THE ART IS A GLIMPSE INTO THE EVERYDAY LIFE OF THE JAPANESE-AMERICANS WHO WERE IMPRISONED DURING WORLD WAR TWO. SOME OF THE PICTURES ARE PAINTED.... OTHERS, DRAWN BY PENCIL. THE ART TELLS OF THE STRUGGLES THE PRISONERS FACED WHILE INTERNED IN THE CAMPS. IT ALSO SPEAKS OF THE DESIRE TO REGAIN WHAT WAS TAKEN FROM THEM.... FREEDOM.

Japanese American home movies from the 1940's at an Internment Camp. Scratchy footage of a Japanese Internment Camp in Utah, "Topaz" Most of the footage is faded with lines going through the film. No Audio.

Japanese internment camps/ Clinton NY I January 16, 2001 15:32:57 black and white footage from camps 15:33:16 man carrying blankets 15:33:49 soldiers raising flags 15:33:53 asian men in uniform switch tape 15:34:37 more black and white video of japanese internment 15:34:46 men in suits walking 15:34:53 men being handed keys 15:35:04 overhead shot of soldiers marching 15:35:11 pan up of still photo cl-lild looking at gun 15:35:18 boy touching barbed wire from 9/18/96 - grand canyon 15:36:06 head on med shot of clinton and gore walking through grand canyon* 15:36:36 overhead shot of clinton and gore walking 15:37:04 overhead of clinton and gore talking to park ranger 15:37:14 clinton walks over to table overlooking canyon with gore standing behind him 15:37:32 nice push in to med shot of clinton signing proclamation - off mic 15:38:06 close up of clinton signing 15:38:23 chnton waves and glad hands with supporters 15:38:44 nice med shot of clinton glad handing 15:39:11 wide shot of clinton and gore walking with ranger with tree in foreground 15:40:00 more clinton and gore walking 15:40:41 side shot of clinton and gore walk out to table 15:40:54 wide side shot of clinton sitting at table witl-,,gore behind him 15:41:07 slow push in to med shot 15:41:41 clinton and gore walk toward supporters 15:41:48 rear shot glad handing Escalante Canyon - Utah Monument 15:42:29 aerial beauty of canyon 15:42:49 better canyon aerial******* 15:43:00 nice shot of peak 15:43:43 nice aerial with river nmning below******* 15:44:27 shaky canyon shot with water on lens 15:44:56 slow pan to mountain

Ceremonies were carried out yesterday marking the 56th anniversary of FDR's executive order to send Japaneese-Americans from the West Coast to internment camps... one of those camps located in Topaz, Utah.

Scratchy footage of what is presumably the Japanese Internment Camp most likely the one in Utah named Topaz. A row of low lying buildings out in the desert, some people and vehicles moving around the camp can be seen.

Japanese internment camps/ Clinton NY I January 16, 2001 15:32:57 black and white footage from camps 15:33:16 man carrying blankets 15:33:49 soldiers raising flags 15:33:53 asian men in uniform switch tape 15:34:37 more black and white video of japanese internment 15:34:46 men in suits walking 15:34:53 men being handed keys 15:35:04 overhead shot of soldiers marching 15:35:11 pan up of still photo cl-lild looking at gun 15:35:18 boy touching barbed wire from 9/18/96 - grand canyon 15:36:06 head on med shot of clinton and gore walking through grand canyon* 15:36:36 overhead shot of clinton and gore walking 15:37:04 overhead of clinton and gore talking to park ranger 15:37:14 clinton walks over to table overlooking canyon with gore standing behind him 15:37:32 nice push in to med shot of clinton signing proclamation - off mic 15:38:06 close up of clinton signing 15:38:23 chnton waves and glad hands with supporters 15:38:44 nice med shot of clinton glad handing 15:39:11 wide shot of clinton and gore walking with ranger with tree in foreground 15:40:00 more clinton and gore walking 15:40:41 side shot of clinton and gore walk out to table 15:40:54 wide side shot of clinton sitting at table witl-,,gore behind him 15:41:07 slow push in to med shot 15:41:41 clinton and gore walk toward supporters 15:41:48 rear shot glad handing Escalante Canyon - Utah Monument 15:42:29 aerial beauty of canyon 15:42:49 better canyon aerial******* 15:43:00 nice shot of peak 15:43:43 nice aerial with river nmning below******* 15:44:27 shaky canyon shot with water on lens 15:44:56 slow pan to mountain

Japanese internment camps/ Clinton NY I January 16, 2001 15:32:57 black and white footage from camps 15:33:16 man carrying blankets 15:33:49 soldiers raising flags 15:33:53 asian men in uniform switch tape 15:34:37 more black and white video of japanese internment 15:34:46 men in suits walking 15:34:53 men being handed keys 15:35:04 overhead shot of soldiers marching 15:35:11 pan up of still photo cl-lild looking at gun 15:35:18 boy touching barbed wire from 9/18/96 - grand canyon 15:36:06 head on med shot of clinton and gore walking through grand canyon* 15:36:36 overhead shot of clinton and gore walking 15:37:04 overhead of clinton and gore talking to park ranger 15:37:14 clinton walks over to table overlooking canyon with gore standing behind him 15:37:32 nice push in to med shot of clinton signing proclamation - off mic 15:38:06 close up of clinton signing 15:38:23 chnton waves and glad hands with supporters 15:38:44 nice med shot of clinton glad handing 15:39:11 wide shot of clinton and gore walking with ranger with tree in foreground 15:40:00 more clinton and gore walking 15:40:41 side shot of clinton and gore walk out to table 15:40:54 wide side shot of clinton sitting at table witl-,,gore behind him 15:41:07 slow push in to med shot 15:41:41 clinton and gore walk toward supporters 15:41:48 rear shot glad handing Escalante Canyon - Utah Monument 15:42:29 aerial beauty of canyon 15:42:49 better canyon aerial******* 15:43:00 nice shot of peak 15:43:43 nice aerial with river nmning below******* 15:44:27 shaky canyon shot with water on lens 15:44:56 slow pan to mountain

AMERICANS WHO WERE INTERNED DURING WORLD WAR TWO TALK ABOUT THE FEARS OF A NATION.

THE HOUSE DEBATES THE ISSUE OF REPARATIONS TO JAPANESE AMERICANS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

Japanese internment camps/ Clinton NY I January 16, 2001 15:32:57 black and white footage from camps 15:33:16 man carrying blankets 15:33:49 soldiers raising flags 15:33:53 asian men in uniform switch tape 15:34:37 more black and white video of japanese internment 15:34:46 men in suits walking 15:34:53 men being handed keys 15:35:04 overhead shot of soldiers marching 15:35:11 pan up of still photo cl-lild looking at gun 15:35:18 boy touching barbed wire from 9/18/96 - grand canyon 15:36:06 head on med shot of clinton and gore walking through grand canyon* 15:36:36 overhead shot of clinton and gore walking 15:37:04 overhead of clinton and gore talking to park ranger 15:37:14 clinton walks over to table overlooking canyon with gore standing behind him 15:37:32 nice push in to med shot of clinton signing proclamation - off mic 15:38:06 close up of clinton signing 15:38:23 chnton waves and glad hands with supporters 15:38:44 nice med shot of clinton glad handing 15:39:11 wide shot of clinton and gore walking with ranger with tree in foreground 15:40:00 more clinton and gore walking 15:40:41 side shot of clinton and gore walk out to table 15:40:54 wide side shot of clinton sitting at table witl-,,gore behind him 15:41:07 slow push in to med shot 15:41:41 clinton and gore walk toward supporters 15:41:48 rear shot glad handing Escalante Canyon - Utah Monument 15:42:29 aerial beauty of canyon 15:42:49 better canyon aerial******* 15:43:00 nice shot of peak 15:43:43 nice aerial with river nmning below******* 15:44:27 shaky canyon shot with water on lens 15:44:56 slow pan to mountain

Japanese internment camps/ Clinton NY I January 16, 2001 15:32:57 black and white footage from camps 15:33:16 man carrying blankets 15:33:49 soldiers raising flags 15:33:53 asian men in uniform switch tape 15:34:37 more black and white video of japanese internment 15:34:46 men in suits walking 15:34:53 men being handed keys 15:35:04 overhead shot of soldiers marching 15:35:11 pan up of still photo cl-lild looking at gun 15:35:18 boy touching barbed wire from 9/18/96 - grand canyon 15:36:06 head on med shot of clinton and gore walking through grand canyon* 15:36:36 overhead shot of clinton and gore walking 15:37:04 overhead of clinton and gore talking to park ranger 15:37:14 clinton walks over to table overlooking canyon with gore standing behind him 15:37:32 nice push in to med shot of clinton signing proclamation - off mic 15:38:06 close up of clinton signing 15:38:23 chnton waves and glad hands with supporters 15:38:44 nice med shot of clinton glad handing 15:39:11 wide shot of clinton and gore walking with ranger with tree in foreground 15:40:00 more clinton and gore walking 15:40:41 side shot of clinton and gore walk out to table 15:40:54 wide side shot of clinton sitting at table witl-,,gore behind him 15:41:07 slow push in to med shot 15:41:41 clinton and gore walk toward supporters 15:41:48 rear shot glad handing Escalante Canyon - Utah Monument 15:42:29 aerial beauty of canyon 15:42:49 better canyon aerial******* 15:43:00 nice shot of peak 15:43:43 nice aerial with river nmning below******* 15:44:27 shaky canyon shot with water on lens 15:44:56 slow pan to mountain

Japanese internment camps/ Clinton NY I January 16, 2001 15:32:57 black and white footage from camps 15:33:16 man carrying blankets 15:33:49 soldiers raising flags 15:33:53 asian men in uniform switch tape 15:34:37 more black and white video of japanese internment 15:34:46 men in suits walking 15:34:53 men being handed keys 15:35:04 overhead shot of soldiers marching 15:35:11 pan up of still photo cl-lild looking at gun 15:35:18 boy touching barbed wire from 9/18/96 - grand canyon 15:36:06 head on med shot of clinton and gore walking through grand canyon* 15:36:36 overhead shot of clinton and gore walking 15:37:04 overhead of clinton and gore talking to park ranger 15:37:14 clinton walks over to table overlooking canyon with gore standing behind him 15:37:32 nice push in to med shot of clinton signing proclamation - off mic 15:38:06 close up of clinton signing 15:38:23 chnton waves and glad hands with supporters 15:38:44 nice med shot of clinton glad handing 15:39:11 wide shot of clinton and gore walking with ranger with tree in foreground 15:40:00 more clinton and gore walking 15:40:41 side shot of clinton and gore walk out to table 15:40:54 wide side shot of clinton sitting at table witl-,,gore behind him 15:41:07 slow push in to med shot 15:41:41 clinton and gore walk toward supporters 15:41:48 rear shot glad handing Escalante Canyon - Utah Monument 15:42:29 aerial beauty of canyon 15:42:49 better canyon aerial******* 15:43:00 nice shot of peak 15:43:43 nice aerial with river nmning below******* 15:44:27 shaky canyon shot with water on lens 15:44:56 slow pan to mountain

Japanese internment camps/ Clinton NY I January 16, 2001 15:32:57 black and white footage from camps 15:33:16 man carrying blankets 15:33:49 soldiers raising flags 15:33:53 asian men in uniform switch tape 15:34:37 more black and white video of japanese internment 15:34:46 men in suits walking 15:34:53 men being handed keys 15:35:04 overhead shot of soldiers marching 15:35:11 pan up of still photo cl-lild looking at gun 15:35:18 boy touching barbed wire from 9/18/96 - grand canyon 15:36:06 head on med shot of clinton and gore walking through grand canyon* 15:36:36 overhead shot of clinton and gore walking 15:37:04 overhead of clinton and gore talking to park ranger 15:37:14 clinton walks over to table overlooking canyon with gore standing behind him 15:37:32 nice push in to med shot of clinton signing proclamation - off mic 15:38:06 close up of clinton signing 15:38:23 chnton waves and glad hands with supporters 15:38:44 nice med shot of clinton glad handing 15:39:11 wide shot of clinton and gore walking with ranger with tree in foreground 15:40:00 more clinton and gore walking 15:40:41 side shot of clinton and gore walk out to table 15:40:54 wide side shot of clinton sitting at table witl-,,gore behind him 15:41:07 slow push in to med shot 15:41:41 clinton and gore walk toward supporters 15:41:48 rear shot glad handing Escalante Canyon - Utah Monument 15:42:29 aerial beauty of canyon 15:42:49 better canyon aerial******* 15:43:00 nice shot of peak 15:43:43 nice aerial with river nmning below******* 15:44:27 shaky canyon shot with water on lens 15:44:56 slow pan to mountain

Japanese internment camps/ Clinton NY I January 16, 2001 15:32:57 black and white footage from camps 15:33:16 man carrying blankets 15:33:49 soldiers raising flags 15:33:53 asian men in uniform switch tape 15:34:37 more black and white video of japanese internment 15:34:46 men in suits walking 15:34:53 men being handed keys 15:35:04 overhead shot of soldiers marching 15:35:11 pan up of still photo cl-lild looking at gun 15:35:18 boy touching barbed wire from 9/18/96 - grand canyon 15:36:06 head on med shot of clinton and gore walking through grand canyon* 15:36:36 overhead shot of clinton and gore walking 15:37:04 overhead of clinton and gore talking to park ranger 15:37:14 clinton walks over to table overlooking canyon with gore standing behind him 15:37:32 nice push in to med shot of clinton signing proclamation - off mic 15:38:06 close up of clinton signing 15:38:23 chnton waves and glad hands with supporters 15:38:44 nice med shot of clinton glad handing 15:39:11 wide shot of clinton and gore walking with ranger with tree in foreground 15:40:00 more clinton and gore walking 15:40:41 side shot of clinton and gore walk out to table 15:40:54 wide side shot of clinton sitting at table witl-,,gore behind him 15:41:07 slow push in to med shot 15:41:41 clinton and gore walk toward supporters 15:41:48 rear shot glad handing Escalante Canyon - Utah Monument 15:42:29 aerial beauty of canyon 15:42:49 better canyon aerial******* 15:43:00 nice shot of peak 15:43:43 nice aerial with river nmning below******* 15:44:27 shaky canyon shot with water on lens 15:44:56 slow pan to mountain

01:20 UNIVERSAL NEWSREEL LOGO, 1965. CS. VIETNAM ACTION. USS ENTERPRISE. VS OF A NUCLEAR POWERED AIRCRAFT CARRIER ON A STATION OFF VIETNAM. VS OF CARRIER DECK ACTIVITY. SHOTS OF DOUGLAS A4 SKYHAWK FIGHTER BOMBERS. 01:90 Air to air shots of US Air Force Lockheed F104 star fighters during ground attack. vs of a motorized convoy. vs of the convoy Escort shooting and soldiers pinned down by Vietcong fire. Medical corpsmen evacuate wounded soldiers by stretcher to a Medivac helicopter. 03:05 cs. Act of faith. Story about a woman who walked from France to Nazareth, Palestine to fulfill a vow made when a child was sick. cu of a road sign reading, Nazareth. vs of the woman and the donkey that accompanied her on the journey. 04:15 cs. Pop fashions pop. cu of a 45 rpm record spinning on a record player. vs of a fashion show by Angela of London. Models show clothing while dancing to pop music in Manchester, United Kingdom. vs of bellbottom slacks. 05:20 Cuts from a Paris sunglasses fashion show. 05:50 Football. vs of a game between the New York Jets and the San Diego Chargers won by San Diego 38 to 7. Plays by Keith Lincoln, John Hadle, Lance Hayworth, Joe Namath, Kenny Graham, Bill Mathis and Don Maynard. End newsreel logo. 07:30 Universal newsreel logo. 1965. cs. The elections. Republican John Lindsay campaigns for Mayor of New York City. Shot of Democrat Abraham Beame. vs of Lindsay and supporters on victory night. 08:50 cs. Chaplin is back. At the Savoy Hotel in London. vs of film director / actor Charlie Chaplin and actress Sophia Loren at the announcement that Chaplin will direct Loren in the motion picture, A Countess From Hong Kong. Good shots of press photographers. 10:00 Sports. Football. Mississippi 23, Louisiana State University (LSU) 0 at Jackson, Mississippi with plays by Jimmy Hydell, Rocky Fleming, Mike Dennis, Joe LaRusso, Mike McGee and Jimmy Nelson. 11:30 Nebraska 16, Missouri 14 with plays by Garry Lane, Monroe Felts, Fred Dudas, Johnnie Rowland, Jimmy Waller, Carl Reiss, Harry Wilson and Henry Tapman. End newsreel logo. 14:30 Universal newsreel logo 1965. cs. The big blackout. vs of a hydro power dam and electric transmission lines. Night shot of the lit New York City skyline. A police officer directs traffic during the blackout. vs of traffic during the blackout. Ftg of candlelight diners. Good shots of traffic at night and people at a public telephone. A cab fills with people. vs of people waiting in daylight in a hotel lobby. 16:30 Day ftg of the New York City skyline. People board buses. vs of pedestrians. 17:15 cs. Meg visits studio. British Princess Margaret and husband the Earl of Snowdon, Anthony Armstrong Jones, visit Universal City Studios. Jules Stein, Music Corporation of America President greets them. On a receiving line are Bobby Darren, Sandra Dee, Lana Turner, Robert Eaton and Maurice Chevalier. Ftg of Margaret on a tour ride, then seated with director Alfred Hitchcock. Shots of her visit to the set of, Beau Geste. 18:30 Sports. Football. Air Force 14, Army 3, with plays by Paul Stein, Jim Shultz, Kurt Cook, Andy Duhl, Mike Muller and Carl Jansen. End newsreel logo. 20:45 Universal international newsreel logo 1957. cs. Nixon seeks speedier aid for refugees. Vice President Richard Nixon and refugee committee head, Tracy Voorhies enter the White House. Group shot as Nixon reports to President Dwight Eisenhower. vs of Nixon during a visit to Austria. vs as Nixon tours refugee camps for Hungarians in Austria. 22:00 News in brief stories. Washington, DC. President Eisenhower congratulates artist Ronald Diaz who designed a US children's postage stamp. Mamie Eisenhower receives a gift. 22:30 Vatican City, Rome, Italy. vs of newly ordained American Roman Catholic priests. cu of a medallion of ordination. Pope Pius VIII meets the priests. Two shot of the Pope and Bishop Martin O'Connor, Rector of the American College. 23:15 San Francisco. Shot of a Pan American Airlines Boeing 377 airliner on apron. Shots of 34 Hungarian athletes who defected to the United States while in Australia. 24:00 Seattle, a story about Bo Bo, a male gorilla, and Fifi, a female gorilla, during their first zoo meeting. 25:00 New York City, at the world premier of the motion picture, The Great Man, as Milton Rachmill, Robert Merrill, Sammy Davis Jr, Billy Goldberg, Stubby Kaye, Robert Alda, Marlo Dickie Doogan and Al Morgan enter the theater. 25:30 Sports, New York City. Basketball, Invitation Holiday Festival game at Madison Square Garden. Cuts from a game between St John's University and Brigham Young University (BYU) won by BYU 89 to 75, with a play by Tom Stankey. 26:50 cs. Hungarian refugees need help. Actor Marlon Brando gives a public service announcement. End newsreel logo. 28:30 Universal international newsreel logo, 1958. cs. Regatta tragedy. At the Orange Bowl Regatta at Miami Beach, a hydroplane driven by Atiesa Salva crashes. He later died. 29:26 Sports. Bowl games. Football. Rose Bowl, Pasadena California. Shots of parade floats. Ohio State defeats Oregon 10 to 7. vs of plays. In the Cotton Bowl, Navy defeats Rice 20 to 7, with plays by Frank Ryan, Joe Tranquini, Tom Forrestal, Pete Jocanovich, John Russ, Harry Hurst. In the Sugar Bowl, Mississippi defeats Texas 39 to 7, with plays by Bobby Franklin and Raymond Brown. In the Orange Bowl, Oklahoma defeats Duke 48 to 21, with plays by David Baker, Ray Carlton, George Duthro and Al Mackileny. Sideline shot of Oklahoma coach Bob Wilkinson. End newsreel logo. 35:00 Universal international newsreel logo, 1959. cs. News review of 1958, January 31, 1958. vs of the first US space satellite, Explorer One, liftoff. Ftg of the Atlas rocket, which went into orbit, liftoff. 35:50 vs of the atomic powered submarine, Nautilus which made the first submerged Arctic ocean crossing from June 6 to June 10, 1958. ms of commander Mark Anderson at a press conference. 36:20 Shots of a celebration marking Alaska becoming the 49th state. 36:40 Vice President Nixon and his wife Pat deplane in Caracas, Venezuela. Shots of a mob attacking the Nixon motorcade. 37:02 Ftg of French President Charles De Gaulle at a press conference after being elected President. vs of a Brussels, Belgium trade fair. 37:50 Two shot of Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev and Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser shaking hands. Shots of King Faisal of Iraq and Prince Abdul Ila. 38:35 vs of the US naval task force off Lebanon and the beach landing by US marines. vs of natives. 39:00 vs of nationalist Chinese soldiers on islands in the strait of Formosa. vs as US naval ships escort a Chinese convoy. 40:00 Ftg of new buildings and pedestrians in West Berlin. Shots of East German militia training. Ext shot of the destroyed Reich Chancellory. Ext of occupation forces headquarters. Ext of Landsberg Castle prison. 40:45 Ftg of Pope Pius VIII and US Cardinal Francis Spellman. Pius lies in state after death. A triple crown is placed on Pope John XXIII's head. End newsreel logo. 41:50 Universal international newsreel logo, 1960. News review of 1959. vs of Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev at the US Pavilion at a Moscow trade fair. 42:30 Two shot of President Eisenhower and Khrushchev at a US airport. Two shot at Camp David, Maryland. 43:20 Animation of Soviet lunar space flights. Shots of monkeys, Able and Baker, that flew in the US Jupiter rocket. 44:00 Ftg of US Mercury program astronauts undergoing weightless aircraft training. Shots of Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Raul Castro amid an admiring crowd. Shot of Castro making a speech. 44:50 vs of St Lawrence Seaway opening ceremonies. vs of President Eisenhower, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip on the bridge of the Royal yacht Britannia. 45:00 vs of celebrations marking the statehood of Hawaii. Ftg of Japanese Prince Akihito's marriage ceremony. vs of Steven Rockefeller and Anne Marie Rasmussen getting married in Norway. vs of the wedding of Iran's Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi on December 21, 1959. 46:15 vs of the aftermath of typhoon Vera in Japan. Shot of US statesman John Foster Dulles in old age. 46:45 TWO SHOTS OF INDIAN PRIME MINISTER JAWAHARLAL NEHRU and the Tibetan Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. vs of soldiers in combat in Laos. vs of refugees. 47:30 Mamie Eisenhower hugs President Eisenhower as he deplanes. Vice President Nixon is in the bg. vs of a crowd with sparklers greeting Eisenhower after his world tour. End newsreel logo. 48:30 Universal international newsreel logo, 1961. cs. Upheaval. Shots of strikers and policemen in Belgium during strikes which are a result of government cutbacks resulting from the Belgian Congo situation. Shots of idle trains and buses. 48:30 News in brief stories. Virginia. Air views of the stern section of the tanker ship the, Pine Ridge. vs of damage after the stern section reaches Newport News, Virginia. 50:20 Laos. Shots of damaged buildings in Vientiane Laos resulting from combat between government and insurgent forces. vs of government soldiers. Football. Philadelphia Eagles 17, Green Bay Packers 13 in the National Football League Championship with plays by Van Brockland, Tommy McDonald, Tom Moore, Bart Starr and Ted Deans. 52:30 Story title, years ago 1936. vs of the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. Boxer Jack Dempsey receives a gift of a 1000 pound steer. Racehorse Top Row wins at the Santa Anita racetrack. 53:45 Belcher Cochrane wins the World Billiards Championship over Willy Koppy. College basketball game between New York University and California Golden Bears. 54:30 Circus performer Laura Roth wrestles a Bengal tiger named Stripsey. The tiger walks on her head. End newsreel logo. 55:15 Universal international newsreel, 1962. cs. Goa Falls. vs of destruction in the Portugese colony of Goa after Indian military takes over. vs of Indian soldiers and native Goans with Indian flags. 57:00 News in brief stories. Vatican City, Rome, Italy. Pope John XXIII signs the Papal Bull, Ioannes, Episcopus Servus Servorum Des, which announces an ecumenical meeting to be held in 1962. 58:00 Ftg of former President Eisenhower and his wife Mamie with their grandchildren, including David Eisenhower Jr and Mary Jean Eisenhower at Disneyland in California. vs of Disneyland including the monorail and other rides. 59:00 England. Shots of the church St Mary Le Bow. Ftg of Prince Philip at the rededication ceremony of the Bow Bells. 59:30 cs years ago, 1937. Protestors march against the liquidation of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Shots of a sit in strike by United Autoworkers Union members in Detroit. 60:15 vs of inventor Hayden Campbell and his aircraft the, Hayden Flyer. Amelia Earhart and Paul Mantz board a Lockheed Sirus aircraft during a search for a downed aircraft in Utah. 60:55 vs of a road and rail bus of the Arlington and Fairfax Transport Company of Virginia. End newsreel logo. CI: PERSONALITIES: AKIHITO, PRINCE. PERSONALITIES: ALDA, ROBERT. PERSONALITIES: ANDERSON, MARK. PERSONALITIES: BAKER, DAVID. PERSONALITIES: BEAME, ABRAHAM. PERSONALITIES: BRANDO, MARLON. PERSONALITIES: BROCKLAND, VAN. PERSONALITIES: BROWN, RAYMOND. PERSONALITIES: CAMPBELL, HAYDEN. PERSONALITIES: CARLTON, RAY. PERSONALITIES: CASTRO, FIDEL. PERSONALITIES: CASTRO, RAUL. PERSONALITIES: CHAPLIN, CHARLES. PERSONALITIES: CHEVALIER, MAURICE. PERSONALITIES: COCHRANE, BELCHER. PERSONALITIES: COOK, KURT. Personalities: Dalai Lama. Personalities: Darren, Bobby. Personalities: Davis, Sammy Jr. Personalities: Deans, Ted. Personalities: Dee, Sandra. Personalities: De Gaulle, Charles. Personalities: Dempsey, Jack. Personalities: Dennis, Mike. Personalities: Diaz, Ronald. Personalities: Doogan, Marlo. Personalities: Dudas, Fred. Personalities: Duhl, Andy. Personalities: Dulles, John Foster. Personalities: Duthro, George. Personalities: Earhart, Amelia. Personalities: Eaton, Robert. Personalities: Eisenhower, David Jr. Personalities: Eisenhower, Dwight. Personalities: Eisenhower, Mamie. Personalities: Eisenhower, Mary Jean. Personalities: Elizabeth II, Queen. Personalities: Faisal, King. Personalities: Felts, Monroe. Personalities: Fleming, Rocky. Personalities: Forrestal, Tom. Personalities: Franklin, Bobby. Personalities: Goldberg, Billy. Personalities: Graham, Kenny. Personalities: Hadl, John. Personalities: Hayworth, Lance. Personalities: Hitchcock, Alfred. Personalities: Hurst, Harry. Personalities: Hydell, Jimmy. Personalities: Ila, Abdul Prince. Personalities: Jansen, Carl. Personalities: Jocanovich, Pete. Personalities: John XXIII, Pope. Personalities: Jones, Anthony. Personalities: Kaye, Stubby. Personalities: Khrushchev, Nikita. Personalities: Koppy, Willy. Personalities: Lang, Garry. Personalities: La Russo, Joe. Personalities: Lincoln, Keith. Personalities: Lindsay, John. Personalities: Loren, Sophia. Personalities: MacKileny, Al. Personalities: Mantz, Paul. Personalities: Margaret, Princess. Personalities: Mathis, Bill. Personalities: Maynard, Don. Personalities: McDonald, Tommy. Personalities: McGee, Mike. Personalities: Merrill, Robert. Personalities: Moore, Tom. Personalities: Morgan, Al. Personalities: Muller, Mike. Personalities: Namath, Joe. Personalities: Nasser, Gamal Abdel. PERSONALITIES: NEHRU, JAWAHARLAL. Personalities: Nelson, Jimmy. Personalities: Nixon, Patricia. Personalities: Nixon, Richard. Personalities: O'Conner, Martin Bishop. Personalities: Pahlevi, Farah Empress. Personalities: Pahlevi, Mohammed Riza Shah. Personalities: Philip, Prince. Personalities: Pius VIII, Pope. Personalities: Rachmill, Milton. Personalities: Rasmussen, Anne Marie. Personalities: Reiss, Carl. Personalities: Rockefeller, Steven. Personalities: Roth, Laura. Personalities: Rowland, Johnnie. Personalities: Russ, John. Personalities: Ryan, Frank. Personalities: Salva, Atiesa (about). Personalities: Shultz, Jim. Personalities: Spellman, Francois Cardinal. Personalities: Stankey, Tom. Personalities: Starr, Bart. Personalities: Stein, Jules. Personalities: Stein, Paul. Personalities: Tapman, Henry. Personalities: Tranquini, Henry. Personalities: Turner, Lana. Personalities: Voorhies, Tracy. Personalities: Waller, Jimmy. Personalities: Wilkinson, Bob. Personalities: Wilson, Harry. Animals: gorillas. Buildings: construction, Golden Gate Bridge. Celebrations: statehood, Alaska. Celebrations: statehood, Hawaii. Ceremonies: wedding. Demonstrations: labor. Diplomacy: USSR/Egypt. Disasters: aviation, aftermath. Disasters: blackout. Disasters: typhoon, aftermath. Entertainment: circus. Exhibitions: fashion show. Exhibitions: trade show, Belgium. Government: Cuba. Industries: motion picture. Labor: strikes, Belgium. Military: aircraft. Military: soldiers, East Germany. Politics: election, France. Politics: Mayoral, New York City. Religion: Catholic. Space: launching, rocket. Space: satellite. Sports: basketball, college. Sports: billiards. Sports: football. Sports: football, college. Sports: horse racing. Street Scenes: New York City. US Relations: Austria. US Relations: England. US Relations: USSR. US Relations: Vatican. US Relations: Venezuela. War: Vietnam.

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. And 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 that 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've 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? SESSIONS: I don't accept that statement. I believe the United States should have an immigration policy that's fair and objective and gives people from all over the world a right to apply. And those who have -- should give preference to people who have the ability to be prosperous and succeed in America and could improve their lives and improve the United States of America. And that's sort of my view of it. I do not accept that kind of language... BLUMENTHAL: Will you return the award? SESSIONS: ...which would be contrary to my understanding of the American vision of life. BLUMENTHAL: Will you return the award? SESSIONS: Well, I don't know that I have to -- I don't know whether he had any involvement in choosing the award of not. And presumably, the award and the contributions that I did not even know, I don't recall ever know I got, are his decision, not mine. BLUMENTHAL: This award similarly was left out of your response to the questionnaire. And I guess the question, Senator Sessions, is, how can Americans have confidence that you're going to enforce anti-discrimination laws if you've accepted awards from these kinds of groups and associated with these kinds of individuals and you won't return the awards? SESSIONS: Well, first of all, I don't know that I'd defer to the Southern Poverty Law Center as the final authority on who's a radical group. So I would first challenge that. They acknowledged publicly and have in the last few weeks that I was a strong assister to them in prosecuting the Klan, but they said they opposed me because of their views on immigration. Well, I believe my views on immigration are correct, just, decent and right. Somebody else can disagree, but that's what I think. BLUMENTHAL: Would you also disavow support from Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy who gave you an award in August of 2015, similarly having made statements about Muslims and supporting your candidacy for attorney general? SESSIONS: Well, they chose to give me the award. They did not tell me what they gave it to me for, and I do not adopt everything that that center would support, I do not suppose. I am pretty independent about those things. But I would acknowledge... BLUMENTHAL: But you can understand... SESSIONS: ...that Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman also have received that award from that institution. BLUMENTHAL: Well, he has not been nominated to be attorney general. SESSIONS: Well, he has not, but he ran for vice president on your party. BLUMENTHAL: And the people of the United States might be forgiven for concluding that the kinds of attitudes and the zealousness or lack of it that you bring to enforcement of anti-discrimination laws might be reflected in your acceptance of awards from these organizations, your association with these kinds of individuals. So I am giving you the opportunity to completely repudiate and return those awards. SESSIONS: Senator Blumenthal, I just feel like the reason I was pushing back is because I do not feel like it is right to judge me and require that I give back an award if I do not agree with every policy of an organization that gave the award. I was honored to be given awards, a lot of prominent people, I am sure, have received awards at either one of these groups. And David Horowitz is a brilliant writer and I think has contributed to the policy debate. Whether everything he said, I am sure I do not agree with. Some of the language that you have indicated, I am not comfortable with. And I think it is all right to ask that question. But I just would believe it would be more than -- it would not be proper for you to insist that I am somehow disqualified for attorney general because I accepted an award from that group. BLUMENTHAL: Given that you did not disclose a number of those awards, are there any other awards from groups that have similar kinds of ideological, negative views of immigrants or of African Americans or Muslims or others, including awards that you may have received from the Ku Klux Klan. SESSIONS: Well, I will not receive it from Henry Hayes, I will tell you that. He no longer exists. So no, I would not take an award from the Klan. BLUMENTHAL: I want to give you the opportunity... SESSIONS: So I will just say that I have received hundreds of awards. I do not think -- I probably somehow should have made sure that the Annie Johnson (sic) jumping off Niagara Falls, I should have reported that probably. So I would just say to you I have no motive in denying that I received those awards. It is probably publicly published when it happened. And I have received multiple hundreds of awards over my career as I am sure you have. BLUMENTHAL: My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. And I will return on the third round. Thank you. GRASSLEY: I do not find any fault with the questions you are asking except for this business that somebody that is in the United States Senate ought to remember what awards we get. I do not know about you, but I will be every other week somebody is coming into my office to give me some award. And you take these plaques or whatever they give you and you do not even have a place to hang them, you store them someplace. I do not know whether even if I went down to that storage place I could tell you all the awards I got. I do not need anymore awards. It is kind of a problem that they give you the awards. (LAUGHTER) GRASSLEY: And obviously, I will bet Senator Sessions feels that way right now. (LAUGHTER) BLUMENTHAL: I do not differ with you. Mr. Chairman, I do not differ with you that sitting here none of us on this side of the table could probably recall every single award we have ever received. But the questionnaire from this committee asked for the information as to all awards. And I think it is fair to observe that a number of these awards were omitted from the responses. GRASSLEY: OK. Well, if somebody asked me to fill out that same questionnaire, it would never be complete and I do not know how you ever could make it complete. Before I go to you, I have a statement here from the Alabama state senate, Quinton Ross, a Democrat, minority leader. He says, "I know him," meaning Senator Sessions, "personally and all of my encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama. We have spoken about everything from civil rights to race relations, and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people." And I do not think we should forget that Senator Sessions got reelected to the United States Senate without a primary opponent or a general election opponent. Egad, you know, would not we all like to do that? Senator Graham. GRAHAM: I have been unable to do that. GRASSLEY: Oh, I will put this in the record without objection. GRAHAM: Thank you. I had six primary opponents. (LAUGHTER) GRASSLEY: Yeah. GRAHAM: And I... GRASSLEY: I can understand. I can understand why. (LAUGHTER) GRAHAM: There you go. I will probably have 10. I will probably have 10 next time. But here is what I want them to know. I, too, received the Annie Taylor Award. SESSIONS: Annie Taylor Award, that is the name of it. GRAHAM: Yeah, there is it. I was there. I got it, too. (LAUGHTER) I do not get enough awards. You can speak for yourself, Mr. Chairman. (LAUGHTER) Yeah, I got the award. I went to the dinner and Chris Matthews interviewed me. So I do not know what that means other than I will do almost anything for a free dinner. (LAUGHTER) You know, I like Senator Blumenthal, but, you know, we did this for Alito, this whole guilt-by-association stuff. You have been around 15 years. SESSIONS: Twenty. GRAHAM: Twenty. Well, 15 with me. I am pretty sure you are not a closet bigot, and I got the same award you did. And that other award he was talking about, who got it? Joe Lieberman? SESSIONS: He got the award at the Gaffney. GRAHAM: OK. Well, anyway, all I can tell you is that this whole idea that if you receive recognition from some group, you own everything they have ever done or said, is probably not fair to any of us. And we can go through all of our records about donations. The bottom line is, Senator Sessions, there is no doubt in my mind that you are one of the most fair, decent, honest men I have ever met. And you know what I like most about you? If you are the only person in the room who believes it, you will stand up and say so. I have seen you speak out when you were the only guy that believed what you believed and I admire the heck out of that. So if I get nominated by Trump, which I think will come when hell freezes over... (LAUGHTER) ... I am here to tell you I got the Annie Taylor Award, too. So let's talk about the law of war. I think you were asked by Senator Feinstein about the indefinite detention. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, this is Sandra Day O'Connor's quote, "There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." That case involved a U.S. citizen that was captured in Afghanistan and was held as an enemy combatant. Are you familiar with that case? SESSIONS: Generally, yes, not as familiar as you, but I know you have studied it in great depth. GRAHAM: Well, this has been -- as a military lawyer, this is sort of part of what I did. Do your constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen stop at the nation's shores or do they follow you wherever you go? SESSIONS: Well, you have certain rights wherever you go. GRAHAM: So if you go to Paris, you don't give up your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. Could the FBI break into your hotel room in Paris and basically search your room without a warrant? SESSIONS: I do not believe it. GRAHAM: No, they cannot. Your constitutional rights is attached to you. So if the people will say, well, he was in Afghanistan, that does not matter. What the court is telling us, no American citizen has a constitutional right to join the enemy at a time of war. And Ray Quirin (ph), that case involved German saboteurs who landed in Long Island. Are you familiar with this? SESSIONS: I am very familiar with that case. I have read it. GRAHAM: They were German saboteurs and had American citizen contacts in the United States. They were all seized by the FBI and tried by the military. So what I would tell Senator Feinstein and my other colleagues, the law is well-settled here, that a United States citizen in other wars have been held as enemy combatants when the evidence suggests they collaborated with the enemy. Under the current law, if you are suspected of being an enemy combatant, within a certain period of time, 60 days I think, the government has to present you to a federal judge and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you are a member of the organization they claim you to be a member of. Are you familiar with that, your habeas rights? SESSIONS: Correct, yes. GRAHAM: So as to how long an enemy combatant can be held traditionally under the law of war, people are taken off the battlefield until the war is over or they are no longer a danger. Does that make sense to you? SESSIONS: It does make sense and that is my understand of the traditional law of war. GRAHAM: And the law of war is designed to, like, win the war. The laws around the law of war are designed to deal with conflicts and to take people off the battlefield, you can kill or capture them, and there is no requirement like domestic criminal law, at a certain point in time they have to be presented for trial because the goal of the law of war is to protect the nation and make sure you win the war. So when you capture somebody who has been adjudicated a member of the enemy force, there is no concept in military law or the law of war that you have to release them in an arbitrary date because that would make no sense. So all I am saying is that I think you are on solid ground. And this idea of an American citizen being an enemy combatant is part of the history of the law of war. And I am very willing to work with my colleagues to make sure that indefinite detention is reasonably applied and that we can find due process rights that do not exist in traditional law of war because this is a war without end. When do you think this war will be over? Do you think we will know when it is over? SESSIONS: I have asked a number of witnesses in Armed Services about that. And it is pretty clear we are talking about decades before we have a complete alteration of this spasm in the Middle East that just seems to have legs and will continue for some time. That is most likely what would happen. GRAHAM: You are about to embark on a very important job at an important time. And here is what my suggestion would be: That we work with the Congress to come up with a legal regime that recognizes that gathering intelligence is the most important activity against radical Islam. The goal is to find out what they know. Do you agree with that? SESSIONS: That is a critical goal. GRAHAM: And I have found that under military law and military intelligence-gathering, no manual I have ever read suggested that reading Miranda rights is the best way to gather information. As a matter of fact, I have been involved in this business for 33 years. And if a commander came to me as a JAG and said we just captured somebody on the battlefield, you name the battlefield, they want their rights read to them, I would tell them they are not entitled to Miranda rights. They are entitled to Geneva Convention treatment. They are entitled to humane treatment. They are entitled to all the things that go with the Geneva Convention because the court has ruled that enemy combatants are subject to Geneva Convention protections. So I just want to let you know, from my point of view, that we are at war. I am encouraged to hear that the new attorney general recognizes the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war. And that the next time we capture bin Laden's son-in-law, if he has got any more, I hope we do not read him his Miranda rights in two weeks. I hope we keep him humanely as long as necessary to interrogate him to find out what the enemy may be up to. Does that make sense to you? SESSIONS: Well, it does. We did not give Miranda warnings to German and Japanese prisoners we captured. And it has never been part of the rule. So they are being detained and they are subject to being interrogated properly and lawfully any time, any day, and they are not entitled to a lawyer and so forth. GRAHAM: Right. And Miranda and all did not exist back in World War II, but it does now. But the law, the Hamdi case, this is very important, that you do not have to read an enemy combatant their Miranda rights. They do have a right to counsel in a habeas proceeding... SESSIONS: In a habeas course, you are correct. GRAHAM: ...to see if the government got it right. You can hold them as long as is necessary for intelligence gathering and you can try them in Article III courts, you can try them in military commissions. As the attorney general of the United States, would you accept that military commissions could be the proper venue under certain circumstances for a terrorist? SESSIONS: Yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Here is what we will do. We will go to Senator Hirono and then Senator Kennedy and then you should take a break because I want one. OK? (LAUGHTER) Proceed. HIRONO: Thank you. Senator Sessions, in 1944, the Supreme Court handed down what is considered one of the worst rulings in the history of our country, and that case is Korematsu versus United States, which upheld the constitutionality of the internment of Japanese Americans internment camps. Despite the near-universal condemnation today of the court's ruling, this past November Carl Higbie, a spokesman for a pro-Trump super-PAC and a surrogate for President-elect Trump, cited Korematsu as precedent for a program which would require Muslims in the United States to register with the government. Here are my questions. First, would you support such a registry for Muslim Americans, in other words U.S. citizens? SESSIONS: I do not believe we need a registration program for U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslim. Is that the question? HIRONO: My question is whether you would support such a registry for U.S. citizens who happen to Muslims. SESSIONS: No. HIRONO: Thank you. So since the president may go in that direction, what kind of constitutional problems would there be for U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslims to be required to register? SESSIONS: Well, my understanding is, as I recall, later comments by President-elect Trump do not advocate for that registration, but he will have to speak for himself on his policies. But I do not think that is accurate at this point as his last stated position on it. HIRONO: Since you do not support such a registry for U.S. citizen Muslims, is that because you think that there are some constitutional issues involved with such a requirement for U.S. citizen Muslims? SESSIONS: It would raise serious constitutional problems because the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to free exercise of religion. And I believe Americans overwhelmingly honor that and should continue to honor it, and it would include Muslims for sure. And I do not believe they should be treated differently fundamentally. They should not be treated differently. HIRONO: Thank you. And in addition to the freedom of religion provisions, perhaps that would be some equal protection constitutional problems, possibly some procedural due process constitutional problems with that kind of registry requirement. Turning to consent decrees, there are more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States. America's police officers are the best in the world, and that is due, in large part, to their bravery, skill and integrity in what they do. Our Constitution ensures that the government is responsible to its citizens and that certain rights should not be violated by the government, but that does not mean that things always work perfectly, as you noted in one of your responses, in the real world. So while the vast majority of police officers do exemplary work and build strong relationships with their communities to keep the public safe, there have been specific use-of-force deadly incidents that have sparked nationwide outrage. Some of these incidents have led the attorney general's Civil Rights Division to do investigations into whether individual police departments have a, quote, unquote, "pattern of practice," unquote, of unconstitutional policing, and to make sure our police departments are compliant with the law. And when these investigations find that police departments are engaged in unconstitutional policing, they are frequently resolved through consent decrees with the Department of Justice, which requires police departments to undertake certain important reforms that are overseen by independent monitors to ensure that necessary changes are being made in these departments. Senator Sessions, you once wrote that, and I quote, "consent decrees have a profound effect on our legal system as they constitute and end run around the democratic processes," end quote. Currently, more than 20 police departments around the country are engaged in consent decrees with the Justice Department. In Maryland, Baltimore mayor, Catherine Pugh, said Monday she expects her city to finalize a consent decree with the Justice Department this week, as noted in The Baltimore Sun. My question is, will you commit to maintaining and enforcing the consent decrees that the Justice Department has negotiated during this administration? SESSIONS: Those decrees remain in force until and if they are changed. And they would be enforced. The consent decree itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It could be a legitimate decisions. There can be circumstances in which police departments are subject to a lawsuit, which is what starts this process ultimately ending in a consent decree. But I think there is concern that good police officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have individuals within a department who have done wrong. And those individuals need to be prosecuted. And these lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness. And we need to be careful before we do that. So what I would say to you, because filing a lawsuit against a police department has ramifications, sometimes beyond what a lot of people think, and it can impact morale of the officers, it can impact and affect the view of citizens to their police department. And I just think that caution is always required in these cases. I would not prejudge a specific case. HIRONO: Senator Sessions, I understand that. But a showing of a pattern of practice needs to be shown, so these are not just a rogue police officer doing something that would be deemed unconstitutional. So are you saying that with regard to negotiating consent decrees that you will revisit these consent decrees and perhaps give police departments a second bite at the apple so that they can undo some of the requirements on them? SESSIONS: Well, presumably, the Department of Justice under the Holder/Lynch leadership always would be expecting to end these decrees at some point. So I just would not commit that there would never be any changes in them. And if departments have complied or reached other developments that could justify all or a modification of the consent decree, of course I would do that. HIRONO: Well, usually consent decrees require -- when they end, it is because they have complied with the provisions of the consent decree. So I am just trying to get a simple answer. And I hope that you would... SESSIONS: Well, I will give you a simple answer. It is a difficult thing for a city to be sued by the Department of Justice and to be told that your police department is systematically failing to serve the people of the state or the city. So that is an august responsibility of the attorney general and the Department of Justice. So they often feel forced to agree to a consent degree just to remove that stigma. And sometimes there are difficulties there, so I just think we need to be careful and respectful of the parties. HIRONO: I understand that. But as to the consent decrees that were negotiated with both parties in full, you know, faith to do what is appropriate, that you would leave those intact unless there are some exigent or some extraordinary circumstances. Of course, going forward, as attorney general you can enter into whatever consent decrees you deem appropriately appropriate. So my question really is the existing consent decrees which took a lot to negotiate, by the way. And it is not the vast majority of police departments in this country; it is 20. GRASSLEY: You can answer that if you want to and then we will move on. SESSIONS: I understand what you are saying. And one of the impacts of a consent decree is it does require judicial approval of any alteration in it, and that raises pros and cons. HIRONO: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Kennedy. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, could you tell the committee a little bit more about what it was like to be a U.S. attorney? What was your management style? Did you enjoy it? How was it compared to serving in the state government as a state attorney general? SESSIONS: I loved being a U.S. attorney. That was, I hate to say it, was -- we all say it, almost everybody that has held the job says it is the greatest job. If you like law enforcement and trying to protect citizens and prosecuting criminals, it was just a fabulous job. And we had great assistants. And I loved it and our team did. It was Camelot days for me, so I did feel that. I only had two years as attorney general. We had this monumental deficit when I got elected and we had to lay off a third of the office because we did not have money to pay the electric bill. And it was just one thing after another. And then I was running for the Senate, so I did not get to enjoy that job. But the United States attorney job was a really fabulous experience. And I believe in the course of it I worked with FBI, DEA, U.S. Customs, Marshals Service, all the federal agencies, ATF, IRS, Postal Service and their inspectors. And you get to know their cultures and their crimes that they investigate, the officers and what motivates them and how a little praise and affirmation is so important for them. They get the same salary, you know. If they are not being appreciated, they feel demeaned, their morale can decline. So that kind of experience was wonderful. And I do think it would help me be a better attorney general. KENNEDY: I have made up my mind. (LAUGHTER) I yield back my time. I hope you will be a raging voice of common sense at the Department of Justice, Senator. SESSIONS: Well, thank you. GRASSLEY: Before you take a break, I hope that the people, all the people that still want to do a third round, will come back in about maybe 15 minutes or a little less. Is that OK? SESSIONS: Yes. GRASSLEY: OK. We stand in recess for 15 minutes or so. (RECESS) GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) FRANKEN: Well, thank you. Senator, last Friday the Director of National Intelligence, we covered this a little, representing 16 agencies released a declassified intelligence report stating in quote, "We assessed Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," unquote. And yet despite the consensus among our intelligence agencies, President-elect Trump has remained persistently skeptical during the first presidential debate. He wandered a lot whether the responsible party could be China or, quote, somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. Last month he called reports of Russian hacking quote, "ridiculous," and quote "another excuse," for the democratic loss. He said quote, "it could be somebody sitting on -- in a bed some place." Again, I mean, they have no idea. And even after the release of the declassified report, the president has really yet to acknowledge Russia's role in the hacking. You said earlier that you accept the FBI's conclusion. To my mind, it's absolutely extraordinary to see a president-elect so publicly refuting and without evidence, so far as I can tell, the assessment of our intelligence agencies. Why do you think president-elect Trump has been so unwilling to acknowledge Russian involvement in the hacking? SESSIONS: I did mean to indicate I respect the FBI and I respect the fact that if they give a conclusion they believe is accurate, but I'm not able to comment on the president-elect's comments about it. FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say quote, "There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have -- did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it. FRANKEN: Very well. Without divulging sensitive information, do you know about this or know what compromising personal and financial information the Russians claim to have? SESSIONS: Senator Franken, allegations get made about candidates all the time and they've been made about president-elect Trump a lot sometimes. Most of them, virtually all of them have been proven to be exaggerated and untrue. I would just say to you that I have no information about this matter. I have not been in on the classified briefings and I'm not a member of the intelligence committee, and I'm just not able to give you any comment on it at this time. FRANKEN: OK. Totally fair. Last week, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, claim that the Russian government was not the source of the hacked e-mails WikiLeaks published during the -- that they published during the campaign. Now, Assange did not identify his source nor did he say whether his source worked with or received information from the Russians. But again, American intelligence agencies have included the Russian government directed the hacking operation. Nonetheless, immediately following that interview, president-elect tweeted, quote, "Julian Assange said a 14-year-old could have hacked Podesta. Why was DNC so careless. Also said Russians did not give him the info exclamation point. Senator Sessions, does it concern you that our future commander in chief is so much more willing to accept what Julian Assange says instead of the conclusions of our intelligence agencies and why do you think President Trump finds Assange trustworthy? SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not able to answer that. I have not talked to the president-elect about any of these issues and it is often inaccurate what gets printed in them papers. FRANKEN: Well, back in 2010, back when WikiLeaks was publishing stolen American diplomatic cables and military secrets, you voiced concern about the Obama administration's response. You said that WikiLeaks publishing sensitive documents should be quote, "pursued with the greatest intensity." You said quote, "the president from on down should be crystal clear on this, and I haven't seen that, I mean, he comes out of the left, the anti-war left. They have always glorified people who leak sensitive documents. Now he's the commander in chief so he's got a challenge." President-elect Trump, by contrast, said quote, "WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks." Do you believe that by holding up Julian Assange, who traffics and leaked in stolen documents, often classified documents as a legitimate source of information that president-elect Trump is glorifying people who leak sensitive documents? SESSIONS: Well, I would say this, that if Assange participated in violating the American law, then he is a person subject to prosecution and condemnation. FRANKEN: Well, we know that in regard to what he did in 2010 and yet the president-elect said WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks. Doesn't it seem like perhaps if you weren't sitting before us today as an attorney general nominee and if President Obama was publicly embracing Julian Assange, that perhaps you might take a more critical view? SESSIONS: As a member of the Senate, as you and I remain for, hopefully not too much longer, depends on you and your colleagues, but we're -- I feel a lot -- it's a lot easier to be vigorous and outspoken. If you begin to think about the awesome responsibility of serving as an Attorney General with the possibility of having to handle certain cases, you need to be more cautious about what you say. So, I think it's just not appropriate for me to be the person for you to seek political responses from. GRASSLEY: Senator -- FRANKEN: OK. I am out of time. I will try to stick around for one more quick round. GRASSLEY: OK. Senator Cruz? CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sessions, thank you for your endurance today. Let's turn to a different topic, one that's been addressed some in this hearing but one that I know is -- is a particular passion of yours and one on which you built a remarkable record. That's immigration. And I want to focus, in particular, on the problem of criminal aliens in the United States and this administration's nonenforcement of the laws. And take a moment just to review some of the numbers which you know very well, but I think it's helpful to review for those watching this hearings. We have had an administration that consistently refuses to enforce our immigration laws. So, in October 2015, ICE submitted that there were 929,684 aliens present in the United States who had been ordered to leave the country but who hadn't done so. And of those over 929,000 aliens with removal orders, 179,027 had criminal convictions. In addition to the 179,027 criminal aliens with final orders of removal, there were at least 194,791 known criminal aliens who were at the time in removal proceedings. We also know that 121 criminal aliens released by ICE between fiscal year 2010 and 2014 went on to commit homicides. And between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2015, ICE released 6,151 aliens with sexual offense convictions from its custody. My question for you, Senator Sessions, is can you commit to this committee and to the American people that as Attorney General, you will enforce the laws including the federal immigration laws and you will not be releasing criminal illegal aliens into the public, especially those with violent convictions such as homicide or sexual assault convictions? SESSIONS: Senator Cruz, you and I have talked about this and you know that I believe we have failed in dealing with criminal aliens. President Obama set that as a priority but I don't think they've been as effective as needed. I believe that should be increased and stepped up, the priority of that. The actual policies, as you know, our homeland security policies, the secretary of homeland security will determine those policies. There are ways in which the Department of Justice can fulfill a role in it but the overall policies and priorities would be set by homeland security. I just believe that as we go forward and reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into America, then there are few people illegally per investigative officer and you get a better handle, you're in a virtuous cycle instead of this dangerous cycle that we're in today where things tend to get worse. So, I believe we can turn that around. This is one of the policies that has to be given priority. Donald Trump has also said he believes criminal aliens obviously should be the top priority and all of us, I believe, this government will work effectively to deal with it. I would -- I would do my part. CRUZ: You know, there are few issues that frustrate Americans more than the refusal to enforce our immigration laws and not too long ago, I was down on the border in Texas visiting with border patrol officials, visiting with law enforcement, local sheriffs. And I'll tell you, it was after the election and there was a palpable sense of relief that finally, we would have an administration that didn't view the laws as obstacles to be circumvented but rather, an administration that would be willing to enforce the laws on the books and stop releasing criminal aliens in communities where the citizens are at risk. You know, one of the most tragic instances that we're all familiar with is Kate Steinle. Beautiful young woman in California who lost her life who was murdered by a criminal illegal alien who had seven prior felonies. And yet over and over and over again, the system failed. And young Kate Steinle lost her life in her father's arms saying "Daddy, please save me." You and I are both the fathers of daughters and I cannot think of a more horrific experience than having to hold your daughter at this moment of agony. Can you share -- this has been an issue you have been leading for so long -- can you share your perspective as to the responsibility of the federal government to keep the American people safe and not to subject the American people to murderers and other repeat felons who are here illegally, not to release them to the public? SESSIONS: Senator Cruz, you are touching on the right issue here. First and foremost, the immigration policy of the United States should serve the national interest, the peoples' interest, that's what an immigration system should do. Number two, under the laws of world agreements that if a citizen from a foreign country is admitted by visa to the United States and they commit a deportable act or otherwise need to be removed, that country has to take them back and when they cease to do that, you have a serious breach of collegial relations between the two countries and no country, particularly the United States, should ever allow so many individuals who committed crimes here often when they entered illegally, not even coming on a lawful visa and they need to be deported promptly. And reluctance of that to happen is baffling to me. It should have total bipartisan support. It's said that it does, but for somehow it's never accomplished. So, it's very, very frustrating. So, the basic summary of that is it's perfectly proper, decent and correct for this nation not to allow people who come here on a visa or illegally to remain here after they have committed crimes. CRUZ: Well, thank you, Senator Sessions. As you know, I have introduced legislation in the senate, Kate's law, which would provide for those who illegally re-enter with a violent criminal conviction a mandatory five-year prison sentence. This past Senate that failed to pass it, it's my hope Congress will pass that legislation and give additional tools to the administration to keep the American people safe. Let me turn to one additional aspect of illegal immigration which is the national security component of it. Since August of 2015, you and I have joined together to send three separate letters to the Departments of Justice, homeland security and state as well as a letter to the president seeking information on the immigration histories of individuals who have been convicted or implicated in terrorist attack in the United States. And over and over again, the current administration has stonewalled our efforts as senators to get basic facts that I think the American people are entitled to. You and I were able to piece together from the public record that at least 40 people who were initially admitted to the United States as refugees were subsequently convicted or implicated in terrorism and -- and more broadly, of a list of 580 individuals who were convicted of terrorism or terrorism related offenses between 2001 and 2014, at least 380 were born in foreign countries, many from terrorist spots in the Middle East and Africa and Central Asia. And of the 198 U.S. citizens, you and I were able to find on that list, at least 100 were born abroad and subsequently naturalized. As I mentioned, the administration has stonewalled us. Will you commit to work with this committee to provide the data that we've been seeking that I think the American people are entitled to know of those who are committing terror plots against us, how many are coming in through a broken immigration system, through a broken refugee system and to working with this committee to prevent that from happening in the future to keep the people safe? SESSIONS: I will do that. I do believe that's the homeland security primary responsibility, but it was a bit frustrating because what those numbers tend to indicate, it indicates that it's not true that refugees don't commit terrorist acts. There is a danger even in the refugee population and good vetting is critical in that process. CRUZ: Thank you, senator. GRASSLEY: Senator Collins? COONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Sessions, if I might, I would like to take us to an area I don't think has been explored much today but of grave concern to me which is disability rights. Another area where, if confirmed, as attorney general, you'd be charged with protecting among the most vulnerable Americans and those whose rights have only recently been fully recognized and enforced. You have previously said that the IDEA which provides for access to education for those with intellectual disabilities creates, and I think I quote here, "lawsuit after lawsuit, special treatment for certain children and is a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility in classrooms all over America." And in a different setting, you were critical of the supreme court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002 which held that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment. In a floor speech six days later after that ruling, you said that you were quote, "very troubled" by the court telling states quote, "they could not execute people who were retarded." If a state was scheduled to execute someone with intellectual disabilities, would you insist on the justice department now taking vigorous action to stop it and given your previous comments about the IDEA, do you still believe it unfairly benefits some children and hurts others? SESSIONS: We made a real reform in IDEA. I led that effort. We ended up having the vote of Hillary Clinton and Dick Durbin, Senator Durbin. We worked on it very hard and I was very pleased with the way it worked out. It was true that the IDEA community pushed back against the reforms I was proposing, but in the end, I think it worked out fine and the reason was that the burden was on the school systems. I was in a blue ribbon great little school in Alabama, first day of school, and the principal told me it's now 3:00. At 5:00, I will go to a meeting with lawyers and parents about and -- a child on whether or not they will be in the classroom all day or half a day and the child had serious disabilities. So, he said I'm trying to get this school up and running and I'm having to spend this extraordinary amount of time on this. So, we created a legal system that made it better. And the schools got a little more deference in being able to monitor. And it was a big issue. It was a disruptive force in big city schools in New York and Chicago and other places like that. So, on the question of intellectual disabilities, I suppose we can disagree, as a matter of policy, perhaps I was questioning the legal mandate but a person with intellectual disabilities that should be considered as a factor in the sentencing jury or judge's opinion before they go forward. But obviously, if a person knows the difference in right and wrong, historically they would be held to the same standard even though their intellectual ability would be less. COONS: Let me revisit a question about consent decrees that Senator Hirono was asking you about previously. Because consent decrees have been used in this area and disability rights to make sure that folks with intellectual disabilities have access to services and education but also in policing. Police chiefs and elected officials, as we have spoken, about in communities across the country have, in some cases, invited DOJ to open civil rights investigations of their police departments and have invited them to enter into consent decrees in order to implement reforms to law enforcement in order to make sure that they improve the quality of police community relations and respect for civil rights. Do you plan to continue to assist cities with these investigations when asked if attorney general and under what circumstances would you commence a civil rights investigation of a law enforcement agency that may have violated federal law? SESSIONS: Well, those are difficult questions for me to answer explicitly today but I would note on the consent decrees or the language the Senator Hirono quoted, I believe, was in a booklet of which I simply wrote the foreword on. I don't believe that was my language. Consent decrees have been criticized in a number of areas but with regard to the disabilities community and the police departments, I guess you're asking about, I'm not familiar with how they have worked out in the disabilities arena but with regard to police departments, I think it's a good thing that a police department might call on federal investigators in a team and to work with their police department to identify any problems and to help select remedies that the community might feel were more valid because the department of justice validated them and agreed to them. So, I think you and I talked, it really is important that the people trust the department, police departments, and the police departments have respect from the communities. When you don't have that, crime is -- people safety is at risk. COONS: Well, I hope we can find ways to work together to combat violent crime and the improve police community relations. Let me just briefly ask you about Trade Secrets Act and intellectual property, something we've talked about. There is a significant problem for American inventions, companies, entrepreneurs, having their innovations stolen, sometimes by cyber hack by intrusions, sometimes physically or through industrial espionage. The Obama Administration's made real progress if increasing enforcement and in going after those who would steal America's inventions. Is that something that you would intend to continue vigorous enforcement to protect American inventions? SESSIONS: I do. I think a lot of that may be through the U.S. Trade representative. It could be done through commerce department and other departments and the department of justice may have a role... COONS: It does. SESSIONS: ... in criminal activities or civil enforcement. I would not -- excuse me -- say for certain what that would be at this point but my view, as you and I have talked, is that you're correct about this. When we enter into a trade agreement with a foreign nation, what we have to understand is that's just a simple contract and we'll comply, we'll deal with you on this basis and if you're partner to that contract that is not acting honorably, then you have every right to push back and if it ultimately means you have to pull out of the agreement, then you pull out of the agreement. If it's serious enough. I don't think we've been as aggressive as we should have been in those agreements. COONS: Let me ask one last question if I may. I just wanted to reflect on something you said in your opening and something we have talked about. You were born in Selma, roughly 70 years ago. I've been to Selma several times with Congressman Lewis and a number of others, and last year, many of us joined Congressman Lewis for the 50th anniversary of the famous march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge when he faced violence and the response, the conscience of the nation was stirred by this horrible event and it spurred Congress to pass the Bipartisan Voting Rights Act. There's been a lot of questioning back and forth about your comments about whether the Voting Rights Act was intrusive and the Shelby County decision. I just wanted to make sure I came back to an important point which was that, Senator Leahy and I and a number of others tried hard to find Republican partners to advance the Voting Rights Advancement Act which would have replaced the now 50 years old, roughly, preclearance formula with a new one that would be national in scope, would not disadvantage any region and would be simply based on enforcement actions. Previous questioning by, I think, Senator Franken and others, focused on recent enforcement actions, the fourth circuit finding that North Carolina's post Shelby voter ID law violated the law because it targeted African-Americans. You said in your opening statement you witnessed the Civil Rights Movement as it happened near you, that you witnessed the depredations of segregation. And in a ceremony last year during the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers of the Civil Rights Movement, you said, I feel I should have stepped forward more. What more do you think you, perhaps, could have done or should have done in recent years as a senator to take more active action, so that folks from around the country could have confidence in your commitment to continuing the journey of civil rights in the country? SESSIONS: Well, I don't think we have to agree on everything just because you think this is a necessary thing, you may be right and if I don't think so, I don't know that I'm wrong, not necessarily wrong. I would say that I did sponsor the Congressional Gold Medal Act that gave the gold medal to the Selma and Montgomery marches with Senator Cory Booker. We were the two lead sponsors on it. I was at that event and have a wonderful picture I'd cherish with John Lewis and other people on the bridge celebrating that event. It changed the whole south. Voting rights were discriminating, were being -- African-Americans were being discriminated against systemically. They were being flat denied through all kinds of mechanisms. In a whole, only a very few and many instances were allowed to vote, if any. So, this was an unacceptable thing. As I said at the hearing in 1986, I was asked about it being intrusive. Please, Senator Coons, do not suggest in any way that that word means that I was hostile to the act. I said then and I say now. It was necessary that the act be intrusive because it had to force change and it wouldn't have happened without the power of the federal government. That is a plain fact. COONS: Senator, what I'm suggesting is an alternative path forward for the Voting Rights Act that would not have been singling out one region or one state or one history, but that would have allowed the right to be effective in the face of the recent record showing ongoing discrimination, ongoing denial of the right to vote in different states across the country, now no longer isolated to the south, when presented with an opportunity to continue and strengthen the voting rights act post Shelby, you didn't take that step. SESSIONS: Well... GRASSLEY: Senator Session, if you need to answer that, go ahead and answer it. I want to go to Senator Blumenthal. SESSIONS: As I said, I supported the authorization of the Voting Rights Act with Section 5 in it. When the Supreme Court said it was longer necessary that section 5 be in it, I did not support the language that you offered that would basically put it back in, you and Senator Leahy. So, I don't apologize for that. I think that was a legitimate decision and with regard to the question of voter ID, I'm not sure it's inconclusively settled one way or the other whether a properly conducted voter ID system is improper and discriminatory. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that voter ID is legitimate. At least on certain circumstances. GRASSLEY: OK. Before Senator Blumenthal, I have another thing that has come to our attention so I will put this in the record without objection, a letter that we received from some lawyers about the IDEA issue. These lawyers litigate cases on this issue. They say certain stories about the issue took Senator Session's comments out of context and then they go on to note that Senator Kennedy and others later reached an agreement with Senator Sessions on the issue. Senator Blumenthal? BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Session, I want to pursue this conversation about voting rights, In October of 2015, there was a report widely reported that the State of Alabama intended to close a number of DMV offices. Congressman -- Congresswoman Terri Sewell, wrote to the Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging an investigation stating, I'm quoting, "This decision will leave 8 out of 10 counties with the highest percentage of nonwhite registered voters without a Department of Motor Vehicles, DMV, to issue an Alabama driver's license." She noted that quote, "an estimated 250,000 Alabamaians who do not have, do not have an acceptable form of photo identification to cast a ballot," end quote. As you know, subsequently, the Department of Transportation issued an investigation under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act and that year-long investigation found that Alabama's conduct caused, quote, "a disparate and adverse impact on the basis of race," end quote. Did you believe or or do you not believe now that it was a problem that 250,000 estimated citizens of your state did not have the requisite ID to vote? SESSIONS: There is a system, I understand, that makes those IDs available. The driver's licenses offices were a part of a budget cutting process within the state which I had absolutely nothing to do with and did not advise and know about until it was done. They attempted, they claimed, that they were simply identifying the areas with the lowest population and trying to do some consolidation and trying to make the system more efficient and productive. It was later these objections rose -- arose and they have reversed that, I believe. So, that's the way that went, I hope, and think there was no intent at the time to do an anti, you know, to be racially insensitive, but indeed, many of the closures were in counties with large African-American populations. BLUMENTHAL: Did you believe then that there was a problem in denying 250,000 people an access to photo identification they needed to vote? SESSIONS: Well, they didn't deny 250,000 people the right to vote. That would be utterly wrong and should be stopped immediately. It just simply -- maybe the closest driver's license office would be in the next county and closer for you to go to that one than the one that was closed. But it was, in general, perceived as detrimental to African-Americans and included in that detriment was the possibility of an ID for voting. So, you are correct, it was controversial and it was fixed. BLUMENTHAL: Did you agree with the Department of Investigation finding that it had an adverse and disparate impact on people on the basis of race? SESSIONS: Well, I've never expressed an opinion upon it and I never studied that issue in depth but, apparently, somebody must have agreed because it was changed. BLUMENTHAL: Did you agree with that conclusion? SESSIONS: Well, yes, I was happy that -- that solution was reached, yes, very much. BLUMENTHAL: Did you take... SESSIONS: No need to have a -- you know, you shouldn't -- we should remember those things as we move forward setting policy, what kind of ramifications could it have. I don't think they had voting in their mind at all, but it did impact voting to some degree for sure. BLUMENTHAL: But you took no action at the time. You expressed no conclusion at the time despite what was found to be a disparate and adverse impact on the voting rights of 250,000 members of the citizens of your state? SESSIONS: Well, they didn't ask my opinion before they did it and it was purely a state matter and I did not actively intervene, you're correct. BLUMENTHAL: I want to ask you about the DACA, young people, the DREAMers, who have submitted information to the federal government about their whereabouts, their identities, a lot of personal details. And I know that your response, I think, to a question about it was that Congress must act. But wouldn't it violate fundamental fairness whether due process or some standard of constitutional due process, to use that information, in effect, against them. Obviously, we're not talking about a criminal proceeding, so there's no double jeopardy. But, I guess, I'm asking for your commitment as perspective attorney general, your respect for the constitution, to make a commitment that those young people will not be deported, that you will continue that policy that has been initiated. SESSIONS: Certainly, you're correct that those -- that cohort of individuals should not be targeted and give a priority, anything like the priorities should be given to criminals and people who've had other difficulties in the United States, those who've been deported and had final orders of deportation. So, I understand what you're saying there. I think until I've had a chance to think it through and examine the law and so forth, I would not opine on it myself. Number two, importantly, this is a policy of homeland security. They've got to wrestle with the priorities of their agents, what they should spend their time with and try to do that in a most effective way. So, General Kelly will have to think that through. I'm simply would be -- if some matter were litigated, we would try to be supportive of the litigating position if possible. So, really a homeland security question. BLUMENTHAL: I understand that homeland security may be involved. But ultimately, orders to deport are the responsibility of the Department of Justice to enforce. You are the nominee to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer, and more importantly, in some sense, you're a source of the nation's consciences, legal conscience. And so I'm asking you as a perspective United States attorney whether your conscience would be violated by using information submitted in good faith by countless young people who have been in this country sense infancy, many of them, and who trusted the government of the United States of America to give them the benefit of that policy articulated by the president of the United States. You may have disagreed that policy. SESSIONS: Well... BLUMENTHAL: But if the submission of that information in good faith, on the basis of representations by the United States of America, it seems to me involve a perspective commitment on your part in representing the United States of America. SESSIONS: Well, you make a good point and that that's a valid concern. I know of no policy that would suggest that something like that would be done and I would not push for it. But ultimately, the decision would be made by the homeland security department. They decide their priorities for enforcement and then there's a question of whether or not I would -- I just wouldn't want be in a position to say they would never be used. And I can't make that commitment today. I haven't thought it through as to what laws might be implicated, but if somebody were a terrorist or had other criminal gang connections, could you never use that information? I don't know. I'm just not prepared to answer that today. It my not be possible to use it. BLUMENTHAL: Well, I'm -- I recognize Mr. Chairman my time is up but I'll pursue this line of questioning again because I feel I'm midway through a number of questions. Thank you, Senator. GRASSLEY: Before I call on the senator from Hawaii, I'd like to note that Pat Edgington (ph), former vice chair of the Alabama Democratic Party, wrote to our committee in support of this nomination. Mr. Edgington (ph) says, quote, "I truly hope our party will not make this vote on party lines but instead vote on man." End of quote. Quote again, "I have known him for approximately 40 years and while we have had our policy differences, I know his instincts are fundamentally humane and just." Without objection, enter that in the record. Senator from Hawaii. HIRONO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our Muslim-American community is gravely concerned about what a Trump presidency would mean for them. So, can the Muslim-Americans count on you as attorney general to protect their constitutional and civil right? SESSIONS: Yes. HIRONO: Thank you. Very reassured. I had asked you earlier about consent decrees that relate to police departments. I have a question along those lines but it involves another part of civil rights. In 2015, a federal district court in Alabama, your state approved a consent decree order filed by the Department of Justice in the Huntsville City Schools case and this was a school desegregation case. A number of other school districts throughout the country are under desegregation orders. Would you commit to maintaining and enforcing those decrees? SESSIONS: Those still remain in effect in a number of districts. Huntsville is a very strong, healthy and well-managed school systems. I'm actually -- I believe they have good leadership. But a consent decree remains in effect until it's altered by the court. HIRONO: So your answer is... SESSIONS: They would be enforced until there's an alteration of it. Yes. HIRONO: Thank you. I have question about violence in increasing number of threats against providers of health care services and abortion services to women. Since the November election, the number of threats online, many of them online, against providers have more than tripled. Given the increasing numbers of violence targeting abortion providers, how high of a priority will it be to you to prosecute violence targeting abortion providers under the freedom of access to Clinic Entrances Act. SESSIONS: They deserve the same protection that any entity, business or otherwise or health care entity is entitled to. When people violate the law and carry out improper threats or blockades of the business. HIRONO: Well, were there... SESSIONS: Maybe even more so because there's a specific law about abortion clinics, I believe. HIRONO: Yes. So, there's a specific law that Congress passed that -- that protects access to these clinics and where there is evidence of increasing number of threats of violence, I hope that that -- it gets on your radar screen as a priority for enforcement. SESSIONS: As a law is to be applied, yes. I know where exactly how the threats are worded but that seem -- it's improperly done, they can be subject to criminal prosecutions and they would be evaluated properly in my administration. HIRONO: And certainly, where Congress cared enough about this particular area of access, that I hope that you would have a commitment to making sure that that law is being enforced in the way that we intended. Regarding birthright citizenship, people born in this country are U.S. citizens regardless of the citizenship status of their parents and there are those who argue that that is not enough to confer citizenship. Do you believe that there should be more required to become U.S. citizens? SESSIONS: Well, under the current state of the law, it's accepted they do obtain their citizenship, so I suppose that would not be two obstacles to changing that. One, you would have to have a congressional enactment, I believe, to change it and even that congressional action could be construed as violative of the constitution and not be a constitutional act, so those -- I have not reviewed the details of that. I do know there are some dispute about whether or not the Congress could change that status. HIRONO: But it's certainly not anything that in the order of priorities that you would pursue as attorney general to ask Congress to change the law to require more than being born in this country to confer U.S. citizenship. SESSIONS: I would be focusing my attention on enforcing the laws that exist and I guess it would be Congress' duty to wrestle with whether to change it or not. HIRONO: Turning to a change in the law that came about after the Lilly Ledbetter case, it's the Lilly Ledbetter Act and I know you're familiar with the factual circumstance in which Lilly Ledbetter did not know that she had been given disparate pay, that was illegal, and she didn't find out about it and the Supreme Court said you have only 180 days in order to find this out in order to have your day in court. So, Congress had a bill which you voted against and I'm wondering why you voted against that bill because in making that decision, the court basically abrogated years and years of legal precedent and it was a surprise to a lot of us that suddenly they were imposing a 180-day you must know kind of a requirement, but you voted against that bill. Can you tell us briefly why? SESSIONS: We had a hearing on it in the judiciary committee, a number of witnesses testified and the testimony as I understood it was that she did, in fact, have noticed and the court found that she had noticed and that's why they had that statute of limitations was enforced. You need a statute of limitations of some kind. And if they don't know, then you can allow it to continue indefinitely. But as I understood, that was the ruling so it was less problematic for future cases than was discussed. But my recollection is not perfectly clear on that issue but that was one of the factors, I remember, being involved in my decision. HIRONO: My recollection of the holding in that case is different from yours because often in these discrimination case, unlawful pay discrimination, the victim is not aware and has no way of finding out that such discrimination is occurring and that's why the law made it very clear that every instance of a disparate paycheck would constitute a new violation and that's all this bill did. Otherwise, the Lilly Ledbetters of the world would really be -- would be foreclosed from their day in court. So, you obviously have a different understanding of the holding of the case. So,... SESSIONS: As the -- well, I'm more likely -- my memory is not that good. But if you have explicit notice hypothetically, should the every paycheck for the next 20 years be told the statute of limitations so that's the -- was the legal question. I have a -- my recollection is not perfect. HIRONO: I was very corned about that case and so I'd say that perhaps my recollection of the holding is more accurate than yours. Let me turn to corporate wrongdoing. When I just met you, you indicated that nobody is above the law and there is, I think, an ongoing investigation of the part of the Department of Justice what Wells Fargo did and basically defrauding millions of their customers. So, would you continue to pursue this kind of investigation and would you also hold accountable individual corporate office holders for -- should there be found to have been a violation of law. SESSIONS: Corporations are subject as an entity to fines and punishment for violating the law and so are the corporate officers. And sometimes, it seems to me Senator Hirono that the corporate officers who caused the problem should be subjected to more severe punishment than the stockholders of the company who didn't know anything about it. HIRONO: I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Senator Franken, you said you had one more question you wanted to ask. FRANKEN: Could I ask two? GRASSLEY: Go ahead. FRANKEN: By the way, the Chairman, I must complement you, you have deferred your time to us all and I thank you. GRASSLEY: I haven't given it up, I've just give... FRANKEN: No, you deferred it. GRASSLEY: Please proceed. You're taking time. FRANKEN: OK. Senator, I like to briefly return to something you said earlier about your opposition to VAWA and our courtesy visit. The second item of substance that we discussed was violence against native women. I told you how important the issue is to me and to tribes all over the country. And they've highlighted it for me, time and time again. And when I provided you with a statistic demonstrating just how prevalent violence against native women is and at the hands of non-Indians, you expressed shock and said you didn't realize the extent of the problem. Over 84 percent experience domestic or sexual violence. Over -- and over 97 percent of them are victimized by non-Indians. That's the recent stat. But in 2012, all you had to do was talk to one tribe and you've learned that women in an Indian country are regularly abused by non-Indians who go unprosecuted and unpunished. If you take the issue of domestic and sexual violence seriously, I think it's incumbent upon you to visit at least one tribe and I think Alabama has nine tribes that are recognized in the state. Is that correct? SESSIONS: Well, only one tribal group that I believe only one tribal group that has properties, tribal lands... FRANKEN: Is that Poarch? SESSIONS: Poarch accretive. It used to be in my district. I've had good relations with them, been on that small tribes -- tribal lands a number of times and visit their clinics and... FRANKEN: OK. Good. Well, I would -- you know, if you are attorney general and even if you're not but if, certainly, if you are attorney general, when you're back home, you might take some time to talk to them about this issue. Earlier, you told Senator Hirono that you cannot commit to not challenging VAWA on these grounds but you've also admitted that you didn't understand the gravity of the problem against native women when you voted on it in 2013 or the extent of non-Indian violence. Would you just commit to me to spending a little bit of time with the Poarch tribe? Thank you. That would be good... SESSIONS: They've been supportive of me and... FRANKEN: Thank you. I want to talk one last thing. GRASSLEY: You've got more question. OK. FRANKEN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The day before the election in Candidate Trump came to my state for his only rally during the campaign and let me tell you what he said. He was standing before a large crowd and he accused Democrats of planning to quote, "import generations of terrorism, extremism and radicalism into your schools and throughout your communities. Here in Minnesota, he said, you've seen firsthand the problems caused with faulty refugee vetting and large numbers of Somali refugees coming into your state without your knowledge, without your support of approval and while some of them joining ISIS and spreading their extremist views all over our country and all over the world, I can't begin to tell you how angry those comments made me. To see Candidate Trump hold his only rally in Minnesota at an airport where about a thousand Somalis -- immigrants work and Somali Minnesota work and earn -- refugees, really -- and to stoke that kind of fear and hatred was an insult, I believe, to every Minnesotan. It was offensive, it was irresponsible, but wasn't really surprising. Candidate Trump made scapegoating immigrants and refugees and banning Muslims from entering our country a centerpiece of his campaign. Now, some of his advisers tried to spin or walk back his comments on the so-called Muslim ban, but you, Senator, you know, you said that the idea was, quote, appropriate to discuss. And in June, you said, quote, "we must face the up comfortable reality that not only are immigrants from Muslim majority countries coming to the United States, radicalizing and attempting to engage in an act of terrorism, but also, their first generation American children are susceptible to the toxic radicalization of terrorists organizations. You said that our nation was quote -- has a, quote, "unprecedented assimilation problem." You know, Senator, part of what makes that a simulation challenging is when people seeking to leave this country exploit fear and anxiety and redirect that fear toward our immigrant and refugee communities. Right after the election, my office got a call from a middle schoolteacher in St. Paul. Her school has a sizable population of Somali-Americans, Somali-Minnesotan kids. Now, they're smart kids so they've been paying attention to the election and they were terrified. The teacher called my office and said please, please have Senator Franken come to the school and give them some assurance. These kids did not know what the make of a country, their country, electing a leader who describes them and their families as worthy of hatred and suspension. So, I did my best to alleviate their fears that day. I told them you're Americans. I said you kids, you're Americans. Don't be afraid. And a couple of weeks later, I talked to the French ambassador to the United States. I said to him, tell, what -- who's defined as a Frenchman in France? And he said somebody who is -- who can trace back a couple of centuries to their family in a French village. Well, these kids are Americans. And we consider them American. And what we saw in Paris and what we saw which was caused by Belgians, is because they take that attitude in Europe. We don't take this attitude. And it's dangerous to take it. One of the most beautiful weeks I've been to was the graduation -- high school graduation in Willmar, Minnesota, in June and I invited myself there because one of our pages, our senate pages, was from Willmar and she's Somali, a Somali-Minnesota girl. And I saw her on election day. I was at the university of Minnesota. She told me her sister, her younger sister, was named the Willmar Homecoming Queen. In Europe, they don't assimilate people. Here in the United States, we vote them homecoming queen. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator... SESSIONS: They're all Americans. GRASSLEY: Senator Sessions, if you want to respond, go ahead. SESSIONS: Well, I think he -- Senator Franken makes some important points and I appreciate his comments. GRASSLEY: Senator... FRANKEN: Thank you. (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: Although I do believe my comment was unrelated to the event in your state. GRASSLEY: Senator Tillis, you're entitled to 10 minutes since the first round but you don't have to use it all. TILLIS: I've learned nothing else except to understand what it is... (CROSSTALK) GRASSLEY: I want to do my second and third round. TILLIS: No, Mr. Chair, I'm not going to take long. And, Mr. Chair, you know, and Senator Sessions, I think that you know that I was in Tennessee today with the proud moment of seeing my father sworn in to the legislature. However, I got up and watched the opening comments, your opening comment, you did an extraordinary job. And to be honest with you, I think you've demonstrated more stamina today than the crimson tide did last night against the worthy adversary. But, Senator Sessions, I'm not going to ask a lot of questions. I'm going to tell you I thank you for your leadership. I think you and I have talked about this before. But I want to thank you again publicly about your leadership as a balanced chair and I think as the late Arlen Specter said in egalitarian, I've seen you sit on the immigration subcommittee and you see me come to every one of those meetings and you know you and I have a difference of opinion on that matter. What's remarkable about you is you bring balance panels to discuss the issues so that both sides can be heard and you never ever hesitated to let me speak as long as I want to which I'm sure was a lot longer than you wanted me to and I really appreciate your leadership because that's what's missing oftentimes up here in the senate and we're going to miss you and I'm going to look forward to voting for you and for your confirmation. I ask the same question of the attorney general that was before this committee last year and I want to ask you because it's very important to me. I think the Department of Justice has issues. I think that the inspector generals report is a good example back in 2014 when I simply said that the inspector general's report that says that they need to increase accountability and the Department of Justice and I'll get to a specific question in a minute that we should act on it. I got a non-answer to that question. In fact, I got a better answer to a deputy who came back in which is why I supported the deputy and I didn't support the A.G. nominee. Can you tell me if you've had an opportunity to take a look at those recommendations and to what extent those recommendations would be instructed to you now that you've become the chief -- when you become the chief executive of that agency? SESSIONS: I'm glad you raised it. I hope you'll stay on the Department of Justice to respond to it. I have not studied it. I've had some time ago, I believe, a briefing on the nature of it when it came out. But it does appear to me to raise fundamentals questions about the good management of the people's money and that money needs to be managed every single dollar effectively to get positive results, not wasted, and I will be glad to hear any suggestions you have it will be a priority of mine. TILLIS: Thank you. (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: ... has raised it and so I think what we need to do and I will do is to do an immediate analysis of it if I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed. TILLIS: Thank you because we'll be following up on it. This is something, I think, that's very important to me. And, really, a specific question in that regard, I hope you look at it and when you get confirmed, make it a priority to look into. The -- as a part of the report, I believe it was said that some DOJ employees engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and perjured themselves in court. If you find that to be substantiated, what would you do with the people in the DOJ who were guilty of such actions? SESSIONS: The Department of Justice is a great institution. Most of the people are a people of the highest character.... TILLIS: Without a doubt. SESSIONS: ... and ability. However, we've had a series of problems overtime that seem to me to be worthy of concern broadly and I think it would be important for the next attorney general to try to revitalize and reemphasize the absolute commitment that a federal prosecutor must have to do justice and not just win a case. And also, it is hard for lawyers in Washington who get sent out to the field to try a big, important, highly -- high profile case. They don't know the community very well. Maybe they haven't tried as many cases as United States attorney in the field that's doing every day and sometimes they -- their skills don't meet their academic levels that you might think they would have and things kind of go wrong. We need to do better. TILLIS: Well, thank you for that. Also, just by way of comment, the chair looked at a stack of letters that remained unanswered by the current attorney general and the DOJ. He did cite that he expects you to respond, at least, to the one that you signed. But I hope you'll actually respond to all of them and to the -- to the chair's credit, not only from the chair but from the ranking member and members of this body who are trying to make the DOJ the best it can possibly be. Finally, I'll just yield back the rest of time after saying the -- I watched -- I probably watched the good three hours of the proceedings today. I was struck at one point when some were casting doubt about you in terms of your view of ethnicity and a number of other backgrounds. What struck me the most about that picture on TV was your wife's eyes well enough because she and her son know you well. Many of us know you well. And I think all of us know that you're going to make a great attorney general. You're a fair-minded man and you're going to obey the law. You will no longer be a lawmaker which I know from time to time is probably going to frustrate you. But I have no doubt in my mind, you will be one of the best attorney generals. You will faithfully execute the law. You will enforce the law and you will do it in a fair and unpartial manner and I can't wait to see you in action. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Before we start the forth round, I don't think you've had your third round, Senator Sasse. So, proceed. SASSE: Thank you... GRASSLEY: You've got eight minutes. You don't have to use it all. SASSE: Thank you for the counsel for a rookie. I also didn't think I could talk about college football but Senator Tillis already broke that bubble. Senator, Nebraska 1995, remains the best team in the history of college football. I think we can all agree after last night. I'd like to ask you a question about... (CROSSTALK) SASSE: I've heard from Nebraskans how regulations are games by activists to try to change federal policy through lawsuits and settlements rather than through the making of law in the Congress. Federal agencies and activist groups are often assumed to have been sort of colluding to do this to circumvent the Congress and I'm curious as to what you think when plaintiffs in the government enter into a settlement to try to change policy, what's the appropriate role of the Department of Justice to make sure that that agreement does not circumvent the law in the Congress and the Administrative Procedure Act? SESSIONS: The Department of Justice has final settlement authority in any case against the United States although they tend to listen to and see their role as being supportive of the agency. So, if homeland security or the department of education or EPA is being sued, they may -- they have the power to make the final judgment. And their responsibility is to protect the public interest, the national interest and to make sure the law is followed. There has been in state court and sometimes in federal court, this sue-and-settle mentality, this consent decree that we've been talking about. I've pointed that it's -- at times controversial. So, if the agents or the officials that the Environmental Protection Agency believe that a law should be expanded and they're sued by a group that wants to expand the law in the same way and it may be unacceptable to expand it that far, but if the Department of Justice goes along with the agency and agrees to a settlement and get a court to order this to occur, then the government is bound by their settlement agreement and the people's interest do the democratic process is eroded because a decision is being made by unelected people and not the legislature. So you understand that and I think that was a fundamental part of the question. I do believe a good Department of Justice needs to be alert to that and should not feel obligated to settle a case on the terms that any agency might think but make sure the settlement is in a legal and justified and in the national interest. SASSE: And there'd been occasions. There'd been reports that's been the practice of DOJ at times to force violators to make certain payments to approve third parties as a condition of settlement, as a hypothetical. There had been discussions about whether or not a bank that was, again hypothetically, fined by the DOJ might see its penalties reduced if it made payments to a designated not-for-profit. And when, if ever, is it appropriately for the Department of Justice to require payments to any third party as a part of a settlement? SESSIONS: I think that's a very dubious practice. I would be cautious about it and we'd have to make sure it's justified. And normally, that's not the best way to settle a case in my opinion. SASSE: And finally, the judgment fund that the Department of Justice administers, it's a general fund that's available to compensate those who sue the government and win. Unfortunately, how this money gets used is not fully known by the Congress. Will you commit to making public the use of these funds? SESSIONS: The funds that are not paid out or funds that are paid out is part of a litigation. SASSE: In the judgment fund, the department has a discretion to determine how to settle these cases and what payments to make but the Congress and the public often don't know where this money goes. Would you commit, as attorney general, to being transparent with where the funds go out of the judgment fund? SESSIONS: I would -- would be surprised that it's not public and it should be available to the public. They should know how a lawsuit is settled and where the money went. Absolutely. SASSE: Thank you, Senator. GRASSLEY: Before Senator Blumenthal follows up on some things he wanted to, we received a letter in support of Senator Sessions' nominee -- nomination from 108 former U.S. Attorneys who served under every president since President Nixon. They say quote, "We have no doubt that Senator Session can do the job well bringing to this critically important office his own unique and extraordinary strengths of courage, humility, experience and infallible promise to treat all people equally under the law," end of quote. Without objection, I'll insert that in the record. Senator Blumenthal? BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. BLUMENTHAL: Senator Sessions, response to Senator Tillis' -- one of Senator Tillis' questions, you said that the job of the attorney general is to do justice, not necessarily to win a case. And I think that's almost an exact quote from Justice Jackson when he was United States attorney general. It's one of my favorite quotes. I think he said the role of the United States attorney or a government lawyer is to do justice, not necessarily win a conviction and that's why I feel that the role of attorney general ought to be the legal conscience for the nation as I was remarking earlier. So I hope that you will reconsider what you've said about the DACA policies and assert an independent view based on the nation's conscience or what it should be about what has happened to those young people. Likewise on issues like Deutsche Bank, what you and I have discussed privately and where I think there ought to be an investigation focusing on individual culpability and perhaps in some of these other investigations as well where an independent council may be necessary and similarly your response on recusal from both on your prospective colleagues appointed by the president elect where you have not yet responded to the letter that I wrote. I'm not going to take more time this afternoon or tonight. But I think that I remain unsatisfied on those questions. And in generally, I think that the role that you would have as United States Attorney General ought to be not just another government lawyer but as a champion of civil rights and liberties and the nation's legal conscience. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Blumenthal and I respect your history as a prosecutor in the United States attorney in time in the Department of Justice. BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Sessions -- thank you, Senator Blumenthal. GRASSLEY: Senator Sessions, you've been a vocal champion for American workers, especially as we have heard so much about how American workers are being laid off and replaced by cheaper foreign labor imported through some of our visa programs. You've been a cosponsor of a bill sponsored by me and Senator Durbin that would reform H-1B visa programs by ensuring that qualified American workers are considered for high skilled job opportunities before those jobs can be offered to foreign nationals. It also prohibit company from hiring H-1B employees if they employ more than 50 people and more than 50 percent of their employees are H-1B or L-1 visa holders. This provision would crack down on outsourcing companies that import large number of H-1B and L1 workers for short training periods and then send these workers back to their home countries to do the work of U.S. workers. In 2013, you and I seem to be the lone senators on this committee who fought for U.S. workers. We argued that the Gang of Eight bill that would have increased the number of foreign workers who came in on H-1B visas and actually hurt Americans who were qualified, willing to do those jobs, we said that the bill failed to adequately protect U.S. workers and neglected to hold employers accountable for misusing the H-1B and L1 visa programs. We tried to provide more protection for U.S. workers. We tried to ensure that no business imported foreign workers before making a good faith effort to hire people at home. We tried to expand the ability for government to audit employers, we offered amendments that were supported by the AFL-CIO. In April 2015, you helped lead eight other senators in a letter to then Attorney General Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson, and Secretary of Labor Perez on this issue. So,me of those who signed that letter sit on this panel today. For instance, Senator Durbin and Blumenthal. That letter requested that the Obama administration investigate abuse of H-1B visa programs by companies including Southern California Edison, Disney and IBM that have been laying off American workers and replacing them with H-1B workers in some cases reportedly making the American workers train their own replacements. The Office of Special Counsel for immigration related unfair employment practices is an office within your department that you will head. That enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. While the office is designed to protect foreign nationals with employment visas from discrimination, it is also charged with ensuring that American workers are not discriminated against in the workplace. Many U.S. workers advocate -- advocates believe, for example, that the layoff of American workers and the replacement by cheaper, foreign, H-1B workers constitutes de facto nationality based discrimination against American workers. The Obama administration has failed to protect American workers here. Will you, this is my question, will you be more aggressive in investigating the abuses of these visa programs? SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, you know, I believe this has been an abuse. And I have been pleased to support your legislation and some others too, that others have produced that I believe could be helpful. It needs to be addressed. It's simply wrong to think that we're in a totally open world and that any American with a job can be replaced if somebody in the world is willing to take a job for less pay. We have borders. We have a commitment to our citizens and you have been a champion of that. I've been honored to work with you on it. Thank you for your leadership. I would use such abilities that I have to help address that. I think it also does require legislation like you have offered, you and Senator Durbin, I believe a legislation maybe -- may be necessary to have the kind of reforms that we need. GRASSLEY: I appreciate your answer. We'll continue to push for the legislation. We've been very difficult moving that legislation wrong because of business oppositions within our country. And so, whatever you can do in regard to being more aggressive investigating the abuses of our visa programs will help solve some of the problems if we don't get legislation passed, but we still intend to pursue that. Now, on another point, as you know, relationships between law enforcement and the communities that they serve have been strained. You've already spoken to that in your opening comments. In many instances, police have been specifically targeted. Now, tomorrow, it's my understanding the president of the Fraternal Order of Police will testify about this issue. But I'd also like to hear from you on this point, we obviously need the figure out a way to fix these relationships and restore mutual trust and respect for law enforcement. What role can you play as attorney general in this and what role can the department play more broadly? SESSIONS: It's essential this nation affirm those that we send out to provide public safety and affirm their good deeds and if they make mistakes and commit crimes, then they have to be prosecuted like anyone else would who commits a crime and violates the law. But fundamentally, the overwhelming of our law officers of dedicated faithful individuals serving their country and their community with discipline and integrity and courage. So, I -- I think this is an important matter. And so, we need to guard against the kind of public statements that have troubled me in recent months and years in which we seem to dismiss and take sides against the entire law enforcement community where we suggest that the law enforcement community is not some -- not a positive factor and that all officers tend or have -- are not performing in a high level. So, I believe that I will do my duty to correctly distinguish between wrongdoing by individuals and the entire law enforcement community. Murders of deaths of law enforcement officers are up 10 percent over the last year. The number of policemen and law officers who have been killed with a firearm is up, I think, 58 percent. So,me stunning numbers and part of this is a corrosion of respect between the communities and law officers and I think it's a dangerous trend we must reverse and reverse soon. GRASSLEY: My next question deals with agricultural antitrust and I don't believe that there should be political decisions involved in antitrust decisions in the department but there are several high level agricultural mergers going on right now, one before DOJ, one before the FTC and then there's another one I don't think has been assigned yet. And my -- I come from the standpoint of being an agriculture with a -- with a general -- just a very, I guess, ideological belief that when you have less companies, you have less competition, you have higher prices for imports. That's in agriculture but that would be true of any segment of the economy. I also, before I ask this question, I want to make a point that I don't think there are a enough people in the department of justice that know much about farming. And one time, maybe 10, 15 years ago, I got some administration, I don't know if it was the Clinton one or the Bush one, to say that they were going to have somebody in the antitrust department that knew something about agriculture and I think they did put somebody there. I don't know if that person is still there or not. So this is my question. I'm concerned about the increased consolidation and possible anticompetitive business practices in the agricultural industry. Currently, the antitrust division is reviewing several significant mergers and acquisitions in the agricultural sector. Do I have your commitment that the justice department will pay close attention to agri business, competition matters and carefully scrutinize proposed agriculture mergers and acquisitions and can you assure me that the agriculture antitrust issues will be a priority for the justice department if you're confirmed as U.S. attorney general? SESSIONS: There's been controversy of a number of those issues over the years that I'm generally aware of without committing and commenting on any particular case, I will, Senator Grassley, will be pleased to honor your request. GRASSLEY: In 1986, 10 years before you came to the United States Senate, I got it the False Claims Act passed. It has brought 53 billion dollars back into the Federal Treasury since then. If you're confirmed, will you pledge to vigorously enforce the False Claims Act and devote adequate resources to investigating and prosecuting False Claims Act cases? SESSIONS: In the qui tam provisions and the part of that, I'm aware of those. I think they are valid and an effective method of rooting out fraud and abuse. I even filed one myself one time as a private lawyer. So, these are important issues that you have been a leader on. It has saved this country lots of money and probably has caused companies to be more cautious because they can have a whistleblower that would blow the whistle on them if they try to do something that's improper. So, I think it's been a very healthy thing and you're to be congratulated for that and I do support that act. GRASSLEY: You took care of my second question. I was going to ask you on qui tam and you said that whistleblowers are very important. I'm glad to hear you say that. I don't know whether they get enough support. I hope you give priority to that because a great number of the qui tam places come from the outside, not from the inside. Will you provide congress with regular -- this is the last point on this one, will you provide congress with regular timely updates on the status of FC qui -- False Claims Act cases including statistics as to how many are under seal and the average length of seal time? SESSIONS: I would do that. In my experience is, sometimes they're awfully a long time. And but... GRASSLEY: That's exactly why I'm asking the question and updates from time-to-time. I think we'll keep people within your department more responsive and responsible. SESSIONS: I understand that and is there a report -- I don't know if a report is required now but don't see why it would be particularly difficult to provide that to you. GRASSLEY: OK. I have a long lead in to another question. I'm just going to ask you, if you would tell us, for the record, your reasons for opposing the 2013 Immigration Bill SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, fundamentally, I believe that it would not, in the lawlessness and it would grant the amnesty. That's the position that fundamentally caused you concern, because in 1986, there was an amnesty given and a promise of enforcement in the future. And it didn't happen. And so we ended up, instead of 3 million people, I guess it was in 1986, now, the estimates are we have 11 million people here unlawfully. This is not the kind of policy a great nation must have. We need to have a lawful system that we can be proud of, that the world knows works, that people stop coming illegally because they don't think they will be successful in the attempt and we could see a dramatic reduction in illegality and we could all be pleased to see the result occur and we'll have to call on Congress to help some. But -- and you've been -- you understand the issue and you've been supportive but we're going -- we may have to pass some legislation. A lot can be done with current law but I would love to be a part with this committee of restoring the immigration system on to the high level that ought to be. GRASSLEY: I want to return to the issue of Violence Against Women Act. I know that for me, that bill didn't do enough to fight fraud and abuse that's why I introduced a substitute amendment that would have given more money to victims by fighting fraud and abuse that was discovered in the program. It would have insured that no money under the program was used to lobby congress. It also would have had limited the amount of funding in the program that could be used for administrative fees and salary salaries. In addition, my substitute amendment developed harsher penalties for federal conviction of forcible rape which the bill that passed weakened. It also addressed child pornography and aggravated sexual assault, neither of which were addressed in the bill that is now law. Finally, my substitute amendment combated fraud in the award of U visas to ensure true victims were protected. My question, as you mentioned, you voted for my substitute amendment that was stronger in many respects than the bill that was passed. Will you enforce the law that was passed? SESSIONS: Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: That's probably the tenth time you answered that today but thank you for being with me. I want to speak about the Board of Immigration Appeals. It's the highest administrative body for interpreting immigration laws, hearings appeals rendered by immigration judges. This board, which is under the attorney general's purview has published some very problematic precedent decisions the past several years. The board of immigration appeals decisions are binding on all immigration officers, including homeland security officers and immigration judges unless overturned by the position you're seeking or a federal court. Will you or someone on your team, commit to taking a hard look at all precedent decisions made by this board? SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, that does appear to be a power or an ability of the attorney general which I have not thoroughly studied. Any changes would need to be carefully done and thought out in a principled and honorable way. I would do that and if changes need to occur, need to occur and I have the ability to do it, I will try to conduct myself properly in making those changes. GRASSLEY: Two more points. Oversight by congress is important. You've already said that and you've -- I'm glad you know the necessity of that. But Congress cannot do all the oversight needed on its own. We need to reply -- rely on strong inspectors general to provide another independent assessment on the operations within the executive branch. That's why that position was set up in 1979, I believe. Do you agree that independence is the hallmark of an inspector general's integrity and effectiveness? And if you do, please elaborate and the reason I asked the question is probably it happens in more departments but I pay a lot of attention to DOJ and I think there's been some problems with DOJ of recognizing and cooperating with the independence of the inspector general. SESSIONS: Yes. The independence should be respected and should be had. I'm familiar with some cases in which the independence of the inspector general is less than that in general throughout the Congress and I've tried to strengthen -- been willing to -- and interested in strengthening their independence. It's a challenge. The inspector general is appointed by the agencies for the most part, I believe. But they -- if they're not seen as independent, then they can't be the effective body that we'd like them to be. They have staffs, they have ability to be -- to contribute, to saving money and I believe in the inspector general's process. GRASSLEY: Before I ask the last question, whatever reputation I have for investigation and in oversight probably maybe even 90 percent of the leads we get come from whistleblowers and whistleblowers within an agency are generally treated like skunks at a picnic. And I hope that I don't know how many thousands or tens of thousands of employees you're going to be over -- administering over, you can't possibly know what goes on with all those employees. I hope you will give encouragement to whistleblowing and that you will listen to them. Once in a while you have a crank, but for the most part, these are just patriotic people that want the government to do what the government's supposed to do or spend money the way the government's supposed to spend it. And then when they don't get anything going up the chain of command, that's when they become whistleblowers and they come to us. And that time, even if they're protected under law, they're still ruling themselves professionally. And so I hope you see them as a source so you can administer a better department and do what government is supposed to do. But in regard to that, I would appreciate it if you would provide congress with accurate and timely information regarding any action taken administrative or criminal against individuals who retaliate against whistleblowers because it's against the law to retaliate. SESSIONS: You are correct about that and it's not acceptable to retaliate against a whistleblower. So,me have been known to be cranks, as you indicated, but you cannot effectively manage this government without good citizens and good employees speaking up when they see wrongdoing. You've established a reputation as someone willing to receive that information and act on it and then defend the individual who had the courage to come forward and we need more of that in this government. GRASSLEY: I thank you very much. I would like to have you and other people listen to a couple points I want to make at the tailend. I want people to know that we'll keep the record open until Monday for questions and you know what to do with those when you get them. I want to thank everybody who participated including those in the audience. Most importantly, thank you for your testimony today and for answering our questions and doing it very thoughtfully and very thoroughly. You performed, I think, admirably and showed this entire country what we all know from serving with you. You're imminently qualified to serve as attorney general and I have every confidence that you're going to do a superb job. Senator Sessions, you're excused. We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30 for panel two. SESSIONS: Thank you. List of Panel Members PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, CHAIRMAN SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH, R-UTAH SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C. SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-TEXAS SEN. MIKE LEE, R-UTAH SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS SEN. JEFF FLAKE, R-ARIZ. SEN. DAVID PERDUE, R-GA. SEN. THOM TILLIS, R-N.C. SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF., RANKING MEMBER SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT. SEN. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, D-N.Y. SEN. RICHARD J. DURBIN, D-ILL. SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, D-R.I. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN. SEN. AL FRANKEN, D-MINN. SEN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL. SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN. SEN. MAZIE K. HIRONO, D-HAWAII SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA., NOMINATED TO BE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

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. And 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 that 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've 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? SESSIONS: I don't accept that statement. I believe the United States should have an immigration policy that's fair and objective and gives people from all over the world a right to apply. And those who have -- should give preference to people who have the ability to be prosperous and succeed in America and could improve their lives and improve the United States of America. And that's sort of my view of it. I do not accept that kind of language... BLUMENTHAL: Will you return the award? SESSIONS: ...which would be contrary to my understanding of the American vision of life. BLUMENTHAL: Will you return the award? SESSIONS: Well, I don't know that I have to -- I don't know whether he had any involvement in choosing the award of not. And presumably, the award and the contributions that I did not even know, I don't recall ever know I got, are his decision, not mine. BLUMENTHAL: This award similarly was left out of your response to the questionnaire. And I guess the question, Senator Sessions, is, how can Americans have confidence that you're going to enforce anti-discrimination laws if you've accepted awards from these kinds of groups and associated with these kinds of individuals and you won't return the awards? SESSIONS: Well, first of all, I don't know that I'd defer to the Southern Poverty Law Center as the final authority on who's a radical group. So I would first challenge that. They acknowledged publicly and have in the last few weeks that I was a strong assister to them in prosecuting the Klan, but they said they opposed me because of their views on immigration. Well, I believe my views on immigration are correct, just, decent and right. Somebody else can disagree, but that's what I think. BLUMENTHAL: Would you also disavow support from Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy who gave you an award in August of 2015, similarly having made statements about Muslims and supporting your candidacy for attorney general? SESSIONS: Well, they chose to give me the award. They did not tell me what they gave it to me for, and I do not adopt everything that that center would support, I do not suppose. I am pretty independent about those things. But I would acknowledge... BLUMENTHAL: But you can understand... SESSIONS: ...that Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman also have received that award from that institution. BLUMENTHAL: Well, he has not been nominated to be attorney general. SESSIONS: Well, he has not, but he ran for vice president on your party. BLUMENTHAL: And the people of the United States might be forgiven for concluding that the kinds of attitudes and the zealousness or lack of it that you bring to enforcement of anti-discrimination laws might be reflected in your acceptance of awards from these organizations, your association with these kinds of individuals. So I am giving you the opportunity to completely repudiate and return those awards. SESSIONS: Senator Blumenthal, I just feel like the reason I was pushing back is because I do not feel like it is right to judge me and require that I give back an award if I do not agree with every policy of an organization that gave the award. I was honored to be given awards, a lot of prominent people, I am sure, have received awards at either one of these groups. And David Horowitz is a brilliant writer and I think has contributed to the policy debate. Whether everything he said, I am sure I do not agree with. Some of the language that you have indicated, I am not comfortable with. And I think it is all right to ask that question. But I just would believe it would be more than -- it would not be proper for you to insist that I am somehow disqualified for attorney general because I accepted an award from that group. BLUMENTHAL: Given that you did not disclose a number of those awards, are there any other awards from groups that have similar kinds of ideological, negative views of immigrants or of African Americans or Muslims or others, including awards that you may have received from the Ku Klux Klan. SESSIONS: Well, I will not receive it from Henry Hayes, I will tell you that. He no longer exists. So no, I would not take an award from the Klan. BLUMENTHAL: I want to give you the opportunity... SESSIONS: So I will just say that I have received hundreds of awards. I do not think -- I probably somehow should have made sure that the Annie Johnson (sic) jumping off Niagara Falls, I should have reported that probably. So I would just say to you I have no motive in denying that I received those awards. It is probably publicly published when it happened. And I have received multiple hundreds of awards over my career as I am sure you have. BLUMENTHAL: My time is expired, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. And I will return on the third round. Thank you. GRASSLEY: I do not find any fault with the questions you are asking except for this business that somebody that is in the United States Senate ought to remember what awards we get. I do not know about you, but I will be every other week somebody is coming into my office to give me some award. And you take these plaques or whatever they give you and you do not even have a place to hang them, you store them someplace. I do not know whether even if I went down to that storage place I could tell you all the awards I got. I do not need anymore awards. It is kind of a problem that they give you the awards. (LAUGHTER) GRASSLEY: And obviously, I will bet Senator Sessions feels that way right now. (LAUGHTER) BLUMENTHAL: I do not differ with you. Mr. Chairman, I do not differ with you that sitting here none of us on this side of the table could probably recall every single award we have ever received. But the questionnaire from this committee asked for the information as to all awards. And I think it is fair to observe that a number of these awards were omitted from the responses. GRASSLEY: OK. Well, if somebody asked me to fill out that same questionnaire, it would never be complete and I do not know how you ever could make it complete. Before I go to you, I have a statement here from the Alabama state senate, Quinton Ross, a Democrat, minority leader. He says, "I know him," meaning Senator Sessions, "personally and all of my encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama. We have spoken about everything from civil rights to race relations, and we agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people." And I do not think we should forget that Senator Sessions got reelected to the United States Senate without a primary opponent or a general election opponent. Egad, you know, would not we all like to do that? Senator Graham. GRAHAM: I have been unable to do that. GRASSLEY: Oh, I will put this in the record without objection. GRAHAM: Thank you. I had six primary opponents. (LAUGHTER) GRASSLEY: Yeah. GRAHAM: And I... GRASSLEY: I can understand. I can understand why. (LAUGHTER) GRAHAM: There you go. I will probably have 10. I will probably have 10 next time. But here is what I want them to know. I, too, received the Annie Taylor Award. SESSIONS: Annie Taylor Award, that is the name of it. GRAHAM: Yeah, there is it. I was there. I got it, too. (LAUGHTER) I do not get enough awards. You can speak for yourself, Mr. Chairman. (LAUGHTER) Yeah, I got the award. I went to the dinner and Chris Matthews interviewed me. So I do not know what that means other than I will do almost anything for a free dinner. (LAUGHTER) You know, I like Senator Blumenthal, but, you know, we did this for Alito, this whole guilt-by-association stuff. You have been around 15 years. SESSIONS: Twenty. GRAHAM: Twenty. Well, 15 with me. I am pretty sure you are not a closet bigot, and I got the same award you did. And that other award he was talking about, who got it? Joe Lieberman? SESSIONS: He got the award at the Gaffney. GRAHAM: OK. Well, anyway, all I can tell you is that this whole idea that if you receive recognition from some group, you own everything they have ever done or said, is probably not fair to any of us. And we can go through all of our records about donations. The bottom line is, Senator Sessions, there is no doubt in my mind that you are one of the most fair, decent, honest men I have ever met. And you know what I like most about you? If you are the only person in the room who believes it, you will stand up and say so. I have seen you speak out when you were the only guy that believed what you believed and I admire the heck out of that. So if I get nominated by Trump, which I think will come when hell freezes over... (LAUGHTER) ... I am here to tell you I got the Annie Taylor Award, too. So let's talk about the law of war. I think you were asked by Senator Feinstein about the indefinite detention. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, this is Sandra Day O'Connor's quote, "There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." That case involved a U.S. citizen that was captured in Afghanistan and was held as an enemy combatant. Are you familiar with that case? SESSIONS: Generally, yes, not as familiar as you, but I know you have studied it in great depth. GRAHAM: Well, this has been -- as a military lawyer, this is sort of part of what I did. Do your constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen stop at the nation's shores or do they follow you wherever you go? SESSIONS: Well, you have certain rights wherever you go. GRAHAM: So if you go to Paris, you don't give up your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. Could the FBI break into your hotel room in Paris and basically search your room without a warrant? SESSIONS: I do not believe it. GRAHAM: No, they cannot. Your constitutional rights is attached to you. So if the people will say, well, he was in Afghanistan, that does not matter. What the court is telling us, no American citizen has a constitutional right to join the enemy at a time of war. And Ray Quirin (ph), that case involved German saboteurs who landed in Long Island. Are you familiar with this? SESSIONS: I am very familiar with that case. I have read it. GRAHAM: They were German saboteurs and had American citizen contacts in the United States. They were all seized by the FBI and tried by the military. So what I would tell Senator Feinstein and my other colleagues, the law is well-settled here, that a United States citizen in other wars have been held as enemy combatants when the evidence suggests they collaborated with the enemy. Under the current law, if you are suspected of being an enemy combatant, within a certain period of time, 60 days I think, the government has to present you to a federal judge and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you are a member of the organization they claim you to be a member of. Are you familiar with that, your habeas rights? SESSIONS: Correct, yes. GRAHAM: So as to how long an enemy combatant can be held traditionally under the law of war, people are taken off the battlefield until the war is over or they are no longer a danger. Does that make sense to you? SESSIONS: It does make sense and that is my understand of the traditional law of war. GRAHAM: And the law of war is designed to, like, win the war. The laws around the law of war are designed to deal with conflicts and to take people off the battlefield, you can kill or capture them, and there is no requirement like domestic criminal law, at a certain point in time they have to be presented for trial because the goal of the law of war is to protect the nation and make sure you win the war. So when you capture somebody who has been adjudicated a member of the enemy force, there is no concept in military law or the law of war that you have to release them in an arbitrary date because that would make no sense. So all I am saying is that I think you are on solid ground. And this idea of an American citizen being an enemy combatant is part of the history of the law of war. And I am very willing to work with my colleagues to make sure that indefinite detention is reasonably applied and that we can find due process rights that do not exist in traditional law of war because this is a war without end. When do you think this war will be over? Do you think we will know when it is over? SESSIONS: I have asked a number of witnesses in Armed Services about that. And it is pretty clear we are talking about decades before we have a complete alteration of this spasm in the Middle East that just seems to have legs and will continue for some time. That is most likely what would happen. GRAHAM: You are about to embark on a very important job at an important time. And here is what my suggestion would be: That we work with the Congress to come up with a legal regime that recognizes that gathering intelligence is the most important activity against radical Islam. The goal is to find out what they know. Do you agree with that? SESSIONS: That is a critical goal. GRAHAM: And I have found that under military law and military intelligence-gathering, no manual I have ever read suggested that reading Miranda rights is the best way to gather information. As a matter of fact, I have been involved in this business for 33 years. And if a commander came to me as a JAG and said we just captured somebody on the battlefield, you name the battlefield, they want their rights read to them, I would tell them they are not entitled to Miranda rights. They are entitled to Geneva Convention treatment. They are entitled to humane treatment. They are entitled to all the things that go with the Geneva Convention because the court has ruled that enemy combatants are subject to Geneva Convention protections. So I just want to let you know, from my point of view, that we are at war. I am encouraged to hear that the new attorney general recognizes the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war. And that the next time we capture bin Laden's son-in-law, if he has got any more, I hope we do not read him his Miranda rights in two weeks. I hope we keep him humanely as long as necessary to interrogate him to find out what the enemy may be up to. Does that make sense to you? SESSIONS: Well, it does. We did not give Miranda warnings to German and Japanese prisoners we captured. And it has never been part of the rule. So they are being detained and they are subject to being interrogated properly and lawfully any time, any day, and they are not entitled to a lawyer and so forth. GRAHAM: Right. And Miranda and all did not exist back in World War II, but it does now. But the law, the Hamdi case, this is very important, that you do not have to read an enemy combatant their Miranda rights. They do have a right to counsel in a habeas proceeding... SESSIONS: In a habeas course, you are correct. GRAHAM: ...to see if the government got it right. You can hold them as long as is necessary for intelligence gathering and you can try them in Article III courts, you can try them in military commissions. As the attorney general of the United States, would you accept that military commissions could be the proper venue under certain circumstances for a terrorist? SESSIONS: Yes. GRAHAM: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Here is what we will do. We will go to Senator Hirono and then Senator Kennedy and then you should take a break because I want one. OK? (LAUGHTER) Proceed. HIRONO: Thank you. Senator Sessions, in 1944, the Supreme Court handed down what is considered one of the worst rulings in the history of our country, and that case is Korematsu versus United States, which upheld the constitutionality of the internment of Japanese Americans internment camps. Despite the near-universal condemnation today of the court's ruling, this past November Carl Higbie, a spokesman for a pro-Trump super-PAC and a surrogate for President-elect Trump, cited Korematsu as precedent for a program which would require Muslims in the United States to register with the government. Here are my questions. First, would you support such a registry for Muslim Americans, in other words U.S. citizens? SESSIONS: I do not believe we need a registration program for U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslim. Is that the question? HIRONO: My question is whether you would support such a registry for U.S. citizens who happen to Muslims. SESSIONS: No. HIRONO: Thank you. So since the president may go in that direction, what kind of constitutional problems would there be for U.S. citizens who happen to be Muslims to be required to register? SESSIONS: Well, my understanding is, as I recall, later comments by President-elect Trump do not advocate for that registration, but he will have to speak for himself on his policies. But I do not think that is accurate at this point as his last stated position on it. HIRONO: Since you do not support such a registry for U.S. citizen Muslims, is that because you think that there are some constitutional issues involved with such a requirement for U.S. citizen Muslims? SESSIONS: It would raise serious constitutional problems because the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to free exercise of religion. And I believe Americans overwhelmingly honor that and should continue to honor it, and it would include Muslims for sure. And I do not believe they should be treated differently fundamentally. They should not be treated differently. HIRONO: Thank you. And in addition to the freedom of religion provisions, perhaps that would be some equal protection constitutional problems, possibly some procedural due process constitutional problems with that kind of registry requirement. Turning to consent decrees, there are more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States. America's police officers are the best in the world, and that is due, in large part, to their bravery, skill and integrity in what they do. Our Constitution ensures that the government is responsible to its citizens and that certain rights should not be violated by the government, but that does not mean that things always work perfectly, as you noted in one of your responses, in the real world. So while the vast majority of police officers do exemplary work and build strong relationships with their communities to keep the public safe, there have been specific use-of-force deadly incidents that have sparked nationwide outrage. Some of these incidents have led the attorney general's Civil Rights Division to do investigations into whether individual police departments have a, quote, unquote, "pattern of practice," unquote, of unconstitutional policing, and to make sure our police departments are compliant with the law. And when these investigations find that police departments are engaged in unconstitutional policing, they are frequently resolved through consent decrees with the Department of Justice, which requires police departments to undertake certain important reforms that are overseen by independent monitors to ensure that necessary changes are being made in these departments. Senator Sessions, you once wrote that, and I quote, "consent decrees have a profound effect on our legal system as they constitute and end run around the democratic processes," end quote. Currently, more than 20 police departments around the country are engaged in consent decrees with the Justice Department. In Maryland, Baltimore mayor, Catherine Pugh, said Monday she expects her city to finalize a consent decree with the Justice Department this week, as noted in The Baltimore Sun. My question is, will you commit to maintaining and enforcing the consent decrees that the Justice Department has negotiated during this administration? SESSIONS: Those decrees remain in force until and if they are changed. And they would be enforced. The consent decree itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It could be a legitimate decisions. There can be circumstances in which police departments are subject to a lawsuit, which is what starts this process ultimately ending in a consent decree. But I think there is concern that good police officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have individuals within a department who have done wrong. And those individuals need to be prosecuted. And these lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness. And we need to be careful before we do that. So what I would say to you, because filing a lawsuit against a police department has ramifications, sometimes beyond what a lot of people think, and it can impact morale of the officers, it can impact and affect the view of citizens to their police department. And I just think that caution is always required in these cases. I would not prejudge a specific case. HIRONO: Senator Sessions, I understand that. But a showing of a pattern of practice needs to be shown, so these are not just a rogue police officer doing something that would be deemed unconstitutional. So are you saying that with regard to negotiating consent decrees that you will revisit these consent decrees and perhaps give police departments a second bite at the apple so that they can undo some of the requirements on them? SESSIONS: Well, presumably, the Department of Justice under the Holder/Lynch leadership always would be expecting to end these decrees at some point. So I just would not commit that there would never be any changes in them. And if departments have complied or reached other developments that could justify all or a modification of the consent decree, of course I would do that. HIRONO: Well, usually consent decrees require -- when they end, it is because they have complied with the provisions of the consent decree. So I am just trying to get a simple answer. And I hope that you would... SESSIONS: Well, I will give you a simple answer. It is a difficult thing for a city to be sued by the Department of Justice and to be told that your police department is systematically failing to serve the people of the state or the city. So that is an august responsibility of the attorney general and the Department of Justice. So they often feel forced to agree to a consent degree just to remove that stigma. And sometimes there are difficulties there, so I just think we need to be careful and respectful of the parties. HIRONO: I understand that. But as to the consent decrees that were negotiated with both parties in full, you know, faith to do what is appropriate, that you would leave those intact unless there are some exigent or some extraordinary circumstances. Of course, going forward, as attorney general you can enter into whatever consent decrees you deem appropriately appropriate. So my question really is the existing consent decrees which took a lot to negotiate, by the way. And it is not the vast majority of police departments in this country; it is 20. GRASSLEY: You can answer that if you want to and then we will move on. SESSIONS: I understand what you are saying. And one of the impacts of a consent decree is it does require judicial approval of any alteration in it, and that raises pros and cons. HIRONO: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Kennedy. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, could you tell the committee a little bit more about what it was like to be a U.S. attorney? What was your management style? Did you enjoy it? How was it compared to serving in the state government as a state attorney general? SESSIONS: I loved being a U.S. attorney. That was, I hate to say it, was -- we all say it, almost everybody that has held the job says it is the greatest job. If you like law enforcement and trying to protect citizens and prosecuting criminals, it was just a fabulous job. And we had great assistants. And I loved it and our team did. It was Camelot days for me, so I did feel that. I only had two years as attorney general. We had this monumental deficit when I got elected and we had to lay off a third of the office because we did not have money to pay the electric bill. And it was just one thing after another. And then I was running for the Senate, so I did not get to enjoy that job. But the United States attorney job was a really fabulous experience. And I believe in the course of it I worked with FBI, DEA, U.S. Customs, Marshals Service, all the federal agencies, ATF, IRS, Postal Service and their inspectors. And you get to know their cultures and their crimes that they investigate, the officers and what motivates them and how a little praise and affirmation is so important for them. They get the same salary, you know. If they are not being appreciated, they feel demeaned, their morale can decline. So that kind of experience was wonderful. And I do think it would help me be a better attorney general. KENNEDY: I have made up my mind. (LAUGHTER) I yield back my time. I hope you will be a raging voice of common sense at the Department of Justice, Senator. SESSIONS: Well, thank you. GRASSLEY: Before you take a break, I hope that the people, all the people that still want to do a third round, will come back in about maybe 15 minutes or a little less. Is that OK? SESSIONS: Yes. GRASSLEY: OK. We stand in recess for 15 minutes or so. (RECESS) GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) FRANKEN: Well, thank you. Senator, last Friday the Director of National Intelligence, we covered this a little, representing 16 agencies released a declassified intelligence report stating in quote, "We assessed Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," unquote. And yet despite the consensus among our intelligence agencies, President-elect Trump has remained persistently skeptical during the first presidential debate. He wandered a lot whether the responsible party could be China or, quote, somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds. Last month he called reports of Russian hacking quote, "ridiculous," and quote "another excuse," for the democratic loss. He said quote, "it could be somebody sitting on -- in a bed some place." Again, I mean, they have no idea. And even after the release of the declassified report, the president has really yet to acknowledge Russia's role in the hacking. You said earlier that you accept the FBI's conclusion. To my mind, it's absolutely extraordinary to see a president-elect so publicly refuting and without evidence, so far as I can tell, the assessment of our intelligence agencies. Why do you think president-elect Trump has been so unwilling to acknowledge Russian involvement in the hacking? SESSIONS: I did mean to indicate I respect the FBI and I respect the fact that if they give a conclusion they believe is accurate, but I'm not able to comment on the president-elect's comments about it. FRANKEN: OK. CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say quote, "There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have -- did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it. FRANKEN: Very well. Without divulging sensitive information, do you know about this or know what compromising personal and financial information the Russians claim to have? SESSIONS: Senator Franken, allegations get made about candidates all the time and they've been made about president-elect Trump a lot sometimes. Most of them, virtually all of them have been proven to be exaggerated and untrue. I would just say to you that I have no information about this matter. I have not been in on the classified briefings and I'm not a member of the intelligence committee, and I'm just not able to give you any comment on it at this time. FRANKEN: OK. Totally fair. Last week, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, claim that the Russian government was not the source of the hacked e-mails WikiLeaks published during the -- that they published during the campaign. Now, Assange did not identify his source nor did he say whether his source worked with or received information from the Russians. But again, American intelligence agencies have included the Russian government directed the hacking operation. Nonetheless, immediately following that interview, president-elect tweeted, quote, "Julian Assange said a 14-year-old could have hacked Podesta. Why was DNC so careless. Also said Russians did not give him the info exclamation point. Senator Sessions, does it concern you that our future commander in chief is so much more willing to accept what Julian Assange says instead of the conclusions of our intelligence agencies and why do you think President Trump finds Assange trustworthy? SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not able to answer that. I have not talked to the president-elect about any of these issues and it is often inaccurate what gets printed in them papers. FRANKEN: Well, back in 2010, back when WikiLeaks was publishing stolen American diplomatic cables and military secrets, you voiced concern about the Obama administration's response. You said that WikiLeaks publishing sensitive documents should be quote, "pursued with the greatest intensity." You said quote, "the president from on down should be crystal clear on this, and I haven't seen that, I mean, he comes out of the left, the anti-war left. They have always glorified people who leak sensitive documents. Now he's the commander in chief so he's got a challenge." President-elect Trump, by contrast, said quote, "WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks." Do you believe that by holding up Julian Assange, who traffics and leaked in stolen documents, often classified documents as a legitimate source of information that president-elect Trump is glorifying people who leak sensitive documents? SESSIONS: Well, I would say this, that if Assange participated in violating the American law, then he is a person subject to prosecution and condemnation. FRANKEN: Well, we know that in regard to what he did in 2010 and yet the president-elect said WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks. Doesn't it seem like perhaps if you weren't sitting before us today as an attorney general nominee and if President Obama was publicly embracing Julian Assange, that perhaps you might take a more critical view? SESSIONS: As a member of the Senate, as you and I remain for, hopefully not too much longer, depends on you and your colleagues, but we're -- I feel a lot -- it's a lot easier to be vigorous and outspoken. If you begin to think about the awesome responsibility of serving as an Attorney General with the possibility of having to handle certain cases, you need to be more cautious about what you say. So, I think it's just not appropriate for me to be the person for you to seek political responses from. GRASSLEY: Senator -- FRANKEN: OK. I am out of time. I will try to stick around for one more quick round. GRASSLEY: OK. Senator Cruz? CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sessions, thank you for your endurance today. Let's turn to a different topic, one that's been addressed some in this hearing but one that I know is -- is a particular passion of yours and one on which you built a remarkable record. That's immigration. And I want to focus, in particular, on the problem of criminal aliens in the United States and this administration's nonenforcement of the laws. And take a moment just to review some of the numbers which you know very well, but I think it's helpful to review for those watching this hearings. We have had an administration that consistently refuses to enforce our immigration laws. So, in October 2015, ICE submitted that there were 929,684 aliens present in the United States who had been ordered to leave the country but who hadn't done so. And of those over 929,000 aliens with removal orders, 179,027 had criminal convictions. In addition to the 179,027 criminal aliens with final orders of removal, there were at least 194,791 known criminal aliens who were at the time in removal proceedings. We also know that 121 criminal aliens released by ICE between fiscal year 2010 and 2014 went on to commit homicides. And between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2015, ICE released 6,151 aliens with sexual offense convictions from its custody. My question for you, Senator Sessions, is can you commit to this committee and to the American people that as Attorney General, you will enforce the laws including the federal immigration laws and you will not be releasing criminal illegal aliens into the public, especially those with violent convictions such as homicide or sexual assault convictions? SESSIONS: Senator Cruz, you and I have talked about this and you know that I believe we have failed in dealing with criminal aliens. President Obama set that as a priority but I don't think they've been as effective as needed. I believe that should be increased and stepped up, the priority of that. The actual policies, as you know, our homeland security policies, the secretary of homeland security will determine those policies. There are ways in which the Department of Justice can fulfill a role in it but the overall policies and priorities would be set by homeland security. I just believe that as we go forward and reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into America, then there are few people illegally per investigative officer and you get a better handle, you're in a virtuous cycle instead of this dangerous cycle that we're in today where things tend to get worse. So, I believe we can turn that around. This is one of the policies that has to be given priority. Donald Trump has also said he believes criminal aliens obviously should be the top priority and all of us, I believe, this government will work effectively to deal with it. I would -- I would do my part. CRUZ: You know, there are few issues that frustrate Americans more than the refusal to enforce our immigration laws and not too long ago, I was down on the border in Texas visiting with border patrol officials, visiting with law enforcement, local sheriffs. And I'll tell you, it was after the election and there was a palpable sense of relief that finally, we would have an administration that didn't view the laws as obstacles to be circumvented but rather, an administration that would be willing to enforce the laws on the books and stop releasing criminal aliens in communities where the citizens are at risk. You know, one of the most tragic instances that we're all familiar with is Kate Steinle. Beautiful young woman in California who lost her life who was murdered by a criminal illegal alien who had seven prior felonies. And yet over and over and over again, the system failed. And young Kate Steinle lost her life in her father's arms saying "Daddy, please save me." You and I are both the fathers of daughters and I cannot think of a more horrific experience than having to hold your daughter at this moment of agony. Can you share -- this has been an issue you have been leading for so long -- can you share your perspective as to the responsibility of the federal government to keep the American people safe and not to subject the American people to murderers and other repeat felons who are here illegally, not to release them to the public? SESSIONS: Senator Cruz, you are touching on the right issue here. First and foremost, the immigration policy of the United States should serve the national interest, the peoples' interest, that's what an immigration system should do. Number two, under the laws of world agreements that if a citizen from a foreign country is admitted by visa to the United States and they commit a deportable act or otherwise need to be removed, that country has to take them back and when they cease to do that, you have a serious breach of collegial relations between the two countries and no country, particularly the United States, should ever allow so many individuals who committed crimes here often when they entered illegally, not even coming on a lawful visa and they need to be deported promptly. And reluctance of that to happen is baffling to me. It should have total bipartisan support. It's said that it does, but for somehow it's never accomplished. So, it's very, very frustrating. So, the basic summary of that is it's perfectly proper, decent and correct for this nation not to allow people who come here on a visa or illegally to remain here after they have committed crimes. CRUZ: Well, thank you, Senator Sessions. As you know, I have introduced legislation in the senate, Kate's law, which would provide for those who illegally re-enter with a violent criminal conviction a mandatory five-year prison sentence. This past Senate that failed to pass it, it's my hope Congress will pass that legislation and give additional tools to the administration to keep the American people safe. Let me turn to one additional aspect of illegal immigration which is the national security component of it. Since August of 2015, you and I have joined together to send three separate letters to the Departments of Justice, homeland security and state as well as a letter to the president seeking information on the immigration histories of individuals who have been convicted or implicated in terrorist attack in the United States. And over and over again, the current administration has stonewalled our efforts as senators to get basic facts that I think the American people are entitled to. You and I were able to piece together from the public record that at least 40 people who were initially admitted to the United States as refugees were subsequently convicted or implicated in terrorism and -- and more broadly, of a list of 580 individuals who were convicted of terrorism or terrorism related offenses between 2001 and 2014, at least 380 were born in foreign countries, many from terrorist spots in the Middle East and Africa and Central Asia. And of the 198 U.S. citizens, you and I were able to find on that list, at least 100 were born abroad and subsequently naturalized. As I mentioned, the administration has stonewalled us. Will you commit to work with this committee to provide the data that we've been seeking that I think the American people are entitled to know of those who are committing terror plots against us, how many are coming in through a broken immigration system, through a broken refugee system and to working with this committee to prevent that from happening in the future to keep the people safe? SESSIONS: I will do that. I do believe that's the homeland security primary responsibility, but it was a bit frustrating because what those numbers tend to indicate, it indicates that it's not true that refugees don't commit terrorist acts. There is a danger even in the refugee population and good vetting is critical in that process. CRUZ: Thank you, senator. GRASSLEY: Senator Collins? COONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Sessions, if I might, I would like to take us to an area I don't think has been explored much today but of grave concern to me which is disability rights. Another area where, if confirmed, as attorney general, you'd be charged with protecting among the most vulnerable Americans and those whose rights have only recently been fully recognized and enforced. You have previously said that the IDEA which provides for access to education for those with intellectual disabilities creates, and I think I quote here, "lawsuit after lawsuit, special treatment for certain children and is a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility in classrooms all over America." And in a different setting, you were critical of the supreme court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002 which held that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment. In a floor speech six days later after that ruling, you said that you were quote, "very troubled" by the court telling states quote, "they could not execute people who were retarded." If a state was scheduled to execute someone with intellectual disabilities, would you insist on the justice department now taking vigorous action to stop it and given your previous comments about the IDEA, do you still believe it unfairly benefits some children and hurts others? SESSIONS: We made a real reform in IDEA. I led that effort. We ended up having the vote of Hillary Clinton and Dick Durbin, Senator Durbin. We worked on it very hard and I was very pleased with the way it worked out. It was true that the IDEA community pushed back against the reforms I was proposing, but in the end, I think it worked out fine and the reason was that the burden was on the school systems. I was in a blue ribbon great little school in Alabama, first day of school, and the principal told me it's now 3:00. At 5:00, I will go to a meeting with lawyers and parents about and -- a child on whether or not they will be in the classroom all day or half a day and the child had serious disabilities. So, he said I'm trying to get this school up and running and I'm having to spend this extraordinary amount of time on this. So, we created a legal system that made it better. And the schools got a little more deference in being able to monitor. And it was a big issue. It was a disruptive force in big city schools in New York and Chicago and other places like that. So, on the question of intellectual disabilities, I suppose we can disagree, as a matter of policy, perhaps I was questioning the legal mandate but a person with intellectual disabilities that should be considered as a factor in the sentencing jury or judge's opinion before they go forward. But obviously, if a person knows the difference in right and wrong, historically they would be held to the same standard even though their intellectual ability would be less. COONS: Let me revisit a question about consent decrees that Senator Hirono was asking you about previously. Because consent decrees have been used in this area and disability rights to make sure that folks with intellectual disabilities have access to services and education but also in policing. Police chiefs and elected officials, as we have spoken, about in communities across the country have, in some cases, invited DOJ to open civil rights investigations of their police departments and have invited them to enter into consent decrees in order to implement reforms to law enforcement in order to make sure that they improve the quality of police community relations and respect for civil rights. Do you plan to continue to assist cities with these investigations when asked if attorney general and under what circumstances would you commence a civil rights investigation of a law enforcement agency that may have violated federal law? SESSIONS: Well, those are difficult questions for me to answer explicitly today but I would note on the consent decrees or the language the Senator Hirono quoted, I believe, was in a booklet of which I simply wrote the foreword on. I don't believe that was my language. Consent decrees have been criticized in a number of areas but with regard to the disabilities community and the police departments, I guess you're asking about, I'm not familiar with how they have worked out in the disabilities arena but with regard to police departments, I think it's a good thing that a police department might call on federal investigators in a team and to work with their police department to identify any problems and to help select remedies that the community might feel were more valid because the department of justice validated them and agreed to them. So, I think you and I talked, it really is important that the people trust the department, police departments, and the police departments have respect from the communities. When you don't have that, crime is -- people safety is at risk. COONS: Well, I hope we can find ways to work together to combat violent crime and the improve police community relations. Let me just briefly ask you about Trade Secrets Act and intellectual property, something we've talked about. There is a significant problem for American inventions, companies, entrepreneurs, having their innovations stolen, sometimes by cyber hack by intrusions, sometimes physically or through industrial espionage. The Obama Administration's made real progress if increasing enforcement and in going after those who would steal America's inventions. Is that something that you would intend to continue vigorous enforcement to protect American inventions? SESSIONS: I do. I think a lot of that may be through the U.S. Trade representative. It could be done through commerce department and other departments and the department of justice may have a role... COONS: It does. SESSIONS: ... in criminal activities or civil enforcement. I would not -- excuse me -- say for certain what that would be at this point but my view, as you and I have talked, is that you're correct about this. When we enter into a trade agreement with a foreign nation, what we have to understand is that's just a simple contract and we'll comply, we'll deal with you on this basis and if you're partner to that contract that is not acting honorably, then you have every right to push back and if it ultimately means you have to pull out of the agreement, then you pull out of the agreement. If it's serious enough. I don't think we've been as aggressive as we should have been in those agreements. COONS: Let me ask one last question if I may. I just wanted to reflect on something you said in your opening and something we have talked about. You were born in Selma, roughly 70 years ago. I've been to Selma several times with Congressman Lewis and a number of others, and last year, many of us joined Congressman Lewis for the 50th anniversary of the famous march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge when he faced violence and the response, the conscience of the nation was stirred by this horrible event and it spurred Congress to pass the Bipartisan Voting Rights Act. There's been a lot of questioning back and forth about your comments about whether the Voting Rights Act was intrusive and the Shelby County decision. I just wanted to make sure I came back to an important point which was that, Senator Leahy and I and a number of others tried hard to find Republican partners to advance the Voting Rights Advancement Act which would have replaced the now 50 years old, roughly, preclearance formula with a new one that would be national in scope, would not disadvantage any region and would be simply based on enforcement actions. Previous questioning by, I think, Senator Franken and others, focused on recent enforcement actions, the fourth circuit finding that North Carolina's post Shelby voter ID law violated the law because it targeted African-Americans. You said in your opening statement you witnessed the Civil Rights Movement as it happened near you, that you witnessed the depredations of segregation. And in a ceremony last year during the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to the foot soldiers of the Civil Rights Movement, you said, I feel I should have stepped forward more. What more do you think you, perhaps, could have done or should have done in recent years as a senator to take more active action, so that folks from around the country could have confidence in your commitment to continuing the journey of civil rights in the country? SESSIONS: Well, I don't think we have to agree on everything just because you think this is a necessary thing, you may be right and if I don't think so, I don't know that I'm wrong, not necessarily wrong. I would say that I did sponsor the Congressional Gold Medal Act that gave the gold medal to the Selma and Montgomery marches with Senator Cory Booker. We were the two lead sponsors on it. I was at that event and have a wonderful picture I'd cherish with John Lewis and other people on the bridge celebrating that event. It changed the whole south. Voting rights were discriminating, were being -- African-Americans were being discriminated against systemically. They were being flat denied through all kinds of mechanisms. In a whole, only a very few and many instances were allowed to vote, if any. So, this was an unacceptable thing. As I said at the hearing in 1986, I was asked about it being intrusive. Please, Senator Coons, do not suggest in any way that that word means that I was hostile to the act. I said then and I say now. It was necessary that the act be intrusive because it had to force change and it wouldn't have happened without the power of the federal government. That is a plain fact. COONS: Senator, what I'm suggesting is an alternative path forward for the Voting Rights Act that would not have been singling out one region or one state or one history, but that would have allowed the right to be effective in the face of the recent record showing ongoing discrimination, ongoing denial of the right to vote in different states across the country, now no longer isolated to the south, when presented with an opportunity to continue and strengthen the voting rights act post Shelby, you didn't take that step. SESSIONS: Well... GRASSLEY: Senator Session, if you need to answer that, go ahead and answer it. I want to go to Senator Blumenthal. SESSIONS: As I said, I supported the authorization of the Voting Rights Act with Section 5 in it. When the Supreme Court said it was longer necessary that section 5 be in it, I did not support the language that you offered that would basically put it back in, you and Senator Leahy. So, I don't apologize for that. I think that was a legitimate decision and with regard to the question of voter ID, I'm not sure it's inconclusively settled one way or the other whether a properly conducted voter ID system is improper and discriminatory. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that voter ID is legitimate. At least on certain circumstances. GRASSLEY: OK. Before Senator Blumenthal, I have another thing that has come to our attention so I will put this in the record without objection, a letter that we received from some lawyers about the IDEA issue. These lawyers litigate cases on this issue. They say certain stories about the issue took Senator Session's comments out of context and then they go on to note that Senator Kennedy and others later reached an agreement with Senator Sessions on the issue. Senator Blumenthal? BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Session, I want to pursue this conversation about voting rights, In October of 2015, there was a report widely reported that the State of Alabama intended to close a number of DMV offices. Congressman -- Congresswoman Terri Sewell, wrote to the Attorney General Loretta Lynch urging an investigation stating, I'm quoting, "This decision will leave 8 out of 10 counties with the highest percentage of nonwhite registered voters without a Department of Motor Vehicles, DMV, to issue an Alabama driver's license." She noted that quote, "an estimated 250,000 Alabamaians who do not have, do not have an acceptable form of photo identification to cast a ballot," end quote. As you know, subsequently, the Department of Transportation issued an investigation under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act and that year-long investigation found that Alabama's conduct caused, quote, "a disparate and adverse impact on the basis of race," end quote. Did you believe or or do you not believe now that it was a problem that 250,000 estimated citizens of your state did not have the requisite ID to vote? SESSIONS: There is a system, I understand, that makes those IDs available. The driver's licenses offices were a part of a budget cutting process within the state which I had absolutely nothing to do with and did not advise and know about until it was done. They attempted, they claimed, that they were simply identifying the areas with the lowest population and trying to do some consolidation and trying to make the system more efficient and productive. It was later these objections rose -- arose and they have reversed that, I believe. So, that's the way that went, I hope, and think there was no intent at the time to do an anti, you know, to be racially insensitive, but indeed, many of the closures were in counties with large African-American populations. BLUMENTHAL: Did you believe then that there was a problem in denying 250,000 people an access to photo identification they needed to vote? SESSIONS: Well, they didn't deny 250,000 people the right to vote. That would be utterly wrong and should be stopped immediately. It just simply -- maybe the closest driver's license office would be in the next county and closer for you to go to that one than the one that was closed. But it was, in general, perceived as detrimental to African-Americans and included in that detriment was the possibility of an ID for voting. So, you are correct, it was controversial and it was fixed. BLUMENTHAL: Did you agree with the Department of Investigation finding that it had an adverse and disparate impact on people on the basis of race? SESSIONS: Well, I've never expressed an opinion upon it and I never studied that issue in depth but, apparently, somebody must have agreed because it was changed. BLUMENTHAL: Did you agree with that conclusion? SESSIONS: Well, yes, I was happy that -- that solution was reached, yes, very much. BLUMENTHAL: Did you take... SESSIONS: No need to have a -- you know, you shouldn't -- we should remember those things as we move forward setting policy, what kind of ramifications could it have. I don't think they had voting in their mind at all, but it did impact voting to some degree for sure. BLUMENTHAL: But you took no action at the time. You expressed no conclusion at the time despite what was found to be a disparate and adverse impact on the voting rights of 250,000 members of the citizens of your state? SESSIONS: Well, they didn't ask my opinion before they did it and it was purely a state matter and I did not actively intervene, you're correct. BLUMENTHAL: I want to ask you about the DACA, young people, the DREAMers, who have submitted information to the federal government about their whereabouts, their identities, a lot of personal details. And I know that your response, I think, to a question about it was that Congress must act. But wouldn't it violate fundamental fairness whether due process or some standard of constitutional due process, to use that information, in effect, against them. Obviously, we're not talking about a criminal proceeding, so there's no double jeopardy. But, I guess, I'm asking for your commitment as perspective attorney general, your respect for the constitution, to make a commitment that those young people will not be deported, that you will continue that policy that has been initiated. SESSIONS: Certainly, you're correct that those -- that cohort of individuals should not be targeted and give a priority, anything like the priorities should be given to criminals and people who've had other difficulties in the United States, those who've been deported and had final orders of deportation. So, I understand what you're saying there. I think until I've had a chance to think it through and examine the law and so forth, I would not opine on it myself. Number two, importantly, this is a policy of homeland security. They've got to wrestle with the priorities of their agents, what they should spend their time with and try to do that in a most effective way. So, General Kelly will have to think that through. I'm simply would be -- if some matter were litigated, we would try to be supportive of the litigating position if possible. So, really a homeland security question. BLUMENTHAL: I understand that homeland security may be involved. But ultimately, orders to deport are the responsibility of the Department of Justice to enforce. You are the nominee to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer, and more importantly, in some sense, you're a source of the nation's consciences, legal conscience. And so I'm asking you as a perspective United States attorney whether your conscience would be violated by using information submitted in good faith by countless young people who have been in this country sense infancy, many of them, and who trusted the government of the United States of America to give them the benefit of that policy articulated by the president of the United States. You may have disagreed that policy. SESSIONS: Well... BLUMENTHAL: But if the submission of that information in good faith, on the basis of representations by the United States of America, it seems to me involve a perspective commitment on your part in representing the United States of America. SESSIONS: Well, you make a good point and that that's a valid concern. I know of no policy that would suggest that something like that would be done and I would not push for it. But ultimately, the decision would be made by the homeland security department. They decide their priorities for enforcement and then there's a question of whether or not I would -- I just wouldn't want be in a position to say they would never be used. And I can't make that commitment today. I haven't thought it through as to what laws might be implicated, but if somebody were a terrorist or had other criminal gang connections, could you never use that information? I don't know. I'm just not prepared to answer that today. It my not be possible to use it. BLUMENTHAL: Well, I'm -- I recognize Mr. Chairman my time is up but I'll pursue this line of questioning again because I feel I'm midway through a number of questions. Thank you, Senator. GRASSLEY: Before I call on the senator from Hawaii, I'd like to note that Pat Edgington (ph), former vice chair of the Alabama Democratic Party, wrote to our committee in support of this nomination. Mr. Edgington (ph) says, quote, "I truly hope our party will not make this vote on party lines but instead vote on man." End of quote. Quote again, "I have known him for approximately 40 years and while we have had our policy differences, I know his instincts are fundamentally humane and just." Without objection, enter that in the record. Senator from Hawaii. HIRONO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our Muslim-American community is gravely concerned about what a Trump presidency would mean for them. So, can the Muslim-Americans count on you as attorney general to protect their constitutional and civil right? SESSIONS: Yes. HIRONO: Thank you. Very reassured. I had asked you earlier about consent decrees that relate to police departments. I have a question along those lines but it involves another part of civil rights. In 2015, a federal district court in Alabama, your state approved a consent decree order filed by the Department of Justice in the Huntsville City Schools case and this was a school desegregation case. A number of other school districts throughout the country are under desegregation orders. Would you commit to maintaining and enforcing those decrees? SESSIONS: Those still remain in effect in a number of districts. Huntsville is a very strong, healthy and well-managed school systems. I'm actually -- I believe they have good leadership. But a consent decree remains in effect until it's altered by the court. HIRONO: So your answer is... SESSIONS: They would be enforced until there's an alteration of it. Yes. HIRONO: Thank you. I have question about violence in increasing number of threats against providers of health care services and abortion services to women. Since the November election, the number of threats online, many of them online, against providers have more than tripled. Given the increasing numbers of violence targeting abortion providers, how high of a priority will it be to you to prosecute violence targeting abortion providers under the freedom of access to Clinic Entrances Act. SESSIONS: They deserve the same protection that any entity, business or otherwise or health care entity is entitled to. When people violate the law and carry out improper threats or blockades of the business. HIRONO: Well, were there... SESSIONS: Maybe even more so because there's a specific law about abortion clinics, I believe. HIRONO: Yes. So, there's a specific law that Congress passed that -- that protects access to these clinics and where there is evidence of increasing number of threats of violence, I hope that that -- it gets on your radar screen as a priority for enforcement. SESSIONS: As a law is to be applied, yes. I know where exactly how the threats are worded but that seem -- it's improperly done, they can be subject to criminal prosecutions and they would be evaluated properly in my administration. HIRONO: And certainly, where Congress cared enough about this particular area of access, that I hope that you would have a commitment to making sure that that law is being enforced in the way that we intended. Regarding birthright citizenship, people born in this country are U.S. citizens regardless of the citizenship status of their parents and there are those who argue that that is not enough to confer citizenship. Do you believe that there should be more required to become U.S. citizens? SESSIONS: Well, under the current state of the law, it's accepted they do obtain their citizenship, so I suppose that would not be two obstacles to changing that. One, you would have to have a congressional enactment, I believe, to change it and even that congressional action could be construed as violative of the constitution and not be a constitutional act, so those -- I have not reviewed the details of that. I do know there are some dispute about whether or not the Congress could change that status. HIRONO: But it's certainly not anything that in the order of priorities that you would pursue as attorney general to ask Congress to change the law to require more than being born in this country to confer U.S. citizenship. SESSIONS: I would be focusing my attention on enforcing the laws that exist and I guess it would be Congress' duty to wrestle with whether to change it or not. HIRONO: Turning to a change in the law that came about after the Lilly Ledbetter case, it's the Lilly Ledbetter Act and I know you're familiar with the factual circumstance in which Lilly Ledbetter did not know that she had been given disparate pay, that was illegal, and she didn't find out about it and the Supreme Court said you have only 180 days in order to find this out in order to have your day in court. So, Congress had a bill which you voted against and I'm wondering why you voted against that bill because in making that decision, the court basically abrogated years and years of legal precedent and it was a surprise to a lot of us that suddenly they were imposing a 180-day you must know kind of a requirement, but you voted against that bill. Can you tell us briefly why? SESSIONS: We had a hearing on it in the judiciary committee, a number of witnesses testified and the testimony as I understood it was that she did, in fact, have noticed and the court found that she had noticed and that's why they had that statute of limitations was enforced. You need a statute of limitations of some kind. And if they don't know, then you can allow it to continue indefinitely. But as I understood, that was the ruling so it was less problematic for future cases than was discussed. But my recollection is not perfectly clear on that issue but that was one of the factors, I remember, being involved in my decision. HIRONO: My recollection of the holding in that case is different from yours because often in these discrimination case, unlawful pay discrimination, the victim is not aware and has no way of finding out that such discrimination is occurring and that's why the law made it very clear that every instance of a disparate paycheck would constitute a new violation and that's all this bill did. Otherwise, the Lilly Ledbetters of the world would really be -- would be foreclosed from their day in court. So, you obviously have a different understanding of the holding of the case. So,... SESSIONS: As the -- well, I'm more likely -- my memory is not that good. But if you have explicit notice hypothetically, should the every paycheck for the next 20 years be told the statute of limitations so that's the -- was the legal question. I have a -- my recollection is not perfect. HIRONO: I was very corned about that case and so I'd say that perhaps my recollection of the holding is more accurate than yours. Let me turn to corporate wrongdoing. When I just met you, you indicated that nobody is above the law and there is, I think, an ongoing investigation of the part of the Department of Justice what Wells Fargo did and basically defrauding millions of their customers. So, would you continue to pursue this kind of investigation and would you also hold accountable individual corporate office holders for -- should there be found to have been a violation of law. SESSIONS: Corporations are subject as an entity to fines and punishment for violating the law and so are the corporate officers. And sometimes, it seems to me Senator Hirono that the corporate officers who caused the problem should be subjected to more severe punishment than the stockholders of the company who didn't know anything about it. HIRONO: I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Senator Franken, you said you had one more question you wanted to ask. FRANKEN: Could I ask two? GRASSLEY: Go ahead. FRANKEN: By the way, the Chairman, I must complement you, you have deferred your time to us all and I thank you. GRASSLEY: I haven't given it up, I've just give... FRANKEN: No, you deferred it. GRASSLEY: Please proceed. You're taking time. FRANKEN: OK. Senator, I like to briefly return to something you said earlier about your opposition to VAWA and our courtesy visit. The second item of substance that we discussed was violence against native women. I told you how important the issue is to me and to tribes all over the country. And they've highlighted it for me, time and time again. And when I provided you with a statistic demonstrating just how prevalent violence against native women is and at the hands of non-Indians, you expressed shock and said you didn't realize the extent of the problem. Over 84 percent experience domestic or sexual violence. Over -- and over 97 percent of them are victimized by non-Indians. That's the recent stat. But in 2012, all you had to do was talk to one tribe and you've learned that women in an Indian country are regularly abused by non-Indians who go unprosecuted and unpunished. If you take the issue of domestic and sexual violence seriously, I think it's incumbent upon you to visit at least one tribe and I think Alabama has nine tribes that are recognized in the state. Is that correct? SESSIONS: Well, only one tribal group that I believe only one tribal group that has properties, tribal lands... FRANKEN: Is that Poarch? SESSIONS: Poarch accretive. It used to be in my district. I've had good relations with them, been on that small tribes -- tribal lands a number of times and visit their clinics and... FRANKEN: OK. Good. Well, I would -- you know, if you are attorney general and even if you're not but if, certainly, if you are attorney general, when you're back home, you might take some time to talk to them about this issue. Earlier, you told Senator Hirono that you cannot commit to not challenging VAWA on these grounds but you've also admitted that you didn't understand the gravity of the problem against native women when you voted on it in 2013 or the extent of non-Indian violence. Would you just commit to me to spending a little bit of time with the Poarch tribe? Thank you. That would be good... SESSIONS: They've been supportive of me and... FRANKEN: Thank you. I want to talk one last thing. GRASSLEY: You've got more question. OK. FRANKEN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The day before the election in Candidate Trump came to my state for his only rally during the campaign and let me tell you what he said. He was standing before a large crowd and he accused Democrats of planning to quote, "import generations of terrorism, extremism and radicalism into your schools and throughout your communities. Here in Minnesota, he said, you've seen firsthand the problems caused with faulty refugee vetting and large numbers of Somali refugees coming into your state without your knowledge, without your support of approval and while some of them joining ISIS and spreading their extremist views all over our country and all over the world, I can't begin to tell you how angry those comments made me. To see Candidate Trump hold his only rally in Minnesota at an airport where about a thousand Somalis -- immigrants work and Somali Minnesota work and earn -- refugees, really -- and to stoke that kind of fear and hatred was an insult, I believe, to every Minnesotan. It was offensive, it was irresponsible, but wasn't really surprising. Candidate Trump made scapegoating immigrants and refugees and banning Muslims from entering our country a centerpiece of his campaign. Now, some of his advisers tried to spin or walk back his comments on the so-called Muslim ban, but you, Senator, you know, you said that the idea was, quote, appropriate to discuss. And in June, you said, quote, "we must face the up comfortable reality that not only are immigrants from Muslim majority countries coming to the United States, radicalizing and attempting to engage in an act of terrorism, but also, their first generation American children are susceptible to the toxic radicalization of terrorists organizations. You said that our nation was quote -- has a, quote, "unprecedented assimilation problem." You know, Senator, part of what makes that a simulation challenging is when people seeking to leave this country exploit fear and anxiety and redirect that fear toward our immigrant and refugee communities. Right after the election, my office got a call from a middle schoolteacher in St. Paul. Her school has a sizable population of Somali-Americans, Somali-Minnesotan kids. Now, they're smart kids so they've been paying attention to the election and they were terrified. The teacher called my office and said please, please have Senator Franken come to the school and give them some assurance. These kids did not know what the make of a country, their country, electing a leader who describes them and their families as worthy of hatred and suspension. So, I did my best to alleviate their fears that day. I told them you're Americans. I said you kids, you're Americans. Don't be afraid. And a couple of weeks later, I talked to the French ambassador to the United States. I said to him, tell, what -- who's defined as a Frenchman in France? And he said somebody who is -- who can trace back a couple of centuries to their family in a French village. Well, these kids are Americans. And we consider them American. And what we saw in Paris and what we saw which was caused by Belgians, is because they take that attitude in Europe. We don't take this attitude. And it's dangerous to take it. One of the most beautiful weeks I've been to was the graduation -- high school graduation in Willmar, Minnesota, in June and I invited myself there because one of our pages, our senate pages, was from Willmar and she's Somali, a Somali-Minnesota girl. And I saw her on election day. I was at the university of Minnesota. She told me her sister, her younger sister, was named the Willmar Homecoming Queen. In Europe, they don't assimilate people. Here in the United States, we vote them homecoming queen. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator... SESSIONS: They're all Americans. GRASSLEY: Senator Sessions, if you want to respond, go ahead. SESSIONS: Well, I think he -- Senator Franken makes some important points and I appreciate his comments. GRASSLEY: Senator... FRANKEN: Thank you. (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: Although I do believe my comment was unrelated to the event in your state. GRASSLEY: Senator Tillis, you're entitled to 10 minutes since the first round but you don't have to use it all. TILLIS: I've learned nothing else except to understand what it is... (CROSSTALK) GRASSLEY: I want to do my second and third round. TILLIS: No, Mr. Chair, I'm not going to take long. And, Mr. Chair, you know, and Senator Sessions, I think that you know that I was in Tennessee today with the proud moment of seeing my father sworn in to the legislature. However, I got up and watched the opening comments, your opening comment, you did an extraordinary job. And to be honest with you, I think you've demonstrated more stamina today than the crimson tide did last night against the worthy adversary. But, Senator Sessions, I'm not going to ask a lot of questions. I'm going to tell you I thank you for your leadership. I think you and I have talked about this before. But I want to thank you again publicly about your leadership as a balanced chair and I think as the late Arlen Specter said in egalitarian, I've seen you sit on the immigration subcommittee and you see me come to every one of those meetings and you know you and I have a difference of opinion on that matter. What's remarkable about you is you bring balance panels to discuss the issues so that both sides can be heard and you never ever hesitated to let me speak as long as I want to which I'm sure was a lot longer than you wanted me to and I really appreciate your leadership because that's what's missing oftentimes up here in the senate and we're going to miss you and I'm going to look forward to voting for you and for your confirmation. I ask the same question of the attorney general that was before this committee last year and I want to ask you because it's very important to me. I think the Department of Justice has issues. I think that the inspector generals report is a good example back in 2014 when I simply said that the inspector general's report that says that they need to increase accountability and the Department of Justice and I'll get to a specific question in a minute that we should act on it. I got a non-answer to that question. In fact, I got a better answer to a deputy who came back in which is why I supported the deputy and I didn't support the A.G. nominee. Can you tell me if you've had an opportunity to take a look at those recommendations and to what extent those recommendations would be instructed to you now that you've become the chief -- when you become the chief executive of that agency? SESSIONS: I'm glad you raised it. I hope you'll stay on the Department of Justice to respond to it. I have not studied it. I've had some time ago, I believe, a briefing on the nature of it when it came out. But it does appear to me to raise fundamentals questions about the good management of the people's money and that money needs to be managed every single dollar effectively to get positive results, not wasted, and I will be glad to hear any suggestions you have it will be a priority of mine. TILLIS: Thank you. (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: ... has raised it and so I think what we need to do and I will do is to do an immediate analysis of it if I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed. TILLIS: Thank you because we'll be following up on it. This is something, I think, that's very important to me. And, really, a specific question in that regard, I hope you look at it and when you get confirmed, make it a priority to look into. The -- as a part of the report, I believe it was said that some DOJ employees engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and perjured themselves in court. If you find that to be substantiated, what would you do with the people in the DOJ who were guilty of such actions? SESSIONS: The Department of Justice is a great institution. Most of the people are a people of the highest character.... TILLIS: Without a doubt. SESSIONS: ... and ability. However, we've had a series of problems overtime that seem to me to be worthy of concern broadly and I think it would be important for the next attorney general to try to revitalize and reemphasize the absolute commitment that a federal prosecutor must have to do justice and not just win a case. And also, it is hard for lawyers in Washington who get sent out to the field to try a big, important, highly -- high profile case. They don't know the community very well. Maybe they haven't tried as many cases as United States attorney in the field that's doing every day and sometimes they -- their skills don't meet their academic levels that you might think they would have and things kind of go wrong. We need to do better. TILLIS: Well, thank you for that. Also, just by way of comment, the chair looked at a stack of letters that remained unanswered by the current attorney general and the DOJ. He did cite that he expects you to respond, at least, to the one that you signed. But I hope you'll actually respond to all of them and to the -- to the chair's credit, not only from the chair but from the ranking member and members of this body who are trying to make the DOJ the best it can possibly be. Finally, I'll just yield back the rest of time after saying the -- I watched -- I probably watched the good three hours of the proceedings today. I was struck at one point when some were casting doubt about you in terms of your view of ethnicity and a number of other backgrounds. What struck me the most about that picture on TV was your wife's eyes well enough because she and her son know you well. Many of us know you well. And I think all of us know that you're going to make a great attorney general. You're a fair-minded man and you're going to obey the law. You will no longer be a lawmaker which I know from time to time is probably going to frustrate you. But I have no doubt in my mind, you will be one of the best attorney generals. You will faithfully execute the law. You will enforce the law and you will do it in a fair and unpartial manner and I can't wait to see you in action. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Before we start the forth round, I don't think you've had your third round, Senator Sasse. So, proceed. SASSE: Thank you... GRASSLEY: You've got eight minutes. You don't have to use it all. SASSE: Thank you for the counsel for a rookie. I also didn't think I could talk about college football but Senator Tillis already broke that bubble. Senator, Nebraska 1995, remains the best team in the history of college football. I think we can all agree after last night. I'd like to ask you a question about... (CROSSTALK) SASSE: I've heard from Nebraskans how regulations are games by activists to try to change federal policy through lawsuits and settlements rather than through the making of law in the Congress. Federal agencies and activist groups are often assumed to have been sort of colluding to do this to circumvent the Congress and I'm curious as to what you think when plaintiffs in the government enter into a settlement to try to change policy, what's the appropriate role of the Department of Justice to make sure that that agreement does not circumvent the law in the Congress and the Administrative Procedure Act? SESSIONS: The Department of Justice has final settlement authority in any case against the United States although they tend to listen to and see their role as being supportive of the agency. So, if homeland security or the department of education or EPA is being sued, they may -- they have the power to make the final judgment. And their responsibility is to protect the public interest, the national interest and to make sure the law is followed. There has been in state court and sometimes in federal court, this sue-and-settle mentality, this consent decree that we've been talking about. I've pointed that it's -- at times controversial. So, if the agents or the officials that the Environmental Protection Agency believe that a law should be expanded and they're sued by a group that wants to expand the law in the same way and it may be unacceptable to expand it that far, but if the Department of Justice goes along with the agency and agrees to a settlement and get a court to order this to occur, then the government is bound by their settlement agreement and the people's interest do the democratic process is eroded because a decision is being made by unelected people and not the legislature. So you understand that and I think that was a fundamental part of the question. I do believe a good Department of Justice needs to be alert to that and should not feel obligated to settle a case on the terms that any agency might think but make sure the settlement is in a legal and justified and in the national interest. SASSE: And there'd been occasions. There'd been reports that's been the practice of DOJ at times to force violators to make certain payments to approve third parties as a condition of settlement, as a hypothetical. There had been discussions about whether or not a bank that was, again hypothetically, fined by the DOJ might see its penalties reduced if it made payments to a designated not-for-profit. And when, if ever, is it appropriately for the Department of Justice to require payments to any third party as a part of a settlement? SESSIONS: I think that's a very dubious practice. I would be cautious about it and we'd have to make sure it's justified. And normally, that's not the best way to settle a case in my opinion. SASSE: And finally, the judgment fund that the Department of Justice administers, it's a general fund that's available to compensate those who sue the government and win. Unfortunately, how this money gets used is not fully known by the Congress. Will you commit to making public the use of these funds? SESSIONS: The funds that are not paid out or funds that are paid out is part of a litigation. SASSE: In the judgment fund, the department has a discretion to determine how to settle these cases and what payments to make but the Congress and the public often don't know where this money goes. Would you commit, as attorney general, to being transparent with where the funds go out of the judgment fund? SESSIONS: I would -- would be surprised that it's not public and it should be available to the public. They should know how a lawsuit is settled and where the money went. Absolutely. SASSE: Thank you, Senator. GRASSLEY: Before Senator Blumenthal follows up on some things he wanted to, we received a letter in support of Senator Sessions' nominee -- nomination from 108 former U.S. Attorneys who served under every president since President Nixon. They say quote, "We have no doubt that Senator Session can do the job well bringing to this critically important office his own unique and extraordinary strengths of courage, humility, experience and infallible promise to treat all people equally under the law," end of quote. Without objection, I'll insert that in the record. Senator Blumenthal? BLUMENTHAL: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. BLUMENTHAL: Senator Sessions, response to Senator Tillis' -- one of Senator Tillis' questions, you said that the job of the attorney general is to do justice, not necessarily to win a case. And I think that's almost an exact quote from Justice Jackson when he was United States attorney general. It's one of my favorite quotes. I think he said the role of the United States attorney or a government lawyer is to do justice, not necessarily win a conviction and that's why I feel that the role of attorney general ought to be the legal conscience for the nation as I was remarking earlier. So I hope that you will reconsider what you've said about the DACA policies and assert an independent view based on the nation's conscience or what it should be about what has happened to those young people. Likewise on issues like Deutsche Bank, what you and I have discussed privately and where I think there ought to be an investigation focusing on individual culpability and perhaps in some of these other investigations as well where an independent council may be necessary and similarly your response on recusal from both on your prospective colleagues appointed by the president elect where you have not yet responded to the letter that I wrote. I'm not going to take more time this afternoon or tonight. But I think that I remain unsatisfied on those questions. And in generally, I think that the role that you would have as United States Attorney General ought to be not just another government lawyer but as a champion of civil rights and liberties and the nation's legal conscience. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Blumenthal and I respect your history as a prosecutor in the United States attorney in time in the Department of Justice. BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Sessions -- thank you, Senator Blumenthal. GRASSLEY: Senator Sessions, you've been a vocal champion for American workers, especially as we have heard so much about how American workers are being laid off and replaced by cheaper foreign labor imported through some of our visa programs. You've been a cosponsor of a bill sponsored by me and Senator Durbin that would reform H-1B visa programs by ensuring that qualified American workers are considered for high skilled job opportunities before those jobs can be offered to foreign nationals. It also prohibit company from hiring H-1B employees if they employ more than 50 people and more than 50 percent of their employees are H-1B or L-1 visa holders. This provision would crack down on outsourcing companies that import large number of H-1B and L1 workers for short training periods and then send these workers back to their home countries to do the work of U.S. workers. In 2013, you and I seem to be the lone senators on this committee who fought for U.S. workers. We argued that the Gang of Eight bill that would have increased the number of foreign workers who came in on H-1B visas and actually hurt Americans who were qualified, willing to do those jobs, we said that the bill failed to adequately protect U.S. workers and neglected to hold employers accountable for misusing the H-1B and L1 visa programs. We tried to provide more protection for U.S. workers. We tried to ensure that no business imported foreign workers before making a good faith effort to hire people at home. We tried to expand the ability for government to audit employers, we offered amendments that were supported by the AFL-CIO. In April 2015, you helped lead eight other senators in a letter to then Attorney General Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson, and Secretary of Labor Perez on this issue. So,me of those who signed that letter sit on this panel today. For instance, Senator Durbin and Blumenthal. That letter requested that the Obama administration investigate abuse of H-1B visa programs by companies including Southern California Edison, Disney and IBM that have been laying off American workers and replacing them with H-1B workers in some cases reportedly making the American workers train their own replacements. The Office of Special Counsel for immigration related unfair employment practices is an office within your department that you will head. That enforces the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. While the office is designed to protect foreign nationals with employment visas from discrimination, it is also charged with ensuring that American workers are not discriminated against in the workplace. Many U.S. workers advocate -- advocates believe, for example, that the layoff of American workers and the replacement by cheaper, foreign, H-1B workers constitutes de facto nationality based discrimination against American workers. The Obama administration has failed to protect American workers here. Will you, this is my question, will you be more aggressive in investigating the abuses of these visa programs? SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, you know, I believe this has been an abuse. And I have been pleased to support your legislation and some others too, that others have produced that I believe could be helpful. It needs to be addressed. It's simply wrong to think that we're in a totally open world and that any American with a job can be replaced if somebody in the world is willing to take a job for less pay. We have borders. We have a commitment to our citizens and you have been a champion of that. I've been honored to work with you on it. Thank you for your leadership. I would use such abilities that I have to help address that. I think it also does require legislation like you have offered, you and Senator Durbin, I believe a legislation maybe -- may be necessary to have the kind of reforms that we need. GRASSLEY: I appreciate your answer. We'll continue to push for the legislation. We've been very difficult moving that legislation wrong because of business oppositions within our country. And so, whatever you can do in regard to being more aggressive investigating the abuses of our visa programs will help solve some of the problems if we don't get legislation passed, but we still intend to pursue that. Now, on another point, as you know, relationships between law enforcement and the communities that they serve have been strained. You've already spoken to that in your opening comments. In many instances, police have been specifically targeted. Now, tomorrow, it's my understanding the president of the Fraternal Order of Police will testify about this issue. But I'd also like to hear from you on this point, we obviously need the figure out a way to fix these relationships and restore mutual trust and respect for law enforcement. What role can you play as attorney general in this and what role can the department play more broadly? SESSIONS: It's essential this nation affirm those that we send out to provide public safety and affirm their good deeds and if they make mistakes and commit crimes, then they have to be prosecuted like anyone else would who commits a crime and violates the law. But fundamentally, the overwhelming of our law officers of dedicated faithful individuals serving their country and their community with discipline and integrity and courage. So, I -- I think this is an important matter. And so, we need to guard against the kind of public statements that have troubled me in recent months and years in which we seem to dismiss and take sides against the entire law enforcement community where we suggest that the law enforcement community is not some -- not a positive factor and that all officers tend or have -- are not performing in a high level. So, I believe that I will do my duty to correctly distinguish between wrongdoing by individuals and the entire law enforcement community. Murders of deaths of law enforcement officers are up 10 percent over the last year. The number of policemen and law officers who have been killed with a firearm is up, I think, 58 percent. So,me stunning numbers and part of this is a corrosion of respect between the communities and law officers and I think it's a dangerous trend we must reverse and reverse soon. GRASSLEY: My next question deals with agricultural antitrust and I don't believe that there should be political decisions involved in antitrust decisions in the department but there are several high level agricultural mergers going on right now, one before DOJ, one before the FTC and then there's another one I don't think has been assigned yet. And my -- I come from the standpoint of being an agriculture with a -- with a general -- just a very, I guess, ideological belief that when you have less companies, you have less competition, you have higher prices for imports. That's in agriculture but that would be true of any segment of the economy. I also, before I ask this question, I want to make a point that I don't think there are a enough people in the department of justice that know much about farming. And one time, maybe 10, 15 years ago, I got some administration, I don't know if it was the Clinton one or the Bush one, to say that they were going to have somebody in the antitrust department that knew something about agriculture and I think they did put somebody there. I don't know if that person is still there or not. So this is my question. I'm concerned about the increased consolidation and possible anticompetitive business practices in the agricultural industry. Currently, the antitrust division is reviewing several significant mergers and acquisitions in the agricultural sector. Do I have your commitment that the justice department will pay close attention to agri business, competition matters and carefully scrutinize proposed agriculture mergers and acquisitions and can you assure me that the agriculture antitrust issues will be a priority for the justice department if you're confirmed as U.S. attorney general? SESSIONS: There's been controversy of a number of those issues over the years that I'm generally aware of without committing and commenting on any particular case, I will, Senator Grassley, will be pleased to honor your request. GRASSLEY: In 1986, 10 years before you came to the United States Senate, I got it the False Claims Act passed. It has brought 53 billion dollars back into the Federal Treasury since then. If you're confirmed, will you pledge to vigorously enforce the False Claims Act and devote adequate resources to investigating and prosecuting False Claims Act cases? SESSIONS: In the qui tam provisions and the part of that, I'm aware of those. I think they are valid and an effective method of rooting out fraud and abuse. I even filed one myself one time as a private lawyer. So, these are important issues that you have been a leader on. It has saved this country lots of money and probably has caused companies to be more cautious because they can have a whistleblower that would blow the whistle on them if they try to do something that's improper. So, I think it's been a very healthy thing and you're to be congratulated for that and I do support that act. GRASSLEY: You took care of my second question. I was going to ask you on qui tam and you said that whistleblowers are very important. I'm glad to hear you say that. I don't know whether they get enough support. I hope you give priority to that because a great number of the qui tam places come from the outside, not from the inside. Will you provide congress with regular -- this is the last point on this one, will you provide congress with regular timely updates on the status of FC qui -- False Claims Act cases including statistics as to how many are under seal and the average length of seal time? SESSIONS: I would do that. In my experience is, sometimes they're awfully a long time. And but... GRASSLEY: That's exactly why I'm asking the question and updates from time-to-time. I think we'll keep people within your department more responsive and responsible. SESSIONS: I understand that and is there a report -- I don't know if a report is required now but don't see why it would be particularly difficult to provide that to you. GRASSLEY: OK. I have a long lead in to another question. I'm just going to ask you, if you would tell us, for the record, your reasons for opposing the 2013 Immigration Bill SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, fundamentally, I believe that it would not, in the lawlessness and it would grant the amnesty. That's the position that fundamentally caused you concern, because in 1986, there was an amnesty given and a promise of enforcement in the future. And it didn't happen. And so we ended up, instead of 3 million people, I guess it was in 1986, now, the estimates are we have 11 million people here unlawfully. This is not the kind of policy a great nation must have. We need to have a lawful system that we can be proud of, that the world knows works, that people stop coming illegally because they don't think they will be successful in the attempt and we could see a dramatic reduction in illegality and we could all be pleased to see the result occur and we'll have to call on Congress to help some. But -- and you've been -- you understand the issue and you've been supportive but we're going -- we may have to pass some legislation. A lot can be done with current law but I would love to be a part with this committee of restoring the immigration system on to the high level that ought to be. GRASSLEY: I want to return to the issue of Violence Against Women Act. I know that for me, that bill didn't do enough to fight fraud and abuse that's why I introduced a substitute amendment that would have given more money to victims by fighting fraud and abuse that was discovered in the program. It would have insured that no money under the program was used to lobby congress. It also would have had limited the amount of funding in the program that could be used for administrative fees and salary salaries. In addition, my substitute amendment developed harsher penalties for federal conviction of forcible rape which the bill that passed weakened. It also addressed child pornography and aggravated sexual assault, neither of which were addressed in the bill that is now law. Finally, my substitute amendment combated fraud in the award of U visas to ensure true victims were protected. My question, as you mentioned, you voted for my substitute amendment that was stronger in many respects than the bill that was passed. Will you enforce the law that was passed? SESSIONS: Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: That's probably the tenth time you answered that today but thank you for being with me. I want to speak about the Board of Immigration Appeals. It's the highest administrative body for interpreting immigration laws, hearings appeals rendered by immigration judges. This board, which is under the attorney general's purview has published some very problematic precedent decisions the past several years. The board of immigration appeals decisions are binding on all immigration officers, including homeland security officers and immigration judges unless overturned by the position you're seeking or a federal court. Will you or someone on your team, commit to taking a hard look at all precedent decisions made by this board? SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, that does appear to be a power or an ability of the attorney general which I have not thoroughly studied. Any changes would need to be carefully done and thought out in a principled and honorable way. I would do that and if changes need to occur, need to occur and I have the ability to do it, I will try to conduct myself properly in making those changes. GRASSLEY: Two more points. Oversight by congress is important. You've already said that and you've -- I'm glad you know the necessity of that. But Congress cannot do all the oversight needed on its own. We need to reply -- rely on strong inspectors general to provide another independent assessment on the operations within the executive branch. That's why that position was set up in 1979, I believe. Do you agree that independence is the hallmark of an inspector general's integrity and effectiveness? And if you do, please elaborate and the reason I asked the question is probably it happens in more departments but I pay a lot of attention to DOJ and I think there's been some problems with DOJ of recognizing and cooperating with the independence of the inspector general. SESSIONS: Yes. The independence should be respected and should be had. I'm familiar with some cases in which the independence of the inspector general is less than that in general throughout the Congress and I've tried to strengthen -- been willing to -- and interested in strengthening their independence. It's a challenge. The inspector general is appointed by the agencies for the most part, I believe. But they -- if they're not seen as independent, then they can't be the effective body that we'd like them to be. They have staffs, they have ability to be -- to contribute, to saving money and I believe in the inspector general's process. GRASSLEY: Before I ask the last question, whatever reputation I have for investigation and in oversight probably maybe even 90 percent of the leads we get come from whistleblowers and whistleblowers within an agency are generally treated like skunks at a picnic. And I hope that I don't know how many thousands or tens of thousands of employees you're going to be over -- administering over, you can't possibly know what goes on with all those employees. I hope you will give encouragement to whistleblowing and that you will listen to them. Once in a while you have a crank, but for the most part, these are just patriotic people that want the government to do what the government's supposed to do or spend money the way the government's supposed to spend it. And then when they don't get anything going up the chain of command, that's when they become whistleblowers and they come to us. And that time, even if they're protected under law, they're still ruling themselves professionally. And so I hope you see them as a source so you can administer a better department and do what government is supposed to do. But in regard to that, I would appreciate it if you would provide congress with accurate and timely information regarding any action taken administrative or criminal against individuals who retaliate against whistleblowers because it's against the law to retaliate. SESSIONS: You are correct about that and it's not acceptable to retaliate against a whistleblower. So,me have been known to be cranks, as you indicated, but you cannot effectively manage this government without good citizens and good employees speaking up when they see wrongdoing. You've established a reputation as someone willing to receive that information and act on it and then defend the individual who had the courage to come forward and we need more of that in this government. GRASSLEY: I thank you very much. I would like to have you and other people listen to a couple points I want to make at the tailend. I want people to know that we'll keep the record open until Monday for questions and you know what to do with those when you get them. I want to thank everybody who participated including those in the audience. Most importantly, thank you for your testimony today and for answering our questions and doing it very thoughtfully and very thoroughly. You performed, I think, admirably and showed this entire country what we all know from serving with you. You're imminently qualified to serve as attorney general and I have every confidence that you're going to do a superb job. Senator Sessions, you're excused. We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30 for panel two. SESSIONS: Thank you. List of Panel Members PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, CHAIRMAN SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH, R-UTAH SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C. SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-TEXAS SEN. MIKE LEE, R-UTAH SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS SEN. JEFF FLAKE, R-ARIZ. SEN. DAVID PERDUE, R-GA. SEN. THOM TILLIS, R-N.C. SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF., RANKING MEMBER SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT. SEN. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, D-N.Y. SEN. RICHARD J. DURBIN, D-ILL. SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, D-R.I. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN. SEN. AL FRANKEN, D-MINN. SEN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL. SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN. SEN. MAZIE K. HIRONO, D-HAWAII SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA., NOMINATED TO BE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL