on this issue. We had 48 arrests around the towns in Minnesota alone where back page was part of the operation. So, this was a good result. They took the fifth today in front of homeland security while you were testifying. But I wanted to know what your plans would be, the justice department finally came out with the national strategy and sex trafficking which is part of our bill. And, so, will be in your hands if you are confirmed as attorney general to implement. Could you just give me your thoughts on this issue? SESSIONS: Well, I'm glad that the entire nation seems to be giving priority to this. A lot of great people have given real focus to the problem of sex trafficking and the degradation and destruction that results from it. So, I think it would be a firm and important part of the department of justice's priorities. And I would look forward to following up on the legislative successes and other things that are happening to see if we can't make a real impact against this abominable practice. 16;33;05 KLOBUCHAR: I will say attorney general lynch and prosecutors have worked on this and would be good to talk to them as well. Senator Lee and I have been in charge of the committee. We rotate who is in charge as ranking member. I care a lot about this. We're in the mid of a merger wave between 2010 and 2015, the number of mergers reported to the government increased over 50% from 716 to 1,801, and over the last 18 months we've seen substantial mergers in pharmaceutical, agriculture, cable, insurance, beer. Recently across the political spectrum, there's been a lot of concern about concentration because you need to have an even playing field if competition is going to flourish and that means that's better for consumers if you have strong competition. Will you commit to making vigorous antitrust enforcement a priority, kind of a sideline to that, there's some concern based on some of the statements from the president-elect that maybe certain companies or industries could be targeted depending on if they're in favor or not. These are not statements that you have made. Could you comment about Independence of the attorney general when it comes to considering these cases? 16;34;40 SESSIONS: The antitrust policies of the United States have to be consistent and as clear as possible. As you know, that's not always as easy as some people might think. I could say with confidence that you and senator Lee, as leaders I believe on the antitrust subcommittee, I know you are, have been more attune to the details and the special issues that are involved in that section of the department of justice. So, we would work resolutely on it. I have no hesitation to enforce antitrust law. I have no hesitation to say certain mergers should not occur and there will not be political influence in that process. 16;35;25 KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. I'm going to put a series of other questions on the record. One is on synthetic drugs. We're working hard, senator grassley and I have long worked on this issue with senator Feinstein and senator graham. And we have a new bill that we're working on to make it easier to go after synthetic drugs and maybe on the record we could get your comments on that. Drug courts, again, one of my top priorities, I think that they worked very well in jurisdictions that are devoted to seeing themselves not just as businesses that want to see repeat customers, but getting people off of the treadmill of crime and drugs. And then a very Minnesota focused issue, Minnesota was -- just got a designation called tied up for high intensity drug trafficking, a lot based on Hearn and opiate addictions we've seen. Somehow it was set up so the money came through Wisconsin. Do you know anything about the vikings-packers rivalry? It makes our sheriffs concerned. I thought I would maybe on the record, again, I'm not going to get into detail, discuss this with you on the record and ask you some questions about making sure we get our due for the funding for Minnesota. But the last thing I want to talk about was just the refugee issue. We have the biggest somali population in the country. Our U.S. Attorney and the justice department have done an excellent job in taking on some ISIS cases as well as Al shabab cases, dozens of cases that have been successfully prosecuted. And I know that work will continue. But what I am -- want that work to continue. We also have the vast majority of them are law abiding, an important part of our community. And as a you know, there has been a lot of anti-muslim rhetoric out there. I heard the story in Minneapolis of a family that went out to eat. They lived in our town forever. They had two little kids and they go out to eat. This guy walks by and looks at them, and says, you four go home. You go home to where you came from. And the little girl looks up at her mom and she says, mom, I don't want to go home. You said we could eat out tonight. And you think of the words of that innocent child, she only knows one home and that's my state. She only knows one home. And that's America. So, a big part of the job of the attorney general to me is not just enforcing those laws as we have in our state against terrorist activities, but it is also protecting the innocent among us. I wonder if you could close your questions for me by commenting about your view of how you would uphold all of our nation's laws, the basic value of religious freedom, but also the protection of people from larger crimes than the remark I just talked about, but actually bullying and those kind of things because I just think it has no place in our country. 16;38;36 SESSIONS: Thank you. That is an important principle that you that you've touched on, which is the principle that in America, you're free to exercise your religious beliefs as you deem fit as long as it doesn't violate established law that would be important. So, we have that provided for in the constitution. We can establish a religion and we can't prohibit free exercise. And I believe by and large overwhelmingly, Americans value that principle and support it. And we should always hold it high and we should not back away from it. And that includes Muslim friends and neighbors as well as any other religion. 16;39;20 And you are right, overwhelmingly, there is not violence and radicalism among our Muslim friends and neighbors and we should not ever think that and treat people in a discriminatory basis. When people apply to come to the country, it is appropriate, I believe, to vet them from countries that may have had a history of violence to be careful about who we admit because basically the admission process is a process to -- that should serve the national interest. That's sort of my view about it. I believe it's an acceptable and good view and would try to carry that out. But the decision about admitting and not admitting is really not the attorney general's view -- decision at all. It is the state department's and it is the policy, the president and the state department. And, so, we would just simply make sure if it's done, it's done in a proper fashion and not unlawfully. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also have some statistics on immigration and response to some of the first exchanges that senator sessions and I had about what Minnesota -- the business economic value of immigrants in our community. I'll just put that on the record later, so, thank you. Thank you. SEN. CORNYN BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;41;00 CORNYN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, thanks to senator grassley and senator Mcconnell, I now find myself as a member not only of this committee, but also the intelligence committee for which I'm grateful. One reason why I thought it was so important for another member of the senate judiciary committee to get on the intelligence committee is because while the intelligence committee conducts a lot of the oversight, it's the judiciary committee that confers the authorities on our intelligence officials and law enforcement officials to do what they do. My hope is that during this process where we're coming off a very contentious election, that our colleagues across the aisle will join us in making sure that the new president has his national security cabinet members at least confirmed on an expedited basis. Of course, I would include the office of attorney general as one of those. As you know, the attorney general and the department's national security division work with members of the intelligence community and help over see the collection of foreign intelligence information. I know earlier senator Leahy and perhaps senator Lee asked you a little bit about about the usa freedom act and the national security agency. But I want to highlight something you're well aware of, and that's the sunsetting of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. According to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board which congress appropriately appointed to oversee the activities of the intelligence community, section 702, which will expire at the end of this year, has been responsible for disrupting more than 100 known terrorist plots, including the New York subway bomb plot in 2009 and other plots outside the United States. As I said, if we don't act by the end of the year, that authority will expire. I think we are fortunate on the judiciary committee to also have in addition to our other colleagues senator Feinstein, who has until recently served as the ranking member on the senate intelligence committee, and now of course she's ranking here. And I hope she, along with chairman grassley, will make sure that all of the committee members are thoroughly briefed and comfortable with the re-authorization of section 702 and to make it one of our highest priorities this year. In addition to section 702, as you know, there are other legal and policy challenges that you're going to face as the next attorney general. Our national security investigators and law enforcement officers are facing incredible challenges, many of them technical challenges like growing encryption of communications, whether it's hardware or software. We saw that being relevant to what happened in San Bernardino where the FBI had to pay third parties a substantial amount of money to get at the communications contained in the telephones of the actors in the San Bernardino attacks or in Garland, and my home state of Texas where the last time the FBI director came before this committee said there were still a multitude of communications on the devices of the two shooters in Garland that they still had not been able to get access to. So, the FBI director said this is a part of the trade craft now of terrorists and he referred to it as going dark. And thankfully, chairman grassley held a hearing on that just this last year. We know there are other statutes, including the electronic communications privacy act, things like the electronic communications -- the so-called Ector fix which would allow the use of national security letters to get ip addresses, not content, without a warrant. But ip addresses or meta data which is important to these national security investigations. I think I know the answer to this, but as attorney general, I just would like your verbal commitment here to continue to do what you have always done, and that's put the safety and security of the American people first and you'll continue to work with us in a cooperative fashion to make sure that all the needs of all the stakeholders are being met, including the brave men and women who defend us each and every day in the intelligence and law enforcement community. Will you do that? 16;45;35 SESSIONS: I will, senator Cornyn. Thank you for your hard work and leadership on these important issues. 16;45;30 CORNYN: Let me ask you about the freedom of information act. I don't know whether senator grassley had a chance to ask you about this or not. As you may know, senator grassley and I -- excuse me, Leahy and I are kind of the odd couple on freedom of information act reforms. As a conservative, I've always felt that the best antidote to abuse or waste is sunlight where possible. And you don't have to pass another law or another regulation where people change their behavior because they know people are watching. And senator Leahy and I have worked closely together to see a number of reforms passed and signed into law, many of which I know you have supported and consulted with us on. It's not a blank slate. It's sometimes you have to be careful about disclosing information that ought not to be public information or as law enforcement sensitive or classified or the like. But I just would hope that you would continue to work with us and I'm confident you will. But I'd like to get your verbal commitment to continue to work with us to make sure that the public's right to know is protected. I'm not suggesting that the public has a right to know everything because, frankly, as I said, classified law enforcement sensitive information needs to be protected for important policy reasons. But will you continue to work with us to make sure that we protect the public's right to know to the extent feasible? 16;47;09 SESSIONS: I will, senator Cornyn. And I value your judgment and insight on this important issue. And I appreciate your work. SEN. FRANKEN BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;47;20 FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I move on in my questions, I'd like to respond very briefly to what senator Cruz said earlier. It is important, in my view, that the members of this committee get clarity with regard to the nominees' record. That's our job. And it's important. Now, let's be clear. Senator sessions said in his questionnaire that he, quote, personally handled four civil rights cases. Some of the lawyers who worked on those cases disputed that characterization and senator sessions himself, after his questionnaire was in, felt a need to file a supplement in which he clarified that he merely provided, quote, assistance and guidance to civil rights division attorneys on these four cases. Now, if that's a distinction without a difference, I'm not sure why senator sessions felt the need to clarify. But I want to move on. Senator sessions, in late November, president-elect trump tweeted, quote, in addition to winning the electoral college in a land slide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. Now, let's be clear, president-elect trump lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes. So, what he's saying here is that more than 2.8 fraudulent votes were cast. Do you agree with president trump that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in the presidential election? 16;49;15 SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I don't know what the president-elect meant or was thinking when he made that comment or what facts he may have had to justify his statement. I would just say that every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it. And I do believe we regularly have fraudulent activities occur during elections cycles. 16;49;35 FRANKEN: Well, department of justice is tasked with protecting voting rights and prosecuting fraud. So, if millions upon millions of fraudulent votes were cast, I would imagine that the next attorney general would be quite concerned about that. Did the president-elect tell you anything about what caused him to come to this conclusion? 16;49;57 SESSIONS: I have not talked to him about that in any depth or particularly since the election. 16;50;05 FRANKEN: Uh-huh. So, he didn't share any evidence of voter fraud with you? Because I would imagine as the man that he wants to make responsible for combatting fraud at the ballot box, that he would want to make sure that you had all the evidence necessary to take action and to protect the vote so he didn't do that evidently. Before I move on, I should note for the record that state election and law enforcement officials surveyed in mid December found virtually no credible reports of fraud among the nearly 138 million votes that were cast, and no states reported indications of any widespread fraud. What is truly troubling about this, I believe, are these bogus claims of voter fraud. They're routinely used to justify voter suppression. And thanks to the supreme court's disastrously -- decided Shelby county decision which gutted the voting rights act, it is easier than ever before for states to take -- make it harder for people to vote. Now, senator sessions, you have a complicated history with the voting rights act. Ten years ago when voting rights was a bipartisan issue, you voted to reauthorize the voting rights act. Everyone did, passed 98-0. But you have also called the voting rights act, quote, an intrusive piece of legislation. You have complained that the acts clearance requirement unfarley targeted certain states. You said there is, quote, little present-day evidence that state and local officials restrict access to the franchise. You said that the voting rights act has, quote, eliminated that discrimination. Well, senator, after the Shelby county decision which you celebrated, states began testing the limits of what they could do. And in many cases, citing the risk of so-called voter fraud as a justification for their actions. Now, that's what happened in North Carolina, for example, just a few months after Shelby county, a state enacted one of the strictest voter id laws and enacted restrictions without any evidence, the state described these changes necessary to prevent fraud. Well, the courts disagreed. North Carolina's restrictions were challenged and in July the fourth circuit found the primary purpose of the restrictions wasn't to fight fraud, but to make it harder for black people to vote. Here is what the court said. And I quote. The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision. They constitute inept remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, propose cures for problems that did not exist. Senator, do you still believe that there is little present day evidence of states restricting access to the franchise? And if you do, what do you think the fourth circuit got wrong when it found that north Carolina targeted black voters with almost surgical precision? Do you accept that north Carolina was targeting African-American voters, but not believe that it was engaging in discriminatory conduct? 16;54;00 SESSIONS: Well, you cannot create laws designed to inhibit the right of any class of citizens to vote. And, so, if the fourth circuit found that and there is a factual basis to support it, then any law that's passed would be subject to being either eliminated or altered. So, I support your concern that laws of this kind cannot be used for that purpose. I do believe not long ago the supreme court did uphold voter id laws, but there are ways to do it and ways probably you cannot do it. So, I am not familiar with the details of the North Carolina law. But you are correct, any finding that's sustainable that there is a racial animus in the passing of a law that would restrict voting, that law is -- could be unsustainable. FRANKEN: Now, North Carolina is one of the states that would have been covered by preclearance, was it not? 16;54;50 SESSIONS: North Carolina states would be. FRANKEN: It would have been. SESSIONS: I would just suggest that section 2 allows all the remedies, and that's what I suppose they filed the action under in this case. It just not a preclearance question, and that preclearance policy is intrusive. And as the supreme court has said -- and I didn't mean that in any pejorative way. I was asked, do you believe it's intrusive, is that correct? I said it is intrusive. But the voting -- it said this is 1986. But the voting rights act was absolutely essential to avert the problem -- FRANKEN: mr. chairman, okay because we had this debate after shelby, and gentleman leahy tried to introduce something of substitute so that we could have preclearance again which was fought by you. The whole point is that section 2 of the VRA is youre right, but how many years after north carolina did that. How many times how many elections were conducted in north carolina where african american's votes were suppressed? That's why you need preclearance and as soon as shelby came down you saw texas, you saw North carolina go oh good now we can suppress votes. That is the reason why you have preclearance that is the reason why you can't rely on the district court or the circuit courts to rule. 16;57;03 SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I voted a few years ago for the voting rights act extension for 25 years. It included preclearance in it. We all knew at that time that the supreme court would probably take up a case before long that would have wrestled with the question of whether there is a sufficient basis for the extraordinary remedy of requiring only a few states in the country to have every, even ministerial act like moving a voting precinct to seek the permission of the department of justice first. The supreme court found that that no longer could be justified. The supreme court decided that we should not have -- did not have to have preclearance. But section 2 of the voting rights act allows these kind of challenges that senator Franken is talking about. That's what was brought in north Carolina. That is what is being litigated today. The court did, in fact, find the voter id law was improper as I understand it. So, I believe we proceeded in a lawful fashion, and I did feel in one sense that it was a good feeling that the supreme court had concluded, had been substantial improvement in our area of the country, the south of the country in voting rights, sufficient that section 5 could no longer be justified. But I voted for it. FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. As justice Ginsburg said, an umbrella means you don't get wet when it's raining and you don't take the umbrella away. GRASSLEY: n the record, a letter that I just today received in support of senator sessions' nomination from the national shooting sports foundation. Senator? Without objection. SEN. SASSE BEGINS QUESTIONING 16;50;00 SASSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Sara root case. I know you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sara root was a woman who was killed a year ago this month in Omaha. She had just graduated from college and she was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believe this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in the past. He was an illegal immigrant. He ran into her car, killed her right after her graduation. He was detained by Omaha police. They ultimately notified the department of home land security, this guy is a flight risk. He was able to post a fairly insignificant bond and he disappeared. The department of home land security did nothing to detain the guy despite the fact that the Douglas county sheriff and the Omaha police department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it wasn't an enforcement priority. I don't want to hold you to specifics on this case here, but I want to get your pledge in this context. I want to hear you talk generally about the coordination between state and local law enforcement on illegal immigration activities and in particular in cases where serious crimes have been committed. But I wonder if you would pledge now that if I send you a letter the day after you are confirmed, would you give expeditious aa tension to responding to some of these details about how enforcement priorities are set inside the federal government? 17;00;30 SESSIONS: Thank you, senator sass. I certainly will, and it does represent important failures that we've seen too often in our system today. 17;00;40 SASSE: Do you have any top line thoughts on the way, local and state officials interact with federal officials on immigration cases? SESSIONS: Well, the immigration enforcement procedures, the courts have held, are exclusively the power of the federal government. But it's also clear a state official has the right to arrest somebody for the offense of crossing the border illegally. They have the right to arrest people who have entered the country illegally or repeatedly entered the country for any kind of offense, including the offense of reentering illegally, and the system should work in a way that the federal government then evaluates whether or not they want to put a hold on in order not to release that person until they can take them and see them be deported. And it's failing in a whole number of ways. You've got the sanctuary cities who refuse to tell home land security that they've got somebody that's committed a serious crime so they can be deported. They refuse to honor detainers. On the other side we've got home land security too often having standards or failing to follow-up on serious offenses of people who should be deported. So, in both aspects I think, senator sass, I think we can do much better. And if we, this country has every right to deport persons who are here unlawfully, who violate our criminal laws in some other aspect, and they should indeed be promptly deported. 17;02;20 SASSE: Thank you. We'll follow-up with a letter because this guy, Edwin Mejia who killed Sara root, it was obvious to everybody engaged locally, lots of law enforcement and the family whose daughter was killed that this guy was a flight risk and everyone was screaming to the feds, please don't let this guy disappear before he can stand trial. He's now in the top 10 most wanted list and nobody thinks he's ever going to be found. Everybody believes he left the country, and this kind of case isn't an isolated case. It's a kind of handoff between federal and local law enforcement that could happen repeatedly if you don't have a federal government that has any clear policy. So, we'd like to -- I would like to send you a letter right after your confirmation asking for clarity about how enforcement discretion and enforcement actions are prioritized. 17;03;00 SESSIONS: And, senator sass, I would note that fundamentally, that would be a home land security issue initially. And they need to set the standards of what they should and should not do. And I would think that general Kelly would be quite willing to also talk with you about it as will I. 17;03;25 I will likely be addressing the letter to both and you general Kelly. So, thank you. Completely different line of questioning. This morning you were asked some hard and appropriate questions about the responsibility of the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government. If there are cases where there might be a conflict between your oath of office to the constitution of limited government and a separation of executive and legislative authorities, and the people that you report to when you work inside an administration. You said in the course of that answer that there could ultimately be cases where someone might have to resign because they were being forced to do something that conflicted with their oath. I wonder if you could unpack that a little bit and talk about the justice department's responsibilities and attorneys general -- attorneys general past over the past few decades. Can you name instances where a resignation might be in order and what kinds of lines would you envision being crossed and ways that you as the attorney general might push back on an administration if asked to do things that you regarded as inconsistent with your oath to the constitution? 17;05;30 SESSIONS: It would be difficult to speculate on that. We saw that during the nix on administration. There could clearly be a circumstance in which there is such a relationship breach that an attorney general wouldn't be an effective member of the attorney general's administration. Maybe a chief executive could be correct and the attorney general could be wrong. 17;04;55 But if attorney's duty is to give the best judgment that the attorney general can give and, therefore, if it's rejected on a very fundamental area, then that causes great concern. Maybe in another area of less importance you could afford to disagree. But I just think that that result should be very rare, has not happened very often in the history of this country. Actually, I can only know of one. And, therefore, the reason is that usually the chief executive -- and I would expect with president trump, that when confronted or advised that certain policies are not acceptable, would accept that advice. I'm confident that he would. But you raise a hypothetical and I've at least given you my thoughts about it. 17;06;00 SASSE: Just to conclude, because I'm inside my last minute. But going back to the connection between this question and the olc line of questioning that senator Lee posed this morning, if a head of olc, the assistant attorney general from olc was coming to you and saying, I've been asked to try to justify a certain position, I've been asked to write a memo to support this position and I don't think we can get there, I don't think that the department of justice has considered wisdom and insight into the law that we can ultimately write the memo that will authorize certain actions, how do you as the attorney general envision that conversation going? Just tell us the parts between an olc, an attorney general's office, and the white house. 17;06;41 SESSIONS: Well, attorney general mukasey who I think is still here, yes, I'm honored to have here today. He issued a memorandum about how the communications could be effectively carried out. And it restricted communications from the political officials to the justice department in a way that guaranteed integrity. But there is nothing wrong, as I understand it, for -- through the proper chain of command that a request for an olc opinion on a certain subject, there is nothing wrong with the white house asking for that. Indeed, you want that. You don't want the white house acting. You want him to seek legal advice. And generally, historically things get sort of worked out. If the olc comes back and says, Mr. President, you can do this but you can't do it this way, maybe you can do it that way, maybe it won't give you everything you want, but that's safe, that's legal. That's within the realm of action that the president can take. This, we believe, is not. And usually having an attorney general who has the confidence of the president, who the president knows was giving him the best advice, also advising him what he cannot do, which is part of good advice, is the way it's historically resulted. And you need the best lawyers and you need to be very careful because these things set precedence. They also can result in lawsuits in all kind of controversy that should not happen as a result of a bad olc opinion. SASSE: Thank you. The stewardship of the integrity of that office is critically important. Thank you for your forthrightness. SEN COONS BEGINS QUESTIONING COONS: JUMP UNTIL 5:20 PM 17;20;53 CRAPO: ..The Alabama Republican party vice chairman, even though you're from the same party. So, it seems to me that your history shows that you can make those kinds of judgment calls and do what the job demands. I already know the answer to this question because I've seen it in your record and because I've known and worked with you for a number of years, but I ask anyway. Again, if you are confirmed, will you commit to enforce and defend the laws and the constitution of the united States regardless of your personal and philosophical views on the matter? 17;21;15 SESSIONS: I will, senator. I would note on the death penalty case, my appellate lawyers gave me a little briefing of the cases that were coming up. And they had they'd say, we'll be defending this death case, but we are probably going to lose. I said, why are we going to lose? They said it didn't have the aggregating -- aggravating factor you needed to carry out a death penalty. I said, we can't go before the supreme court and argue for a death penalty if it doesn't meet the standard for death penalty. To which the lawyer said, well, the local people are really fired up about it and we usually just do what they want. And let the court decide. I said, no, we shouldn't do that. That turned out to be an easy decision to make that day. But when I was running for the United States senate maybe a year later, I became one of the biggest ads and biggest attacks on me that I failed to defend the jury conviction for murder in this county. But you just have to do your -- you have to do the right thing. And some of these other cases reflect the same thing. Indeed, this insurance commissioner, the case was taken by the governor's team to the state da who prosecuted the case and convicted the man, but it was reversed on appeal by finding by the court of appeals that he didn't commit a crime, just like we had concluded originally. So, these are tough calls. Sometimes I've not always made them right, but I do believe you have to put the law first, senator Crapo, and I have tried to do that, tried to teach my people that. And none of us are perfect, but we should strive to get it right every time. 17;23;10 CRAPO: Well, thank you, Jeff. I knew that answer as I said, before I asked the question. But one of the other senators here today said it is important to get your record out and I think it is important to get your record correctly understood. And I think that there unfortunately is too much inaccurate reporting about your record. Another instance in that context, as you know, I am the Republican sponsor of the violence against women act that we passed recently here in the U.S. Senate and the congress. You have been criticized for not supporting that act, but I want to give you a chance again to correct the record and to fully state the record. If I understand it right, you voted for the original and supported the re-authorization of that act, at least twice, and that your objection to the act that did pass this last time, the re-authorization, was not at all based on the question of whether to have the statute in place. It was, instead, based on an issue with regard to jurisdiction on tribal lands and other related matters. Could you again restate position on the issue? 17;24;10 SESSIONS: Well, thank you, senator Crapo. You know, I came here as a lawyer, tried to conduct myself properly and consider what some might consider legal technicalities, but I think are pretty important. The bill, as I understood it, was controversial primarily because of this situation in which a non-tribal member could be tried in a tribal court which apparently, I think, it's fair to say is not constructed in a way that's consistent with the constitution, and that we have never done this before. And, so, eight of the nine Republicans on the judiciary committee concluded that this was not appropriate. So, by voting against that version of the violence against women's act, if it had failed, we would not then, I'm confident, not had a bill. We would have been able to pass a violence against women act that didn't have that provision in it. So, that's sort of where we were in the political process. And one of the bad things about modern American politics is if you take that position, you're not portrayed as being wrong on the tribal issue, you're portrayed as being against a bill that would protect women from violence. And I think that is unfair and thank you for giving me the chance to respond. 17;26;00 CRAPO: Well, thank you. And I appreciate that, and I can again confirm because, as I said, I am the Republican sponsor of that bill. And that description you have given is exactly one of just a couple issues which were being seriously litigated, if you will, here, and which we were trying to resolve. And those of you who took that position, again, were not in any way objecting to the act. You had multiple times before supported it, and you were trying to help resolve one specific issue on the bill. And, so, I just want to clarify that with you and again get the record straight about where you stand on the issue. I see my time is pretty much gone. Mr. Chairman, I won't go to my next question. GRASSLEY: Before I call on senator Blumenthal, out of consideration for you, I want to explain what I think we have left here. If you need a break, tell me. We've got two Democrats and two Republicans to do a second round, beside the chairman, but I'm going to wait until later to do my second round. We've got two Democrats, I've been told, at least want a third round. And, so, what I would like to do is, first of all, if you need a break, we'll take a break whenever you say so now. And in the meantime, I'd like to have my colleagues be -- take into consideration something I want to do. I want everybody to get over here that wants to ask questions and I'm not going to take up anybody's time until everybody else is done, and then I want to take about maybe 15 or 20 minutes of your time to do the equivalent of a couple rounds with questions I haven't asked yet. So, what's your desire? BLUMENTHAL: I'm ready to go. SEN. BLUMENTHAL BEGINS QUESTIONS 17;27;50 BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator sessions. I was pleased to hear you disavow and denounce operation rescue in response to my last question. I want to ask about a couple of other groups and individuals. In 2003, I had an event called restoration weekend. You gave a speech praising a man named David Horowitz as a man, quote, a man I admire. David Horowitz has said, among other things, that, quote, all the major Muslim organizations in America are connected to the Muslim brotherhood and, quote, 80% of the mosques are filled with hate against Americans and Jews. He made statements about African Americans, quote, too many blacks are in prison because too many blacks commit crimes. You praised him as a man I admire. That statement was omitted from your response to the committee. Did you omit it because you were embarrassed about praising David Horowitz? 17;29;00 SESSIONS: No, and I didn't know David Horowitz had made those comments. I read his brilliant book -- what's the name of it? I have a hard time remembering. But it was his transformation, having grown up in a, as he described it, communist family. He was editor of ramparts magazine, the radical magazine. And I believe radical son was the name of his book, it was a really powerful and moving story of how he moved from the unprincipled totalitarian radical left to a more traditional American person. I've read a number of other books, I think one of them, but he's a most brilliant individual and has remarkable story. I'm not aware of everything he's ever said or done. BLUMENTHAL: Well, these statements have been reported publicly repeatedly over many years. You first came to know him in 2003. In fact, you received an award from the David Horowitz freedom center in 2014. You were unaware of any of the apparently racist comments that he made -- 17;30;17 SESSIONS: I'm not aware of those comments and I don't believe David Horowitz is a racist or a person that wouldn't treat anyone improperly, at least to my knowledge. The award he gave me was the Annie something Johnson award and that was the lady that went over niagara falls in a barrel. That's the award I received. BLUMENTHAL: Let me ask you about another group which also you left out of your questionnaire, a group that the southern poverty law center cited earlier by senator Cruz, listed as a hate group, and you received from the federation for fair immigration reform an award known as the Franklin society award. The founder of that group has said, quote, I have come to the point of view that for European American society and culture to persist requires a European American majority and a clear one, at that. He said also, quote, too much diversity leads to divisiveness and conflict. The founder, John Tanton, also through his political action committee, contributed twice to your campaigns in 2008 and 2014, a thousand dollars in each donation. Will you denounce those statements and disavow that award and that support from that organization?

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Attorney General Nomination Senate Judiciary Committee Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Time: 09:30 AM Location: Russell Senate Office Building 325 Presiding: Chairman Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley R (IA) WITNESSES: The Honorable Richard Shelby United States Senator State of Alabama The Honorable Susan Collins United States Senator State of Maine PANEL I Senator Jeff Sessions Oscar Vazquez, a man who was a dreamer and wanted to serve the United States uniform. In this case involving OMAR. The American bar association standards say the duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. It is an important function. Prosecutor to seek to reform and approve the administration of criminal justice. When it comes to cases like these, in your role as the leading prosecutor in the united States of America, what is your feeling about your discretion to make the decision as to whether or not to spare individuals like those I've described. >> I've been made aware in the last several years how this process works. It's really the secretary of state, usually through consultation with the president, that decides how many refugees should be admitted to the country. There's little congress can do other than getting into a funding argument with the president about that. Secretary Kerry met with members of the judiciary committee to announce what he planned to do on refugees. That will be how it would be decided. Legally, the president appears to have that power. But it would be my responsibility, I think, to make sure that it was exercised within the bounds of law. You oversee the immigration courts interpreted our nation's laws apply to dreamers and refugees like Mr. Mukdad, so this isn't another agency, it is the department of justice, and you will be the leader of that department and you will have the authority and prosecutorial discretion. You can't point to the state department you have a discretion within your own department. >> Well a refugee is admitted to the United States by the approval or non-approval of -- it's not a trial or litigation. So that's how it's determined. The gentleman from Syria that you mentioned should be able to make a strong case for his acceptance as a refugee because he's been damaged and injured and attacked and at risk for his writings, so that would give him proving that should put him at a higher level of potential acceptance. >> You and I can disagree on this one point in your authority over the courts as attorney general but I hope we both agree there are compelling cases of victims around the world of terrorism, war, diskrimmation and maltreatment, men and women, an many of them look to the United States as the last possible place for them to find safety and security. I hope after the heated language of this last election campaign that we can come back to some of the standards that have guided this nation since worl war II. [3:28:48 PM] >> We need to make sure those who have been admitted have been properly vetted and are not a danger. >> Thank you. >> This is what I would like to do. The votes kind of made this a convoluted round. We have one person with a round and one person not without his first round and then senator sessions would like to take a break. Here is what I would like to do senator sessions if it's okay with you, I want to go with senator hatch. Senator Feinstein for their second rounds and senator Kennedy for his first round and give you a short break at that point. Is that okay? >> That would be good. Thank you. >> Okay. For the benefit of the rest of you, I kind of got lost out of this but I've got to be here for the rest of the meeting where maybe some of you don't have to be so I'll do any second, third an fourth round after everybody else is gone. >> Is that nice? >> Okay. [ Laughter ] >> Senator -- >> I think it's hatch. >> Senator hatch. Yes. >> Senator sessions, I think you have done a terrific job. I've known you all your 20 years, I've watched you work diligently on the judiciary committee and on your other committees as well. You're an honest, decent man and you have tremendous abilities in law enforcement and you are proving it here today and showing it here today. It's hard for me to understand why anybody would be against you. I want to emphasize that you have wide support for your appointment among law enforcement including the national sheriff's association, national district attorneys association, the national association of police organization, national organization of assistant attorneys, the international union police associations and major city chiefs of police. [3:30:59 PM] I'm not sure I've seen anybody that had all that kind of massive support for this position. Now I draw attention to this for an important reason. This agreement about political or policy positions are one thing. But, accusations about your commitment to fairness or suggestions that you're not sensitive to race is another. With these law enforcement organizations enthusasticly support someone who is biased? Of course not. >> Especially without any evidence to support them whatsoever are not simply attacks on senator sessions they are also smears against organizations like these which have similar needs, the record and found senator sessions worthy of support so I'm grateful to you and for your willingness to take this on. Knowing that you might be smeared by certain organizations. It takes some guts to do this, but we all know you have guts. We all know that you believe in what you are doing. We all know that you have a tremendous integrity. We all know that you have tremendous intellectual ability as well. And even though you and I have disagreed on issues that are important to both of us, you have always acted with distinction and fairness and decency and I would expect you to do the same thing as attorney general of the United States. One thing I know, you would be giving it's everything you have and that's a lot. You have a lot to give. Let me just say this morning one of my democratic colleagues said that the standard for evaluating your nomination is whether you will "Enforce the law fairly, evenly, without personal bias" do you agree that the attorney general has a duty to do that? [3:33:09 PM] >> As a core responsibility of attorney general absolutely. >> I have no doubt you will live up to that. No doubt whatsoever. I think everybody should have to agree with that. The real question is how we can be confident that you will fulfill that responsibility an most of the comments this morning were about comments you made, positions you took or cast as senator on legislative issues and some of these questions suggested that you could not enforce a law that you had not voted for or you would not enforce a law or policy that you might have questioned or personally disagreed with. I personally categorically reject that and you have too, is that correct? >> That is correct. >> You're darn right it is. Some of my friends would also reject the suggestion that a liberal could not be impartial. I think liberals can be impartial. >> I do too, senator hatch. And some people -- I don't think it would be hard for me to be impartial and to enforce laws that I didn't vote for. I just don't think that's going to be -- I think I can separate my personal votes of maybe years ago from what my responsibility is today and I hope that my colleagues can believe that. >> Well the answer to the question whether you can as attorney general enforce the laws fairly, evenly and without personal bias it's a resounding yes, you can and anybody who disagrees with that hasn't been listening, observed you over the last twenty years or any time over the last 20 years, there's not a shred of evidence of your entire record to undermine that conclusion. The fact that you have already served in both the executive and legislative branches strengthen even further your commitment to the duty of fairness and impartiality. [3:35:22 PM] Seems to me it does. Am I right? >> Well, thank you, yes. I do believe I've conducted myself according to principals that I think are valid and try to be consistent and honest in my evaluation of the many complex issues that we have here. Sometimes good people can certainly disagree on them. >> Anybody should know that's true. Now the justice department has a duty to defend in court the laws enacted by congress. As a member of this committee for 20 years you had heard attorney general nominees pro Fess their commitment to fulfill that duty regardless of politics, in my opinion the justice department under the outgoing administration renigged and made decisions rather than legal grounds. How important is it to commit to legal statutes even as a legislature you would oppose those? >> Senator hatch, you have been through many of these issues and I certainly do respect your judgment but I do believe that the lawyer for the congress, the lawyer for the United States that represents the united States government in court should be the lawyer that defends an act lawfully passed in congress wherever it's reasonable argument can be made and I commit to you I will do that. >> I believe you and I know that's true. And I have a rough time seeing why anybody would find any real flaws or fault with your nomination. I just want to personally thank you for being willing to go through this, were your willingness to be able to do this and for your integrity that you have shown and exhibited and demonstrated over the last 20 years. I can personally testify about you and about what a fine really good person you are. [3:37:24 PM] And we've differed on some pretty important issues from time to time. I have respect for you because you stand up for what you believe however wrong you may have been. [ Laughter ] >> I heard my wife laugh. >> Well, I have a lot of respect for you and I hope that the rest of this proceeding goes really well and that we can get you confirmed as soon as possible because I know you will do a terrific job and I'm very proud of you for being willing to do this. >> I'm honored to have your support. >> You have it. >> Senator Feinstein. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. To begin I would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements sent to the committee concerning senator sessions be made part of the record and I have testimony and letters. >> Without objection, so ordered. >> Thank you very much. Senator sessions, when I was a small child it was during world War two and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called tanferan and had become a detention camp for Japanese citizens. Thousands of families were held in this compound. And we checked with crs who says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any sabotage in the United States during that time. Senator Lee, Cruz and I have tried together to enact a bill together to ensure that no American citizen or lawful permanent residence debit detien -- detained in the united States could be held without charge or trial. Do you believe that the government can pursuant to a general authorization to use military force indefinitely detain Americans in the united States without charge or trial? [3:39:35 PM] >> Senator Feinstein, that's an important question, classically, the answer is yes, classically if you captured a German soldier they could be held until the war ended. >> I'm talking about an American. >> I hear you, so then the question is we're in a war like we have now that's gone on multiple years and I would think the principal of law certainly would appear to be valid but as reality dawns on us and wars might be even longer, you know, it's honest to discuss those issues, so I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do believe as senator graham as argued forcefully for many years that we are in a war and when members who unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to be connected to a enemy on a designated enemy of the united States, so I am probably explained more than I should, but that's basically the arguments and the issues we're facing. I respect your concerns and I'm sure they will continue to be debated the future. >> Well, let me just say a few things about that. I've served on the intelligence committee for 15 years. I read all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what's happening in the United States and this is not -- these are Americans that we're talking about that can be picked up and detained and held without -- >> You're talking about America citizens -- [3:41:39 PM] >> -- And that should not be the case. I understand your point and citizens of the United States have certain important rights they cannot be aggregated. They cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review and the government surely has to prove that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action against the united States or they couldn't be detained. >> Well, I appreciate that. Let me go into another subject. You were one of nine senators to vote against the detainee treatment act of 2005. It prohibited the imposition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. Personnel. You also voted against an amendment sponsored by senator McCain in the 2016 defense authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the army field manual which does not include waterboarding. Do you agree that the CIA's former enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding are prohibited by this provision of law as now cot field? >> It does appear to be clear that the last act McCain amendment would prohibit waterboarding. >> And you would enforce that? >> I would enforce the law, yes. >> Thank you. And my third question is -- and this was in the "Washington post," a report last night that you failed to disclose to this committee and to the office of government ethics subsurface rights to oil or other minerals on more than 600 acres in your home state some of which I gather are adjacent to a federal wildlife preserve. [3:43:51 PM] Apparently Alabama records -- and this is a quote, show that the senator leased undivided mineral interests to chief capital, a Texas firm, in 2015, do you in fact own these interests? >> Senator Feinstein I believe that so, and the way it happened was that many years ago at least 50 or more years ago, my family, ancestors sold some land and reserved mineral rights. Later there was a dam built on the river and desire to take land that was going to be flooded and add additional land for duck preserve and they negotiated and the family sold land to the government and retained the mineral rights per the agreement. At least that's my understanding, so by nonseries of events, it fell to me. I never reviewed the deeds, I don't know how much land is out there that I own mineral rights on although oil companies are pretty good about contacting owners before they drill a well, so you are correct that we reported the income on my return -- >> I saw that. >> -- As coming from the property that I own and the property where the oil well is. I did not note in that report specifically that it was oil income because the blank said royalties, but maybe -- so I would just say to you this, we absolutely -- this is something I've taken no affirmative action in, it's something I'm going to take affirmative action in. I have one of the simplest, clearest financial reports you can see. My assets and my wife's assets are most entirely vanguard funds and municipal bonds, I don't own any individual stocks, we're going to find out what we did or didn't do and correct it. [3:46:10 PM] >> Good. Thank you. >> I welcome Brand new senator Kennedy not only to this committee but to the senate as well. Senator Kennedy, you're allowed ten minutes now. >>> Good afternoon, senator. >> Good afternoon. >> My name is John Kennedy. And that's really my name. Just so you know I used to have a law partner named Jose Canseco. Caused a lot of confusion when we would go to meetings together. >> I guess. >> I have been impressed in preparing for the hearings with the deep support you enjoy from law enforcement. In fact one of my sheriff's from Louisiana, I don't know if Greg is still here, sheriff Greg shampomp came up with other sheriff's on your behalf. And I have noticed other organizations that have not always agreed on the issues. And that impressed me. I wanted to read an excerpt from the sergeants benevolent association from the NYPD, about as far as away from mobile you can get" as a union representing law enforcement officers over the years the sba, the sergeants benevolent association, as worked as both an ally and respectful opponent of senator sessions. This experience has shown us that senator sessions is a man of unquestionable integrity and devoted to the rule of law. It is for this reason and many others that we believe senator sessions is the absolute right choice to serve as America's chief law enforcement officer" and that impressed me. [3:48:26 PM] I would like to know what you as attorney general intend to do to partner with state and local law enforcement? >> That is so important and the United States attorneys throughout the country as in Louisiana and Alabama are key players in this. All United States attorneys, colleagues are funded to have law enforcement coordinating officers. I had two in my small office. We had regular meetings. In the early 80s this is when it started. The first time. So instead of having a law enforcement plan, produced in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorneys were directed to get all the federal agencies and all the state and local agencies to sit down and identify what the re -- their main threats are and direct their resources to deal with the real threats and they would be different in different districts around the country. I sense that's been eroded somewhat so we need to get back to that. The department of justice has great resources for identifying tactics and strategies that work on crime. We ought to be able to always help the state and local police officers have the best data on what works and how to create safer and better communities, the federal government cannot dictate to these agencies. It would be a disaster. They wouldn't accept it number one in any influence you might have would be eliminated. We need to be partners of federal government through its power nationally and internationally, can help local investigative agencies solve a complex criminal case that they don't have the subpoena power or Louisiana U.S. Attorney or sheriff doesn't have power to have investigations conducted in Texas or Denver, so these are the things that are all important. [3:50:29 PM] And I truly believe that from a matter of public police we need to see the big picture. And we're all in it together. We're all in it together. And 90% of the law officers in America are state and local. And they're the ones that are the eyes and ears of law enforcement so I really think senator Kennedy, you are correct that we need to do this. I think there's a feeling among law enforcement that that's not been happening sufficiently. And I sense that that's one of the -- and the fact that I think I understand that that I've had as much strong and >> You know, when a radical islamic terrorist drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we're told that we should not judge all muslims by the act of a few, and I agree with that. Don't you think the same rule ought to apply when one or two law enforcement officers make the mistake -- don't you think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9% law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day and go to work and try to protect us? >> I really do. And I think those of us in high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole departments and whole groups of people because within those, most any department you can find in America, surely most of the people are just wonderful servants, public servants trying to do the right thing. So, when we say these thing, we can increase risk for them. We can make it harder for them to have relationships with the constituents where they are serving and actually result in an increase in crime in effect I haveness in law enforcement. [3:52:34 PM] These issues, we cannot miss these issues. We cannot make a big mistake like we may be making now. So, I commit to doing my best as a law officer to engender the kind of unity and comprehensive effort, state, local, federal, that would be the most effective engine to fight crime and make our communities safer. >> In Louisiana, senator, we believe that love is the answer, but we also believe that we have the right under the constitution to own a gun just in case. Could you share with me your thoughts on the second amendment? >> Well, I do believe the second amendment is a personal right. It's a historic right of the American people and the constitution protects it. And explicitly states it. It's just as much a part of the constitution as any of the other great rights and liberties that we value. So, my record is pretty clear on that. However, if a person -- people can forfeit their right to have a gun and it can be a factor in receiving sentences and being prosecuted if you carry a gun, for example, during a commission of a crime. That can add penalty and convictions to you. I think that's a legitimate and responsible restraint on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. >> I think they believe this in Alabama, too, but Louisiana, we also believe that nothing makes it easier to resist temptation than a good upbringing, a strong set of values, and witnesses. I'd like to know your thoughts on the freedom of information act. [3:54:37 PM] >> Well, the freedom of information act is law and I would see it's carried out and the policies of the country need to be followed. >> I've got one final question. I read the inspector general's report about the department of justice. I think it came out in about the middle of 2016, last year. They talked about -- the inspector general talked about problems with the department's massive grant programs. And the inspector general said approximately $100 million over the last five years went for, quote, questionable expenditures or funds that, quote, could have been put to better use. Now, this is taxpayer money. It didn't just fall from heaven. We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets. What do you plan to do once you're confirmed -- and I believe you will be confirmed -- to help our friends at justice department prioritize their spending a little bit? >> Thank you, senator Kennedy. That report is -- raises real concerns. I believe that any responsible public official should recognize that when they obtain an ig, their own inspector general, and saying their department is not performing to high standards should listen to that report and take action and review what's happening and make sure it does not continue. The American people have no desire, and they absolutely should not have their money sent to Washington and then be wasted. We can do a lot more with the money that we have, having been ranking member of the budget committee, and I know that -- how difficult it is. [3:56:38 PM] But one way to get extra money, free money is to use the money you've got wisely for things that are valuable. >> Senator, I don't know you well, but I've followed your career with respect and admiration for a lot of years and I just wanted to tell you that. You would be a great attorney general. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Senator sessions, you asked for a short break, so, I hope maybe 15 minutes would be adequate. >> That would be adequate, absolutely. >> Senator, white house is going to be next. So, when he comes back, yes, go ahead. Senator, take your time. We stand in recess. Break >> Career attorneys to follow the policy dictates of other administrations and not holding the career people responsible for that. I'm wondering how you would react to this. Do you have a problem with career attorneys if their private religious beliefs are secular ones? And do you -- will you support the career attorneys against the pressure from the from these right wing organizations seeking to wash them out like filth, to paraphrase the heritage foundation? >> The department of justice is composed primarily of career professionals. As you know, senator wine house, you served there ably as the United States attorney. And I give them the highest 4:16:16 PM respect. Most of those attorneys reach high standards and they are willing to follow lawful orders and directions from their superiors even if they might have a different philosophy. I do think it's often they are put into non-career spots and can go back to career spots, but I don't know how exactly that works. But, so, you would normally expect -- and I'm sure the Obama administration made changes in the leadership of the department. They put career people in positions that they thought would be most advantageous for them to advance the causes they believed in. And that's sort of within the rules of the game. But the target people and to anyway demean them, if they were fine public servants and they were following the law and carrying out a legitimate policy of their supervisors would be wrong. And I think you should respect 4:17:16 PM them. I would do that. >> Does a secular attorney have anything to fear from an attorney general sessions and department of justice? >> Well, no. And I use that word in the 90,000-foot level. A little concern I have is that we as a nation, I believe, are reaching a level in which truth is not sufficiently respected, that the very ideal, the idea of truth is not believed to be real, and that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. Let's just say kind of a criticism -- we are not a theocracy. Nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson's words on the memorial over here. I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man. And I think we should respect people's views and not demand any kind of religious test for 4:18:18 PM holding office. >> And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? >> Well, I'm not sure. In what method? Is it less objectively committed to -- >> An attorney would bring to bear -- >> Let me just say, we're going to treat anybody with different views fairly and objectively. And the ideal of truth and trying to achieve the right solution to me is an important goal of the American Juris prudential system, actually the legislative system. What is the right thing, what is true and let's act on it and do the right thing. >> On the subject of what is truth, you may -- >> The age-old question. >> You may be in a position as attorney general to either enforce laws or bring actions that relate to the problem of carbon emissions and the changes 4:19:19 PM that are taking place both physically and chemically in our atmosphere and oceans as a result of the flood of carbon emissions that we've had. It is the political position of the Republican party and the senate, as I have seen it, that this is not a problem, that we don't need to do anything about it, that the facts aren't real, and that we should all do nothing whatsoever. That's the senate. You as attorney general of the United States may be asked to make decisions for our nation that require a factual predicate that you determine as the basis for making your decision. In making a decision about the facts of climate change, to whom will you turn? Will you, for instance, trust the military, all of whose branches agree that climate change is a serious problem of 4:20:20 PM real import for them? Will you trust our national laboratories, all of whom say the same? Will you trust our national science agencies -- by the way, nasa is driving a rover around on the surface of Mars right now. So, they're scientists, I think, are pretty good. I don't think there is a single scientific society, I don't think there is a single credited university, I don't think there is a single nation that denies this basic set of facts. And, so, if that situation is presented to you and you have to make a decision based on the facts, what can give us any assurance that you will make those facts based on real facts and real science? >> That's a good and fair question, and honesty and integrity in that process is required. And if the facts justify a position on one side or the other on a case, I would try to 4:21:21 PM utilize those facts in an honest and appropriate way. I've not -- I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it always struck me as plausible, and it's the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it. So, that's what I would hope we could see occur. >> Indeed, I'll bet you dollars against those lovely krispy kreme doughnuts we have out back that if you went down to the university of Alabama and if you talked to the people who fish out of mobile, they had already seen the changes in the ocean. They'd be able to measure the ph changes and they'd know the acid is happening, and there is no actual dispute about that except in the politics of Washington, D.C. >> I recognize the great interest in time and you've committed to the issue and I value your opinion. >> I do come from an ocean state, and we do measure the rise in the sea level and we measure the warming of naraganset bay and we measure the ph. 4:22:22 PM It's serious for us, senator. Thank you. My time has expired. >> Thank you. >> Now it looks like it will be senator from Texas, and senator from Texas, I'm going to step out for a minute. And when your eight minutes are up, would you call on senator kobachar? >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I want to congratulate you on making it through a lengthy hearing and then performing admirably. And I think your performance today has reassured this committee and even more importantly has given comfort to the American people that you will be an attorney general who will faithfully apply the law without partiality, without partisan lens, but with fidelity to the constitution and the laws of the United States. I also want to do something I don't do very often, which is I want to commend the Democrats on this committee for, I think, showing admirable restraint. At the beginning of this hearing 4:23:23 PM I had concerns that it would turn ugly with accusations that don't belong in this hearing. And I think my friends on the democratic side of the aisle have largely restrained from that, and I commend them for that. I would note that in the recesses of the internet and in some of the groups that are speaking on this nomination and, indeed, in the view of some of the protesters who have made their voices heard today, there have been racial charges raised and, indeed, some of the protesters have chanted kkk. And you and I have both talked about this a number of times. That is one of the easiest charges for someone to make when they don't have an argument on the merits when they don't have the facts behind them. And it is a particularly hurtful argument that can be directed at someone particularly when it's countered by the facts. 4:24:24 PM And what I want to focus on principally in this round is spending a little bit of time highlighting an aspect of your record, which is your involvement in the prosecution of Henry Hayes, a member of the Ku klux Klan which I expect few watching this hearing have ever heard of. It is striking and highly revealing. So, I'd like to walk through some of the facts. I know you're very familiar with them but I suspect some of the folks at home watching this hearing may not be. In 1981 in mobile, Alabama, the Ku klux klam ordered the murder of a random African-American man, Michael done kanl. Kk members Henry Hayes and James tiger Knowles abducted afternoon cann American Michael Duncan. They beat him, they strangled him, they cut his throat and they hung him from a tree, 4:25:25 PM absolutely shameful and disgraceful. You were U.S. Attorney at the time. Your office along with the FBI, along with the local district attorney investigated the murder. Department of justice attorneys Barry Kowalski and Burt Blan worked on the case. When asked about your work on this case, Mr. Glenn testified that, quote, during the entire course of the investigations, he, meaning sessions, has provided unqualified support and cooperation to us and independently as an individual who absolutely wanted to see that crime solved and prosecuted. Is that accurate, senator sessions? >> I think it is, yes. That's exactly what I intended to do. It actually occurred before I became United States attorney. Wrong group of people had been indicted in state court that complicated matters. Case was not making the kind of 4:26:26 PM progress it needed to make. And, so, we had a discussion. And we invited civil rights division attorneys, Burt Glenn and Barry Kowalski, both of which were exceptionally fine, and along with assistant Thomas figures in my office, broke that case and I thought they deserve a great deal of credit. But I was with them. I was in the grand jury with them. I called the grand jury at their convenience whenever they wanted to come to the state, actually use an impanelled a special grand jury so they could be called when they desired it. It had already been called for another special purpose, but we add that had to their purpose so they had the flexibility. And it was I thought a brilliantly conducted investigation. I guess Barry Kowalski was the lead attorney in it. >> Now, Bobby eddy who is the chief investigator for the mobile county district attorney's office, he testified, quote, without his, meaning 4:27:27 PM sessions' cooperation, the state could not have proceeded against Henry Hayes on the capital murder charge. Chris galanos who is the mobile county district attorney in 1981 stated, quote, we needed some horsepower which the feds through Jeff sessions provided. Specifically, we needed the investigative power of the FBI and the power of the federal grand jury. I reached out to him, sessions, and he responded, quote, tell me what you need and you'll have it. And, indeed, your office prosecuted Hayes' accomplice in federal court where he pleaded guilty. And Mr. Eddy testified that tiger Knowles, the accomplice, pled guilty on a civil rights violation and received a life sentence, the highest sentence he could receive under federal law in federal prison. And he continued to say, Henry Hayes was tried in state court by Mr. Galanos' office and found guilty and sentenced to die in the electric chair. And this made Hayes the first 4:28:28 PM white man executed in Alabama for murdering a black person since 1913. When you were the attorney general of Alabama, you later argued to uphold Hayes' death penalty and in 1997, five months after you joined this body as a senator, Hayes died in Alabama's electric chair. And I would note not only that, not only did you assist in the prosecution of the face of evil, the Ku klux Klan murderer who saw ultimate justice, but as it so happened, you also prosecuted Hayes' father, kkk grand titan, Benny jack Hayes who order his son to kill an African-American and you prosecuted him for attempting to defraud his home insurer in order to collect money to pay for his son's legal defense. Is that correct? >> That is correct. 4:29:30 PM >> And beyond that, your office cooperated with Morris des and the southern poverty law center to bring a suit against the kkk and he explained, quote, after the criminal case was over, the poverty law center took the evidence we developed and gave to them and they sued civilly and got a $7 million verdict on behalf of Ms. Donald. And the $7 million civil judgment against the kkk in Alabama bankrupted the Klan, leading to its demise in the state. Is that correct? >> That's essentially correct, yes. In fact, they sold the Klan headquarters to help satisfy the judgment. >> Well, I would say, senator sessions, it's easy for people reading things on the internet to believe whatever is raised and passions get hot. And I know the protesters who stand up and chant kkk, they in all likelihood believe what they're saying because they're reading and being encouraged on the internet. But I have not seen any 4:30:31 PM appointee to the cabinet, Democrat or Republican, who has a record like you do of prosecuting klans men, putting them on death row, bankrupting them and putting them out of business, and doing so as you had, I tell you, I admire your doing so. And I'll issue a challenge to our friends in the news media. I noticed every time a protester jumped up, all the photographers took pictures of the protesters. I suspect we're going to see them in all the papers. I would encourage the news media, cover this story. Tell the story on the 6 o'clock news about Jeff sessions helping prosecute a klans man who murdered an African-American man and helped bankrupt him, helping bankrupt the Klan in Alabama. I thank you for your record, I thank you for your service. >> Thank you, senator Cruz. I would say it has been very 4:31:34 PM disappointing and painful to have it suggested I think the Klan was okay when we did everything possible to destroy and defeat and prosecute Klan members who were involved in this crime. And it was a good joint effort. I was supportive of it every step of the way and some great lawyers worked very hard on it. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [4:31:59 PM] Senator sessions, just this week, back page.com announced it was taking down the adult services section of its website. Senator Koran and I led the bill on the judiciary committee. You contributed to it which we appreciated. And we also had work by senator portman and senator mccast kell and others on this issue. We had 48 arrests around the towns in Minnesota alone where back page was part of the operation. So, this was a good result. They took the fifth today in front of home land security while you were testifying. But I wanted to know what your plans would be, the justice department finally came out with the national strategy and sex trafficking which is part of our bill. And, so, will be in your hands if you are confirmed as attorney general to implement. Could you just give me your thoughts on this issue? >> Well, I'm glad that the entire nation seems to be giving priority to this. A lot of great people have given real focus to the problem of sex trafficking and the degradation and destruction that results from it. So, I think it would be a firm and important part of the department of justice's priorities. And I would look forward to following up on the legislative successes and other things that are happening to see if we can't make a real impact against this abominable practice. >> I will say attorney general lynch and prosecutors have worked on this and would be good to talk to them as well. Senator Lee and I have been in charge of the committee. We rotate who is in charge as ranking member. I care a lot about this. We're in the mid of a merger wave between 2010 and 2015, the number of mergers reported to the government increased over 50% from 716 to 1,801, and over the last 18 months we've seen substantial mergers in pharmaceutical, agriculture, cable, insurance, beer. [4:34:10 PM] Recently across the political spectrum, there's been a lot of concern about concentration because you need to have an even playing field if competition is going to flourish and that means that's better for consumers if you have strong competition. Will you commit to making vigorous antitrust enforcement a priority, kind of a sideline to that, there's some concern based on some of the statements from the president-elect that maybe certain companies or industries could be targeted depending on if they're in favor or not. These are not statements that you have made. Could you comment about Independence of the attorney general when it comes to considering these cases? >> The antitrust policies of the United States have to be consistent and as clear as possible. As you know, that's not always as easy as some people might think. I could say with confidence that you and senator Lee, as leaders I believe on the antitrust subcommittee, I know you are, have been more attune to the details and the special issues that are involved in that section of the department of justice. So, we would work resolutely on it. I have no hesitation to enforce antitrust law. I have no hesitation to say certain mergers should not occur and there will not be political influence in that process. >> Thank you. I'm going to put a series of other questions on the record. One is on synthetic drugs. We're working hard, senator grassley and I have long worked on this issue with senator Feinstein and senator graham. And we have a new bill that we're working on to make it easier to go after synthetic drugs and maybe on the record we could get your comments on that. Drug courts, again, one of my top priorities, I think that they worked very well in jurisdictions that are devoted to seeing themselves not just as businesses that want to see repeat customers, but getting people off of the treadmill of crime and drugs. [4:36:29 PM] And then a very Minnesota focused issue, Minnesota was -- just got a designation called tied up for high intensity drug trafficking, a lot based on Hearn and opiate addictions we've seen. Somehow it was set up so the money came through Wisconsin. Do you know anything about the vikings-packers rivalry? It makes our sheriffs concerned. I thought I would maybe on the record, again, I'm not going to get into detail, discuss this with you on the record and ask you some questions about making sure we get our due for the funding for Minnesota. But the last thing I want to talk about was just the refugee issue. We have the biggest somali population in the country. Our U.S. Attorney and the justice department have done an excellent job in taking on some ISIS cases as well as Al shabab cases, dozens of cases that have been successfully prosecuted. And I know that work will continue. But what I am -- want that work to continue. We also have the vast majority of them are law abiding, an important part of our community. And as a you know, there has been a lot of anti-muslim rhetoric out there. I heard the story in Minneapolis of a family that went out to eat. They lived in our town forever. They had two little kids and they go out to eat. This guy walks by and looks at them, and says, you four go home. You go home to where you came from. And the little girl looks up at her mom and she says, mom, I don't want to go home. You said we could eat out tonight. And you think of the words of that innocent child, she only knows one home and that's my state. She only knows one home. And that's America. So, a big part of the job of the attorney general to me is not just enforcing those laws as we have in our state against terrorist activities, but it is also protecting the innocent among us. I wonder if you could close your questions for me by commenting about your view of how you would uphold all of our nation's laws, the basic value of religious freedom, but also the protection of people from larger crimes than the remark I just talked about, but actually bullying and those kind of things because I just think it has no place in our country. [4:38:53 PM] >> Thank you. That is an important principle that you THA you've touched on, which is the principle that in America, you're free to exercise your religious beliefs as you deem fit as long as it doesn't violate established law that would be important. So, we have that provided for in the constitution. We can establish a religion and we can't prohibit free exercise. And I believe by and large overwhelmingly, Americans value that principle and support it. And we should always hold it high and we should not back away from it. And that includes Muslim friends and neighbors as well as any other religion. And you are right, overwhelmingly, there is not violence and radicalism among our Muslim friends and neighbors and we should not ever think that and treat people in a discriminatory basis. When people apply to come to the country, it is appropriate, I believe, to vet them from countries that may have had a history of violence to be careful about who we admit because basically the admission process is a process to -- that should serve the national interest. That's sort of my view about it. I believe it's an acceptable and good view and would try to carry that out. But the decision about admitting and not admitting is really not the attorney general's view -- decision at all. It is the state department's and it is the policy, the president and the state department. And, so, we would just simply make sure if it's done, it's done in a proper fashion and not unlawfully. >> Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also have some statistics on immigration and response to some of the first exchanges that senator sessions and I had about what Minnesota -- the business economic value of immigrants in our community. I'll just put that on the record later, so, thank you. [4:40:56 PM] Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, thanks to senator grassley and senator Mcconnell, I now find myself as a member not only of this committee, but also the intelligence committee for which I'm grateful. One reason why I thought it was so important for another member of the senate judiciary committee to get on the intelligence committee is because while the intelligence committee conducts a lot of the oversight, it's the judiciary committee that confers the authorities on our intelligence officials and law enforcement officials to do what they do. My hope is that during this process where we're coming off a very contentious election, that our colleagues across the aisle will join us in making sure that the new president has his national security cabinet members at least confirmed on an expedited basis. Of course, I would include the office of attorney general as one of those. As you know, the attorney general and the department's national security division work with members of the intelligence community and help over see the collection of foreign intelligence information. I know earlier senator Leahy and perhaps senator Lee asked you a little bit about about the usa freedom act and the national security agency. But I want to highlight something you're well aware of, and that's the sunsetting of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. According to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board which congress appropriately appointed to oversee the activities of the intelligence community, section 702, which will expire at the end of this year, has been responsible for disrupting more than 100 known terrorist plots, including the New York subway bomb plot in 2009 and other plots outside the United States. As I said, if we don't act by the end of the year, that authority will expire. [4:43:00 PM] I think we are fortunate on the judiciary committee to also have in addition to our other colleagues senator Feinstein, who has until recently served as the ranking member on the senate intelligence committee, and now of course she's ranking here. And I hope she, along with chairman grassley, will make sure that all of the committee members are thoroughly briefed and comfortable with the re-authorization of section 702 and to make it one of our highest priorities this year. In addition to section 702, as you know, there are other legal and policy challenges that you're going to face as the next attorney general. Our national security investigators and law enforcement officers are facing incredible challenges, many of them technical challenges like growing encryption of communications, whether it's hardware or software. We saw that being relevant to what happened in San Bernardino where the FBI had to pay third parties a substantial amount of money to get at the communications contained in the telephones of the actors in the San Bernardino attacks or in Garland, and my home state of Texas where the last time the FBI director came before this committee said there were still a multitude of communications on the devices of the two shooters in Garland that they still had not been able to get access to. So, the FBI director said this is a part of the trade craft now of terrorists and he referred to it as going dark. And thankfully, chairman grassley held a hearing on that just this last year. We know there are other statutes, including the electronic communications privacy act, things like the electronic communications -- the so-called Ector fix which would allow the use of national security letters to get ip addresses, not content, without a warrant. [4:45:06 PM] But ip addresses or meta data which is important to these national security investigations. I think I know the answer to this, but as attorney general, I just would like your verbal commitment here to continue to do what you have always done, and that's put the safety and security of the American people first and you'll continue to work with us in a cooperative fashion to make sure that all the needs of all the stakeholders are being met, including the brave men and women who defend us each and every day in the intelligence and law enforcement community. Will you do that? >> I will, senator konan. Thank you for your hard work and leadership on these important issues. >> Let me ask you about the freedom of information act. I don't know whether senator grassley had a chance to ask you about this or not. As you may know, senator grassley and I -- excuse me, Leahy and I are kind of the odd couple on freedom of information act reforms. As a conservative, I've always felt that the best antidote to abuse or waste is sunlight where possible. And you don't have to pass another law or another regulation where people change their behavior because they know people are watching. And senator Leahy and I have worked closely together to see a number of reforms passed and signed into law, many of which I know you have supported and consulted with us on. It's not a blank slate. It's sometimes you have to be careful about disclosing information that ought not to be public information or as law enforcement sensitive or classified or the like. But I just would hope that you would continue to work with us and I'm confident you will. But I'd like to get your verbal commitment to continue to work with us to make sure that the public's right to know is protected. I'm not suggesting that the public has a right to know everything because, frankly, as I said, classified law enforcement sensitive information needs to be protected for important policy reasons. [4:47:15 PM] But will you continue to work with us to make sure that we protect the public's right to know to the extent feasible? >> I will, senator konan. And I value your judgment and insight on this important issue. And I appreciate your work. >> Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I move on in my questions, I'd like to respond very briefly to what senator Cruz said earlier. It is important, in my view, that the members of this committee get clarity with regard to the nominees' record. That's our job. And it's important. Now, let's be clear. Senator sessions said in his questionnaire that he, quote, personally handled four civil rights cases. Some of the lawyers who worked on those cases disputed that characterization and senator sessions himself, after his questionnaire was in, felt a need to file a supplement in which he clarified that he merely provided, quote, assistance and guidance to civil rights division attorneys on these four cases. Now, if that's a distinction without a difference, I'm not sure why senator sessions felt the need to clarify. But I want to move on. Senator sessions, in late November, president-elect trump tweeted, quote, in addition to winning the electoral college in a land slide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. Now, let's be clear, president-elect trump lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes. So, what he's saying here is that more than 2.8 fraudulent votes were cast. [4:49:20 PM] Do you agree with president trump that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in the presidential election? >> Senator fra nke N, I don't know what the president-elect meant or was thinking when he made that comment or what facts he may have had to justify his statement. I would just say that every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it. And I do believe we regularly have fraudulent activities occur during elections cycles. >> Well, department of justice is tasked with protecting voting rights and prosecuting fraud. So, if millions upon millions of fraudulent votes were cast, I would imagine that the next attorney general would be quite concerned about that. Did the president-elect tell you anything about what caused him to come to this conclusion? >> I have not talked to him about that in any depth or particularly since the election. >> Uh-huh. So, he didn't share any evidence of voter fraud with you? Because I would imagine as the man that he wants to make responsible for combatting fraud at the ballot box, that he would want to make sure that you had all the evidence necessary to take action and to protect the vote so he didn't do that evidently. Before I move on, I should note for the record that state election and law enforcement officials surveyed in mid December found virtually no credible reports of fraud among the nearly 138 million votes that were cast, and no states reported indications of any widespread fraud. What is truly troubling about this, I believe, are these bogus claims of voter fraud. They're routinely used to justify voter suppression. [4:51:20 PM] And thanks to the supreme court's disastrously -- decided Shelby county decision which gutted the voting rights act, it is easier than ever before for states to take -- make it harder for people to vote. Now, senator sessions, you have a complicated history with the voting rights act. Ten years ago when voting rights was a bipartisan issue, you voted to reauthorize the voting rights act. Everyone did, passed 98-0. But you have also called the voting rights act, quote, an intrusive piece of legislation. You have complained that the acts clearance requirement unfarley targeted certain states. You said there is, quote, little present-day evidence that state and local officials restrict access to the franchise. You said that the voting rights act has, quote, eliminated that discrimination. Well, senator, after the Shelby county decision which you celebrated, states began testing the limits of what they could do. And in many cases, citing the risk of so-called voter fraud as a justification for their actions. Now, that's what happened in North Carolina, for example, just a few months after Shelby county, a state enacted one of the strictest voter id laws and enacted restrictions without any evidence, the state described these changes necessary to prevent fraud. Well, the courts disagreed. North Carolina's restrictions were challenged and in July the fourth circuit found the primary purpose of the restrictions wasn't to fight fraud, but to make it harder for black people to vote. Here is what the court said. And I quote. The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision. They constitute inept remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, propose cures for problems that did not exist. [4:53:28 PM] Senator, do you still believe that there is little present day evidence of states restricting access to the franchise? And if you do, what do you think the fourth circuit got wrong when it found that north Carolina targeted black voters with almost surgical precision? Do you accept that north Carolina was targeting African-American voters, but not believe that it was engaging in discriminatory conduct? >> Well, you cannot create laws designed to inhibit the right of any class of citizens to vote. And, so, if the fourth circuit found that and there is a factual basis to support it, then any law that's passed would be subject to being either eliminated or altered. So, I support your concern that laws of this kind cannot be used for that purpose. I do believe not long ago the supreme court did uphold voter id laws, but there are ways to do it and ways probably you cannot do it. So, I am not familiar with the details of the North Carolina law. But you are correct, any finding that's sustainable that there is a racial animus in the passing of a law that would restrict voting, that law is -- could be unsustainable. >> Now, North Carolina is one of the states that would have been covered by preclearance, was it not? >> North Carolina states would be. >> It would have been. >> I would just suggest that section 2 allows all the remedies, and that's what I suppose they filed the action under in this case. It just not a preclearance question, and that preclearance policy is intrusive. [4:55:33 PM] And as the supreme court has said -- and I didn't mean that in any pejorative way. I was asked, do you believe it's intrusive, is that correct? I said it is intrusive. But the voting -- it said this is 1986. But the voting rights act was absolutely essential to avert the problem - >> Announcer: This is CNN breaking news. >> We're going to break away from the confirmation hearings for some breaking news on the Charleston church massacre trial. The jury has returned to the courtroom and delivered a sentence for the murderer dylann roof, they have sentenced him to death. Roof represented himself during the penalty phase after being convicted of murdering nine innocent people at the Emmanuel African methodist episcopal church after bible study in June 2015. During closing arguments roof an avowed white supremacist tells the jury he, quote, had to do it. Dylann roof has been sentenced to death. Now let's go back to the confirmation hearings. >> Carolina where African Americans' votes were suppressed. That's why you need preclearance. And as soon as Shelby came down, you saw Texas, you saw north Carolina go oh, good. Now we can suppress votes. That is the reason you have preclearance, and that is the reason that you can't rely on the district court or the circuit courts to rule. >> Mr. Chairman, I voted a few years ago for the voting rights act extension for 25 years. It included preclearance in it. We all knew at that time that the supreme court would probably take up a case before long that would have wrestled with the question of whether there is a sufficient basis for the extraordinary remedy of requiring only a few states in the country to have every, even ministerial act like moving a voting precinct to seek the permission of the department of justice first. [4:57:56 PM] The supreme court found that that no longer could be justified. The supreme court decided that we should not have -- did not have to have preclearance. But section 2 of the voting rights act allows these kind of challenges that senator Franken is talking about. That's what was brought in north Carolina. That is what is being litigated today. The court did, in fact, find the voter id law was improper as I understand it. So, I believe we proceeded in a lawful fashion, and I did feel in one sense that it was a good feeling that the supreme court had concluded, had been substantial improvement in our area of the country, the south of the country in voting rights, sufficient that section 5 could no longer be justified. But I voted for it. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. As justice Ginsburg said, an umbrella means you don't get wet when it's raining and you don't take the umbrella away. >> In the record, a letter that I just today received in support of senator sessions' nomination from the national shooting sports foundation. Senator? Without objection. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Sara root case. I know you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sara root was a woman who was killed a year ago this month in Omaha. She had just graduated from college and she was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believe this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in the past. He was an illegal immigrant. He ran into her car, killed her right after her graduation. He was detained by Omaha police. They ultimately notified the department of home land security, this guy is a flight risk. [4:59:57 PM] He was able to post a fairly insignificant bond and he disappeared. The department of home land security did nothing to detain the guy despite the fact that the Douglas county sheriff and the Omaha police department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it wasn't an enforcement priority. I don't want to hold you to specifics on this case here, but I want to get your pledge in this context. I want to hear you talk generally about the coordination between state and local law enforcement on illegal immigration activities and in particular in cases where serious crimes have been committed. But I wonder if you would pledge now that if I send you a letter the day after you are confirmed, would you give expeditious aa tension to responding to some of these details about how enforcement priorities are set inside the federal government? >> Thank you, senator sass. I certainly will, and it does represent important failures that we've seen too often in our system today. >> Do you have any top line thoughts on the way, local and state officials interact with federal officials on immigration it' raining and you don't take the umbrella away. >> In the record, a letter that I just today received in support of senator sessions' nomination from the national shooting sports foundation. Senator? Without objection. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Sara root case. I know you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sara root was a woman who was killed a year ago this month in Omaha. She had just graduated from college and she was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believe this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in the past. He was an illegal immigrant. He ran into her car, killed her right after her graduation. He was detained by Omaha police. They ultimately notified the department of home land security, this guy is a flight risk. He was able to post a fairly insignificant bond and he disappeared. The department of home land security did nothing to detain the guy despite the fact that the Douglas county sheriff and the Omaha police department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it wasn't an enforcement priority. I don't want to hold you to specifics on this case here, but I want to get your pledge in this context. I want to hear you talk generally about the coordination between state and local law enforcement on illegal immigration activities and in particular in cases where serious crimes have been committed. But I wonder if you would pledge now that if I send you a letter the day after you are confirmed, would you give expeditious aa tension to responding to some of these details about how enforcement priorities are set inside the federal government? >> Thank you, senator sass. I certainly will, and it does represent important failures that we've seen too often in our system today. >> Do you have any top line thoughts on the way, local and state officials interact with federal officials on immigration cases? [5:01:03 PM] >> Well, the immigration enforcement procedures, the courts have held, are exclusively the power of the federal government. But it's also clear a state official has the right to arrest somebody for the offense of crossing the border illegally. They have the right to arrest people who have entered the country illegally or repeatedly entered the country for any kind of offense, including the offense of reentering illegally, and the system should work in a way that the federal government then evaluates whether or not they want to put a hold on in order not to release that person until they can take them and see them be deported. And it's failing in a whole number of ways. You've got the sanctuary cities who refuse to tell home land security that they've got somebody that's committed a serious crime so they can be deported. They refuse to honor detainers. On the other side we've got home land security too often having standards or failing to follow-up on serious offenses of people who should be deported. So, in both aspects I think, senator sass, I think we can do much better. And if we, this country has every right to deport persons who are here unlawfully, who violate our criminal laws in some other aspect, and they should indeed be promptly deported. >> Thank you. We'll follow-up with a letter because this guy, Edwin Mejia who killed Sara root, it was obvious to everybody engaged locally, lots of law enforcement and the family whose daughter was killed that this guy was a flight risk and everyone was screaming to the feds, please don't let this guy disappear before he can stand trial. He's now in the top 10 most wanted list and nobody thinks he's ever going to be found. Everybody believes he left the country, and this kind of case isn't an isolated case. [5:03:06 PM] It's a kind of handoff between federal and local law enforcement that could happen repeatedly if you don't have a federal government that has any clear policy. So, we'd like to -- I would like to send you a letter right after your confirmation asking for clarity about how enforcement discretion and enforcement actions are prioritized. >> And, senator sass, I would note that fundamentally, that would be a home land security issue initially. And they need to set the standards of what they should and should not do. And I would think that general Kelly would be quite willing to also talk with you about it as will I. >> I will likely be addressing the letter to both and you general Kelly. So, thank you. Completely different line of questioning. This morning you were asked some hard and appropriate questions about the responsibility of the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government. If there are cases where there might be a conflict between your oath of office to the constitution of limited government and a separation of executive and legislative authorities, and the people that you report to when you work inside an administration. You said in the course of that answer that there could ultimately be cases where someone might have to resign because they were being forced to do something that conflicted with their oath. I wonder if you could unpack that a little bit and talk about the justice department's responsibilities and attorneys general -- attorneys general past over the past few decades. Can you name instances where a resignation might be in order and what kinds of lines would you envision being crossed and ways that you as the attorney general might push back on an administration if asked to do things that you regarded as inconsistent with your oath to the constitution? >> It would be difficult to speculate on that. We saw that during the nix on administration. There could clearly be a circumstance in which there is such a relationship breach that an attorney general wouldn't be an effective member of the attorney general's administration. [5:05:11 PM] Maybe a chief executive could be correct and the attorney general could be wrong. But if attorney's duty is to give the best judgment that the attorney general can give and, therefore, if it's rejected on a very fundamental area, then that causes great concern. Maybe in another area of less importance you could afford to disagree. But I just think that that result should be very rare, has not happened very often in the history of this country. Actually, I can only know of one. And, therefore, the reason is that usually the chief executive -- and I would expect with president trump, that when confronted or advised that certain policies are not acceptable, would accept that advice. I'm confident that he would. But you raise a hypothetical and I've at least given you my thoughts about it. >> Just to conclude, because I'm inside my last minute. But going back to the connection between this question and the olc line of questioning that senator Lee posed this morning, if a head of olc, the assistant attorney general from olc was coming to you and saying, I've been asked to try to justify a certain position, I've been asked to write a memo to support this position and I don't think we can get there, I don't think that the department of justice has considered wisdom and insight into the law that we can ultimately write the memo that will authorize certain actions, how do you as the attorney general envision that conversation going? Just tell us the parts between an olc, an attorney general's office, and the white house. >> Well, attorney general mukasey who I think is still here, yes, I'm honored to have here today. He issued a memorandum about how the communications could be effectively carried out. [5:07:11 PM] And it restricted communications from the political officials to the justice department in a way that guaranteed integrity. But there is nothing wrong, as I understand it, for -- through the proper chain of command that a request for an olc opinion on a certain subject, there is nothing wrong with the white house asking for that. Indeed, you want that. You don't want the white house acting. You want him to seek legal advice. And generally, historically things get sort of worked out. If the olc comes back and says, Mr. President, you can do this but you can't do it this way, maybe you can do it that way, maybe it won't give you everything you want, but that's safe, that's legal. That's within the realm of action that the president can take. This, we believe, is not. And usually having an attorney general who has the confidence of the president, who the president knows was giving him the best advice, also advising him what he cannot do, which is part of good advice, is the way it's historically resulted. And you need the best lawyers and you need to be very careful because these things set precedence. They also can result in lawsuits in all kind of controversy that should not happen as a result of a bad olc opinion. >> Thank you. The stewardship of the integrity of that office is critically important. Thank you for your forthrightness. >> Thank you, chairman grassley. Senator sessions. To return to an issue -- >> Announcer: This is CNN breaking news. CNN BREAKS INTO SESSIONS HEARING WITH SPECIAL REPORT [5:09:12 PM] >> That's right, wolf. A CNN exclusive, CNN has learned that the nation's top intelligence officials provided information to president-elect Donald Trump and to president Barack Obama last week about claims of Russian efforts to compromise president-elect trump. >> We'll follow-up, and await the reaction of the trump transition right now. Good, good work indeed. I want to return right now to our coverage of the dramatic confirmation hearings continuing right now for the attorney general nominee senator Jeff sessions. Let's go back to the senate judiciary committee. >> The Alabama Republican party vice chairman, even though you're from the same party. So, it seems to me that your history shows that you can make those kinds of judgment calls and do what the job demands. I already know the answer to this question because I've seen it in your record and because I've known and worked with you for a number of years, but I ask anyway. Again, if you are confirmed, will you commit to enforce and defend the laws and the constitution of the united States regardless of your personal and philosophical views on the matter? [5:21:40 PM] >> I will, senator. I would note on the death penalty case, my appellate lawyers gave me a little briefing of the cases that were coming up. And they had they'd say, we'll be defending this death case, but we are probably going to lose. I said, why are we going to lose? They said it didn't have the aggregating -- aggravating factor you needed to carry out a death penalty. I said, we can't go before the supreme court and argue for a death penalty if it doesn't meet the standard for death penalty. To which the lawyer said, well, the local people are really fired up about it and we usually just do what they want. And let the court decide. I said, no, we shouldn't do that. That turned out to be an easy decision to make that day. But when I was running for the United States senate maybe a year later, I became one of the biggest ads and biggest attacks on me that I failed to defend the jury conviction for murder in this county. But you just have to do your -- you have to do the right thing. And some of these other cases reflect the same thing. Indeed, this insurance commissioner, the case was taken by the governor's team to the state da who prosecuted the case and convicted the man, but it was reversed on appeal by finding by the court of appeals that he didn't commit a crime, just like we had concluded originally. So, these are tough calls. Sometimes I've not always made them right, but I do believe you have to put the law first, senator Crapo, and I have tried to do that, tried to teach my people that. And none of us are perfect, but we should strive to get it right every time. >> Well, thank you, Jeff. I knew that answer as I said, before I asked the question. But one of the other senators here today said it is important to get your record out and I think it is important to get your record correctly understood. And I think that there unfortunately is too much inaccurate reporting about your record. [5:23:47 PM] Another instance in that context, as you know, I am the Republican sponsor of the violence against women act that we passed recently here in the U.S. Senate and the congress. You have been criticized for not supporting that act, but I want to give you a chance again to correct the record and to fully state the record. If I understand it right, you voted for the original and supported the re-authorization of that act, at least twice, and that your objection to the act that did pass this last time, the re-authorization, was not at all based on the question of whether to have the statute in place. It was, instead, based on an issue with regard to jurisdiction on tribal lands and other related matters. Could you again restate position on the issue? >> Well, thank you, senator Crapo. You know, I came here as a lawyer, tried to conduct myself properly and consider what some might consider legal technicalities, but I think are pretty important. The bill, as I understood it, was controversial primarily because of this situation in which a non-tribal member could be tried in a tribal court which apparently, I think, it's fair to say is not constructed in a way that's consistent with the constitution, and that we have never done this before. And, so, eight of the nine Republicans on the judiciary committee concluded that this was not appropriate. So, by voting against that version of the violence against women's act, if it had failed, we would not then, I'm confident, not had a bill. We would have been able to pass a violence against women act that didn't have that provision in it. So, that's sort of where we were in the political process. And one of the bad things about modern American politics is if you take that position, you're not portrayed as being wrong on the tribal issue, you're portrayed as being against a bill that would protect women from violence. [5:25:55 PM] And I think that is unfair and thank you for giving me the chance to respond. >> Well, thank you. And I appreciate that, and I can again confirm because, as I said, I am the Republican sponsor of that bill. And that description you have given is exactly one of just a couple issues which were being seriously litigated, if you will, here, and which we were trying to resolve. And those of you who took that position, again, were not in any way objecting to the act. You had multiple times before supported it, and you were trying to help resolve one specific issue on the bill. And, so, I just want to clarify that with you and again get the record straight about where you stand on the issue. I see my time is pretty much gone. Mr. Chairman, I won't go to my next question. >> Before I call on senator Blumenthal, out of consideration for you, I want to explain what I think we have left here. If you need a break, tell me. We've got two Democrats and two Republicans to do a second round, beside the chairman, but I'm going to wait until later to do my second round. We've got two Democrats, I've been told, at least want a third round. And, so, what I would like to do is, first of all, if you need a break, we'll take a break whenever you say so now. And in the meantime, I'd like to have my colleagues be -- take into consideration something I want to do. I want everybody to get over here that wants to ask questions and I'm not going to take up anybody's time until everybody else is done, and then I want to take about maybe 15 or 20 minutes of your time to do the equivalent of a couple rounds with questions I haven't asked yet. So, what's your desire? >> I'm ready to go. >> Okay. [5:27:56 PM] >> I may take a break at some point. >> You just say when you want to take a break. >> Thank you. >> Senator Blumenthal. >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator sessions. I was pleased to hear you disavow and denounce operation rescue in response to my last question. I want to ask about a couple of other groups and individuals. In 2003, I had an event called restoration weekend. You gave a speech praising a man named David Horowitz as a man, quote, a man I admire. David Horowitz has said, among other things, that, quote, all the major Muslim organizations in America are connected to the Muslim brotherhood and, quote, 80% of the mosques are filled with hate against Americans and Jews. He made statements about African Americans, quote, too many blacks are in prison because too many blacks commit crimes. You praised him as a man I admire. That statement was omitted from your response to the committee. Did you omit it because you were embarrassed about praising David Horowitz? >> No, and I didn't know David Horowitz had made those comments. I read his brilliant book -- what's the name of it? I have a hard time remembering. But it was his transformation, having grown up in a, as he described it, communist family. He was editor of ramparts magazine, the radical magazine. And I believe radical son was the name of his book, it was a really powerful and moving story of how he moved from the unprincipled totalitarian radical left to a more traditional American person. [5:30:01 PM] I've read a number of other books, I think one of them, but he's a most brilliant individual and has remarkable story. I'm not aware of everything he's ever said or done. >> Well, these statements have been reported publicly repeatedly over many years. You first came to know him in 2003.

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Attorney General Nomination Senate Judiciary Committee Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Time: 09:30 AM Location: Russell Senate Office Building 325 Presiding: Chairman Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley R (IA) WITNESSES: The Honorable Richard Shelby United States Senator State of Alabama The Honorable Susan Collins United States Senator State of Maine PANEL I Senator Jeff Sessions Oscar Vazquez, a man who was a dreamer and wanted to serve the United States uniform. In this case involving OMAR. The American bar association standards say the duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict. It is an important function. Prosecutor to seek to reform and approve the administration of criminal justice. When it comes to cases like these, in your role as the leading prosecutor in the united States of America, what is your feeling about your discretion to make the decision as to whether or not to spare individuals like those I've described. >> I've been made aware in the last several years how this process works. It's really the secretary of state, usually through consultation with the president, that decides how many refugees should be admitted to the country. There's little congress can do other than getting into a funding argument with the president about that. Secretary Kerry met with members of the judiciary committee to announce what he planned to do on refugees. That will be how it would be decided. Legally, the president appears to have that power. But it would be my responsibility, I think, to make sure that it was exercised within the bounds of law. You oversee the immigration courts interpreted our nation's laws apply to dreamers and refugees like Mr. Mukdad, so this isn't another agency, it is the department of justice, and you will be the leader of that department and you will have the authority and prosecutorial discretion. You can't point to the state department you have a discretion within your own department. >> Well a refugee is admitted to the United States by the approval or non-approval of -- it's not a trial or litigation. So that's how it's determined. The gentleman from Syria that you mentioned should be able to make a strong case for his acceptance as a refugee because he's been damaged and injured and attacked and at risk for his writings, so that would give him proving that should put him at a higher level of potential acceptance. >> You and I can disagree on this one point in your authority over the courts as attorney general but I hope we both agree there are compelling cases of victims around the world of terrorism, war, diskrimmation and maltreatment, men and women, an many of them look to the United States as the last possible place for them to find safety and security. I hope after the heated language of this last election campaign that we can come back to some of the standards that have guided this nation since worl war II. [3:28:48 PM] >> We need to make sure those who have been admitted have been properly vetted and are not a danger. >> Thank you. >> This is what I would like to do. The votes kind of made this a convoluted round. We have one person with a round and one person not without his first round and then senator sessions would like to take a break. Here is what I would like to do senator sessions if it's okay with you, I want to go with senator hatch. Senator Feinstein for their second rounds and senator Kennedy for his first round and give you a short break at that point. Is that okay? >> That would be good. Thank you. >> Okay. For the benefit of the rest of you, I kind of got lost out of this but I've got to be here for the rest of the meeting where maybe some of you don't have to be so I'll do any second, third an fourth round after everybody else is gone. >> Is that nice? >> Okay. [ Laughter ] >> Senator -- >> I think it's hatch. >> Senator hatch. Yes. >> Senator sessions, I think you have done a terrific job. I've known you all your 20 years, I've watched you work diligently on the judiciary committee and on your other committees as well. You're an honest, decent man and you have tremendous abilities in law enforcement and you are proving it here today and showing it here today. It's hard for me to understand why anybody would be against you. I want to emphasize that you have wide support for your appointment among law enforcement including the national sheriff's association, national district attorneys association, the national association of police organization, national organization of assistant attorneys, the international union police associations and major city chiefs of police. [3:30:59 PM] I'm not sure I've seen anybody that had all that kind of massive support for this position. Now I draw attention to this for an important reason. This agreement about political or policy positions are one thing. But, accusations about your commitment to fairness or suggestions that you're not sensitive to race is another. With these law enforcement organizations enthusasticly support someone who is biased? Of course not. >> Especially without any evidence to support them whatsoever are not simply attacks on senator sessions they are also smears against organizations like these which have similar needs, the record and found senator sessions worthy of support so I'm grateful to you and for your willingness to take this on. Knowing that you might be smeared by certain organizations. It takes some guts to do this, but we all know you have guts. We all know that you believe in what you are doing. We all know that you have a tremendous integrity. We all know that you have tremendous intellectual ability as well. And even though you and I have disagreed on issues that are important to both of us, you have always acted with distinction and fairness and decency and I would expect you to do the same thing as attorney general of the United States. One thing I know, you would be giving it's everything you have and that's a lot. You have a lot to give. Let me just say this morning one of my democratic colleagues said that the standard for evaluating your nomination is whether you will "Enforce the law fairly, evenly, without personal bias" do you agree that the attorney general has a duty to do that? [3:33:09 PM] >> As a core responsibility of attorney general absolutely. >> I have no doubt you will live up to that. No doubt whatsoever. I think everybody should have to agree with that. The real question is how we can be confident that you will fulfill that responsibility an most of the comments this morning were about comments you made, positions you took or cast as senator on legislative issues and some of these questions suggested that you could not enforce a law that you had not voted for or you would not enforce a law or policy that you might have questioned or personally disagreed with. I personally categorically reject that and you have too, is that correct? >> That is correct. >> You're darn right it is. Some of my friends would also reject the suggestion that a liberal could not be impartial. I think liberals can be impartial. >> I do too, senator hatch. And some people -- I don't think it would be hard for me to be impartial and to enforce laws that I didn't vote for. I just don't think that's going to be -- I think I can separate my personal votes of maybe years ago from what my responsibility is today and I hope that my colleagues can believe that. >> Well the answer to the question whether you can as attorney general enforce the laws fairly, evenly and without personal bias it's a resounding yes, you can and anybody who disagrees with that hasn't been listening, observed you over the last twenty years or any time over the last 20 years, there's not a shred of evidence of your entire record to undermine that conclusion. The fact that you have already served in both the executive and legislative branches strengthen even further your commitment to the duty of fairness and impartiality. [3:35:22 PM] Seems to me it does. Am I right? >> Well, thank you, yes. I do believe I've conducted myself according to principals that I think are valid and try to be consistent and honest in my evaluation of the many complex issues that we have here. Sometimes good people can certainly disagree on them. >> Anybody should know that's true. Now the justice department has a duty to defend in court the laws enacted by congress. As a member of this committee for 20 years you had heard attorney general nominees pro Fess their commitment to fulfill that duty regardless of politics, in my opinion the justice department under the outgoing administration renigged and made decisions rather than legal grounds. How important is it to commit to legal statutes even as a legislature you would oppose those? >> Senator hatch, you have been through many of these issues and I certainly do respect your judgment but I do believe that the lawyer for the congress, the lawyer for the United States that represents the united States government in court should be the lawyer that defends an act lawfully passed in congress wherever it's reasonable argument can be made and I commit to you I will do that. >> I believe you and I know that's true. And I have a rough time seeing why anybody would find any real flaws or fault with your nomination. I just want to personally thank you for being willing to go through this, were your willingness to be able to do this and for your integrity that you have shown and exhibited and demonstrated over the last 20 years. I can personally testify about you and about what a fine really good person you are. [3:37:24 PM] And we've differed on some pretty important issues from time to time. I have respect for you because you stand up for what you believe however wrong you may have been. [ Laughter ] >> I heard my wife laugh. >> Well, I have a lot of respect for you and I hope that the rest of this proceeding goes really well and that we can get you confirmed as soon as possible because I know you will do a terrific job and I'm very proud of you for being willing to do this. >> I'm honored to have your support. >> You have it. >> Senator Feinstein. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. To begin I would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements sent to the committee concerning senator sessions be made part of the record and I have testimony and letters. >> Without objection, so ordered. >> Thank you very much. Senator sessions, when I was a small child it was during world War two and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called tanferan and had become a detention camp for Japanese citizens. Thousands of families were held in this compound. And we checked with crs who says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any sabotage in the United States during that time. Senator Lee, Cruz and I have tried together to enact a bill together to ensure that no American citizen or lawful permanent residence debit detien -- detained in the united States could be held without charge or trial. Do you believe that the government can pursuant to a general authorization to use military force indefinitely detain Americans in the united States without charge or trial? [3:39:35 PM] >> Senator Feinstein, that's an important question, classically, the answer is yes, classically if you captured a German soldier they could be held until the war ended. >> I'm talking about an American. >> I hear you, so then the question is we're in a war like we have now that's gone on multiple years and I would think the principal of law certainly would appear to be valid but as reality dawns on us and wars might be even longer, you know, it's honest to discuss those issues, so I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do believe as senator graham as argued forcefully for many years that we are in a war and when members who unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to be connected to a enemy on a designated enemy of the united States, so I am probably explained more than I should, but that's basically the arguments and the issues we're facing. I respect your concerns and I'm sure they will continue to be debated the future. >> Well, let me just say a few things about that. I've served on the intelligence committee for 15 years. I read all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what's happening in the United States and this is not -- these are Americans that we're talking about that can be picked up and detained and held without -- >> You're talking about America citizens -- [3:41:39 PM] >> -- And that should not be the case. I understand your point and citizens of the United States have certain important rights they cannot be aggregated. They cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review and the government surely has to prove that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action against the united States or they couldn't be detained. >> Well, I appreciate that. Let me go into another subject. You were one of nine senators to vote against the detainee treatment act of 2005. It prohibited the imposition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. Personnel. You also voted against an amendment sponsored by senator McCain in the 2016 defense authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the army field manual which does not include waterboarding. Do you agree that the CIA's former enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding are prohibited by this provision of law as now cot field? >> It does appear to be clear that the last act McCain amendment would prohibit waterboarding. >> And you would enforce that? >> I would enforce the law, yes. >> Thank you. And my third question is -- and this was in the "Washington post," a report last night that you failed to disclose to this committee and to the office of government ethics subsurface rights to oil or other minerals on more than 600 acres in your home state some of which I gather are adjacent to a federal wildlife preserve. [3:43:51 PM] Apparently Alabama records -- and this is a quote, show that the senator leased undivided mineral interests to chief capital, a Texas firm, in 2015, do you in fact own these interests? >> Senator Feinstein I believe that so, and the way it happened was that many years ago at least 50 or more years ago, my family, ancestors sold some land and reserved mineral rights. Later there was a dam built on the river and desire to take land that was going to be flooded and add additional land for duck preserve and they negotiated and the family sold land to the government and retained the mineral rights per the agreement. At least that's my understanding, so by nonseries of events, it fell to me. I never reviewed the deeds, I don't know how much land is out there that I own mineral rights on although oil companies are pretty good about contacting owners before they drill a well, so you are correct that we reported the income on my return -- >> I saw that. >> -- As coming from the property that I own and the property where the oil well is. I did not note in that report specifically that it was oil income because the blank said royalties, but maybe -- so I would just say to you this, we absolutely -- this is something I've taken no affirmative action in, it's something I'm going to take affirmative action in. I have one of the simplest, clearest financial reports you can see. My assets and my wife's assets are most entirely vanguard funds and municipal bonds, I don't own any individual stocks, we're going to find out what we did or didn't do and correct it. [3:46:10 PM] >> Good. Thank you. >> I welcome Brand new senator Kennedy not only to this committee but to the senate as well. Senator Kennedy, you're allowed ten minutes now. >>> Good afternoon, senator. >> Good afternoon. >> My name is John Kennedy. And that's really my name. Just so you know I used to have a law partner named Jose Canseco. Caused a lot of confusion when we would go to meetings together. >> I guess. >> I have been impressed in preparing for the hearings with the deep support you enjoy from law enforcement. In fact one of my sheriff's from Louisiana, I don't know if Greg is still here, sheriff Greg shampomp came up with other sheriff's on your behalf. And I have noticed other organizations that have not always agreed on the issues. And that impressed me. I wanted to read an excerpt from the sergeants benevolent association from the NYPD, about as far as away from mobile you can get" as a union representing law enforcement officers over the years the sba, the sergeants benevolent association, as worked as both an ally and respectful opponent of senator sessions. This experience has shown us that senator sessions is a man of unquestionable integrity and devoted to the rule of law. It is for this reason and many others that we believe senator sessions is the absolute right choice to serve as America's chief law enforcement officer" and that impressed me. [3:48:26 PM] I would like to know what you as attorney general intend to do to partner with state and local law enforcement? >> That is so important and the United States attorneys throughout the country as in Louisiana and Alabama are key players in this. All United States attorneys, colleagues are funded to have law enforcement coordinating officers. I had two in my small office. We had regular meetings. In the early 80s this is when it started. The first time. So instead of having a law enforcement plan, produced in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorneys were directed to get all the federal agencies and all the state and local agencies to sit down and identify what the re -- their main threats are and direct their resources to deal with the real threats and they would be different in different districts around the country. I sense that's been eroded somewhat so we need to get back to that. The department of justice has great resources for identifying tactics and strategies that work on crime. We ought to be able to always help the state and local police officers have the best data on what works and how to create safer and better communities, the federal government cannot dictate to these agencies. It would be a disaster. They wouldn't accept it number one in any influence you might have would be eliminated. We need to be partners of federal government through its power nationally and internationally, can help local investigative agencies solve a complex criminal case that they don't have the subpoena power or Louisiana U.S. Attorney or sheriff doesn't have power to have investigations conducted in Texas or Denver, so these are the things that are all important. [3:50:29 PM] And I truly believe that from a matter of public police we need to see the big picture. And we're all in it together. We're all in it together. And 90% of the law officers in America are state and local. And they're the ones that are the eyes and ears of law enforcement so I really think senator Kennedy, you are correct that we need to do this. I think there's a feeling among law enforcement that that's not been happening sufficiently. And I sense that that's one of the -- and the fact that I think I understand that that I've had as much strong and >> You know, when a radical islamic terrorist drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we're told that we should not judge all muslims by the act of a few, and I agree with that. Don't you think the same rule ought to apply when one or two law enforcement officers make the mistake -- don't you think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9% law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day and go to work and try to protect us? >> I really do. And I think those of us in high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole departments and whole groups of people because within those, most any department you can find in America, surely most of the people are just wonderful servants, public servants trying to do the right thing. So, when we say these thing, we can increase risk for them. We can make it harder for them to have relationships with the constituents where they are serving and actually result in an increase in crime in effect I haveness in law enforcement. [3:52:34 PM] These issues, we cannot miss these issues. We cannot make a big mistake like we may be making now. So, I commit to doing my best as a law officer to engender the kind of unity and comprehensive effort, state, local, federal, that would be the most effective engine to fight crime and make our communities safer. >> In Louisiana, senator, we believe that love is the answer, but we also believe that we have the right under the constitution to own a gun just in case. Could you share with me your thoughts on the second amendment? >> Well, I do believe the second amendment is a personal right. It's a historic right of the American people and the constitution protects it. And explicitly states it. It's just as much a part of the constitution as any of the other great rights and liberties that we value. So, my record is pretty clear on that. However, if a person -- people can forfeit their right to have a gun and it can be a factor in receiving sentences and being prosecuted if you carry a gun, for example, during a commission of a crime. That can add penalty and convictions to you. I think that's a legitimate and responsible restraint on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. >> I think they believe this in Alabama, too, but Louisiana, we also believe that nothing makes it easier to resist temptation than a good upbringing, a strong set of values, and witnesses. I'd like to know your thoughts on the freedom of information act. [3:54:37 PM] >> Well, the freedom of information act is law and I would see it's carried out and the policies of the country need to be followed. >> I've got one final question. I read the inspector general's report about the department of justice. I think it came out in about the middle of 2016, last year. They talked about -- the inspector general talked about problems with the department's massive grant programs. And the inspector general said approximately $100 million over the last five years went for, quote, questionable expenditures or funds that, quote, could have been put to better use. Now, this is taxpayer money. It didn't just fall from heaven. We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets. What do you plan to do once you're confirmed -- and I believe you will be confirmed -- to help our friends at justice department prioritize their spending a little bit? >> Thank you, senator Kennedy. That report is -- raises real concerns. I believe that any responsible public official should recognize that when they obtain an ig, their own inspector general, and saying their department is not performing to high standards should listen to that report and take action and review what's happening and make sure it does not continue. The American people have no desire, and they absolutely should not have their money sent to Washington and then be wasted. We can do a lot more with the money that we have, having been ranking member of the budget committee, and I know that -- how difficult it is. [3:56:38 PM] But one way to get extra money, free money is to use the money you've got wisely for things that are valuable. >> Senator, I don't know you well, but I've followed your career with respect and admiration for a lot of years and I just wanted to tell you that. You would be a great attorney general. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Senator sessions, you asked for a short break, so, I hope maybe 15 minutes would be adequate. >> That would be adequate, absolutely. >> Senator, white house is going to be next. So, when he comes back, yes, go ahead. Senator, take your time. We stand in recess. Break >> Career attorneys to follow the policy dictates of other administrations and not holding the career people responsible for that. I'm wondering how you would react to this. Do you have a problem with career attorneys if their private religious beliefs are secular ones? And do you -- will you support the career attorneys against the pressure from the from these right wing organizations seeking to wash them out like filth, to paraphrase the heritage foundation? >> The department of justice is composed primarily of career professionals. As you know, senator wine house, you served there ably as the United States attorney. And I give them the highest 4:16:16 PM respect. Most of those attorneys reach high standards and they are willing to follow lawful orders and directions from their superiors even if they might have a different philosophy. I do think it's often they are put into non-career spots and can go back to career spots, but I don't know how exactly that works. But, so, you would normally expect -- and I'm sure the Obama administration made changes in the leadership of the department. They put career people in positions that they thought would be most advantageous for them to advance the causes they believed in. And that's sort of within the rules of the game. But the target people and to anyway demean them, if they were fine public servants and they were following the law and carrying out a legitimate policy of their supervisors would be wrong. And I think you should respect 4:17:16 PM them. I would do that. >> Does a secular attorney have anything to fear from an attorney general sessions and department of justice? >> Well, no. And I use that word in the 90,000-foot level. A little concern I have is that we as a nation, I believe, are reaching a level in which truth is not sufficiently respected, that the very ideal, the idea of truth is not believed to be real, and that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. Let's just say kind of a criticism -- we are not a theocracy. Nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson's words on the memorial over here. I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man. And I think we should respect people's views and not demand any kind of religious test for 4:18:18 PM holding office. >> And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? >> Well, I'm not sure. In what method? Is it less objectively committed to -- >> An attorney would bring to bear -- >> Let me just say, we're going to treat anybody with different views fairly and objectively. And the ideal of truth and trying to achieve the right solution to me is an important goal of the American Juris prudential system, actually the legislative system. What is the right thing, what is true and let's act on it and do the right thing. >> On the subject of what is truth, you may -- >> The age-old question. >> You may be in a position as attorney general to either enforce laws or bring actions that relate to the problem of carbon emissions and the changes 4:19:19 PM that are taking place both physically and chemically in our atmosphere and oceans as a result of the flood of carbon emissions that we've had. It is the political position of the Republican party and the senate, as I have seen it, that this is not a problem, that we don't need to do anything about it, that the facts aren't real, and that we should all do nothing whatsoever. That's the senate. You as attorney general of the United States may be asked to make decisions for our nation that require a factual predicate that you determine as the basis for making your decision. In making a decision about the facts of climate change, to whom will you turn? Will you, for instance, trust the military, all of whose branches agree that climate change is a serious problem of 4:20:20 PM real import for them? Will you trust our national laboratories, all of whom say the same? Will you trust our national science agencies -- by the way, nasa is driving a rover around on the surface of Mars right now. So, they're scientists, I think, are pretty good. I don't think there is a single scientific society, I don't think there is a single credited university, I don't think there is a single nation that denies this basic set of facts. And, so, if that situation is presented to you and you have to make a decision based on the facts, what can give us any assurance that you will make those facts based on real facts and real science? >> That's a good and fair question, and honesty and integrity in that process is required. And if the facts justify a position on one side or the other on a case, I would try to 4:21:21 PM utilize those facts in an honest and appropriate way. I've not -- I don't deny that we have global warming. In fact, the theory of it always struck me as plausible, and it's the question of how much is happening and what the reaction would be to it. So, that's what I would hope we could see occur. >> Indeed, I'll bet you dollars against those lovely krispy kreme doughnuts we have out back that if you went down to the university of Alabama and if you talked to the people who fish out of mobile, they had already seen the changes in the ocean. They'd be able to measure the ph changes and they'd know the acid is happening, and there is no actual dispute about that except in the politics of Washington, D.C. >> I recognize the great interest in time and you've committed to the issue and I value your opinion. >> I do come from an ocean state, and we do measure the rise in the sea level and we measure the warming of naraganset bay and we measure the ph. 4:22:22 PM It's serious for us, senator. Thank you. My time has expired. >> Thank you. >> Now it looks like it will be senator from Texas, and senator from Texas, I'm going to step out for a minute. And when your eight minutes are up, would you call on senator kobachar? >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I want to congratulate you on making it through a lengthy hearing and then performing admirably. And I think your performance today has reassured this committee and even more importantly has given comfort to the American people that you will be an attorney general who will faithfully apply the law without partiality, without partisan lens, but with fidelity to the constitution and the laws of the United States. I also want to do something I don't do very often, which is I want to commend the Democrats on this committee for, I think, showing admirable restraint. At the beginning of this hearing 4:23:23 PM I had concerns that it would turn ugly with accusations that don't belong in this hearing. And I think my friends on the democratic side of the aisle have largely restrained from that, and I commend them for that. I would note that in the recesses of the internet and in some of the groups that are speaking on this nomination and, indeed, in the view of some of the protesters who have made their voices heard today, there have been racial charges raised and, indeed, some of the protesters have chanted kkk. And you and I have both talked about this a number of times. That is one of the easiest charges for someone to make when they don't have an argument on the merits when they don't have the facts behind them. And it is a particularly hurtful argument that can be directed at someone particularly when it's countered by the facts. 4:24:24 PM And what I want to focus on principally in this round is spending a little bit of time highlighting an aspect of your record, which is your involvement in the prosecution of Henry Hayes, a member of the Ku klux Klan which I expect few watching this hearing have ever heard of. It is striking and highly revealing. So, I'd like to walk through some of the facts. I know you're very familiar with them but I suspect some of the folks at home watching this hearing may not be. In 1981 in mobile, Alabama, the Ku klux klam ordered the murder of a random African-American man, Michael done kanl. Kk members Henry Hayes and James tiger Knowles abducted afternoon cann American Michael Duncan. They beat him, they strangled him, they cut his throat and they hung him from a tree, 4:25:25 PM absolutely shameful and disgraceful. You were U.S. Attorney at the time. Your office along with the FBI, along with the local district attorney investigated the murder. Department of justice attorneys Barry Kowalski and Burt Blan worked on the case. When asked about your work on this case, Mr. Glenn testified that, quote, during the entire course of the investigations, he, meaning sessions, has provided unqualified support and cooperation to us and independently as an individual who absolutely wanted to see that crime solved and prosecuted. Is that accurate, senator sessions? >> I think it is, yes. That's exactly what I intended to do. It actually occurred before I became United States attorney. Wrong group of people had been indicted in state court that complicated matters. Case was not making the kind of 4:26:26 PM progress it needed to make. And, so, we had a discussion. And we invited civil rights division attorneys, Burt Glenn and Barry Kowalski, both of which were exceptionally fine, and along with assistant Thomas figures in my office, broke that case and I thought they deserve a great deal of credit. But I was with them. I was in the grand jury with them. I called the grand jury at their convenience whenever they wanted to come to the state, actually use an impanelled a special grand jury so they could be called when they desired it. It had already been called for another special purpose, but we add that had to their purpose so they had the flexibility. And it was I thought a brilliantly conducted investigation. I guess Barry Kowalski was the lead attorney in it. >> Now, Bobby eddy who is the chief investigator for the mobile county district attorney's office, he testified, quote, without his, meaning 4:27:27 PM sessions' cooperation, the state could not have proceeded against Henry Hayes on the capital murder charge. Chris galanos who is the mobile county district attorney in 1981 stated, quote, we needed some horsepower which the feds through Jeff sessions provided. Specifically, we needed the investigative power of the FBI and the power of the federal grand jury. I reached out to him, sessions, and he responded, quote, tell me what you need and you'll have it. And, indeed, your office prosecuted Hayes' accomplice in federal court where he pleaded guilty. And Mr. Eddy testified that tiger Knowles, the accomplice, pled guilty on a civil rights violation and received a life sentence, the highest sentence he could receive under federal law in federal prison. And he continued to say, Henry Hayes was tried in state court by Mr. Galanos' office and found guilty and sentenced to die in the electric chair. And this made Hayes the first 4:28:28 PM white man executed in Alabama for murdering a black person since 1913. When you were the attorney general of Alabama, you later argued to uphold Hayes' death penalty and in 1997, five months after you joined this body as a senator, Hayes died in Alabama's electric chair. And I would note not only that, not only did you assist in the prosecution of the face of evil, the Ku klux Klan murderer who saw ultimate justice, but as it so happened, you also prosecuted Hayes' father, kkk grand titan, Benny jack Hayes who order his son to kill an African-American and you prosecuted him for attempting to defraud his home insurer in order to collect money to pay for his son's legal defense. Is that correct? >> That is correct. 4:29:30 PM >> And beyond that, your office cooperated with Morris des and the southern poverty law center to bring a suit against the kkk and he explained, quote, after the criminal case was over, the poverty law center took the evidence we developed and gave to them and they sued civilly and got a $7 million verdict on behalf of Ms. Donald. And the $7 million civil judgment against the kkk in Alabama bankrupted the Klan, leading to its demise in the state. Is that correct? >> That's essentially correct, yes. In fact, they sold the Klan headquarters to help satisfy the judgment. >> Well, I would say, senator sessions, it's easy for people reading things on the internet to believe whatever is raised and passions get hot. And I know the protesters who stand up and chant kkk, they in all likelihood believe what they're saying because they're reading and being encouraged on the internet. But I have not seen any 4:30:31 PM appointee to the cabinet, Democrat or Republican, who has a record like you do of prosecuting klans men, putting them on death row, bankrupting them and putting them out of business, and doing so as you had, I tell you, I admire your doing so. And I'll issue a challenge to our friends in the news media. I noticed every time a protester jumped up, all the photographers took pictures of the protesters. I suspect we're going to see them in all the papers. I would encourage the news media, cover this story. Tell the story on the 6 o'clock news about Jeff sessions helping prosecute a klans man who murdered an African-American man and helped bankrupt him, helping bankrupt the Klan in Alabama. I thank you for your record, I thank you for your service. >> Thank you, senator Cruz. I would say it has been very 4:31:34 PM disappointing and painful to have it suggested I think the Klan was okay when we did everything possible to destroy and defeat and prosecute Klan members who were involved in this crime. And it was a good joint effort. I was supportive of it every step of the way and some great lawyers worked very hard on it. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [4:31:59 PM] Senator sessions, just this week, back page.com announced it was taking down the adult services section of its website. Senator Koran and I led the bill on the judiciary committee. You contributed to it which we appreciated. And we also had work by senator portman and senator mccast kell and others on this issue. We had 48 arrests around the towns in Minnesota alone where back page was part of the operation. So, this was a good result. They took the fifth today in front of home land security while you were testifying. But I wanted to know what your plans would be, the justice department finally came out with the national strategy and sex trafficking which is part of our bill. And, so, will be in your hands if you are confirmed as attorney general to implement. Could you just give me your thoughts on this issue? >> Well, I'm glad that the entire nation seems to be giving priority to this. A lot of great people have given real focus to the problem of sex trafficking and the degradation and destruction that results from it. So, I think it would be a firm and important part of the department of justice's priorities. And I would look forward to following up on the legislative successes and other things that are happening to see if we can't make a real impact against this abominable practice. >> I will say attorney general lynch and prosecutors have worked on this and would be good to talk to them as well. Senator Lee and I have been in charge of the committee. We rotate who is in charge as ranking member. I care a lot about this. We're in the mid of a merger wave between 2010 and 2015, the number of mergers reported to the government increased over 50% from 716 to 1,801, and over the last 18 months we've seen substantial mergers in pharmaceutical, agriculture, cable, insurance, beer. [4:34:10 PM] Recently across the political spectrum, there's been a lot of concern about concentration because you need to have an even playing field if competition is going to flourish and that means that's better for consumers if you have strong competition. Will you commit to making vigorous antitrust enforcement a priority, kind of a sideline to that, there's some concern based on some of the statements from the president-elect that maybe certain companies or industries could be targeted depending on if they're in favor or not. These are not statements that you have made. Could you comment about Independence of the attorney general when it comes to considering these cases? >> The antitrust policies of the United States have to be consistent and as clear as possible. As you know, that's not always as easy as some people might think. I could say with confidence that you and senator Lee, as leaders I believe on the antitrust subcommittee, I know you are, have been more attune to the details and the special issues that are involved in that section of the department of justice. So, we would work resolutely on it. I have no hesitation to enforce antitrust law. I have no hesitation to say certain mergers should not occur and there will not be political influence in that process. >> Thank you. I'm going to put a series of other questions on the record. One is on synthetic drugs. We're working hard, senator grassley and I have long worked on this issue with senator Feinstein and senator graham. And we have a new bill that we're working on to make it easier to go after synthetic drugs and maybe on the record we could get your comments on that. Drug courts, again, one of my top priorities, I think that they worked very well in jurisdictions that are devoted to seeing themselves not just as businesses that want to see repeat customers, but getting people off of the treadmill of crime and drugs. [4:36:29 PM] And then a very Minnesota focused issue, Minnesota was -- just got a designation called tied up for high intensity drug trafficking, a lot based on Hearn and opiate addictions we've seen. Somehow it was set up so the money came through Wisconsin. Do you know anything about the vikings-packers rivalry? It makes our sheriffs concerned. I thought I would maybe on the record, again, I'm not going to get into detail, discuss this with you on the record and ask you some questions about making sure we get our due for the funding for Minnesota. But the last thing I want to talk about was just the refugee issue. We have the biggest somali population in the country. Our U.S. Attorney and the justice department have done an excellent job in taking on some ISIS cases as well as Al shabab cases, dozens of cases that have been successfully prosecuted. And I know that work will continue. But what I am -- want that work to continue. We also have the vast majority of them are law abiding, an important part of our community. And as a you know, there has been a lot of anti-muslim rhetoric out there. I heard the story in Minneapolis of a family that went out to eat. They lived in our town forever. They had two little kids and they go out to eat. This guy walks by and looks at them, and says, you four go home. You go home to where you came from. And the little girl looks up at her mom and she says, mom, I don't want to go home. You said we could eat out tonight. And you think of the words of that innocent child, she only knows one home and that's my state. She only knows one home. And that's America. So, a big part of the job of the attorney general to me is not just enforcing those laws as we have in our state against terrorist activities, but it is also protecting the innocent among us. I wonder if you could close your questions for me by commenting about your view of how you would uphold all of our nation's laws, the basic value of religious freedom, but also the protection of people from larger crimes than the remark I just talked about, but actually bullying and those kind of things because I just think it has no place in our country. [4:38:53 PM] >> Thank you. That is an important principle that you THA you've touched on, which is the principle that in America, you're free to exercise your religious beliefs as you deem fit as long as it doesn't violate established law that would be important. So, we have that provided for in the constitution. We can establish a religion and we can't prohibit free exercise. And I believe by and large overwhelmingly, Americans value that principle and support it. And we should always hold it high and we should not back away from it. And that includes Muslim friends and neighbors as well as any other religion. And you are right, overwhelmingly, there is not violence and radicalism among our Muslim friends and neighbors and we should not ever think that and treat people in a discriminatory basis. When people apply to come to the country, it is appropriate, I believe, to vet them from countries that may have had a history of violence to be careful about who we admit because basically the admission process is a process to -- that should serve the national interest. That's sort of my view about it. I believe it's an acceptable and good view and would try to carry that out. But the decision about admitting and not admitting is really not the attorney general's view -- decision at all. It is the state department's and it is the policy, the president and the state department. And, so, we would just simply make sure if it's done, it's done in a proper fashion and not unlawfully. >> Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also have some statistics on immigration and response to some of the first exchanges that senator sessions and I had about what Minnesota -- the business economic value of immigrants in our community. I'll just put that on the record later, so, thank you. [4:40:56 PM] Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, thanks to senator grassley and senator Mcconnell, I now find myself as a member not only of this committee, but also the intelligence committee for which I'm grateful. One reason why I thought it was so important for another member of the senate judiciary committee to get on the intelligence committee is because while the intelligence committee conducts a lot of the oversight, it's the judiciary committee that confers the authorities on our intelligence officials and law enforcement officials to do what they do. My hope is that during this process where we're coming off a very contentious election, that our colleagues across the aisle will join us in making sure that the new president has his national security cabinet members at least confirmed on an expedited basis. Of course, I would include the office of attorney general as one of those. As you know, the attorney general and the department's national security division work with members of the intelligence community and help over see the collection of foreign intelligence information. I know earlier senator Leahy and perhaps senator Lee asked you a little bit about about the usa freedom act and the national security agency. But I want to highlight something you're well aware of, and that's the sunsetting of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. According to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board which congress appropriately appointed to oversee the activities of the intelligence community, section 702, which will expire at the end of this year, has been responsible for disrupting more than 100 known terrorist plots, including the New York subway bomb plot in 2009 and other plots outside the United States. As I said, if we don't act by the end of the year, that authority will expire. [4:43:00 PM] I think we are fortunate on the judiciary committee to also have in addition to our other colleagues senator Feinstein, who has until recently served as the ranking member on the senate intelligence committee, and now of course she's ranking here. And I hope she, along with chairman grassley, will make sure that all of the committee members are thoroughly briefed and comfortable with the re-authorization of section 702 and to make it one of our highest priorities this year. In addition to section 702, as you know, there are other legal and policy challenges that you're going to face as the next attorney general. Our national security investigators and law enforcement officers are facing incredible challenges, many of them technical challenges like growing encryption of communications, whether it's hardware or software. We saw that being relevant to what happened in San Bernardino where the FBI had to pay third parties a substantial amount of money to get at the communications contained in the telephones of the actors in the San Bernardino attacks or in Garland, and my home state of Texas where the last time the FBI director came before this committee said there were still a multitude of communications on the devices of the two shooters in Garland that they still had not been able to get access to. So, the FBI director said this is a part of the trade craft now of terrorists and he referred to it as going dark. And thankfully, chairman grassley held a hearing on that just this last year. We know there are other statutes, including the electronic communications privacy act, things like the electronic communications -- the so-called Ector fix which would allow the use of national security letters to get ip addresses, not content, without a warrant. [4:45:06 PM] But ip addresses or meta data which is important to these national security investigations. I think I know the answer to this, but as attorney general, I just would like your verbal commitment here to continue to do what you have always done, and that's put the safety and security of the American people first and you'll continue to work with us in a cooperative fashion to make sure that all the needs of all the stakeholders are being met, including the brave men and women who defend us each and every day in the intelligence and law enforcement community. Will you do that? >> I will, senator konan. Thank you for your hard work and leadership on these important issues. >> Let me ask you about the freedom of information act. I don't know whether senator grassley had a chance to ask you about this or not. As you may know, senator grassley and I -- excuse me, Leahy and I are kind of the odd couple on freedom of information act reforms. As a conservative, I've always felt that the best antidote to abuse or waste is sunlight where possible. And you don't have to pass another law or another regulation where people change their behavior because they know people are watching. And senator Leahy and I have worked closely together to see a number of reforms passed and signed into law, many of which I know you have supported and consulted with us on. It's not a blank slate. It's sometimes you have to be careful about disclosing information that ought not to be public information or as law enforcement sensitive or classified or the like. But I just would hope that you would continue to work with us and I'm confident you will. But I'd like to get your verbal commitment to continue to work with us to make sure that the public's right to know is protected. I'm not suggesting that the public has a right to know everything because, frankly, as I said, classified law enforcement sensitive information needs to be protected for important policy reasons. [4:47:15 PM] But will you continue to work with us to make sure that we protect the public's right to know to the extent feasible? >> I will, senator konan. And I value your judgment and insight on this important issue. And I appreciate your work. >> Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I move on in my questions, I'd like to respond very briefly to what senator Cruz said earlier. It is important, in my view, that the members of this committee get clarity with regard to the nominees' record. That's our job. And it's important. Now, let's be clear. Senator sessions said in his questionnaire that he, quote, personally handled four civil rights cases. Some of the lawyers who worked on those cases disputed that characterization and senator sessions himself, after his questionnaire was in, felt a need to file a supplement in which he clarified that he merely provided, quote, assistance and guidance to civil rights division attorneys on these four cases. Now, if that's a distinction without a difference, I'm not sure why senator sessions felt the need to clarify. But I want to move on. Senator sessions, in late November, president-elect trump tweeted, quote, in addition to winning the electoral college in a land slide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. Now, let's be clear, president-elect trump lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes. So, what he's saying here is that more than 2.8 fraudulent votes were cast. [4:49:20 PM] Do you agree with president trump that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in the presidential election? >> Senator fra nke N, I don't know what the president-elect meant or was thinking when he made that comment or what facts he may have had to justify his statement. I would just say that every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it. And I do believe we regularly have fraudulent activities occur during elections cycles. >> Well, department of justice is tasked with protecting voting rights and prosecuting fraud. So, if millions upon millions of fraudulent votes were cast, I would imagine that the next attorney general would be quite concerned about that. Did the president-elect tell you anything about what caused him to come to this conclusion? >> I have not talked to him about that in any depth or particularly since the election. >> Uh-huh. So, he didn't share any evidence of voter fraud with you? Because I would imagine as the man that he wants to make responsible for combatting fraud at the ballot box, that he would want to make sure that you had all the evidence necessary to take action and to protect the vote so he didn't do that evidently. Before I move on, I should note for the record that state election and law enforcement officials surveyed in mid December found virtually no credible reports of fraud among the nearly 138 million votes that were cast, and no states reported indications of any widespread fraud. What is truly troubling about this, I believe, are these bogus claims of voter fraud. They're routinely used to justify voter suppression. [4:51:20 PM] And thanks to the supreme court's disastrously -- decided Shelby county decision which gutted the voting rights act, it is easier than ever before for states to take -- make it harder for people to vote. Now, senator sessions, you have a complicated history with the voting rights act. Ten years ago when voting rights was a bipartisan issue, you voted to reauthorize the voting rights act. Everyone did, passed 98-0. But you have also called the voting rights act, quote, an intrusive piece of legislation. You have complained that the acts clearance requirement unfarley targeted certain states. You said there is, quote, little present-day evidence that state and local officials restrict access to the franchise. You said that the voting rights act has, quote, eliminated that discrimination. Well, senator, after the Shelby county decision which you celebrated, states began testing the limits of what they could do. And in many cases, citing the risk of so-called voter fraud as a justification for their actions. Now, that's what happened in North Carolina, for example, just a few months after Shelby county, a state enacted one of the strictest voter id laws and enacted restrictions without any evidence, the state described these changes necessary to prevent fraud. Well, the courts disagreed. North Carolina's restrictions were challenged and in July the fourth circuit found the primary purpose of the restrictions wasn't to fight fraud, but to make it harder for black people to vote. Here is what the court said. And I quote. The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision. They constitute inept remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, propose cures for problems that did not exist. [4:53:28 PM] Senator, do you still believe that there is little present day evidence of states restricting access to the franchise? And if you do, what do you think the fourth circuit got wrong when it found that north Carolina targeted black voters with almost surgical precision? Do you accept that north Carolina was targeting African-American voters, but not believe that it was engaging in discriminatory conduct? >> Well, you cannot create laws designed to inhibit the right of any class of citizens to vote. And, so, if the fourth circuit found that and there is a factual basis to support it, then any law that's passed would be subject to being either eliminated or altered. So, I support your concern that laws of this kind cannot be used for that purpose. I do believe not long ago the supreme court did uphold voter id laws, but there are ways to do it and ways probably you cannot do it. So, I am not familiar with the details of the North Carolina law. But you are correct, any finding that's sustainable that there is a racial animus in the passing of a law that would restrict voting, that law is -- could be unsustainable. >> Now, North Carolina is one of the states that would have been covered by preclearance, was it not? >> North Carolina states would be. >> It would have been. >> I would just suggest that section 2 allows all the remedies, and that's what I suppose they filed the action under in this case. It just not a preclearance question, and that preclearance policy is intrusive. [4:55:33 PM] And as the supreme court has said -- and I didn't mean that in any pejorative way. I was asked, do you believe it's intrusive, is that correct? I said it is intrusive. But the voting -- it said this is 1986. But the voting rights act was absolutely essential to avert the problem - >> Announcer: This is CNN breaking news. >> We're going to break away from the confirmation hearings for some breaking news on the Charleston church massacre trial. The jury has returned to the courtroom and delivered a sentence for the murderer dylann roof, they have sentenced him to death. Roof represented himself during the penalty phase after being convicted of murdering nine innocent people at the Emmanuel African methodist episcopal church after bible study in June 2015. During closing arguments roof an avowed white supremacist tells the jury he, quote, had to do it. Dylann roof has been sentenced to death. Now let's go back to the confirmation hearings. >> Carolina where African Americans' votes were suppressed. That's why you need preclearance. And as soon as Shelby came down, you saw Texas, you saw north Carolina go oh, good. Now we can suppress votes. That is the reason you have preclearance, and that is the reason that you can't rely on the district court or the circuit courts to rule. >> Mr. Chairman, I voted a few years ago for the voting rights act extension for 25 years. It included preclearance in it. We all knew at that time that the supreme court would probably take up a case before long that would have wrestled with the question of whether there is a sufficient basis for the extraordinary remedy of requiring only a few states in the country to have every, even ministerial act like moving a voting precinct to seek the permission of the department of justice first. [4:57:56 PM] The supreme court found that that no longer could be justified. The supreme court decided that we should not have -- did not have to have preclearance. But section 2 of the voting rights act allows these kind of challenges that senator Franken is talking about. That's what was brought in north Carolina. That is what is being litigated today. The court did, in fact, find the voter id law was improper as I understand it. So, I believe we proceeded in a lawful fashion, and I did feel in one sense that it was a good feeling that the supreme court had concluded, had been substantial improvement in our area of the country, the south of the country in voting rights, sufficient that section 5 could no longer be justified. But I voted for it. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. As justice Ginsburg said, an umbrella means you don't get wet when it's raining and you don't take the umbrella away. >> In the record, a letter that I just today received in support of senator sessions' nomination from the national shooting sports foundation. Senator? Without objection. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Sara root case. I know you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sara root was a woman who was killed a year ago this month in Omaha. She had just graduated from college and she was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believe this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in the past. He was an illegal immigrant. He ran into her car, killed her right after her graduation. He was detained by Omaha police. They ultimately notified the department of home land security, this guy is a flight risk. [4:59:57 PM] He was able to post a fairly insignificant bond and he disappeared. The department of home land security did nothing to detain the guy despite the fact that the Douglas county sheriff and the Omaha police department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it wasn't an enforcement priority. I don't want to hold you to specifics on this case here, but I want to get your pledge in this context. I want to hear you talk generally about the coordination between state and local law enforcement on illegal immigration activities and in particular in cases where serious crimes have been committed. But I wonder if you would pledge now that if I send you a letter the day after you are confirmed, would you give expeditious aa tension to responding to some of these details about how enforcement priorities are set inside the federal government? >> Thank you, senator sass. I certainly will, and it does represent important failures that we've seen too often in our system today. >> Do you have any top line thoughts on the way, local and state officials interact with federal officials on immigration it' raining and you don't take the umbrella away. >> In the record, a letter that I just today received in support of senator sessions' nomination from the national shooting sports foundation. Senator? Without objection. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator sessions, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Sara root case. I know you and I have discussed it briefly last summer. Sara root was a woman who was killed a year ago this month in Omaha. She had just graduated from college and she was killed by a drunken street racer. Omaha authorities believe this guy had been engaged in similar activity many times in the past. He was an illegal immigrant. He ran into her car, killed her right after her graduation. He was detained by Omaha police. They ultimately notified the department of home land security, this guy is a flight risk. He was able to post a fairly insignificant bond and he disappeared. The department of home land security did nothing to detain the guy despite the fact that the Douglas county sheriff and the Omaha police department asked that he be detained. The Obama administration determined that it wasn't an enforcement priority. I don't want to hold you to specifics on this case here, but I want to get your pledge in this context. I want to hear you talk generally about the coordination between state and local law enforcement on illegal immigration activities and in particular in cases where serious crimes have been committed. But I wonder if you would pledge now that if I send you a letter the day after you are confirmed, would you give expeditious aa tension to responding to some of these details about how enforcement priorities are set inside the federal government? >> Thank you, senator sass. I certainly will, and it does represent important failures that we've seen too often in our system today. >> Do you have any top line thoughts on the way, local and state officials interact with federal officials on immigration cases? [5:01:03 PM] >> Well, the immigration enforcement procedures, the courts have held, are exclusively the power of the federal government. But it's also clear a state official has the right to arrest somebody for the offense of crossing the border illegally. They have the right to arrest people who have entered the country illegally or repeatedly entered the country for any kind of offense, including the offense of reentering illegally, and the system should work in a way that the federal government then evaluates whether or not they want to put a hold on in order not to release that person until they can take them and see them be deported. And it's failing in a whole number of ways. You've got the sanctuary cities who refuse to tell home land security that they've got somebody that's committed a serious crime so they can be deported. They refuse to honor detainers. On the other side we've got home land security too often having standards or failing to follow-up on serious offenses of people who should be deported. So, in both aspects I think, senator sass, I think we can do much better. And if we, this country has every right to deport persons who are here unlawfully, who violate our criminal laws in some other aspect, and they should indeed be promptly deported. >> Thank you. We'll follow-up with a letter because this guy, Edwin Mejia who killed Sara root, it was obvious to everybody engaged locally, lots of law enforcement and the family whose daughter was killed that this guy was a flight risk and everyone was screaming to the feds, please don't let this guy disappear before he can stand trial. He's now in the top 10 most wanted list and nobody thinks he's ever going to be found. Everybody believes he left the country, and this kind of case isn't an isolated case. [5:03:06 PM] It's a kind of handoff between federal and local law enforcement that could happen repeatedly if you don't have a federal government that has any clear policy. So, we'd like to -- I would like to send you a letter right after your confirmation asking for clarity about how enforcement discretion and enforcement actions are prioritized. >> And, senator sass, I would note that fundamentally, that would be a home land security issue initially. And they need to set the standards of what they should and should not do. And I would think that general Kelly would be quite willing to also talk with you about it as will I. >> I will likely be addressing the letter to both and you general Kelly. So, thank you. Completely different line of questioning. This morning you were asked some hard and appropriate questions about the responsibility of the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government. If there are cases where there might be a conflict between your oath of office to the constitution of limited government and a separation of executive and legislative authorities, and the people that you report to when you work inside an administration. You said in the course of that answer that there could ultimately be cases where someone might have to resign because they were being forced to do something that conflicted with their oath. I wonder if you could unpack that a little bit and talk about the justice department's responsibilities and attorneys general -- attorneys general past over the past few decades. Can you name instances where a resignation might be in order and what kinds of lines would you envision being crossed and ways that you as the attorney general might push back on an administration if asked to do things that you regarded as inconsistent with your oath to the constitution? >> It would be difficult to speculate on that. We saw that during the nix on administration. There could clearly be a circumstance in which there is such a relationship breach that an attorney general wouldn't be an effective member of the attorney general's administration. [5:05:11 PM] Maybe a chief executive could be correct and the attorney general could be wrong. But if attorney's duty is to give the best judgment that the attorney general can give and, therefore, if it's rejected on a very fundamental area, then that causes great concern. Maybe in another area of less importance you could afford to disagree. But I just think that that result should be very rare, has not happened very often in the history of this country. Actually, I can only know of one. And, therefore, the reason is that usually the chief executive -- and I would expect with president trump, that when confronted or advised that certain policies are not acceptable, would accept that advice. I'm confident that he would. But you raise a hypothetical and I've at least given you my thoughts about it. >> Just to conclude, because I'm inside my last minute. But going back to the connection between this question and the olc line of questioning that senator Lee posed this morning, if a head of olc, the assistant attorney general from olc was coming to you and saying, I've been asked to try to justify a certain position, I've been asked to write a memo to support this position and I don't think we can get there, I don't think that the department of justice has considered wisdom and insight into the law that we can ultimately write the memo that will authorize certain actions, how do you as the attorney general envision that conversation going? Just tell us the parts between an olc, an attorney general's office, and the white house. >> Well, attorney general mukasey who I think is still here, yes, I'm honored to have here today. He issued a memorandum about how the communications could be effectively carried out. [5:07:11 PM] And it restricted communications from the political officials to the justice department in a way that guaranteed integrity. But there is nothing wrong, as I understand it, for -- through the proper chain of command that a request for an olc opinion on a certain subject, there is nothing wrong with the white house asking for that. Indeed, you want that. You don't want the white house acting. You want him to seek legal advice. And generally, historically things get sort of worked out. If the olc comes back and says, Mr. President, you can do this but you can't do it this way, maybe you can do it that way, maybe it won't give you everything you want, but that's safe, that's legal. That's within the realm of action that the president can take. This, we believe, is not. And usually having an attorney general who has the confidence of the president, who the president knows was giving him the best advice, also advising him what he cannot do, which is part of good advice, is the way it's historically resulted. And you need the best lawyers and you need to be very careful because these things set precedence. They also can result in lawsuits in all kind of controversy that should not happen as a result of a bad olc opinion. >> Thank you. The stewardship of the integrity of that office is critically important. Thank you for your forthrightness. >> Thank you, chairman grassley. Senator sessions. To return to an issue -- >> Announcer: This is CNN breaking news. CNN BREAKS INTO SESSIONS HEARING WITH SPECIAL REPORT [5:09:12 PM] >> That's right, wolf. A CNN exclusive, CNN has learned that the nation's top intelligence officials provided information to president-elect Donald Trump and to president Barack Obama last week about claims of Russian efforts to compromise president-elect trump. >> We'll follow-up, and await the reaction of the trump transition right now. Good, good work indeed. I want to return right now to our coverage of the dramatic confirmation hearings continuing right now for the attorney general nominee senator Jeff sessions. Let's go back to the senate judiciary committee. >> The Alabama Republican party vice chairman, even though you're from the same party. So, it seems to me that your history shows that you can make those kinds of judgment calls and do what the job demands. I already know the answer to this question because I've seen it in your record and because I've known and worked with you for a number of years, but I ask anyway. Again, if you are confirmed, will you commit to enforce and defend the laws and the constitution of the united States regardless of your personal and philosophical views on the matter? [5:21:40 PM] >> I will, senator. I would note on the death penalty case, my appellate lawyers gave me a little briefing of the cases that were coming up. And they had they'd say, we'll be defending this death case, but we are probably going to lose. I said, why are we going to lose? They said it didn't have the aggregating -- aggravating factor you needed to carry out a death penalty. I said, we can't go before the supreme court and argue for a death penalty if it doesn't meet the standard for death penalty. To which the lawyer said, well, the local people are really fired up about it and we usually just do what they want. And let the court decide. I said, no, we shouldn't do that. That turned out to be an easy decision to make that day. But when I was running for the United States senate maybe a year later, I became one of the biggest ads and biggest attacks on me that I failed to defend the jury conviction for murder in this county. But you just have to do your -- you have to do the right thing. And some of these other cases reflect the same thing. Indeed, this insurance commissioner, the case was taken by the governor's team to the state da who prosecuted the case and convicted the man, but it was reversed on appeal by finding by the court of appeals that he didn't commit a crime, just like we had concluded originally. So, these are tough calls. Sometimes I've not always made them right, but I do believe you have to put the law first, senator Crapo, and I have tried to do that, tried to teach my people that. And none of us are perfect, but we should strive to get it right every time. >> Well, thank you, Jeff. I knew that answer as I said, before I asked the question. But one of the other senators here today said it is important to get your record out and I think it is important to get your record correctly understood. And I think that there unfortunately is too much inaccurate reporting about your record. [5:23:47 PM] Another instance in that context, as you know, I am the Republican sponsor of the violence against women act that we passed recently here in the U.S. Senate and the congress. You have been criticized for not supporting that act, but I want to give you a chance again to correct the record and to fully state the record. If I understand it right, you voted for the original and supported the re-authorization of that act, at least twice, and that your objection to the act that did pass this last time, the re-authorization, was not at all based on the question of whether to have the statute in place. It was, instead, based on an issue with regard to jurisdiction on tribal lands and other related matters. Could you again restate position on the issue? >> Well, thank you, senator Crapo. You know, I came here as a lawyer, tried to conduct myself properly and consider what some might consider legal technicalities, but I think are pretty important. The bill, as I understood it, was controversial primarily because of this situation in which a non-tribal member could be tried in a tribal court which apparently, I think, it's fair to say is not constructed in a way that's consistent with the constitution, and that we have never done this before. And, so, eight of the nine Republicans on the judiciary committee concluded that this was not appropriate. So, by voting against that version of the violence against women's act, if it had failed, we would not then, I'm confident, not had a bill. We would have been able to pass a violence against women act that didn't have that provision in it. So, that's sort of where we were in the political process. And one of the bad things about modern American politics is if you take that position, you're not portrayed as being wrong on the tribal issue, you're portrayed as being against a bill that would protect women from violence. [5:25:55 PM] And I think that is unfair and thank you for giving me the chance to respond. >> Well, thank you. And I appreciate that, and I can again confirm because, as I said, I am the Republican sponsor of that bill. And that description you have given is exactly one of just a couple issues which were being seriously litigated, if you will, here, and which we were trying to resolve. And those of you who took that position, again, were not in any way objecting to the act. You had multiple times before supported it, and you were trying to help resolve one specific issue on the bill. And, so, I just want to clarify that with you and again get the record straight about where you stand on the issue. I see my time is pretty much gone. Mr. Chairman, I won't go to my next question. >> Before I call on senator Blumenthal, out of consideration for you, I want to explain what I think we have left here. If you need a break, tell me. We've got two Democrats and two Republicans to do a second round, beside the chairman, but I'm going to wait until later to do my second round. We've got two Democrats, I've been told, at least want a third round. And, so, what I would like to do is, first of all, if you need a break, we'll take a break whenever you say so now. And in the meantime, I'd like to have my colleagues be -- take into consideration something I want to do. I want everybody to get over here that wants to ask questions and I'm not going to take up anybody's time until everybody else is done, and then I want to take about maybe 15 or 20 minutes of your time to do the equivalent of a couple rounds with questions I haven't asked yet. So, what's your desire? >> I'm ready to go. >> Okay. [5:27:56 PM] >> I may take a break at some point. >> You just say when you want to take a break. >> Thank you. >> Senator Blumenthal. >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator sessions. I was pleased to hear you disavow and denounce operation rescue in response to my last question. I want to ask about a couple of other groups and individuals. In 2003, I had an event called restoration weekend. You gave a speech praising a man named David Horowitz as a man, quote, a man I admire. David Horowitz has said, among other things, that, quote, all the major Muslim organizations in America are connected to the Muslim brotherhood and, quote, 80% of the mosques are filled with hate against Americans and Jews. He made statements about African Americans, quote, too many blacks are in prison because too many blacks commit crimes. You praised him as a man I admire. That statement was omitted from your response to the committee. Did you omit it because you were embarrassed about praising David Horowitz? >> No, and I didn't know David Horowitz had made those comments. I read his brilliant book -- what's the name of it? I have a hard time remembering. But it was his transformation, having grown up in a, as he described it, communist family. He was editor of ramparts magazine, the radical magazine. And I believe radical son was the name of his book, it was a really powerful and moving story of how he moved from the unprincipled totalitarian radical left to a more traditional American person. [5:30:01 PM] I've read a number of other books, I think one of them, but he's a most brilliant individual and has remarkable story. I'm not aware of everything he's ever said or done. >> Well, these statements have been reported publicly repeatedly over many years. You first came to know him in 2003.